'We have a problem with young migrant men', the Switzerland's NZZ Explains

Taken together, the Swiss may very well self-correct, but the future for the rest of Europe looks increasingly bleak due to mass migration: what will it take to change course?

Today, we’ll take a long and hard look at the problems western countries face due to the importation of so many migrants in the past 10-15 years. Using the example of Switzerland, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung recently ran a long-form exposé about the dire situation in regards to juvenile delinquency.

In so doing, the NZZ’s Sebastian Briellmann’s article, reproduced in full below, touches upon many of the pressing issues western countries face due to mass migration, even though most of these topics are conspicuously avoided by western mainstream news outlets (of which, curiously, the NZZ is also part and parcel).

Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.

---

Switzerland has a Problem. With Young Men Who are Becoming Increasingly Violent

Lack of self-control, psychological problems, stuck at the developmental level of a child: are offenders in open prisons the harbingers of what is to come for society?

By Sebastian Briellmann, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 10 Apr. 2025 [source; archived]

Rural Switzerland is often romanticised as a refuge where life is still good. And that’s an understandable proposition. A day in late winter in Niederdorf, Canton Baselland, wide open spaces, soothing silence—and a lot of nothing. But sometimes, this is just a distant bird’s eye view. On closer inspection, one building complex stands out because of its otherness: the Arxhof, a centre for young offenders.

Anyone who comes here as a convicted offender receives therapy instead of jailtime and does an apprenticeship [vocational training]. Resocialisation. This is due to a special feature of Swiss criminal law, Article 61 to be precise: anyone whose ‘personality development is seriously impaired’ and who was under the age of 25 when the offence was committed can be sentenced to this measure instead of going to jail [note that the age of adulthood in Switzerland is 18, upon which citizens are allowed to vote, are drafted into the military, etc.; art. 61 of the criminal code, however, extends minority protection until 25—so we’re talking about a kind of extended protection ‘eve’ for adult criminals (if convicted)].

The Arxhof, like the other centres in German-speaking Switzerland—Uitikon in Zurich, Kalchrain in Thurgau—is a respected institution. For over fifty years. In every text that appears about the Arxhof, one word should not be missing: success story.

This year, however, things have changed and a darker chapter must be added. [Swiss state broadcaster] SRF ran the headline of a report: ‘Centres for resocialisation struggle with brutalisation among young offenders’ [Mr. Briellmann didn’t add a link; here’s what I found (it’s a 2-minute video), and there’s also a full-length documentary by SRF]. How should we respond to this? After all, taxpayers invest around 750,000 (Arxhof) to one million francs (Uitikon) for a [single] convicted offender [let that price tag set in; the exchange rate between Swiss francs and US$ is, for all practical purposes, close enough to 1 : 1].

You Can’t do Without Security

Francesco Castelli sits in the dining area for the Arxhof staff, nothing to indicate any problems, lots of apprentices, relaxed atmosphere. Almost a bit of a camp feeling. Castelli is the director of the centre. But he doesn’t like to romanticise the matter, adding:

A lot has changed here. And in a very short space of time.

Not for the better.

Castelli had only just started his job four years ago when two inmates brutally attacked a staff member. Since then, something that was ‘unthinkable fifteen years ago’ has been in place: two security guards are on duty around the clock at the Arxhof. Castelli: ‘We can no longer do without them.’

This is not the only major change. Until a few years ago, the Arxhof was perfectly adapted to the needs: there were thirty places in the open ward and eight in the closed ward for particularly serious cases. This ratio could soon be reversed. The authorities are increasingly demanding restricted places. How many the Arxhof can offer is currently being clarified.

However, Castelli has already adapted and converted one of the previously open residential pavilions into a transitional pavilion. This is characterised by a primarily pedagogical ‘highly structured offer’, but also by additional structural safeguards. ‘That’s the reality. We have to be that honest.’

The reality is this: serious attacks on fellow inmates, but above all on staff, have increased. Millions are now being invested in security at the centres. Also in Uitikon and Kalchrain. How long before there are deaths? That already seems to be helping, at least at the Arxhof. Castelli says: ‘Nothing has happened here since the new security concept came into force.’

An open yard at the Arxhof: if only the fence didn’t exist…

Societal Condensate

There are reasons why the situation has changed: offenders are getting younger and younger, they are more mentally disturbed, they have lower cognitive abilities, and poorer German language skills. As a result, their propensity for violence is higher and their self-control has dropped dramatically [think about it this way: Mr. Castelli is in charge since early 2021, and in these four years, he’s seen these ‘dramatic’ changes—and now ponder the following: you’d need a criminal conviction to be sent to one of these centres—and ask yourself how schools are doing compared to, say, ten years ago, which, to me at least, is the true measure of change].

