Better migration rules for researchers and doctoral students and measures to counter abuse of residence permits for studies
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 S welcomes the government's proposition and the opportunities for Ukrainians, but criticizes cuts in welfare, equality, and nature 1. 2 S argues that tightenings occurred and changes in the labor market have made the situation acute 2. 3 MP welcomes opportunities for Ukrainians but wants to increase the working time to 20 hours 3. 4 MP believes that students should be able to work 20 hours to create contacts with the labor market 4. 5 MP argues that students should be allowed to work one weekend with student union activities 5. 6 SD believes that residence permits for studies should be used for studies and advocates for stricter requirements on study results 6. 7 M argues that they are stopping fraud where students use study permits to gain access to the labor market and welfare 7. 8 9 M argues that 15 hours is a well-balanced limit and that the proposal is well-balanced 8 9. 10 V thinks that the legislative change is welcome to increase the supply of skills 10. 11 C thinks that the changes are necessary to stop fraud 11. 12 KD argues that the proposition strengthens Sweden's competitiveness 12. 13 L wants to constitutionally protect academic freedom and that doctoral students should be given a separate researcher status 13.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (15)
Ola Möller (S)
Madam Speaker! The government's bill is welcome. It shows, not least, the broad support in this chamber.
The part that regulates just students' opportunities to work, I think is very good. I can have understanding for the marginal objection that Miljöpartiet has, but I think the seriousness of the issue and the problems associated with students coming here and working a lot make the objection fall.
It is very positive that a majority in here has identified the exploitation that has occurred and the exploitation that takes place regarding foreign students in Sweden and that the government steps forward and acts in this area. It is positive.
We Social Democrats are also positive about the expanded opportunities that Ukrainians get to apply for permits from within the country, if they are here on the grounds of the mass flight directive. We mean, of course, that the change could have happened earlier. But now that it is happening, we welcome it.
Madam Speaker! Approximately half of the highly qualified labor migrants state that balance between work and leisure as well as family-friendly conditions was an important factor when they sought to come to Sweden. Also, the opportunities for a certain specific work and good career opportunities are highlighted as significant.
The desire to move to Sweden is influenced by many things, but precisely the balance between work and leisure as well as access to culture, nature, and leisure activities significantly impacts the decision.
Third-country nationals, i.e., citizens from outside the EU and EEA area, also place great importance on factors such as security, views on equality, and the principle of equal conditions. This suggests that broad social aspects play a major role when choosing Sweden as the country to migrate to for labor.
These conclusions are drawn in SCB's large survey, which arrived a few weeks ago, regarding precisely highly qualified labor.
That it is the same in the case of researchers and doctoral students is highly likely. I can tell something anecdotal. I myself met many foreign doctoral students and researchers when I studied in Lund, and they most often highlighted what a fantastic country Sweden was to come to. It is admittedly 20 years since I studied, even if it doesn't show on me, but back then we had not had 20 years of a right-wing majority in this chamber. The demolition of the welfare construction that Reinfeldt and subsequent right-wing politicians have been occupied with had not been carried out yet, so one must take my anecdote with some caution. But nevertheless, the conditions in Sweden are better than the conditions are in many other countries, so my anecdote probably still has some validity.
Madam Speaker! In light of this, this mandate period is in many ways a lost mandate period. The Tidö parties have cut back on everything from welfare to support for nature conservation and culture. We see that nature reserves are deteriorating, schools are reducing staff, healthcare has recorded historically long care queues, and rehearsal spaces have closed around the country. 100,000 more are unemployed. Growth is at a bottom level, and housing construction has stalled.
Then it concerns equality. It is a Swedish flagship and one of the absolute strongest characteristics of our country. We have seen that the feminist foreign policy has been abolished. Women's care has been cut by 600 million. The wage gap has widened. Single parents, especially single mothers, have been impoverished. At least 37 sheltered housing units have had to close because the government implemented reckless changes. Furthermore, consent and relationships are to be deprioritized in school teaching, and two parties in the Tidö agreement question the fundamental equality reform that individualized months in the parental leave entail.
