Amendments to the Citizenship Act

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! In March 2022, an innocent father of three was shot dead at Delta Gym in central Stockholm by a 16-year-old foreign boy. The father, because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, had to pay with his life. A completely horrific incident.

The boy was sentenced in the District Court to 2 years and 11 months of closed juvenile care. The Court of Appeal then increased the sentence to 4 years of closed juvenile care. Only one month after the sentence was handed down, the boy was released from the Sis-home in connection with a dentist visit.

Something that upset many - including myself - was that the guy, moreover, during the time he was suspected of the murder, could, so to speak, be rewarded with a Swedish citizenship. It is a completely insane order.

Madam Speaker! Citizenship represents formal membership in Swedish society. Swedish citizenship should have great significance, both legally and symbolically. For us Moderates, it is clear that the value of Swedish citizenship must be respected and protected to a much greater extent than today.

The story of the murder at Delta Gym highlights so many inaccuracies and deficiencies in the Swedish legislation. Now, the Moderate-led government is addressing these problems.

We are implementing paradigm shifts in several areas to get Sweden in order, something that the Social Democrats, together with their coalition partners, failed to achieve during their eight years in government.

The list of measures - completed and upcoming - is long. On May 15, we restricted the possibilities of using mobile phones and computers at the Sis homes. An investigation is underway which reviews SIS's mandate with the aim of proposing a completely new organization and operation to make the care safer and increase security.

We are tightening the penalties, and by the summer of 2026, youth prisons will be ready. An investigation is also underway to enable significantly more deportations of foreigners who commit crimes. And today we are debating and will later make a decision that youths who are reasonably suspected or convicted of more serious crimes shall not be able to obtain Swedish citizenship.

It takes time to clean up after the Social Democrats' paralysis. But with reform after reform, the Moderate-led government is moving Sweden in a better direction. We stand on the side of the crime victims and the honest people. Step by step, we are making Sweden safer and more secure.

Madam Speaker! The significance of Swedish citizenship has been undervalued for far too long. Citizenship has been granted all too easily, without any major requirements regarding either language skills, self-sufficiency, or an honest way of life. The focus has been more on the individual's rights than on obligations.

For us Moderates, it is both obvious and important that Swedish citizenship should be given greater value, both legally and symbolically. Citizenship is a legal relationship between the citizen and the state that entails rights and obligations for both parties.

Today we take an important step to evaluate citizenship. According to current regulations, there are two ways to acquire citizenship: either through an application or through a notification. Notification of citizenship is a simplified process primarily used for children and young people.

To acquire citizenship through application, only a few conditions are set today, and the Swedish Migration Agency, which handles the cases, does not have the right to perform any search in the suspicion or criminal record register. That was why the Delta Gym murderer was able to become a Swedish citizen during the time he was already suspected of the crime.

In the Moderate-led government's proposition, it is proposed that those who are reasonably suspected or convicted of certain crimes, i.e., crimes for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for four years or more, shall not be able to obtain Swedish citizenship. Repeated criminality and crimes committed outside Sweden shall also disqualify persons from becoming Swedish citizens.

Persons who constitute a threat to Sweden's security or public security, or who have a connection to groups and organizations whose activities involve systematic, extensive, and gross abuses of other people, shall also not be able to acquire Swedish citizenship through application. The new rules shall, with some exceptions, apply to everyone who has reached the age of 15.

Madam Speaker! This amendment is necessary to safeguard our open and secure society. Citizenship shall not be granted to those who are convicted or suspected of serious crimes. We must not underestimate the importance of security issues within migration policy. Naivety must be eliminated.

We find ourselves in a time when a record number of people are denied citizenship as a result of the Security Service considering that the person applying for citizenship is too dangerous. In that case, the simple procedure through notification can also not constitute a way for potential security threats to still become Swedish citizens.

Madam Speaker! I also want to point out that today's changes are only the first step in the moderate-led government's work to raise the requirements for acquiring Swedish citizenship.

More reform work is underway to tighten the requirements for acquiring Swedish citizenship. This autumn, an investigation will be presented on stricter requirements for citizenship during the application process. According to the directive, the investigation shall, among other things, present requirements for a longer period of residence in Sweden, self-sufficiency, an honest way of life, and additional knowledge of Swedish society in order to be able to acquire Swedish citizenship. These are long-awaited and necessary requirements that the Swedish people are demanding.

Parallel to this, an investigation is underway examining the possibility of revoking citizenship for persons with dual citizenship who have committed system-threatening crime, crimes against humanity, certain other international crimes or other very serious crimes, or whose citizenship was acquired as a result of false information or through other improper procedures.

Madam Speaker! The bill also proposes changes regarding the rules concerning deprivation of citizenship. We are increasing the protection for both children and adults so that they shall not be forced against their will to renounce their Swedish citizenship. This is particularly important in order to protect vulnerable persons.

For us Moderates, the child's rights and the principle of the best interests of the child are an important fundamental rule. All children have the right to a safe and bright future. No child shall be taken abroad against their will to be subjected to forced marriage, genital mutilation, or other forms of honor-related violence or oppression.

This Saturday, June 1, new rules will come into force which also expand the travel ban. Through this, children's protection against being taken abroad and facing harm is strengthened. The strengthened protection of citizenship, together with the expanded travel ban, constitute important parts to reduce the risk that girls and boys are taken out of Sweden and subjected to honor-related violence or oppression.

Madam Speaker! Just as in previous matters here in the Riksdag concerning the migration policy area, the red-green opposition is divided. The Social Democrats claim to pursue a strict migration policy, but it is very clear that it will be difficult for them to unite their ranks to do so. That picture is reinforced by today's matter.

To the matter it should be noted that the Swedish Migration Agency already in 2017 contacted the then S-government with a petition regarding citizenship by declaration. It then took two years before the S-government appointed an inquiry to review this. A further two years later, on July 2, 2021, the inquiry was presented. The consultation period expired on November 4, 2021. But after this, nothing happened. The Social Democrats did nothing.

It is also peculiar that the Social Democrats do not have a single representative present to debate today. It is more than distressing that they do not make an effort to participate in this debate. Words and actions do not align. The Social Democrats' nonchalance is striking.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet say, as usual, no to the Moderate-led government's tightenings within the migration area. That may also have been the reason why the proposals we are debating today were not submitted by the then S-government.

We can observe that a Social Democratic government means that Vänstern and Miljöpartiet get to dictate the migration policy and that the Social Democrats literally give walkover - if there are no doubts.

Madam Speaker! A Moderate-led government is the only guarantee for a strict migration policy. We are the guarantee that Swedish citizenship shall now be re-evaluated and combined with requirements for both self-sufficiency as well as knowledge in Swedish and social studies, and an honest way of life.

I naturally move for approval of the Government's proposition on these necessary and long-awaited amendments to the Citizenship Act, that is, approval of the Committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The bill we are debating today contains proposals in two areas, partly changed rules for acquisition of Swedish citizenship through declaration, and partly changes in rules regarding renunciation of Swedish citizenship.

