Sweden’s public broadcaster Sveriges Television (SVT) has been reprimanded by the country’s media watchdog after one of its correspondents referred to migrants crossing the English Channel as “illegal migrants” during a news segment.
The ruling was issued by the Review Board, following complaints about a report broadcast on SVT’s flagship news program “Rapport” in September 2025.
The feature covered anti-immigration protests in the United Kingdom against hotels housing asylum seekers. During the segment, SVT’s U.K. correspondent Anna-Maja Persson stated, “So far this year, a record number of illegal migrants have crossed the English Channel to the U.K., where asylum seekers are being placed in hotels, among other things.”
As Samnytt reported, two viewers reported the broadcast, arguing that the expression “illegal migrants” was evaluative and created the impression that people seeking asylum had committed crimes.
In its response to the Review Board, SVT maintained that the wording was intended to reflect the legal classification under British law of the method of entry — not to describe the individuals concerned as criminals. The broadcaster argued that those arriving via irregular routes lack valid entry permits and that this form of entry is described as illegal migration in UK legislation, including under the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
Under the legislation, a migrant is considered to be “in breach of immigration control” if they enter “without leave where leave is required,” enter “via irregular routes such as small boats,” or arrive “without valid entry clearance.”
While some argue that irregular entry is the only way that some believe they can claim asylum, the reality is that it is not, with multiple programs running in conflict zones where genuine asylum requests are considered. All arrivals have also passed through multiple “safe” countries where they are expected to claim asylum at the first opportunity.
Also, while the vast majority of those arriving illegally claim asylum, not all do, and therefore remain living in Britain illegally.
Despite the legal definition, Sweden’s Review Board rejected that defense. In its decision, it stated that even if British authorities classify the phenomenon as illegal migration, that “does not legitimize the use of the term illegal migrant for individuals who arrive in the country in this way.”
“In the opinion of the committee, this designation was both misleading in violation of the requirement for objectivity and evaluative in violation of the requirement for impartiality,” the board wrote, as cited by Journalisten.
The ruling was not unanimous. Vice-chairman Ulrik von Essen and board member Staffan Rosell dissented, arguing that SVT should have been acquitted.
