A cross-party coalition of politicians in the Canton of Bern's Grand Council is calling for a fundamental change in how asylum centers are established. A new parliamentary proposal demands that municipalities must give their official consent before any new cantonal or federal asylum facilities can be opened within their borders, citing concerns over community burden and public safety.
Key Takeaways
- Politicians from the SVP, FDP, The Centre, and EDU parties have submitted a joint proposal in Bern's cantonal parliament.
- The motion seeks to grant municipalities the power to approve or reject the establishment of new asylum and return centers.
- The proposal is driven by concerns about the impact on local communities and recent security incidents.
- An exception is included, allowing the canton to bypass local consent during a declared asylum emergency.
A Push for Municipal Sovereignty
In a significant political move, members of four center-right and right-wing parties have formally requested that the cantonal government amend its current procedures for locating asylum facilities. The proposal argues that the current top-down approach, where the canton or federal government selects locations, places an undue strain on host communities.
The councillors contend that establishing facilities such as transit or return centers is a highly demanding task for any municipality. They believe that the residents and local authorities who bear the direct impact of these centers should have a decisive voice in the matter. According to the motion, the current practice often leaves communities feeling powerless and presented with unchangeable decisions made by higher authorities.
Current Procedure vs. Proposed Change
Currently, the cantonal and federal authorities have significant authority to establish asylum centers where they deem necessary, often based on property availability and logistical needs. The new proposal would shift this power dynamic, making municipal approval a mandatory prerequisite for any new project, effectively giving local governments a veto power.
Security Concerns Fuel the Debate
The primary driver behind the proposal appears to be growing concerns over public safety and social cohesion. Proponents of the measure point to specific events that they claim highlight the risks associated with the current system. The motion explicitly references the situation in Büren an der Aare as a case study for their arguments.
They note that at a public information meeting for a new return center in the town, the cantonal police announced it would need to increase its presence in the area. This statement was interpreted by many as an admission of anticipated security challenges linked to the new facility.
The Büren an der Aare Incident
The debate was further intensified by a recent incident in the same town. Just one month after the return center opened, a police response was required after a rejected asylum seeker unlawfully entered a local woman's apartment. This event has been heavily cited by the politicians backing the proposal as evidence of the potential impact on residents' sense of security.
"Such experiences represent a strain on our community life," the text of the parliamentary motion states, emphasizing the personal and social consequences of such incidents.
The councillors argue that the canton must take these fears seriously. They frame the demand for local consent as a necessary step to ensure that the interests and well-being of the resident population are prioritized during the planning process for any new asylum-related facility.
The proposal explicitly states that the behavior of some asylum seekers has become a "burden for our citizens and families," reflecting a sentiment that the social contract in host communities is under pressure.
The Political Landscape and Next Steps
The proposal is backed by a significant bloc in the Grand Council, including the Swiss People's Party (SVP), FDP.The Liberals (FDP), The Centre (Die Mitte), and the Federal Democratic Union (EDU). This broad coalition suggests the motion has a reasonable chance of gaining traction and sparking a serious debate within the cantonal parliament.
The core of their argument is that local democracy should not be suspended when it comes to asylum policy. By requiring consent, they believe municipalities would be empowered to either prepare adequately for a new center with proper resources or to reject a proposal deemed unsuitable for their community.
The Emergency Clause
Notably, the proposal includes a crucial exception. The requirement for municipal approval could be temporarily suspended if the canton officially declares an "asylum emergency." This clause acknowledges that in times of crisis, the cantonal government may need to act swiftly to provide shelter without being hindered by local administrative processes.
- For the Proposal: Supporters argue it enhances local democracy, improves security, and forces better planning and communication from cantonal authorities.
- Against the Proposal: Opponents may argue it could lead to a "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) effect, making it nearly impossible to find locations for necessary asylum centers and unfairly concentrating them in a few willing municipalities.
The proposal will now be debated in the Grand Council of Bern. The outcome will determine whether Switzerland's most populous canton will pioneer a new model for asylum facility placement—one that gives far more power to the local communities on the front lines.