this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
67 points (95.9% liked)

Europe

10988 readers
733 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lime@feddit.nu 17 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

...huh? this was last year. it's not decided on yet, mainly because they have yet to provide a definition of "honest living". the only news from this week was that they want it to work retroactively, which basically every lawyer instantly struck down. it could make it fail even harder.

Edit: nevermind it being from this week, state media reported on it at the end of january. the term for look up, for those interested, is the swedish for "non-honest living": "bristande vandel"

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Goes into effect in July according to the article.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

the article is wrong, it's not been debated yet. it's been put forward by the government but hasn't passed the riksdag. it's expected to go into effect in july because new laws in sweden always go into effect in january or july.

Edit: also note that the bill runs contrary to the findings of the committee formed to investigate the possibility, which means support will not be unanimous within the government coalition.

[–] thesdev@feddit.org 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It has plenty of time to pass, the new citizenship laws are also slated to start going into effect on national day (June 6th) even though they've not passed yet. Passing the Riksdag ia a formality when the government has a majority.

which means support will not be unanimous within the government coalition.

Wrong conclusion if you ask me.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

you think? there's been a lot of noise from inside the tidö team. i'm not sure they can put up a united front.

[–] thesdev@feddit.org 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think they would've postponed it until after the elections like they've done with taking back permanent residencies if they were not all behind it. DN says "Regeringen går vidare med förslaget om vandelsprövning för uppehållstillstånd", which is why this is in the news again, it's very unlikely that at this stage a party backs out.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 3 weeks ago

i was assuming that they are trying to rush it through because they think it will win them more seats, but what with L disintegrating in real time i don't think it matters either way.

[–] Pip@feddit.org 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Good that they are no longer turning a blind eye to those who abuse the system. It's really infuriating to migrants who are just normal residents and citizens.

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Why should they "turn a blind eye" to non-migrants who do not follow an "honest living"?

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They shouldn't. With regards non-migrants who only have Swedish citizenship deportation isn't an option, but jail or fines presumably is.

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why isn't deportation an option?

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I'll have to speak in general terms because I cant know every specific scenario.

What purpose would deportation of a citizen serve? One of the defining things about citizenship is the right to live in the place you have citizenship. Typically countries cannot leave persons stateless so deportation would be pointless, at most they pay for an air fare back, assuming there's somewhere you can deport them to.

You're right, fines should be levied equally if that's the appropriate punishment. Putting someone in jail is expensive, it would seem counter to the point if the punishment for "abusing the system" was to further extract funds from the system to pay for someone's housing and food would it not?

[–] guy@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

One of the defining things about citizenship is the right to live in the place you have citizenship.

This one is interesting, because they are proposing to revoke the citizenship and deport them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

assuming there's somewhere you can deport them to.

Tom Hanks has tried to leave the chat but is stuck living in the airport terminal.

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What purpose would deportation of a citizen serve?

Presumably the same purpose (if any) the deportation of a noncitizen would serve.

One of the defining things about citizenship is the right to live in the place you have citizenship. Typically countries cannot leave persons stateless so deportation would be pointless, at most they pay for an air fare back, assuming there’s somewhere you can deport them to.

You’re right, fines should be levied equally if that’s the appropriate punishment. Putting someone in jail is expensive, it would seem counter to the point if the punishment for “abusing the system” was to further extract funds from the system to pay for someone’s housing and food would it not?

So why not take away those rights of citizens, if deportation is so beneficial?

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

Presumably the same purpose (if any) the deportation of a noncitizen would serve.

Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don't. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.

So why not take away those rights of citizens,

Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can't or won't do that you've now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.

So when you show up with a plane full of ex Swedes at some airport the receiving country will go "oh those people have no right to be here, entry denied." At which point you can either take them back to Sweden or leave them on the runway. I'd imagine it wouldn't take long for most countries to deny entry to any transport leaving Sweden.

if deportation is so beneficial

I don't believe I've said it was beneficial at all.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] mrbutterscotch@feddit.org 2 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

To be fair, prisons in Europe are about rehabilitation and not punishment. Why should Swedish taxpayers pay for the rehabilitation of a non-swede?

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why should Swedish taxpayers pay for the rehabilitation of a Swede?

