The UK is currently struggling with balancing migrant rights and public safety. Record numbers of foreign national offenders are currently still living in the country, unable to be deported. While the case of Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai – an Afghan asylum seeker who had previously murdered two migrants before entering the country, and who went on to murder a 21-year-old in the UK – has thrown into sharp relief the Home Office’s failings in removing dangerous individuals from the country.
In Switzerland, the message to migrants is clear: you are welcome to live and build a life here, but you must contribute to society and abide by its rules
As the Labour government sets a goal of deporting 14,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals by the end of the year, perhaps it could learn from one of our European neighbours when it comes to migrant policy.
In Switzerland, the message to migrants is clear: you are welcome to live and build a life here, but you must contribute to society and abide by its rules. Failing to do so, whether through criminal behaviour or long-term dependency on the state, carries serious consequences, even if you’ve spent most of your life in the country.
Switzerland has taken a firm stand: migrants who pose a danger to society or drain public resources are sent back, regardless of their ties to the country.
Switzerland’s strict stance on migration has recently come into sharp focus. A young man from Kosovo, who had spent almost his entire life in Switzerland, was expelled after a violent attack in Zurich and for committing other criminal offences. The 22-year-old attacked a Serbian man at a bus stop in what was described as a vicious assault. His upbringing in Switzerland – his schooling, friends, and almost two decades of living in the country – was not enough to save him from been expelled. The Federal Supreme Court upheld his expulsion in August, ruling that the safety of the public came first.
Despite being raised in Switzerland, the court ruled that his behaviour showed a failure to integrate into Swiss society, and his deep ties to the country were outweighed by the threat he posed to public safety. The expulsion came with a five-year ban from Switzerland. This decision reflects Switzerland’s firm approach to balancing migrant rights with the need to protect society. Even though Switzerland is a member of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), when it comes to serious criminal behaviour, its courts emphasise that the protection of society must come first.
It is a debate that has simmered for years in Switzerland. In 2016, the country voted down a proposal by the nationalist Swiss People’s party (SVP) to automatically expel foreigners for even minor crimes, such as threatening officials or giving false testimony. While voters rejected that measure, they reaffirmed that stricter laws for serious crimes were necessary. The result was a middle ground: Switzerland would not expel migrants for minor infractions, but the courts are still able to remove those who pose a clear threat to public safety, or even those who lack financial stability.
Another recent case highlights the Swiss courts’ no-nonsense approach. The Federal Supreme Court ruled that a Kosovan family who had lived in Switzerland for over two decades should be expelled due to their long-term dependence on welfare. Between 2008 and 2022, the family received approximately £500,000 in social benefits. Although they had recently found employment, the court found that the family’s long-term reliance on welfare, coupled with their insufficient integration into Swiss society, was reason enough for their expulsion.
In Switzerland, economic self-sufficiency is not merely a goal – it’s a requirement to live in the country. The family’s failure to integrate, poor language skills, and long-term reliance on welfare painted a picture of individuals who had taken more from the country than they had contributed. In the end, the court decided that their recent employment wasn’t enough to offset the long-term burden they had placed on the public purse. The family was ordered to leave Switzerland, showing that even decades of residency and family ties don’t guarantee the right to stay if you become too dependent on the state.
These cases illustrate Switzerland’s broader philosophy when it comes to migration. Public interest and societal safety take precedence over individual ties. In contrast to countries like the UK, where long-term residency often protects individuals from deportation even after committing serious crimes or relying on welfare for years, Switzerland’s courts consistently prioritise the collective good.
The fact that both cases involved Kosovans also highlights a key factor in Switzerland’s ability to enforce expulsion orders. Kosovo is a stable country, and returning migrants there does not violate the ECHR. Switzerland distinguishes between deporting individuals to safe countries, like Kosovo, and the more complex situation of returning individuals to conflict zones or regions deemed unsafe. This allows the courts to act decisively when dealing with criminal offenders or long-term welfare recipients from stable regions. In contrast, many European countries are hamstrung by human rights concerns when dealing with unsafe countries.
While these rulings may seem harsh, they reflect a societal consensus that public safety and resource management are paramount. Switzerland’s model of balancing migrant rights with the protection of society is deeply ingrained in its political and legal systems.
Switzerland’s legal system is unapologetic in its priorities. Migrants are welcome to stay and build their lives in the country, but they must contribute to society, respect the law, and remain self-sufficient. Those who do not meet these expectations are removed, regardless of their ties to the country. The UK could learn a lot from its approach.
Comments