this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026

178 points (98.9% liked)

World News

56628 readers

2355 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

178

Sweden passes 'good behaviour' law to kick out misbehaving immigrants (www.reuters.com)

submitted 3 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sweden's parliament passed a law on Monday allowing authorities to revoke immigrants' residency permits based on bad behaviour, such as having unpaid debts, doing undeclared work or ‌links to extremist organisations.

The law, which covers pending permits but also retroactively already granted permits, is part of a wider tightening of immigration rules by the right-wing government and its support party, the nationalist Sweden Democrats, ahead of a parliamentary election ⁠in September.

The law has been criticised by the opposition and human rights advocacy groups as arbitrary because decisions would be taken on behaviour that has not been deemed criminal.

all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

bad behaviour, such as having unpaid debts, doing undeclared work or ‌links to extremist organisations.

Is such a bad summary, and all of the people prasing this law in this comment section as well, fail to mention a very important other "bad behaviour" which is suppose to be included in this law: Being a fucking VICTIM of a crime. They have been saying this since day one. Victims of crimes needs to be deported.

Their resoning is that someone being victim of a crime is probably living in a social situation which the far-right government deem inappropriate. Like "undeclared work"; is your boss not paying their taxes for your work? You need to go.

This law is there because it is the first step in creating an apartheid. If you have a single parent born in a foreign country -- the far right is even talking about their worry about "third generation" immigrants -- they should not be considered Swedish. Punishments for them they say must be different, you must always be threatened with deportation. You should not have access to public services and so on.

This law is a fucking god-send for neo-nazis. Can you imagine? Immigrants who are victims of crime gets deported. Assault them, rape them, and they will be deported if they say anything. But the neo-nazi can go home and have dinner with their family. This is probably what the current government wants as one minister has an active club neo-nazi son! He is not being deported because he is in an extremist organization! Oh, wait, sorry it is just "kids with an interest in fitness", as several government party reps have been saying about actual neo-nazis.

[–] Seppo@sopuli.xyz 71 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's basically just a law to allow companies hiring cheap immigrant labour to threaten them with deportation if they get any ideas about fair compensation.

Let's not forget that it was a right wing government who opened the gates for unregulated immigration by essentially scrapping all rules regarding it and telling us to "open our hearts".

This is a neo-liberal government supported by neo-nazis.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 13 points 3 days ago

they were also the ones that passed the law which made cheap immigrant labour impossible by requiring a salary above the median for a work visa, disqualifying nurses, taxi drivers, carpenters, store clerks and so on.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 38 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They really love using immigrants as a scapegoat don't they?

Careful, that foreigner wants your cookie.

[–] jobbies@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 days ago

When I'm lord of all earth im creating an "arsehole law". To punish people who say things that aren't really illegal but are definitely 'arsey'.

For example - "hey immigrant, go back to your own country!", "trans women are MEN!!" and the classic "I'm not a racist, right, but see them effing [insert plural of racial slur]".

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 6 points 3 days ago

They always project plans onto others before enacting. So, social credit scores.

[+] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -26 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Fair but Necessary

[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The law has been criticised by the opposition and human rights advocacy groups as arbitrary because decisions would be taken on behaviour that has not been deemed criminal.

Doesn't seem very fair

[+] frongt@lemmy.zip -6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical.

[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No doubt! And just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's unethical.

The problem is practical. If rules are not written down then you can have punishment without justification, and as an individual you can't depend on fair treatment by the state.

[+] frongt@lemmy.zip -15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

True, but this is a law, so it is written down.

[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The law does not specify what types of behaviours ⁠are deemed unacceptable but the government has mentioned unpaid debts, not paying taxes, criminality and links to extremist organisations.

[–] Headofthebored@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Definitions of "criminality" and "extremist organizations" subject to change without notice, of course.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ah, then it's definitely a bad law. (I'm on a limited connection and loading pages is very slow, so I hadn't read the article.)

I'd really appreciate it if articles made a point of actually linking to the damn law, but in this case I guess it would be in Swedish.

[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago

Yeah they should link to it anyway!

And yes, this is a bad law. Rushed in a few months before an election by a right-wing coalition including the fascist SD. Things went badly so now they're throwing scraps to the frothing racists in their base in a desperate attempt to maintain power. They don't care if it's a good law, it's chum for dumbasses.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 3 days ago

According to my state's written down rules, there's a void for vagueness doctrine that's written down. In practice, though...ay yi yi

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Can I ask you a genuinely heartfelt and good-faith question?

How is it fair when someone shitty is allowed entry who ends up hurting civilians but civilians are expected to suck it up

How do you actually fix that without acting prophalactically, even its seen to be unfair or prematuew?

[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 3 days ago

How is it fair when someone shitty is allowed entry who ends up hurting civilians but civilians are expected to suck it up

Civilians are expected to suck it up? Why? This would only be true if it's not illegal. If it truly hurts civilians, why not make it illegal instead?

It is fair because if a Swedish citizen did something that "hurts civilians" but is not illegal, the victims would also be "expected to suck it up."

Making some things only punishable if you aren't Swedish is exactly what you would expect from the fascists in SD. Not really something to aspire to if you're a sane, caring individual. It is the definition of unfair.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Can you give me an example of someone hurting civilians without breaking the law?

[–] jobbies@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 days ago

Having darker coloured skin and just existing hurts civilians apparently

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

If that's not a thing, then this law just does absolutely nothing!

But of course it is. I mean I feel pretty annoyed and it is also a health impact if someone is smoking next to me at a traffic light. So it hurts me, but is not illegal (I think it should be but that's besides the point). Someones place of birth should have no impact on the consequences of such behaviour.

[+] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

As far as I'm aware theres already an enormous issue on that side of things

Not a fan of capriciousness but if criminal issues cant even be dealt with, maybe thats a necessary step in the evolution of a workable larger system.

However, all these things should equally or allocate sufficient joint liabillity to the employers. If you feel the need to infringe on guest's rights, that discussion is arguably inseperable from and should be understood to be complete or even appropriate without bringingthe sponsor to the table.

They are often the root of any local or global problems in this domain and its a true tradgedy that they shirk accountabillity to their underlings/hires when they are oxygen to the flame

[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So because the legal system has failed, they have to punish people outside the system?

How exactly is one supposed to stay on the right side of the rules when they aren't even written down?

Obviously the solution, if the legal system fails, is to improve the legal system, not bring in an official "sorry we know this isn't illegal but you're brown so.... unlucky" system

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

On the subject of improving the (legal) system, if it doesnt affect the employers equally or moreso I've found, it really doesnt matter what is done or not done. They somehow always escape the discussion unmolested

[–] SkabySkalywag@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're right that crime ("side of things" I think) is a problem. It's a problem everywhere.

You're wrong about it being a necessary step. It's political pantomime at best, it's racial dog whistling at worst. Adding extra rules won't solve crime as you pointed out there a potential of being misused.

It takes a large effort from politicians and a native population open to identifying what are the causes of crimes from the immigrant sector. Lastly, it takes money and resources, which no one wants to foot the bill for.

I don't know what the solution is, but this isn't it.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

At some point, if nobody is cool with footing the bill, it raises an exponentially larger question of why is there a bill in the first place, who made the order underlying it, and why the subscription should continue or ever even existed before these pesky underwriting decisions were supposed to and failed to be made writ large

That needs to be explored. Is it ever ok to dispute that bill and send it back + refuse to continue until the order is made right?