2022 report on the application of the Act on Special Immigration Control

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden and Swedish democracy both are and have for a long time been a target for violence-seeking extremists. This is evident in various ways, and the threats come from different directions.

The Act on Special Foreigner Control is a law that makes it possible for Sweden to deport foreigners who are judged by the Security Service to constitute a security threat to our country. The Committee on Justice's report on the annual account of the application of the law exists for a reason. There has been and there is political opposition to the law that makes it possible to deport foreign security threats.

The opposition over the years has come from the Social Democrats' government base in the form of the Green Party and the Left Party, who have wanted to abolish the law entirely and in different forms wanted to bureaucratize the law in favor of identified security threats.

Even this year, there is a special statement from Vänsterpartiet, where the historical criticism is repeated.

Madam Speaker! I looked a bit last night at what the criticism from Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet has looked like, and to give a picture of that opposition, I thought I would quote from these two parties' specific statements from 2008.

The special statement begins: "The Act on Special Foreigner Control is, in our opinion, a discriminatory piece of legislation based on a suspicion of foreign citizens." The statement concludes with the opinion that the Act on Special Foreigner Control "should be abolished." This was signed by the two party representatives Lena Olsson, Vänsterpartiet, and Mehmet Kaplan, Miljöpartiet.

I just wanted to highlight, Madam Speaker, which individuals and which parties the Social Democrats voluntarily make themselves dependent on and what these have actually proposed in the Swedish Riksdag.

2022 report on the application of the Act on Special Foreign Control

Unlike these parties, which have wanted to facilitate the existence of foreign terrorists in Sweden, the Sweden Democrats have provided a counterweight in the opposite direction. Since we entered the Riksdag in 2010, we have advocated for a number of tightenings of the laws to protect Sweden from foreign terrorist threats.

Many of the changes we proposed were accepted fully or partially only after 2017, when Sweden had finally been hit hard by a terrorist attack carried out by a foreign citizen who, under the Sverigedemokraternas policy, never could have moved freely in our country.

Madam Speaker! The report on the table provides a situational description and an explanation of what measures have been taken with the help of the law. Briefly, the report we are dealing with here today gives a correct description of that the greatest growth of violent extremism in Sweden is rooted in previous governments' mass immigration policy and that the law is applied sparingly and is bordered by previously known difficulties.

There is nothing directly to object to in the account. However, there are high demands from the Sverigedemokraterna that the part of the Tidö Agreement concerning the Act on Special Immigration Control becomes noticeably more effective with further powers, extended detention periods, and bolder assessments that take less account of foreign terror threats when executing deportations. It must involve a creativity with, for example, diplomatic guarantees that lead to decisions that make our country safer.

The only thing I can have a point of view on in the report, Madam Speaker, is the current situation and future analysis made regarding the travel of violence-promoting Islamist extremists to and from foreign conflict zones. There it is confirmed that the travel today, unlike ten years ago, is at a low level and that it is unclear how a potential next wave of travel might look. There, more parties than the Sverigedemokraterna should be able to provide the answer: The travel shall be addressed through intensive lifelong deportations from Sweden.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I am ready to submit the document to the records.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's communication 2022's report on the application of the Act on Special Immigration Control. A unanimous committee proposes that the communication be tabled. But when the communication is handled here in the chamber, there is still reason to provide some background to the issue.

Europe has in recent decades been hit by a long series of very serious terrorist acts. Sweden has for a number of years had an elevated terror threat level. The war in Ukraine also reminds us of the threat profile that exists from other states. The Swedish Security Service's National Defence Intelligence Centre writes in its annual assessment from last year that there may be a threat profile where a foreign power acts within the framework of state deniable violent capability in order to thereby promote its strategic interests. These acts of violence may in some cases fulfill the requirements for terrorist crimes.

In recent times, the threat situation against Sweden has intensified, and the Swedish Security Service sees an increase in the number of attack threats in the intelligence flow. The recent developments regarding threats directed at Sweden and Swedish interests are serious and affect Sweden's security. The developments should be seen in the light of the deteriorated security situation in the world and events such as the Quran burnings and the internationally noticed LVU campaign directed at the Swedish social services.