[–] mrbutterscotch@feddit.org 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why wouldn't they? That's like asking why would they pay for their fellow citizens healthcare.

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You're almost starting to get it.

[–] mrbutterscotch@feddit.org 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, because getting sick is the same as committing a crime lmao

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Pip@feddit.org 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

How on earth did you glean that from the article?

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I didn't; I gleaned it from your comment and your seeming endorsement of this double standard.

[–] alleycat@feddit.org 11 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

“If, for example, you ignore paying your debts, if you don’t comply with decisions from Swedish authorities, if you cheat the benefits system, if you cheat your way to a Swedish residence permit... then you do not have the right to be here,” Forssell said.

Other examples the government cited as examples included working without paying taxes or not paying fines.

"Just don't be poor."

“Statements -- that is, things a person says or expresses -- should not in themselves be regarded as evidence of lack of honest living, but they may be an indication of, for example, links to violent extremism, which can then be a sign of deficient character,” Ludvig Aspling, migration policy spokesman for the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats which is propping up the government, told reporters.

Absolutely dystopian.

[–] DigitalAudio@sopuli.xyz 16 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Nah man, I'm poor as fuck right now, I barely make minimum wage, but I properly file my taxes and you know what? Because the system in my country is good, I don't have to break the bank to do so either.

Fraud, debt evasion, tax evasion etc are not a consequence of poverty and instead do affect all other people who do things right. You can't benefit from tax money and from the system if you're actively cheating it.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Fraud, debt evasion, tax evasion etc are not a consequence of poverty

Except poverty is the single best predictor for crime. Also laws like these can be and are used in combination with purposely obtuse laws and bureaucratic barriers to harass immigrants who didn't do anything wrong. The debts thing in particular reminds me of Japan, where paying a bill late for any reason (even if it's not your fault) can be used as reason to deny PR and give shorter visas. You should question the motivations of politicians more.

[–] Pip@feddit.org 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Isn't extraordinary wealth the single best predictor for crime?

[–] kossa@feddit.org 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No, because the wealthy write the law.

See corruption: a lot of stuff the wealthy do can be identified instinctively as morally wrong or corrupt. But, alas, it is often found to be perfectly legal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Book recommendation: The Code of Capital - How the Law creates Wealth and Inequality

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pip@feddit.org 14 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Please stop equating being poor with being fraudulent and criminal. The list of fraudulent behavior has nothing to do with being poor.

And fighting violent extremism is in no way dystopian.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 16 points 3 weeks ago

"The law in its majestic equality forbids both the poor and the rich from sleeping under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

- Anatole France

In the Netherlands, there was a massive scandal a few years back where the government had declared thousands of migrants to be fraudulent based on an automated system that used their ethnicity as sufficient cause, driving those people into debt and forcing many to work illegally to avoid homelessness.

Please develop some class consciousness. They will come for you too when the exploitation of those below you no longer satisfies their lust for power.

[–] MirrorGiraffe@piefed.social 7 points 3 weeks ago

These guys are not in any way stopping att violent extremism.

The guy on the photo, Johan Forssell, had advocated - and slammed on social media - that we should send home entire families based on a single individuals crime. Yet when his own son was found to be part of a violent nazi organisation it was handled like a case of boys will be boys. He's constantly generalising over immigrants and yet he's only part of the conservative party that have been paving the way, openly, for the party that started as a nazi party in the 90s, in order to get to power.

These changes might look harmless but these fucks are just power hungry sell-outs that have decided that nazis are fit to rule if it allows themselves to stay mildly relevant.

There is no current definition of honest living and everyone from the ruling parties that was asked about it have answered wildly different.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And fighting violent extremism is in no way dystopian.

Violent extremism like checks notes opposing Israeli colonialism. See: Germany.

[–] Pip@feddit.org 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Last time I was in Germany, I saw tons of that anti colonial opposition. They were not violent.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, but it seems the government hasn't gotten the memo, which is my point.

[–] doleo@lemmy.one 2 points 3 weeks ago

And fighting violent extremism is in no way dystopian.

Sweden going to cut ties with the USA, then?

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago

Poor people have a smaller tax burden for their socialized healthcare. "Don't pay taxes" isn't a "poor" thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›