Sweden's parliament has approved two controversial immigration measures that further tighten the country's migration policy, allowing authorities to revoke residency permits for immigrants deemed to have displayed "bad behaviour" and requiring certain public sector workers to report undocumented migrants to police.
The measures form part of the right-wing government's broader effort to reduce immigration and increase deportations ahead of parliamentary elections scheduled for September.
Under the newly passed "good behaviour" law, authorities can withdraw residency permits from immigrants for conduct that may not constitute a criminal offence. The government has cited examples including unpaid debts, tax violations, undeclared work, criminal activity and links to extremist organisations. The law applies both to pending applications and to permits that have already been granted.
The Migration Agency will review residency permits, while affected individuals will have the right to appeal decisions in migration courts.
"Anyone who doesn't make the effort to do the right thing shouldn't be able to count on staying," Minister of Migration Johan Forssell said when he proposed the bill in March.
The legislation has drawn criticism from opposition parties and rights groups, which argue that it grants authorities broad discretion to penalise behaviour that has not been deemed criminal.
"The good behaviour law leaves people in uncertainty about what actions or expressions can be used against them," Stockholm-based group Civil Rights Defenders said in a statement.
"It undermines the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law."
In a separate vote, lawmakers also approved a law requiring employees of several public agencies, including tax authorities, employment services, social insurance agencies and prison and probation services, to notify police when they suspect someone lacks legal authorisation to live in Sweden.
Teachers, doctors and social workers were exempted from the reporting requirement after strong opposition from professional groups and civil society organisations.
Critics say the reporting obligation could discourage undocumented migrants from seeking assistance from public institutions and create a climate of fear.
"This is the latest measure in a long list of extremely problematic regulations on migration," Jacob Lind, a migration expert from Malmo University, told the AP after the vote. "It has a symbolic meaning because it amounts to snitching by some very important state agencies."
John Stauffer from Swedish nonprofit Civil Rights Defenders said the narrow passage of the law reflected deep divisions within Swedish society.
"The fact that the law passed so narrowly, with 174 votes in favour and 172 against, indicates how much opposition there is in Swedish society," he told the AP.
Rights advocates warned that the new rules could undermine trust in public institutions and have negative consequences for migrants' wellbeing.
"Reporting obligations imposed on public agencies create a climate of fear that harms not only undocumented people but everyone who depends on these institutions," Louise Bonneau from Brussels-based nonprofit PICUM, which supports migrants, told the AP.
Researchers from three Swedish universities also warned in March that the law could conflict with migrants' basic rights and encourage racial profiling. They cited concerns among public servants about the ethical implications of reporting individuals to authorities.
"It creates a huge deterrence effect to be in contact with a healthcare professional," Bonneau said. "We'll see what happens in practice. Will we see people fearing to be in contact with authorities, issues of maternal health, of the children being born?"
The Swedish government has defended the measures, arguing that additional tools are needed to identify and return people who are not legally entitled to remain in the country.
Mandatory reporting of undocumented migrants by public authorities remains relatively uncommon in Europe. Germany introduced similar requirements for some public institutions in 2005, while the United Kingdom scaled back information-sharing arrangements between health services and immigration authorities in 2018 after concerns that migrants were avoiding medical treatment.