At the time of writing, The Local's non-scientific survey on readers’ reactions to the government’s plans to tighten up citizenship rules had over 230 responses.
Of those, 20 percent were from people with Swedish citizenship, while 80 percent of respondents were not Swedish citizens.
An overwhelming majority of respondents – 77 percent – thought that extending the residency requirement for citizenship from five to eight years was a bad idea, while almost 19 percent said it was a good idea. The remaining respondents were undecided.
Despite the similarity of these numbers to the figures on Swedish citizenship above, 19 of the 43 respondents who said extending the residency requirement was a good idea were Swedish citizens, while 24 were not.
'It leaves a bad taste in your mouth'
When The Local asked Swedish Migration Minister Johan Forssell whether the tighter requirements risk driving highly-skilled workers to other countries with more lenient rules, he said he didn't believe that would be a problem.
“There seem to be many more important questions for them, regarding taxation, the housing situation, schools etc. The kind of requirements that we’re imposing, to have a job etc, this is not a problem for them.”
“On the contrary, I would say that we would even have more of these highly skilled people coming to Sweden, if you’re a Nordic citizen, for example, you will not be affected by this. So no, I don’t see a great risk of that.”
CITIZENSHIP REFORM:
- Swedish inquiry proposes almost doubling fee for citizenship
- KEY POINTS: Sweden's plans for tougher citizenship rules
- Swedish government inquiry proposes increasing citizenship wait to eight years
- Readers' questions answered on Sweden's citizenship reforms
Many of the readers who responded to our survey, on the other hand, said that the new proposals made them feel unwelcome, predicting that they will deter them and others like them from settling in the country.
“As a highly skilled immigrant from outside the EU, I believe that extending the time shows that Sweden does not want us here,” wrote Vitor, a Brazilian business analyst working for a major Swedish company.
“The minister’s comments, saying that it would not affect highly skilled people and then giving the example of people from the Nordics coming here, shows that he and the government are only interested in getting immigrants from EU countries,” he added.
“I have been paying my taxes properly, learning Swedish and living here for the last three years – it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, mainly the comment from the inquiry saying that it should be harder than it already is to get citizenship.”
Another respondent, a student at Uppsala University, was concerned that it would also deter foreign students.
“Five years allows students to get a bachelor and master's degree and become working members of society, benefiting Sweden in the long term,” he wrote.
'I want refugees and migrants to feel safe and happy here and to also feel a part of Swedish life'
Under the new proposal, citizenship applicants will need to live in Sweden for at least eight years, with those who cannot prove their identity having to wait for ten years.
Certain groups, for example refugees, will be able to apply after seven years.
People with Swedish partners will also be able to apply after seven years, if they have been living together as a married or cohabiting couple for at least five years and are still living together, and if the Swedish partner or spouse has been a Swedish citizen for at least five years.
"I think it is fair for people who cannot prove their identity to have to wait longer, and I am happy that refugees get to continue to have priority in a way at least," wrote a PhD student in her 20s based in Skåne.
"I do believe Sweden needs to work more directly with integration instead of just extending the time needed for residency. I am an EU citizen and a labour migrant so a lot of these things will not affect me directly but I moved to Sweden with my non-EU citizen partner in large part because we thought of Sweden as more immigrant friendly than for example Denmark. Instead when we came we found ghettoisation and increasing rhetoric against migrants and refugees along with seemingly no commitment to actually integrating migrants into Sweden, which could help solve some of the real issues we see today with gang crime and extremism," she wrote.
"I want refugees and migrants to feel safe and happy here and to also feel a part of Swedish life. To have resources from the state and to live in a social democracy. That was my dream of Sweden and I think it can be a reality. This policy on the other hand is a nice check box to make supporters of far-right parties think the government is doing something, while actually doing nothing at all. Then when this policy too does not help bring down crime, they get to blame the migrants again."
Isaac, a software developer in Malmö, felt that the government is focusing on the wrong issues.
