
The Federal Constitution: helping ensure a fairer naturalisation process
The communes play a key role in accepting or rejecting applications for Swiss citizenship, which poses a risk of arbitrary or discriminatory decisions. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution serve as an important corrective.
In Basel's imposing Stadthaus, the seat of the local authorities, Vittoria Zanetti was now required to submit to questioning by the eleven ladies and gentlemen who made up the naturalisation committee. The committee members sat behind a table, apparently still deep in conversation among themselves. "For quite some length of time", the candidate was "not certain … whether or not the 'official' interview had actually started", as stated in the appeal against the decision to refuse Zanetti's application submitted by her lawyer the following year, first to the executive authority in Basel and then to the Federal Supreme Court. All of a sudden, a member of the committee posed the first question: Did Vittoria Zanetti "know why women were present here in this chamber today?" She assumed it had "something to do with women's right to vote," came the somewhat vague answer. As a matter of fact, the women of Basel had indeed been granted the right to vote and stand for election at the communal level on 7 December 1958.
Vittoria Zanetti was just one of around 20 cases in Basel-Stadt between 1950 and 1969 of foreign nationals appealing against the decision to refuse them citizenship. All were first- and second-generation immigrants, most from Germany and Italy. Under-45s had the right to a free naturalisation procedure after residing in the canton for 15 years.
The interpretation of this particular paragraph had become ever broader since the end of the First World War when the idea of Überfremdung ‒ a term literally meaning 'over-foreignisation' that encapsulates the feeling of being overwhelmed by immigrants ‒ had also found its way into Basel-Stadt's policy on granting citizenship. Thus, in its response of 24 November 1964 to the Federal Supreme Court's ruling on the Zanetti case, the Canton's highest executive authority pointed out that "clearly objectionable conduct" as an obstacle to naturalisation was traditionally seen as a "general clause" in Basel. In its letter of 16 November 1964 to the Federal Supreme Court, the communal authority had likewise argued that "in accordance with decades of practice, the term 'clearly objectionable conduct' [was] subject to broad interpretation when being cited as the reason for rejecting an application". It applied to all applicants who were turned down "due to their political views, unpleasant character traits or lack of assimilation". Hence, on reviewing Vittoria Zanetti's application, it had come to the conclusion that she was "immature, possessed various character flaws and, above all, [did] not have significantly strong ties with her adoptive country".
The legislative authorities in Basel revised the Citizenship Act that same year, deleting the 'clearly objectionable conduct' passage. However, a new discourse on Überfremdung was now taking place throughout Switzerland, mainly directed against immigrants from southern Italy. Against this backdrop, the new act of 19 March 1964 introduced an assimilation requirement for applicants. This restrictive naturalisation policy reached a peak in Switzerland in the 1960s and '70s.
The Confederation shall regulate the acquisition and loss of citizenship by birth, marriage or adoption


