ZURICH – About a year after banning minarets, Swiss citizens went to the polls again last week. This time, they were asked to decide whether foreigners convicted of crimes should be expelled automatically. Fifty-three percent of those voting said that they should.
What does the proposal include? Foreigners who are found guilty of serious crimes will have to leave the country. Under current law, deportations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. According to the new resolution – which still needs to be enacted into law – a new paragraph in the constitution will enumerate what is defined as a serious crime. And here the problem begins. Murder, sexual offences, robbery, and drug dealing count as serious crimes. So do false claims of unemployment benefits. If a foreigner is proven guilty, he will be immediately expelled and will not be allowed to re-enter the country for up to 15 years. Judges would not have the administrative discretion to decide case by case. The offender’s specific family situation, the degree of integration, or the circumstances under which the crime was committed will not be taken into consideration. The principle of proportionality would be levered out. It is a rather merciless legal approach.
The underlying rationale is: More than 50 percent of crimes in Switzerland are committed by foreigners, who account for 22 percent of the population. However, most offences are committed by foreigners lacking legal residence status. Legal residents cannot be deported, either because it is not clear where they came from, or their countries of origin refuse to take them back.
So in practice, this measure amounts to nothing. What is really important though is the symbolic value of this vote, insofar as it reflects the growing uneasiness about immigration. When the Swiss public voted against the minaret last year, they did not only voice their concerns about the architectural features of their cities. They actually voted against the influence of Islam.
Regarding the referendum, Switzerland might be a special case. Immigration always sells well in direct democracy. It mobilizes people as they feel personally affected. When it comes to foreigners, feelings are running high. The right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP) owes much of its success to populist campaigns on immigration-related issues. It addresses latent concerns. People are worried about alleged “Überfremdung,” foreign domination.
However, Switzerland can also be seen as an example of a broader trend in Europe. There is a quiet, but growing hostility against immigrants. Suddenly right-wing populist agendas are considered socially acceptable, as seen in the Netherlands. A book that proposes demographic policies aimed at the Muslim population in Germany and fuels cultural hostility towards immigrants with genetic arguments turns into a best-seller. Moderate politicians are on the defensive. As Jürgen Habermas put it: “The usual stereotypes are being flushed out of the bars and onto the talk shows, and they are echoed by mainstream politicians who want to capture potential voters who are otherwise drifting off toward the right.”
What is urgently needed is a convincing voice of reason, to objectify the debate. And an integration strategy for the host societies. Apparently they are still struggling with the fact that immigrants are a social reality.
No related posts.
