Sweden Enacts Controversial Residency Reporting and Conduct-Based Expulsion Laws

On July 13, 2026, Sweden implemented two significant legal changes impacting residency and immigration enforcement. The first is the commencement of the so-called "angiverilagen" or informant law, which obliges six Swedish authorities—Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Kriminalvården, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Pensionsmyndigheten, and Skatteverket—to report individuals suspected of lacking residency rights to the police. These authorities are not required to actively seek out such individuals but must share information if specific circumstances indicate possible irregular residency status. This law, passed amid opposition from parties like Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet and criticism from children's rights and human rights organizations, was designed to facilitate cooperation between institutions and law enforcement while raising thresholds for reporting suspicion, as advocated by parties like Socialdemokraterna and Centern.

Simultaneously, Sweden tightened residency permit regulations by allowing for the expulsion of foreigners whose conduct, known as "bristande vandel" or poor conduct, violates certain community standards. Unpaid debts, links to criminal gangs, extremist statements, failure to comply with authority decisions, and fraudulent use of welfare benefits are among the grounds that can lead to permit denial or revocation. The law requires an individual assessment balancing personal rights against societal interests. It explicitly excludes children under 15 years old and prioritizes children's best interests.

Critics argue the criteria for "bristande vandel" are vague and risk subjective application, although the government maintains compliance with international conventions. The law does not consider begging, prostitution, or substance abuse alone as grounds for expulsion unless public danger arises.

These legislative measures represent Sweden's intensified focus on residency regulation and public order, sparking debate on civil rights, humanitarian concerns, and governmental authority in immigration enforcement.