Vänsterpartiet is critical of the government's proposal regarding stricter requirements for acquisition of Swedish citizenship through notification. I would therefore like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

As we heard from the member who spoke earlier, this is simply a link in the government's and the Sweden Democrats' migration policy. The proposals aim to make it more difficult for and prevent people who come to our country from being granted Swedish citizenship, and as usual, it is the rule of law that this government is compromising on.

This is a development that Vänsterpartiet does not accept, especially not in these proposals, as the very purpose of obtaining Swedish citizenship through application is to facilitate for children and young people to become Swedish citizens in order to ensure that they receive a strong sense of community and thereby more easily integrate into Swedish society.

That the government and the Sweden Democrats want to make it significantly harder to become a Swedish citizen is nothing new, but all potential proposals put forward need to rest on a solid foundation since citizenship is of great importance for individuals and their integration into Sweden. We believe that these proposals do not do so. Instead of placing emphasis on legal certainty and sound analyses and on people entering society, the government wants, in every way, to make the gap between citizens and non-citizens even larger.

Then one should ask what happens when one gets a growing group of people, especially children and young people, who are in the country and lack citizenship and its basic rights. They are excluded from the possibility of influencing their situation. Keeping especially children and young people out of citizenship will lead to a greater distance from society with poorer conditions for integration and inclusion.

Sweden has a long tradition of viewing citizenship as a tool for integration. Citizenship contributes positively to the individual's integration process, which benefits both the individual and society as a whole. A relevant question is whether it has unreasonably far-reaching negative consequences for the individual to be denied Swedish citizenship. The public interest in denying citizenship should also be seen in the perspective that it can have major negative consequences for a democratic society if persons who have resided in the country for a long time are not given the right to fully participate in, for example, democratic processes.

When it comes to crime and the inability to obtain Swedish citizenship through application, several of the proposals are far too intrusive and hit children and young adults—the primary target group for obtaining citizenship through application—disproportionately hard. A solid child impact assessment should have been conducted on what it means to be denied citizenship due to a criminal act committed during the time the person was a child and thus a minor.

As the Bar Association and other referral bodies point out, the government's proposal can be seen as a double punishment: on one hand, one serves a sentence, and on the other, one is denied citizenship. Furthermore, the consequences of the proposals presented are imprecise and difficult to oversee, and from a legal certainty perspective, all too vague.

If one looks at the proposal regarding crimes committed outside Sweden from a rule of law perspective, it is not a straightforward matter to determine. Several referral bodies point out that many asylum seekers have fled from countries with recognized deficiencies in the justice systems, outright dictatorships. Here, the government needs to review to what extent such criminality can and should be taken into account; otherwise, the proposal risks leading to an unpredictable application.

When it comes to the proposals regarding security matters, we, in line with the Bar Association, question the legal certainty. It has, for example, repeatedly been shown that persons who are not suspected of anything are deported completely without legal recourse today by referring to the fact that it concerns a security matter. Regarding the proposals here, clear definitions and established criteria for how the assessment should be made are lacking, which opens up for arbitrary assessments. It is not legally certain.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats also want that those who are reasonably suspected of criminality cannot acquire Swedish citizenship through application. Here I want to emphasize, Madam Speaker, just as among others the Bar Association does, that an important and fundamental human right is that a person shall be considered innocent until there is a conviction.

To deny a person the opportunity to acquire Swedish citizenship for reasonable suspicion of a crime places the person in the same category as persons convicted of serious crimes. It is not compatible with Swedish legal tradition, the principles of the rule of law, or fundamental human rights. One can say at this point that legal certainty is not something that this government holds in high regard. This has been proven, not least by the collusion with those who operate troll factories.

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Actually, it is perhaps not surprising that the Left Party is also opposed to this reasonable tightening in the migration policy area, namely that those who have committed a crime or are suspected of a serious crime shall not be able to acquire Swedish citizenship through application. The Left Party is, in fact, opposed to all relevant tightenings in the migration policy area.

Vänsterpartiet wants to return to the design of the Aliens Act as it was before 2015, that is, the year when over 160,000 people applied for asylum in Sweden. Vänsterpartiet wants to establish amnesties for those who have hidden and lived illegally in Sweden for a sufficient amount of time. Vänsterpartiet simply wants to dismantle all the basic principles that exist regarding regulated immigration.

Now, one also does not want to in any way rectify the obvious deficiencies that exist in the citizenship legislation regarding the notification procedure. Not even young guys who commit serious crimes in Sweden, who ultimately shoot and murder innocent people in our country, shall therefore be able to be denied citizenship through notification, according to the Left Party's proposal. How can that in any way be reasonable?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Had the member listened to the speech, he would have heard the questions I raised there, for example, what happens in a society when one receives a growing group outside of citizenship. What will the consequences of that be? Such analyses were not made in this bill, neither a child consequences analysis nor a solid overview of legal certainty. I think it is deeply serious that the government presents proposals without having reviewed what the consequences will be in society.

The leadership is on those who commit crimes. We think that those who commit crimes should serve their sentence, but then it is about entering society in such a way that one refrains from committing further crimes. That is where we place the emphasis. First and foremost, we want people not to even commit crimes, but the biggest problem there is that we have a government that is cutting back on crime prevention measures in municipalities around the country. It is deeply serious.

But if you have committed a crime and served your sentence, you should be helped out of criminality. That is how we want people to enter society. I do not see that this government takes that responsibility. On the contrary, one sees that people are not given citizenship and are kept in the periphery.

If you had conducted such a consequence analysis, we would now have a more serious debate and discussion. But it is incredibly difficult with a government that constantly puts forward one populist proposal after another. It is deeply serious.

The member raised several points regarding the Left Party's migration policy. I will answer that in my next turn. But I am still somewhat shocked that the member considers this reasonable without having conducted any analyses at all and cannot answer the question regarding the consequences of having people outside the systems.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! We have seen the consequences of the current policy. I raised an example in my speech with the father of three who lost his life and the 16-year-old boy who nevertheless was able to obtain Swedish citizenship through notification. These are the consequences of the Left Party's alternative, because the Left Party says no to all changes proposed by the government regarding the citizenship law. The order we have today is offensive, and that is why we are dealing with this.

It is not a human right to become a Swedish citizen. Becoming a Swedish citizen is linked to both rights and obligations. It is the finest thing we have in relation to membership in Swedish society. That is why we make these changes. They are reasonable. They are relevant.

The types of crimes involved that are to prevent one from becoming a Swedish citizen through application, regardless of whether one is reasonably suspected or has committed the crime and been convicted, can for example be aggravated assault, aggravated narcotics crime, contempt of court, sabotage against emergency services and rape, including negligent rape. It is entirely reasonable that we ensure that such people do not become Swedish citizens through this simplified procedure.

Madam Speaker! I would still, in the Social Democrats' complete absence in this debate, like to pose a relevant question for the purpose of consumer information. The Social Democrats intend to support a government including Vänsterpartiet, should misfortune occur in 2026. Vänsterpartiet surely also wants to be part of the government, as I understand it. I would like to know if Vänsterpartiet will demand that the tightenings we are now making be rolled back in order to support Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member very much for the questions. I shall begin at the end where the member finished. That question is difficult to answer. The Social Democrats are not part of this debate, so the member will have to wait for that answer. It is also the case that barely half of the parliamentary term has passed, so the member will have to sit for two more years and wait to see what will happen.

