6 ms·
Swedish parliament abolishes permanent residence visas for migrants
- euio757 4mo agoEasy to make a snarky comments at Democrats US who always love to say “Follow the Nordic Model” “Follow Scandinavian countries” on almost every topic... Safe to say they wouldn't agree here. But serious question here: What happened in Sweden that lead to this parliament move?
- bwhiting2356 4mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats rightward shift
- ochrist 4mo agoJust guessing it has to do with this: https://nri.today/swedens-crisis-immigration-bloodshed/ https://nri.today/swedens-crisis-immigration-bloodshed/
- sakex 4mo agoToo much immigration too quick, people got fed up from what I gather
- jalapenoj 4mo ago[flagged]
- satvikpendem 4mo agoEurope in general is seeing a reversal in their philosophy towards migrants, especially from the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan and Turkey (MENAPT is the acronym governments use). It's probably the lack of integration into the host cultures and ghettoization of many areas. Japan is doing something similar too to the article.
- dataflow 4mo agoI imagine they don't want to end up where the US is now. Edit: is reality too upsetting for folks? Hopefully nobody was asleep when American candidates ran on immigration policy, their constituents voted based on that, and we ended up with the current politicians and the overall status quo? Or do people not see a causal chain here?
- ForHackernews 4mo agoYou mean the wealthiest country in the world with a thriving, educated, well-integrated Muslim population that earns well above the national average income?
- combyn8tor 4mo agoPeople don't want to live in a mansion when it's on fire.
- flossly 4mo ago[flagged]
- jooize 4mo agoIn the efforts of all political parties to reject the nazi party, they also refused to admit anything the nazi party ever said could have any degree of reality in it.
- flossly 4mo agoFrom what I gather it's more that nazi/fascist/racist/extreme-right is used to shut people/parties up or paint them as impossible. While the left/socialist/labour has alienated their base by not listening to the problem of the commoners who have to live among the immigrants (as they usually settle in the poorer parts of big cities, that where labour strongholds).
- Procrastes 4mo ago> Democrats US who always love to say “Follow the Nordic Model” past performance is not indicative of future results I'm not about to run out and suggest Finnish lunches or buy a tin of Surströmming for breakfast, but it might be nice to have a balanced budget.
- ribs 4mo agoHold on hold on hold on, tell me about Finnish lunches, as from searching they sound pretty innocuous. (Surströmming I know of, no questions there)
- Procrastes 4mo agoSorry, I conflated Finnish lunches and Norwegian matpakke in my head. Nothing wrong with Finnish lunch.
- noncoml 4mo ago> Safe to say they wouldn't agree here Maybe because they do not like to blindly follow the "leader", but instead prefer to judge for themselves? Democrats don't want "bad" immigration as much as you do. No-one wants criminals or people who are unwilling to follow the law. I am not an immigration expert, but blanket rules and blanket statements are seldom giving good results. When the right says ban immigrants they sounds as stupid as when the left says ban billionaires.
- quaverquaver 4mo agomarginal tax rates reached 94% in 1944 on income over 200k in the US. The high marginal tax regime gave rise to a period of relative equality. Nothing stupid about it - if a long right tail is a social ill (it is) then why have it?
- noncoml 4mo agoThat's different than chanting "Ban Billionaires"
- AngryData 4mo agoWho would still be a billionaire at that tax rate?
- jleyank 4mo agoDepends on what’s taxed at 94%. If it’s wages, they’ll just switch to passive 8ncome or stock/loans as they use now. If it’s all income, there’s going to be total change in the us compensation system.
- AngryData 4mo agoIf the average person was told they would have to pay 94% tax on high level income and other people could skirt it to remain billionaires there would be riots and/or changes in how income is defined, so in the end I don't think it would matter. It would have to settle one way or another in short order, although it could get pretty bloody.
- djoldman 4mo agoFollow the Nordic model has never been anything but a fantasy. All the Scandinavian countries put together have slightly more people than the NYC metro area and are extremely homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, religiosity, etc. as compared to the USA. In short, it's never been a good policy testbed for the much much larger and more diverse USA.
- fleroviumna 4mo ago[dead]
- groos 4mo agoThey can ban immigration from the third world all they want but at some point, they'll have to confront the economic reality of a 1.42/couple fertility rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
- satvikpendem 4mo agoThat's every country these days, no one has a solution. Even giving people tens of thousands of dollars doesn't seem to help. It's not necessarily a problem with an economic solution, much as people like to say that it's due to poor work environments etc, because poor people have way more kids than middle class or rich people.
