- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
Sweden’s parliament passed a law on Monday allowing authorities to revoke immigrants’ residency permits based on bad behaviour, such as having unpaid debts, doing undeclared work or links to extremist organisations.
The law, which covers pending permits but also retroactively already granted permits, is part of a wider tightening of immigration rules by the right-wing government and its support party, the nationalist Sweden Democrats, ahead of a parliamentary election in September.
The law has been criticised by the opposition and human rights advocacy groups as arbitrary because decisions would be taken on behaviour that has not been deemed criminal.
Fair but Necessary
Doesn’t seem very fair
Just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical.
No doubt! And just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s unethical.
The problem is practical. If rules are not written down then you can have punishment without justification, and as an individual you can’t depend on fair treatment by the state.
True, but this is a law, so it is written down.
Ah, then it’s definitely a bad law. (I’m on a limited connection and loading pages is very slow, so I hadn’t read the article.)
I’d really appreciate it if articles made a point of actually linking to the damn law, but in this case I guess it would be in Swedish.
Yeah they should link to it anyway!
And yes, this is a bad law. Rushed in a few months before an election by a right-wing coalition including the fascist SD. Things went badly so now they’re throwing scraps to the frothing racists in their base in a desperate attempt to maintain power. They don’t care if it’s a good law, it’s chum for dumbasses.
Definitions of “criminality” and “extremist organizations” subject to change without notice, of course.
According to my state’s written down rules, there’s a void for vagueness doctrine that’s written down. In practice, though…ay yi yi
Can I ask you a genuinely heartfelt and good-faith question?
How is it fair when someone shitty is allowed entry who ends up hurting civilians but civilians are expected to suck it up
How do you actually fix that without acting prophalactically, even its seen to be unfair or prematuew?
Civilians are expected to suck it up? Why? This would only be true if it’s not illegal. If it truly hurts civilians, why not make it illegal instead?
It is fair because if a Swedish citizen did something that “hurts civilians” but is not illegal, the victims would also be “expected to suck it up.”
Making some things only punishable if you aren’t Swedish is exactly what you would expect from the fascists in SD. Not really something to aspire to if you’re a sane, caring individual. It is the definition of unfair.
Can you give me an example of someone hurting civilians without breaking the law?
Examples of things that could become justification for a cancelled residence permit include:
Repeated traffic offences
Unpaid fines/debts to the government (basically once they go to the national collections agency, this takes 3+ months)
Associating with terrorist organizations and/or organized crime
Being a threat to national security, for instance via association with a foreign power known to be conducting sabotage/hostile interference (ex. Russia, Iran, China)
Welfare fraud
Threatening public workers (including emergency personel, healthcare workers and government officials)
Having darker coloured skin and just existing hurts civilians apparently
As far as I’m aware theres already an enormous issue on that side of things
Not a fan of capriciousness but if criminal issues cant even be dealt with, maybe thats a necessary step in the evolution of a workable larger system.
However, all these things should equally or allocate sufficient joint liabillity to the employers. If you feel the need to infringe on guest’s rights, that discussion is arguably inseperable from and should be understood to be complete or even appropriate without bringingthe sponsor to the table.
They are often the root of any local or global problems in this domain and its a true tradgedy that they shirk accountabillity to their underlings/hires when they are oxygen to the flame
So because the legal system has failed, they have to punish people outside the system?
How exactly is one supposed to stay on the right side of the rules when they aren’t even written down?
Obviously the solution, if the legal system fails, is to improve the legal system, not bring in an official “sorry we know this isn’t illegal but you’re brown so… unlucky” system
On the subject of improving the (legal) system, if it doesnt affect the employers equally or moreso I’ve found, it really doesnt matter what is done or not done. They somehow always escape the discussion
You’re right that crime (“side of things” I think) is a problem. It’s a problem everywhere.
You’re wrong about it being a necessary step. It’s political pantomime at best, it’s racial dog whistling at worst. Adding extra rules won’t solve crime as you pointed out there a potential of being misused.
It takes a large effort from politicians and a native population open to identifying what are the causes of crimes from the immigrant sector. Lastly, it takes money and resources, which no one wants to foot the bill for.
I don’t know what the solution is, but this isn’t it.
At some point, if nobody is cool with footing the bill, it raises an exponentially larger question of why is there a bill in the first place, who made the order underlying it, and why the subscription should continue or ever even existed before these pesky underwriting decisions were supposed to and failed to be made writ large
That needs to be explored. Is it ever ok to dispute that bill and send it back + refuse to continue until the order is made right?