Parliament's Borderline Logic

In the hallowed halls of Bern, a familiar political drama is unfolding. The Council of States has, with a bourgeois majority, passed motions from the SVP and FDP demanding permanent border controls. It is a powerful signal, designed to reassure a public concerned with cross-border crime and illegal immigration. On the surface, it is a decisive move. But one only needs to scratch that surface to find a policy built on sand.

Switzerland’s border is a formidable challenge: 2000 kilometers long, with over 400 crossings that see some 2.2 million people pass through every single day. Managing this is no small feat. The Federal Office for Customs and Border Security (BAZG) already operates on a risk-based system, intervening where suspicion arises. The new parliamentary demand, however, aims for something far more comprehensive, and presumably, far more expensive.

Herein lies the contradiction. The same parliament demanding a security upgrade is also tightening the purse strings. The BAZG is slated to receive six million francs less in the 2026 budget, with a further three-million-franc cut planned by the end of the financial period. Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter, whose department oversees the BAZG, aptly pointed out the discrepancy, noting that those who say ‘A’ must also be prepared to say ‘B’. It seems some in parliament are content to stop at the first letter of the alphabet.

What would it actually take to fulfill this mandate? According to the BAZG’s own action plan, a hundred new full-time positions would be required just to field two additional patrols along the most critical migration routes. These hundred positions are, naturally, unfunded. They are notionally tied to a proposal by the defence minister to raise the value-added tax to pay for military upgrades, a plan that has met with fierce opposition from most parties. The border guards, it seems, must wait for the army.

The BAZG itself has candidly admitted that with its current resources, any intensified surveillance can only be temporary. Sustained, intensified controls are impossible without a significant budget increase. It is a polite, bureaucratic way of stating the obvious: you cannot have more for less.

As if the financial absurdity were not enough, the BAZG is also grappling with its own internal turmoil. A major reorganization and training program, dubbed “Allegra,” aims to cross-train customs specialists and border guards. Yet progress is glacial. Less than half of the 1748 affected employees have completed the program. More troublingly, 153 staff members are either unable or unwilling to participate, a situation complicated by union concerns over potential salary cuts for non-participants. An agency struggling with such fundamental internal reforms hardly seems prepared to take on a vastly expanded mission.

So what are we to make of this? The parliament makes a strong gesture, the government points to an empty wallet, and the agency on the ground is mired in its own problems. The call for more border security appears to be less a serious policy initiative and more a cost-free exercise in political posturing. It allows politicians to look tough on security without making the difficult decisions required to actually fund it. One has to ask whether the goal is to secure the border, or merely to secure votes.

Written by Thorben Thiede thorben.thiede@alpineweekly.com