Sweden passes 'good behaviour' law revoking immigrant permits over minor infractions
Story Timeline
8 days · 9 summary articles
On Monday, Sweden’s parliament passed a contentious “good behaviour” law that allows authorities to revoke the residency permits of immigrants who commit minor infractions such as unpaid debts, undeclared work, or alleged links to extremist organisations, a move immediately condemned by civil society groups as an assault on fundamental freedoms.
The legislation, adopted by a majority vote in the Riksdag, makes “good conduct” a formal condition for foreign nationals to maintain their right to remain in Sweden. Authorities will now be empowered to withdraw permits if immigrants breach unspecified behavioural standards, a framework critics argue risks criminalising poverty and dissent.
In parallel, Sweden’s government confirmed that six Swedish public authorities will be legally obliged to report suspected immigration violations to police and the Migration Agency starting this summer, a policy shift critics have labelled an Orwellian expansion of state surveillance.
Across the Baltic, Romania’s Senate has fired a diplomatic salvo, demanding that Stockholm immediately repatriate two Romanian minors, Sara and Tiana Samson, and reopen their case after Swedish authorities banned direct contact between the girls and their biological parents. The upper house in Bucharest approved a resolution on Monday with 94 votes in favour, calling for family reunification and a fresh review of the Swedish decisions.
The twin controversies erupted as France’s parliament formally endorsed the restitution of the remains of six Indigenous Amazonians who were forcibly exhibited in Parisian “human zoos” in 1892. Of 33 people taken from French Guiana, eight died during the ordeal; the lower house in Paris voted on Monday to return the surviving remains to Cayenne, closing a 134-year-old chapter of colonial exploitation.
Human rights organisations across Europe warned that Sweden’s new residency rules risk setting a dangerous precedent, conflating administrative breaches with moral turpitude and eroding the principle of proportionality in migration policy. Critics also highlighted the potential chilling effect on free expression and civic participation, as vague definitions of “extremist links” could encompass legitimate political activism. Swedish authorities have yet to publish detailed enforcement guidelines, leaving lawyers and migrant support groups scrambling to interpret the scope of the new powers.
- 2
- 1
- 1
- 1
2 further sources not geolocated


