(cont. from § 8) Labor immigration (cont. SfU15)

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates are incredibly positive towards people who work. That is how prosperity arises in our country. That is what guarantees that we can continue to live in a welfare state, where people generally have it good. We have one of the world's wealthiest populations, because we in this country have worked since generations back.

For generations, people have also been able to come to this country to help as labor migrants and be a part of our labor market. Some of them come from countries in the surrounding area, and some of them come from countries far outside Europe. What we are talking about today when it comes to labor migration is primarily people who come to Sweden from countries outside Europe, what we politically usually call third countries. The internal market in the EU remains undisturbed. One can come from Germany, Poland, or Spain and work in Sweden without any self-sufficiency requirements or the like. The self-sufficiency requirement that we are discussing in this debate applies to those who want to come here from, for example, a country in the Middle East, from Australia, or from America to work.

Fundamentally, we are very positive about people coming here to help Swedish companies grow and becoming good colleagues to our already established employees. But we believe at the same time that there must be order and clarity in the Swedish migration policy. We cannot have it as it has been.

People cannot come here and work for 13,000–14,000 kronor a month. It is not reasonable that one can come here, get a work permit, and cycle out with pizzas three days a week. Therefore, we have put our foot down and said that we need to have some kind of regulatory framework that is sustainable over time. People who come here to work should have real jobs that we cannot fill with people who are already in Sweden or in Europe.

I intend to speak a little about subsistence requirements, as it is a hot issue. Last year, when we had this debate, I believe that some parties, in any case some members of some parties, quite deliberately misunderstood what I said then. It was about why subsistence in Sweden involves a bit more than just paying one's rent and the food in one's refrigerator.

To support oneself in Sweden is to be part of and contribute to the school, which all our children have the right to attend, to the municipal swimming pool, to the existence of bicycle paths that one can cycle on, and to the fact that there are members of parliament who have their livelihood. All of that is what one contributes to and pays for when one works in Sweden and pays tax. It is a part of one's livelihood that goes beyond one's own home and refrigerator.

We can already today think that there is always a lack of money for welfare, that there is too little money for school, that there is too little money for healthcare and that there are a lot of holes in the road that we actually should repair. We have a median wage that today is at a certain level. Still, the money is barely enough.

All people who work in this country contribute, regardless of whether they earn more or less than the median wage. But those who earn much more than the median wage help those who earn much less than the median wage. The median wage shall carry our welfare. If we have a system where all people who come to Sweden to work earn below the median wage, it will erode our welfare in the long run. Those people who come here and work have the right to everything that we have the right to. Then someone must help and support those who do not reach the median wage.

It works very well in the society we have. The people who are already in Sweden agree that the one who earns a lot carries the one who earns a little. But if we only fill the system with people who earn below the median wage, everyone, both those who earn very much and those who earn very little, must participate in carrying the one who comes from somewhere else, so that it reaches its welfare cost.

Therefore, I think in the end that it is reasonable that we demand that those who want to come here from a country outside of Europe and work must contribute their share. It must be a socio-economic gain for all other people who work in this country and pay tax on their wages. Of all entrepreneurs in Sweden, it is surely 97–98 percent, maybe 99 – I don't even know the figure – who do not have people from third countries employed, have not brought here a pizza delivery person from Uzbekistan or a dishwasher from the USA. All of them will, through their companies or their income tax slips, get to participate in supporting the people whom we take in here.

I conclude that it is quite sensible that one needs to have a certain wage level for the people who come here – for everyone else's sake. It is fair that the nursing assistant does not need to pay 300 kronor more in tax because one has hired a pizza delivery person from a country outside of Europe and this pizza delivery person shall be entitled to healthcare, entitled to school, entitled to go to public baths and the opportunity to cycle on repaired cycle paths.

That is why I think that subsistence requirements from the ground up are a perfectly okay idea. We cannot have it as it was when one could earn 13,000–14,000 kronor a month and get full access to everything that we get as Swedes and which is worth an enormous amount of money. One can come here with three children and give them free schooling in one of our schools, which belong to the world's best, because we pay tax. Therefore, I am for subsistence requirements. I think it is good that we are now moving forward with it and will soon legislate on it further.