“What Sweden needs right now is economic reforms to support the struggling krona,” he said. “Focus on immigration which does not even pose a big threat in all aspects is a diversion from the climate issues, school struggles, gun violence among other problems that the current government has failed to address.”
“I don't see how it really helps the stated aim,” wrote Joe, a Brit based in Solna. “It's demotivating and frustrating to skilled workers that have tried to integrate into the society. Especially given the high tax burden. For the so-called bad apples, does it really make much of a difference whether they wait five or eight years?”
'Applicants will have a stronger connection to Swedish society'
One of the respondents, who wished to remain anonymous, thought that one benefit of the longer residence period could be shorter waiting times once an application has been submitted.
“Compared to the current five year residence requirement plus years of decision time, eight years followed by a fast decision might be preferable,” he said.
Many of those who thought it was a good idea said that five years is not sufficient time to learn enough about Swedish culture and society.
“Taking part in a democratic society requires understanding, democratic values and loyalty to the society, which people born in Sweden acquire through the education curriculum,” wrote a respondent named Åsa. “This must be required in other ways for people wanting to join later.”
Aurora Abram, a research coordinator based in Stockholm, said that she thought a longer residence requirement could benefit integration.
“Extending the residency requirement from five to eight years ensures that applicants have a stronger connection to Swedish society and its values before gaining citizenship. This promotes better integration, language proficiency, and contribution to the community.”
“Differentiated timelines for refugees and others acknowledge unique circumstances while maintaining fairness,” she added.
'Citizenship is a serious document and life decision'
An international student based in Linköping who was in favour of extending the residency requirement argued that becoming a citizen of another country is a serious decision which shouldn't be taken lightly.
"It's a serious document and life decision that requires thought and time and shouldn’t be given 'for free' to people who are not committed to staying in Sweden," she said. "This will also increase the security for future generations."
Another respondent, describing himself as a treasury professional from Brazil, said that the new residency requirement was a good idea despite the fact that his pending application risked being rejected under the new rules.
"Any country should have the sovereignty to deliberate. Sweden, especially, being a small country in terms of population, can and should be strategic about immigration policy. National security has also to be prioritised. This is a complex debate that often gets oversimplified as ‘more regulation equals prejudice’. I don't like that rhetoric," he said.
A respondent describing themselves as an African academic in their 40s was in favour of Sweden’s new rules, pointing out the fact that they are similar to the rules on citizenship in many immigrants’ countries of origin.
“The proposed increase will simply bring it in line with many of our ‘old’ countries. As a matter of fact, many of our home countries have more stringent rules. The only issue I have is retro-fitting any new laws to those already on the queue,” they said.
The inquiry on citizenship recommended not applying the new rules to people who apply before they come into force on June 1st, 2026, but the government has not ruled it out.
We also asked respondents for their views on the other changes to citizenship, such as introducing a self-sufficiency requirement, doubling the application fee for citizenship, and increasing the requirement for potential citizens to show they've had an upstanding way of life.
Respondents weren’t against all of the government’s proposals to tighten up citizenship. The majority – 61 percent – thought a self-sufficiency requirement for citizenship applications was a good idea. A fifth, or 21 percent were undecided, while 18 percent thought it was a bad idea.
Opinions were also divided on the government’s decision to almost double the application fee for citizenship, raising it from 1,500 kronor to 2,900. Just over a quarter of respondents (26 percent) said it was a bad idea, 32 percent said it was a good idea, while the largest number, 42 percent, were undecided.
Most respondents were also in favour of the government increasing the requirement for potential citizens to show they’ve had an upstanding way of life, with an overwhelming majority, 78 percent, in favour. Only 10 percent of respondents were against the proposal, with 12 percent undecided.
The Local will publish more articles in the coming days to share some of our readers' comments on these issues.
Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond to our survey. We received hundreds of replies and couldn't include everyone's comments, but we tried to pick a representative sample. We read all comments and they will help inform our future coverage.
Comments (10)