More effective tools for internal immigration control

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! The result of yet another investigation commissioned by the Social Democratic-led government has landed on the floor of the Riksdag with an accompanying bill. The returning investigation has already delivered legislation, and now it continues to deliver legislation. It is positive that the investigations commissioned by the Social Democratic-led government continue to make Sweden better. We think it is positive and note that it reinforces the fact that the major paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy occurred in 2015 under Social Democratic leadership. It is pleasing that even this government delivers Social Democratic products.

In brief, this is about strengthening the police and the Coast Guard's capabilities to perform internal immigration control. Giving these authorities increased powers to prevent illegal stay in the country is a fairly reasonable measure. Based on how the law is written, it is also well-balanced in relation to the benefit. Allowing body searches in the search for passports is, in light of the problems that exist regarding establishing identity and for uncovering the shadow society, a sensible measure.

Of course, there are risks in all of this. There is a risk that it will be perceived by people as the police targeting people from other countries who are de facto Swedish citizens or have the right to stay here. But the balance between that risk and the benefit of being able to identify persons in border regions who do not have the right to stay in the country, we consider to be proportionate.

We see it as a matter of course that the legislation is followed up, both by the authorities that have that task and by us here in the Riksdag who keep an eye on the issue. It is clear that it is, among other things, the opposition's role to do so.

That passports are seized is important because it actually facilitates any future potential deportations or expulsions. It is reasonable that those who do not have permission to be in the country also leave the country.

Madam Speaker! The proposal also suggests expanded possibilities to forcibly take a foreigner for investigation. It is important to point out that this does not give the right to place anyone in detention and that it is limited in time. The measure also applies to children, but it is important that it is used and carried out in a way that is as child-friendly and child-appropriate as possible. We must have great respect for the children's integrity and ensure that human rights are followed. Children are particularly vulnerable in the shadow society. They are subject to enormous exploitation. That the state can help to protect these children by taking them into care for a period is extremely important. Naturally, this must also be followed.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize the fact that the new government has delivered a bill and an investigation that the Social Democratic government commissioned. We are pleased with the benefit of the Social Democrat-led government's political will and that it continues to lead to good proposals in this chamber. I therefore move for approval of the proposals in the report.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The proposals on internal immigration controls that we are debating today are not particularly new. The police's powers have increased over time. Unfortunately, the proposals have mostly been poorly substantiated. The needs for them have been insufficiently mapped out and the consequences not sufficiently analyzed.

Vänsterpartiet has pointed out several times the risks of ethnic profiling and discrimination and that one cannot ignore the consequences it has for society as a whole when certain parts of the population are suspected solely because of appearance and skin color.

We have also pointed out that the authorities already have sufficient powers and that resources should be directed towards crime prevention work and preventing crime. I note that we simply do not share the government's view on internal immigration controls.

Madam Speaker! The government's position receives harsh criticism from major referral bodies.

When it comes to body searches during internal immigration checks, the Parliamentary Ombudsman says no to the proposal and questions whether they even achieve the intended purpose, as many do not carry passports or identity documents that are to be searched for. The Parliamentary Ombudsman argues that these are most often kept in another location. A request is made for an analysis of the need and effectiveness of the proposal and a more in-depth analysis of the privacy aspects.

The Bar Association, which also says no to the proposal, presents similar views.

The Equality Ombudsman, in turn, assesses that no analysis has even been carried out regarding the risk of ethnic profiling, and therefore it is not appropriate to grant the authorities the proposed coercive measure.

Furthermore, the Children's Ombudsman says no because an analysis from a child's perspective is missing and that the child's particularly vulnerable situation is not taken into account in the proposal.

Vänsterpartiet shares the view of the referral bodies. In our opinion, the need to protect the individual's privacy outweighs the need for body searches to search for identity documents during an internal immigration check. Furthermore, the risk that people are subjected to discrimination and ethnic profiling is obvious.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman's latest review shows that body searches are largely conducted based on gut feeling and that persons living in or staying in so-called vulnerable areas are subjected to arbitrary police interventions to a greater extent than others. This is an inefficient method for preventing and combating crime, and we do not stand behind the government's proposal.

Madam Speaker! The Government also proposes that if, in connection with an internal immigration check, it cannot be clarified that the person has the right to reside in Sweden, the police shall be permitted to take possession of the person's passport or other identity documents that have been found during the check. The documents shall be returned if it appears that the person has the right to reside in Sweden or if the person leaves Sweden. But there is a lack of a detailed account of the proposal, in which cases and on what grounds the authorities can refuse to return the documents, which both the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Bar Association highlight in their criticism.