I note that Miljöpartiet is once again reserving itself on a migration issue. When Miljöpartiet says no, you are completely right – for me, it is usually a migration policy truth. Then, good legislation is underway. I believe it will be so in this case as well.

(Applause)

Another party that reserves itself is the Center Party. I must then pose a question to the Center Party, which has views on the policy we are pursuing. We want to guarantee the Swedish welfare model and ensure that the tax burden for Swedish companies and Swedish employees is kept down by setting requirements on how much one needs to earn to participate in the welfare system. The Center Party then says: Our prime ministerial candidate is Magdalena Andersson.

Magdalena Andersson wants to introduce much more far-reaching models for labor market testing. The Social Democrats could possibly waive subsistence requirements, but that is on the condition that one is forced into collective agreements. It is clear that the Social Democrats would gladly place their own trade union movements in every little Swedish company that needs to recruit one or two people from some other country. But I wonder how the Center Party can think that it is a success model.

The Center Party seriously thinks that one should have Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister, Nooshi as Finance Minister and Daniel Helldén as Agriculture Minister. I wonder what the members and voters of the Center Party who are farmers think about the fact that Daniel Helldén might be the one who will be most responsible for Swedish agricultural policy in six months' time.

Now we are speaking, in and of itself, about labor immigration, but the farmers constitute a central part, as they make use to some extent of personnel from other countries. Therefore, we also ensure that it will be a bit easier to pay a slightly lower wage to seasonal workers, for example if one needs someone who comes up for a couple of months and helps with the harvest or whatever it may be. We are pursuing a policy that is good for the countryside in Sweden, while those that the Centerpartiet wants to cooperate with after the election are pursuing a policy that will tear apart the Swedish countryside.

Let us now continue to hold this line! We take migration policy seriously. We work for a strict and regulated immigration, but we enable labor migration for those who are needed in a Swedish company: the IT engineer who wants to come here from India, the doctor who wants to come here from the USA, or whoever it may be who wants to come here from a third country. We ensure that we continue to have one of the world's best societies to live in. It is these people we need.

We will also in the future be able to find people in Sweden who can take many of the jobs that today are filled by people from other parts of the world. We have in the country almost half a million unemployed people who do not enter the labor market because there are high thresholds and because some companies have chosen to recruit staff from somewhere else. Let us start with the half a million people who are here and see who can be found among them. Then there are half a billion Europeans who are not subject to any subsistence requirements and who can continue to come here and help us build Sweden strong in Europe.

With that said, I hope that we can continue to govern this country for another four years, so that we can continue to have a regulated, strict immigration policy that provides opportunities for those who truly need to have special skills brought here.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! This is probably the first time I feel that I need to give a Moderate a lesson in basic economics. That a person in Sweden who earns 30,000 kronor, pays tax etcetera would be a burden on the Swedish welfare system is a completely absurd idea. It would mean that almost all Swedish workers are a burden on the system. That is, therefore, the Moderates' view. That is what the member said.

GDP increases by 57 billion kronor thanks to labor immigration. Tax revenues are at 17 billion kronor. Those are old figures. Companies – hold on! – have grown. When someone is working, a product comes out that the company makes money on. Thus, more prosperity is also created. There is something called corporate taxes, which are then what primarily pays our wages – those are state taxes. It is completely absurd to hear a Moderate claim these things about how it works with wages etcetera in the companies.

No, we do not want to put the Social Democrats' union friends into every single small business so that they can decide which people the companies should hire. But you have put SD in them, Magnus Resare. It is not what you want to do, but what you have already done. SD has decided who should be hired in every single small business in Sweden. It is absurd.

In Jämtland, you cannot hire, but in Stockholm, you can. In Jämtland, 60 percent of the labor migrants will be deported because of the new wage requirement that you will soon introduce. In Stockholm, it is 20 percent, because the wages are higher here. The wage floor that SD has forced you into and which they have introduced in every little Swedish company is absurd. In this way, you are undermining the Swedish economy. And when one hears you talk about how the economy works, I understand that you have not grasped how bad it is.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I thought like this: This year, I will spend four five minutes ensuring that the Center Party truly understands what I mean.