Madam Speaker! The Tidö government, with this policy, has made Sweden a less attractive country for highly qualified labor and likely also for the groups that this bill concerns. Above all, it is the Swedish people who have seen the consequences of a harsh right-wing policy, which the Sverigedemokraterna and the government parties stand for, where ordinary people and welfare are sidelined for large tax cuts for the better off and large corporations.
Despite our approval of the bill, I have the objection that the legal conditions are only one half of the question. If Sweden is to be a truly attractive country for competent people to seek out, regardless of field, the welfare must function, equality must be prioritized, our nature must be cared for, and our culture must flourish. For this to happen, a social democratically led government is obviously needed.
Magnus Resare (M)
Madam Speaker! At the beginning of this parliamentary term, I traveled to Växjö and met with the staff at the Swedish Migration Agency there. They told me about the abuse of residence permits for studies in Sweden. It was completely obvious to them how residence permits for studies were being traded in order to instead come here and work.
The staff also told me that they had repeatedly drawn the attention of the then S-led government to exactly this. But I also got the impression that that government had done nothing about the matter. I just wanted to hear if the member can give me a reasonable explanation as to why the S-government did not address the issue during the two parliamentary terms it governed the country. The government obviously received the information. Was it the Social Democrats who did not want to address this? Was it the Green Party that did not want to address it? Or was it both parties that chose to do nothing about the cheating and the abuse?
Ola Möller (S)
Madam Speaker! Tightening occurred regarding which courses were offered, among other things at Linnaeus University. The rules were changed regarding applying for English courses and such things. So, things happened.
It has taken this government four years to come up with a product. If Magnus Resare had been aware of the problem, perhaps this shows that it was not a completely simple issue to sort out and also that one takes one step at a time and sees if it helps.
We have also seen a major change in the Swedish labor market during these four years. The number of Foodora riders and Uber drivers has increased, that is, the exploitation rate has increased. The services have changed, which has made the situation more acute.
I think it is a bit of a shame that Member Resare – despite the fact that there is virtually full agreement in the chamber and despite the praise from the rostrum that it is good that the government is doing something – should be occupied with what my former party leader Stefan Löfven calls bickering, because that is actually what this is.
We can instead be glad that we have a broad consensus on a migration policy issue here in the chamber, and so we can leave the other things aside and see that both this government and previous governments have done things.
Then I think one needs to be reminded that the Social Democratic-led government had a good deal of migration policy issues to sort out after the Moderates' time in power, and very much was done. Furthermore, there was a pandemic to handle, precisely when this with Foodorabud and the like exploded. That also made it quite crowded in the pipeline.
In a tight pipeline, we migration politicians here in the chamber can calmly state that even this government, considering what the list of propositions looks like, has [that in mind]. I therefore think that a little humility and joy over the fact that we are in agreement on this issue would have been nicer from Member Resare.
Magnus Resare (M)
Madam Speaker! Let us then shake hands, and we are finished with the exchange of remarks!
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! It has been more than four years since we in Miljöpartiet first raised the issue of giving the Ukrainian refugees the opportunity for long-term security in Sweden. In this report, the government finally resolves the issue.
All people fleeing war and persecution ultimately need to land, end their flight, and begin a future in their new location. Now it will be possible for Ukrainian refugees to also apply for a work permit, which means that they can eventually obtain a permanent residence permit, security, and an opportunity to begin building their future long-term in Sweden.
I have met Ukrainian refugees who have hesitated: Should I really commit to validating my medical education? It takes two years to become a doctor in Sweden, and I only have a residence permit for one year at a time.
It is an important decision for the thousands of Ukrainians who have sought refuge here.
In this report, the government also submits proposals to address the fact that people who have applied for and received permission for studies – which may not have been the main reason for coming to Sweden – have been exploited in low-wage jobs.
Basically, we think it is good that we set a limit on how much one can work if one is here as a full-time student. However, the government sets the limit so low that people who want to work both Saturday and Sunday and also perhaps some evening during the week will not be able to do so – 15 hours, which is less than two days of full-time work.
