21/06/2026
WHEN FEAR BECOMES POLICY!
Why Sweden’s New Reporting Laws Threaten Human Rights and Public Health. The Swedish Parliament’s recent approval of two controversial Tidö Agreement proposals marks a troubling shift in the relationship between the state and some of society’s most vulnerable residents.
The new measures—an expanded information obligation for authorities and stricter conduct requirements for residence permits—are presented as tools for strengthening migration control. In reality, however, they risk undermining trust in public institutions, eroding fundamental legal protections, and placing human lives at risk.
The first proposal requires six government agencies, including the Swedish Tax Agency, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, and the Swedish Employment Agency, to report individuals whom they have reason to believe lack the legal right to reside in Sweden. While supporters argue that this is necessary to uphold immigration laws, the threshold for reporting is alarmingly low.
Authorities need only have “reason to assume” that a person is undocumented. Such a vague standard increases the risk of mistakes, discrimination, and arbitrary reporting, potentially affecting individuals who have legitimate claims to residency or whose cases are still under review.
Equally concerning is the proposal regarding “lack of conduct.” Under this legislation, residence permits may be denied or revoked based on a person’s lifestyle or behavior, even when no criminal offense has been committed.
This principle challenges a cornerstone of democratic justice: that individuals should be judged according to established laws and proven wrongdoing, not subjective assessments of their character or personal choices. Granting authorities broad discretion to evaluate morality rather than legality opens the door to inconsistent and potentially discriminatory decisions.
The most serious consequence of these policies, however, is their impact on public trust. For years, healthcare professionals, researchers, and civil society organizations have warned that reporting requirements could discourage undocumented individuals from seeking medical care.
Fear of detection and deportation may lead people to avoid hospitals, clinics, and other essential services, even in life-threatening situations. Public health systems function effectively only when people feel safe accessing them. When fear becomes a barrier to treatment, the consequences extend beyond undocumented individuals and affect society as a whole.
Patient confidentiality has long been a fundamental principle of healthcare. It exists not merely to protect privacy but to ensure that people can seek help without fear of punishment or exposure. Although healthcare services have so far been partially exempted from reporting requirements, ongoing political discussions about broader reporting obligations continue to create uncertainty. Even the perception that personal information might be shared with law enforcement can be enough to deter vulnerable individuals from seeking care.
Furthermore, these measures risk transforming public servants into immigration enforcement agents. Teachers, social workers, healthcare staff, and government employees are expected to serve the public interest and provide assistance without prejudice. Requiring them to report individuals based on their immigration status creates ethical conflicts and undermines the trust necessary for their professions to function effectively.
Supporters of the legislation argue that a state must have the ability to enforce its immigration laws. This principle is not disputed. However, effective migration policy should not come at the expense of fundamental rights, public health, or the integrity of public institutions. A democratic society must balance enforcement with humanity, legality with fairness, and security with respect for human dignity.
The Tidö proposals fail this test. By encouraging surveillance within public services, expanding discretionary power over residence permits, and fostering fear among vulnerable populations, they weaken the social trust that underpins Swedish society.
Rather than strengthening the rule of law, these measures risk creating a climate of suspicion and exclusion. Sweden should pursue migration policies that are both effective and humane—not policies that make people afraid to seek help, participate in society, or trust the institutions designed to serve them.~ Eddy Kalyango.
