Los ciudadanos suizos podrían cerrar este domingo las puertas de su país. Suiza va a las urnas el domingo en un referéndum, como hace cuatro veces cada año, para votar, entre otras cosas, si el crecimiento de la población del país se limita a 10 millones de personas.

Si el referéndum, para el que los sondeos dan prácticamente un empate técnico, sale adelante, el país tendría una grave crisis con la Unión Europea y podría tener que prohibir todo tipo de inmigración.

La propuesta surgió del Partido Popular Suizo, una formación de extrema derecha xenófoba que podría conseguir un triunfo histórico si los ciudadanos aprueban su iniciativa. El Gobierno suizo rechaza el plan, pero si sale adelante en referéndum tendrá que aplicarlo.

Ningún país en el mundo puso nunca un límite a su población. Suiza tenía a finales de 2025 unos 9,1 millones de personas. La población crece a un ritmo más elevado que la mayor parte de sus vecinos europeos. En la última década creció un 10% y desde principios de siglo un 23%. La mayoría de esos migrantes no son del África subsahariana, Oriente Medio o el Magreb, sino del resto de Europa.

La propuesta tiene su origen en 2023, cuando el Partido Popular Suizo planteó limitar el crecimiento de la población de forma que el país nunca llegara a tener 10 millones de habitantes.

Según la extrema derecha, era necesario para proteger el modo de vida de los suizos y proteger el medio ambiente de una presión excesiva. Porque buena parte de sus argumentos para defender el voto afirmativo en el referéndum no son de limitación de la inmigración sino de protección medioambiental. Alegan que el entorno natural suizo no puede con más presión demográfica.

La propuesta busca un cambio constitucional que permita poner un límite estricto a la llegada de migrantes o solicitantes de asilo, e incluso a su prohibición total.

El plan consiste en alcanzar en 2035 los 9,5 millones de habitantes. Ni uno más. Eso se haría endureciendo la política migratoria y restringiendo el derecho de asilo y la reagrupación familiar. Además, en esa primera fase el Gobierno suizo debería revisar todos sus acuerdos internacionales para hacer que respeten esta medida.

Si ese límite de 10 millones de personas se excede en algún momento, prevé la propuesta, el Gobierno tendría que “tomar todas las medidas disponibles”, incluyendo retirarse de acuerdos internacionales que faciliten la migración hacia Suiza, pero manteniendo el acuerdo con la Unión Europea que prevé la libertad de movimientos y residencia de sus ciudadanos.

Si tomando esas medidas la población no baja de los 10 millones de personas en menos de dos años, entonces sí el Gobierno, asegura la propuesta, debería suspender los acuerdos con sus vecinos europeos. Esos acuerdos permiten a los ciudadanos de los 27 países de la Unión Europea moverse por Suiza -y establecerse en el país- como en el resto del bloque. Funciona así también en países europeos que no son miembros de la Unión Europea, como Noruega o Islandia.

Mantener esa libertad de circulación y establecimiento para los ciudadanos europeos es algo esencial si Suiza quiere seguir manteniendo unas buenas relaciones con sus vecinos. Y si quiere mantener otros acuerdos, como los comerciales y su acceso al mercado común europeo sin cuotas ni aranceles.

De los 9,1 millones de personas residentes en Suiza a finales del año pasado, 1,5 millones son nacionales de países de la Unión Europea. La propuesta de la extrema derecha prevé que, en última instancia y para cumplir ese acuerdo, sus permisos de residencia podrían ponerse en cuestión.

La extrema derecha no vende el referéndum únicamente desde el punto de vista migratorio, sino también como un momento clave para el medio ambiente del país. Asegura que la población actual ya es mucha y pone en peligro la conversación del medio ambiente del país.

La mayor asociación de empresas del país asegura que se trata de una “iniciativa del caos” y que el país debe reconocer que “seguirá dependiendo de mano de obra extranjera en el futuro”. El Gobierno suizo asegura que un sí en el referéndum de este domingo aislará al país.

FIRST ON FOX: The Justice Department sued The Commonwealth of Virginia on Thursday over two new laws the DOJ says would subject masked federal agents to criminal penalties and threaten local ICE cooperation agreements.

«Law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe, and they do not deserve to be doxed or harassed simply for carrying out their duties,» said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in comment provided to Fox News Digital on Thursday. «Virginia’s anti-law enforcement policies regulate the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents. These laws cannot stand.»

The lawsuit, first shared with Fox News Digital, argues Virginia is violating the Constitution by attempting to dictate how federal officers carry out law enforcement operations — including when they can wear masks, what identifying information they must display and whether local agencies can maintain ICE cooperation agreements unless the federal government accepts state-imposed conditions. The DOJ said the laws threaten officer safety, undermine federal immigration enforcement and violate the Supremacy Clause.

At the heart of the suit, are a pair of laws that Democratic Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed, which are set to take effect on July, including: one restricting law enforcement officers, including federal officers, from wearing facial coverings while on duty and requiring them to display identifying information, and another imposing state-mandated conditions on federal immigration enforcement agreements.

ICE PRESSURES SPANBERGER AS FAIRFAX MURDER SUSPECTS TRIGGER NEW DETAINERS IN ‘SANCTUARY’ CLASH

The DOJ said federal officers who violate Virginia’s mask and identification law could face a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable under Virginia law by up to 12 months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.

The lawsuit names Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones and left-wing Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano — who was previously backed by groups connected to George Soros. 