Overall, the development means that Sweden is judged to be in greater focus than before for threats from violent Islamism globally.

Against that background, it is of continued great importance that Sweden can intervene with force against foreign citizens who are judged to constitute qualified security threats in Sweden. There, the Act on Special Foreigner Control, despite having its shortcomings, filled an important function by enabling special measures to be taken against foreigners who were judged to constitute threats.

The Act on Special Foreigner Control had, as mentioned, major flaws. It was therefore positive that a new act on special control of certain foreigners could enter into force on July 1 last year, after several years of pressure from the Moderaterna and other former opposition parties.

Already in connection with the terror agreement signed in 2017, the then Social Democratic government committed to reviewing the Act on Special Foreigner Control. Prior to that, the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) had pointed out in a specific submission to the government that the legislation was unclear, difficult to interpret, and difficult to apply.

Despite this, it took the previous government more than a year after the terror agreement to appoint an inquiry. In March 2020, the inquiry submitted its report, in which it proposed entirely new legislation with entry into force on 31 July 2021. But it took the government until 24 February 2022 before it submitted a bill to the Riksdag, with the legislation entering into force on 1 July 2022. It thus took the previous Social Democratic government five years from the terror agreement to review deficient legislation and get new legislation in place.

We Moderates welcomed the new law when it was being handled in the Riksdag, but we simultaneously noted that several problems remained unresolved.

Madam Speaker! The Moderates' starting point is that foreign citizens who pose a threat to Sweden's security shall leave the country. If this is not possible for various reasons, these persons must be able to be held in detention or be monitored in a reassuring manner.

In several high-profile cases, foreign nationals who pose a security threat have been released on free release because there have been execution obstacles regarding deportation. Persons who have been assessed by both the government, the Swedish Security Service, and the Swedish Migration Agency to pose a threat to Sweden's security have thus been able to move practically freely in Swedish society.

The new law entailed improvements in several points. Among other things, the time for how long a person can be held in detention was extended. But the problem of how a person should be handled in the event of an execution obstacle remains.

If a person who has been deported according to the Act on Special Immigration Control can no longer be held in detention, it is common for the person to be ordered to report. It is then of decisive importance that the Swedish Police Authority or the Swedish Security Service keep watch over persons who pose a threat to Sweden's security. It is therefore of great importance that the person who is ordered to report also complies with this.

In the new law, the penalty scale for offenses against the reporting obligation was tightened. But given that the reporting obligation is of such crucial importance, we believe that 14 days of imprisonment as the minimum penalty for offenses against the reporting obligation is far too low.

In connection with the consideration of the bill, we also pointed out that violations of the reporting obligation should be able to constitute an independent ground for taking a person into custody. Through such a measure, it becomes possible to take a foreigner into custody if necessary after they have violated the reporting obligation, which the Riksdag also announced to the government at that time.

The Moderates have, as mentioned, seen a number of areas where the new legislation needs further development. The issue is also addressed in the Tidö Agreement. There, we four coalition parties have agreed that further restrictions shall be investigated, as well as other countries' work with agreements on diplomatic guarantees to carry out deportations. Detention periods shall also be able to be changed and extended.

Now Sweden has a new government, which prioritizes and takes Sweden's security seriously. It feels safe in an uncertain time, Madam Speaker.

With that, I conclude by moving for approval of the proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! The Left Party has this time chosen not to submit a motion but has only declared our position in a special statement. Our criticism, however, remains when it comes to deportation cases according to the Act on Special Immigration Control and is not changed by the wording.

I want to clarify, however, that Vänsterpartiet does not want to facilitate terrorism in any way. Nor are we against deporting terrorists. But we want it to occur in a legally secure manner.

Vänsterpartiet proposed in a motion in 2020 that the government should give a supplementary directive to the then ongoing investigation on the law on special immigration control. The legal certainty for the individual and the possibilities to transfer the decision-making power on deportation in all security cases to a general administrative court should be reviewed.

We still consider that such a review needs to be made. In this way, the legal certainty for those threatened with deportation and the public's opportunity for insight into the process would be strengthened, even if certain parts of the proceedings or the judgment were to be confidential with regard to, for example, national security. We stand by our previous position that the courts need to be allowed to access all the investigation that Säpo has in a case. In these cases, the same high standard of proof should apply as in criminal proceedings.