A social condensate can be found in a centre like the Arxhof. Young men who could also be harbingers of a future reality. In the supposedly ideal normality. Because outside, young men commit the most violent crimes worldwide. Assault, robbery, murder [and this is where reporting in Germany, Austria, Scandinavia, and elsewhere would stop considering the meaning of these facts; give some credit to the NZZ’s Mr. Briellmann—for he dares to go where most others won’t go]

Foreigners are disproportionately represented among the young men prone to violence. Three years ago, the proportion of foreigners in the Arxhof was still around one third, in the last two years it was 50%. Of these, less than half and up to three quarters were non-EU citizens. Foreigners from [so-called] third countries [this is a legal category: Switzerland is the ‘first’ country, any EU member-state is the ‘second’ country, and all other places are ‘third countries’; it works the same in terms of employing foreigners, and that kind of legal structure is in place all over the EU and its associated countries, incl. Switzerland and Norway] make up only 9% of the Swiss population [sadly, the paragraph is convoluted (not merely by my commentary, but also in terms of the numbers given by Mr. Briellmann, hence to clarify: 2023-24, 50% of all inmates—convicted criminals—in the Arxhof were foreigners (third country citizens from outside the EU bloc) while their share among the general population is 9%].

However, Castelli does not see nationality as a ‘decisive driver’ [me neither, primarily, hence it would be a good idea to enquire about the culture of these offenders] for the increased psychological stress and associated higher propensity to violence in the Arxhof. He compares this with the higher proportion of foreigners in Swiss prisons:

In these prisons, the share of foreigners is up to 70%. Here [at the Arxhof], it has been between 33-50% in recent years.

In addition, there has not been a single young person from a Maghreb country in the past three years, while Swiss prisons ‘hold many from the Maghreb’ [that’s a silly argument™: what about offenders from beyond the Maghreb?] This certainly has to do with the fact that refugees [sic] from these countries are not allowed to remain in Switzerland—and therefore the authorities do not invest in any measures [see what I mean? Swiss authorities have for years been doing what’s known as ‘push-back’ at the borders; I also recall an incident—a train ride from Zurich to Milan, Italy, some 10 years ago: as the train closed in on the otherwise open Swiss-Italian border, police and customs/border patrol walked through the carriage I found myself in—and removed a black passenger (I don’t know whether this was justified or not, all I’m sayin’ here is—this kind of ‘profiling’, whether official policy or done for ‘practical’ reasons (of self-protection), has been going on for many years].

As a forensic psychiatrist, Frank Urbaniok has seen thousands of offenders:

These figures don’t surprise me—and of course you have to ask the question of origin.’ [see how different the NZZ reporting is?] It is still true: most immigrants are an asset. But there are also those who are unwilling or unable to integrate.

You shouldn’t stretch the facts just because you believe that you can’t expect people to face the truth. And this shows that offenders from certain countries of origin are also heavily overrepresented in juvenile crime in Switzerland. Urbaniok:

That’s why the proportion with a migration background is high. Cultural factors [told you so] play a decisive role here, which don’t simply disappear in subsequent generations with a Swiss passport. This is unpleasant and is therefore reluctant to be discussed [this is a second major difference to how other German-language outlets discuss these matters, and given what I know about, say, English-speaking countries, it seems about the same]

Short Fuse

This development can be clearly seen in centres like the Arxhof, says Urbaniok, ‘but this is also becoming increasingly apparent in society: in many cases, security personnel are now even required in emergency wards.’ [in case you’d need another reason to decry the earlier versions of western societies where such measures were not necessary]

There is also an increasing propensity for violence in schools and public spaces [oh, and here’s another one]. It is not yet as bad in Switzerland as it is in Germany [take that, ‘best Germany of all times’], and even here it was not all rosy in the past (as with the open drug scenes, for example [explanation: in the 1980s, the Platzspitz park in downtown Zurich looked a bit like downtown San Francisco today (perhaps minus that many homeless people), but it was one of the hotspots of a quite free/liberal drug/AIDS support scene and avoided by everybody but heroin addicts and dealers; it was eventually cleared in the 1990s and restored; write-up here (via Wikipedia)]). However, the fact that a rehabilitation centre like the Arxhof today has the character of a prison, that is new. [Urbaniok] ‘And migration plays a decisive role in this.’

