- 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.
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