The new rules reintroduce the good behaviour requirement which existed in Swedish migration law prior to 2005, referred to in Swedish as the vandelskrav.
They grant the Swedish Migration Agency increased powers to reject or revoke residence permits on the grounds of bristande vandel, roughly having a flawed character, poor conduct, or failing to lead an honest lifestyle.
This means actions that are not inherently criminal but are considered to violate societal rules will now be factored in.
Which specific actions could lead to a person being denied or stripped of their residence permit are not explicitly detailed in the text of the law, a point highlighted as a flaw by the Council on Legislation.
However, the government has provided examples such as criminality, posing a threat to public order and security, failing to comply with official decisions and regulations, systematically ignoring debts or fines, and working without paying taxes.
An unusually high single debt or repeated speeding fines could constitute a flawed character, but it will always be a matter of an overall assessment, according to the Migration Agency.
"We cannot say in advance whether a person falls short in terms of good conduct and honesty. It is always a question of an individual assessment where misconduct is evaluated by weighing the individual's right to a residence permit against society's interest in law-abiding residents," Alexander Szögi, a press officer at the Migration Agency, told the TT newswire.
Earning a dishonest living could constitute poor conduct, but begging or prostitution are not covered. Exploiting the welfare systems, such as providing false information, could also be factored in.
Statements in themselves do not constitute poor conduct, but they can be used to confirm a person's connections to violent or extremist organisations. Associations with criminal networks are another factor that could be weighed up.
Alcohol and drug abuse are not in themselves deemed poor conduct, but if they lead to a person repeatedly becoming dangerous to others, this could be included in the assessment.
Heavyweight consultative bodies, such as the Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO), Uppsala University, and the Swedish Bar Association, have expressed concerns that the requirement is vague and insufficiently defined, and that it could lead to subjective assessments. The government, however, argues that the new rules are in line with regulatory frameworks and international conventions.
The new legislation does not apply to children under the age of 15, and if the foreign national has children, the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration.