2023 report on the application of the Act on Special Control of Certain Foreigners

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report on the 2023 account of the application of the Act on Special Control of Certain Foreigners, which was previously called the Act on Special Foreign Control. It is a law that makes it possible for our country to deport persons who have not necessarily committed a crime but who are feared to be able to pose a problem that could lead to terrorist attacks in Sweden or that our country, our realm's interests, are threatened in various ways.

The law has been well debated in this chamber over the years. It has also been tightened in accordance with the requirements the Sweden Democrats have set over the last decade, in many different ways for the better. That is to say that we have received better opportunities to use detention for several different reasons, not only to be able to carry out deportations but also when it can be expected that people will commit crimes.

So, quite a few improvements have been made, but the Sweden Democrats still have quite a few views on how the law is designed and how it could be improved to ensure that no security threats move freely in our country. We know from sad experience in our country what small means are required for persons who constitute security threats to be able to carry out horrific attacks on our streets.

On October 17, our Prime Minister held a press conference in connection with the terrorist attack that occurred the day before in Brussels, where two Swedish football supporters were cold-bloodedly shot dead by a violent Islamist. One of the conclusions that our Prime Minister shared during the press conference was that dangerous people who pose a threat to others and are not Swedish citizens must leave our country immediately. It is a conclusion whose meaning is difficult to misinterpret. With this comes also a political responsibility to actually ensure that it also happens.

I fully understand that this type of matter is complex and that a fully transparent account of all the work that takes place to deport foreigners who constitute a security threat is not possible. But the law on special control of certain foreigners must nevertheless be considered one of the most offensive tools if one wants to compel foreign security threats to leave the country immediately.

We see that the figures in the report regarding how many cases are handled with the help of the Act on Special Control of Certain Foreigners are not impressive. Only one new case regarding deportation was initiated during the period 1 July 2022–30 June 2023. For the sake of clarity, it should be mentioned that this government has not been in office during the entire period and that the management of our authorities occurs according to a certain order.

One can therefore conclude from this that the Security Service needs clearer guidance from the government if the words from our Prime Minister are to have real significance. In order for execution barriers not to stand in the way, more offensive work must take place with precisely diplomatic guarantees and deportations to more conceivable receiving countries. This must, therefore, be accelerated.

With this said, the government should also feel a great deal of support from the Sweden Democrats in continued work to specifically deport foreigners who constitute a security threat.

The foreign security threats, however, can in ordinary circumstances find support for their presence in Sweden from the political left wing. Vänsterpartiet has, in accordance with tradition, gathered its objections to the law, which thus makes it possible to deport security threats, in a specific statement in the report. Previously, Vänstern has wanted to abolish the law entirely.

This shows a bit of the difference between the Left and, above all, the Sweden Democrats. With the Left, we get more foreign security threats here whom we find increasingly difficult to deport. They will surely even become citizens if the Left and the Green Party are allowed to decide for themselves. But if the Sweden Democrats are allowed to decide, we will not get any foreign security threats here, and those who are in our country would be deported precisely as immediately as the Prime Minister explicitly desired at his press conference on October 17, 2023.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the 2023 report on the application of the Act on Special Control of Certain Foreigners. A unanimous committee proposes that the report be added to the records. But there is still reason, when the report is being handled in the chamber, to provide some background on the issue.

Sweden's security policy situation has deteriorated significantly during recent years. For many years, we did not really want to see how Russia was developing in an increasingly authoritarian and aggressive direction. But with the full-scale and illegal war against Ukraine, it is clear how the security situation in Europe has fundamentally changed for a long time to come. In addition, we have China and Iran, which in different ways pose threats to Sweden's security.

We have for a long time lived with the threat from terrorism, primarily from the violent Islamist environment but for that matter also from the violent white power environment. That various conspiracy theories occurring within different extreme environments are additionally mixed into a toxic cocktail of extreme anti-establishment movements exacerbates the situation.

In recent years, the threat landscape to Sweden's security has broadened, and Sweden faces more serious security policy threats than before. Sweden is more in focus for violent extremism. We have seen many examples in our world around us of hybrid warfare through information and influence operations.

The disinformation campaigns of recent years regarding the Swedish social services and last year's Quran burnings have gained wide circulation in the Muslim world. This means that Sweden, from having been a Western country among others, has come to be singled out as a priority target for violence-seeking Islamists.

That this vulnerability is not merely a theoretical risk but a highly concrete threat became all too clear in Brussels on October 16, when two Swedish football supporters were murdered simply because they were Swedish.

Against that background, it is of 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 Control of Certain Foreigners fulfills an important function by allowing special measures to be taken against foreigners who are judged to constitute threats.

On the question of this, most parties are in agreement, but as the previous speaker pointed out, Vänsterpartiet clearly stands out. In the specific statement that Vänsterpartiet has in the report, we are reminded that Vänsterpartiet rejected the new legislation that entered into force in 2022 after the matter had been forgotten for several years in the Social Democratic government bureaucracy. It is legislation aimed at giving us better opportunities to handle qualified security threats in Sweden. But it does not end there. Vänsterpartiet voted no to the new terror crime law, which gave us better criminal law protection against terrorism. Vänsterpartiet also voted no to criminalizing participation in a terror organization. Vänsterpartiet also voted against the introduction of secret data interception.

The Left Party has thus time and again voted no to important legislation to protect Sweden against terrorism. The Left Party's party leadership is now trying to make itself more government-capable in order to be able to take a place in a future Social Democratic government. But I shudder at what it would mean for Sweden's security if the Left Party were to be given the opportunity to take a place in a government.

The Moderaternas 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 need to be held in detention or monitored in a reassuring manner. It must also be considered how those cases where it is not possible to carry out deportations should be better handled and in what way society can protect itself against persons who are considered to pose a security threat. Within the framework of the current government cooperation, these questions are addressed.

Now Sweden has a government that prioritizes and takes Sweden's security seriously. This, Mr. Speaker, feels secure in an uncertain time.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! As a member of the Left Party, I will continue to argue for important democratic values such as the rule of law and stability in a constitutional state. It has been our bulwark, but we have questioned many of the reforms that have concerned secret measures and the control of certain foreigners.

We have wanted to include more markers and safety checks in these systems, and it is one of the issues that I will dwell on today.

It is about how we can improve the procedural possibilities for obtaining access. In that regard, we already several years ago proposed that the government should give a supplementary directive to the investigation regarding this law on special immigration control to review the legal certainty for the individual and the possibility of transferring the decision-making power on deportation in all security cases to the general administrative court. That it did not happen, I would say, is a reason why we have been critical of some reforms.

I still believe that legal certainty suffers if certain such measures are not taken. It is also extremely outrageous that the person who is being suspected is not allowed to access the underlying material that causes them to be threatened with deportation or that deportation is even carried out. Nor are the legal assistants in these processes granted access.

One could imagine different steps here. We should be able to rely on the fact that the judges can distinguish between what is strict confidentiality and what a representative passes on to their client. But there are no such safety markers in the system now.

2023 report on the application of the Act on Special Control of Certain Foreigners

In the current communication, it can also be seen that there are not many cases that have gone the entire administrative path up to the government. One of the decisions involved a rejection of an appeal against the Swedish Migration Agency's decision regarding deportation. That decision concerned someone who had not previously been subject to measures according to this Act or even to alien control.

Another decision involved the rejection of an appeal against the Swedish Migration Agency's decision regarding a ban on leaving a residence area.

A further three decisions involved a rejection of a request for review of deportation, following a request by the individual.

These things we should be able to correct in order to live up to the fact that we are a state governed by the rule of law, and I mean that the legislation and lawyers have a greater possibility to create trust in these issues than purely political bodies do.

In conclusion, I want to say that I am proud to be a member of the Left Party. There is a great distance between our policy and the Sweden Democrats' policy.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 28 February.)

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