Swedish parliament abolishes permanent residence visas for migrants
Posted by CGMthrowaway 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by cidd 1 day ago
>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.
Comment by belorn 1 day ago
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.
Comment by foogazi 1 day ago
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
Comment by belorn 1 day ago
Permanent Residency were not removed if you moved away. It was also not removed if a person did criminal activity. There was a bit weird middle ground where people retained their permanent residency status, but was expelled from the country due to serious crime.
Comment by darth_avocado 1 day ago
Comment by euio757 1 day ago
But serious question here: What happened in Sweden that lead to this parliament move?
Comment by satvikpendem 1 day ago
Comment by ochrist 1 day ago
Comment by djoldman 1 day ago
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.
Comment by Procrastes 1 day ago
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.
Comment by ribs 1 day ago
Comment by sakex 1 day ago
Comment by jalapenoj 1 day ago
Comment by bwhiting2356 1 day ago
Comment by noncoml 1 day ago
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.
Comment by quaverquaver 1 day ago
Comment by csa 1 day ago
Tell me you’re young without saying you’re young.
Those headline rates were not the rates actually paid.
The quantity and scope of tax write offs at that time were substantial and often generous. The tax reform act of 1986 lowered the headline rates and substantially reduced the scope of deductions.
As such, referring to that “high taxation” era as some sort of halcyon days due to the tax rates is quite misguided.
If you ever want to hear a tax accountant get excited, talk to one who was practicing in the 80s. The stories you will hear…
Comment by noncoml 1 day ago
Comment by AngryData 1 day ago
Comment by jleyank 1 day ago
Comment by AngryData 1 day ago
Comment by jleyank 1 day ago
There were riots in the 60’s but money wasn’t anywhere near the top of the cause list.
Comment by noncoml 1 day ago
The social equality shouldn't be based on how much poorer we are in comparison to Musk, but can the poorest of us afford food, shelter, education and healthcare?
Can they afford it by having a decent work/life balance?
Our economic system creates billionaires as a side effect, but is there any other out there that is better and doesn't create billionaires?
At the end of the day, is our average citizen today better off than when they were in 1944?
If you want people to listen that are the questions you should ask and how you should market "socialism". Not "eat the rich" bullshit.
Comment by AngryData 22 hours ago
And people right now are hungry, living on the streets, not getting educated, and not receiving healthcare because of simple poverty. I don't know what world you live in where such things have been eliminated.
Many people do not have the option for a decent work/life balance right now.
Co-op businesses don't create billionaires and benefit all the workers rather than just a handful.
And pointing to improvements in technology over time does not make today automatically better. Technology wouldn't stop improving if billionaires didn't exist. In fact I can't think of a single invention that wouldn't exist without them.
How many people are dead and governments overthrown because some rich assholes wanted more and couldn't stand the idea of locals getting a few more cents in wages? I know someone with just a few million dollars to retire on after decades of work couldn't manage to get such operations pulled off.
Comment by jleyank 1 day ago
Comment by flossly 1 day ago
Comment by jooize 1 day ago
Comment by flossly 1 day ago
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).
Comment by dataflow 1 day ago
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?
Comment by ForHackernews 1 day ago
Comment by combyn8tor 1 day ago
Comment by TMWNN 1 day ago
* 2025 citizenship requirements: <https://web.archive.org/web/20250315034218/https://www.migra...>
* 2026: <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://digitaledi...>.
Comment by FridayoLeary 1 day ago
Comment by pembrook 1 day ago
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_v...
Comment by Aarchive 1 day ago
> 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.
Comment by pembrook 1 day ago
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.
Comment by huggert6 1 day ago
Comment by pembrook 1 day ago
Meanwhile in reality they're more racist than a backwoods redneck from Mississippi.
I wouldn't care so much if they didn't do all this constant smug posturing at conferences around the world as if their society is somehow morally superior.
If when a fawning 26 year old NY Times journalist interviews Swedish people they were to say; "Yea, I mean it only works because we're a tiny homogenous population, we're extremely racist and the only reason we willingly accept more social redistribution is due to this tiny homogeneity"...I'd have less vitriol.
Comment by martythemaniak 1 day ago
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.
Comment by bryanlarsen 1 day ago
Comment by FridayoLeary 1 day ago
Comment by obelos 1 day ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
Comment by martythemaniak 1 day ago
Comment by cindyllm 1 day ago
Comment by huggert6 1 day ago
Comment by TrnsltLife 1 day ago
Comment by huggert6 1 day ago
Comment by khazhoux 1 day ago
Comment by fleroviumna 1 day ago
Comment by advisedwang 1 day ago
> 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.
Comment by torben-friis 1 day ago
And it's not like they are in a border with an active war zone.
Comment by advisedwang 1 day ago
Comment by torben-friis 1 day ago
Comment by zulux 1 day ago
Comment by advisedwang 1 day ago
Sweden is just not supposed to keep people in a permanent temporary state.
(Also, many asylum seekers just get on a plane, and for them Sweden may well be their first stop)
Comment by bonzini 1 day ago
Comment by advisedwang 1 day ago
Comment by belorn 1 day ago
Comment by advisedwang 20 hours ago
2. (USA) Vote, make political contributions and run for (most) political office. (UK) run for MP
3. (USA) Sponsor family members for permanent residency (UK) get a family visa for your family.
4. (USA) Speed your spouse' eligibility for naturalization from 5 to 3 years.
5. Gain the benefits of travelling on a US/UK passport.
6. Work in national security jobs which require citizenship.
7. Not be at the whims of future changes in immigration law.
Comment by bonzini 1 day ago
Comment by advisedwang 1 day ago
Comment by bonzini 1 day ago
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.
Comment by IlikeMadison 1 day ago
Comment by advisedwang 1 day ago
Comment by LargoLasskhyfv 1 day ago
Comment by groos 1 day ago
Comment by satvikpendem 1 day ago
Comment by tcmart14 1 day ago
However, it's not just money alone that is the problem. Money helps a lot, but like any complicated problem, it's got multiple front. Money for one, but another is just child care in general. This is based on my experience and other parents I interact with, but child care is fucked up. Not just costs. When I was growing up, my grand parents were very involved. They would watch my sister and I in the evenings sometimes or take us for a weekend or we would go to their house to swim in the summer. For some period, my grandparents had us in the summer while mom and dad were working. There is a phrase of, "it takes a village to raise a kid." And that village was close family and friends. Grand parents would pick us up from after school events. Aunt and uncle would watch us with their kids and my parent would watch theirs, vice-versa. It was grand parents, neighbors, aunts and uncles. Now looking at me raising my kids and my friends doing the same, it all on just the two of us (myself and spouse). Grand parents don't want shit to do with their grand kids unless it's Christmas diner. And that is a pretty common thread amongst every other parent I interact with. And day care doesn't exactly solve that. Day care solves the regularly scheduled care Monday through Friday during business hours. Not even forgetting that some places, where I live, its a 9 month wait list to get into any daycare. And then full-time care pretty much consuming and entire parent's paycheck. It doesn't solve the, dad's car broke down, Mom needs to go pick him up and help out, but can't exactly pack the kids up. When that happened to my mom and dad, mom dropped me and my sister off with my grand parents.
Comment by tehlike 1 day ago
Comment by pas 1 day ago
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.
Comment by luqtas 1 day ago
i don't think birth rate is just because of money. never in history people had access or liberation on going childless like now [0]
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/reasons...
Comment by s_dev 1 day ago
Remove commuting by encouraging remote work, incentivise dumb phone use or penalise smart phone use, create affordable property prices and secure future pensions, incentivise no televisions and create an environment where men and women can co-mingle naturally. You're right tens of thousands isn't going to cut it.
Basically apartment complexes with plenty of facilities like cafes, libraries, parks, restaurants and sports facilities and micro mobility solutions for transport surrounded by nature. Effectively reversing some of the trends we've established over the past few decades.
The reason this isn't done is because it wouldn't grow the economy, it would shrink the economy. You're effectively telling people to work less, have more leisure time and spend less.
Comment by Fire-Dragon-DoL 1 day ago
You need more than one bedroom to have a child, that increases the price of a home in Vancouver by 200k. What should I do with tens if thousands?
Comment by nemomarx 1 day ago
So maybe median salary for ten years or something for every couple with their first kid?
Comment by trhway 1 day ago
The same way like production of any products - if it is significantly cheaper to manufacture it say in China, it will be manufactured in China and imported, no matter what tariffs are, while domestic production will go down with overall increase of the efficiency of our civilization as a result.
Comment by satvikpendem 1 day ago
Comment by trhway 1 day ago
The same like with any imports. Market responds to demand. China has 50M university students, US - 20M. That means that upon achieving US percentage (in probably 5-10 years) China can be having 80M students - sufficient enough to have some of that satisfy US demand for college graduates.
> People in those countries also are below replacement like India which is unprecedented.
Quick google shows that population growth in India is considered a problem, and so they actively trying to decrease birth rate.
>This is nothing to say of the social backlash mass immigration seems to be having across many countries.
Any technological (and mass migration is a result of technological progress) shifts and its consequences cause social stress. Successful societies adapt.
Comment by wat10000 1 day ago
Comment by quaverquaver 1 day ago
Comment by radicaldreamer 1 day ago
Comment by groos 1 day ago
Comment by satvikpendem 1 day ago
Comment by IlikeMadison 1 day ago
Comment by hogehoge51 1 day ago
For now they seem to be dealing with observed problems, and applying actionable solutions. If they keep that up they may be able to resolve all manner of economic issues.
Comment by zemvpferreira 1 day ago
Comment by toomuchtodo 1 day ago
Comment by khazhoux 1 day ago