- wat10000 4mo agoI'm sure there's some level of payment that would do it. Tens of thousands sounds like a lot, but it's a bit of a joke for a something that costs 10x more and takes up decades of your life.
- quaverquaver 4mo ago...but there is data that there are issues upstream - there are fewer couples to begin with! That is not economical (economies of scale) suggesting that we are looking at changes in social structure rather than some kind of aggregate economic adaptation.
- nemomarx 4mo agoI've been thinking about what kind of payment it would take, and I think trying to offset the potential career of one of the parents would do it. So maybe median salary for ten years or something for every couple with their first kid?
- pas 4mo agoTens of thousands of dollars? So ... nothing compared to real estate prices? Not to mention how nothing it is compared to the cost of certain child care activities that one might have to pay for if one has a child with any health, neurological, developmental issues. People are rightfully risk averse nowadays. Fuck the species if it just wants to bully its young into breeding.
- advisedwang 4mo agoThe UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Article 34 says: > The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings. Sweden is a signatory and seems to be in non-compliance.
- bonzini 4mo agoMy understanding is that giving permanent residence means not naturalizing, and therefore this is a step towards compliance.
- advisedwang 4mo agoI'm not familiar with the Swedish system, but in the 2 immigration systems I am familiar with, permanent residence is a step you must take before naturalizing.
- bonzini 4mo agoIs one of those in the EU?
- advisedwang 4mo agoNo, although a quick search shows France also operates on this principal. Is there any counterexamples you are thinking of?
- bonzini 4mo agoItaly has a long term residence card that is valid for 10 years, and renewable indefinitely, but the conditions for renew are absolutely not comparable to a green card for example. Just go out of the EU for a year and it's no more. https://www.poliziadistato.it/articolo/ec-residence-permit-for-long-term-residents https://www.poliziadistato.it/articolo/ec-residence-permit-f... This was adopted by Italy in 2007. So while I am not sure about it I suspect it's the same for all EU countries, since immigration papers are mostly governed by EU regulations and directives. What is your source for France having mandatory permanent residency prior to naturalization (unless it's permanent in the sense of renewable indefinitely)? Edit: indeed, this is a bill for adopting rules laid out in the EU directive on immigration and asylum.
- TMWNN 4mo agoContext: Until very recently, Sweden had no language, income, employment, or skills requirement for citizenship, of which permanent residency was a pathway for. It now, as of 2026, has some basic requirements in these areas. * 2025 citizenship requirements: <https://web.archive.org/web/20250315034218/https://www.migrationsverket.se/en/you-want-to-apply/swedish-citizenship/citizenship-for-adults/citizenship-for-adults.html https://web.archive.org/web/20250315034218/https://www.migra...> * 2026: <https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/Becoming-a-Swedish-citizen/Apply-for-citizenship/Citizenship-for-adults.html https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/...> In completely unrelated news, Arabic is now the second most spoken language in Sweden after Swedish. <http://web.archive.org/web/20210511231225/https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=7047637a-c5f5-4297-9afa-a273dd443a9a http://web.archive.org/web/20210511231225/https://digitaledi...>.
- cidd 4mo ago> The Riksdag voted in favour of the Government’s proposal which includes the abolition of permanent residence permits for people in need of protection and people who have been long-term residents in Sweden, as well as their relatives. >The proposal is one component of the efforts to adapt Sweden’s regulatory framework for the granting of international protection and asylum procedures to the minimum guarantees set out in EU law. The purpose of the adaptation is to create better conditions for integration and to reduce social exclusion by reducing asylum-related immigration. Not all route for permanent residence. Only for asylum seekers. Employment or academic based route are still there it seems.
- darth_avocado 4mo agoCorrect. This is decoupling LTR from Permanent residency, not banning permanent residency.
- belorn 4mo agoEmployment and academic status are not permanent, nor are visum based on those without conditions. Permanent residence was more akin to citizenship in that they were permanent and mostly unconditional. The discussion in Sweden around them often came into a discussion around what the difference between citizenships and permanent residence, and if that difference was meaningful. The practical difference between Permanent residence and citizenship was that: Swedish citizenship allows a person to be elected into parliament, employed by the police or work in the military. Swedish citizenship are treated by other countries as Swedish citizens according to international relationships. Swedish citizens that live aboard can vote in Swedish elections That was it. Without permanent residence people need to become citizens to get the same rights as citizenship, as all other form of visums has conditions and limits.
