By the late 1990s, immigration had become a burning political issue. The resident foreign population stood at around 19% and kept rising. In May 2000 the people had just approved the Bilateral Agreements I with the European Union, which include the free movement of persons.
Against this backdrop, a committee of right-wing politicians, with Aargau Radical Philipp Müller as its figurehead, launched the initiative “for a regulation of immigration”, soon dubbed the “18% initiative”. It demanded capping the foreign share at 18% of the population — below the level already reached, which would imply reductions — and tightening asylum.
The campaign was lopsided. The Federal Council, almost every party (apart from the SVP and the nationalist right), business and trade unions urged a No, fearing economic damage and a threat to the freshly chosen bilateral path. Only the SVP, the Freedom Party, the Lega and the Swiss Democrats backed the text.
On 24 September 2000, the initiative was heavily rejected: 63.8% No and rejection by all twenty-six cantons, on a turnout of 45.3%.
▲ Cantons that accepted No canton | ▼ Cantons that rejected Zurich, Bern, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Obwalden, Nidwalden, Glarus, Zug, Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel-City, Basel-Country, Schaffhausen, Appenzell Outer-Rhodes, Appenzell Inner-Rhodes, St. Gallen, Grisons, Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, Geneva, Jura |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Committee for limited immigration (with Philipp Müller (FDP) as figurehead) • SVP (Yes recommendation) • Freedom Party (FPS) • Lega dei Ticinesi • Swiss Democrats, EDU | ▼ No camp • Federal Council (against) • CVP, FDP, SP, Greens, LPS, EVP, CSP, PdA (No recommendations) • Vreni Spoerry (FDP) (voice of business) • Business (economiesuisse, USAM, Farmers’ Union, Swissmem, tourism, construction) • Trade unions and churches (SGB, Travail.Suisse, Federation of Protestant Churches) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Capping at 18% to curb overpopulation « Without a limit, the foreign share will keep climbing and weigh on housing, jobs and infrastructure. » — 18% committee, 2000 campaign ✓~ Partly confirmed The demographic forecast proved right: the foreign share, already close to 19% in 2000, kept rising to around 27% by 2024. But the catastrophic consequences announced did not materialise: Switzerland kept one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. Source : Federal Statistical Office (resident foreign population) The people must be able to set a limit on immigration « Controlling immigration is a legitimate question the sovereign must be able to decide. » — Yes camp, 2000 ✓~ Partly confirmed The demand for control did not disappear: fourteen years later the people accepted the “against mass immigration” initiative (2014). The theme remained central, even if the rigid 18% mechanism was clearly rejected. Source : Federal vote of 9 February 2014 | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) An unrealistic cap requiring expulsions « Setting a threshold below the current level would mean sending hundreds of thousands of people back — economically untenable. » — No camp, 2000 ✓ Argument confirmed Rejecting the initiative avoided any brutal quota. The aftermath proved the opponents right: the Swiss economy thrived with a rising foreign share, showing a rigid quota was not needed for prosperity. Source : Economic data FSO; labour-market trends A danger to the bilateral path with the EU « A Yes would jeopardise the bilateral agreements and free movement just approved. » — Vreni Spoerry (FDP) and business circles, 2000 ✓ Argument confirmed The Bilateral Agreements I, including free movement of persons, came into force on 1 June 2002, and the relationship with the EU deepened. A numerical cap would have flatly contradicted that agreement. Source : Bilateral Agreements I (in force 2002), admin.ch |
Affiches de campagne (9)
Factual record
2 Confirmed | 2 Partly confirmed | 0 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ~ | A demography that confirmed the trend, not the catastrophe The foreign share kept rising to around 27% — far beyond the 18% targeted. But Switzerland, far from collapsing, remained prosperous and close to full employment. Source : Federal Statistical Office |
| ✓ | The bilateral path preserved By rejecting a numerical cap incompatible with free movement, the vote let the Bilateral Agreements I (2002) come into force and allowed the relationship with the EU to deepen. Source : admin.ch; bilateral agreements |
| ~ | A theme that did not vanish The question of controlling immigration returned forcefully and eventually prevailed in 2014 with the “against mass immigration” initiative — proof that the 2000 rejection concerned the means, not the subject. Source : Vote of 9 February 2014 |
The 18% initiative was one of the most decisively rejected of its time: every canton and nearly two voters in three turned it down. At issue were a mechanism deemed brutal and unrealistic — a numerical cap below the level already reached — and the fear of compromising the freshly approved bilateral path.
In hindsight, both camps can claim a share of the truth. The Yes camp was right about the trend: the foreign population kept growing well beyond 18%. But it was wrong about the consequences: that growth came with prosperity and low unemployment, not the announced collapse.
The No camp saw its arguments borne out: free movement came into force, the economy benefited from immigration, and the scenario of mass expulsions was avoided. Its implicit promise to calm the debate, however, did not come true.
For the issue stayed explosive. Fourteen years later the people accepted the “against mass immigration” initiative: the 2000 rejection targeted a figure, not the question, which kept returning to the ballot box.