UPDATE: A few days after we wrote this article, the government announced plans to slow down the award of new citizenships.
There are currently no firm plans by the government to put a moratorium on or otherwise slow down the award of new citizenships, but plans to tighten the rules for would-be citizens are in the works. An inquiry is looking into extending the residency requirement from the standard five to eight years and rolling out language tests. It is not clear when new rules would come into force, but the inquiry is due to present its conclusions in January.
In an interview with Aftonbladet, Christian Democrat leader Ebba Busch argued that the Migration Agency should slow down the issuing of new citizenships to give the tougher rules time to come into force. Far-right leader Jimmie Åkesson went even further, calling for a total moratorium.
We asked you, our readers, for your views.
More than 80 percent said it was a bad idea
At the time of writing, over 230 people had responded to our (non-scientific) survey, with an overwhelming majority – 83.2 percent – saying that they thought it was a “bad idea” to either slow down or pause applications until tougher rules are in place.
Just 8.8 percent of respondents thought it was a good idea, while slightly less, 8 percent, answered “both good and bad/don’t know”.
Of those who thought it was a good idea, many seemed to be stating their approval of plans to tighten up citizenship rules more generally, such as agreeing with the introduction of a language requirement or culture test, rather than specifically being in favour of the proposal to pause or delay the processing of current applications.
There were, however, a couple of respondents who approved of delaying pending applications.
“Sweden should be in full control of who it grants citizenship to,” a dual Canadian-Swedish citizen working with cybersecurity wrote. “Delaying all applications until the process and requirements are ratified is the only way to accomplish this.”
At the end of October 2024, almost 90,000 people were waiting for a response on their citizenship application, and the Parliamentary Ombudsmen – the Swedish watchdog that ensures public authorities follow the law – is currently investigating the agency over its long processing times. According to the Migration Agency, 75 percent of recently closed cases received a decision within 31 months.
“It’s a big deal getting citizenship,” a Swedish purchasing manager living in Sundsvall wrote. “An extra wait shouldn’t be a dealbreaker for those planning on staying in Sweden for the long haul. If you’ve waited for 30 months, I assume most are already used to the wait.”
Some respondents who were against delaying applications worried that this decision would further increase the backlog of cases which the Migration Agency is trying to work its way through.
“Firstly, it will create a backlog of two years, and the Migration Agency is already slow,” wrote 28-year old Daria, a Russian accountant living in Stockholm, who is currently waiting for citizenship as the partner of a Swedish citizen.
“Secondly, it generally seems like bureaucracy. The new rules are coming, why are they trying to introduce more new rules that have to happen before the other new rules? Seems more of a ‘vote me’ campaign than a real deal, or at least so I hope.”
She also raised a question about whether the new law would apply retroactively to people who have already applied.
“The applications ought to be treated by the rules that exist at the moment of applying, because how am I supposed to know what idea the government can have in the two-year waiting time?”
‘Makes it difficult to fully settle’
An R&D worker living in Stockholm with his wife expressed his frustration at the current situation, writing that it “makes it difficult to feel secure and fully settle” here.
“Some of us have been waiting for over two years to receive a decision on our citizenship applications, with no clear explanation for the delays. The only reference provided is the generic waiting time calculator, which fails to clarify why some applicants receive their citizenship earlier, while others wait for over 30 months or longer without any updates,” he wrote.
“There are also cases where individuals, after working in Sweden for five or even six years to ensure they fully meet the eligibility criteria, still face significant delays in their applications. The key issue here is the sense of uncertainty. Many of us come to Sweden to work, pay taxes, and build our lives—investing in homes, raising families, and contributing to society. However, the lack of transparency and clarity around obtaining Swedish citizenship makes it difficult to feel secure and fully settle in the country.”
He wasn’t necessarily against plans to introduce a language requirement, but he argued that it should be more transparent to immigrants on the path to citizenship that they will be expected to learn the language before they can qualify.
“For instance, international Master's students, who pay substantial fees of up to 375,000 SEK for a two-year program, could be introduced to basic Swedish language courses as part of their curriculum. Similarly, for individuals on temporary residence permits, a foundational Swedish language requirement could be introduced during their first term. This would set clear expectations for both Master's students and temporary residents, ensuring they are aware that language skills are essential for integration and long-term settlement in Sweden,” he added.
Vincent, a Nigerian IT project manager based in Limhamn in the south of Sweden, argued that delaying or pausing applications would not only “contradict Sweden’s longstanding commitment to human rights and democratic values”, but would also increase feelings of exclusion already faced by immigrants in the country.
“Eligible and upstanding residents who have already met the current requirements should not face unnecessary delays, as this could harm their sense of belonging, security, and future prospects. Such actions would also impact their families and the broader society by creating feelings of exclusion and demotivation, ultimately undermining their ability to contribute positively to Sweden as productive and engaged members of the community,” he wrote.
‘Unfair’
The words “unfair” or “not fair” also came up often, appearing in more than 13 percent of responses, many of which said that the rules should not be changed for people who have already applied.
