The proposal, made by a government inquiry at the end of September, was not included among the 145 government bills scheduled to be published before the summer recess. The government might still include this in the table of bills for autumn 2026, which is typically published in the second week of September. But with an election scheduled for September 13th, it almost certainly won't be able to pass it.
"The reason for this is that the proposal and the points made in consultation responses are still being analysed within the government offices," Victoria Holmqvist, press spokesperson for Migration Minister Johan Forssell, told The Local.
On Wednesday, Moderate Party MP Fredrik Kärrholm repeated the same line in a debate on the proposal in the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper's daily podcast.
"The government has not yet taken a position because this is a complex issue. We are currently reviewing the referral responses," he said. "This is an issue that there has been an inquiry into and we'll see where it ends up. One aspect is that it's going to cost an enormous amount of money. If you're going to reassess the permits of up to 185,000 people, it's going to cost in the billions. That's a relevant issue."
READ ALSO:
- Sweden’s plan to revoke permanent residence permits explained
- Your questions answered on Sweden's plan to revoke permanent residence permits
When The Local interviewed Forssell on January 9th he dismissed the suggestion that proposal, if enacted, would damage faith in the rule of law.
"We know that there are different views on this. We also have also received a public inquiry that has looked into these questions very closely and has come to the conclusion that it seems to be in line with international law and that it can be done," he said. "I am aware of the criticism."
He declined, however, to say whether he would push ahead with the bill, which has been sharply criticised by the courts, courts administration, human rights groups, and even by the Swedish Migration Agency, saying only, "I will get back shortly on this matter."
Comments (1)