We believe that even foreign students should be able to choose if they want to work in their spare time and therefore propose 20 hours, which means that one can still devote 40 hours a week to full-time studies without the work interfering. It is important to be able to work alongside studies, because the student grant, even with loans, is so low that many students need a part-time job for the finances to add up. The rent and food must be paid. It is also important because it is through part-time jobs that many get a foot in the door on the labor market. We should not make it even harder for young people to enter employment in Sweden after completing their studies.
We also think it is reasonable that even foreign students should be able to engage in the student unions and have different types of paid assignments during their studies without limitations. We do not see that such engagement shows any lack of interest in studying, but rather it is an integrated part of student life for many.
After we in Miljöpartiet wrote our motion, I have been made aware of the importance of ensuring that the limitation to 15 hours of work, or 20 hours as we propose, shall not continue to apply after one has finished their studies. The residence permit that one wishes to apply for afterwards for work can take a few months, and in that case, it is important that one is not prevented from starting to work when one has finished studying.
This is an issue that Sweden's university teachers and researchers have raised, and I truly hope that the government parties take this concern to heart and ensure that when the details are regulated at the ordinance level, it is also ensured that foreign researchers and students will be able to start working immediately after they have finished, for example, doctoral studies or studies.
Madam Speaker! I would like to move for approval of the Green Party's reservation. I can only regret that we are today the only party that thinks that one should actually be able to work 20 hours a week while simultaneously studying and furthermore engaging in student union activities. We think it would have been a better and more reasonable balance between the fundamentally good interests that the bill is based on.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! In the bill being discussed today, there are several important proposals that strengthen Sweden's attractiveness for researchers and doctoral students. It is the right path. Sweden should compete for the talent, not for the problems.
At the same time, the bill marks something even more important, namely that migration is not an end in itself. It shall serve Sweden and Swedish society and be designed based on Swedish interests. This is also clearly evident from the bill's direction: to both strengthen Sweden's attractiveness for qualified skills and counteract abuse of the systems.
Madam Speaker! However, it is not enough to open the door for the right people. One must also close the back doors for those who are not welcome in Sweden.
One such backdoor has been the residence permits for foreign students. Today, there are practically no restrictions on how much foreign students can work in Sweden. This has created a system where studies in some cases are not a goal for these foreign students, but a means to enter the Swedish labor market without fulfilling the requirements that apply for labor migration. This is a systemic error.
We also know that such abuse has occurred for a long time. SVT reported at the beginning of the year on how agencies in Pakistan recruit students to Swedish educational institutions, not for studies but for work. They even help these students with fake bank statements – they sell a way into Sweden, and when the students are finally here, they drop out of their studies and go straight into low-skilled jobs.
This is not migration in Sweden's interest, but a system being exploited. It erodes the public's trust in the migration system and for foreign students. It is not in anyone's interest that one should assume that foreign students cheat and take some back way into the Swedish labor market.
Let us be clear: A system that can be exploited will be exploited. If one leaves the door open, people will come in, whether it is right or wrong. It is up to the government and the Riksdag to decide on rules that reduce the incentives for cheating. That has not happened under Social Democratic governments.
Madam Speaker! This is not just about control. It is about justice. For every person who exploits the system, there is another student who does the right thing, studies full-time, follows the rules, and invests their time and their life in education. When we allow abuse of the system, we fail these serious students.
The Government proposes that the possibility of working when one has a residence permit for studies be restricted. The starting point is the EU's minimum level of 15 hours per week during the terms. The purpose is to curb cheating and abuse. It should not be seen as a ban on foreign students working. It should be seen as a clarification that studies shall be the main activity. This means that access to the labor market must be limited for foreign students. A residence permit for studies shall be about studies. It is unfortunate that this has not been obvious for some foreign students who have come to Sweden, but now we ensure that it is made clear that this is the case.
