Swedish Parliament Approves Constitutional Amendment Allowing Revocation of Dual Citizenship

The Swedish Parliament approved a constitutional amendment allowing the revocation of citizenship from dual nationals in cases of fraud or serious crimes, to be implemented by the next government.
Translated by Qiyas from كويت نيوز — Original source
The Swedish parliament approved a constitutional amendment on Wednesday that allows for the revocation of citizenship from dual nationals if they obtained it through fraudulent means or were convicted of crimes that threaten national interests.
The amendment was adopted by a vote of 292 in favor to 51 against. However, its implementation will fall to the next government.
The amendment enables the enactment of laws that permit the revocation of Swedish citizenship from dual nationals if they obtained it based on “false information” or if they are convicted of crimes that cause serious harm to Sweden’s “vital interests.”
The outgoing government, led by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and composed of a center-right coalition, with the support of the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party in parliament, pledged last year to explore ways to strip citizenship from dual nationals convicted in cases involving organized crime.
This required a constitutional amendment, which necessitates two parliamentary votes separated by an election. Wednesday’s vote was the second one.
Kristersson currently heads a caretaker government, as parties face difficulties in forming a new government following the September 13 elections.
Consequently, the next government will be responsible for deciding on the course of action, including specifying which crimes could lead to the loss of citizenship.
On their part, human rights organizations criticized the constitutional amendment.
Aida Samani, legal advisor at the organization “Defenders of Civil Rights,” said in a statement on Wednesday that “in practice, this proposal will create two types of Swedish citizenship: one strong, and the other weak and conditional. This raises serious questions about equality before the law.”