We in Vänsterpartiet, however, present our policy. We have a fairly large reservation in this report. Part of it I read out in my main speech. Deficiencies can be rectified, I still want to say, when it comes to crime and punishment. It is about how one does it. This is what I have been talking about for several minutes now. We have no confidence that this government will do it. The next person I will have an exchange with is from Sverigedemokraterna. They conduct campaigns with disinformation and troll factories. They are not politicians we can trust. It is nothing we can easily say yes to. It is nothing in which we see any legal certainty. It harms Sweden immensely when one has such politicians, for whom the member has rolled out the red carpet. These are politicians who have positions in the Government Offices. It is deeply serious.

Deficiencies can be rectified, but it is a matter of who does it and how it is done. Legal certainty is nothing that this government takes into account at all.

I can tell the member that if he had read through, for example, the Swedish Bar Association's referral response, he would have seen what incredibly serious problems with the rule of law there are with what you are presenting. We cannot agree to that.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet opposes this bill on quite a few grounds. I would like to go through some of these grounds to understand how Vänsterpartiet actually intends to proceed.

What we are discussing are the rules regarding how a foreigner can become a Swedish citizen through a simple notification procedure. Vänsterpartiet writes in its reservation that they oppose the proposal that foreigners who pose a threat to Sweden's security shall be disqualified from becoming Swedish citizens through a notification procedure.

The Left Party is therefore arguing that even foreigners who pose a threat to Sweden's security should be able to become Swedish citizens through a notification. The Left Party's justification for this bizarre position is that it should be easy for children and young people to become Swedish citizens.

One does not want to become angry, but how can we have members of Parliament who do not understand that foreigners who threaten Sweden's security shall in no way become Swedish citizens? If someone has come to this country and, according to the Security Service, would constitute a threat to Sweden's security, the Left Party argues that that person should become a Swedish citizen simply because he or she is a child.

I understand: Vänsterpartiet cares about foreigners. I understand that part. But does the member not care about all others who live in Sweden and who are threatened by these foreigners, who, according to a solid basis, would constitute a threat to Sweden's security? Does Vänsterpartiet not care about its own voters, who would also be threatened in such a situation? Is it really so bad that Vänsterpartiet wants foreigners who constitute a threat to Sweden to be able to become Swedish citizens through a simple notification procedure?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! One of the questions I received was how we can have Members of Parliament who submit such a reservation against the government's policy. Yes, how can we have members in the Swedish Parliament and an entire party that has access to the Government Offices, which operate troll factories and disinformation campaigns? The member can reflect on that when he sits down again. This is the serious democratic problem here.

In response to the question regarding security matters, I would like to say that I do not know why this is unclear for the member. It is stated very clearly in our reservation that we oppose this on the grounds of legal certainty.

The handling of security matters must be conducted in a legally secure manner. In my speech, I pointed out that we have people in Sweden who have been deported without due process with reference to security interests. This is deeply serious and goes against the principles of the rule of law. We cannot have it that way; we absolutely do not trust this government when it comes to this. It is not only us who think this. Several referral bodies highlight legal certainty.

What I consider to be serious is that the Sweden Democrats are standing here and completely flippantly blowing away the entire rule of law. It is deeply serious what a slippery slope Sweden is on, with the Sweden Democrats. Not only do they openly operate troll factories and disinformation campaigns – they also push through proposals that do not increase the rule of law at all, on the contrary.

We share the view of referral bodies such as the Bar Association and several others, who are of the opinion that this opens the door to arbitrary assessments. It is serious. We do not treat Swedish legislation in the way the Sverigedemokraterna do when they lightly cast aside legal certainty. It is deeply serious, I think.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! We can therefore state that the Left Party wants foreigners who pose a threat to Sweden's security to be able to become Swedish citizens through a simple application. The Left Party also writes in its reservation that even those who have committed serious crimes that can lead to four years of imprisonment or more shall be able to become Swedish citizens through application.

Madam Speaker! This is truly difficult to understand. Somewhere, it is hard to take this in. What is it for crimes we are talking about? Aggravated assault, sabotage against emergency services, and rape, to give just a few examples. Vänsterpartiet thinks that a foreigner who has committed any of these crimes should be able to become a Swedish citizen through a simple reporting procedure.

And what about the crime victims? Does the member even give a thought at all to how they feel? One has been raped, and the rapist becomes a Swedish citizen through a simple application. It is an inhumane and unsympathetic position. But the Vänsterpartiet perhaps has an explanation for why they think so.

In its reservation, Vänsterpartiet writes that the proposal that those who commit serious crimes should not be able to become Swedish citizens through application is all too intrusive and strikes disproportionately against children and young adults.

Madam Speaker! Something else that is intrusive is rape. We have a party here that stands on the side of the rapists. They stand up for the rapists' right to become Swedish citizens. It is shameful. Vänsterpartiet should be ashamed.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! As I said: I think this is remarkable. It is deeply serious that the member stands and expresses themselves in this way. It is dreadfully serious that the member concludes with that a party stands on the side of the rapists and so on.

I do not know if the member is still in the disinformation campaign and the troll factories, but I can say this to the member: A good thing to do is to sometimes step away from the troll factories and from the internet and see reality for what it is. This is what the member should focus on. One cannot keep accusing members in this way.

The Chairman says that he has difficulty understanding. We have a reservation of around ten pages. It is just a matter of reading our positions. I have also explained here again. I believe this is the fourth exchange of remarks where I have to explain how to do this.

We have zero confidence or trust in this government when it comes to the rule of law. Several things are happening on arbitrary grounds; it is serious.

When it comes to crime victims, it is precisely their side we stand on. The problem is, as I said to the previous speaker, that we have a government that has cut back all around in the municipalities when it comes to crime prevention measures and so on. Who is affected by your policy? Who becomes a crime victim? We want a policy where people do not become crime victims. But you come in at the final stage and point at citizenship and want to take it from people. But in every hundred steps before that, so that people do not commit crimes, you are not involved at all.

It is pure populism we hear here. We in Vänsterpartiet have been very clear in our policy. We agree with the referral bodies that are critical of this, including Advokatsamfundet, which has much higher legal competence than the member I have before me and also speaks on a factual basis instead of using disinformation.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! According to the Citizenship Act, there are certain groups in Sweden who can obtain Swedish citizenship not by applying for citizenship at the Swedish Migration Agency, but through a simple notification. The Citizenship Act specifies which groups these are: primarily children and young people who have lived in Sweden for a long time or are stateless.

Madam Speaker! When I tell people that in some cases it is possible to apply for citizenship, I notice that this is a foreign concept. Many do not know that there are groups that can obtain citizenship through a simple application, and many become upset that such an arrangement exists. Why should it be so easy to become a Swedish citizen? Should Swedish citizenship really have such a low value?

Therefore, I want to emphasize that the Sweden Democrats as a party are in principle against foreigners receiving Swedish citizenship through notification. We believe that everyone should apply for citizenship and undergo a proper investigation to be granted citizenship.

Those who become citizens through application often come from countries that are culturally and value-wise far from Sweden. Last year, it was primarily persons from Syria, Eritrea, and Afghanistan who became citizens through application. A total of 2,783 Syrians became Swedish citizens last year through a simplified application procedure which means that citizenship must be granted if one meets certain simple criteria.

It is a self-evident fact that the Sweden Democrats are essentially opposed to such a way of granting citizenship. This way of granting citizenship erodes the value of citizenship.

There are currently certain conventions that prevent us from abolishing the notification procedure for citizenship. What can be done, however, is set out in the bill being discussed today. What the government proposes and the Sverigedemokraterna support is that requirements are introduced in the Citizenship Act which mean that a person who is convicted of a crime for which the most severe punishment is imprisonment for four years or more cannot acquire Swedish citizenship through notification. This is a first step when it comes to making it more difficult for foreigners to obtain citizenship through notification, which also appears in the bill, where the government sees good grounds to, in the long run, also have more crimes covered by this provision, for example crimes with a maximum penalty of at least two years.

The current government has also, through the Inquiry on stricter requirements for acquiring Swedish citizenship, tasked an investigator with proposing a requirement for an honest way of life for those groups who can acquire Swedish citizenship through application. The bill today and its proposals are a first step based on the inquiries that the Social Democrats left behind, where a liberal view on migration policy still prevailed.

The investigations that this government has commissioned will lead to much stricter legislation regarding citizenship by application. The crimes that, according to this bill, can disqualify a foreigner from obtaining citizenship by application are crimes such as aggravated assault, aggravated narcotics crime, sabotage against emergency services, and rape.

I believe that many who are watching this debate will be astonished that the foreigners who have committed these horrific crimes have so far been able to obtain Swedish citizenship through a simple application. It is a scandal and a great betrayal of the crime victims. Now we are rectifying this. It must never happen again.

The proposal also contains the suggestion that foreigners who have committed repeated crimes that result in, for example, two or three years of imprisonment shall be disqualified from becoming Swedish citizens through a notification procedure. This could involve violent crimes, weapons offenses, or drug offenses.

Even crimes committed outside Sweden where the foreigner has been convicted can disqualify the foreigner from becoming a citizen of Sweden through the notification procedure if the crime is serious and has occurred repeatedly. This means that criminals who come to Sweden will not be able to become Swedish citizens through the notification procedure.

It is a scandal that such a hurdle is only being established now. For many Swedes, it is a self-evident matter that someone who has committed serious criminal acts in their home country should not be able to become a Swedish citizen through a simple application, but this does not seem to have been self-evident for the Social Democrats.

In the proposition, it is also proposed that a person who is reasonably suspected of a crime where the minimum penalty is four years of imprisonment or more shall not be able to acquire Swedish citizenship through application.

It is important that people are considered innocent until there is a conviction. On the other hand, it is not a given that one should be able to obtain Swedish citizenship through a simple application when one is reasonably suspected by law enforcement authorities of having committed a crime.

Already today, the rule applies that even suspicion of a crime is taken into account when a foreigner applies for citizenship. That suspicion of a crime shall constitute an obstacle to obtaining citizenship is therefore nothing new in the Citizenship Act. On the other hand, it would be unfair to the crime victim if a person whom the police are investigating as reasonably suspected of a serious crime could become a Swedish citizen through a simple application. I believe that many in society would think that it was a reprehensible arrangement.

As I mentioned earlier, the entire concept of foreigners becoming Swedish citizens through a notification procedure can be questioned. It is completely unacceptable that a foreigner who is reasonably suspected of a serious crime can become a Swedish citizen through notification before the criminal investigation has been concluded. This shows that Sweden has had a liberal migration policy where criminal persons have had a way into Swedish citizenship. It is clear that there is a lack of confidence in such a migration policy.

It is also strange that the Social Democrats did not manage to adopt legislation preventing this during the eight years they were in power. What was it that prevented them? Is it so difficult to understand that foreigners who are reasonably suspected of serious crimes should not be able to become Swedish citizens?

Something that shocks many is that today there is no obstacle to those who constitute a threat to Sweden's security being able to become Swedish citizens through application. A foreigner who in some way constitutes a threat to Sweden's security has thus until now been able to become a Swedish citizen through a simple application procedure.

This means in practice that a foreigner can acquire Swedish citizenship through application, even though the Security Service has information that may indicate that the foreigner poses a threat to national security. During the eight years that the Social Democrats were in power, they did not submit any bill to change this, which is strange.

In this bill, the government proposes that a foreign national who is judged to constitute a threat to Sweden's security or public security shall not be able to acquire Swedish citizenship through application. It is a proposal that has support among the public. That foreigners who, according to the Security Service, constitute a threat to Sweden's security can become Swedish citizens is a scandal. That we adopt a law that prevents this is not anything strange. The strange thing is that the Social Democrats did nothing about this during the eight years they were in power.

Of course, Sweden's enemies should not become Swedish citizens. Unfortunately, foreigners who have been active in organizations that have committed gross abuses against other people have also been able to become Swedish citizens through application. A foreigner who has been part of an organization engaged in torture and executions has, therefore, been able to become a Swedish citizen through application.

Madam Speaker! I believe that most people watching this debate are wondering what the politicians are actually thinking - why should such people be allowed to become Swedish citizens? I cannot really answer that because I do not think they should be allowed to become it. What I can state, however, is that the Social Democrats did not stop this during the eight years they were in power. I do not understand why. One has time to carry out an investigation and submit a bill during eight years if the will exists, but there has been no such will.

The Sweden Democrats will, together with the government, put a stop to this here and now. In the bill, there is a proposal which means that the person who has been active in or had decisive influence over an organization or group whose activities involve systematic, extensive and gross abuses of other people cannot acquire Swedish citizenship through application.

It is of course appalling that such monsters have been able to become Swedish citizens. It must have been a terrible experience for their victims to see these criminals walking around in Sweden as Swedish citizens, but we are putting a stop to this right now. The new requirements that I have set out regarding Swedish citizenship by declaration will apply to all foreigners who have turned 15 years old.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

I want to emphasize once again that the Sweden Democrats are essentially opposed to foreigners receiving citizenship by declaration. We believe that all foreigners should apply for Swedish citizenship.

I want to say that the report on which the bill is based was submitted to the Social Democratic government in July 2021. This means that the Social Democrats had more than a year to submit a bill with similar proposals to those the government has submitted. They chose not to do so. I do not intend to speculate as to why they did not submit such a bill, but they had every opportunity to do so. They had every opportunity to pursue a strict migration policy. They chose not to do so.

The proposition is a small piece of the Tidö Agreement's large transformation of migration policy. More will come, especially regarding changes to the Citizenship Act. At the end of the mandate period, we will have a regulatory framework regarding Swedish citizenship that is anchored with the Swedish people and which will ensure that Swedish citizens truly are Swedish citizens.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats talk a lot about crime. That is what we heard the member talking about here. At the same time, cuts are being made on all crime prevention measures in the country's municipalities. You are cutting back on professional groups that are absolutely crucial in the fight against crime, and you are also cutting back on women's shelters and so on. This has enormous consequences in society.

