A good behaviour requirement? What’s that?
The inquiry proposed reintroducing the good behaviour requirement which existed in Swedish migration law prior to 2005, referred to in Swedish as the vandelskrav.
This means that all references to levnadssätt (way of life) and misskötsamhet (misconduct) in Swedish migration law, the Aliens Act, would be replaced instead with vandel. More specifically, foreigners with bristande vandel, roughly a flawed way of life, would no longer qualify for a permit.
In addition to this, the inquiry proposed an official definition of vandel in legal terms, which is a somewhat vague term to describe good morals or conduct.
The official definition would be “a requirement that a foreigner lives in an honest and responsible manner”, which, it states, means that “the foreigners must comply with applicable statutes and judgements and other decisions of courts and authorities which are enforceable in Sweden”.
How exactly would the new requirement be applied?
The new requirement could be used both when deciding whether a permit should be granted in the first place and whether an existing permit should be revoked or not.
In each case, the bigger picture would be taken into account, with a look at the applicants’ behaviour as a whole rather than rejecting permits for individual actions.
Examples provided by inquiry head Robert Schött in the press conference presenting the inquiry report include the following:
- An unwillingness to pay debts
- Misusing the welfare system
- Non-compliance with rules (not following fundamental Swedish values and ways of doing things)
- Varying threats to security, for example membership or other contact with, among other things, criminal networks or other violent organisations
Schött also listed examples such as a foreigner not being able to explain where their income comes from or “disorderly conduct linked to addiction or substance abuse”.
He added that addiction itself would not be considered bristande vandel, but an immigrant who behaved in a dangerous or grossly anti-social manner and had, for example, refused to accept help and support for their addiction could be seen as having a flawed way of life.
The inquiry report also adds that applicants’ reason for being in Sweden will be weighed against their way of life. This means that people who have a strong grounds for being in Sweden (for example connected to their situation in Sweden and in their home country) would only have their permit rejected for bristande vandel if the arguments against their permit being granted are stronger than the arguments in their favour.
“In our opinion, it should only be possible to reject such an application for vandel-based reasons in exceptional cases, unless they have committed a crime,” the report reads.
Applicants who apply for a permit on weaker grounds could, however, have their permit rejected for something less serious.
Some things would weigh more heavily than others, for example an unwillingness to pay debts would “weigh relatively heavily against” a permit being granted, as would benefit fraud or posing a terror threat.
Disorderly conduct linked to addiction or substance abuse would, on the other hand, only count if the applicant had some other indication of a flawed way of life.
If the applicant has particularly strong connections to Sweden or has children in Sweden, then that would be taken into account and could weigh in their favour.
The inquiry also proposes making it possible to reject or revoke a permit if the holder has made statements that are punishable by law or threaten public order. These could include statements that are already punishable by law, as well as statements which could, along with other information or context, be seen as a threat towards Swedish security.
It would also be possible to revoke permits for other reasons, such as if the permit is based on false information knowingly provided by for example an employer or family member. Currently, permits can be revoked if the applicant has personally provided false information.
The inquiry also proposes scrapping rules that limit the possibility of revoking residence permits based on how long the foreigner has lived in Sweden.
Which permits would be affected by the new proposal?
Permits for family members of a Swede or a permit holder (sometimes referred to unofficially as sambo permits based on the Swedish word for a co-habiting partner) would be included, as would work permits and permanent residence permits.
The new proposal would not include permits for research, higher education, certain internships, volunteer work or au-pair work. It would also not cover certain special permits such as the EU Blue Card, permits for internal movement within a company (ICT permits), or permits for seasonal workers).
It would also not include refugees, who are covered by different rules.
When is this due to come into force?
It’s just a proposal at the moment, although it’s likely that it will be adopted into law as the results of the inquiry are broadly in line with the government and the Sweden Democrats’ aims with the reform.
If the proposal goes through, it has a suggested implementation date of July 1st 2026.
Comments