X Close

Sweden’s immigration crackdown is a lesson for Europe

‘Sweden was not so long ago the poster child of open borders.’ Credit: Getty

‘Sweden was not so long ago the poster child of open borders.’ Credit: Getty

June 17 2026 - 7:01am

Has Sweden just passed an arbitrary immigration law punishing migrants for failing to display “good behavior”, whatever that means? Yes, according to the Guardian and rights groups better versed in American-style legalese than Swedish political culture. To most Swedes, however, the new law — which grants the government the power to revoke residence permits from foreigners guilty of petty crime or wrongdoing— makes perfect sense. It may also offer a model for other European countries struggling with the effects of mass immigration on social cohesion.

Sweden, together with Germany, was not so long ago the poster child of open borders. Today, it is among the European countries moving most aggressively to tighten immigration rules and combat crime, an area in which immigrants are substantially overrepresented. In 2021, for example, foreign-born people living in Sweden were registered as suspected criminal offenders at a rate two and a half times that of citizens born to Swedish parents.

While the English term “good behavior” suggests a child doing their homework or eating their peas, the legislation in question is really about the hard-to-translate term skötsamhet, which has connotations of conscientiousness, trustworthiness and a willingness to abide by society’s rules. This term came into common use in the early 1900s and was particularly favored by Sweden’s oldest political party, the Social Democrats, which regarded strict moral education and ideals of clean living as a more dignified route out of the lumpenproletariat than simple provision of alms. The party gradually abandoned Marxist class struggle in favor of a concept of “the People”, in which anyone deemed skötsam could be included in the national body politic. Over time, this ideological evolution produced the so-called People’s Home, a reciprocal welfare state in which those who performed their duty to work earned social rights and temporary support in times of hardship.

A recent survey study that I conducted with colleagues suggests that skötsamhet, and related character traits such as reliability and truthfulness, are still intimately connected with most people’s conception of Swedishness. It is therefore unsurprising that the government’s immigration crackdown to date has generated a public backlash; in practice, it has largely affected migrants who have learned Swedish, entered study or work, and complied with requests from the Migration Agency. Such people are easy to expel but, in the eyes of most Swedes, not responsible for the costs of mass immigration. In other words, belonging is judged less by ethnicity in a strict sense than by conduct.

The new legislation corrects that unfairness by giving the government tools to act against migrants who fall short of serious criminality but who are persistently disorderly, thereby fraying the social fabric and creating the sense of unhomeliness that many Europeans today associate with mass immigration. It hits directly at people who go underground to circumvent immigration rules, wrongfully claim sickness benefits, rack up debts, and otherwise show contempt for what Sweden’s Minister for Migration, Johan Forssell, calls “the effort to do the right thing”.

Sweden – like most European societies – is not a “liberal democracy” constituted by individual rights protected by courts, but instead a historical community whose political institutions grew out of pre-existing norms and expectations of behavior. Being frank about that, and expecting immigrants to conform, is conducive both to the assimilation of newcomers and to public tolerance of immigration.

Across Europe, citizens are constantly surprised when immigrant criminals are allowed to remain in their countries due to some legal technicality while honest, ambitious people are sent back home. The Swedish policy turns the tables, making it harder for those who reject the social contract to benefit from it.


Johan Wennström is a Research Fellow at the Swedish Defence University and author of the The Stay Behinds: Sweden’s Cold War Guardians.

johanwennstrom

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

July 1 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam