The referendum on the latest immigration initiative is becoming controversial. But the leading department remains conspicuously vague on the asylum dossier.
Federal Councillor Beat Jans is developing a concept with measures for the latest SVP immigration initiative.
Anthony Anex / Keystone
After the rejection of the immigration limitation initiative in 2020, Switzerland is once again facing a heated debate about immigration. Federal Councilor Beat Jans’ Justice Department plans to present the message on the SVP’s latest initiative (“No 10 million Switzerland”) by next spring. This has the same goal as the failed last attempt: In the end, Switzerland should terminate the free movement of people with the EU.
The new debate will take place in a much more difficult environment. Before the 2020 vote, both regular immigration and illegal asylum migration were declining. Last year, however, net immigration reached a new record high of around 100,000 people. It is likely to remain high for the foreseeable future, although the federal government recorded a slight decline in the first half of the year. Switzerland is attractive and also dependent on immigrants: by 2035, the baby boomer generation will be retiring, leaving significant gaps in the labor market.
The latest SVP initiative is aimed not only at legal immigration but also at illegal migration. The number of asylum applications last year was also above average at around 30,000. In addition, there are a good 66,000 refugees from Ukraine to whom Switzerland is granting protection – temporarily, as it is still officially stated. High pressure is also to be expected in these two areas. The number of people who want to flee conflict or poverty remains high. There is no end to the war in Ukraine in sight.
The extent of population growth is causing discontent beyond the right. The Federal Council wants to show that it is taking the concerns seriously. It is planning accompanying measures to the SVP initiative, including a levy for skilled workers from third countries, stronger tenant protection and an expansion of housing subsidies.
When it comes to asylum migration, however, the Federal Department of Justice and Police (FDJP), which is in charge, is being remarkably cautious. This is evident from a discussion paper for the Federal Council, which the NZZ was able to view on the basis of the principle of public disclosure. While there are concrete plans elsewhere, there is only vague talk of “measures in the area of asylum” and “incentives for integration”.
Jans and his department seem to have little desire to take action on the difficult asylum issue. It is understandable that a SP magistrate would prefer to support left-wing issues such as expanding tenant protection. But federal councillors are not party soldiers. It would be a mistake to remain inactive in the area of asylum.
Jans’ department rightly points out that immigrants from EU and EFTA states make up the largest proportion in terms of numbers. They accounted for around 70 percent of legal net immigration last year. However, with the free movement of people there is little scope for measures. The best domestic policy tool would be a protective clause against excessive immigration, which Bern is negotiating with Brussels – in addition to the planned protective measures.
But the referendum campaign will be polemical and will not distinguish between regular immigrants and migrants who have entered the country illegally. Jans’ department is making it too easy for itself when it claims that the scope for maneuver has been exhausted.
Switzerland is rightly investing a lot in integrating refugees and Ukrainians. But the employment rates of these people are still far too low. Instead of just expanding the support machinery, Switzerland should also demand more from refugees. Given the large number of vacancies in sectors such as the catering industry, the question arises as to whether the incentives with social benefits are set correctly. Despite great efforts, Switzerland also fails in too many cases when it comes to repatriating rejected asylum seekers.
If the Federal Council wants to credibly demonstrate that it takes the concerns seriously, it cannot ignore the area of asylum.
