- Parliament approved a constitutional change allowing revocation of dual nationals' citizenship for fraudulently obtained status or crimes harming Sweden's vital interests.
- Amendment passed 292 to 51, but the next government must draft implementing legislation and define which crimes could trigger citizenship revocation.
- Civil rights groups warned it creates two types of Swedish citizenship, raising equality before the law concerns, Civil Rights Defenders said.
Sweden’s parliament on Wednesday approved a constitutional change to allow the citizenship of dual nationals to be revoked if they obtained it fraudulently or were convicted of crimes threatening national interests.
The amendment was passed with 292 votes in favour and 51 against. However, following inconclusive elections, it will be up to the next government to present a bill to put it into practice.
With the amendment, it will be possible to introduce laws where Swedish nationality of dual nationals can be revoked if they had received it on a “false basis” or if they had been convicted of crimes that seriously hurt Sweden’s “vital interests”.
The outgoing centre-right government, led by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and propped up in parliament by the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, said last year it was mulling ways to revoke the citizenships of dual nationals convicted in organised crime and gang cases.
It needed a change to the constitution, which requires two votes in parliament separated by an election, and Wednesday’s vote was the second.
Kristersson currently leads a caretaker government as parties are struggling to form a new government following the September 13 election.
The outgoing government had been working on a bill but which is not yet completed.
It will therefore be up to the next government to decide on how to proceed — for instance on defining which crimes could result in a revoked citizenship.
Civil rights groups have voiced criticism against the move.
“In practice, the proposal would create two types of Swedish citizenship: one that is robust and one that is weak and conditional. This raises serious questions about equality before the law,” Aida Samani, senior legal adviser at Civil Rights Defenders, said in a statement ahead of Wednesday’s vote.
