This summer, in Italy, Cécile Kyenge, the country’s first Black minister, faced a barrage of insults from her fellow politicians. In the Netherlands, the social affairs minister called for a Code Orange on labor migration from Romania and Bulgaria. But the clearest and strongest signal that foreign nationals are once again under attack in Europe came from Switzerland.
In the quiet of the European summer holidays, when public life either stops entirely or at least slows down considerably — and when most people pay less attention to what is happening at home and abroad — some Swiss towns adopted a far-reaching decision: they decided to ban asylum seekers from frequenting public places such as the vicinity of schools, playgrounds, swimming pools and libraries.
In the town of Bremgarten, west of Zurich – where the first of nine new asylum seeker reception centers opened in early August – local authorities announced that would-be refugees would no longer be allowed in public swimming pools, in playing fields and in the vicinity of schools; a church would also be off-limits. In all, 32 “exclusion zones” have been drawn up.
Raymond Tellenbach, the town’s mayor, said the decision had been taken on security grounds to prevent conflict and guard against possible drug use. The mayor of the nearby town of Menzingen, Roman Staub, declared he fully supported the banning and added that asylum seekers should be banned from “sensitive areas” such as the vicinity of schools since “this is certainly a very difficult area, because asylum seekers could meet our schoolchildren – young girls or boys.”
Mario Gattiker, the head of Switzerland’s Federal Office of Immigration, which endorsed the apartheid-style restrictions, justified the move when speaking to journalists, saying that the rules are intended to secure an “ordered” and “conflict-free” relationship between asylum seekers and locals and will help avoid “friction and resentment” if, for example, “50 asylum seekers” simultaneously use a football pitch or a swimming pool.
Racist and discriminatory measure
The foreign press immediately condemned the move as discriminatory. Human rights groups were outraged, calling the measures racist. A spokesman for Switzerland’s non-governmental Refugee Council described the restraining orders as “legally and humanly intolerable” and demanded that the authorities suspend the measures.
Gerry Simpson, senior refugee researcher for Human Rights Watch reacted by declaring that “for Switzerland, the home of the United Nations and its refugee agency, to introduce a blatantly discriminatory policy that effectively segregates asylum seekers from the communities in which they live is shocking. The Swiss authorities should encourage all Swiss communities to treat some of the world’s most vulnerable people with respect and dignity, rather than reinforcing prejudice and division.”
Under international law, including the Convention Against the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Switzerland must formally justify any restriction on free movement as a necessary and proportionate measure to protect national security, public order or public health. In addition, any such policy cannot discriminate between Swiss citizens and foreign nationals.
“Restrictions such as these can only be imposed on individuals for a very precise reason; but entire categories of people, like the residents of an asylum center, cannot be arbitrarily classified as dangerous or criminals,” Denise Graf, expert asylum for Amnesty International Switzerland, commented. “These restrictions that target an entire group of people, because of their status, represent a clear form of discrimination. They have no legal basis and represent a disproportionate breach of the right to free movement, enshrined in the [Swiss] Constitution.”
According to Human Rights Watch, Swiss authorities have failed to show that restricting asylum seekers’ movements in the way proposed in Bremgarten is a necessary and proportionate measure. Quite the opposite, the organization contends the decision allows for asylum seekers to be banned from certain areas on an entirely arbitrary basis. “Instead of encouraging local communities to treat asylum seekers like unwelcome threats to public safety and hygiene, politicians should do everything they can to protect them and encourage their integration into communities,” Simpson added.
The U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR) commented that it was a principle that asylum-seekers should enjoy freedom of movement. UNHCR spokesman Dan Mc Norton told the BBC that “they are in Switzerland legally and have committed no crime,” adding that “in order to encourage a welcoming environment for people who are uprooted and often vulnerable, it is important to reinforce public messages which aim at avoiding the risk of stigmatization of asylum seekers and also promote refugees’ integration.”
Asylum seekers – unlike migrants who immigrate for economic reasons – are mostly people who fled from war, persecution, discrimination or abuse and wish as much as possible to return to their normal life. They typically ask for refugee status in their host country and while they await the decision, they are allowed to stay there legally, often in special refugee centers. In other words, not only have they not committed any crime but they often already have been the victims of violence or persecution in their own country.
Would-be refugees increasingly made out to be criminals
The controversy reflects growing public unease at the number of asylum seekers in Switzerland, among the highest in Europe per head of population. In June this year, voters took part in a referendum that overwhelmingly backed moves to tighten asylum restrictions amid fears voiced by the popular right-wing Swiss People’s Party that the country was being inundated with “refugees.” The new rules stipulate, for example, that military desertion is no longer a valid reason for claiming asylum, and that would-be refugees can no longer apply for asylum through Swiss foreign embassies.
This was only the latest in a series of restrictions to Swiss asylum laws that began in the 1980s. In 1986, after a first revision, the law allowed for an “administrative detention” of thirty days for asylum seekers whose application had been refused by the Swiss authorities, before being expelled to their country of origin. From then on, asylum seekers were no longer seen as the victims of persecution or as people seeking protection: they became suspects whose dishonesty had to be proven to make their expulsion easier.
This led to the first confusion: the asylum seeker became an economic migrant in disguise.
In 1995, the administrative detention allowed before expulsion was extended to nine months, with the possibility of an additional “preparatory detention” of three months.
This led to the second confusion: the asylum seeker became a potential criminal. From then on, even more restrictive measures could much more easily be justified.
What makes things even more worrisome is that for several decades Switzerland has served as a European testing ground for increasingly harsh restrictions on a right of asylum that once had been rather generous. Revision after revision, Switzerland became the champion of discriminatory measures meant to discourage would-be refugees – this in spite of protest from the UNHCR. Many of these restrictions have later managed to find their way into European Union legislation – of which Switzerland is not a member.
Asylum is supposed to mean protection of life, protection of liberty; over the years, however, it has increasingly been transformed. In Switzerland, asylum has become synonymous with discrimination, criminalization and expulsion.