Swiss parliament rejects proposal to simplify naturalisation

34 votes against and 9 in favour have kept Switzerland's existing naturalisation route in place. The Council of States rejected a proposal this week that would have allowed foreign residents to seek Swiss citizenship after five years of legal residence, rather than the current ten year threshold.

The decision follows the National Council's rejection of the same proposal in April by a two thirds majority. With both chambers opposed, the initiative has no parliamentary majority and will not receive a government counterproposal. Voters will still decide its fate at the ballot box, although no date has been set.

The vote preserves one of Europe's most demanding citizenship systems, according to the initiative's supporters. Their campaign argues that the current framework creates unequal access to political rights, particularly for residents from outside the European Union and EFTA.

Parliament's majority sees the existing process as a safeguard. Naturalisation takes place through cooperation between the federal government, cantons and municipalities, with local authorities assessing whether applicants have established lasting ties to Switzerland. That structure will remain unchanged unless voters approve the initiative.

The proposal would have cut the headline residence requirement from 10 years to 5. Supporters say that change would bring Switzerland closer to European practice and recognise the contribution of people who have built their lives in the country without holding a Swiss passport.

The current process is more complicated than a single national waiting period. Applicants must meet federal requirements and also satisfy cantonal and municipal rules. Those local conditions can include evidence of integration, familiarity with Swiss life and language ability, alongside the applicant's residence history and conduct.

Marianne Binder-Keller, the commission spokesperson, warned that removing local minimum residence periods would weaken the link between naturalisation and an established place of residence. She said people whose stay in Switzerland was not yet firmly established could become citizens too quickly.

The disagreement reflects two definitions of integration. Supporters place greater weight on years lived in Switzerland and equal treatment for long term residents. Opponents want authorities to retain time and local scrutiny as evidence that an applicant has formed durable ties. Parliament chose the second approach.

The same residence clock does not apply to every foreign national in Switzerland. Citizens of EU and EFTA states, including Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, generally reach permanent residence more quickly than many people from third countries. After five years with a B permit, they usually qualify for a C permit, followed by another five years of continuous residence before they can apply for naturalisation.

For many third country nationals, the route to a C permit takes ten continuous years. They then face the naturalisation requirements that apply to their case. This difference gives the debate a clear practical consequence: people with similar lives in Switzerland can face different timelines because of their nationality and residence status.

The initiative's supporters argue that this system places especially heavy obstacles before third country nationals. They describe citizenship as a matter of equal political rights and say access should depend less on country of origin.

The source material does not provide a country by country ranking of naturalisation rules. It does show why campaigners compare Switzerland unfavourably with other European states, while parliament focuses on the country's federal structure and its emphasis on long term local integration.