REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

Box 3: Regularisation policy in Switzerland
From 1945, Switzerland followed a temporary worker immigration programme to fill its economic demand for
unskilled labour, with rotation of workers to avoid settlement of migrant groups. Until very recently,
Switzerland denied the existence of long-term immigrant residents – even though the phenomenon had started to
appear in the 1970s. Immigration practice was changed in 1991 and again in 1998 to conform to EEA (European
Economic Area) rules, such that persons from countries outside the EU or EFTA (European Free Trade Area)
could not be given work permits, unless they were highly qualified. A 2005 immigration law, replacing the
previous one of 1931, strengthened the restrictions on immigration from outside EFTA (by setting quotas) and
increased the maximum detention term for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers from one to two years, while
also introducing criminal and other sanctions for human smuggling, irregular employment, and marriages of
convenience. At the same time, draconian rules on asylum were introduced (effective from 2007) along with
reduced benefits for asylum-seekers – making it the harshest asylum law in Europe, according to UNHCR.
The 2000 Census recorded 22.4% of the population as foreign-born and 20.5% with a foreign nationality; the
principal immigrant group is now citizens of the former Yugoslavia (24% of foreigners) followed by Italians, at
22%. Illegal residents (the term used is sans papiers) are thought to number between 50—300,000 according to
government estimates, which averages 2.4% of total population. (This makes Switzerland, according to our
classification in Table 5, a country with a very high (VH) stock of irregular migrants.) According to expert
opinion, these irregular migrants are mostly from Latin America, former Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe, and
Turkey; they tend to be of prime working age (20-40), with unequal distribution across the country of genders
and family status. Some entered Switzerland on tourist visas; others lost or failed to renew their legal residence
status. However, the term sans papiers is most frequently used to denote temporary workers who have lost their
legal status, family members of these, and rejected asylum-seekers who have remained and work informally.
It was not until a particular situation occurred in the latter half of the 1990s – involving nationals of the former
Yugoslavia – that regularisation became a matter of political contention and public interest. Since 1991,
seasonal workers from countries outside of the EEA had been denied work permits: the Yugoslav seasonal
workers were threatened with deportation as they could not complete the four years required for a one year
residence permit. In 1998, the government rejected a proposal made by the National Council for a mass
amnesty; instead, they opted for individual regularisation on the basis of ‘hardship’. In 2001, a circular was
issued (the ‘Metzler’ Circular) outlining the criteria used for case-by-case regularisations. Since the cantons are
responsible for case-by-case regularisations (subject to approval by the Confederation) and also execute federal
deportation orders, the position adopted by each canton is crucial. Over the period 1996—2000, the Frenchspeaking
canton of Vaud supported regularisation of Bosnian migrants on the basis of hardship, although the
federal government refused to do so. In 1997 the canton refused to implement deportation orders; eventually, in
2000, 220 families were granted permits by the federal government. A second political mobilisation also
involved the canton of Vaud, and concerned Kosovar migrants; they were former seasonal workers who had
applied for asylum at the outbreak of the Kosovo war and were now threatened with deportation. Again, the
political mobilisation – which involved trade unions and publicity campaigns – was successful and the Swiss
Federal Council regularised 6,000 Kosovars who had spent more than eight years in the canton. Although these
regularisations are ostensibly case-by-case, in reality they are collective programmes.
Since 2001, there have been 14 parliamentary inquiries into the matter of sans papiers. Left politicians
demanded large-scale amnesties, while most centre parties insisted on case-by-case regularisation on the
grounds of ‘hardship’. The latter is seen as the only solution to the problem, although there have been criticisms
of the lack of transparency of the process. Since 2001, 3,694 persons from various countries of the world
applied, with an acceptance rate of 57%. A regularisation campaign aimed at non-deportable rejected asylumseekers
in 2000, with onerous criteria for applications, benefited 6,500 Sri Lankans: each case was reviewed
individually by the Federal Office for Refugees (FOR). Rejected asylum-seekers from other countries were not
eligible, and had to ask their canton to request the FOR to re-examine their cases. In 2006, the Federal
Commission for Foreigners called for harmonisation across the cantons of treatment of cases of hardship; whilst
in December 2007, a new call for mass regularisation of irregular migrants has been made by socialist
politicians in Zurich.
The official position on regularisation taken by the Federal Council is unstintingly one of opposition to largescale
amnesties, on the grounds that they promote future illegal migrations, encourage illegal employment,
reward illegality, and might increase recorded unemployment (inter alia). Thus, they insist on case-by-case
evaluations on the humanitarian basis of ‘hardship’. Many cantons, Swiss trade unions and other sectors of civil
society take a different view, tending to emphasise the important economic role of undocumented workers and
their integration in society. Thus, there is no consensus on policy, except at the federal political level.
SOURCE: REGINE country study on Switzerland
37