An administrative court has the experience and competence to handle both sensitive and confidential cases and documents in a significantly more legally secure manner than a government. Therefore, the decision-making power regarding deportation in all security cases should be moved to a general administrative court. Legal certainty in the review is strengthened and the risk of political influence is reduced when a general administrative court handles sensitive cases.

The annual report that the government submits to the Riksdag regarding the application of the current law is rather devoid of content. This makes it difficult for the Riksdag to gain real insight into how the law is used. This problem would disappear if cases under the new law were to be handled by the administrative courts.

For the same reasons, representatives for Vänsterpartiet rejected the government's proposal for a new regulatory framework for qualified security matters. The core objections raised in these cases against the previous law on special immigration control remain.

I believe that legal certainty suffers when the deciding authorities do not get to see all the material that the Security Service has in the case. I also mean that it is practically impossible for a person threatened with deportation to defend themselves against the accusations being made. In several cases, for example, Kurds have been deported to Turkey. It can involve up to 30 people, according to Kurdish organizations.

In addition to deportation, decisions can include a ban on visiting Sweden for ten years. In the cases highlighted, the spouse of the person suspected of posing a security threat has also been deported. What we know about the Swedish citizens of Kurdish background who have been targeted by Säpo and had their spouse deported because of this is that they have sympathized with the Turkish left-wing party HDP. It is a democratic party with links to several Swedish Riksdag parties. Authoritarian regimes' views on democratic parties must not influence decisions on residence permits in Sweden.

Civil society organizations such as Amnesty have pointed out the importance of a person who has received a decision on deportation being able to take part in the basis for it. It is necessary to uphold the principle of proportionality and global security.

The Swedish Migration Agency has issued a deportation decision after receiving classified information from Säpo that a person poses a security threat to Sweden. Neither the Swedish Migration Agency, the Migration Court of Appeal, nor the person facing deportation have been allowed to access all the material that Säpo holds in the case. This has resulted in a deficit of information and a lack of legal certainty for the deported person.

It is inappropriate that the government is the highest authority in these types of matters. Furthermore, these deficiencies are not remedied by the reporting that the government submits annually to the Riksdag. Even though Vänsterpartiet has now chosen not to submit a motion on the issue, this is our view. Vänsterpartiet still considers it desirable to have an investigation that examines the possibilities of transferring the decision-making power regarding deportation in all security cases to the general administrative court.

We will closely follow the ongoing work on the questions and return with proposals if there are grounds for it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! On this issue, there are divided opinions between the Sweden Democrats and the Left Party. These divided opinions are clarified in previous positions from the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats and revolve around the possibilities of staying in Sweden for foreigners who are considered to constitute a security threat by the Security Service.

I can point to an example and a concrete question that punctures the claim that Vänsterpartiet does not want to facilitate the deportation of foreign terrorists from Sweden. Why should a deportation from Sweden of persons who are assessed by the Security Service to constitute a security threat not apply for life? Does Vänsterpartiet believe that it should apply for life? If not, why does Vänsterpartiet want these persons to be able to return to Sweden? They have been deported because they have posed a security threat to Sweden. It is a quite concrete question that I would like to receive an answer to.

I can add another question. Does the member distance themselves from what the colleague Lena Olsson in Vänsterpartiet has written in previous special statements that this law is discriminatory legislation based on a suspicion of foreign citizens? Is it a view that still persists within Vänsterpartiet, or can the member distance themselves from previous special statements in that part?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions.

It has been a while since Lena Olsson wrote that motion. A lot has happened since then. The security policy situation has changed. We are now in a completely different situation. Vänsterpartiet has, of course, reassessed and developed our policy in the area.

What we are primarily critical of is precisely what I described, that is, how the judges are determined. We want it to take place in an administrative court and that it should not be done by the government. It is in the administrative courts that the expertise and knowledge exist. That is where one knows how those types of very sensitive issues should be handled.