Finally, the government proposes that it should be clarified that a person who is subject to an internal immigration control may be taken for investigation. That proposal also receives criticism. The Bar Association, which says no to the proposal, argues that the measures are too intrusive, that the time limit is too long and that a children's perspective is lacking - which the Children's Ombudsman also calls for. It is naturally serious because the proposal can be compared to arresting someone suspected of a crime, which here is done without suspicion of a crime. We do not consider it to be legally secure. The government has not taken the views of the Bar Association, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Equality Ombudsman, or the Children's Ombudsman seriously.

I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! In the general debate, Sweden is sometimes called Absurdistan. I am a bit unsure as to who coined this expression. I do not usually use it myself. But the meaning is completely obvious. We are a country that, in certain areas, not least the migration area, has very strange rules that obviously stand in conflict with society's stated goals and also the interests of law-abiding people. We have a public administration that, in that way, to some extent fights itself. A kind of autoimmune disease in the body of society has taken hold because the adults, whose role it is to take responsibility and think long-term, have allowed themselves to be outvoted and persuaded by children who are driven by emotions and delusions and cannot manage to think further than their noses reach.

An almost glaring example of this is the rules that we are changing in connection with the matter we are now debating. Despite the fact that Sweden has gigantic problems with persons who stay here without permission and support themselves through black market work and other crime, it is more or less voluntary to cooperate during a so-called internal immigration control.

An internal foreigner check means that a police officer checks whether a person has the right to stay in Sweden or not. According to the rules that apply today and which have been developed by actually all parties in this chamber except for my own, a police officer has no possibility to search a bag or pockets to see if a person has an ID document showing who the person is and if the person has the right to stay in Sweden. A police officer also does not have the possibility to take possession of ID documents if it were to turn out unclear whether a person has the right to stay in Sweden. This would naturally be very valuable in order to be able to prevent people from swapping their identities, discarding their documents, or trying to obstruct the migration process in different ways. This is what we are going to change now.

One might ask why this is necessary. Yes, naturally because the asylum migration today, which most interested people are aware of, is largely a fraud where persons who lack grounds for protection try to use the asylum system to obtain residence permits and work permits in the European Union. This is very well documented.

A strategy to succeed with this is, naturally, to try in different ways to hide one's identity and complicate the asylum investigation - as well as the return process, if it is the case that the asylum investigation ends with a negative decision. This is simply done to prevent Swedish authorities from finding out who the person actually is.

The matter is described as follows in the bill: "According to information from Migrationsverket, during the years 2019-2022, passport documents were missing at the time of registration of the application in 62-80 percent of the cases. For applicants from Iraq, for example, passports were missing in 84 percent or more of the cases during these years. According to information that Migrationsverket has provided to the committee, it does, however, occur that foreigners have identity documents that are not presented to the authorities. It occurs, for example, that documents, whose existence has been withheld, are found later and that persons voluntarily submit documents that they had previously withheld from Migrationsverket."

The latter example, that a person later submits documents voluntarily, is often due to the person wanting to escape a so-called Dublin transfer, that is, being sent back to the first country in the union that one entered. One way to do this is to simply claim that one has no ID documents during the first three months in Sweden; Dublin transfers must be carried out within the three-month deadline. But after that, the person wants a work permit, and to obtain such, one must prove their identity. When it is time to apply for the work permit, these ID documents suddenly appear like a jack-in-the-box. This is incredibly telling of how the system works. A typical example of a person who did exactly this was the terrorist Akilov. He submitted his ID documents exactly when the deadline for the Dublin transfer had expired.

There are also plenty of testimonies about how migrants throw away their passports on the way to the EU. The website al-Jazira did a segment a couple of years ago about a migrant from Senegal who simply started his journey by throwing his passport into the sea. It sounds a bit strange to start one's journey in that way, but it is apparently completely normal in some parts of the world.

SVT has reported: "Much indicates that not so few refugees choose to withhold their true citizenship and pretend to be Syrians. SVT's foreign correspondent Stefan Åsberg found traces on a Greek beach. A bundle of passports issued in Iran and Morocco." These had been thrown on the way to Europe. "Many refugees throw away their passports once they have arrived in Lesbos and Greece and Europe, he notes." This perhaps is not quite what one expects from people who have clean hands.

Svenska Dagbladet writes as follows: "The National Police Board's and the Swedish Migration Agency's mappings show that refugee smugglers routinely urge asylum seekers to discard their ID documents. Often with reference to the Geneva Convention's prohibition against punishing a person who has moved to a country with the help of false papers." The latter is not quite correct, but the reason people discard their documents is primarily that they want to complicate the asylum process. "If the passport shows that the refugee has stayed in another country, other than the home country, where they may have already been denied asylum, there is a risk of being deported to this country." That is, of course, correct.

