Border protection: The UDC initiative is counterproductive

Context

TL;DR

• The CIP-S rejects the UDC initiative by 8 votes to 2.
• The text calls for systematic checks at the borders.
• Switzerland would not grant asylum to more than 5.000 people a year.
• For cross-border commuters, entering Switzerland would be more difficult.

Key facts

• Decision → negative opinion from the CIP-S, 8 votes to 2
• Name → “Stop abuses in asylum!”
• Entry → systematic checks of all persons
• Asylum → maximum 5.000 people per year
• Irregular stay → departure within 90 days
• Scenario → external border of the Schengen area

The committee's vote

In Bern, the Political Institutions Committee of the Council of States expressed a negative opinion, by 8 votes to 2, on the UDC initiative for border protection. The proposal calls for more controls at the borders and maximum limits on the granting of asylum.

Formally, the text is called “Stop abuses in asylum!” Its first package of measures concerns entry: systematic checks of all persons, complete monitoring of border crossings and rejection of anyone who does not meet the conditions for entry.

For cross-border commuters, the most immediate part concerns border crossings. The CIP-S believes that, if the initiative were approved at the ballot box, Switzerland would in all likelihood become an external border of the Schengen area. The consequence identified in the parliamentary services' note is economic damage and more difficult entry for cross-border commuters and tourists.

The text also addresses the number of people to whom Switzerland may grant asylum: no more than 5.000 per year. For those staying irregularly in the country, it provides for an obligation to report to the authorities; employment contracts would be null and void, these people would be excluded from social and health insurance and would have to leave the country within 90 days.

According to the committee, however, these measures would not resolve the problems raised by the initiative, especially those relating to imported crime, and would create new ones. The security assessment is clear-cut: police operations across the border would face serious impediments, while access to international information systems would be lost.

On asylum, the CIP-S expects few changes. The number of applicants could decrease slightly, but in practice people could not be removed as the text calls for. Their status would become more precarious; according to the committee, this could encourage crime and hinder professional and social integration.

The CIP-S's assessment thus links borders, the economy, security and asylum: in its reading, the requested control of entries would not have an isolated effect. It would also affect the movement of cross-border commuters and tourists and activities across the border.

Operational details

What changes, according to the commission

Crossing the border

For cross-border workers, the practical point is to separate access from the rest of the proposal. The CIP-S directly links acceptance to difficulties entering for cross-border commuters and tourists; however, it does not provide a timetable, a duration for the checks or a procedure for border crossings. The text therefore allows a qualitative assessment, not a calculation of the time required.

The difference between the scenarios can be read as follows:

In the first area, the cross-border commuter is affected as a person entering: the request concerns all people crossing the border. The source offers no basis for distinguishing the impact according to the border crossing or for translating the prediction into a number of minutes. The concrete fact remains the one indicated by the commission: entry would be more difficult.

The second area is security. The obstruction of cross-border police activities is not presented as an effect on wages or contracts, but as a deterioration of the security situation. For those who work across the border, the issue therefore concerns not only crossing: the commission also links the proposal to police activities and access to international information systems.

The third area is asylum. The CIP-S believes that the maximum limit would produce few changes and that newly arrived people could not be removed as requested. This assessment instead points to greater precariousness of status, with possible obstacles to professional and social integration.

The impact on cross-border commuters is therefore concrete when it comes to crossing, but the source does not make it possible to quantify delays, costs or checks. Adding figures or specific procedures would mean going beyond the assessment expressed by the commission.

Key points

How to monitor the situation

Five steps

For those who work across the border, this is the most reliable reading sequence. It is not an administrative procedure: it serves to avoid confusing the commission's opinion with the possible application of the measures.

1. Start with the vote. CIP-S issued an unfavorable opinion with 8 votes against 2. This is the information that describes the commission's position.

2. Check the condition. The effects on crossings are described in the scenario in which the initiative is approved at the ballot box. It is in this case that the possibility of an external border of the Schengen area and more difficult entry arises.

3. Isolate the rules on entry. The text calls for the systematic checking of all people, full coverage of border crossings and the rejection of anyone who does not meet the conditions for entry.

4. Separate asylum and irregular residence. The limit of 5,000 people concerns the granting of asylum. The obligation to notify, the invalidity of employment contracts, exclusion from insurance and departure within 90 days instead refer to those staying irregularly in the country.

5. Check the security aspect. CIP-S's assessment concerns cross-border police activities and access to international information systems.

The only explicit deadline in the text is the 90-day period for leaving the country in the event of irregular residence. The source does not, however, indicate a date for any change to the controls, an entry-into-force schedule or waiting times at border crossings. Sticking to what is written avoids attributing to the proposal numbers it does not provide.

To follow the practical side of the transition without turning the opinion into an estimate, consult tempi di attesa ai valichi.

Source: tio.ch