Elon Musk’s claim that 79% of older refugees in Sweden traveled back to their home country after fleeing was based on a misunderstood result from a 2022 survey by the Swedish pollster Novus. The original survey asked foreign-born people in Sweden whether they had visited their country of birth at any point — not whether asylum seekers currently in need of protection “played the system” or vacationed in unsafe homelands. Most respondents came decades ago and have long-term residency status, meaning their situations and travel habits are very different from newly arrived asylum seekers.
The Claim That Went Viral — What Elon Musk Said and Why It Spread
In early 2025, Elon Musk posted on X a statement suggesting that “almost 80% of refugees go on vacation to the country they claim to have fled from.” This comment — framed to imply widespread abuse of asylum protections in Sweden — captured global attention, generating millions of views and reigniting debates on migration policy.
But here’s the critical context most posts didn’t include: the figure Musk referenced came from a general population survey of foreign-born individuals in Sweden — not a legal or demographic study of people currently holding refugee status.
That distinction matters deeply, as we’ll unpack below.
What the 2022 Novus Survey Actually Asked
Sample and Methodology
The Novus study was commissioned by the Swedish outlet Bulletin and polled about 1,050 foreign-born people living in Sweden in August 2022. The question at the heart of the media attention was simply whether respondents had, at any point after moving to Sweden, visited their country of birth.
Importantly:
- Respondents were foreign-born individuals — a broad group that included immigrants of many different origins and reasons for migration.
- Only about 18% of the foreign-born respondents in the study actually came to Sweden as refugees, and only a small fraction of these arrived recently (2010–2022).
So the headline “79% of refugees visited their homeland” fails to reflect the limited and specific subgroup from which it was derived.
What the Numbers Mean in Context
The main result — that 86% of all foreign-born people surveyed had at some point visited their country of birth — is not itself surprising. Many respondents had lived in Sweden for decades, came from nearby countries (making travel easy), or maintained family and cultural ties that naturally lead to visits.
Among the small group of respondents who were identified as having come as refugees, about 79% said they had visited their homeland — but this group was not representative of all refugees in Sweden today.
Actual Survey Question (and How It Was Framed)
The Novus survey conducted in August 2022 asked a broad group of foreign-born individuals living in Sweden a variety of questions — including whether they had visited their country of birth after moving to Sweden. Respondents were not limited to recently arrived asylum seekers or legally designated refugees.
The key question that generated attention was essentially:
“Have you visited your country of birth at any point after moving to Sweden?”
(The Swedish survey item asked about visits to födelselandet — “country of birth” — not about asylum status.)
- The survey did not specifically ask “Are you a refugee?”
- It did not ask “Did you travel for vacation?” — only whether they had visited their birth country.
According to Novus’ own clarification, 86% of all foreign-born respondents reported having visited their country of birth after migrating to Sweden.
Where the “79%” Figure Came From — And What It Actually Refers To
In media coverage, including by some outlets and social posts, the headline “79% of refugees have vacationed in their home country” circulated widely. But two crucial facts from Novus’ clarification contextualize that figure:
- The sample was foreign-born individuals in Sweden, not a statistically defined cohort of refugees.
- Of that entire group, only about 18% reported that they originally came to Sweden as refugees — and 79% of that smaller subgroup reported that they had once visited their birth country after moving to Sweden.
So the 79% number refers to the subset of foreign-born respondents who identified (in the survey) as having originally come for refuge, not the refugee population in Sweden at large — especially not those currently on asylum status.
Why This Wording Matters in Interpretation
Here’s what the survey actually measured:
- It asked a broad category: foreign-born people living in Sweden — including long-term residents, people who arrived decades ago, those who came for family reunification, work, study or other reasons.
- It did not differentiate between someone who fled war yesterday and someone who migrated for other reasons 20 years ago.
- It did not ask about asylum status at the time of travel or about the purpose of the travel (e.g., vacation vs. family visit).
In short, the question was about past visits to one’s birth country at any time after migration, not a targeted inquiry into current refugees and their travel — a nuance that was largely absent in the viral social media framing.
Novus’ Own Clarification
Novus explicitly stated that:
- The survey’s target group was all foreign-born individuals, not specifically refugees.