What is going on with these young men, what has gone wrong? One man who has statistically recorded this change is Andreas Wepfer. He is the head of the Kalchrain centre. He speaks calmly about his findings, as if he were an uninvolved statistician, but what he says, he emphasises. The figures ‘unfortunately’ speak a clear language, he says. In just one decade, the average age of admission to the Kalchrain centre has fallen from over 21 to under 19.

The decline in the level of psychosocial functioning is particularly drastic: ten years ago, the value was just under minus 4, but now it is minus 5.5. This means that it is not a matter of course to close a door or say hello. Adult men, at the developmental level of a child. With a short fuse [import the third world, become the third world, even (sic) in Switzerland].

The Limits of What is Possible

Wepfer also says that this is why we only really needed places in the closed ward: no wonder? The system is overstretched. The limits of what is feasible have been exceeded for many institutions.

Another key figure is hardly surprising: if an offender was previously placed in a centre like the Arxhof or Kalchrain, he was previously placed in two institutions on average—for example in a foster institution [orig. Heim, a kind of a halfway house]. The incidence of these pre-placements has increased massively: today there are around ten. A five-fold increase in the short space of a decade. The record holder: thirty institutions in just three years.

However, the fact that the path of an offender has already shifted onto the wrong track is also evident in the country’s Jugendheime [foster institutions run by the authorities]. Two individual cases made the headlines last year: in the Brüttisellen country home in Bassersdorf, a 19-year-old Pakistani seriously injured two members of staff with a knife to the face. And in Albisbrunn, an employee was so seriously injured by an Angolan that she had to be flown to hospital in a rescue helicopter. The perpetrator was only 16 years old.

Philipp Eder is the director of the Albisbrunn Jugendheim—and president of the Association of Swiss-German Youth Home Directors (which also includes the centres like the Arxhof). He says:

These two serious incidents have certainly set the ball rolling in the scene. The current development is our major topic this year. We need investigations and statistics. We are now tackling this. [this is how liberal societies should be responding: in a transparent, output-oriented way—and the contrast to, say, neighbouring Germany, Sweden, or the UK couldn’t be greater where these ‘uncomfortable’ facts are buried]

What Eder means: he can only talk about what he has experienced with over twenty years of experience, he now wants facts through figures—so that objectivity can be guaranteed and correlations can be presented [i.e., ‘lived experience’ doesn’t suffice]. But he also says:

The young people who end up with us are the ones that society excludes. We are increasingly observing a structural breakdown in society. This also has an impact on our work. This also means that security plays a central role in the youth centres.

There are also only young men at Albisbrunn. Psychological diagnoses among the young people have increased significantly, as has mixed consumption (for example alcohol with cannabis or ecstasy with cocaine). The level of psychosocial functioning is lower than it used to be—just as it is in the treatment centres [hence, we’re able to tentatively surmise the reasons here: as the share of people from sub-saharan Africa has increased, so have violence, otherwise noticeable behaviours, and (ab)use of intoxicants; if you’d add cultural markers (norms of behaviours, not ‘just’ towards women), the above-voiced consideration of ‘import the third world, become the third world’ makes way more sense now, eh?].

And, to put it bluntly, there are no longer just the bullies, but also boys who scratch themselves, are depressed and even suicidal, and are therefore less and less able to work. ‘I used to see much less of that in the vocational training centres,’ says Eder. There is also a massive increase in trauma, which not only affects many unaccompanied minors seeking asylum, but also many other young people. Before they can enter into a normal dialogue with each other, ‘a lot of care is needed’, says Eder.

And Eder says: ‘If we can’t look after these young people in our highly professional setting, then it won’t be good.’ [meaning: simply throwing these offenders in work houses = US-style privatised prisons will reinforce these problems]. Eder recognises the challenge that this could actually become more difficult in the future. ‘If closed systems—outside of the rehabilitation centres—are already rejecting requests for accommodation, we have a systemic problem.’

These places are becoming fewer and fewer, as Wepfer has researched using Zurich as an example: In the last twenty years, the inpatient provision for adolescent psychiatry has doubled, while at the same time the socio-educational places available—such as residential care places—have been demonstrably reduced [‘neoliberalism’ in a nutshell]. ‘That's a bad development,’ says Wepfer. In the same period, new discharges of young adults have tripled. ‘Another sign that more and more young adults are finding it difficult to integrate into society.’ This ‘psychiatrisation’ is not very sustainable [so, you’re basically saying that the tendency to invent ever more categories pf psychiatric disorders isn’t working: what a shocker, eh?].