The consequence of all this is, naturally, enormously increased costs for Sweden when the asylum process is dragged out because the person tries to obstruct and mask who they actually are. There are also increased costs when the return process is dragged out; it is difficult to get people to return when they have an unclear identity. The home country naturally wants to know who it is that is coming. Another consequence is that Sweden today finds itself in a kind of low-intensity population registration chaos because we have, in practice, created countless false identities for asylum seekers, who have then received Swedish passports at a record pace.

The proposals that become reality today would simply not be needed if it were the case that those responsible for asylum migration were honest people with a genuine need for international protection. If you vote for this proposition, you also sign off on that conclusion - Jonny Cato, Anders Ygeman and the whole gang!

What does the opposition say about all of this? There is a motion to dismiss from Miljöpartiet and Vänstern. They put forward two main arguments. Number one: The need to protect the individual's privacy outweighs the need to be able to identify persons with unclear identities. Number two: The controls can in themselves be discriminatory.

I will actually give the substitutes a point regarding the first point - or half a point at least. Had we lived in a world where asylum seekers did not commit systematic identity frauds against Sweden and other EU countries, this might have held up. Then this need would have been significantly smaller than it is today. But unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.

The opposition has missed a couple of things in this. For the first: In 99 out of 100 cases, the body search will be completely voluntary for the person who is subject to an internal foreigner check. In today's world, we all have phones and good opportunities to carry different types of identity documents digitally. We also know that LMA cards can easily be checked against a database at Migrationsverket. It is very easy to identify oneself for the person who actually has the right to stay in Sweden. It is in principle no one who can claim that it is not possible to identify oneself if one has the right to stay here.

Secondly: Being subjected to an internal foreign national check is not the least offensive. I have probably been subjected to more internal foreign national checks than any other person in this chamber. It has definitely happened more than 10 times and surely more than 20 times. I haven't counted and am not sure, because it is completely undramatic in my world. It lies in the nature of the matter: If one chooses to move to another country, one will sometimes have to show identification to show that one is there completely legally. It is completely normal, and it is a natural part of everyday life for many migrants around the world, myself included. It is completely undramatic. There is no reason to be upset, offended, or annoyed about this.

Last but not least, I would like to say something about the Social Democrats' statement. They have no reservations and accept the proposal. The investigation came from them in the first place, so it is not so strange.

There is actually only one thing I wonder about there. Ola Möller stated earlier in the debate that this was part of the Social Democratic policy and that it is good that it is now being put to use. That is correct. The investigation was commissioned by the Social Democratic party. That is completely correct.

It was submitted to the Government Offices on March 31, 2020. That was quite a long time ago. There would have been plenty of time to submit a bill on it. It is not a huge proposal. We managed to do it quite quickly.

I wonder if it was really intended to become a concrete proposal. How is it then that it was just left to gather dust in a government drawer at the Government Offices until the new government took over and took action on the matter? That is something one can wonder about.

With that, I would like to thank you for the floor. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that one can sometimes arrive at similar conclusions when one views issues and, not least, people so differently. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation 2.

Sweden shall be an open and welcoming country that provides protection to people who have fled war and oppression. At the same time, we shall have a regulated immigration. This means that those who have grounds for asylum and are permitted to stay shall be given good conditions to learn the Swedish language, get their first job, and enter and become a part of our common Sweden. For integration to work and for us to be able to prioritize receiving the most vulnerable, those who have received a rejection must also return.

It is good that the government is now looking at several different measures to establish a more coherent, efficient, and humane return. This is something that the Center Party has pushed for for a long time, not least in connection with the current legislation being put in place. This, however, would have needed to be supplemented with a broad investigation on how we can strengthen legal certainty in migration cases and throughout the entire asylum process.

Internal immigration control is an important tool for us to be able to maintain a regulated immigration, counter the shadow society, and ensure that a rejection means exactly that, a rejection. It is evident that the police need additional powers to be able to perform internal immigration controls in a purposeful manner, not least in cases where a person does not voluntarily hand over identity documents.

At the same time, all measures taken to increase returns must be proportionate and purposeful, especially measures that may be intrusive of privacy. It is therefore important that a follow-up is conducted on the expanded powers to ensure that they have actually led to the identity being clarified in more cases. This follow-up should be conducted within one year. A particularly important perspective that needs to be considered and followed up is the children's perspective.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that a Moderate-led government is required for Sweden to have a strict migration policy and immigration policy and to address the great exclusion that exists in our country.

The proposal we are now debating is yet another consequence of many years of failed migration and integration policy. It is also a consequence of the fact that for many years we have been lax and blunt in our work to uphold law and order, not least when it comes to non-citizens in this country.

