(cont. from § 6) Response to interpellation 2023/24:315 on reduced return
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S argues that the return rate dropped after 2018 due to the migration policy that M left behind in 2014 1. S claims that the government has not delivered its own proposals but has relied on S's investigations 1. S argues that reduced aid to countries such as Palestine does not improve push factors and that S was responsible for the agreements with Iraq 2. M argues that S failed with the return and that S voted no to tightenings in family migration 3. M claims that S undermined the return through high school laws and track changes 4. M argues that S-led municipalities still pay out support to persons who stay illegally in the country 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is true as the Minister for Migration said that the return rate has fallen every year since 2018. But this is also due to the number of incoming cases. We had to handle a migration policy situation that the Moderate government left behind in 2014. An enormous number of people arrived due to the legislation that the Moderates had adopted, which meant that we had very many cases to handle. At that time, the number of people leaving the country also became larger, because we shifted the policy from the Moderates' permanent residence permits to temporary residence permits. This also changed the situation significantly.
It depends on the fact that the Minister for Migration is comparing apples and pears here. That is why I am comparing apples and apples, that is to say that it is the volumes of asylum seekers in 2021 compared with 2023 that are relevant when looking at how many who have left the country, compared with 2018, when many more cases came in. It has been established that it was significantly fewer, almost 20 percent fewer, who left the country in 2023, the year when the Moderaterna ruled the whole year, compared with 2021, when we Social Democrats ruled the whole year.
It is also interesting with the paradigm shift that is to take place. So far, practically every political reform that the government has made in the migration policy area has occurred based on our investigations. We have not seen any delivery from the current government when it comes to migration policy proposals. It is only investigations that have completed much of what we introduced. Therefore, my question about what return levels we can expect is relevant, and I would like a straight answer.
Now that the Minister for Migration has finished the implementation of all his more or less concrete proposals – deportation of people because they are abusers or have debts, eligibility laws in welfare, withdrawal of permanent residence permits from people and the like – what return rate will we then see? What does the Minister for Migration envision?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! The interpellation posed to me was so short that it was not entirely easy to understand how the interpellator intended, and I cannot say that it became much simpler now based on the statistics he set out. I can state that the number of asylum seekers in the full year 2023 compared with the full year 2022 decreased by 26 percent in Sweden, but still, the return increased in the full year 2023 compared with the full year 2022.
No delivery, says the member. I wonder how he thinks then. We have delivered three propositions. I particularly want to highlight the one concerning family immigration and the humanitarian protection ground. These are proposals that our four parties in the government base submitted during the previous parliamentary term and which concerned tightening the maintenance requirement for family members and reducing the scope for granting people residence permits when they do not have grounds for protection.
The Social Democrats voted no to these sharp proposals. We put them forward in the Riksdag during the previous parliamentary term by working in the committee. We lost the vote by one vote, but I am very happy that we have now succeeded in getting it through. It entered into force shortly before the turn of the year. Therefore, I look forward with confidence to seeing the results of the tightenings, which I believe are absolutely necessary to reduce immigration and thereby strengthen integration.
To Ola Möller, it sounds as if the Social Democrats did very much. In that case, I have two questions. One concerns prescribed decisions on asylum. People who come to Sweden and apply for asylum but who are denied their asylum application and this becomes final account for a quarter of all asylum applications that come in. This means that the Social Democratic government completely failed to make the return work. They have not been prepared to do what is required to combat the shadow society.
When we now present proposal after proposal regarding tools to truly be able to ensure regulated immigration and ensure that those who have been denied their asylum application actually leave the country, there is an outcry. And before there is even a finished bill, a number of different Social Democrats across the country have, of course, said that they do not intend to follow this law. This testifies to what will actually exist in this party to uphold regulated immigration.
Another thing that I would like to highlight, where I judge that the Social Democrats did not do enough, is the work to ensure that third countries take back their own citizens, which they have an obligation under international law to do. This requires an incredibly intense diplomacy to ensure that they actually do this. One needs to work with aid and with other parts so that they can be persuaded to take back their own citizens.
We have now established a special group of secretaries of state to ensure that, from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, one speaks with one and the same voice and ensures that all available tools are used to achieve a functioning return. This is something I wish had been done much longer ago.
As I mentioned, we also worked intensively during the Swedish presidency to use the tools that actually exist, including pressure regarding the visa policy, towards countries that do not behave and that do not accept their own citizens. There, we have gladly already seen results.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that the Minister suddenly reverts to the role of Member of Parliament and begins to interpellate me here and ask questions.
When it comes to returns and third countries, it is a strange order to reduce aid. One can look at Palestine, for example. There, they remove all aid, and then they expect them to accept people. It is not the case that countries become more stable then. The push factors that exist in the countries do not get better because one reduces aid, on the contrary.
The Social Democratic government has been very good when it comes to the type of agreements that are needed. We had, for example, Morocco and the street boys. It had a great effect, and the problem with the Moroccan street boys who were here was solved. When it comes to the agreement with Iraq, where the Minister for Migration and even the Sweden Democrats took the credit for having deported people to Iraq, it was we who arranged it within the framework of the EU during our government's period.
The agreement that the Moderate government signed with Iraq in 2008 was, however, never implemented, but instead migration laws were introduced that put us in the 2014 refugee crisis. The historiography of who has done what is a bit strange.
When it comes to the prescription periods, I have absolutely nothing against us looking over and discussing them. We have also agreed on the issue of relatives, as that was something we agreed on. If one looks at return centers, internal immigration control and so on, one sees however that it is our investigations and proposals that the government has carried forward.
All the big, bloated things, where the principles of the rule of law are violated and where one starts to withdraw favorable administrative decisions and the like, we have, on the other hand, seen no delivery on. Therefore, I ask the Minister for Migration again: What is the target for how many proportionally will return when you are finished with all your politics? What is the goal?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats did not only introduce one but two upper secondary school laws that directly undermine the return. Track switching is another matter that both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Delegation for Migration Studies have pointed out is complicating voluntary return. Despite this, S wanted to investigate how it could be made easier and how more people could be covered by track switching. And when the Riksdag voted to stop track switching, S voted no together with MP and V.
When we now propose and actually also establish return centers, the Social Democrats make remarks about camps, despite the obvious difficulties that EBO entails regarding the authorities' return work. It also contributes to a serious segregation.
When we propose that the public sector should work together so that deportation decisions are enforced, S [Social Democrats] [rebuts] by pointing to the [Residence] Act, and S-led municipalities continue to pay out financial support to persons who are in Sweden illegally. Every year during the years 2018-2022, the number of returnees decreased, but now the development is turning upwards again. I think this is very positive.
S now obviously claims to be for strict immigration and increased return, but when S was in power, they de facto gave Miljöpartiet a veto in migration policy. The return was undermined every year that S held power. Now it is positive that the development is turning.
To answer the interpellant's question, my objective is, naturally, that everyone who has been denied their asylum application shall also leave the country. But this is based on the fact that even S-led municipalities are involved and helping.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.