Madam Speaker! There is much that threatens our cohesion. One can say that the Sweden Democrats are working hard and effectively on exactly that, partly through the politics they pursue, and partly through what I touched upon earlier: troll factories and disinformation.

The right-wing parties do not only have a common cause with those who run the troll factories, but their entire power even stems from those who run troll factories. They have been invited to the Government Offices. The fundamental values of democracy are at stake, and we see this even in the proposals being put forward.

For applications for citizenship via notification, it is proposed here that those who are reasonably suspected of a crime shall be placed in the same category as those with a conviction. This is a significant departure from Swedish legal tradition and the principles of the rule of law. Just as the Bar Association pointed out in its referral, it is a fundamental human right that a person shall be considered innocent until there is a conviction.

Rule of law is obviously something that the Sweden Democrats do not hold in high regard. Therefore, I would like to ask the members the following: What gives the Sweden Democrats the right to punish a person who is reasonably suspected, and whom you have already punished in advance according to your proposal, but who then turns out to be completely innocent, when the Swedish court, our view on democracy and Swedish legal tradition, does not?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! A person who is reasonably suspected is absolutely not guilty of the crime. On the other hand, the person in question has no right to receive citizenship through a simple application. It is important that the needs of the crime victim are also taken into account.

When a criminal investigation is ongoing, a person may be guilty or innocent, but it is inappropriate to grant someone citizenship through a simple application procedure during the course of a criminal investigation when the person in question is reasonably suspected of the crime. I believe that many enough understand that we cannot have a society that rewards criminals. We cannot grant persons citizenship when they are potentially guilty and reasonably suspected of a crime, let's say rape, while the crime victim has to watch as the potential perpetrator is granted citizenship.

Regarding crime prevention measures in the country's municipalities, they do make their own budget. There are municipalities, such as my home municipality Malmö, where they invest in Arabic film festivals and Ibn Rushd. They choose for themselves whether they want to invest in crime prevention measures. There, it is probably a matter of the municipalities wasting money on the wrong things.

The member raised this issue with troll factories. I can buy the member a storybook. That is the only thing I know about trolls; they exist in storybooks. I hear everyone talking about trolls, so I would like to distribute storybooks to everyone in the opposition so that they can read them.

I do not know of any trolls in reality. I do not really know what the member is talking about when he talks about trolls.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! This is deeply serious and remarkable. Does the member for Kalla reject the revelations from Kalla fakta? Is that what we hear here in the chamber? Would what Kalla fakta has revealed to all of Sweden not have happened? Does the member reject these revelations? That is my first question.

It is deeply serious that we have a Member of Parliament who, after it has been revealed that there are troll factories and ongoing disinformation campaigns within the Sweden Democrats, not only denies the gravity of the matter, but also stands and mocks that he can buy us storybooks. During my years in the Riksdag, Madam Speaker, this is perhaps the most serious thing I have heard. It is not just the denial, but also that one as a Sweden Democrat can so flippantly mock this. It is beyond all limits.

One could say that the Sweden Democrats are unique. They are the only party in Sweden that conducts disinformation campaigns and has troll factories, and they mock it. Then they stand here and deny it when a member of Parliament asks questions about it. It is deeply remarkable.

Let me return to the issue at hand. The member says that the person in question shall be guilty, but what we are going to vote on now is whether the person is reasonably suspected. It clearly states so in the bill. One will be categorized as convicted. Has the member read the bill itself that he has been involved in submitting? That is my second question.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The answer is: Yes, I have read the bill. It states in it that when the criminal investigation is concluded, the person, the foreigner, can apply for citizenship if the situation permits.

It feels as though Member Haddou has not read the bill. We are talking about a person who is reasonably suspected of a serious crime, for example, aggravated assault or rape. Granting citizenship to such a person has no support among the general public, and it would be deeply inappropriate.

Madam Speaker! We are still receiving a fairly high fee. I believe the voters expect us to discuss substantive issues here. That is why I recuse myself from what Member Haddou says about troll factories. I actually think it is ridiculous to bring it up when we are discussing the citizenship law. Citizenship is much more important than any ridiculous nonsense.

It is also inappropriate that Member Haddou brings this up. Those watching the debate want to know what we think about the bill and want us to discuss it. We have read the bill and should discuss it and not some nonsense. That Member asking me what I think about this nonsense and about troll factories is not appreciated by many people, considering the fees we receive and that we are supposed to be well-versed in these issues and discuss the citizenship law today.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

Before continuing the debate, I would like to remind that the subject of this debate is amendments to the Citizenship Act.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet believes that we should hold Swedish citizenship in high regard. We believe it is important that there is precision when decisions are made, and we also think it is very worrying that it is now being discussed that different Swedish citizenships could be given different values and mean different amounts depending on whether one also has another citizenship.

However, it is not this that today's bill is about, but today it is about changes for persons who do not apply for Swedish citizenship but who wish to acquire Swedish citizenship through notification, and it concerns children and young people in particular.

This simpler procedure is fundamentally something that we in Miljöpartiet believe should remain. It is reasonable that, for example, children who have grown up in our country should be able to acquire citizenship in simpler ways than the more complicated and slow application procedure. This applies especially since we can observe that the waiting times for this are now many years, something that I hope the government will work to shorten.

There is a noted case where a young person applied for and received Swedish citizenship while a prosecution for murder was ongoing. This situation was probably not foreseen when the provisions of the Aliens Act regarding applications for citizenship were written.

Now we have a situation where very young children and teenagers have been drawn into serious crime and also shootings and being shot. We in Miljöpartiet think it is reasonable that a person convicted of murder should not be able to obtain Swedish citizenship through the notification procedure. It was, moreover, our government that commissioned an inquiry into the issue.

But the proposal that has now been submitted is flawed. The flaws are actually so serious that the Council on Legislation, which reviews all legislative proposals, rejects this formulation. One such flaw is that it is not the severity of the crime the person has committed that determines whether one can obtain Swedish citizenship through notification or not. Instead, it is the type of crime itself. This means that a person who has committed a crime that is not at all to be considered serious, i.e., a crime for which one might be sentenced to prison for 14 days or not sentenced to prison at all, could also be affected by this provision.

An even more serious problem with this legislation is that by removing the possibility of acquiring citizenship through notification even if the person is only suspected of a crime, one punishes people who have not committed a crime. And it suffices with a very low degree of suspicion, which may subsequently turn out to be incorrect. This is something we in Miljöpartiet oppose forcefully.

In Sweden, it is a fundamental principle that one is not considered guilty if one has not been convicted of a crime. There must therefore be a conviction. It is a fundamental legal principle that we in Miljöpartiet safeguard. It is set aside in this bill.

One could imagine another alternative. One could imagine that if a person is suspected of murder, one could suspend the processing of the application for citizenship until it is known whether it actually leads to a conviction or not. This is also something that has been highlighted by the Council on Legislation.

We therefore choose to urge the government to return with proposals that mean that persons who have committed serious crimes are excluded, but not others. This bill is not good enough. It risks leading to people losing rights on grounds that the government itself does not even state are the purpose. We think it is wrong that persons who are wrongly suspected of crimes should be affected and lose an opportunity to acquire citizenship through this simpler procedure.