I seriously believe that quite a few foreigners who are in Sweden illegally laugh at our naivety and blue-eyedness when it comes specifically to upholding law and order. For quite a few years, those who have wanted to behave really badly in our country have not been met with any direct consequences. One has been able to commit serious crimes without being deported. One has also been able to refuse to follow Swedish decisions to leave the country without anything happening, and one has to a large extent been able to devote oneself to a life in organized crime without the state having any tools to seriously be able to disrupt that work.

But now things are happening, Madam Speaker. Now the government is taking action on this. We will ensure that more people are deported when they have committed crimes. We will ensure that those who do not have the right to be in the country end up in detention and are then sent home. We will ensure that organized crime is disrupted in every possible way. It concerns everything from wiretapping phones to deporting foreigners who have become an active part of a criminal gang.

As for the proposal that is now on the table, it means no change for the very basis of a foreign national check. It is about providing additional tools when such a check occurs according to current rules. And that is good, isn't it? If the police do not have the tools to perform the task the state has assigned them, it is good that the state enables it.

That some parties choose to reserve themselves against that decision is, in my opinion, fundamentally very strange. However, it is not particularly surprising. When most parties in the Riksdag have now begun to realize the problems created by the irresponsible immigration policy over the last few years, there are some parties that cling to the old ideas of free immigration, open borders, and no need to set requirements for people who have come here. Some representatives of certain parties do not seem to be able to see what the rest of us here see. Among most of those we have taken into society and who we want to be allowed to stay here, there are some who ruin it for everyone else.

Not least, it is other immigrants who are often those who are hit hardest by those who are here for the wrong reasons. It is largely in immigrant-dense areas that are affected when shooting and explosions occur in Sweden. It is to a greater extent immigrants who are made suspicious and questioned for the violence that a number of thousands of individuals who should not be here expose our society to.

It is not least immigrant girls who become victims of honor culture when people who should have been deported from Sweden long ago remain year after year and spread their hatred against us and our values. Racism is created and spread, among other things, because people living illegally here receive benefits such as generous grants, for example from Social Democrat-led Malmö. It is not the individual immigrant's fault that we now must tighten the legislation in area after area, but it is the fault of the former irresponsible immigration policy.

To return to the issue at hand, the proposal is reasonable. It is good that the police now want to step up the work of finding and identifying people who should not be here and getting them out of the country. It is, to say the least, eyebrow-raising that no one today knows how many of us are living in Sweden. Despite all digitalization and all modern systems, we do not know if it is 50,000, 100,000, or likely more people who live in a shadow and parallel society.

Let our message to these people be crystal clear: If you want to live in Sweden, apply for a permit the right way! Defying decisions and going underground should never pay off in our society. Above all, a no is a no. If you are not allowed to be here, you shall not be here.

We therefore want to give the police the opportunity to body-search a foreign citizen because we know that they often have some form of identification documents or a passport on them. To also have the possibility to seize a passport or an identification document if the police see a need for it is also reasonable.

We also want to give the police greater authority to take someone for further investigation if there is reason to suspect that they are here illegally. These are measures that I believe are well-balanced and are in reasonable proportion given the need to get order in Sweden.

It is not a human right to be in Sweden. It is a right that Sweden as a country has the authority to grant to a person. In that case, we as a society also have the right to control who stays here. Only by having control over who is here can we protect those who have the right to be here and ensure that they have as good a daily life as possible. Society's resources belong to those who have the right to be here.

In conclusion, I note that the Social Democrats are once again following the government's line on a migration issue. That is, fundamentally, very, very good of you to do. That is what I believe and hope, of course, in any case.

When I talk politics with friends and family, I usually emphasize the value of having cross-bloc agreements in just the migration policy. But at the same time, one begins to wonder about the Socialdemokraternas friends in politics and realizes that one friend is worse and more out of touch with reality than the other. The Left and Miljöpartiet don't seem to see or understand at all that there is a problem directly linked to migration. Centerpartiet, for its part, seems to be starting to see the necessity of these proposals. But they also seem to still think it is more important to try to find some ideological outlet to be able to stay in the migration mast that their former party leader lashed them to, rather than working constructively to solve the problems. I am referring primarily to the general migration policy debate.

I am, to say the least, worried that the Social Democrats are currently voting yes to all the government's proposals in the migration policy area just to scrape together as much political capital as they can for a potential government negotiation at some point in the future. I am worried that the Social Democrats will sell out change after change that they are participating in today and voting through just to trade for power and ministerial posts. Will it turn out that the Social Democrats are only for strict immigration when they sit in opposition? Let us hope that is not the case, and let us hope that today's proposals lead to our society becoming a little more orderly.