I have never claimed that the person who earns 30,000 a month does not contribute. They do contribute quite a lot.

I have only said that if all people in Sweden earned 30,000 kronor, the welfare would not be what it is today. We need those who earn above the median wage to support it. That is how our entire social structure is built. I do not understand how the Centerpartiet cannot see that.

It is very good that people work and earn 25,000 kronor or 18,000 kronor a month. A big problem is that a large part of the unemployed population in Sweden earn more by not working at all but going on benefits. It is a system that your friends will want to maintain at all costs. It is 400,000 votes for them.

I seriously believe that Sweden benefits from labor migration. I was clear in my speech, and I have been throughout my political career and my entire political life. It is good with people who come here and work.

I just don't think that one can come here and work for however little money as possible. We need to have some form of regulation of that. Earning 90 percent of the median wage is still below the median wage. We have to stick to that figure for now. It is reasonable to land there. Ultimately, it is about that the person who comes to Sweden should generate something.

I agree that when someone comes and works in a Swedish company, they generate much more than their own income tax. It is clear that it is so. But one cannot escape the fact that it costs quite a lot to live as a Swede. Everything we receive from the state costs quite a lot of money, and then one must contribute.

When you were involved in the decision-making, one needed to earn 13,000 kronor a month. It is absurd. One could have four children and a partner with them, and then 13,000 kronor a month and an income tax of 3,000 spänn would be enough to cover all the costs that one generates.

We still need to have some kind of level, and I think the proposal that the government is putting forward is balanced.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It is true that we were involved in making decisions regarding the rules on 13,000 kronor. If I remember correctly, Ulf Kristersson was minister and Johan Forsell was chief of staff in the alliance government, I believe. It was something like that.

It is not I who voted for this. It is the Prime Minister, whom the member now supports, who voted for it. He pressed the buttons and sat in a government that implemented it and had the collective responsibility, which one has in a government, for implementing those rules. Do not put that on me. The member may put it on his boss.

We can talk about transfers and who it is that contributes. Labor immigration in Sweden contributes 30 or 31 times as much into taxes as what goes to transfers to the labor immigrants and their families. These are also old figures, from when we had the rules about 13,000 kronor.

That is not how the economy works. If a person is here, earns according to a collective agreement and contributes with tax, they contribute more to the Swedish tax treasury than if they are not here and working.

I can take it again. The person who is here and pays tax makes it so that we get more tax than if that person were not here and paying tax. That is how the math works. The company can develop more and employ more people because it is someone who can contribute to increasing the cake.

Our parties have always believed that one can increase the cake. That is the problem with the socialist side: in their political ideas, one sometimes does not believe that one can increase the cake. We have always stood for that. The Moderates have apparently abandoned it. Then we are back to understanding why it has become so crazy.

It is crazy if one thinks that it is only a certain number of jobs that can be distributed between the unemployed in Malmö and in Boden. I took an example earlier. There are 20 people who are to be deported who worked at a nursing home in Boden. It does not help them that there is an unemployed immigrant sitting in Malmö who can be sent there. They do not have the competence. They will likely not go there, even if we are completely against the activity requirement. This is just stupid.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates dare to reassess our policy. We dare to take new measures when we see that what has been has not functioned quite so well.

What I meant by that you have been involved is that you governed this country during the last mandate period with the coalition partners the Social Democrats and the Green Party. You were part of those who governed the country.

It is clear as day that immigration contributes to this country. But I do not believe that it is those who cycle out with pizzas or do very simple jobs and earn 14,000–15,000 kronor a month that make labor immigration turn a profit.

It is because we have the highly qualified people who come here and build Swedish companies. They are IT engineers and those who help to develop JAS-plan, or whatever it may be. They are fantastic people.

We have now built a system where those people are rewarded. It perhaps no longer takes six, seven, eight, or nine months to get a work permit in Sweden. Before you have even received a work permit, you have found a job somewhere else.

We have regulated it now. Now you will receive a work permit in between two and four weeks. It is among the fastest in Europe. It is only Finland that beats us with a faster time than what we have for getting a foot into the Swedish labor market. This applies if you are the type of employable person that we need in this country.