Potential Neighbours

Frank Urbaniok believes that such institutions are still needed. However, he also says that the success rate is okay, but nothing more. The results for serious offences are as follows: one third of clients reoffend with a serious offence. A third commit petty offences such as theft or fare evasion. And a third do not come into conflict with the law again.

Is that a lot or a little? Urbaniok comments: ‘Centres like the Arxhof have always had to adapt to new challenges and change. That will remain the case in the future.’ What he would like to see more of and where he sees potential: selection, testing. Who benefits from a stay in a centre of measures? Who might be too violent or too intolerant? ‘He’s taking someone else’s place…’ [while I understand that notion, who’s doing the selection and testing? And, as a follow-up, what will ‘society’ then do with those deemed ‘unfit’ to be eventually released? (this is supremely uncomfortable, but will these ‘criminal types’—to borrow eugenicist Francis Galton’s terminology here—be thrown away into labour/concentration/gulag camps? You see the slippery slope of these considerations clearly, for doing so also comes at a cost, and perhaps we’ll revisit some of the methods pioneered earlier in the 20th century…]

Francesco Castelli also says that it would be counterproductive to do nothing more, to ‘simply lock the young men away’ and ‘leave them to their own devices’. You have to be aware:

At some point they will be released—if you don’t work with them while they are in prison, they will very likely be even more conspicuous than before, and the likelihood that more victims will be produced increases.

The director of the Uitikon centre recently said in the NZZ am Sonntag that these men are potential neighbours. So you might ask yourself: how well should they have been treated beforehand?

---

Bottom Lines

None of the above is surprising, yet it is universally avoided in the western press and by western politicos™. They do so at the peril of the peoples of the western countries—and, no, we, the people, aren’t that stupid. Hence, the massive losses of trust in these institutions, which came about by the constant lies peddled by many, if not most, politicos™ and journos™.

While contempt of them is well-deserved, the problems these irresponsible men and women have caused, are exacerbating, and planning to inflict on the resident populations won’t stop by nicely asking them to do so.

I suspect that all it takes to re-ignite the smouldering embers of civic patriotism is—a spark.

Here’s my prediction: after yet more of the same—think: the new German gov’t—a seemingly random act (deed) of violence by a migrant will spark ad-hoc, if likely pre-planned, reactions by private citizens that will be aided and abetted by outnumbered police (as far as I hear from active-duty officers, no-one will lift a finger to protect a politico™).

This will spark mass-protests and, more fearsome to the powers-that-be, concrete demands, such as a reversal of mass migration, the return of sovereignty from Brussels, and the like. Needless to say, politicos™ of all stripes, aided and abetted by journos™ in their pay, will decry these protests as hillbillies, deplorables, and otherwise unreconstructed morons—and hope that they can sit this one out, too (as they sat out so many of these protests before).

Thus, the question arises: will our current ruling élite end like the GDR and quietly go into the night, yielding to pressure from below? Or will the results look more like the fate that eventually befell Romanian long-time tyrant Nicolae Ceaușescu?

While I abhor the consequences of a course of action—and the accompanying violence—resulting from the latter option, I also consider it the likelier option as there’s currently no sign of western élites heeding the growing growls emanating from society, and if the above NZZ piece shows, this isn’t some loony extremist chit-chat in monitored social media groups. This is highly-specialised experts and practitioners dispassionately assessing the problems of our time.

I do think that Switzerland may be able to reverse these trends by closing borders and accepting a temporary higher fiscal burden to lock up most of these criminal elements and/or deport them.

I have far less hope for European countries, both because they all sport sizeable Moslem communities (many of whom are law-abiding residents or citizens who don’t like to live with their mentally mediaeval peers in the Islamic, mainly Arab, world) harbouring dreams of conquest.

Local and state-level politicos may actually be willing to do something, but the main problem is—the federal/national gov’ts working in cahoots with Brussels.

And unless that Gordian Knot—of the EU domineering member-states’ politics—is ‘resolved’, nothing will change.

Yet, as Mikhail Gorbachev, Ceaușescu, and a whole host of other rather unpleasant tyrants found out in autumn 1989, there are indeed decades where nothing happens, and then there are days or weeks when decades happen.

Europe is turning more and more into a powder keg, and here’s the 64,000 dollar question: what’s the likeliest event to ignite the fuse?