It does not mean that we are against deportations, just as I said. But it must be done in a legally secure manner. We safeguard legal certainty. That is the important part of our submission and our view on the issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have full respect for the fact that values can change over the years when it comes to opinions on existing laws. In such cases, it is welcomed that there is not such resistance that Vänsterpartiet wants to abolish precisely the law on special alien control. But the suspicion is in some sense justified, because one has always thought so and continues to have objections against the law's function and application.

My question clarifies that there is still a conflict. Vänsterpartiet still, in some way, always strives to facilitate these people's existence in Sweden. This is concretized through the question of deportation for life or not.

Does the Left Party consider that these persons who constitute a security threat and who shall and can be deported should be deported for life? And if you do not consider that they should be deported for life – why does the Left Party not want to deport security threats for life from Sweden? Does the Left Party consider that we have too few foreign security threats in Sweden and need to be able to welcome them back? Please answer that so that we can get a clarification of where the Left Party stands on this issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the supplementary question!

One must probably see on a case-by-case basis whether one should be deported for life or not. I cannot give you a very good answer to the question. I am quite new in the Committee on Justice and have not followed these issues so closely for a long time, but I believe that one has to see this on a case-by-case basis.

What is important for us, nevertheless, is that no one is deported without grounds. It must occur in a legally secure manner. It is incredibly important for us. It is also incredibly important for us that the person threatened with deportation is given access to all information so that they can defend themselves. For that is not the case today. We have seen cases where it has been very questionable.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! If the Social Democrats' approach - as I described in my speech - can be described as sluggish, then the Left Party's position can best be described as naive.

In a time when many perceived themselves to be living in eternal peace, such an attitude could be, if not justifiable, at least understandable. But it is a time that we have clearly left now. Vänsterpartiet was also the only party in the Riksdag that voted no to the new improved law that was adopted last year.

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve argues in her speech that the person intended to be deported shall be allowed to receive all information that forms the basis for the decision.

This information is, by its nature, often intelligence information. Not infrequently, the Swedish Security Service has received this intelligence information from security services in other countries. That requires a confidential cooperation. When describing the intelligence information in detail, one can also reveal sources of various kinds.

Then my question to Lotta Johnsson Fornarve is: In what way would Sweden's security be affected by intelligence information being disclosed in the manner the member proposes?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

For us, the essential thing is legal certainty and that the accused and their counsel are given the opportunity to access all information to ensure that the accusations can be countered in a correct and proper manner. I do not think that is so strange.

That is not the case today. We have seen several cases where, for example, Kurds have been deported on quite strange grounds, for example that they have had a close connection to a democratic party in Turkey, such as HDP, which in no way can be claimed to be terrorists. There is therefore every reason to ensure that the person threatened with deportation and that person's lawyer are given the opportunity to access all information. We put legal certainty in the foreground.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! It is naturally the case that decisions on deportation must be made on correct and objective grounds. But one must also not forget that much of the information that forms the basis for deportation decisions is extremely sensitive for Sweden's security and is based on intelligence information. It may not by its nature have the same evidentiary value as something that would hold up in a criminal trial, if one makes that comparison, but this is intelligence information that is of great importance for Sweden's security.

I am a bit concerned about the Left Party's position, that one almost completely unconcernedly imagines that a person whom the Security Service considers to constitute a threat to Sweden's security should be allowed to receive intelligence information which could mean that persons receive further information on how the security service operates. This entails very large risks for Sweden's security.

I want to ask one more question. It concerns who should make the final decision on whether it should be appealed to the government or to the general administrative court. These can be very dangerous situations where the government has the ultimate responsibility to guarantee Sweden's security. In what way does Lotta Johnsson Fornarve mean that the government should be able to take that responsibility fully and ultimately if the decision-making power is transferred from the government to the general administrative court?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the questions!

It is precisely because these are such sensitive, difficult, and complicated issues that they need to be decided in an administrative court and not by the government.

In the court, there are people who can truly handle these types of issues in a legally secure manner. Therefore, we believe that it is both legally secure and much better for the court to handle these types of sensitive and confidential matters. They have knowledge and experience of this, and I am completely convinced that the court can handle it in such a way that it does not risk security but, on the contrary, strengthens the security for the person who is charged.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We have an elevated security situation in our country. Many say that the situation is assessed as the most serious since World War II. It is a threat that we must take with the utmost seriousness.

