Endless Waiting: S-Permit Holders in the Limbo of Permanent Temporariness
In 2022, Switzerland decided to grant the S permit to Ukrainian nationals fleeing the war. 66,000 Ukrainians continued to live in the country with this status in 2024, according to the Swiss State Secretariat for Migration (SEM). While it gives them safety and generous rights, the permit must be renewed each year, leaving families in constant uncertainty. Many cannot plan for work, school, or the future, as they wait to see if they will be allowed to stay or required to return to Ukraine.
Time is at the heart of the migration system, a tool and outcome of state regulation, its power and politics. For migrants, “waiting, limbo and temporariness emerge as particularly pervasive mechanisms of migration governance” (Griffiths, 2024: 1233). Therefore, time is a crucial factor in how people assigned to different migration categories are perceived. For example, refugees are considered to be present for longer than asylum seekers, while citizenship is considered to be permanent. Caught between the passing of chronological time and the temporal uncertainty of migration systems, asylum seekers are forced to navigate the contradictions of what Yiftachel (2014) terms “permanent temporariness.”
These temporal dynamics are neither neutral nor apolitical. Bureaucratic delays, unclear rules and changing policies characterize the uncertainties of migrants’ experiences. Entangled in past, present, and future tenses of protection, migrants wait for the state. Griffith’s (2024) terminology highlights the otherwise taken-for-granted temporal politics of migration governance, what Vuilleumier (2021: 9) argues is a “temporal dispossession [that] continues beyond and long after the asylum processes themselves, penetrating and interrupting the aspirations and intimate lives of migrants.”
The Uncertainties of War
In response to the Russian war on Ukraine, on 12 March 2022, the Swiss government activated the Status S permit – initially for one year, then extended several times, and currently valid until 4 March 2026 “unless the situation in Ukraine changes fundamentally before then” (Der Bundesrat, 2024).
While S permits offer displaced persons generous rights and support, the main reason Ukrainians chose to migrate to Switzerland was the presence of family, friends or acquaintances. An interviewee explained that a friend “was afraid to go alone but told me that her close friend lives in Switzerland, in Bern.” Her Swiss friend found [host] families “so that we could be together, close to each other, so we could have an infrastructure.”
For others, especially those fleeing at the beginning of the invasion, the decision was made quickly, often based on a perception that Switzerland was safe and wealthy, or on advice from friends or strangers. As one S permit holder recalled: “We ended up in Poland… in the centre, in some hangar.” At around one in the morning, they were told to choose a bus and quickly decide where to go. She explained that she was concerned about the cost of living in Switzerland, but “another traveler, a [disabled] man, convinced me. He said: “I have family living there. And I’m going there now. Everything is fine, everything is good. They live in a [host] family… They’re happy.” We got to talking. In the evening, we signed up to go to Switzerland.” This fast-paced decision illustrates the temporal urgency created by the migration crisis.
Everyday Life Under the S Permit
Even with this privileged, fast-tracked status, everyday life has not been easy, affected by the uncertainties of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the temporalities of Swiss migration governance. Men of draft age generally cannot leave Ukraine, so women and children left Ukraine mostly alone. As a result, families may be separated for long periods, with children growing up without their fathers.
At the same time, the Swiss migration system itself imposes its own temporal constraints: the one-year extensions of S permits create a rhythm that shapes how Ukrainians plan and organize their lives. Many respondents explained they hope that stable work or studies will improve their chances of staying in Switzerland if their S status is revoked. Therefore, they make significant efforts to successfully integrate, actively studying the Swiss languages and focusing on employment. However, the short, year-long permit duration makes these steps difficult.
Challenges in Education and Employment
The temporary nature of the permits affects longer-term plans for schooling, employment and securing rental housing. Many Ukrainians, for instance, are reluctant to pause their children’s education in Ukraine. Since the Ukrainian education system allows students to study online, the UNHCR (2023) reports that some parents feel compelled to have their children attend both Ukrainian and Swiss schools simultaneously, a challenging arrangement that does little to support integration in Switzerland. The one-year permit duration also significantly complicates job searches: employers are wary of hiring Ukrainians, knowing there is a risk that they might have to leave after a year or less. To help address this issue, Swiss authorities have introduced programs that try to improve employment opportunities for S permit holders (SEM, 2024).