We have 400,000–500,000 unemployed people who can do many of the simple jobs. Many of them, I believe, also dream of getting into the Swedish labor market. Let us help them with that.

Let us get a system where we can get people to move from benefits to work in Sweden. We cannot continue to have it as we have it today.

The system with 500,000 unemployed people is largely based on us bringing in people to do very simple jobs. Some even come on study permits to do among the simplest jobs in this country. It is absurd.

We must reform the migration policy in Sweden. We are on the right track. Join forces with us instead and make sure to drive bourgeois policy with us instead of driving socialist policy where you get so little through with the others.

Welcome to our gang! We can get Sweden in order together. I believe you will have so much fun on our side.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Time is running out. There was a time when we in Miljöpartiet, together with the bourgeois parties, believed that Sweden would become a better country if our entrepreneurs and employers were allowed to hire the staff they need for their companies to be able to grow and develop.

Now we are in a time when the Moderates say, as a matter of principle, that they are against the politics that the Green Party is for. This applies even when one conducts a policy that Svenskt Näringsliv is pleading with the government to change because it harms the Swedish economy and Swedish growth to conduct that type of labor immigration policy. It is bad for Swedish companies.

Magnus Resare speaks about the pizza delivery drivers. The people who are now being locked out of the Swedish labor market are also people who have education and a specific competence that companies have difficulty finding among the 500,000 unemployed.

Think if the government had spent all the return migration subsidy money on educating CNC operators or ensuring that more people could take different jobs throughout our companies instead of spending them on paying people to leave Sweden. Then perhaps we could have ensured that more companies and employers had found the competence they need among those who are currently unemployed. But that is not the case.

Think if one had put the money into a relocation grant so that people could move from southern Sweden, where unemployment is high, to northern Sweden, where it is almost impossible to find people who can work in elderly care now that you are deporting elderly care staff.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! It is essentially not a single one of them that Hirvonen mentions at the end who is here with a work permit, but they are here with other types of permits.

What has been harmful for Sweden is not moderate politics, but rather an unregulated immigration policy for far too many years. Now we are trying to regulate it.

We believe that Sweden needs a strict migration policy when it comes to asylum and a regulated migration policy when it comes to work permits. If one cannot find competence among the 500,000 Swedish unemployed, there are 500 million people in Europe. One can look there.

Europe may be the world's most well-educated continent. There are so many people who have university educations and so many who have practical skills in food production or whatever it may be. They are there.

Sweden has some of the highest wages in all of Europe. One can come here from Poland, Bulgaria, or Germany and work in any sector one wants. We still allow people to move freely across Europe's borders. One just has to come here.

What this is about is the people who live outside of Europe. It is clear that some of such people will also come here. But most should not come to Sweden to work in very simple jobs if they come from India, China, or Australia. They should come here because they have such knowledge and such competence that we cannot find anywhere in the EU or, even better, in Sweden.

We need to regulate the migration policy in Sweden. That you had a system where one needed to earn 13,000 kronor a month is your business. I did not think it was a functioning system.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not think anyone thinks that 13,000 kronor was a good wage floor. But to now set wage floors that require a lot of exceptions which the Sweden Democrats are to sit and decide over becomes very messy and bad for Sweden.

I have spoken with an entrepreneur who told me that if the company is allowed to hire a CNC operator from Georgia, they can hire nine people who do not need any education. But if they are not allowed to hire this single person, they also cannot give jobs to the nine people whom this person could otherwise lead within the company.

I think that one should invest in educating those who are unemployed in Sweden, but we will become poorer if we first throw out all those people who today contribute to our welfare. Even the nursing assistants in elderly care contribute to our welfare. They contribute every day by taking care of the elderly, who are becoming more and more in Sweden. This applies especially in northern Sweden, where it is difficult to find staff for elderly care when one has deported these employees, many of whom are chain migrants.

You have a mathematics that says you are not profitable if you have too many children. But we need more children in this country! It is positive that people have children. Many worry that we have too few young people in a country where we are getting older. The Sweden Democrat mathematics only adds up if one wants a slightly poorer Sweden with slightly fewer people with dark skin color. It is only then that one can think that Sweden becomes better by deporting a lot of people who work and contribute in our country.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not intend to even address the last point, because I think it is indecent to assert such a thing from the speaker's chair. I have no prejudices or leanings whatsoever that would make me have any opinion on what skin color any human being has. I do not intend to comment on this any further than that.

However, I can comment on the first thing Annika Hirvonen told us about, that is, the example of taking in a person who, in their employment, could enable one to hire nine more people. It is completely implausible to me that one would not be able to pay that person 35,000 kronor in monthly salary if one can hire nine more people.

Without knowing anything about this company, I can say that the growth it would entail for the company is so enormous that a salary of 35,000 kronor per month seems like peanuts. It is difficult to see that one would be forced to pay only 24,000 kronor per month and save 11,000, or whatever it was that Hirvonen meant. I do not know this company, and I do not intend to comment on an individual company, but I judge it to be unlikely that one would not hire this person.

We believe, as said, in regulated immigration. The Social Democrats also believe in that in some sense. There seems to be a decent consensus in Sweden that one wants a structured and regulated immigration policy, because we need to tackle the major societal problems we have with hundreds of thousands of people who are not in jobs. We need to ensure that we start educating them now so that they can take jobs instead of living on benefits. They should be able to go to work and be role models for their children instead of staying home when the kids go to school.

They should be able to learn the language, which is what one does when one gets a job. I have been on site visits and seen how it is when you have taken people out of SFI and let them start working. Suddenly they get a ten times faster language learning because they are in a workplace instead of sitting in a dusty basement room where they don't really understand what the teacher is talking about because it is communicated in a language they don't really know. In a workplace they absorb the language when you tell them that a hammer is a hammer and a shovel is a shovel. They learn the language so much more easily in that way.

I hope that we can get Sweden in order.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 8.

Just over a hundred years ago, Swedes left poverty and sought work in great America. They built railways, cultivated land and built cities. They toiled, and they were exploited. But they organized themselves, demanded justice and fought for dignity.

Today, the roles are reversed. Sweden is a country where people come to work. They build our houses, care for our elderly, and work in industry, in trade, and in the welfare sector. They pay taxes and fill real needs in the labor market.

Labor immigration can be positive for workers, for employers and for society, but only if we have a fair system. Today we do not have that. We have a system that in practice is rigged in favor of the employers. The work permit is tied to an individual employer. The one who risks losing their job also risks losing the right to stay.

This creates an extreme position of dependency. Many do not dare to report, for example, a poor working environment. They do not dare to protest against unreasonable working hours. Work-life crime and exploitation can continue because the balance of power is so skewed.

Instead of tackling this, the government has chosen a completely different path: a significantly raised salary floor for work permits. The requirement is, as we have heard earlier in the debate, over 34,000 kronor per month.

This is presented as order and tidiness, but in reality, it is nothing other than a tool to be able to deport people. Thousands of people who work, pay tax and have wages in accordance with collective agreements risk having their work permits revoked.

They have built their lives here. Their children go to Swedish schools. They are part of our local communities. Now they are threatened with deportation – not because they have done anything wrong, but because their salary does not reach a politically determined threshold.

The consequences will obviously be serious. For one thing, people risk being pressured into black market work. If the alternative is deportation, the vulnerability obviously increases drastically. We risk creating an even larger shadow society, which the government says it wants to combat.

Secondly, this is very unequal. The Swedish labor market is gender-segregated. In male-dominated occupations within construction and transport, wages are usually higher, and in female-dominated occupations such as cleaning, trade, health, and care, the wages are significantly lower, despite collective agreements. This means that women are to a greater extent at risk of being affected by deportation.

The government justifies the wage floor by stating that one should be able to support oneself. It is a strange argument in a country where we simultaneously accept that completely crucial welfare jobs have wages far below that limit. If one considers that the wages are too low, the solution is to strengthen the workers' position, not to deport them.

For the third, this of course affects our entire welfare. Sweden faces a significant skills shortage within elderly care and healthcare. In many municipalities, not least in northern Sweden, as we have heard earlier in the debate, nursing assistants are a shortage occupation. To then deport staff who are already working in the operations is socially and economically completely irresponsible.