Furthermore, the requirements for study results are being tightened. It is necessary. The bill allows for a clearer definition – from the government's side or from the authority that the government decides – of what is considered acceptable progress in the studies. This has previously been determined through decisions in the Migration Court of Appeal. Now the government will raise and more clearly define these requirements.
There is a need to raise the requirements for which study results are acceptable for foreign students. The requirements are very low today. In Sweden, full-time studies at a college or university during a normal academic year correspond to 60 higher education credits. The requirements set by the Migration Court of Appeal are that a foreign student should complete 15 higher education credits during the first academic year, 22.5 higher education credits during the second, and 30 higher education credits during the third and subsequent years. If one has come to Sweden to study, one should perform better.
Today's requirement means in practice that a foreign student only needs to have completed a quarter of the expected higher education credits during the first year of study and around half of the expected higher education credits during subsequent years to have a residence permit for studies extended. This is not serious. The person who has come to Sweden and says that he or she is here to study must also study. Therefore, it is proposed in this bill that the requirement for acceptable progress in studies should be raised for foreign students.
Mr. Speaker! Another central change that will occur through this bill concerns the possibility of changing tracks. Today, a foreign student can apply for a new residence permit from within the country after relatively limited studies. It is sufficient for the foreign student to have completed studies corresponding to 30 higher education credits for him or her to be able to change tracks to another residence permit. This creates incentives for foreigners to come to Sweden, study for a short period, and then, from within Sweden, apply to receive a residence permit as a labor migrant.
The Government proposes that the requirements for changing the grounds for a residence permit be tightened. The student shall have completed a higher education equivalent to at least two semesters. This is a decisive change. It means that short-term studies are no longer sufficient to establish oneself on the Swedish labor market. A foreign student shall have completed an education before the person can change the grounds for their residence permit.
Mr. Speaker! All of this is connected: restrictions on work, stricter study results, and tighter rules for changing tracks for foreign students. These are not individual measures. It is a systemic shift for foreign students who want to study at Swedish higher education institutions. It is about a simple principle, namely that residence permits shall be used for their intended purpose and not exploited for anything else. The students who come to Sweden shall be exactly that – students – not sham students, not persons who are here to work in low-skilled occupations, and not persons who are exploited by employers who do not want to pay fair wages. The foreign students shall study, and if they work, it shall be to a very limited extent.
Mr. Speaker! This is fundamentally simple. A country that cannot distinguish between those who follow the rules and those who exploit them is a country that loses control. This government and the Sverigedemokraterna refuse to lose control. Through this proposition and many others, we have restored order and clarity within migration. There will be no shortcuts, loopholes, or misunderstandings. Foreign students shall be here primarily to study. Everything else does not belong in Sweden. I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.
Magnus Resare (M)
Mr. Speaker! At the beginning of this parliamentary term, I decided to visit as many of the Swedish Migration Agency's offices as possible during the term. The Tidö parties had just formed a government, and the direction was clear. We were to clean up the chaos that the left-wing parties' irresponsible migration policy and equally demanding-free integration policy had created in this country.
In the Sweden we took over, marginalization had spread. In some areas, lawlessness prevailed, and gang crime was allowed to spread. The feeling was often one of despair when bombs went off in stairwells and children executed one another. But we Moderates had at least not given up. We had decided to do what we can to get order in Sweden again, to get order in the country where it had been safe to grow up for generations and to get back the Sweden where people stood up for the welfare but also just let those who were truly in need of various benefits receive them while the others saw to it that every day they went to work. It was a country that people loved to live in.
When we took over, many people were still coming to Sweden, but many were also leaving the country. People had grown tired of the society that Sweden had become in just a couple of parliamentary terms. It was a country where crime was increasing and insecurity was rapidly spreading.
I decided, as I said, to visit as many of the Swedish Migration Agency's offices as possible and meet as many employees as I could. I also made sure not only to meet managers but also many who work on the so-called floor. I met the people who process cases and see the real reality every day. I wanted to find out what improvement opportunities those people saw and what they thought could be done.
