107
submitted 4 days ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.org
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] lime@feddit.nu 26 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

...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"

[-] CAVOK@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Goes into effect in July according to the article.

[-] lime@feddit.nu 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Pip@feddit.org 16 points 4 days ago

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 4 points 4 days ago

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

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 7 points 4 days ago

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

load more comments (33 replies)
[-] Pip@feddit.org 2 points 4 days ago

How on earth did you glean that from the article?

[-] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

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

[-] alleycat@feddit.org 10 points 4 days ago

“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.

[-] Pip@feddit.org 28 points 4 days ago

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 32 points 4 days 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 12 points 4 days 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 8 points 4 days ago

And fighting violent extremism is in no way dystopian.

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

[-] Pip@feddit.org 2 points 4 days ago

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

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 4 days ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DigitalAudio@sopuli.xyz 26 points 4 days ago

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 6 points 4 days ago

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 4 days ago

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

[-] kossa@feddit.org 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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)
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days 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)
[-] astutemural@midwest.social 4 points 4 days ago

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?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
107 points (98.2% liked)

Europe

10751 readers
786 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