The wage floor is also a political intervention in wage formation. All parties in this Riksdag say they defend the Swedish model. They should then also know that this model is built on the fact that it is the parties in the labor market who, through collective agreements, set wages and conditions. When the Riksdag begins to establish wage levels to determine who is allowed to work here in the country, that principle is eroded. It is a systemic shift that should worry far more than just us in Vänsterpartiet.

Madam Speaker! There is, however, another way. Vänsterpartiet does not want an unregulated migration policy or labor immigration. It is just that we see it in a different way and we want different rules. We need, in fact, to have a system that does not increase people's vulnerability.

Firstly, we shall, of course, reintroduce an authority-based labor market assessment. Arbetsförmedlingen shall, in consultation with the parties in the labor market, assess whether there is an actual labor shortage in a sector before work permits are granted. Labor immigration shall occur where there is a need – not where conditions can be pressured.

Secondly, the terms in the job offer must be legally binding and be at the level of collective agreements and industry practice. It must not be possible to lure with an agreement on paper and then, in practice, offer something else under the table.

Thirdly, employers who apply for work permits must undergo a credit check. Serious employers have nothing to fear, but unscrupulous ones should not be given access to the system.

For the fourth, the person who reports conditions of misconduct must be allowed to stay in Sweden and be given the opportunity to seek new employment. Today, the risk instead is that the whistleblower themselves loses their permit. It is completely unreasonable.

Fifth, finally, employers who utilize labor migrants shall face significant sanctions. That is where the responsibility lies.

Madam Speaker! There are fundamentally two alternatives. Either we have a fair system that ensures that labor migration takes place in an orderly manner and with respect for Swedish collective agreements, or we continue on the path already taken where policy is primarily used to make people deportable.

Vänsterpartiet chooses the first option. We want a labor market where those who build Sweden – nursing assistants, industrial workers, cleaners and construction workers – are treated with respect. A society that accepts exploitation and creates fear among workers weakens the entire wage-earning collective.

It is not through higher wage floors that we create order and clarity. It is by strengthening workers' rights and restoring the balance in the labor market. That is how we achieve a fair and sustainable system for labor migration.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I must say that surprisingly, a good deal of what the member from Vänsterpartiet said in their speech is something I can sign off on. This concerns, for example, this issue with the balance of power between employees and employers, which becomes very skewed. But that was not what I intended to ask about now.

In her speech, Ciczie Weidby says that the wage requirement for labor migration is a threat to Swedish welfare. The wage requirement is, therefore, that one must earn 34,000 kronor per month. This naturally affects primarily nursing assistants and healthcare assistants; doctors and nurses meet that threshold. The median wage for nurses seeking to come to Sweden as labor migrants lies above that level. They are, therefore, not affected.

When one uses terms such as "threatens the welfare," those are quite strong words. I therefore thought I would do a small check: Before we raised the salary requirement in 2022, how many healthcare assistants and nursing assistants does Ciczie Weidby think Sweden accepted as labor migrants?

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Ludvig Aspling, for giving me the opportunity to speak even more about how we achieve a fair labor market.

As Ludvig Aspling and surely everyone here knows, I am a member of the Committee on Employment. One thing we talk about there is, of course, the skills shortage: We must get more people into more industries, we must give people the opportunity to move to where the jobs are, and so on.

It is interesting that Ludvig and others earlier in the debate have spoken about the wage floor of 13,000 being far too low. In that case, it has been completely misunderstood. A floor is not a ceiling. A floor is a floor; a ceiling is a ceiling. One can always pay out more than that money.

I will answer Ludvig Aspling honestly regarding the question of exactly how many people have immigrated for work to work in healthcare. Ciczie Weidby does not have that figure, as she has focused on the committee report and what we are discussing in connection with it. Had I been better prepared to receive that type of question, I would of course have familiarized myself with those questions.