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

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Magnus Resare is speaking about a few individuals who ruin things for others.

We live in a time when we more and more often hear generalizing negative statements about immigrants in general and asylum seekers in particular, and where I meet people who say: One feels worth nothing in Sweden today. These people are at the same time those who care for our sick. We live in a time when people who get up at six in the morning and ensure that the universities are clean and nice feel rendered invisible in the political debate. They experience that the word immigrant is most often used as a synonym for criminal.

In a time like this, I think what Magnus Resare says is important: It is a few individuals who ruin things for others.

Therefore, my question is whether Magnus Resare is prepared to distance himself from statements that asylum seekers in general would be fraudsters.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I truly share the view that very many people suffer very much because a few behave very badly in this country. It is a major problem, and it is a problem caused by your policy, Annika.

The politics of recent years have led to people who have never before experienced any form of racism in our society suddenly being criminalized in a completely new way. It has nothing to do with any rhetoric in any speaker's chair; it has to do with people out in society being affected by the politics that you have pursued for many years. It was irresponsible, and it has had the consequences that we today must address and rectify.

We work every day to get Sweden in order, and it would be good if you joined forces with us.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is the racists' fault that people experience racism. It is criminals who are responsible for the crimes. What is happening in today's rhetoric is that it has become normal to hear from, among other places, this rostrum, representatives of a party that Magnus Resare cooperates with generalize and, for example, call all asylum seekers fraudsters.

My simple question is whether Magnus Resare, who instead spoke about a few individuals who cause harm to others, distances himself from that type of generalizing negative judgment about all asylum seekers or all immigrants.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I have not heard anyone say that all asylum seekers are fraudsters. That there are people who come here and seek asylum for the wrong reasons, we can probably agree on. These people should not be in Sweden. The people who need protection should be in Sweden.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by warning that my voice, after the cold, will not be sufficient for any twelve-minute speech here today.

Madam Speaker! "How often do you walk around with your passport in your pocket?" It may appear to be a rhetorical question, but it is a question that more people will need to ask themselves in the future that will prevail after the proposal for "more efficient tools for internal foreign national controls" becomes a reality.

We already know today that people with a dark skin color are more often wrongly suspected of possession of narcotics. When we had border controls at the Öresund Bridge, the border commuter Thomas James Thomson testified that he had been stopped 150 times over a period of two years - 150 times! He has been body searched, and the entire procedure could take up to 40 minutes. That meant 40 minutes of extra commuting time.

The proposal that the government is now presenting will mean that persons with a non-white appearance will be stopped and checked more often. With these rules, they will also be able to be subjected to more intrusive measures, such as body searches, or even be forced to accompany the police to a police station and be deprived of their liberty for a period of time.

It can naturally be justified to introduce legislation that restricts privacy and freedom, but it must in that case be both effective and proportionate. It is also important to consider the children's perspective and investigate what risks of discrimination exist.

Unlike several of the parties behind the proposal, we in Miljöpartiet argue that these matters must be carried out and weighed before the privacy-infringing measures are introduced. Several referral bodies point out that this has not been done. This applies, among others, to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Bar Association, the Equality Ombudsman, who specifically point out that an analysis of the risk of discrimination is lacking, and the Children's Ombudsman, who argues that no impact assessment from a child's perspective has been conducted.

Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1, which simply means a rejection of the implementation of the proposals.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that Annika Hirvonen and I view the issue of internal immigration control in at least somewhat different ways. I believe one reason for this is that I have been subjected to internal immigration controls more times than I can remember. I am unsure if Annika Hirvonen has that type of experience; she is welcome to inform the Chamber if that is the case.

Annika Hirvonen began her speech by asking a rhetorical question: How often do you have your passport with you? As a person who has lived as a foreigner in other countries for quite a few years – approximately six or seven years – I have a fairly simple answer to that question: Every day, Annika Hirvonen. When I lived in certain countries, I had a copy of my passport in my wallet every day. All the other foreigners I knew did too. It is completely normal. In the real world outside Sweden, and when we Swedes are in other countries, this is completely uncontroversial. It is a completely normal part of everyday life.

As a person who has also been subjected to internal profiling just because of my appearance, which has happened on a large number of occasions, I can say that it is completely undramatic. Now, I do not think that this is something that we in Sweden should do. I think we should stick to the rules that exist regarding discrimination and so on. But when it does happen, if it has happened in Sweden, it is nothing to be sour about. It has happened to me as many times as ever, and I think it has been completely unproblematic.

