SPORTEGRATION condemns the current asylum policy

Trigger Warning: Suicide

We remember our participant Davy, who took his own life on April 6th in the asylum accommodation Triemli. Davy regularly participated in our course offerings and was always seen as a very helpful and eager participant.

This tragic loss highlights, once again, the structural problems of Swiss asylum policy! Deterrence, isolation, and integration barriers are the norm in one of the richest countries. For people with refugee experience, arriving in Switzerland does not immediately mean safety or perspective, but rather a life in stagnation.

After arriving in Switzerland, there is often no immediate improvement in the living situation of people with refugee experience. On the contrary, they are isolated in various aspects. Asylum accommodations are often located in remote areas, far from societal life. Asylum seekers and temporarily admitted persons are deliberately segregated from the local society. This geographical isolation is further intensified by the lack of financial support. With minimal resources, it is nearly impossible to participate in social life, afford mobility, or actively contribute to society. In many cases, asylum seekers and temporarily admitted persons are also restricted to a limited area of movement. Integration is thus structurally hindered, if not outright impossible.

The daily life of many people with refugee experience is characterized by uncertainty. An unclear or temporary residence status means a lack of planning security. Decisions about one’s future often remain unclear for months or even years. Additionally, constant transfers between accommodations make social relationships difficult or even destroy them.

Another structural problem is the work ban and the heavily restricted access to the labor market. Those who are not allowed to work cannot become financially independent or actively contribute to society. Integration can never be achieved without jobs, as this excludes a key element for sustainable integration.

The consequences of these circumstances are severe: loneliness, lack of perspective, and mental health strain are increasing. The lack of privacy in accommodations further intensifies the pressure. At the same time, many people with refugee experience report racism in everyday life, as well as inadequate medical and, in particular, psychological care. This is especially problematic for people with refugee experience, who often have to deal with traumatic experiences.

The sad loss of Davy once again raises the question of what role integration actually plays in the current asylum policy. It is clear that integration is possible even under difficult conditions. Civil society engagement proves this time and time again. But it cannot solve structural problems alone. When political frameworks hinder integration, many potentials remain untapped, both for the affected individuals and for society as a whole.

Currently, a deterrence strategy is in place in the asylum system. The victims of this strategy are the people with refugee experience who are already here. They serve as examples. This should not be the case! It is often forgotten that behind every asylum application and every temporarily admitted person, there is an individual with their own history, dreams, hopes, and traumas.

A sustainable asylum policy requires a change in political thinking. It must move away from mere administration and deterrence and see people for what they are: individuals with abilities, motivation, traumas, and the desire to contribute. The fundamental question is therefore not whether integration is possible, but whether it is politically desired!