A visit that really made an impression on me was when I traveled down to Växjö. There, a couple of people from the staff asked if I had heard about the fraud with study permits and how some Swedish universities and colleges were involved in pure schemes aimed at bypassing Swedish migration legislation. I asked them to tell me more, because I actually hadn't heard anything about it before.
I heard that Swedish universities have both the right and the obligation to charge a tuition fee for a semester from an international student from a country outside the EU. Furthermore, it looks good for the university if one has many international students on paper. This meant that there were double incentives for universities to acquire foreign students. Some Swedish universities had therefore obviously come up with a new business idea.
The business idea seemed to be that one hires a recruiter or agent, as the universities apparently themselves called the person, in for example Pakistan or Bangladesh. If one then gives this person or agent money for each recruited student, one can bring in money to the Swedish university through the tuition fee. One also appears as a more prestigious university since many international students seek it out.
The problem for the universities with this was only that people who seriously want to educate themselves already seek out the university they want to attend based on the education they are seeking. Selling in the own university and Sweden would therefore require something more. The setup therefore shifted to selling in the study permit as a way to enter Sweden and bypass the regulations for work permits, something that can otherwise be complicated to obtain.
The agents began marketing a scheme where foreigners could apply for basic-level English courses at Swedish universities. They paid the tuition fee and then also gained access to the Swedish labor market and welfare, not only for themselves but for their entire family.
In both Pakistan and Bangladesh, English is more or less a mother tongue for most. Therefore, it was no problem for these students to take exams for the beginner courses they had purchased or to not attend the lessons.
The Swedish Migration Agency quickly noticed a sharp increase in students who wanted to take courses in English at a beginner level. At the same time, employees at the Swedish Migration Agency saw that over 80 percent of students from certain countries did not live in the catchment area for their university after a few to three months after arrival. Instead, it could be traced that they often lived in metropolitan areas.
The explanation that the Migration Agency's staff had was that these people had not come here to study, but to work in low-wage jobs, because they paid more than jobs in the home country. They drove taxis or delivered pizzas in Swedish large cities. They did not work for regular taxi companies, where one has a tolerable wage, but in app-based taxi companies where one perhaps earned 20–30 kronor an hour driving a car. But it was still more than what they could earn at home, so it was worth paying the tuition fee and then keeping what remained at the end of the year.
The foreign students also only needed to complete a quarter of their studies each semester to receive an extended residence permit. When they had completed a total of 30 higher education credits, equivalent to one semester of studies, they could switch their residence permit from a study permit to a work permit. Most students from Pakistan and Bangladesh applied for such a track change.
Mr. Speaker! When I heard about this, I was naturally as surprised as I was outraged. I asked why the Swedish Migration Agency's staff had not said anything earlier. Their answer was: We have. We have told the government this for several years, but no one has listened to us. But of course, Mr. Speaker, we Moderates listened.
The Moderate government has taken up the issue and solved it. We are now putting a stop to this abuse. If you come to Sweden to study, you shall study. If you come to Sweden to work, you shall apply for a work permit. It is not more difficult than that.
You as a student will also now need to report your address so that we know where you are located. We will tighten the requirements for acceptable progress in studies as well as the requirements for switching from a residence permit for studies to a residence permit for work so that unserious students cannot abuse the system. We are also expanding the possibilities to revoke residence permits for relatives if it should be necessary.
In January, Sveriges Television produced a report where this cheating was revealed once again. It felt good that we had already come a long way in putting a stop to this through what we are now making decisions on.
We Moderates want to get this country in order. We want to get migration in order. This is an important step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker! We also want to make the country better for those who seek out Swedish universities for the right reasons. Fundamentally, it serves Sweden well to have research and for researchers to seek out this country. Through this bill, it will be possible for researchers and doctoral students to be granted permanent residence permits more quickly if they establish themselves here. They also get the opportunity to transition into other work after completing their studies.
It is not uncommon for someone to come here as a researcher and then be recruited by some IT or medical company. These are industries that build Sweden and that deserve good opportunities to access personnel. It is fair that doctoral students and researchers who come here and strive and contribute to Sweden's competitiveness are now also given better conditions to stay in Sweden, while at the same time we put a stop to fraud and abuse.