Those who cannot obtain citizenship through notification will, admittedly, be able to submit an application for citizenship. It is therefore not an absolute barrier for all time against obtaining Swedish citizenship. But we believe that the possibility of obtaining Swedish citizenship through notification should remain, and it should remain especially for children and young people who actually have not committed any crimes at all or who have committed crimes that are not serious.

Madam Speaker! An important proposal in the bill is that it should become more difficult for parents to strip their children of their Swedish citizenship. We know that it occurs that children are taken out of Sweden due to, for example, child marriage, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, etc. These children should continue to be able to have the protection of Swedish society, and therefore they need to be able to continue to be Swedish citizens.

It is very important that the work is strengthened regarding preventing children from being stripped of their citizenship when it is not in the child's best interest. We have also urged the government to do this.

I therefore move for approval of Miljöpartiet's reservation 2 and reservation 3.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by praising the Miljöpartiet because they, unlike the Vänsterpartiet, nevertheless accept that foreigners who are a threat to Sweden's security should not be able to obtain Swedish citizenship through application. It shows a self-preservation instinct and genuine concern for people living in Sweden. It is important that one also praises each other in a debate, when it is well-deserved.

It is, however, strange that Miljöpartiet opposes the bill because, according to their reservation, they argue that certain serious crimes in context can be regarded as less serious. I have a fairly simple question for Miljöpartiet. In what contexts would crimes such as assault, rape, and sabotage against emergency services be regarded as less serious, according to Miljöpartiet? It is precisely these crimes that are exemplified in the bill as crimes that would lead to a foreigner being disqualified from being able to obtain Swedish citizenship through notification.

In what contexts can a foreigner commit rape and still have the right to Swedish citizenship through application, if Miljöpartiet were to decide?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask a counter-question to Nima Gholam Ali Pour. If a person is sentenced for a crime to, for example, 14 days of imprisonment, do the Sverigedemokraterna then consider that to be being sentenced for a serious crime? That is the running point in how the government has chosen to design this proposal. It has been said that it is the type of crime and not the crime that the person has actually committed that determines whether the person shall be excluded from having the possibility of citizenship through notification.

It means that it also applies to a person who has committed a crime where the court assesses the severity of the punishment to perhaps 14 months or perhaps even exempts them from punishment. We have, for example, cases where people who have assisted other people in taking their own lives have been convicted of a crime but received a much lower sentence than the usual minimum sentence, because it has been considered that there were serious mitigating circumstances.

The difference between how we in Miljöpartiet and also the Council on Legislation on one hand and the government on the other have viewed it is that we in Miljöpartiet believe that the act committed by the individual and not the type of crime itself should determine what the consequences will be. We believe that it is much more just to start from the premise that a person who has committed a serious crime should actually face the consequences of it, rather than that one has committed a crime of a certain type that could be much more serious in a completely different context.

I do not know if Nima Gholam Ali Pour is following, but if one reads the Council on Legislation's opinion, one gets a very pedagogical overview of these dividing lines.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now the member is playing with words. Crimes that can lead to four years' imprisonment or more do not often lead to 14 days' imprisonment. I do not know how often it happens. It may have happened. But I do not believe that crimes that can lead to four years' imprisonment or more usually lead to 14 days' imprisonment.

Now we are discussing changes to the citizenship law. It is important to emphasize for those watching the debate that the Sweden Democrats and the government want to deport more criminal foreigners. We are discussing the citizenship law, but actually, it is about that we want to deport those who commit such serious crimes.

There are now several investigations that are to produce legislation that creates greater opportunities to not only deport criminal foreigners but also revoke residence permits and deport foreigners due to a lack of lifestyle. I do not want to precede these investigations, but the purpose is that more criminal foreigners shall be deported. It is the Sweden Democrats' position. These foreigners shall not only be unable to obtain citizenship through application, but they shall actually be deported from the country.

There is no context in which rape or, for that matter, other crimes that carry a sentence of four years' imprisonment or more can be considered less serious crimes, as the Miljöpartiet writes in its reservation.

If you are sentenced to four years' imprisonment or more in a country like Sweden, you have committed a truly serious crime, and then you should be deported and absolutely not be granted citizenship. It is harmful to society that such foreigners should be granted Swedish citizenship, and it is tragic that Miljöpartiet continues to support the stay of criminal foreigners in Sweden.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I think it is clear that Nima Gholam Ali Pour has not quite understood the meaning of the proposal. The bill that is now coming from the government means that persons who have been sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment can lose the right to obtain citizenship through application.

The first crime in the Penal Code where we have a sentencing scale ranging from 14 days' imprisonment to four years is infanticide. There are, therefore, people who can be convicted of this. It could involve, for example, a woman who has just given birth and kills the child shortly after birth when she is in a kind of distraught state of mind, as it is stated in the law—a state of mind that, thank goodness, affects very few women. But for that crime, one can therefore receive six years' imprisonment, but one can also receive 14 days' imprisonment.

There are a number of such crimes where the minimum sentence is 14 days' imprisonment and the maximum sentence is four years or more. That means a person who is only sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment under this bill loses the right to citizenship through notification.

At the same time, the government claims that this is intended to affect persons who have committed serious crimes. It does not seem quite reasonable. I really do not think one can claim that if someone is sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment, it is considered a serious crime. In that case, one has essentially changed the meaning of what constitutes serious crimes.

This will once again be my counter-question to those who stand behind the proposal: If one is sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment, do you then think that one has committed a serious crime?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin this debate by moving for approval of the committee's proposed decision, which also means approval of the bill regarding changes to the rules for citizenship - both the tightenings that are made and the change that is made regarding release from Swedish citizenship.

Citizenship is a legal relationship between an individual and a state. Through citizenship, a number of heavy rights are obtained, for example, the right to vote in parliamentary elections. Obtaining a Swedish citizenship implies a participation in a larger community, with obligations and rights towards others. Through citizenship, the sense of participation, belonging, and identity is strengthened. Since a citizenship entails far-reaching rights, the conditions for acquiring citizenship need to be tightened.

For far too long, it has been far too easy to become a Swedish citizen, for example when one is under investigation for a crime. Examples have been raised earlier in the debate. It is a situation that causes outrage and needs to be changed.

Madam Speaker! This government is making major changes in the migration area to correct the situation and the problems that we can see in our society. Today's debate concerns a proposal that is a first step in the changes regarding the possibilities of obtaining Swedish citizenship. The bill means that those who are reasonably suspected or convicted of certain crimes, pose a threat to Sweden's security, or have a connection to certain groups and organizations shall not be able to acquire Swedish citizenship through application.

At the same time, the proposal also involves changes concerning deprivation of Swedish citizenship. The changes entail reinforced protection for children and adults who are in a vulnerable situation. No one shall, against their will, for example due to the fact that he or she lives in a context of honor, be forced to renounce their Swedish citizenship. Parents who send their children abroad for the purpose of marrying them off, for upbringing trips, or for female genital mutilation can today deprive the child of their Swedish citizenship. This makes it difficult and sometimes impossible for Swedish authorities and embassies to help the child. The bill therefore entails increased protection for children and young people who live in a vulnerable situation.

