On 24 September 2006, Swiss voters decided on two complementary texts championed by Federal Councillor Christoph Blocher, head of the Federal Department of Justice and Police: a revision of the Asylum Act (AsylA) and a new Foreign Nationals Act (FNA). Both had been challenged by referendum.
The Foreign Nationals Act now applies only to third-country nationals, since free movement already governs EU and EFTA citizens. It reserves labour-market access to highly qualified people, harmonises family reunification and strengthens integration. The asylum revision markedly tightened the regime: non-entry decisions (NEM) for applicants without credible identity papers, replacement of social assistance with emergency aid alone for rejected applicants, and extended coercive measures.
The Greens and the SP launched the referendums, backed by unions, churches and aid agencies (OSAR, Caritas, HEKS, Amnesty). On asylum they even won the support of a few cantonal sections of the CVP and FDP. They denounced discriminatory laws and a break with the humanitarian tradition.
Facing them, the Federal Council and the parliamentary majority promised to fight abuse while preserving that tradition. The stakes: how far should Swiss migration policy be tightened?
▲ Cantons that accepted All 26 cantons accepted both laws. Strongest support in Schwyz (80.1% on asylum) and Nidwalden (79.7% on foreigners); narrowest in Geneva (52.5% and 51.3%). | ▼ Cantons that rejected No canton rejected either text. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Christoph Blocher Federal Councillor (SVP), Justice and Police Minister • Federal Council • SVP • FDP • CVP (majority) • economiesuisse • Parliamentary majority | ▼ No camp • SP (referendum committee) • Greens (referendum committee) • SGB and unions • OSAR, Caritas, HEKS (aid agencies) • Amnesty International • Federation of Protestant Churches • solidaritéS • CVP/FDP cantonal sections (against asylum, in part) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) These laws fight abuse while preserving the humanitarian tradition « We resolutely combat abuse in asylum and immigration, without disowning our tradition of welcome. » — Federal Council and majority, 2006 ✓~ Partly confirmed The regime did indeed tighten (NEM, emergency aid, coercion), and the right to asylum and the subsistence minimum were formally maintained. But the effect on "abuse" remains hard to measure, and asylum applications mainly tracked global crises, regardless of the law. Source: SEM; swissvotes.ch (no. 524/525). The Foreign Nationals Act sets up a clear admission system « Openness for the EU and EFTA, selectivity for third countries: a coherent, controlled policy. » — Supporters of the FNA, 2006 ✓ Argument confirmed The dual system came into force on 1 January 2008 and still frames migration policy: free movement for the EU/EFTA, admission reserved for qualified workers from third countries. Source: SEM, FNA/FNIA in force since 2008. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) These laws sound the death knell of Switzerland's humanitarian tradition « Stripping families and the sick of papers and social aid is a break with our tradition of welcome. » — Referendum committee, 2006 ✗~ Partly refuted The tightening was real, but the announced break did not happen: the right to asylum was maintained, the Federal Court guaranteed everyone a subsistence minimum (emergency aid), and Switzerland kept granting protection — including during the 2015 peak. Source: SEM; Federal Court (art. 12 Const.). Cutting social aid to rejected applicants creates precarity and clandestinity « Abuse will not fall; people will be pushed onto the street and into clandestinity. » — Aid agencies and the left, 2006 ✓~ Partly confirmed A growing population ended up on emergency aid, in precarity documented by cantons and aid agencies, with some vanishing into clandestinity. The deterrent effect on the number of applications, by contrast, was never clearly established. Source: SEM, emergency-aid statistics; OSAR. |
Affiches de campagne (15)
Factual record
1 Confirmed | 2 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ✓ | A dual admission system that endured The Foreign Nationals Act came into force on 1 January 2008. Its logic — free movement for the EU/EFTA, selective admission for third countries — still structures migration policy, right down to the Foreign Nationals and Integration Act (FNIA) renamed in 2019. Source: SEM. |
| ~ | A tightening that continued The 2006 measures (NEM, emergency aid) were followed by further revisions: urgent measures in 2012-2013 (accepted at 78.5% in 2013), the 2016 restructuring (accelerated procedures, federal centres, in force from 2019). The Swiss asylum regime ranks among Europe's strictest. Source: SEM; swissvotes.ch. |
| ~ | A humanitarian tradition formally preserved The right to asylum was maintained and the Federal Court guaranteed everyone a subsistence minimum, even when excluded from social assistance. But the growth of the emergency-aid population and its precarity show this preservation came under strain. Source: Federal Court; SEM. |
On 24 September 2006, both laws were accepted by around 68% of voters and by every canton, with turnout of nearly 48%. It was a plebiscite for the hard line embodied by Christoph Blocher, and one of the founding votes of contemporary Swiss migration policy.
The verdict of the facts is nuanced. The Yes camp kept its promise of tightening and clarification: the dual admission system still structures foreigners' policy, and the asylum measures were not merely maintained but reinforced in later revisions. The No camp's fear of an outright end to the humanitarian tradition, by contrast, did not come true: the right to asylum and the subsistence minimum were preserved, notably thanks to Federal Court case law.
The grey zone remains. Cutting social assistance did create lasting precarity for a growing population living on emergency aid, just as the aid agencies had predicted. But the effect on "abuse" and on the number of applications — the promoters' central argument — remains largely unprovable: the flows mainly mirrored international crises. A real tightening, real effects on people, but a claimed effectiveness never truly proven.