Our non-scientific survey on readers’ reactions to the government’s plans to tighten up citizenship rules had over 230 responses.
Of those, 20 percent were from people with Swedish citizenship, while 80 percent of respondents were not Swedish citizens.
An overwhelming majority, 78 percent, were in favour of the government increasing the requirement for potential citizens to show they’ve had an upstanding way of life. Only 10 percent of respondents were against the proposal, with 12 percent undecided.
CITIZENSHIP REFORM:
What is the proposed good behaviour requirement?
There is currently a requirement that citizenship applicants have “lived an orderly life”, or ett skötsamt liv in Swedish.
This means that you don’t have any outstanding debts with the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden), you haven’t committed any crimes or are suspected of committing any crimes, and that you pass a security check carried out by Sweden’s security police Säpo.
You can also have your application rejected if you have outstanding unpaid taxes, fines or other fees, or if you haven’t paid maintenance payments for a child. Student debts would usually not be taken into account, although missed overdue payments or fees which have been sent to debt collection could be.
If you previously had unpaid debts which you have paid off, you will need to wait for some time (around two years, according to the Migration Agency) before applying for citizenship, in order to prove that you can remain debt-free.
If you’ve committed a crime, you will also have to wait until you can qualify for citizenship again, with the waiting period varying depending on the sentence you received. This could be as low as one year if you received a fine 30 times your daily income, or as high as ten years if you received a six year prison sentence.
Under the new rules, applicants’ behaviour both within and outside Sweden would be taken into account, so your application could be denied if you committed a crime outside of Sweden and have not waited for long enough since serving your sentence or paying your fine.
The amount of time you would have to wait between serving your sentence and applying for citizenship would also be extended.
‘Leads to a better society in the long run’
Respondents were broadly in favour of stricter rules for people with a criminal record, although many were concerned about how the rules may be implemented in practice.
“It leads to a better society in the long run,” wrote Kourosh, a software engineer from Iran. “It removes criminals and not-so-constructive candidates from the process.”
“Sweden has enough criminals,” wrote a retired Canadian in his 60s. “Running from debt in other countries is only going to cost Sweden.”
‘Don’t slam the door shut for people who have made mistakes’
One of those with concerns was Mike Harris, a software developer based in Stockholm.
“The door should not be slammed shut for people who have made mistakes,” he wrote, “But it is important to consider past behaviour.”
Many respondents were broadly in favour of the requirements regarding crimes, while having concerns about the debt requirement.
“Imposing restrictions regarding debts seems poorly thought out,” wrote one undecided respondent who wished to remain anonymous. “People may have had poor outcomes with predatory landlords, or fallen on hard times. Hindering their ability to stay in Sweden would likely decrease the likelihood that those debts are paid.”
Aurora in Stockholm was also in favour of the new proposal, writing that stricter requirements in general could "reduce the risk of abuse and ensure that only those genuinely committed to contributing to society are granted this privilege".
"Addressing fraud and misuse not only protects public resources but also upholds fairness for individuals who genuinely need support and work hard to meet the requirements. These measures reinforce the value of Swedish citizenship and foster greater public trust in the system," she added.
‘Lots of native Swedes aren’t debt-free’
“A lot of native Swedish citizens would not qualify for their own citizenship if they were required to be debt-free at the time of evaluation,” wrote a software engineer in her mid-20s from Gothenburg.
Sophie, a teacher, was in favour of the new requirements, writing that it “gives an incentive to live a good, productive life”.
Marco, a 40-year-old living in Stockholm, was concerned about the way the requirements have been formulated.
“The well-behaved clause is a cause for concern because of its vagueness,” he said. “It opens the door to the country holding citizenship ransom if the applicant has opposing views and random tyranny. Are applicants arrested in demonstrations for climate change or other causes well-behaved?”
Ash, based in Stockholm, worried about the potential implementation of the law.
“I feel this will be badly enforced to uphold discrimination and stigma,” they said.
‘Criminals will find a way’
Another respondent, also working in Stockholm with software engineering, wrote that “criminals will find a way”.
“Well, if they want good citizens, this is the way to go. But let's be honest, criminals are now laughing at us. Like visas, if you're a criminal, you'll find a way. If you behave well, you'll wait,” he wrote.
“It’s not a bad idea,” wrote a construction engineer working as a consultant in Stockholm. “But over-regulating and having a lot of specific controls lead to a waste of time and long queues.”
“Maybe they can filter out those who might have a longer processing time and ask for a higher application fee to be paid specifically for a team to work on those applications?” he asked.
‘Vague suggestions’
Kadir in Gothenburg wrote that it is “OK to not grant citizenship to criminals”.
“The problem is that it is not well-defined what is expected.”
Another respondent, Anthony White, echoed Kadir’s statements.
“Prospective applicants should contribute to building a better society rather than pose a danger to it,” he said. “However, this requirement needs better clarity and clear definition of such a requirement rather than the vague suggestions mentioned in the proposal,” he wrote.
“Serious offences such as treason, arson, violent crimes, large scale corruption or tax evasions etc, could be some examples, but small mistakes in tax records, unknowingly misplacing and/or misrepresenting some documents or other minor information cannot be considered as a reason for anyone to delay the waiting period.”
A PhD student in her late 20s in Skåne who thought the new rules were a bad idea was also concerned that they were too vague.
“I think this decision needs to be very specific on types of crimes,” she said.
“This is once again about targeting gang crime, which cannot be targeted with these kinds of measures. Sweden needs to focus on long term integration policies which offer better avenues for young non-citizens to be a part of Swedish society. When people living in our countries commit crime, as a matter of principle, we should deal with those problems, instead of shipping them off for someone else to deal with or denying them basic human rights such as citizenship.”
‘Could be misused against activists’
An IT worker in Stockholm was concerned that the new rules, which take crimes committed abroad into account, are “a way to reject citizenship for citizens of dictatorships, such as Iran and Russia.”
“These countries have controlled courts and can sentence political activists and ordinary people for things they have not actually done, such as tax evasion or petty theft, as well as for failing to comply with laws that don’t exist in Sweden, such as the Russian ‘foreign agent’ law,” he wrote.
“It could be misused against any activists, be it climate or other activists,” wrote another respondent who described himself as a computer security expert in a Swedish government agency.
How did respondents feel about some of the other planned reforms?
An overwhelming majority of respondents – 77 percent – thought that extending the residency requirement for citizenship from five to eight years was a bad idea, while just 19 percent said it was a good idea. The remaining 4 percent were undecided.
Despite the similarity of these numbers to the figures on Swedish citizenship above, 19 of the 43 respondents who said extending the residency requirement was a good idea were Swedish citizens, while 24 were not.
Opinions were also divided on the government’s decision to almost double the application fee for citizenship, raising it from 1,500 kronor to 2,900. Just over a quarter of respondents (26 percent) said it was a bad idea, 32 percent said it was a good idea, while the largest number, 42 percent, were undecided.
The majority of respondents – 61 percent – thought that a self-sufficiency requirement for citizenship applications was a good idea. Just over a fifth, or 21 percent were undecided, while 18 percent thought it was a bad idea.
MORE ARTICLES FROM THE SAME SURVEY:
- How do foreigners feel about extending Sweden's citizenship wait to eight years?
- Readers largely in favour of self-sufficiency requirement for Swedish citizenship
- How do readers feel about Sweden's plans to almost double the citizenship fee?
Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond to our survey. We received hundreds of replies and couldn't include everyone's comments, but we tried to pick a representative sample. We read all comments and they will help inform our future coverage.
Comments (1)