Madam Speaker! The journey leading up to the law we are now debating has been unnecessarily long. The legislative change follows an investigation presented in 2021. That investigation was commissioned by the then S-MP government. The investigation was produced after the Swedish Migration Agency, in its petition as early as 2017, had requested that a requirement for an honest way of life be introduced in notification cases.

The Swedish Security Service also emphasized to the government that a possibility should be introduced for the Swedish Migration Agency to reject an application for citizenship by referring to that the person the application concerns constitutes a threat to national security. The Swedish Migration Agency, therefore, requested the change that we now have for decisions here later this week here in the Riksdag already in 2017. It thus took the previous government two years before it even appointed an investigation, and when the investigation then presented its proposals, they put the conclusions in the desk drawer.

The current government is now doing what the Social Democrats failed to do. It is indeed high time to listen to the demands for change and tightening that both the Swedish Migration Agency and Säpo have been requesting for a long time.

During the eight years that Sweden had an S-government, it was difficult to see a straight line regarding migration policy, which today's proceedings also underscore. Policy in the migration area needs to be steered to ensure we address the problems we see in our society, and today's government cooperation provides this basis for action. Sweden needs and deserves it.

Madam Speaker! In this debate, as in many other debates on migration in recent times, it is evident that there is a lack of a united opposition. Regarding this specific legislative change, we can see that the Social Democrats and the Centre Party support it, even though they are not actively participating in the debate today, while the Left Party and the Green Party, in their usual fashion, choose a path with reservations toward what is proposed.

Today's debate also shows what requirements and what laws will become a reality if it—which I obviously do not want—should become another government cooperation after the next election. Can the Social Democrats really implement their announced stricter migration policy together with the coalition parties they have invited to cooperation? Today's debate is another example showing that it perhaps will not be so with a new government.

One might wonder and perhaps see it as a sign that the proposal we are now debating, which the Swedish Migration Agency and even Säpo requested as far back as 2017, was put on standby by Morgan Johansson despite the need for change. We shall see what can be implemented now that a sharper policy is being signaled. One can ask: What kind of policy can the Social Democrats drive and implement when the Green Party, the Left Party, and the Centre Party have issued an ultimatum to give their support?

Madam Speaker! Unlike the Social Democrats' chaos coalition, the Tidö parties will continue to deliver. Many investigations are underway. During this year, many of them will be completed and lead to government bills during 2024 and 2025. The next step is to introduce much clearer requirements for those who are to receive Swedish citizenship. Citizenship shall no longer be granted to those who cannot speak Swedish or who do not understand and respect our country's democratic values.

Regarding these changes to Swedish citizenship, an investigation is currently underway which aims to further tighten the requirements and thereby increase the value of Swedish citizenship. The reporting of this investigation will take place this autumn.

Setting requirements is about strengthening the Swedish community and what Swedish citizenship symbolizes. Setting requirements regarding language, integrity, and knowledge of Swedish values also constitutes, as I see it, a prerequisite for good integration.

The value of Swedish citizenship lies in our community, the requirements we place on one another, and the fundamental principles that we collectively defend. The Government and the Sweden Democrats are now moving from words to action to upgrade citizenship.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats will continue our work for a responsible and humane migration policy where people whom we receive are given good conditions for integration into our society but at the same time receive a clear picture of requirements regarding what is expected to obtain a Swedish citizenship.

And as previously stated, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and thereby also the government's proposition, which means that legislative changes are implemented in the Citizenship Act.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! To become a Swedish citizen means that one becomes, fully and in an irrevocable way, a part of our national community. It is the finest thing Sweden can give a foreigner, but it is also binding. One receives rights but also obligations.

There must be a good balance between the one and the other. Unfortunately, that has not been the case so far. Therefore, I am glad to be part of the parliamentary basis for a government whose work is aimed at restoring the balance and upholding the dignity of Swedish citizenship.

Madam Speaker! Not setting high requirements for one to be able to become a Swedish citizen devalues not only the significance of citizenship but also the significance of being part of a community of destiny that, in the end, can demand everything from us.

The Liberals have long worked to raise the status of citizenship, for example by setting a language requirement in order to be able to become a Swedish citizen. When we presented this rather minimal requirement, we were, as is well known, branded as xenophobic and much more.

Sweden has lost decades thanks to the resistance against this and other important measures aimed at strengthening the value of citizenship and participation in the community. The results are, as we know, an enormous division and a devastating exclusion.

But times are changing, and now there is in this chamber a clear majority for this language requirement and likewise for other requirements regarding those who wish to become Swedish citizens.

We would like to go further in this regard and set requirements on knowledge of how Sweden functions and on the basic values that form the foundation of our free, democratic, and equal community. We also want, according to the Tidö Agreement, to see a longer period of residence, an honest way of life, and a subsistence requirement as conditions for being able to become a Swedish citizen.

These are not extreme requirements, but the normal state in a large majority of countries around the world.

Madam Speaker! We would like citizenship to be seen as both an incentive for and evidence of successful integration, that is to say, as a final destination in an integration process that proceeds through different stages, which in a balanced way provides access to more and more rights but also places ever higher demands on the person who fully wishes to join the Swedish community.

The bill that we are debating today is part of the important work that the government is undertaking to strengthen the position of Swedish citizenship.

That is the case in two respects.

Firstly, the government proposes that young persons who are reasonably suspected or convicted of certain crimes, which constitute a threat to Sweden's security or public safety, or who have a connection to certain groups and organizations, should not be able to acquire Swedish citizenship through application, that is, in a practically speaking unconditional manner.

The new provisions in the Act on Swedish Citizenship are proposed to apply to everyone who has reached the age of 15, with certain exceptions. This would prevent what happened with the 17-year-old boy from Armenia, who shot and killed the father of three and the security guard Fredrik Andersson at a gym and still became a Swedish citizen, from being repeated.

Secondly, the government proposes changes to the rules on waiver of Swedish citizenship. The changes entail reinforced protection for children and adults who are in a vulnerable situation. No one shall, against their will, for example due to the fact that he or she lives in a context of honor, be forced to waive their Swedish citizenship.

Madam Speaker! It is about highly reasonable proposals, which the Liberals naturally stand behind. The opposition shows the same division in this regard that we are now accustomed to. The Social Democrats stand behind the government's proposals, and so does the Centre Party. But they do it somewhat secretly and have chosen not to participate in this debate. It can still be rectified if any member from the Social Democrats or the Centre Party would like that.

Miljöpartiet and above all Vänsterpartiet are taking a stand aside from the parliamentary majority in these issues. It is nothing new under the sun, in other words.

Last but not least, Madam Speaker, I would like to express my support for the committee's proposal.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! The tragic event has been mentioned several times earlier today, but it deserves to be highlighted again.

In March 2022, Fredrik Andersson was murdered when he tried to protect a fellow human being at Delta Gym. It was a murder that surely touched us all.

First: An innocent and very brave father of three was murdered at a gym in central Stockholm. It is yet another civilian victim of the severe violence and gang crime that has taken root in our society. Then there is the anger that the murderer was able to become a Swedish citizen while he was reasonably suspected of the murder and on the run from justice.

