On November 26, 2024, the Swedish government released findings from a public inquiry exploring mandatory reporting obligations for public sector workers. The proposal, which has ignited heated debates, suggests that employees in several government agencies would be required to report undocumented individuals to the police. The police, in turn, would share this information with immigration authorities such as the Migration Agency or the Security Service.
The proposal, part of the government’s coalition program, has been criticized for its potential to undermine trust in public institutions and to compromise human rights. While healthcare, schools, and social services are exempt from the obligation, critics argue that the damage caused by such a policy could extend far beyond these exceptions.
Expanding Reporting Obligations
The inquiry recommends that agencies like the Public Employment Service, Social Insurance Agency, Prison and Probation Service, Enforcement Agency, Pensions Agency, and Tax Agency automatically share information about undocumented individuals with the Police Authority. It also suggests that the Economic Crime Authority and Prosecution Authority provide data upon request.
These measures aim to strengthen immigration enforcement, but they have raised serious concerns about the balance between border control and the rights of undocumented individuals.
Widespread Criticism
The proposed law has faced strong opposition from civil society, rights organizations, and professionals across various sectors.
Michele LeVoy, Director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, warned of the broader societal consequences of such a policy. She stated, “Reporting obligations foster a climate of fear and hostility, undermining trust in public institutions while violating Sweden’s human rights commitments.”
Healthcare professionals have echoed these concerns. Hannah Laustiola, Executive Director of Doctors of the World Sweden, expressed relief that healthcare workers are exempt from the proposal but highlighted lingering risks: “Undocumented migrants, who already live in fear of deportation, may not be reached by the information that their right to healthcare is unchanged. The mere proposal of such a law has already rendered public servants prone to violating existing confidentiality laws.”
For some critics, the policy could have especially dire consequences for vulnerable populations. Ulrika Modéer, Secretary General of the Swedish Red Cross, raised questions about the impact on victims of domestic violence: “We must analyze further what it means that the Swedish Tax Agency will be obliged to provide information to the Police Authority, especially in cases where local social services are involved. This particularly affects vulnerable women and children.”
Erosion of Trust
John Stauffer, Acting Executive Director of Civil Rights Defenders, emphasized how fear of being reported could prevent undocumented migrants from accessing basic services. “Rights must be accessible in practice. People must feel able to claim their rights without fear,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Jacob Lind, a researcher at Malmö University, expressed concerns over the long-term implications of the proposed legislation. He described how such a law could pave the way for more extensive obligations in the future. “This proposed legislation makes it easier to extend the list of authorities at a later stage with less work,” he noted. Lind also highlighted the harm already caused, saying, “The proposal has impacted the trust undocumented migrants have in society.”
Some Relief, But Damage Done
The exemptions for schools, healthcare, and social services have been welcomed by critics, but many argue the damage has already been done. Civil society groups believe the proposal has created an atmosphere of fear among undocumented migrants, discouraging them from seeking help or accessing essential services.
As Lind pointed out, the critics’ early mobilization played a vital role in shaping the proposal. “If the unions, civil society, and other critics had waited for the investigation to be published before voicing their concerns, the outcome could have been very different,” he explained.
What’s Next?
The inquiry’s findings may form the basis of new legislation in the coming months. Rights organizations and advocates continue to urge the government to reconsider the proposal, emphasizing the importance of upholding human rights and rebuilding trust in public institutions.
As LeVoy aptly concluded, “We stand with national partners in urging the Swedish government to reject this reporting obligation and protect the principles of human rights.”
