On 28 November 2010, Swiss voters approved with 52.9 % the SVP popular initiative "For the deportation of criminal foreigners (deportation initiative)". The Parliament's direct counter-project was rejected by 54.2 % of voters. The double majority was reached: 15.5 cantons accepted the initiative, enshrining it in the Federal Constitution (new article 121 paras. 3-6).
The initiative required the automatic deportation of any foreigner convicted of a list of serious offences (intentional homicide, rape, robbery, human trafficking, drug trafficking, burglary, serious social-insurance fraud). It mandated automatic loss of residence rights and an entry ban of 5 to 15 years.
The federal legislator took five years to draft the implementing law, which entered into force on 1 October 2016 (amendment of the Criminal Code). A "hardship clause" allows judges to exceptionally waive the deportation, particularly for foreigners born or raised in Switzerland. This fact sheet compares the key arguments of the 2010 campaign with the facts documented since implementation.
▲ Cantons that accepted Zurich, Bern, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Obwalden, Nidwalden, Glarus, Zug, Solothurn, Schaffhausen, Appenzell Outer Rhodes, Appenzell Inner Rhodes, St. Gallen, Graubünden, Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Valais | ▼ Cantons that rejected Fribourg, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Vaud, Neuchâtel, Geneva, Jura |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • SVP (initiating party, main campaign driver) • Christoph Blocher, Toni Brunner (SVP political leadership for the yes) • Marco Chiesa, Yvan Perrin (cantonal figures of the yes (TI, NE)) • Part of FDP and The Centre in German-speaking Switzerland (minority support) • Lega dei Ticinesi, MCG (regional support) • Anti-immigration circles (associations such as Pro Tell, conservative milieus) | ▼ No camp • Federal Council (defence led by Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf (FDJP)) • Parliament (majority) (backer of the direct counter-project) • SP, Greens, GLP, EVP (opposition to the initiative) • SGB-USS and unions (defence of the rights of foreign workers) • Churches, NGOs (Caritas, HEKS-EPER, Amnesty) (humanitarian opposition) • economiesuisse, sgv-usam (cautious neutrality, fear of tensions with the EU) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (SVP and supporters) Automatic deportation of convicted criminal foreigners « A foreigner who commits a serious crime must lose their residence right and be deported, with no possible exception. » — SVP, 2010 campaign ✗~ ✗~ Partly refuted The implementing law in force since 1 October 2016 does provide for mandatory deportation for the listed offences, but Parliament introduced a 'hardship clause' — invoked, according to first evaluations, by prosecutors in more than half of cases. Press data put around 60 % of convicted criminal foreigners actually deported (not 100 %), with strong cantonal variations (Romandie 33-45 % at NE/JU/VD/GE, German-speaking Switzerland often above 80 %). The promised automatism was not maintained, although the regime is markedly stricter than before. Source : FOJ, press releases 2016-2017; cantonal implementation reports; 24 heures, judicial data 2024 Increased deterrence against foreign crime « Automatic deportation will have a strong deterrent effect and roll back crime committed by foreigners. » — SVP, 2010 campaign ✗~ ✗~ Partly refuted Police crime statistics (PCS) show no clear decline attributable to the October 2016 entry into force. The share of foreigners in certain offence categories remains high, and 2024 even recorded a +7.9 % rise in Criminal Code offences. The specific deterrent effect of the initiative could not be empirically isolated to date. Source : FSO, Police Crime Statistics 2017-2024; KKPKS reports Implementation of the people's will « The people want criminal foreigners to be deported — it is a democratic requirement that must be imposed on the authorities. » — SVP, 2010 campaign address ✓ ✓ Argument confirmed The popular will expressed in 2010 did force Parliament, the Federal Council, the judiciary and cantonal administrations to tighten the deportation regime. The new law replaced an administrative deportation system (based on foreigners' law) with an automatic criminal-judicial deportation. On this institutional point, the initiative fundamentally transformed the legal framework. Source : Amendment of the Criminal Code of 20 March 2015; Federal Council messages; parliamentary debates 2012-2015 | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (Federal Council, left, Churches, NGOs) Conflict with international law (ECtHR, AFMP) « The initiative is incompatible with the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons and with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is unenforceable. » — Federal Council, 2010 message ✓~ ✓~ Partly confirmed The Federal Tribunal and the European Court of Human Rights have indeed regularly modulated the application of deportation to respect the principle of proportionality and protection of family life (Art. 8 ECHR). The hardship clause was precisely integrated by Parliament to resolve this conflict. For EU nationals, the AFMP continues to frame deportation. The announced conflict exists and has forced legal compromises, without rendering the law totally unenforceable. Source : Federal Tribunal, rulings 2017-2024; ECtHR, case law on Art. 8; FTD 6B on the hardship clause Breach of proportionality and case-by-case examination « Automatic deportation, with no individual case examination, violates a fundamental constitutional principle. A young person born in Switzerland could be deported for an offence committed at 18. » — SP, Greens, Federal Council, 2010 campaign ✓ ✓ Argument confirmed The hardship clause was precisely introduced by Parliament in 2015 to answer this critique. Judges use it in more than half of examined cases (per first analyses, prosecutors invoke it in over 50 % of cases), with uneven cantonal monitoring. Without this safety valve, the initiative would have led to situations deemed disproportionate by the courts. The need for case-by-case examination thus had to be preserved. Source : Criminal Code art. 66a para. 2 (hardship clause); cantonal implementation reports; Federal Tribunal case law Threat to the agreements with the EU « Automatic deportation of EU nationals frontally violates the AFMP and threatens the bilateral path. » — No camp, 2010 campaign ✗~ ✗~ Partly refuted Application of the law to EU/EFTA nationals was calibrated to respect the AFMP: the hardship clause and Federal Tribunal case law prevented a diplomatic crisis. The Bilaterals were not denounced as a result of implementation. The argument nonetheless correctly anticipated the need for compromise mechanisms to preserve the agreements. Source : FDFA; Federal Tribunal case law; SECO reports on Switzerland-EU relations |
Factual record
2 Confirmed | 2 Partly confirmed | 2 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ✓ | Institutional transformation: a new law was born The initiative did found a profound regime change: shift from administrative deportation to automatic criminal-judicial deportation, written into the Criminal Code on 1 October 2016. On this strictly institutional level, the people obtained what they asked for. Source : Criminal Code, art. 66a-66d; FOJ press releases 2016; parliamentary debates 2012-2015 |
| ~ | Application: an automatism softened by the hardship clause The total automatism promised by the SVP did not materialise: the hardship clause, voted by Parliament in 2015 to preserve compliance with fundamental rights and the AFMP, is invoked by prosecutors in more than half of cases. Actual deportation rates vary strongly across cantons (33-45 % in Romandie, higher in German-speaking Switzerland). Source : FOJ; cantonal surveys 2017-2024; 24 heures, judicial data |
| ~ | Deterrent effect: not statistically demonstrated No study has been able to isolate a clear deterrent effect of the new legislation on crime committed by foreigners. The Police Crime Statistics have continued to evolve cyclically, with a marked rise notably in 2024. Source : FSO, Police Crime Statistics 2017-2024; KKPKS |
| ✓ | European legal framework: preserved at the price of compromises The most extreme fears — denunciation of the Bilaterals, systematic ECHR violation — did not materialise. The bilateral path has held thanks to the combination hardship clause + case law of the Federal Tribunal and the ECtHR. The compromises denounced by the SVP are precisely what made implementation possible. Source : FDFA; Federal Tribunal case law 2017-2024; ECtHR rulings on Switzerland |
The initiative of 28 November 2010 marked a turning point: for the first time, a popular initiative profoundly transformed Swiss foreigners' criminal law. The people obtained a regime change — automatic criminal-judicial deportation replaced administrative deportation — but this change did not have the radical purity announced by the initiators.
The legal compromise adopted in 2015, with its hardship clause invoked in a majority of cases, illustrates an essential reality of Swiss democracy: an initiative incompatible with higher international commitments (AFMP, ECHR) cannot be applied to the letter without risking the unravelling of the entire diplomatic and judicial apparatus. The promise of automatism was thus partly honoured, partly refuted.
The deterrent effect hoped for on foreign crime is, to date, not statistically demonstrated. By contrast, the political pressure generated by the vote has fuelled a cycle of subsequent initiatives (the implementation initiative rejected in February 2016) and structurally modified the place of foreigners' criminal law in the Swiss system.