The question I would like to ask Annika Hirvonen is: Could it be that we have different views on this issue entirely because of our different experiences? This is a fairly simple question: Can Annika Hirvonen understand why I see this in a rather undramatic and natural way while it is very dramatic for Annika Hirvonen?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! With this proposal, it is not only foreigners who would need to remember to bring identification documents and passports. The police will not know in advance whether those who are subjected to this are foreigners. Given the experience we have and the knowledge we have of racial profiling within the police and other authorities, I see that there is an imminent risk that this will have very different effects.

I still believe we agree that this is about infringements on privacy. My view is that when one introduces such serious infringements on privacy that it can even become a question of deprivation of liberty, one must be certain that it is effective and proportionate. And the discrimination aspect needs to be ensured. That has not been done. Therefore, we land on the conclusion that this needs to be rejected.

My assumption is that the questions of efficiency, proportionality, anti-discrimination, children's rights, and the children's perspective are not as important for Ludvig Aspling as they are for Miljöpartiet.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to efficiency and proportionality, I would say that it is, by and large, fulfilled in these cases. What otherwise tends to happen in practice is that persons are suspected of a crime, and they are taken to the station so that one can then investigate who they are. That is a significantly greater intervention. From an efficiency point of view, it is therefore a clear improvement.

Then it is a matter of proportionality. Is it proportionate to include a person who cannot prove who they are when all people who are in Sweden have enormously good opportunities to do so if they are here legally? Yes, it is obviously proportionate.

However, that was not the question I asked Annika Hirvonen. I have been subjected to internal immigration checks more times than I can count. I was reflecting on that when I wrote my speech for this debate. I do not remember how many times I have been subjected to this. However, I have never been without my papers. I have always had my papers in order. Therefore, it has always been completely undramatic. And that is why I see this issue as undramatic. If I have managed to show ID every now and then when I have lived in other countries, I believe that those people who move to Sweden can also manage to show ID every now and then.

Annika Hirvonen chose not to answer my question about whether she can understand why we see this so differently. I have my own theory, and it is simply that I am an adult human being and therefore can see this thing for what it actually is. It is completely undramatic to have to show one's ID. I am sure that Annika Hirvonen has done it when she has shopped at Systembolaget or when she has done something else that requires ID. It is a completely natural part of everyday life. It is also more important than ever given how Sweden looks today.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not usually legislate based on my personal experiences, but each person here in the Riksdag naturally gets to base their decisions on the grounds they themselves find most appropriate.

I lean, among other things, towards the criticism that heavy referral bodies have submitted regarding this proposal – the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Bar Association, the Equality Ombudsman, and the Children's Ombudsman. They point out, among other things, that it can be questioned whether the proposal will be just as effective and proportionate as the Green Party's perception is that it should be if privacy infringements are introduced.

This proposal actually means that people will be able to be subjected to body searches and deprivation of liberty without having been suspected of any kind of crime.

We mean that a proposal should fulfill these requirements. The risk of discrimination and racial profiling that exists during internal foreign national checks needs to be taken seriously. I believe we all remember the scandals surrounding Reva a number of years ago in connection with the police's internal foreign national checks. It is very important that the police uphold the greatest amount of trust and that the legislation allowing restrictions on people's integrity and freedom from the state and authorities shall be effective and proportionate and not discriminate.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! For us Christian Democrats and for the government, it is central that we have control over who is in Sweden. It is important, not least from a security perspective. Staying illegally in Sweden constitutes a potential security risk, but it can also lead to a vulnerability and a risk of exploitation for the individual.

We can observe that today a number of people reside in Sweden without permission. This shadow society must be countered to increase Sweden's security but also to prevent individuals from being exploited in various ways.

The government that we have in Sweden handles this issue, as well as other issues, with great respect for both children's and adults' needs and rights, but we also see further measures that need to be implemented so that one knows who is truly staying in our country. Knowing who is inside our borders is part of the work of creating the security that Sweden's inhabitants are worthy of.

As part of the reorganization of the migration policy, it is important that the authorities have the tools required to maintain regulated immigration and counteract the fact that persons are in the country without permission. The bill that we are now discussing means that the authorities will have better conditions to clarify the identity of a foreigner staying in Sweden and to ensure that he or she has a legal right to stay here.

In the proposal, it is suggested, among other things, that it should be possible for a police officer or an official at the Coast Guard to conduct a body search of a person during an internal immigration check to search for passports and other identity documents. There shall also be a possibility to seize passports and identity documents. And clearer legal support is given so that, under certain conditions, one shall be able to take a person for an investigation of his or her right to stay in the country.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a growing problem with illegal stay. There is a flow across the borders of persons who lack the right to enter the country and stay here. It also occurs that persons enter with the help of false documents and live here under false identity.

