Sweden to deport migrants not following ‘honest living’
(www.ctvnews.ca)
Europe...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 to look up, for those interested, is the swedish for "non-honest living": "bristande vandel"
Goes into effect in July according to the article.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why should they "turn a blind eye" to non-migrants who do not follow an "honest living"?
How on earth did you glean that from the article?
I didn't; I gleaned it from your comment and your seeming endorsement of this double standard.
They shouldn't. With regards non-migrants who only have Swedish citizenship deportation isn't an option, but jail or fines presumably is.
Why isn't deportation an option? And if jails or fines are a sufficient deterrent for citizens, why not for non-citizens?
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?
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.
I understood them, but I'd argue it's utterly asinine. If you strip citizenship you've created a stateless person, which is mostly avoided where possible - but let's imagine for a second this was the case. What do you do with a stateless person? They don't have the right to reside anywhere, every country has the right to refuse entry to them. How do you deport someone when no-one will accept them? Just leave them on runways around the world?
How long before they're put on a return flight? How long before everyone closes borders with your country because you're leaving 1000s of criminals on runways around the world?
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?
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.
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.
Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away. There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia, and in the interbellum period several European governments opted to take away the rights of those citizens viewed as a threat to public order. Even if citizens aren't deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.
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.
Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all. Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn't have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn't have different rights than brunettes.
To be fair, prisons in Europe are about rehabilitation and not punishment. Why should Swedish taxpayers pay for the rehabilitation of a non-swede?
Edit: I am talking about citizenship specifically
Because laws and governance focusing on citizenship, ethnicity etc is wildly against the sentiment of equal treatment and value of humans. It's unlawful as well. We don't want an apartheid system.
Why should Swedish taxpayers pay for the rehabilitation of a Swede?
“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.
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.
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.
Isn't extraordinary wealth the single best predictor for crime?
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
But then if poverty is the best predictor for crime, that begs the question why would any country want people who are inherently more prone to crime in the first place?
Wouldn't it make more sense to precisely discourage that type of immigration if you were trying to bring crime down?
The thing about Japan is complex for several reasons. On the one hand, late payments only affect your PR application if they took place within the last two years. So it's not like you'll be perma-banned from the PR if you paid your National Health Insurance slip late once because you forgot.
But if you do pay late consistently, that's when it affects your PR. And again, you need to be consistent for two years to be eligible again.
But then if poverty is the best predictor for crime, that begs the question why would any country want people who are inherently more prone to crime in the first place?
Labor? Something something declining birth rates. It's not like flipping burgers in Berlin or Stockholm will let one live in anything but poverty conditions. That's what needs to change if you want to reduce crime, not heavy handed enforcement that's almost always just going to be used as an excuse to harass immigrants. I'm not clear on the details of the Swedish immigration system, but European immigration systems in general definitely don't need to be more draconian; it's a solution looking for a problem.
The thing about Japan is complex for several reasons. On the one hand, late payments only affect your PR application if they took place within the last two years.
"Oops, your bill came late, no PR for you for two years" isn't my idea of a fair or productive system.
why would any country want people who are inherently more prone to crime in the first place?
Have you not heard of people trying to escape war or death threats? Countries love to gain highly educated immigrants, but many countries also open their doors in cases of need. And more typically, those tend to be poorer folks. That said, at least for the US, undocumented immigrants tend to commit less crime, although poverty is also a big factor in predicting crime. But it's complicated and rather more nuanced than simple little pat phrases.
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.
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.
"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.
And fighting violent extremism is in no way dystopian.
Violent extremism like checks notes opposing Israeli colonialism. See: Germany.
Last time I was in Germany, I saw tons of that anti colonial opposition. They were not violent.
Yes, but it seems the government hasn't gotten the memo, which is my point.
And fighting violent extremism is in no way dystopian.
Sweden going to cut ties with the USA, then?
Poor people have a smaller tax burden for their socialized healthcare. "Don't pay taxes" isn't a "poor" thing.
Lol are you swedish?
They're totally going to apply this to Swedes too, right? It's not just an excuse to apply the law unequally to a hated minority based on a false racist pretext, right? Right?
Go get fucked with your holier than you rhetoric which has flooded eu with millions of violent rapists and is still enabling them.
Only applies to residence permits from what I can tell. So if you're a citizen, the rule won't affect you. It would include naturalized citizens I think.
Precisely my point.
