On 12 February 2017, the people and the cantons voted on a federal decree introducing facilitated naturalisation for third-generation foreigners — the Swiss-born grandchildren of immigrants. It amended Article 38 of the Constitution, the fruit of a parliamentary initiative by National Councillor Ada Marra (SP) and a long path through the chambers.
The measure creates no automatic naturalisation: it opens a simplified procedure, on application, reserved for young people under 25 born in Switzerland, who attended compulsory school there, one of whose grandparents held a residence right and one of whose parents resided durably in Switzerland.
The campaign pitted a broad favourable coalition — Federal Council, SP, FDP, Christian Democrats, Greens, Green Liberals, BDP — against the SVP, which brandished the spectre of «mass naturalisation» and a first step towards birthright citizenship. The SVP's poster of a woman in a niqab left a mark.
Voters accepted the decree with 60.4 % in favour and 19 cantons to 7. Turnout reached 46.84 %. It was the first time a constitutional revision easing access to the Swiss passport for immigrants' descendants secured the double majority of people and cantons.
▲ Cantons that accepted Aargau, Appenzell Outer Rhodes, Bern, Basel-Landschaft, Basel-Stadt, Fribourg, Geneva, Graubünden, Jura, Lucerne, Neuchâtel, Nidwalden, Schaffhausen, Solothurn, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Zug, Zurich (19 cantons) | ▼ Cantons that rejected Appenzell Inner Rhodes, Glarus, Obwalden, St. Gallen, Schwyz, Thurgau, Uri (7 cantons) |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Ada Marra (SP National Councillor, author of the parliamentary initiative) • Federal Council (Simonetta Sommaruga, head of the FDJP) • SP, FDP, Christian Democrats, Greens, GLP, BDP (broad parliamentary coalition in favour) • economiesuisse, Operation Libero (civil-society support) | ▼ No camp • SVP (main opponent, niqab-poster campaign) • AUNS (Campaign for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland) • EDU (Federal Democratic Union) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Not automatic naturalisation, but a regulated procedure « This is not about handing out passports: the step remains individual and subject to strict conditions. » — Yes camp, 2017 campaign ✓ Argument confirmed The implementing ordinance, in force since 15 February 2018, confirmed the non-automatic character: individual application, age limit of 25, birth and schooling in Switzerland, proof of the grandparents' residence. Ordinary naturalisation was neither abolished nor bypassed. Source: art. 24a Citizenship Act; SEM, entry into force 15.02.2018. About 25,000 integrated, locally born young people could benefit « Tens of thousands of young people, Swiss in all but paperwork, are waiting for this recognition. » — Yes supporters, 2017 campaign ✗~ Partly refuted Uptake fell far short of expectations: around 1,065 applications in the first year, 309 naturalisations, and only 1,847 people naturalised by the end of 2020 — far from the 25,000 potential announced. Administrative hurdles and lack of information slowed the procedure. Source: SEM, statistics on facilitated naturalisation of the 3rd generation (2018-2020). | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) This opens the door to mass naturalisation « We are about to naturalise tens of thousands of foreigners en masse, almost automatically. » — SVP, 2017 campaign ✗ Argument refuted No mass naturalisation took place. The real figures — a few hundred naturalisations a year, fewer than 2,000 in three years — are negligible against the resident population and ordinary naturalisation. The procedure remained selective and little used. Source: SEM, statistics 2018-2020. A first step towards birthright citizenship at birth « After the third generation, automatic birthright citizenship will be introduced. » — SVP opponents, 2017 campaign ✗ Argument refuted No automatic birthright citizenship has been introduced since. The regime remained confined to the third generation, on application and under conditions. The announced slippery slope did not materialise in citizenship law. Source: Swiss Citizenship Act, unchanged on this point. |
Affiches de campagne (1)
Factual record
1 Confirmed | 0 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 2 Refuted |
| ✓ | A regulated procedure, not an automatism As the Yes camp said, facilitated naturalisation of the 3rd generation, in force since 15 February 2018, remained an individual step subject to strict conditions. There was neither automatic passport distribution nor abolition of ordinary naturalisation. Source: art. 24a Citizenship Act; SEM. |
| ! | The «mass naturalisation» did not happen The SVP's central fear did not materialise. With around 1,065 applications in the first year and fewer than 2,000 naturalisations by the end of 2020, the announced mass phenomenon proved baseless. The doom-laden prediction was refuted by the facts. Source: SEM, statistics 2018-2020. |
| ~ | A more modest impact than hoped Conversely, the Yes camp's enthusiasm was also disappointed: of around 25,000 potentially concerned, only a small minority began the procedure, held back by administrative complexity and lack of information. The reform is real, but its effect remained limited. Source: SEM; swissinfo (2021). |
The acceptance of 12 February 2017 carries symbolic weight. After the defeats of 1983, 1994 and 2004, it was the first time the people and cantons agreed to ease access to the Swiss passport for immigrants' descendants. The double majority, won on an identity issue long thought treacherous for the left, was hailed as a turning point.
On substance, the Yes camp was right on the essentials: the measure is no automatism. The ordinance that entered into force in 2018 kept a demanding, application-based procedure reserved for young people born and schooled in Switzerland. The passport was not given away.
Both camps, however, overestimated the text's reach, in opposite directions. The SVP announced mass naturalisation: it did not happen, the real figures being negligible. But supporters announced 25,000 beneficiaries: by the end of 2020 only 1,847 people had been naturalised, held back by discouraging bureaucracy and an information deficit.
The reform was thus at once a political success and a practical disappointment. The principle was won; its use remained marginal — so much so that Parliament later debated easing the conditions to give it, at last, the scope promised.