# Popular Initiative "For the Criminal Foreigners' Deportation"

The federal popular initiative "For the Expulsion of Criminal Foreigners," also known as the "expulsion initiative," is a Swiss popular initiative that was approved on November 28, 2010.
This initiative aimed to amend Article 121 of the Federal Constitution to revoke the residence permits of foreigners convicted of serious offenses or who have fraudulently received social insurance benefits. It also sought to ban them from entering Swiss territory for a period ranging from 5 to 15 years.

## Progress
### Historical context

Since 1985, the percentage of foreigners in Swiss prisons has increased. The initiators attribute this trend to increased immigration from distant countries and cultures and a perceived leniency in enforcing penalties (particularly in terms of withdrawal and expulsion). The initiative was proposed to ensure strict adherence to existing laws.
In practice, according to 2007 statistics, the proportion of foreigners involved in the acts explicitly targeted by the initiative is as follows:
* 58.4% in cases of homicide.
* 61.2% in cases of burglary (theft combined with a violation of domicile or property damage).
* 60.8% in cases of robbery (theft with violence).
* 55.8% in serious sexual offenses (rape or sexual coercion).
* 57.7% in drug trafficking.
In 2009, the percentage of foreigners in Swiss prisons was 70.2%. The number of expulsions under current laws varies significantly from region to region due to federalism, which allows cantons some flexibility. For instance, Geneva expelled between 15 and 30 individuals in 2009, while Lucerne expelled 58 people, and Vaud expelled 103 people. The total number of expulsions in 2009 was estimated at 664 people.

### Signature collection and submission of the initiative

The collection of the required 100,000 signatures took place from July 10, 2007, to February 15, 2008. It was submitted to the Federal Chancellery on the same day and confirmed as complete on March 7 of the same year.

### Discussions and recommendations of the authorities

Both the parliament and the Federal Council recommended rejecting this initiative. The Federal Council, in its recommendation, proposed an indirect counterproposal in the form of an amendment to the Federal Law on Foreigners. It stated that, in its opinion, the initiative "does not violate essential rules of public international law" but could result in "significant conflicts," especially regarding privacy protection and adherence to non-essential public international law.
During the parliamentary debate, deputies decided to amend the Federal Council's proposal by introducing a direct counterproposal. This counterproposal suggests determining the withdrawal of a criminal foreigner's residence permit based on an evaluation of the specific case's severity rather than a predefined list of offenses. It also includes provisions for the integration of the foreign population.
The voting recommendations of the political parties are as follows:
| Political party | Recommendation |
| Ticino League | yes |
| Conservative Democratic Party | no |
| Christian Social Party | no |
| Christian Democratic People's Party | no |
| Social Democratic Party | no |
| Green Liberal Party | no |
| The Liberals | no |
| Swiss People's Party | yes |
| Federal Democratic Union of Switzerland | yes |
| Green Party of Switzerland | no |

### Voting

The initiative was put to a vote on November 28, 2010, and was accepted by 15.5/2 cantons and 52.9% of the votes cast. The chart below details the results by canton:
On the other hand, the government's counterproposal was rejected by all 20.6/2 cantons and 54.2% of the votes cast. The chart below details the results by canton for this counterproposal:

### Incidents

* In Allschwil (Basel-Landschaft), masked unknown individuals took away a ballot box and set fire to its contents outside the polling station.
* In Schlieren (Zürich), police thwarted an attempted arson attack at a polling station.

## Reactions to the Popular Initiative
### In Switzerland

During the night from Sunday to Monday, protests took place in several Swiss cities, including Lausanne, Bern, and Zürich. Incidents and vandalism occurred in Zürich, notably against the UDC headquarters. In Geneva, unknown persons replaced press posters of the Geneva Tribune with the slogan "The criminal is the voter."
The Swiss press notes the powerlessness of left-wing and center-right parties against the UDC. Le Temps estimates that "the population, particularly those who feel weak and troubled by identity issues, wants to be reassured by concrete actions."

### Abroad

The international press overwhelmingly condemns the Swiss vote.
In France, Libération criticizes a vote "supported by an abundance of openly xenophobic posters." Piotr Moszynski from Radio France Internationale questions the boundaries of democracy and suggests that "Swiss democracy stumbles over foreigners." Le Point finds the outcome "unsurprising." Philippe Bilger, writing for Marianne, reflects that "the Swiss may be correct, but we are uncertain if we should be proud of this belief." On RTL, Éric Zemmour suggests that the Swiss voted on behalf of the rest of Europe.
According to an observer in Brussels, the European Union considers Switzerland to be an unreliable partner due to the possibility of Swiss votes conflicting with international and bilateral agreements. EU representatives have expressed concerns that excessive democracy in Switzerland could lead to the population prioritizing their interests.
SOS Racisme has issued a statement expressing indignation over the Swiss vote, condemning Switzerland for perpetuating a hateful image by blaming societal issues on the "Other." This statement has been criticized by Ivan Rioufol, who argues that moralizers supporting rebellious minorities are contributing to the dismantling of nations.

## Application

In November 2014, the Council of States Commission revisited the compromise reached by the National Council, adding a strict clause that allows judges to waive expulsion. This provision, granting judges additional discretion, had been explicitly rejected by the public in response to the Council of States' initiative. The UDC responded by accusing the government of disregarding the will of the people.