The suit claims Virginia’s mask ban is «blatantly unconstitutional» because it attempts to regulate «what federal officers may and may not wear» while carrying out their duties, exposing agents’ identities and increasing risks to them and their families.

«The Department of Justice will steadfastly protect the privacy and safety of law enforcement from unconstitutional state laws like Virginia’s,» said Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ’s Civil Division in the press release.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS CALIFORNIA LAW FORCING ICE AGENTS TO REMOVE MASKS DURING OPERATIONS

Spanberger restricted ICE agents from operating on state properties and requiring federal agents to wear visible badges and barred law enforcement from wearing facial masks while on duty in May. (Mike Kropf/Richmond Times-Dispatch)

DOJ is seeking a court order to block both laws that begin July 1.

Spanberger, Jones and Descano have all moved to counter the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda in Virginia.

In February, Spanberger issued an executive order that rescinded a Youngkin-era order directing state law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

TOM HOMAN VOWS TO WORK AROUND NEW DEM VA GOV SPANBERGER’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ENDING ICE COOPERATION

Anti-ICE agitators attempted to block vehicles from leaving the Delaney Hall detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, on Friday night. (FreedomNewsTV)

«The President told us that we are safer because unaccountable, poorly trained ICE agents are arresting mothers and detaining children. Our broken immigration system is something to be fixed — not an excuse to terrorize our communities,» Spanberger posted on X in response to Trump’s State of the Union.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The suit comes as there have been ongoing protests outside the Delaney Hall immigration detention center in New Jersey where protesters verbally abused ICE agents, obstructed vehicles, allegedly assaulted officers, and made threats leading to multiple arrests.

«Governor Spanberger cannot tell Federal officers how to do their job,» said Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward in the press release. «She certainly cannot prohibit them from ensuring their own safety in conducting Federal law enforcement operations. Our suit today stops those unconstitutional efforts.»

Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Gov. Spanberger and AG Jones for comment.

U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey resigned Thursday after clashing with Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government over military spending, dealing the British leader a setback weeks before a critical NATO summit to include President Donald Trump.

Healey’s departure stemmed from a dispute over the delayed Defense Investment Plan (DIP) — the government’s long-promised roadmap for military investment and readiness — and as NATO allies face renewed pressure from Trump to boost defense spending.

«John Healey’s resignation is a seismic moment for the government and the Ministry of Defense,» Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Senior Associate Fellow Ed Arnold told Fox News Digital.

«For the government, it creates a sequence of political headaches in terms of a replacement, and trying to get the Defense Investment Plan published.»

BRITISH PM KEIR STARMER MOVES UK MILITARY INTO ‘WAR-FIGHTING READINESS’

Healey had been in intense, late-stage negotiations with Starmer and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves over the scale and timelines of the DIP.

Starmer reportedly refused to set out a timeline to reach 3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense by 2035 — a promise he made to Trump at last year’s NATO summit — and would not commit to a firm date for reaching 3%.

Instead, Starmer offered Healey a deal to spend 2.68% of GDP on defense by 2030, up only marginally from 2.6% next year, Reuters reported.

«You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country,» Healey wrote to Starmer in his resignation letter, warning that the financial constraints would «make the country less safe,» the outlet reported.

NATO CHIEF URGES MEMBERS TO ‘TURBOCHARGE’ DEFENSE PRODUCTION AS HE PAINTS PICTURE OF A WORLD BOUND FOR WAR

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, U.S. President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer pose with NATO country leaders during the NATO Heads of State and Government summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. (Ben Stansall/Pool via Reuters)

«If the delay to the Defense Investment Plan was already undermining the government’s credibility on defense, John Healey’s resignation has blown a hole in its side,» Professor Kevin Rowlands of the RUSI defense and security think tank told Fox News Digital.

«The immediate consequence is not just political embarrassment for No. 10, but a significant loss of planning certainty at a time when the British Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defense, and industry really need clarity on what will be funded, and when,» he added.

The political fallout is expected to reverberate across the Atlantic, where Washington has increased pressure on European allies to fulfill their defense obligations. Trump has frequently criticized NATO alliance members as «free riders.»

On June 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio also told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the upcoming Ankara summit would be the «most important meeting» in NATO’s history because there are some things «that need to be cleared up and fixed.»

He added, «The United States is still in the NATO alliance, and we’ll be there.»

TRUMP EFFECT FORCES GERMANY TO REPRIORITIZE DEFENSE AS NATION PLAYS CATCH-UP IN MILITARY SPENDING

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer increased the military presence in Cyprus following an Iranian drone strike early Monday, Feb. 24, 2026. (Kin Cheung / POOL / AFP via Getty Images))

However, U.S. officials have made it clear that patience is wearing thin.

«Ahead of next month’s NATO summit, POTUS has been clear: Allies must fulfil their commitment to spending 5% of GDP on defense,» U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker posted on X this week.

Furthermore, a U.S. official noted that a U.K. funding package far lower than 18 billion pounds ($23 billion) would send a highly «negative» signal to Trump ahead of the Ankara meeting, according to The Times.

Starmer has pledged to lift spending to 3% in the next Parliament but Healey’s exit has exposed that the current strategy leaves the U.K. lagging behind key allies. By comparison, Germany plans to spend 3.7% of its GDP on defense by 2030.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

«Healey knows the threats we face, he knows the capabilities and shortfalls the armed forces have, and if he believes that the financial settlement is not enough to keep the country safe — to the extent that he cannot honorably stay in post — then we are in trouble,» Rowlands added.

«While the impact will mainly be felt on Whitehall, the international implications are severe with a NATO summit just three weeks away,» Arnold noted.