The Country That Managed to Cut Migrant Numbers by a Huge Amount Reveals What It Did — So Why Is Britain Still Struggling to Bring Migration Under Control?

Sweden has seen a major fall in the number of people applying for asylum, and the Swedish minister responsible for migration says Britain could learn from the measures his country has introduced.

Johan Forssell, a senior figure in Sweden’s centre-right Moderate Party, said asylum applications in Sweden are expected to fall to around 4,200 in 2026, which would be the lowest level in about 40 years. By comparison, Britain recorded 95,536 asylum claims in the comparable period up to March.

Since the Moderate Party came to power in 2022, Sweden has increased deportations and seen asylum applications fall sharply. Forssell said the changes were introduced because Sweden had faced serious problems with integration, including unemployment, poor language skills and rising gang crime in some communities.

He said Sweden’s approach was not about being extreme but about bringing migration under greater control.

Forssell explained that Sweden had previously followed a much more open migration policy. During the Syrian refugee crisis, more than 163,000 people applied for asylum in Sweden in one year. He said the large number of arrivals created major challenges for the country.

According to Forssell, some families were living in Sweden for years without properly integrating into society. In some cases, parents did not work or speak Swedish, while their children grew up without strong links to the wider Swedish community.

He said the Swedish government decided that this situation had to change.

One of the biggest changes has been the way asylum seekers are allowed to stay in Sweden. In the past, many people who were granted asylum could receive permanent residency. Under the newer system, asylum seekers are generally given temporary residence permits instead.

Forssell said this means people who want to remain in Sweden are expected to work towards becoming Swedish citizens and integrating into the country. If the reason for their protection ends, such as when a war or conflict in their home country is considered to be over, they may be expected to return if they do not have another legal reason to remain.

Sweden has also expanded reception centres where asylum seekers can stay while their applications are being considered. The government says this makes it easier to know where asylum seekers are living and to manage their cases.

People staying in these centres are expected to learn Swedish, understand Swedish society and make an effort to become part of the country. Employment and being able to support yourself are also important parts of the government’s approach.

Forssell said another major change is the speed at which asylum applications are handled. When an application is rejected, the person can appeal, but the government wants appeals to be dealt with as quickly as possible. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the person is expected to leave Sweden.

He said Sweden had previously allowed too many opportunities for people whose asylum applications had been rejected to remain in the country illegally. The government is now taking a tougher approach to prevent this.

Forssell also said Sweden removed a rule that allowed some migrants who had lived in the country illegally for four years to apply for asylum again. People whose applications have been rejected are now expected to return home.

He said he had spoken with officials in the UK Home Office about Sweden’s approach. However, he stressed that he did not want to tell Britain exactly what policies it should introduce.

Instead, he said Sweden could provide an example of how a country can tighten its migration laws while still following international law.

Forssell said there was no single solution that would solve every migration problem. In his view, Sweden had achieved its results by looking at different parts of its immigration system and changing the rules where it believed they were too weak.

He also pointed to what he called the “pull factors” that can make people choose one country over another. These can include access to benefits, family reunification rules, housing and the ability to remain in the country without having a job or independent income.

He argued that countries need to consider whether people arriving have the ability and willingness to support themselves and integrate into society.

Sweden has also introduced stricter rules for some people with temporary residence permits. Their situations can be reviewed, and those who no longer meet the requirements can face removal.

Forssell said people who commit crimes can also face deportation under Sweden’s tougher approach, depending on the circumstances and the sentence they receive.

He argued that immigration policy must also maintain public confidence. In his view, people need to believe that the government has control over who is allowed to stay and that decisions are being properly enforced.

While Britain continues to deal with high numbers of asylum applications and small-boat arrivals, Forssell believes Sweden’s experience shows that migration numbers can be reduced through changes to legislation, asylum procedures, benefits, accommodation and deportation policies.

He said the Swedish government still faces challenges, but believes the changes introduced in recent years have produced significant results.

For Sweden, the central message is that migration policy can be changed when governments are willing to review the rules and enforce them. Forssell believes Britain could study Sweden’s experience as it considers how to deal with its own asylum and immigration pressures.