This was possible because he was young. Children and young adults can, in certain situations, be granted Swedish citizenship through a simplified procedure, a so-called notification. Significantly lower requirements are set then than in an application for citizenship. No checks are made in suspicion registers or in criminal records. The person who meets the formal requirements for citizenship through notification has, unlike what applies in an application, an unconditional right to receive a Swedish citizenship.

The consequence was that a person was granted Swedish citizenship while he was, therefore, being detained in his absence for murder.

Madam Speaker! That Swedish citizenship is so easily granted to persons who have committed or are reasonably suspected of serious crime and who subsequently cannot be deported due to their crime is offensive.

The significance of Swedish citizenship must be strengthened. Accordingly, the requirements for obtaining it must also be tightened. That is why the government has presented this bill, Amendments to the Citizenship Act, which we are debating today.

The Government's proposal means that those who are reasonably suspected or convicted of certain crimes that constitute a threat to Sweden's security or public safety, or who have a connection to certain groups and organizations, shall not be able to acquire Swedish citizenship through application.

I believe that these tightenings appear obvious to most in Sweden. Nevertheless, no previous government has implemented the proposals.

It is somewhat symptomatic that the Social Democrats are not even present in the debate here today. That perhaps says something about the interest.

Another important change proposed in the bill is that the assessment shall be made based on the circumstances at the time of the decision and not the circumstances at the time of the application. This may possibly sound technical, but it is actually important in practice. It means that the circumstances when the decision is made will be decisive for whether a person can become a Swedish citizen. We simply cannot continue to have rules that prevent the Swedish Migration Agency from rejecting an application for citizenship even if, for example, a permanent residence permit for the person the application concerns has been revoked after the time of application.

Madam Speaker! Swedish citizenship is something that unites all citizens. Sweden is a liberal democracy, where we gather around a number of fundamental values. It is about equality and equity, that children have their own rights, and that we respect individual freedoms and rights.

A serious threat to the open and equal society is the individuals and groups who do not share these fundamental values but instead maintain oppression and violence in the name of so-called honor. All too many, both men and women, are affected by honor-based oppression. It must be combated - on all fronts and with the combined forces of society. The national organization GAPF - Glöm aldrig Pela och Fadime - has, among other things, pointed out a strengthened protection for children's citizenship as one of several important tools to protect children from honor-based oppression.

I am therefore particularly proud that the government proposes strengthened protection from deprivation of citizenship for both children and adults who find themselves in a vulnerable situation. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the state not yielding an inch to honor-related violence and oppression.

If there are, for example, suspicions that an application for exemption is made for the purpose of weakening the child's protection, for instance against being taken out of the country and married off against their will, it is important that the authorities have tools to be able to stop this.

It is therefore proposed that an application shall be able to be rejected if there is reason to assume that the applicant does not themselves wish to be released from their Swedish citizenship. Furthermore, it is proposed that as a prerequisite for a child's release from Swedish citizenship, it shall be required that the release is not judged to be in conflict with the best interests of the child. In that assessment, consideration shall be taken of the child's age and maturity. If the child has reached the age of twelve, it is additionally required that the child consents to the release. Under certain circumstances, a decision on release shall also be able to be revoked.

Madam Speaker! After every summer break, empty chairs bear witness to oppression in the name of honor. Classmates miss those who have been taken against their will to a country that is foreign to them. Perhaps they will never go to school again. We must never betray those children. No chairs shall stand empty after children who have been taken out of the country under duress.

I want every child who is subjected to honor oppression and risks being taken out of the country to know that we are doing everything in our power to protect them. We are strengthening citizenship so that they too shall have the right to dream, live the life they want and love whom they want - so that they too shall be able to fully be a part of our open, free and equal Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Viktor Wärnick (M) and Mauricio Rojas (L) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I agree with the last point: It is important that Sweden continues to take responsibility for children who are taken out of the country against their will, for example for child marriages or forced marriages. If the parents are prevented from depriving the child of their Swedish citizenship, Swedish authorities can continue their work. It is important.

I would, however, like to ask the Minister why the government has not taken into account the Council on Legislation's views on this law. Why does the government want persons who have been wrongly suspected of a crime to lose the possibility of acquiring citizenship through notification? If, instead, the law had been designed so that a notification is stayed pending either a finding that the person is guilty of a crime that is serious or perhaps being completely cleared of suspicion because the suspicion was incorrect, one would then end up in a situation where the purpose is achieved, that is, that persons who have committed serious crimes lose the possibility of acquiring citizenship through notification and instead must apply for citizenship, while persons who have wrongly been suspected of a crime, so to speak, are not punished.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the question! First, I just want to express that I am very pleased that we agree on the parts concerning strengthening children's right to their own citizenship and the possibilities for Swedish authorities to protect children who risk being taken away in the name of, for example, honor. It is good that we agree on that.

The Council on Legislation's criticism is primarily aimed at the fact that we actually want us to make a more complicated assessment, that is, to look at a sentencing assessment instead of the sentencing scale for the crime that a person is suspected of in this case.

We mean that the notification procedure we are debating today is a simplified and significantly more formal procedure based on the fact that it is also possible to make a more simplified assessment. When a deeper assessment is required, one is referred to the application procedure itself. There is therefore still an opportunity for the individual to have their case examined, which is naturally important.

There is also an opportunity, when the suspicion no longer remains, to seek via a report. I therefore think that we have landed on a reasonable assessment.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is indeed true that one can apply again, but that presupposes that one still fulfills the age requirements. Persons who have been wrongly suspected of a crime risk suffering a loss of rights when they instead end up in today's extremely long application process, where it can take several years to have one's case examined. With a waiver declaration, one would not lose the right but would have the possibility to continue to be able to obtain citizenship through application.

We do not think it is right that people are punished when they have not committed a crime. It actually occurs that people are suspected of crimes on an incorrect basis and the suspicion is then dismissed. I therefore wonder why the government has not taken the criticism to heart and instead produced a proposal that means it is those who have committed serious crimes who are affected, and not people who have not committed serious crimes.

I also want to comment on what Maria Malmer Stenergard said about this being the simplest solution. I do not understand why it would be so complicated to look at the judges. It is stated there how many years the court judges that the specific act in question deserves in punishment. I actually think it is reasonable that we judge the severity of the act and not the type of crime. It is not complicated.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! The idea is, as I said, precisely that the notification procedure shall be a simplified procedure, and it shall also require a limited amount of work. The individual is not left without legal recourse, because there is still the possibility to go via the application procedure.

I praised in a previous post that we were in agreement on certain parts of this bill, but I think perhaps the other parts reflect our very different attitudes toward Swedish citizenship. From the Moderaterna and the government's side, we argue that the value of Swedish citizenship needs to be strengthened, and it is actually important that quite a lot should be required to become a Swedish citizen. The focus should not be on eliminating obstacles to becoming a Swedish citizen.

It is important that citizenship is strengthened, and in this simplified procedure, we must also have clear opportunities to prevent people from becoming citizens if there is the slightest doubt about whether they should actually become Swedish citizens. In that case, one is instead referred to the application procedure, and there I believe the government has landed on a reasonable balance.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 29 May.)

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