We Christian Democrats, like the government, see that the authorities need effective tools to be able to control that a person staying here has the right to do so, and that an important link in that control is that the person can be identified.

Through improved controls, the authorities' conditions to protect children at risk of harm are also strengthened, as children living without status run the risk of being exploited in various ways and also risk being drawn into crime both as victims of crime and as perpetrators.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats note that the bill states that an internal immigration check may only be carried out if there is a reasoned cause to assume that a person lacks the right to stay here in the country. This means, therefore, that an internal immigration check may not be carried out solely because a person has an appearance perceived as foreign or because he or she speaks a certain language or has a certain name. This also appears in the Swedish Police Authority's regulations and general advice. Furthermore, decisions on internal immigration checks and decisions on body searches shall be documented. When one sees these regulations, it is in any case my assessment that the provision on a possibility to search for passports does not risk being applied in a discriminatory manner.

Madam Speaker! According to the proposal, passports and identity documents shall be returned if it appears that the foreign national has the right to reside in Sweden, but to ensure that the documents remain intact, it is also reasonable that they can be retained during an internal immigration check in order to check and preserve them.

Arguments have also been put forward that the proposed measures constitute an interference with the protection against deprivation of liberty, but out of the interest of being able to carry out an internal alien control in an effective and purposeful manner, I assess that this weighs more heavily than the individual's right to liberty just in this case.

It can also be noted that the measures proposed are no more intrusive than what already applies today regarding apprehension and the obligation to remain for investigation in connection with summons and apprehension. The obligation to remain also does not last longer than necessary and not longer than six hours.

Madam Speaker! I assume that the government and, naturally, also the Riksdag are following up on the proposed legislative changes continuously and therefore see no reason to conduct a scheduled follow-up.

Overall, this bill constitutes one of the steps in shaping a more sustainable migration and integration policy for Sweden. I note that the committee's proposal for a decision has a broad majority that also supports the proposals in the bill. With this, we Christian Democrats urge approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Just over a hundred years ago, the famous sociologist Max Weber published an essay titled Politics as a Vocation. In this essay, Weber presented a pair of concepts that would become classic regarding the ethical yardstick for our actions: conviction ethics and responsibility ethics.

Conviction ethics is about doing what one believes is right here and now without thinking about the consequences. Responsibility ethics, on the other hand, takes into account the expected consequences of our decisions and is aware that what may be perceived as right and good here and now can ultimately lead to a result diametrically opposite to what was expected. It is what we can call the paradox of unreflected goodness.

According to Weber, the one who does not understand this is, from a political point of view, a child who, with their blind conviction and zeal for goodness, can cause great harm. These arguments were extremely urgent in 1919, when the will to abolish all injustices and create a kind of paradise on earth had led to the establishment in Russia of a totalitarian hell under Lenin's leadership.

Madam Speaker! The reason I remind you of Max Weber's line of thought regarding ethics is that it captures in an extraordinarily good way much of what characterizes this debate and, above all, the debates concerning refugee and migration issues. The moral indignation that usually arises, not only from Lenin's Swedish descendants but also from other convinced advocates of goodness, expresses a completely unblemished ethics of conviction that lacks all responsibility for the consequences of their supposedly good intentions.

Take, for example, the migration policy advocated by Vänsterpartiet, often with enthusiastic support from Miljöpartiet. In this context, I will content myself with summarizing some of the proposals found in Vänsterpartiets latest committee motions on the subject.

The party wants to introduce an amnesty and grant residence permits to all those persons who have lived in Sweden for a certain period, regardless of previous residence status and then also to completely illegal migrants.

The party also wants that persons whose deportation or expulsion decisions cannot be executed for practical reasons shall be granted permanent residence permits.

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex, shall be decommissioned.

So-called asylum visas shall be granted to those people around the world who wish to come to Sweden to seek asylum.

Furthermore, the carrier liability shall be abolished and the agreement between Turkey and the European Union regarding irregular migration shall be terminated. This concerns, as we know, the agreement that largely put an end to the migration crisis in 2015-2016, and its abolition would most likely lead to millions of new migrants seeking to come to the European Union.

Madam Speaker! I do not think I need to make this list any longer for people to realize that the combined effect of the policies advocated by Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet would result in an extraordinarily extensive wave of immigration that would deepen all the very serious integration problems that we are already struggling with today.

Do the representatives of unblemished goodness comprehend the mighty signal effect that the proposal for a regularization of all those who have been in Sweden for a certain period would entail?

And if such a massive regularization is carried out, who would convince potential migrants and people smugglers that no further regularizations would occur in the future?

Has it been understood that this de facto means that one is not only legalizing but also encouraging illegal immigration?