- The 79% figure often shared in headlines comes from a subgroup that did not exclusively represent people with active refugee status.
- Many respondents immigrated years or decades earlier and had time and opportunity to make trips home.
Here’s how Novus explained it:
“The study surveyed people who immigrated to Sweden for various reasons, often many decades ago. A common statement referring to the study is that the proportion of those who came to Sweden as refugees and later visited their homeland was 79%. What isn’t clear is the proportion of foreign-born individuals who moved here for refuge — about 18% — and of those only a small fraction arrived recently.”
That is the official clarification Novus provided to address misinterpretations.
In Plain Language
So when you see:
“79% of refugees in Sweden vacation in their home countries”
That’s an inaccurate headline because:
- The survey didn’t target current refugees — it was simply people born abroad.
- The number refers to a subset of a subset — those in that foreign-born group who reported they originally came as refugees.
- The question didn’t ask whether travel was for leisure or that they still needed refuge at the time of travel.
In fact, the full survey’s core item was about whether someone had ever visited their birth country after migration — a much broader, more neutral measure than the way some social posts and headlines have framed it.
Why Interpretation Matters — Legal and Policy Context
Refugee Status vs. Foreign-Born Population
The study did not measure:
- Who among respondents still holds legal refugee status
- Whether the trips were for “vacation”
- Whether home countries were currently safe or unsafe at the time of travel
Someone who fled war in the 1980s, received permanent residency, and has lived most of their life in Sweden is not equivalent to a newly arrived asylum seeker still awaiting status. Treating these groups as the same is misleading.
Sweden’s Migration Policy Debate
Sweden has an active political discussion about migration, and ministers have raised concerns about how refugee travel should intersect with legal protections. For example, the Swedish government has moved to review refugee travel and status conditions — partly in response to interpretations like the one Musk shared.
But policymakers and social scientists caution against reducing complex legal and humanitarian frameworks to simple percentages without clear definitions of the population in question.
Expert Clarification and Media Fact-Checks
Novus’ Own Clarification
Novus itself has publicly clarified that the study’s results have been miscontextualized in some media recounting. The firm emphasized that its target group was all foreign-born individuals and not refugees specifically, and that it did not inquire about the legal status or reasons for migrating.
This kind of clarification should be central to any responsible discussion — especially one that involves policymaking implications or public sentiment.
How Travel Patterns Among Migrants Actually Look
Broader Migration Research
Studies from sources such as the Stockholm School of Economics show that decisions by refugees to return or visit their home country are influenced by many factors — including family ties, reconstruction of home nations, economic conditions, and legal frameworks about residency rights. These patterns are not easily reduced to simplistic claims about holiday travel.
For instance, research on Ukrainian refugees shows that more than 60% returned home as conflict conditions evolved — reflecting complex personal and economic motivations rather than an intention to exploit host country systems.
Why This Matters — Beyond the Numbers
Public Discourse and Policy
When public figures — especially those with vast reach — share numbers without full context, it can meaningfully shape public debate and policy agendas. In the Swedish context, claims about refugees traveling back home have been used to justify calls for stricter immigration rules or measures to monitor travel patterns more closely.
Yet policymaking grounded in misinterpreted data can lead to unintended consequences, particularly if the underlying legal reality (e.g., residency versus asylum status) isn’t clearly distinguished.
The Human Reality Behind Mobility
It’s also worth remembering that many people who migrate — whether as refugees, family migrants, or labor migrants — have enduring social networks. Visiting family or attending cultural ceremonies can be a deeply human behavior that doesn’t necessarily undermine the legitimacy of their immigration status.
Conclusion — Numbers Without Context Cause Confusion
Elon Musk’s reference to “79% of refugees in Sweden going back to visit their homelands” was rooted in an oversimplified interpretation of a 2022 Novus survey that asked a broader question of foreign-born individuals, not a legal or demographic analysis of current refugee statuses.
The lesson here isn’t about whether people travel — it’s about how we contextualize data in public discourse. When metrics are taken out of context, especially by influential voices, they can distort reality and fuel polarization. Responsible interpretation means acknowledging who was surveyed, why they were surveyed, and what their responses actually reflect about life and movement in Sweden.
