Every parliamentary party in Sweden apart from the far-right Sweden Democrats is in agreement that something needs to be done. Where they differ is on how quickly a solution is needed and how far-going it needs to be.
Here are the five main suggestions for how to reduce the number of well-integrated 18- to 20-year-olds being deported before they even finish upper secondary school.
How did teen deportations become a problem?
It all goes back to Sweden's 2021 migration law (or Aliens Act).
This made permanent the stricter migration policy that the Social Democrats and Green Party implemented temporarily in 2016 in the wake of the refugee crisis.
But it also brought in an entirely new requirement that applicants for permanent residency must be able to support themselves.
As work permit rules treat children as dependents until the age of 21, but permanent residency rules only until 18, this meant that work permit holders who applied for permanent residency, and whose children turned 18 before they received a decision, suddenly found their children facing deportation.
To be eligible for their own permit under the new 2021 law, these 18-year-olds now needed to be able to show they could support themselves – earning enough to cover their housing needs, plus a so-called “normal payment”. As most were still at high school, few could do this.
Particularly distressing
To stop 18-year-olds getting deported, though, the 2021 law included a safety clause.
This allowed 18-year-olds to stay in Sweden even if they didn't meet the criteria for permanent residency so long as there were "particularly distressing circumstances" (särskilt ömmande omständigheter). In practice, this meant that many 18-year-olds were able to avoid being deported if doing so meant separating them from their families.
Exceptionally distressing
In October 2023, the three government parties, together with the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats, voted to remove this clause, replacing it the much stricter "exceptionally distressing circumstances" (synnerligen ömmande omständigheter) clause.
To most Swedes, synnerligen and särskilt mean pretty much the same thing. But for the Migration Agency or the Migration Courts, there's an enormous difference.
Under the synnerligen ömmande exception, 18-year-olds were only able to stay in cases like having an extremely serious illness, very severe disability, an acute humanitarian crises affecting them personally, or an extremely vulnerable personal situation.
So in 2024 and even more in 2025, highly skilled workers discovered to their horror that once they were granted permanent residency permits, their 18 to 20-year-old children – who had residency as dependents under their work permit – suddenly risked deportation.
What solutions have the various parties proposed?
1. The 'atypical and distressing circumstances' solution
A government inquiry proposed in September that there should be a new safety clause which would allow residence permits to be granted if the young person has "particular ties to Sweden where exceptional grounds exist".
The synnerligen ömmande omständigheter safety clause should, it recommended, be replaced with a more generous "atypical and distressing circumstances" (udda och ömmande omständigheter) clause.
This is the solution that Johan Forssell, Sweden's migration minister, and Sweden's prime minister, both say they want to rely on to solve the problem.
Forssell said in an interview on SVT that he was "anxious" or "keen" to find a solution to the problem, but that it had to happen "in the right way".
What are the issues?
The inquiry only recommends that this provision come into force in January 2027, which is much too late for any of the young people whose cases are now drawing the sympathy of the Swedish media.
In addition, many lawyers argue that the new safety clause, while less restrictive than the current one, would still leave many, even most, of the 18- to 21-year-olds affected facing deportation.
2. The accelerated atypical circumstances solution
Liberal Party leader Simona Mohamsson on Sunday called on her government colleagues to "rapidly get a safety clause in place". The Liberals are currently in government alongside the Moderates and Christian Democrats, with the support of the Sweden Democrats.
It is possible that the government could rush the bill through parliament and make it apply from, say, June 2026 rather than January 2027.
The Social Democrats have also called for the government to propose a working solution under the law as quickly as possible.
What are the issues?
It is hard to see how Sweden's slow-moving legal process can easily be accelerated. June is probably optimistic.
In addition, as mentioned earlier, it's hard to see that the solution proposed by the inquiry would make a significant difference to the number of deportations.
There is, however, nothing to stop the government going further than the inquiry recommended and drafting a more generous text, perhaps even bringing back the "particularly distressing circumstances" clause, and then sending that to parliament.
3. A temporary "freeze" on teen deportations
The Social Democrats' migration spokesperson, Ida Karkiainen, called on Saturday for the government to impose a "temporary freeze" on teen deportations in the months between now and the time when the new safety clause can be implemented.
"We demand an immediate freeze on these deportations until the legal situation is clarified and the government has presented how they intend to resolve this issue," she told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper, in what was interpreted as a change in their previous position.
What are the issues?
In his interview on Sunday, Forssell rejected the call for a freeze saying that the Social Democrats "appear to have forgotten how a government works".
He argued that imposing a freeze would amount to direct ministerial control of government agencies, something that is not allowed in Swedish administrative tradition.
It was, he said, not up to the government to take a decision on these cases, it was up to the Migration Agency and the Migration courts.
Ulf Kristersson, Sweden's Prime Minister, also said he did not want to "bring in a bunch of strange exemptions and stop them immediately," arguing, like Forssell, that the new law should be brought in using standard procedures.
4. Bringing back the 'particularly distressing circumstances' clause
The Green Party and the Left Party have called for the government to reverse the 2023 decision to abolish the 'particularly distressing circumstances' clause in a committee initiative to the Committee on Social Security, which has won the support of the Centre Party.
For this to happen a majority of the 17 MPs on the committee will have to vote on February 19th for a vote to be held in parliament (so far only three support it), and then a majority of MPs in parliament would have to vote in favour of reinstating the clause. This currently looks unlikely as the government parties and the Sweden Democrats have a solid majority.
The Social Democrats have refused to back the proposal, despite pressure from other parties in the opposition, and even if they did, the proposal would still only have the backing of 8 out of 17 MPs at committee level.
What are the issues?
This would be the quickest solution as all it takes to bring back a law that has been annulled is a vote in parliament. It wouldn't solve the problem for all the affected 18-21 year olds, but would take the situation back to where it was in 2023.
There is also a risk that reintroducing the clause might have unexpected effects, allowing a wider range of rejected applicants to stay in Sweden.
5. Change the immigration law so that children of permanent residents can get a permit as a dependent up until the age of 21.
This is the other change the Green Party and the Left Party have proposed. A version of it has also been proposed by Douglas Thor, leader of the Moderate Party's youth wing MUF. Thor even told The Local he thought dependency should end at age 25.
This would bring the dependency age for permanent residency in line with the age for work permits and Long Term Residence under EU law, so it would make Sweden's immigration law more internally consistent.
It would also mean that children of immigrants can graduate from upper secondary school and perhaps even complete a course at university or another form of higher education before having to meet residency requirements as an independent adult.
What are the issues?
Changing the law in this way would require a government inquiry to be appointed, its conclusions sent out to consultation, a bill drawn up and voted through in parliament – a process which is likely to take at least two years.
Proponents of tighter immigration law might also worry that it would open the way for anyone awarded permanent residency to get a permit for all children aged 18-21.
Comments (6)