Beneath the guise of irrefutable demonstration, some lines of reasoning are more akin to sleight of hand than serious analysis. When words serve to mask causes rather than to illuminate them, it becomes necessary to put facts back at the centre of the debate. Because behind the rather hasty «QED»s, a simple question remains: can one still deny the obvious without ultimately treating citizens as naive spectators?
In his op-ed published in L’Agefi on 9 April 2026, the director of the CVCI, Philippe Miauton claims to deconstruct the «No to 10 Million Swiss» initiative by denouncing a «reductive» argument based on immigration.
But on closer inspection, its text itself rests on a fragile construction: a conclusion stated from the outset, dressed up with peripheral arguments, then sealed with a «therefore» which is more of a rhetorical device than a demonstration.
The false “QED”: a conclusion without proof
The «QED» implies a rigorous logical chain. Yet here, the reasoning is based on a fundamental confusion:
- Yes, the infrastructure is undersized
- But no, that does not exclude the impact of population growth
- And even less so that of immigration, which is its main driver
To claim that «infrastructure has been underfunded for decades» refutes nothing. It describes an initial constraint.
Or, when this constraint encounters rapid population growth, saturation becomes mechanical.
In other words:
If limited capacity + massive increase in demand = strain,
So ignoring the demographic variable means evacuating the central element of the problem.
The real «QED» is here.
Demographic facts: a central, not a marginal, variable
According to the Federal Statistical Office:
- Switzerland has gone from a population of around 7.2 million in 2002 to over 9 million today.
- Over 80 % of this growth comes from the net migration.
This point is crucial.
This is not one factor among others, but the main driver of population growth.
Therefore, arguing that immigration is not the cause of tensions is to contest a direct empirical link between population growth and pressure on infrastructure.
Infrastructures: saturation proportional to the population
The examples cited in the editorial precisely confirm what it attempts to deny:
- Increase in road traffic over the last 20 years
- rail saturation on major routes
- housing shortage in urban areas
These phenomena are correlated with the increase in population.
The relationship is simple:
More inhabitants mean more travel, more housing, and more strain on infrastructure.
Political delays and administrative blockages exist. But they do not invalidate this reality. They make it worse.
Incomplete economic reasoning
The argument that immigration is essential for the economy to function properly is based on a partial view.
He omits several elements:
- a growing reliance on foreign labour in certain sectors
- underinvestment in local training
- economic incentives encouraging the use of external labour
As Ferdinand Lips pointed out:
«A prosperity founded on structural imbalances is merely a temporary illusion.»
In other words, an economy that relies on continuous population growth is not necessarily a healthy economy. It may simply be dependent.
The blind spot of costs
The editorial discusses the benefits of immigration but omits its costs:
- Pressure on rents
- transport congestion
- continuous expansion of public infrastructure
- permanent adaptation of collective services
These costs are borne by the community.
They don't disappear because they are not mentioned.
The vicious demographic circle
The reasoning reaches its critical point when it states that immigration should be maintained—or even increased—to compensate for an ageing population:
- More immigration to support the labour market
- so no more population
- So more pressure on the infrastructure
- so need new capabilities
- so the necessity of maintaining immigration
This mechanism creates a self-sustaining dynamic.
This isn't a structural answer. It's a deferral of the problem.
Conclusion: what this op-ed actually demonstrates
Philippe Miauton's editorial claims to expose simplistic reasoning.
But it proposes another, equally reductive one, by evacuating the central variable: demographic dynamics.
The real «QED» is as follows:
- rapid population growth places direct pressure on infrastructure
- This growth is mostly linked to immigration
- nullifying this link doesn't make it disappear
The question isn't whether immigration is the sole factor.
The question is whether it can seriously be argued that she is not the deciding factor.
On this point, the facts are decisive.