I would, however, like to ask Ludvig Aspling why it is so incredibly important to set much higher and more specific requirements on a person who is not from Sweden than on those who already work in these professions in Sweden, for example the salary requirement.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! In her speech, Ciczie Weidby said that the wage requirement is a threat to Swedish welfare. Okay, that is a legitimate objection. We must investigate this. I then asked the question: Does Ciczie Weidby have any idea how many people within the groups of nursing assistants and practical nurses came to Sweden as labor migrants in 2022, i.e., before we had the wage requirement? Ciczie Weidby has no idea about that. She knows that it is a threat to the Swedish labor market, but she has no idea how many of these people there are.

This is available in the open data on the Swedish Migration Agency's website. If I had said that a rule change constituted a threat to Swedish welfare, I would at least have bothered to check how many people it concerns, but it is the famous Left Party work ethic that shows itself here again.

Let me just inform you: In 2022, we received 37 care assistants. In 2025, after the wage requirement had come into effect in its first step, there were 26, a reduction of approximately 10 people. Regarding nursing assistants, there were 87 in 2022. In 2025, after the wage requirement had come into effect, there were 36, a reduction of approximately 50 people.

This is a collective profession comprising 200,000 people in Sweden. The reduction that came as an effect of the wage demand – if we assume that is what has happened, which we can do – is therefore approximately 60 people. How do 60 people out of a profession of 200,000 constitute a threat to the Swedish welfare, when we are also talking about the least qualified welfare workers?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a nursing assistant. I have had that job myself. But it is a job at a high school level. It is not the case that these people have any higher education qualifications or any further education.

How does this constitute a threat?

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I note that you have an interesting debate climate and way of addressing one another in this committee that I am not at all accustomed to.

I think that Ludvig Aspling probably hasn't been out in many municipalities, especially not in those that are dependent on foreign labor, and seen how tough this is going to be for them and for the municipal residents who have to pay higher taxes so that some can have higher wages. You cannot raise the wage just for some and not for everyone.

I also guess that Ludvig Aspling has not met many of the companies that exist within Swedish business – I do not know how many different types of cleaning companies and staffing agencies it could be about – and who say that the wage requirement will become a huge problem for them when it comes to making the company viable.

It may seem odd to some people that a Left Party member is standing here defending the companies, but it is quite important that all companies should have the opportunity to employ people at a salary in accordance with collective agreements. Now, one cannot do that. Now, one might have to differentiate between people or say that everyone should have the same amount in salary.

When I say that this is a threat to Swedish welfare, that is exactly what I mean. If municipalities cannot hire as many nursing assistants as needed or cannot clean the healthcare facilities, it is obviously a threat to Swedish welfare. That is why I use the harsh words. It is a threat to Swedish welfare when one decides who shall be allowed to participate and contribute and who shall not, completely regardless of whether they already do so.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs labor immigration. That is beyond all doubt. Our economy is dependent on companies that start, grow, and hire. Our welfare is dependent on people who work, pay taxes, contribute knowledge, and contribute expertise.

In a globalized world, we are not only competing with our Nordic neighbors but with all of Europe, yes, the whole world, for talent, investments, and confidence in the future. Therefore, the question is not whether we should have labor migration, but the question is how it should be designed.

We Christian Democrats stand up for a labor immigration that strengthens Sweden, not one that deepens exclusion, pressures wages and enables exploitation.

Madam Speaker! For many years, Sweden had a regulatory framework that was, in practice, unique in Europe. Unlike almost all other EU countries, we made no clear distinction between high- and low-skilled labor. We opened for labor immigration regardless of education level and occupation. This occurred at the same time as Sweden received a very large number of people from third countries, many of whom today still have difficulty establishing themselves in the labor market. The result is seen with around 400,000 people who are still unemployed. We actually have one of Europe's largest differences in employment rates between domestic and foreign-born.

Against that background, it was not reasonable to continue recruiting low-skilled labor from countries outside the EU for jobs that could be performed by people who are already here and seeking work. The work principle must apply to everyone.

Madam Speaker! The previous income requirement was 13,000 kronor per month. We have heard that in the debate. It speaks for itself that such a level was not sufficient to ensure serious conditions or to counteract abuse. The system was exploited. Unhealthy companies could dump wages and working conditions. People from third countries risked ending up in a position of dependency. Serious companies saw themselves outcompeted by actors who did not follow the rules of the game. It was not worthy of the Swedish labor market model.

