- 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.
You must log in or register to comment.
bad behaviour, such as having unpaid debts, doing undeclared work or links to extremist organisations.
Is such a bad summary, and all of the people prasing this law in this comment section as well, fail to mention a very important other “bad behaviour” which is suppose to be included in this law: Being a fucking VICTIM of a crime. They have been saying this since day one. Victims of crimes needs to be deported.
Their resoning is that someone being victim of a crime is probably living in a social situation which the far-right government deem inappropriate. Like “undeclared work”; is your boss not paying their taxes for your work? You need to go.
This law is there because it is the first step in creating an apartheid. If you have a single parent born in a foreign country – the far right is even talking about their worry about “third generation” immigrants – they should not be considered Swedish. Punishments for them they say must be different, you must always be threatened with deportation. You should not have access to public services and so on.
This law is a fucking god-send for neo-nazis. Can you imagine? Immigrants who are victims of crime gets deported. Assault them, rape them, and they will be deported if they say anything. But the neo-nazi can go home and have dinner with their family. This is probably what the current government wants as one minister has an active club neo-nazi son! He is not being deported because he is in an extremist organization! Oh, wait, sorry it is just “kids with an interest in fitness”, as several government party reps have been saying about actual neo-nazis.
This has been a long time coming. Having the worlds’ most generous welfare systems and most lenient law enforcement systems was fundamentally incompatible with the open-door policy of the 2010’s.
I just hope it’ll be enough to salvage our nordic model for those who do want to integrate & participate.
This comment had me at the first half then became a xenophobic shit post 👀
Look at the dudes name, he’s either a troll or brainwashed but either way a piece of shit
I looked at the dude’s post history and it pretty evident that he’s neither
Y’all some reactionary biatches up in on here
I’m not seeing it
How exactly is it xenophobic to prioritize immigrants who want to build a life participating in the native society over those who don’t?
They really love using immigrants as a scapegoat don’t they?
Oops it looks like you are still using American politics templates. Please contact your IT department to gain access to European and Nordic talking points, memes, and other approved materials.
It’s basically just a law to allow companies hiring cheap immigrant labour to threaten them with deportation if they get any ideas about fair compensation.
Let’s not forget that it was a right wing government who opened the gates for unregulated immigration by essentially scrapping all rules regarding it and telling us to “open our hearts”.
This is a neo-liberal government supported by neo-nazis.
they were also the ones that passed the law which made cheap immigrant labour impossible by requiring a salary above the median for a work visa, disqualifying nurses, taxi drivers, carpenters, store clerks and so on.
When I’m lord of all earth im creating an “arsehole law”. To punish people who say things that aren’t really illegal but are definitely ‘arsey’.
For example - “hey immigrant, go back to your own country!”, “trans women are MEN!!” and the classic “I’m not a racist, right, but see them effing [insert plural of racial slur]”.
They always project plans onto others before enacting. So, social credit scores.
deleted by creator
Clearly respect for democracy and protection of minorities should be respected by immigrants, and immigrants coming from different cultures that do not have this respect as part of their culture is a democratic problem for more developed cultures.
Then make it a requirement of entry. Or - and I can’t stress this enough - shut the fuck up about it.
“Oh we let you in and you haven’t done anything wrong legally but we just realised we don’t like you so please leave.”
Grow the fuck up. Change the rules fairly or deal with the consequences of your actions.
Not you personally, obviously. This argument is just pathetic.
Like if you don’t want asylum seekers or immigrants, just say so. Pull out of the conventions. Change the laws. Do whatever. But don’t accept people in and then act like they’re the problem rather than your own short sightedness (and, often, straight out racism).
Fair but Necessary
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.
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.
The law does not specify what types of behaviours are deemed unacceptable but the government has mentioned unpaid debts, not paying taxes, criminality and links to extremist organisations.
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?
How is it fair when someone shitty is allowed entry who ends up hurting civilians but civilians are expected to suck it up
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?
