EXPLAINED: How 'good behaviour' law will impact immigrants in Sweden and why it is so controversial

Sweden's parliament enacted a law on Monday (June 15) after voting to pass the so-called “good behaviour” law, allowing the government to crack down on immigrants' residency permits based on bad behaviour, ​which includes unpaid debts, criminality, ‌links to extremist organisations or doing undeclared work. The new law will also be applied retroactively to many of the current residents of the country.

The law applies not only to new residence permit applications but also retroactively already been approved. It is part of a broader effort of immigration ​rules by the right-wing government and its ally, ​the nationalist Sweden Democrats, to tighten the rules ahead of the parliamentary elections scheduled for September.

While proposing the bill in March this year, Sweden’s minister of migration, Johan Forssell, said, “Anyone ‌who doesn’t make the effort to do the right thing shouldn’t be able to count on staying."

How will the 'good behaviour' law impact immigrants?

The legislation has sharply drawn criticism from opposition politicians and human rights organisations, which argue that its standards are vague and subjective. Recently, Amnesty International warned that the measure could result in residence permits being denied or revoked based on conduct that is neither illegal nor punishable for Swedish citizens.

The Stockholm-based advocacy group Civil Rights Defenders also condemned the law, saying it weakens the rule of law. In a statement, the organisation said the "good behaviour" requirement leaves individuals uncertain about which actions or statements could potentially be used against them. Meanwhile, Sweden's parliament narrowly approved another controversial measure, often referred to as the "snitch law", which will oblige many public-sector employees to report people they suspect of living in the country without legal documentation.

The legislation was passed by a slim margin of 174 votes to 172, despite warnings from critics that it could harm migrants' physical and mental well-being and increase the likelihood of racial profiling. Jacob Lind, a postdoctoral researcher specialising in international migration at Malmö University, described the policy as harsh and ineffective, arguing that it encourages a culture of informing on others commonly associated with authoritarian regimes. Lind further warned that the law could have serious consequences for undocumented migrants, pushing them further to the fringes of society by limiting their access to basic rights and services.

Following widespread criticism, teachers, doctors and social workers have been given exemption from reporting obligations. However, employees of tax officials and employment and social insurance agencies are among those who would have to inform cops when they have reasons to believe that they have been in communication with people possessing no residency papers.

Louise Bonneau of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants labelled the new law as a “serious setback for human rights” in the country. Her opinion is also backed by Swedish researchers who warned that the law would turn public employees into border police.

They have pointed to scenarios such as a mother giving birth with the assistance of a midwife. While the midwife would not be required to report the family, the child's birth would still need to be registered with tax authorities, who could then notify the police about the family's immigration status. The Swedish government has defended the measures, saying they are necessary to ensure that individuals without legal permission to remain in the country can be returned to their countries of origin.

Similar reporting requirements are rare across Europe. Finland has been debating whether to broaden such obligations, while Germany has spent years grappling with comparable reporting rules within its social welfare system. The debate has also drawn comparisons with the United Kingdom's "hostile environment" policy introduced by former Prime Minister Theresa May in 2012. The policy aimed to restrict access to employment, welfare benefits, bank accounts, driving licences and other essential services for people unable to prove their legal right to reside in Britain.

However, it later emerged that many lawful residents struggled to provide the necessary documentation, while the Home Office frequently misidentified legal residents as immigration offenders. Similarly, in 2018, the UK's National Audit Office concluded that the hostile environment policies failed to deliver value for taxpayers and had significant shortcomings in implementation.

How are immigrants affecting native of Spain?

Spain passed the 'good behaviour' law as it has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe and a shrinking native-born workforce. Since 2019, around 40 per cent of all new jobs in the country have been occupied by immigrants, according to government statistics.

A recent study revealed that the amnesty programme allowed immigrants to move from low-paid, informal work in sectors such as domestic services and construction into higher-paying jobs within the formal economy. The move also increased annual tax revenues by roughly 4,000 euros per regularised immigrant each year.

Research by More in Common found that public support for immigration tends to decline when people feel their country's borders are not adequately controlled. Meanwhile, a recent report from the Cato Institute estimated that non-citizen immigrants, including many living in the United States without legal authorisation, generated a fiscal surplus of $14.5 trillion between 1994 and 2023 by contributing significantly more in taxes than they received in public benefits.

Although concerns persist that large numbers of immigrants could depress wages for native-born workers, studies suggest otherwise. Researchers argue that immigrants not only fill labour shortages but also stimulate economic activity by purchasing goods and services, which in turn supports job creation. Experts also note that public attitudes toward immigration are often influenced by the manner in which undocumented migrants enter a country.