Do Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet understand that the 2015 crisis would be remembered as a breeze in comparison to the crisis that their proposal would cause?

Last but not least, do these parties believe that the vast majority of the Swedish people who want a more restrictive refugee policy would find themselves in such a situation?

God's self-appointed representatives certainly mean well but lack all sense of consequence. Responsibility ethics is brilliant in its absence in what they propose.

Madam Speaker! Today, there is a large majority in this Riksdag that prevents the proposals of the Left Party and the Green Party from being pushed through. But that could change if these parties obtain a position of power, where one could condition any potential parliamentary support for a new government on all or at least many of these parties' proposals being implemented.

Madam Speaker! Let me now address what is discussed in the government's bill on more efficient tools for internal immigration control. It is about expanding the police's powers in order to counter illegal stays in Sweden and, in the long run, combat the expansion of the shadow society.

Everyone knows that today there is a significant number of people living in Sweden without having the legal right to do so. No one knows, however, with any accuracy how many there may be, and we lack reliable knowledge of how this society alongside society functions.

There are widely differing estimates regarding the number of people who inhabit this parallel society. There are also many testimonies about how life can manifest in the shadow society, but no collective and reliable picture is available of all this.

In a government bill from March 2021, the following is stated regarding the number of people who may inhabit the shadow society: "Socialstyrelsen states in Social report 2010 that there is no reliable statistics on such foreigners. According to the report, the estimated number at that time varied between 10,000 and 35,000 and according to some calculations it was as many as 30,000-50,000 people (p. 270). Since then, very many asylum seekers have sought their way to Sweden and also other persons who do not apply for residence permits. Even though it is not possible to state with certainty how many people are currently staying in the country without a permit, it is likely that the figure has increased significantly compared to the previous estimates."

The police, for their part, have noted the connection that exists between the vulnerable areas, the shadow society, and the crime. In a report from 2017, this connection is described in the following way:

It is assessed that there are activities and resources in the areas that enable individuals to live completely outside the Swedish social system.

The criminal networks can arrange housing, work, banking, protection, and security for people who in other cases have difficulty obtaining these services and who in some cases reside illegally in Sweden. Which makes the vulnerable areas attractive for those living hidden to seek out.

In the disadvantaged areas, for example, there is extensive illegal subletting of housing, illegal lending activities, a large supply of goods such as alcohol, tobacco, and stolen goods sold at a low price, illegal gambling activities, and extensive illegal party activities.

But it is not only the criminal networks that can offer the services and the protection that people who live completely outside of established society need. Various separatist structures, ranging from clans to Islamist organizations, can be equally or more capable of doing so and in that way expand the base of clients and proselytes that provide human sustenance to these system-threatening structures. The shadow society's radical exclusion is therefore one of the primary human resource sources for crime and separatism.

Madam Speaker! Those who wish to become more familiar with the shadow society's cruel reality should read Liza Alexandrova-Zorina's book Imperiets barn, which was published earlier this year. It is about ruthless exploitation, mafias, and all kinds of profiteers who thrive thanks to our inability to effectively combat this scourge. The person who reads this book and still opposes the government's proposal for more effective tools in immigration control, as the Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet do, has de facto chosen a side, the mafias' side, the human smugglers' side, the side of ruthless exploitation, and the side of the brazen ethics of conviction.

Madam Speaker! I would finally like to remind of the consequences of the debate that flared up in 2012 regarding the expanded internal controls of foreigners which were incorrectly associated with the Revaprojektet.

We know that it was a completely misleading conflation of two entirely different phenomena where the police were criticized for alleged racial profiling and others for other alleged irregularities.

A loud coalition was formed that included a broad spectrum of proponents of conviction ethics, from militant left-wingers and outspoken journalists to human rights activists and reckless boy-room liberals. The consequence was that the government and the police were put on the defensive and felt forced to drastically reduce the number of internal foreign national checks.

In 2012, just over 42,000 such controls were carried out. That is a figure that had been more than halved four years later and in 2020 reduced to a quarter. In that way, the continued growth of the shadow society was facilitated, along with all the problems associated with the existence of the shadow and parallel society. Conviction ethics triumphed in the so-called Revadebat and succeeded in causing great damage to the entire future development of Swedish society.

Today, the representative of unblemished goodness wants to prevent us from effectively taking up the fight against the shadow society's hostage. Fortunately, there is now a large majority in this chamber that is not prepared to follow the path of unblemished conviction ethics, but, and this should be emphasized, it could be changed if Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet are given the opportunity to condition any potential support for a certain government formation on the condition that their proposals are implemented.

With this said, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the Left Party's and the Green Party's reservation.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 20.)

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