Supporters want rejected asylum seekers to receive scholarships more quickly. Opponents fear that this will create a right of residence through the back door.
Most scholarship holders complete a vocational apprenticeship.
the essentials in brief
- Anyone who is not granted asylum but is allowed to stay in Switzerland must register in the canton of Zurich wait a long time for scholarships. Only after five years can those provisionally admitted apply for additional funding for their training.
- An alliance of centre-left parties wants to change this and has therefore decided in the cantonal parliament to abolish this waiting period. The idea: Do not put obstacles in the way of those who want to learn and integrate them quickly.
- The SVP has launched a referendum against the decision. For the conservatives, provisionally admitted persons should not be supported in their education, but be encouraged to return.
What is it about?
Anyone who has a training place but does not have the money to finance their training is supported in Switzerland with scholarships. In the canton of Zurich, refugees and stateless people also receive scholarships if their family cannot support them.
Provisionally admitted migrants – migrants who cannot be sent back despite their asylum application being rejected – can only apply for scholarships after five years. Until then, they remain in low-paying jobs or on welfare.
On September 22, the Zurich electorate will vote on whether those who have been granted provisional admission can also apply for scholarships immediately. The vote was initiated by the Greens in the Zurich cantonal parliament. The proposal was accepted there. The SVP has launched a referendum against the decision.
If the answer is yes, those temporarily admitted who have a training place – usually in a training company – could apply to the canton for financial support without delay. They would then be treated the same as Swiss citizens and recognized refugees.
If the answer is no, the current rule will remain in force. This means that those affected can either not start training because they do not have enough money. Or they must receive social assistance from the local authorities during their training period.
How much would the whole thing cost?
The canton of Zurich expects additional costs of three to four million francs per year. The authorities assume, however, that these additional costs would be offset by savings in social assistance. In the long term, the proposal should therefore be cost-neutral or possibly even financially advantageous.
Overall, scholarships for provisionally admitted students are a niche phenomenon with a correspondingly limited financial impact. In the 2022/23 academic year, only 220 provisionally admitted students received scholarships. That is four percent of all recipients.
If the proposal is accepted, the canton expects a sharp increase in applications in the short term, because both newly admitted people and those who have served their waiting period over the past few years will request money.
In the long term, too, if the vote is yes, there will likely be more provisionally admitted students with scholarships; the canton says the number will double. This is because people who are currently paying for their studies with social assistance will increasingly rely on scholarships.
What the canton spends more could be saved in the municipalities. They are responsible for social welfare. In addition, there are long-term financial advantages that a completed education brings: Those who have such an education tend to be less unemployed or less dependent on social welfare and pay more taxes.
What exactly are scholarships?
It is not the wallet but the performance that should determine who does which training. This is the principle that is followed in the awarding of scholarships in Switzerland. Money is given to those who do not have enough resources themselves or through their family to cover the costs of an apprenticeship or a degree course.
In Switzerland, the cantons are responsible for awarding scholarships. There are large differences and the award criteria are strict. Very few people can live on a scholarship alone. It is usually designed to help with living costs and is officially called a “training grant.”
In the canton of Zurich, you have to go through a lengthy administrative process to receive a scholarship. The long waiting times – in recent years sometimes up to a year – are repeatedly criticized. Anyone who wants support must fully disclose their own financial circumstances and those of their parents.
Contrary to popular belief, scholarships are not only available to students, but also to apprentices and high school students. In the canton of Zurich, the majority of recipients are in vocational training.
Who are “provisionally admitted”?
Switzerland temporarily accepts people who are not entitled to individual asylum but who are not allowed to be sent back. There are many reasons for this: a medical condition, a war in the home country, persecution for fleeing the country or because of belonging to a persecuted group.
Around 7,500 people with temporary admission live in the canton of Zurich. Despite the name, 90 percent of them stay in Switzerland long-term. Accordingly, they are also part of the integration agenda that the federal government and the cantons have agreed on.
One of their main goals: two thirds of those provisionally admitted between the ages of 16 and 25 should be in basic vocational training five years after arriving in Switzerland.
Why are provisionally admitted applicants treated differently with regard to scholarships?
This exclusion has a long history in the canton of Zurich. The far-right National Action party made the issue a political issue as early as the 1970s. In two referendums in 1975 and 1976, it achieved the abolition of scholarships for foreigners – with the argument, among other things, that they are naturally less intelligent.
It was not until the 1980s that the mood changed, and the Zurich scholarship system slowly opened up to students of all nationalities. Then, as now, these discussions were about manageable amounts. Then, as now, however, a fundamental conflict was being negotiated: that of who should benefit from education – a select group or everyone.
However, the vote on the current proposal is motivated less by education than by asylum policy. This was already evident in the Zurich cantonal parliament, where the issue led to a fundamental debate on migration policy.
What do the supporters say?
The current waiting period is nonsense, an unnecessary hurdle in the integration of those temporarily admitted: that is the attitude of the yes camp. In the cantonal parliament, an AL parliamentarian asked rhetorically: “What is the point of speeding up the asylum procedures but then forcing people to wait?”
The argument is that people who want to get an education should be encouraged, not punished. Scholarships are only given to those who already have a training place. The proposal is also in the national economic interest, as it counteracts unemployment and leads to savings in social welfare.
If, on the other hand, those who are temporarily admitted are prevented from receiving training, they end up in a vicious circle of low-paying jobs and state support, from which it becomes increasingly difficult to escape. In view of the shortage of skilled workers, it is also in the interest of companies to integrate refugees into the labor market as quickly as possible.
A SP parliamentarian puts it this way: “As long as these people are here, they must be integrated – instead of leaving them on welfare for years.”
What do the opponents say?
A kind of right of residence through the back door – and financial help for people who don’t actually belong in Switzerland: that is what the “no” camp fears if the proposal is accepted.
The SVP in particular suspects that the proposal is based on migration policy considerations. By making access to scholarship funds easier, the yes side wants to strengthen the legal status of those temporarily admitted and thus undermine the right to asylum, according to the SVP. Assistance with training also creates the wrong incentives: to stay instead of leaving again.
Those granted temporary admission, the argument goes, should not receive any additional help from the state. And they should not be granted the same rights as recognized refugees. An FDP parliamentarian put it this way in the cantonal parliament: “The purpose of this status is not integration, but rather that people return home at the first opportunity.”
The “no” camp continues to criticize the costs of the proposal. If it is accepted, they fear, scholarships for the foreigners affected will become the norm.
Which parties are for it and which are against it?
All left-wing parties, as well as the Centre and the GLP, are in favour of the proposal, while the SVP, FDP and probably also the EDU are against it. The cantonal and government councils are in favour of amending the education law.