- foogazi 4mo agoThose are significant differences - I didn’t find anything saying Swedish born citizenship can be taken away. While permanent residency can be taken away due to moving away from Sweden or for criminal activity Only Swedish criminals can remain in Sweden - probably good for RoW
- martythemaniak 4mo agoThere's no population or fertility crisis. The world's population isn't going to fall, it'll level off around 2100, nobody old enough to read this will be around, our kids and grandkids can decide for themselves. Local populations will see very different trajectories, yes. Africa will see population growth and many other places will see steep decline. Societies can choose to keep their current system and take in immigrants, or choose to keep their "national character" (or whatever) and rejig their societies so the remaining productive parts pay for increasing numbers of old people. Grifters (Brexiters, MAGA, Le Pen, etc) will attempt to sidestep such obvious tradeoffs, but they will fail, hastening the decline of these societies. So the only crisis we have is people refusing to deal with reality's tradeoffs.
- FridayoLeary 4mo agoHappens to be the grifters are mostly pro fertility, make of that what you want.
- obelos 4mo agoThey're pro-“fertility talking points” at least, but rarely in favor of economic and social policies that encourage child rearing.
- martythemaniak 4mo agoI think so too. What strikes me most about "pro fertility" people, particularly the SV type, is that they don't seem to particularly like kids, as in spending time with them, playing with them, deriving joy from them. They seem very enamoured with the kids-as-cogs-in-the-system, with "legacy" with all sorts of other silliness except for the kids as kids.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo agoYup. Bring up a tax to pay for prenatal, neonatal and pediatric care, for instance, and you’ll separate the folks who care about children from the ones who found a new silly thing to argue about on Twitter.
- FridayoLeary 4mo agoThe asylum system is being massively abused. It's turning people in the UK into single issue voters.
- pembrook 4mo agoAmerican millennials who grew up fetishizing Europe as a progressive/socialist utopia are in for a rude awakening over the next couple of years. People forget Europe is a collection of literal ethno-states. Europe is in a very dire place economically and anti-immigrant anger is reaching a boiling point in many countries (easier to point fingers at brown people than face up to decades of poor policy choices you yourself voted for). At least Sweden is in relatively "better" shape than its peers. Germany, France, the UK, are also all drinking this cocktail but much worse; fiscally insolvent, unwilling to have kids, unwilling to pivot to new economic models, and scapegoating brown people while staring down the barrel of never-ending benefits cuts and tax increases (which will further kill their economy). This is just the tip of the iceberg. While Americans were ritually flogging themselves for being racist during the 2010s, nobody seemed to bother asking the question "Compared to what?" Well, it turns out in the "progressive utopia" of the Nordics, immigrants face some of the highest rates of job discrimination in the developed world, with Sweden being in the worst group [1]. The US on the other hand is all the way on the other end of the spectrum, almost egalitarian in hiring by comparison. [1] https://sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-6/june/SocSci_v6_467to496.pdf https://sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-6/june/SocSci_v...
- Aarchive 4mo agoStudy says > France is the country with the highest level of discrimination, followed by Sweden. By contrast, Germany, Norway, and the United States have lower rates of discrimination. It specifically contrasts Sweden and Norway, you just make it a „Nordic“ thing through confirmation bias. > People forget Europe is a collection of literal ethno-states. Because they aren’t. > The US on the other hand is all the way on the other end of the spectrum, almost egalitarian in hiring by comparison. It says Germany is on the other hand of the spectrum, similar to the US.
- pembrook 4mo agoNorway charts less racist because of the oil wealth. This is my point. Being progressive is easy when you're rich. When the economy stops growing though, we learn that socialism and immigration are like oil and water. This lines up exactly with the heel turn I'm talking about (that study is 7-8 years old, before Europes energy apocalypse). Germany, UK, France, etc are rapidly heading in the opposite direction now due to their de-industrialization. Anti-immigrant parties are all rapidly rising in support there (AfD is now Germany's most popular party for example). Nobody wants to pay for "others" to show up on day 1 and start enjoying the fruits of the communal pie, when that pie is not growing. When the pie is growing buoyed by the richest sovereign wealth fund in the world (Norway), suddenly we get charitable and progressive again.