Mr. Speaker! Once again, Miljöpartiet unfortunately objects to a good proposal. Now, they want that those who are here to study should be able to work 20 hours a week, that is, half-time. Personally, I think that 15 hours a week, as we propose, is well-balanced. It should cover the needs for almost all students who are here to study.
If I had traveled to a country and paid perhaps 100,000 kronor per year to be able to study, I would at least have wanted to focus on succeeding in my studies. I would not have wanted to risk failing because of a side job or work.
It is reasonable that one can spend some time on work if one wants to work a little extra to perhaps learn the language or if one is hired by a company within the field one is training for and where the training can then transition into a full-time position. But the purpose of one's residence permit is, after all, studies. In that case, it is reasonable that the main part of one's time is spent on studies, and then one cannot work part-time or more.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Magnus Resare attacked us in Miljöpartiet for our proposal regarding a rather reasonable change. We are not proposing that the majority of the time for students should be spent on something other than studies, but we are proposing that one should be able to work on weekends and perhaps take some evening shifts. Very many students manage to work 20 hours a week without it affecting their studies. We have even seen members of parliament who have graduated while they have been members of parliament.
We think it is fundamentally positive that one can establish a connection with the labor market during their studies, work extra, get a foot in the door at a company, and show that one is someone to be counted on. It increases the chance of obtaining employment after the studies, especially in times like now with high unemployment.
Even when it concerns newly graduated academics, we think it is unfortunate to unnecessarily place obstacles for foreign students to be able to enter the labor market when they are finished. As long as the work does not encroach on the studies, it is reasonable that one can study.
I also want to hear from Magnus Resare if he has taken note of the question from Sulf. They asked about the possibility of starting to work directly after studies and want to ensure that the government makes it possible for students and doctoral students to do so, even if they have an ongoing permit for studies.
Magnus Resare (M)
Mr. Speaker! We think that one should be able to work during one's studies. That is why we say that 15 hours is still something, but we think that the main part of one's time should go to studies. A part-time position is still half of one's expected time in work or whatever one is engaged in. It is a bit too much, I think. That is my personal assessment. I think that 15 hours is good. With that, one can gain access to the labor market.
The problem that has existed and which we are correcting is that previously there has been no limit on how much one is allowed to work. Some have come here on a student permit instead of a work permit because a student permit does not protect workers' rights. Some people work 17 hours a day, seven days a week, because they are allowed to do so with a student permit. It is completely absurd. There are people who drive taxis in Stockholm for 20–30 kronor an hour for 15–17 hours a day, which is completely crazy. What kind of traffic risk do you not pose when you have sat behind the wheel for 15 hours for four months straight, and what kind of quality of life do you have? It is almost slavery because one might have to pay a recruiter in their old home country. That it has been this way with the student permits is completely crazy, but now we are correcting it.
We can debate whether 15 or 20 hours is reasonable, but if you come here to study, you shall study. If you want to work 20 hours a week or more, you must apply for a work permit, and the government has indeed made it a bit easier to obtain a work permit.
I think the government's proposal is well-balanced. It is a pity that only 95 percent of the members of the Riksdag stand behind this and that 5 percent must necessarily reserve themselves in this migration law issue. Imagine if we could have been 100 percent united in this matter and fix what has previously been broken. Ola Möller and I shook hands a short while ago, and it felt good. It is a pity that I cannot do the same with Miljöpartiet in this matter.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! We are not voting no to the proposal, but rather saying that the government should return so that students can work a whole weekend with, for example, student union activities if they wish. In Magnus Resare, it sounds as if we are in disagreement when we are fundamentally in agreement. What separates us is whether students should be allowed to work 15 or 20 hours. It is unnecessary to polarize on an issue where we are 99 percent in agreement. One does not need to exaggerate the differences in migration policy; they are clear anyway.
Why does Magnus Resare think that one should not be allowed to work an eight-hour shift on Saturday and an eight-hour shift on Sunday if one simultaneously manages to study for 40 hours? Why should one not be allowed to spend one's free weekend working if one wants to?