Vladimir Putin's and Russia's unprovoked and brutal war against Ukraine constitutes a threat not only to Ukraine but also to countries bordering Russia or in its vicinity. Sweden is heavily affected by the war and is subjected to attacks, most recently in the form of overload attacks against authorities and companies just a few days ago. The risk that persons residing in Sweden or who have arrived with the refugee flows are Russian agents or sympathizers has increased.

Another thing is that Sweden's Nato application and the provocations linked to it have led to extensive demonstrations in Muslim countries and also among Muslims living in Sweden, which has naturally increased the risk of terrorist attacks directed against Swedes and Swedish objects. The public Quran burnings that have been carried out around the country on several occasions – the Easter processions not to be forgotten – have contributed to Sweden being perceived as a legitimate target for terrorist attacks, either by individual radicalized actors or in the form of planned attacks carried out by known terrorist organizations.

Since 2015, a large number of people from countries with a high presence of violence-seeking Islamist groups have arrived here, and great vigilance is therefore of the utmost importance.

The report that is currently relevant is based on the Act on Special Control of Foreigners from 1991. It was replaced on July 1, 2022, by the Act on Special Control of Certain Foreigners. Over time, the former act has been used extremely sparingly with occasional annual cases, though with an increase in recent years. According to the report, it concerns single-digit numbers every year, and for several years, no deportation has occurred at all with the support of that act.

There can therefore be a misconception that mass deportations occur with this law as support, but that is not the case, at least not judging by the report. There was a certain increase in 2018 and 2019, but the figures were still quite low.

As has been pointed out previously, that law had major flaws. And now, finally, the new one has been introduced. With the new law, the possibility of deporting foreigners who constitute a qualified threat to the state's security is increased. It also clarifies the possibility of taking the person in question into custody. The objective has, of course, all along been that the law should be compatible with a well-functioning protection of fundamental civil and political rights.

The law that has now been implemented is a step in the right direction, but I believe there is more to be done and that it perhaps should be complemented and strengthened in certain respects. The previous speaker also touched upon that question.

The Swedish Security Service and other handling authorities have a neighboring but extremely important mission to protect our country against terrorist attacks and other threats to the nation's security. That these matters are surrounded by high secrecy is natural. But all matters are examined in several instances, and the person concerned is entitled to a public counsel, which speaks for the fact that current cases receive a fair assessment.

From the Kristdemokraterna side, we feel confident that the process currently underway meets the requirements for legal certainty that exist in these cases. As has also been touched upon, it is largely very sensitive information that forms the basis for the deportations, and parts of it cannot be made public in any way.

In summary, I would like to thank the government for the report and welcome the new law, which provides better opportunities and tools for us to ensure a safer Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report: that the letter shall be added to the records.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I shall be brief. It is pleasing that there is a broad consensus on the Act on Special Foreigner Control. It is pleasing that we are no longer naive and believe that there are no groups or individuals in this country who wish us ill and who want to harm us or our society. I am speaking of terrorists.

We know today that there are people who have come to Sweden, who have had contact with terrorist organizations in other countries, who are radicalized and who, when they have established themselves in Sweden, have supported terrorism abroad financially and been involved in planning acts of violence both in Sweden and abroad. Those people have probably also had an influence on people in Sweden when it comes to joining terrorist organizations.

That is what reality looks like. And it is the task of the Police and the Security Service to detect and prevent attack planning and attacks.

But it is important in this context to emphasize that the majority, the vast majority who have come to Sweden or who come to Sweden from countries or regions where there is a high presence of terrorist groups, not least violent Islamism, are not terrorists or radicalized. It is important to keep that in mind as well.

The fight against terrorism is global, and the work against it is carried out internationally today. It is therefore important that Swedish legislation does not differ too much from other EU countries so that the various security services and police organizations can work on the same terms.

Mr. Speaker! The Act on Special Foreigner Control is such a law, and it is needed. No terrorists shall be able to use Sweden as a base and from here lead or plan attacks - neither in Sweden nor anywhere else. A terrorist shall not stay in Sweden.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 21.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)