Maybe I was over-optimistic, or simply naïve, in thinking that my dual Swedish citizenship, in which I take great comfort, was irrevocable. It is according to present Swedish law. But a Parliamentary Committee is currently discussing whether the constitution should now be amended in order to enable citizenship to be revoked (for duals only) from certain classes of citizens:
- If they are found guilty of crimes which pose a serious threat to Sweden’s security, such as espionage, terrorism, sabotage, treason, or rebellion
- If they are found guilty of crimes covered by the International Criminal Court, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression
- If they received their citizenship on false grounds, either through supplying false documents or information or by bribing or threatening government officials.
On first reading I was (personally) reassured by this. I have no intention of committing any of those heinous crimes; am pretty sure that my original application was honest and accurate; and can’t remember offering any bribes to Migrationsverket.
Following the Committee’s debates, however (as reported in the English-language Local newspaper), it’s clear that some of its members would like to broaden its scope to include any dual citizen who ‘seriously threatens the state’s vital interests’; which of coarse is much vaguer, and more subjective. Leftists are afraid it might cover people who think like them (and me); especially if the far-Right Sverigedemokraterna ever take control. Which they might.
Quite apart from this, it’s very likely that Sweden will impose a Swedish language test on future applicants for citizenship. I have a certain sympathy for that; but it would have excluded me.
Porter’s Pensées 
I wonder what will happen to people who become stateless.
Meawhile, despite some important differences in rhetoric (Badenoch aggressively ramping up the assimilationism again today) there seems to be an anti-migrant trend throughout Europe and across the political spectrum emerging: Starmer and Von der Leyen exploring out-of-country asylum processing centres for example. It has even touched Sánchez’s Spain with respect to the housing crisis.
Clearly there are many different types of migrant and reasons for migration. To some extent both Badenoch and Starmer are trying to single out one aspect (allegedly “culturally resistant” migrants and people trafficking respectively) as a lightning rod for a more generalised hostility on the populist right.
It is of course ironic that on the one hand Badenoch is attacking those who she claims fail to integrate while the British papers lament restrictions on house purchase in Spain by the British, who notoriously sometimes create little “expat” enclaves on the costas. That said, I think those Brits have been overly monstered as self-harming idiot Brexiteers. In fact, some research suggests that 95% (!) of EU-based Tories voted Remain (link below). And quite a few get involved in conservation efforts and animal rescue (maybe dogs aren’t so fussy about being spoken to in broken Spanish). But the real migrants who deserve sympathy from the Socialist government in Spain are the agricultural workers, who often live in appalling housing conditions, and are sometimes neglected even by left-wing councils. It’s an issue which somehow never reaches the top of the political agenda in Spain.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/08/17/british-expatriates-and-the-anti-brexit-backlash/
LikeLike