Magnus Resare (M)
Mr. Speaker! If one is here to study, 15 hours is well-balanced. One should be able to engage in something other than one's studies, but studies and not work should be the main occupation when one has been granted a study permit.
We want to put a stop to recruitment under near-slave-like conditions, and we succeed in that with this proposal. It is good that Miljöpartiet is going that far and does not want more than 20 hours, which is madness.
Are you here to study, study. Do you want to work, apply for a work permit. Or convert your study permit into a work permit, which we are now also enabling through the decision the chamber is making in a little while.
I thank you for a good debate and for the fact that the chamber, for once, is largely in agreement on a migration issue.
Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)
Mr. Speaker! Until 2021, doctoral students from countries outside the EEA could obtain permanent residence permits in Sweden after four years of study. But after tightenings in the Aliens Act, many were forced to leave Sweden after their graduation. The main reason was the difficulty within academia of obtaining a position with a sufficiently long employment period to be able to demonstrate sustainable livelihood. Insecure employment and short contracts are not just a problem for researchers from other countries but for many at our universities. But for researchers from countries outside the EEA, this could mean that they were forced to leave Sweden.
Vänsterpartiet was against the legislative change in 2021 because it made it more difficult for many people to obtain residence permits in Sweden. The parties that wanted to tighten the Aliens Act did not realize that, with the tightening, Sweden expelled researchers that Sweden needed, and that these then sought out other countries.
The legislative change that we are now debating is therefore welcome. It will increase Sweden's supply of competence and the security for foreign researchers. At the same time, there are other laws in Sweden that make foreign doctoral students and researchers hesitate. What will happen to their children? Will they be deported when they turn 18? Does Sweden split families? How permanent is a permanent residence permit when it can be reassessed?
Even the long processing times at the Swedish Migration Agency can deter researchers from coming to Sweden and make it difficult for them to stay in Sweden, even if they can eventually obtain a permanent residence permit.
Now foreign researchers are getting a fast track to Swedish residence permits, which is necessary. But there are others who live in uncertainty in Sweden and who should be granted permanent residence permits. Also let Ayla, who is to be deported alone to Iran, Kani, Diya, Jomana, Afrodite, Batis, Sharre, Manvel and all other young people who are to be deported get permanent residence permits. Stop all teenage and competence deportations and reintroduce particularly compassionate circumstances so that 95-year-olds can stay and children do not receive deportation decisions.
Mr. Speaker! The Left Party has chosen to stand behind the proposal despite the fact that we see flaws in it. It is certainly a step in the right direction, but more laws need to be changed for Sweden to become the attractive country for talent and international competence that we all envision.
Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)
Mr. Speaker! I have the rare pleasure of moving to approve the bill.
These changes are very good. They are necessary, and it is good that the government has developed them. We get faster, simpler and more tailored permits, and it is also important to stop the cheating that has been a major problem with the study permits.
The government says that it should make it better and easier for researchers and students, but at the same time, Sweden's university teachers and researchers warn that the government is scaring away the same target group. I hope that the government takes to heart that, in addition to making these positive changes, it needs to consider how to end the deportation of teenagers that scares away top researchers, stop the ideas of removing all permanent residence permits, and make the citizenship rules better.
Today we will make decisions on the citizenship rules. I hope that people wake up and see that the collective message from the government to those we really want here is: You are not really welcome. When you give that message time and again, it does not help to just improve the permit process. This is what we hear from researchers, students, and business leaders.
I vote in favor of the government's bill but generally say a small no thank you to the government's policy in this area.
Ingemar Kihlström (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we fill the chamber with migration debates, which says something about the importance of the issue but also about the responsibility the Tidö Government takes to step by step reform Swedish migration policy. The bill we are now discussing is not isolated but part of a larger context, namely a work that aims to maintain order and clarity, strengthen the legitimacy of the system and ensure that migration policy functions both economically and socially.
