Swiss parliament rejects proposal to simplify naturalisation

34 votes against and 9 in favour have preserved Switzerland’s existing naturalisation framework, after the Council of States rejected a proposal to shorten the path to citizenship. The decision follows the National Council’s rejection of the initiative by a two-thirds majority in April.

The proposal would have established a right to apply for Swiss citizenship after five years of legal residence, reducing the current threshold cited in the debate from 10 years. It also sought to remove minimum residence periods set by cantons and municipalities, changes that would have shifted the balance between Switzerland’s federal, cantonal and local authorities.

The parliamentary votes close the legislative route for a simplified procedure, but they do not settle the issue. The initiative will still go before voters at a date that has not been announced. The government will not put forward a counter-proposal, leaving the electorate to weigh the existing system against the campaign’s demand for a shorter and more uniform route to citizenship.

Five years of legal residence was the central demand behind the initiative. Supporters argued that Switzerland’s citizenship rules impose unusually high barriers by European standards, particularly on people from outside the European Union and EFTA.

Under the existing framework described in the debate, EU and EFTA citizens generally qualify for a C permit after five years with a B permit. They then typically need another five years of continuous residence before applying for naturalisation. This creates a pathway of roughly 10 years before an application can be made, subject to the other legal requirements.

The route is tougher for many third-country nationals. The period needed to upgrade a B permit to a C permit is 10 continuous years, according to the source article. The distinction reflects Switzerland’s separate residence arrangements for European and non-European nationals, and it has become a central point for campaigners who say the system treats applicants differently according to their origin.

Naturalisation also requires applicants to meet integration and other statutory conditions. The proposal focused on the residence clock and on reducing local discretion, rather than removing those broader requirements.

Marianne Binder-Keller said the proposal went too far, warning that a shorter national residence rule could allow people to naturalise before their connection to Switzerland was firmly established. Binder-Keller, the commission spokesperson, also defended the continued role of cantonal and municipal minimum residence periods.

A majority in the Council of States agreed that the division of responsibilities among the federal government, cantons and municipalities is clearly defined and has worked effectively. The chamber therefore rejected a transfer of authority in the naturalisation process.

That position reflects the structure of Swiss citizenship itself. Applicants deal with several layers of government, and local authorities remain part of the process. Supporters of reform see this federal arrangement as a source of unevenness and delay. Opponents view it as a safeguard that allows communities to assess whether applicants are established and integrated in their local environment.

The parliamentary majority has now backed continuity at each level. Any change will require voters to overturn that position at the ballot box, rather than MPs to revisit the initiative in ordinary legislation.

The proposal now moves from Parliament to the public, with the timing of the referendum still unknown. Voters will eventually decide whether Switzerland should retain the current residence framework or create a five-year right to apply for citizenship.

The campaign supporting reform frames naturalisation as a question of equal political participation. Its representatives argue that nationality should not depend so heavily on a person’s origin and say the rules are especially restrictive for third-country nationals. Their language places the residence requirement within a wider debate over integration, political rights and the status of people who have built their lives in Switzerland without holding a Swiss passport.

Parliament’s rejection gives opponents a clear starting point. They can point to the existing division of powers and argue that local residence requirements help ensure a durable connection to a municipality and canton. Supporters will campaign on the length and complexity of the route, particularly for non-European residents.

Until the vote is scheduled, the legal position remains unchanged. Applicants must continue to follow the existing federal, cantonal and municipal requirements, while the political dispute shifts into a nationwide campaign.