Even within one country, different approaches to solving migration problems can be practiced
As a result, in some cantons federal migration legislation is interpreted strictly, while in others many things are overlooked. This conclusion was reached by scientists from the University of Neuchâtel, who recently published, under the leadership of Gianni D'Amato, professor and director of the 'Swiss Forum / Research Institute for Migration and Population Studies' (SFM), a new comprehensive analytical report on this topic.
Experts from the 'Forum' studied cantonal law enforcement practices in the migration field, focusing on areas such as social integration of refugees, protection from discrimination, the asylum and residence permit system, and naturalization (granting of citizenship).
According to Gianni D'Amato, Europe could adopt the Swiss experience in solving migration problems, which proceeds from the fact that small differences in law enforcement practice, which of course can under certain circumstances have far-reaching consequences for individual asylum seekers, give the country as a whole more room for maneuver without creating the impression that migration problems are being solved by the authorities over the heads of citizens. Journalists from Swissinfo.ch spoke about all this with one of the authors of the study, Professor Gianni D'Amato.
– What factors contribute to one canton pursuing a more liberal migration policy and another a more restrictive one?
– The demographic situation plays a very important role here, in my opinion. The more urbanized a canton is, and the higher the share of migrants in its population, the greater the number of mixed marriages or naturalized Swiss citizens, the more 'integrative', i.e., aimed at integrating refugees, its migration policy is.
Unsurprisingly, the political orientation and party affiliation of politicians working in the relevant authorities also influence the situation. The more left-wing or center-left politicians there are in a canton, the more 'liberal' the interpretation of laws will be. In addition, we surprisingly found that the nature of a canton's migration policy is inversely proportional to its economic strength: the economically stronger a canton is, the less 'integrative' its migration policy.
This may be explained by the fact that cantons with higher unemployment rates or with a larger number of citizens receiving social assistance already have structures in place for implementing policies aimed at integrating migrants. Conversely, the linguistic environment does not have a direct impact on migration policy, although initially a different outcome was expected.
– Does this mean that in some cantons, individuals applying for a 'humanitarian' residence permit 'due to their exceptional, difficult personal situation' can be legalized more easily than in another?
– Yes, in some cantons they have a better chance than in others. If the authorities have the will, they usually also have the means for appropriate actions that can significantly affect people's lives. But it should be emphasized that the judiciary in Switzerland is a very powerful form of control. Cantonal governments interpret federal laws knowing that courts can amend their decisions.
Often, cantons deliberately choose an interpretation of the law that is, so to speak, on the edge, but they trust the courts, which can intervene if necessary and correct the situation with their decision.
– The countries of a united Europe have long been trying to reach some common approach to how migrants should be distributed: who, how many, and under what conditions must accept and host them. How difficult is it really to coordinate the migration policy of EU countries and develop a unified approach?
– Switzerland's policy is to place migrants in refugee reception centers as quickly as possible. Those who receive the right to reside in Switzerland are then quickly distributed to live in the cantons. Transferring such a course and such a policy to the soil of the European Union could indeed be a way out of the impasse. But at the moment, it is not working. Some EU countries are willing to do something, but not very much, and many simply do nothing at all. For three years now, EU countries have been discussing a possible format for a common approach to solving the migration problem – and it is still at a standstill.
– What are the chances that the decisions made at the migration consultations held under the patronage of France and Germany in early October 2019 will finally be a breakthrough?
– The chances are small because the situation is deadlocked: there is no consensus among EU countries. Now it remains to be seen whether at least a group of several states can reach some agreement. That group could then influence others.
– Should Switzerland start preparing again for an increase in the number of asylum applications?
– The 2015 migration crisis affected the Confederation to a lesser extent. In Switzerland, the number of asylum applications usually begins to increase when the flow of refugees crossing the Swiss border from Italy increases. Migrant flows choosing, for example, the 'Balkan route' have less impact on Switzerland. But nothing can be ruled out.