Mr. Speaker! With the Tidö Agreement, a paradigm shift began. It was a shift away from a policy that for all too long has been characterized by a lack of control and insufficient consideration of society's actual capacity – with, one can guess, a number of limitations for the government that was then in power – to a policy that is sustainable, responsible, and long-term.
The red-green government left behind long processing times and a tangled legislation, despite what was said about the excellence in previous entries. It stood with a Sweden offer that focused on what grants were available for those who sought to come here.
The government has worked purposefully since day one to turn this around, in order to achieve reduced bureaucracy, smoother processes, shorter processing times, and legislation that favors the hardworking but which – this is important – strikes hard against fraud and abuse, both against people and against our system.
Mr. Speaker! It is indisputable that Sweden has a leading role within technology, research and development. Therefore, it is important that Sweden is attractive for people with competence, people with education and people with drive. This can apply to researchers, engineers, specialists and students. This strengthens our country and our economy and is important for our competitiveness in an increasingly globalized world.
Today's debate is about changes for researchers and doctoral students, including those who come from a third country to study. These are welcome changes for the Ukrainians who are in our country. It is about providing better conditions for foreign researchers and doctoral students to work in Sweden, about them being attracted by our country's opportunities, and about us retaining them. A change should occur in a direction that strengthens our country as an attractive research nation.
It is also about important changes for students from third countries. As mentioned in the debate and as we have read about, there are different forms of abuse. We welcome those who want to study, but it must be done with such requirements that an opportunity to work in our country is not created through studies, perhaps in grey or dark industries.
Through the bill, we also strengthen the conditions for those people from Ukraine who have fled the horrific war that is still ongoing in our Europe. They shall be able to apply for a change of grounds for residence permit to be given the opportunity for, for example, work or education.
Mr. Speaker! It is important changes being implemented by a coordinated law, which in the Tidö Agreement has pointed out a way forward for Sweden. We can discuss, we can agree and we can achieve success even in difficult issues. Ahead of the election, it is important to say that it does not look like that on the other side, but it scatters in different directions.
This matter is a brilliant example of an exception, because we are almost entirely in agreement on the changes. But that is not the case in very many areas. Despite the big words uttered from the rostrum here regarding the excellent eight years under the Sledda government, there were many problems we had to take over. We have had to handle many boxes that have been empty of proposals during this mandate period.
The strict migration policy that S still stands and speaks about initiating was actually not so strict during the previous mandate period. If we look ahead, we will probably see a new red-green migration chaos.
We are creating better conditions for Sweden through today's bill. With this, I move for the bill to be approved and for the motion and the reservation to be rejected.
Joar Forssell (L)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for a good debate.
Research, knowledge and international cooperation are cornerstones in building Sweden as a knowledge nation but also as a competitive country in the world.
We in Sweden are second best at innovation, after Switzerland. That is precisely because we have been a knowledge nation for a long time and that we are a country where we put research and innovation first. That is why the government has presented a historically large research and innovation proposition.
We in the Liberals want to provide constitutional protection for academic freedom. Through the report, we strengthen the position of researchers, academics, and doctoral students who want to come to Sweden to conduct research.
Mr. Speaker! We should be proud of Swedish openness and of the fact that we safeguard the tradition of academia and education that has made us strong. Doctoral students are granted their own research status and are no longer classified merely as students. I think that is very good. We get a faster path to permanent residence permits for these researching individuals, and the processes become simpler and smarter. More people should be able to come here and contribute to the knowledge nation Sweden and to knowledge in the world.
We want to reduce the bureaucracy that today risks leading to interruptions in research. We want to ensure that the Ukrainians who have been mentioned earlier here in the debate get a fair and good chance to stay in Sweden and contribute to Sweden as a knowledge nation.
Mr. Speaker! At the same time as we are to have an open system that allows more people to come here and research and contribute to Sweden, we shall have a system where we do not undermine the confidence in the migration policy. That is why the gaps that have existed need to be closed, and that is why the cheating that has occurred needs to cease. It is the other side of the coin in the committee report.
With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the proposal in the report and thank you for a good debate.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.