Sweden’s parliament passed a law on Monday allowing authorities to revoke immigrants’ residency permits based on bad behaviour, such as having unpaid debts, doing undeclared work or links to extremist organisations.
The law, which covers pending permits but also retroactively already granted permits, is part of a wider tightening of immigration rules by the right-wing government and its support party, the nationalist Sweden Democrats, ahead of a parliamentary election in September.
The law has been criticised by the opposition and human rights advocacy groups as arbitrary because decisions would be taken on behaviour that has not been deemed criminal.
Can I ask you a genuinely heartfelt and good-faith question?
How is it fair when someone shitty is allowed entry who ends up hurting civilians but civilians are expected to suck it up
How do you actually fix that without acting prophalactically, even its seen to be unfair or prematuew?
Civilians are expected to suck it up? Why? This would only be true if it’s not illegal. If it truly hurts civilians, why not make it illegal instead?
It is fair because if a Swedish citizen did something that “hurts civilians” but is not illegal, the victims would also be “expected to suck it up.”
Making some things only punishable if you aren’t Swedish is exactly what you would expect from the fascists in SD. Not really something to aspire to if you’re a sane, caring individual. It is the definition of unfair.
Can you give me an example of someone hurting civilians without breaking the law?
Having darker coloured skin and just existing hurts civilians apparently
If that’s not a thing, then this law just does absolutely nothing!
But of course it is. I mean I feel pretty annoyed and it is also a health impact if someone is smoking next to me at a traffic light. So it hurts me, but is not illegal (I think it should be but that’s besides the point). Someones place of birth should have no impact on the consequences of such behaviour.
Removed by mod