New laws permitting residence permits to be withdrawn for broadly defined misconduct and requiring some public employees to report undocumented migrants have triggered warnings over discrimination, legal uncertainty and weakened human rights.
Sweden’s parliament has approved two highly contested laws that deepen the country’s shift towards a more restrictive immigration system, granting authorities greater powers to revoke residence permits and obliging parts of the public sector to report people suspected of living in the country without authorization.
The measures were passed on Monday, 15 June, only months before Sweden’s parliamentary election in September. They form part of a wider migration crackdown pursued by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s centre-right government, which depends on the parliamentary support of the nationalist Sweden Democrats.
The first measure, widely described as the “good behaviour” law, allows the Swedish Migration Agency to reject applications or revoke residence permits when a foreign national is considered to have behaved improperly. The rules can affect pending and future applications, while also applying retrospectively to some permits that have already been granted.
Although the law does not provide an exhaustive definition of unacceptable conduct, the government has cited unpaid debts, undeclared employment, tax avoidance, criminal activity and connections to extremist organizations as possible grounds for action. Some of this behaviour may fall short of a criminal offence, a point that has become central to the opposition’s criticism.
Migration Minister Johan Forssell defended the legislation when presenting it in March, arguing that people who make no effort to follow Swedish rules should not automatically expect to remain in the country. Decisions will be made by the Migration Agency and may be challenged before a migration court.
The government says the reform is necessary to reinforce respect for Swedish laws and social obligations. It maintains that residence rights should not be treated as unconditional when a person has accumulated debts, avoided taxes, participated in undeclared work or otherwise acted against the country’s interests.
Rights organizations, however, argue that the criteria are too broad and could allow authorities to punish foreign residents for conduct that would not lead to comparable consequences for Swedish citizens.
Civil Rights Defenders has warned that the legislation creates uncertainty about which actions or expressions could be used against an individual, describing it as a threat to equality before the law and the rule of law. Amnesty International has similarly argued that residence permits could be withdrawn because of behaviour that is neither illegal nor punishable when committed by a citizen.
Opposition politicians have also questioned how consistently the rules can be applied. Without precise legal definitions, they fear that individual officials will receive excessive discretion, producing unequal decisions and leaving migrants unsure about which aspects of their private or financial lives might jeopardize their status.
Parliament also narrowly approved a separate measure requiring employees at several public agencies to inform police when they have reason to believe that a person is undocumented. The proposal, often called the “snitch law” by its opponents, passed by 174 votes to 172.
Teachers, doctors and social workers were ultimately exempted following extensive protests from professional associations, researchers and civil society groups. Employees working in taxation, employment, social insurance and certain other government services may nevertheless be required to report suspected undocumented residents.
The government says the reporting obligation will improve cooperation between authorities and help ensure that people who have no legal right to remain in Sweden can be identified and returned to their countries of origin.
Critics say the distinction between exempt and non-exempt workers will offer little protection in practice because information frequently passes between public institutions. A person might initially seek help from an exempt professional, such as a doctor or teacher, but their details could later reach another agency with a legal duty to report them.
Researchers and migrant-rights groups have warned that the law may therefore discourage undocumented people from contacting healthcare providers, schools and welfare services, even when the professionals they encounter are formally exempt. Fear that personal information could eventually reach immigration authorities may push already vulnerable communities further outside public institutions.
Jacob Lind, a researcher in international migration at Malmö University, described the policy as cruel and ineffective, warning that it could promote informing practices associated with authoritarian systems. Advocacy organizations have also raised concerns that officials may rely on appearance, language or ethnicity when deciding whom to suspect, increasing the danger of racial profiling.
The new measures are part of a much broader transformation of Sweden’s migration model. The government says it is redirecting the country away from asylum-based immigration while continuing to attract skilled workers, researchers and international specialists. It notes that asylum immigration has fallen to its lowest level since 1985.
Other recent reforms have included stricter citizenship requirements, tighter rules for labour migration and the abolition of permanent residence permits for many newly recognized refugees. Parliament approved the permanent-residency changes in June, with most of the amendments scheduled to take effect on 12 July 2026.
The changes represent a striking departure from Sweden’s longstanding international reputation as one of Europe’s most welcoming destinations for refugees. Successive governments have gradually tightened migration rules since the large rise in asylum applications in 2015, but the current administration has accelerated the process with the backing of the Sweden Democrats.
Supporters argue that the previous system placed excessive strain on housing, welfare services and integration programmes while contributing to segregation and social exclusion. They also connect tougher migration controls to wider efforts to confront organized crime and gang violence, although critics dispute attempts to frame migration primarily as a security problem.
The timing of the latest parliamentary votes is politically significant. Immigration, integration and crime are expected to remain major campaign issues ahead of the September election, with the Sweden Democrats pressing for even tougher measures and opposition parties warning that the government is allowing far-right priorities to reshape Swedish institutions.
The central dispute is no longer simply about how many people Sweden should admit. It concerns the conditions under which foreign nationals may continue living in the country, the degree of discretion authorities should possess and whether access to public services can remain separate from immigration enforcement.
For the government, the legislation strengthens accountability and ensures that residency is linked to respect for Swedish society. For its opponents, the laws introduce vague standards, unequal treatment and a climate in which migrants may fear every interaction with the state.
How the measures are enforced will determine whether they function as targeted tools against serious misconduct or evolve into a much broader system of surveillance and insecurity. The legal appeals that follow, along with the reaction of public employees expected to implement the reporting rules, are likely to shape Sweden’s immigration debate well beyond the coming election.