“It would be like taking away rights from residents because the government needs time to formulate new rules,” Deepankar Das, an architect in Stockholm, wrote.
“The expectation that the life of an immigrant living here for a long time should be on hold because the government is building a new finish line is not only unfair, but in our face dehumanizing,” an Indian software engineer in Gothenburg wrote.
“They know that the way they have treated the immigrants has been extreme so the longer they can hold them from becoming voters, the better, they assume, which is semi-rational since the locals don't care how hyperbolic the rules for the immigrants become.”
“This idea is a ‘solution’ to a ‘problem’ that can only be described as xenophobia,” wrote Hector, a Mexican lead software engineer in Stockholm. “It should not even be entertained seriously in conversation, let alone as a public policy position.”
Less attractive to international talent
Many respondents also highlighted the fact that changing rules on citizenship and residence permit requirements could damage Sweden’s attractiveness as a destination for foreign talent, with two respondents specifically mentioning Germany as having more attractive pathways to residency or citizenship for foreign workers.
“Skilled workers and companies value predictability in immigration and residency policies,” a 33-year-old Russian software developer wrote.
“If Sweden appears unstable or unfair in its policies, it could discourage future talent from choosing the country. But also people who moved to Sweden under the promise of existing rules will feel betrayed if the system suddenly changes without proper transition measures. Citizenship provides security and rights that many immigrants rely on, such as access to voting, social benefits, and freedom from deportation. Delaying this security could lead to unnecessary stress and instability for individuals and families.”
“People have uprooted their lives, in some cases irrevocably, with the understanding of what is required to obtain Swedish citizenship,” added a student based in Vänersborg. “This proposal increases uncertainty and will make Sweden less attractive to international talent.”
‘Causes stress to hardworking citizens’
A software developer in Karlskrona added that people who have decided to move here and invest time and energy to try and get citizenship may have made a different decision if they’d have known the law would change in the future.
“Whoever decided to become Swedish citizen, or already became Swedish citizen, they might have chosen other countries if the law was there in the first place. They have given their time, effort, money and they left their families and relatives, they did everything possible just to stay in Sweden. So, it should be applicable only to the new applicants so that newer people can decide if they want to come to Sweden or go somewhere else.”
A number of respondents mentioned the fact that pausing or delaying citizenship would cause stress or health issues for people waiting to hear back on their applications.
“The majority of us here are contributing back to Sweden, paying taxes,” wrote a Mexican woman who has applied for citizenship after living in Sweden for over seven years.
“It’s very unfair to get all the responsibilities but nothing in return. The uncertainty of when or not you can get kicked out of the country on a whim has terrible health effects.”
Andrew, a British Swede based in Stockholm, echoed her sentiments.
“I know people whose citizenship applications are very straightforward, who already have permanent residency and they have been waiting 31 months for Migrationsverket to process their applications,” he said. “So, if they go ahead with the moratorium, this would mean further delays. This causes huge amounts of stress to hardworking citizens and seems grossly unfair and pointless.”
‘Tired of jumping through hoops’
One respondent, a British writer in Hudiksvall, said she found the constantly changing rules draining.
“I'm tired of feeling like there are so many hoops to jump through,” she wrote. “Even if Busch and Åkesson's proposals aren't currently being discussed by the government, it feels like they test the waters of what is acceptable to Swedish society, and fuel the already hostile attitude towards immigrants and immigration.”
“I want people to see this for what it is: an attempt to restrict democratic process, to reduce the number of citizenships granted, and to stoke right-wing sentiment in the wider population to keep the ailing coalition in power come next election.”
Patrick Gallen, an American living in Sweden who works full time in Denmark for a think-tank in Copenhagen, agreed with the writer in Hudiksvall that Busch and Åkesson’s proposals are partly aimed at stoking anti-immigrant sentiment.
“If they want to address issues like crime, which they have unfairly tied to immigration, tightening citizenship laws is not the way forward. Focus on integration requirements earlier on in people’s residency periods in Sweden would have a much greater effect. Especially the extension of the residency requirement is the most idiotic thing I’ve seen in Swedish politics in years. If an applicant can speak Swedish relatively or fully fluently and can demonstrate knowledge of and integration into the culture either through work history or engagement in social activities or otherwise, what will extending the residency requirement by three years do?”
“This is a band-aid solution that the right will use to score points with their base by demonstrating that they took political action on immigration but the move will have little to no impact while ignoring other, more impactful approaches that they won’t take because they aren’t as politically expedient.”
He added that pausing or delaying applications is not only a “horrible idea” but also shows that Sweden has learnt nothing from mistakes made elsewhere.
“Look no further than the disaster and patent denial of rights that is the citizenship acquisition process in Denmark, which similarly tightened its rules to be among the toughest in Europe in a similar right-wing populist-supported coalition government in the mid-2010s,” he said.
“Every effort to tighten these rules is just symbolic politics that will have virtually no effect other than to make upstanding people’s lives more difficult.”
Comments (6)