Waiting in Uncertainty
Faced with these contradictory forms of waiting, Ukrainians live with immense uncertainty, unsure if their right to stay in Switzerland will be extended for another year. As one participant explained: “Sometimes there are moments when you don’t know whether you are doing the right thing, whether you need to do this or that, what your plans are, what you are going to do. You’re working, studying, learning a language, but what’s the point? What do you plan to do with it later? We don’t know what will happen. I don’t. There are questions, but no answers.”
After five years, residence permits (B) can be issued for as long as the Status S continues and after ten years, permanent stay permits (C) can be granted. However, the S permit is return-oriented (Asylum Act, art. 67, para. 2) and can be revoked at any time if the situation in Ukraine changes. Many Ukrainians have nowhere to return to; their cities and homes are destroyed, and jobs are scarce. As another Ukrainian S permit holder explained, “It’s hard to start all over again every time”. For them, returning home is filled with uncertainty and anxiety.
Living in Limbo
Ultimately, S permit holders navigate an uncertain and often difficult limbo both in time and space. This state of waiting takes many forms, sometimes long, often unpredictable, and is shaped by the politics of the Swiss asylum system. Life is lived in constant uncertainty: in the present moment, while anticipating possible futures and preparing for what might come. This interplay of time and temporality – as much as (im)mobility – lies at the heart of the Swiss migration system. Extending the S-Permit’s duration beyond one year could help alleviate some of this uncertainty, giving Ukrainian asylum seekers the ability to plan and build their lives in both the present- and the medium-term future.
Important note: This text first appeared as a longer article in German in Terra Cognita (2025, issue 41).
Saskia Greyling is a postdoctoral researcher interested in the temporalities of urban governance, and which she examines as part of the nccr-on the move project “Data Politics and New Regimes of Mobility and Control During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
Maja Łysienia is a postdoctoral researcher at the HES-SO Valais-Wallis and the University of Lausanne. In the framework of the nccr-on the move project “Evolving (Im)Mobility Regimes,” she studies crisis-related changes in migration laws and policies.
Sophie Oldfield is professor and chair of the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University, professor emeritus at University of Cape Town, and a co-Project Leader for the the nccr-on the move project “Data Politics and New Regimes of Mobility and Control During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
Oksana Ovsiiuk is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Neuchâtel. She is part of the nccr-on the move project “Dealing with Crises and Liminal Situations,” within which she conducted the interviews presented in this blog post. Her research focuses on the mechanisms of integration of forced migrants into local communities.
Ibrahim Soysüren is a senior researcher within the nccr – on the move project “Dealing with Crises and Liminal Situations.”
Livia Tomás is a postdoctoral researcher at ZHAW of Social Work. She is part of the nccr-on the move project “Evoloving (Im)Mobility Regimes” and coordinator of Module III. Her research engages with issues of precarity, labor, ageing, and transnationalism.
Bibliography:
–Der Bundesrat. 2024. Schutzstatus S wird nicht aufgehoben. Medienmitteilung vom 04.09.2024. (letztes Abrufdatum: 27.11.2024)
–Griffiths, Melanie. 2024. Epilogue: “Claiming Time” Special Issue. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 25(3), 1231-47.
–SEM, Staatssekretariat für Migration. 2024. Programm «Unterstützungsmassnahmen für Personen mit Schutzstatus S» (Programm S).(letztes Abrufdatum: 27.11.2024)
–SEM, Staatssekretariat für Migration. o. D. Ukraine. (letztes Abrufdatum: 27.11.2024)
–UNHCR. (2023). Education on hold: Addressing barriers to learning among refugee children and youth from Ukraine – challenges and recommendations (Education Policy Brief). UNHCR Regional Bureau for Europe. https://data.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/103089 (letztes Abrufdatum: 27.11.2024)
–Vuilleumier, Louis. 2021. Lost in Transition to Adulthood? Illegalized Male Migrants Navigating Temporal Dispossession. Social Sciences, 10(7), 250.
