Response to the inquiry into stricter requirements for acquiring Swedish citizenship

The following is a copy of a formal response to a government consultation regarding tightened requirements for acquiring Swedish citizenship. I authored this around March 24th, then solicited signatures from foreign-born members of the tech community in Sweden (as well as their native allies), before officially submitting the response to the government the following week.

Summary

We the undersigned 379 labor migrants in the tech sector oppose the stricter requirements proposed in the inquiry. If put into force, these requirements will have an immediate and detrimental effect on Sweden's ability to attract and retain highly skilled labor, of which there is an ongoing shortage. We in particular oppose the extended residency requirement, additional knowledge requirements, as well as the introduction of a self-sufficiency requirement.

In the event the proposal is to move forward, we concur with the recommendation that transitional provisions be put in place for citizenship applications received before the law goes into force. We however recommend an alternative formulation of those transitional rules.

Length of residence for acquisition of Swedish citizenship (section 7.4.3)

To be a labor migrant anywhere is to live a life of uncertainty. Putting down roots in a country where your right to work and reside is conditional on factors outside of your control (e.g. company restructuring, market conditions, or changes to laws) carries high financial and personal risk. Citizenship is the only way to unconditionally retain the right of residency and work and to eliminate that risk.

Sweden's current residency requirement for citizenship (5 years in the normal case) is among the lowest in the world and therefore an invaluable differentiator in the competition for skilled foreign labor. All other things being equal, a faster path to citizenship, and therefore stability, would be the deciding factor in where a worker chooses to move.

Any increase to the residency length would therefore harm Sweden's attractiveness on the global labor market. The proposed 8 year residency length, which would bring Sweden in line with many of its peers, would erase that advantage entirely. Anything above 8 years (which would approach a quarter of a working life) would be devastating to Sweden's attractiveness.

The length of residence required to obtain Swedish citizenship should therefore not be increased beyond 5 years.

Demonstrating knowledge of Swedish and Swedish society (section 9.2.2)

Being an immigrant is a high-stress endeavor: navigating new bureaucracies, leaving behind family and friends, and adjusting to a new environment all take their toll. Attaching language and knowledge requirements to key administrative milestones in an immigrant's journey only adds to that stress.

Sweden is exceptional in that no language or other knowledge requirements are currently in place for permanent residency or citizenship. This is a rare benefit for prospective workers and therefore a strong differentiator in Sweden's attractiveness to foreign skilled labor. This is especially the case given the reality that the majority of the roles we fill are performed in English.

We moved to Sweden to pursue full-time work; fitting in language and other knowledge acquisition between work and family time can be challenging. While some language and knowledge skills may ultimately prove useful for integration in the long term, the ability to pursue that knowledge at one's own pace and according to one's own needs and abilities is an undeniable benefit, especially when compared to peer countries.

Additional language and knowledge requirements should therefore not be added.

The requirement that foreigners can support themselves (section 10.4.2)

Immigrating to a country is one of the largest changes one can make in one's life. In making that decision, many of us needed to take into consideration our partners' and/or our family's lives.

Partners of skilled labor migrants have traditionally found it challenging to break into the Swedish labor market, especially when their careers are outside the tech sector. While the proposed introduction of a self-sufficiency requirement at the reserve amount (förbehållsbelopp) would not directly impact us as individuals, a higher income requirement could affect our families.

When evaluating countries to immigrate to, the ability for all members of our families to follow the path to citizenship together cannot be underestimated as a benefit. Any possibility for our family members' rights to differ from ours over time will introduce friction into the process of attracting foreign labor. At the very least, it would significantly bias the types of individuals who would be willing to move here.

While we believe the amount proposed for self-sufficiency is reasonable, we must nonetheless oppose its introduction, especially if any higher amount is considered.

Transitional provisions (section 17.2)

A significant contributor in the success of Sweden as a society is the consistently high trust placed in its institutions. Given the proposal aims to alter legal conditions which materially formed the basis for our decision to move to Sweden, doing so retroactively would substantially harm our relationship with the state. We therefore concur with the need to have transitional provisions in place if the proposal is to go into force.

At a minimum, those transitional provisions should reflect what has been proposed: that applications sent in prior to the law going into effect should be evaluated under the rules in place at the time of application.

An even higher degree of trust would be maintained if citizenship applications would instead be evaluated based on the rules which were in force at the beginning of legal Swedish residency.

Concluding remarks

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this proposal. This referral response is hereby signed by the following labor migrants employed within the tech sector in Sweden. In cases where an individual did not wish for their name to be made public, the name of a concurring Swedish resident has been added in their place.

(Signatures ommitted on this reproduction of the document)