Through the Tidö Agreement, the foundation was laid for a change of course. We have taken clear steps to tighten the regulatory framework. During 2023, a wage floor of 80 percent of the median wage was introduced, and now the next step, namely a wage floor of 90 percent, is being prepared. It is a reasonable principle.

At the same time, it is crucial that a higher wage floor is combined with well-considered exceptions for clear shortage occupations. Municipalities, regions, and companies across the country must be able to secure the competence that is actually lacking. Therefore, we in Kristdemokrater see the work that the government is currently in the middle of carrying out positively.

Madam Speaker! We have for a long time argued that the current system must be reformed. It needed to be tightened and adapted to societal developments. It was unreasonable to have wide-open doors for low-skilled and low-paid labor from countries outside the EU when we ourselves had high structural unemployment. Therefore, the changes regarding wage floors must be combined with other reforms such as benefit ceilings, stricter qualification requirements, and clearer requirements for activity and participation. The Public Employment Service also needs to work more actively with matching. Work is not just a matter of livelihood, but it is about dignity, community, and participation in society. It is a fundamental Christian democratic conviction that every human being should be given the opportunity and expected to contribute according to their ability.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, Sweden shall be one of Europe's most attractive countries for international top talent. Here, the government has already taken steps and is planning further steps. The Swedish Migration Agency has been tasked with promoting high-skilled labor immigration, and processing times have decreased significantly. Previously, they were over 100 days. Now, a level of 19–20 days is being discussed. This strengthens Sweden's competitiveness.

We want to see more engineers, researchers, IT specialists and other qualified professional groups who contribute to innovation and growth. Sweden shall be a country where talent is welcomed and where the rules are also clear and fair.

Madam Speaker! I can finally state that the proposed changes from the government's side regarding the general migration policy have so far had support in virtually all parts from the Social Democrats, while the other opposition parties have been and are opponents to varying degrees. We can reflect on what demands will be made if we, against my expectation and to my own horror for Sweden's future development, get a change of government after the election in September.

This report shows, like many other reports in this area, that the opposition does not have a unified line. The Left Party and the Green Party want the migration policy to be turned back to how it was previously, that is, without greater requirements and with a great risk of a new migration chaos.

C is in that area, as in the usual political landscape, in the lonely middle position where one says yes to certain changes and no to others. Then there are the Social Democrats who align themselves very closely, very near, to the government's position. One can almost sense a gratitude from the Social Democrats' side that we are now carrying out the necessary turn in migration policy that Sweden needed but which was impossible to carry out during previous terms with the cooperation partners one had then.

One can ask what the future policy will be if there is a change of government. Will we and the Swedish people get an answer before the election? I doubt it.

The Swedish people deserve clarity. The reforms currently being implemented are the result of a mandate from the 2022 election. It is a shift towards a strict, responsible, and sustainable migration policy. We Christian Democrats are proud to be part of the majority implementing this change of course. We do it to strengthen the work line, to protect serious companies, to counter exploitation and fraud, to reduce exclusion, and to secure Sweden's long-term competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs labor immigration. But it must be qualified and demand-driven. It must contribute to integration, not hinder it. It must strengthen, not undermine our labor market.

It is the path that the Christian Democrats stand for, it is the path that the government is now implementing, and it is the path that is necessary for Sweden's future.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motion proposals.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Ingemar Kihlström is absolutely right. We are in the middle, and more people should be. I can recommend that to people.

It is true that we say yes to some things and no to others. We make use of the fine principle that if something is smart we vote yes, and if it is something stupid we vote no. More people should try it.

We are for necessary tightening in the area. When companies cheat, for example, the penalties are increased. It is about all sensible things, for example, clearing out the cheating. The Christian Democrats voted for the rules that are now being criticized. It feels like many parties forget what they have voted for. That applies to us as well. We can be honest about what we will vote for instead of claiming something else.

What we are saying no to is a crazy wage floor. I can repeat what the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has stated: It is idiocy, it is counterproductive, and it needs to be removed. It does not help Sweden, but instead, it hampers Sweden. This has been stated from the region that has the best conditions in this country.

It is idiocy, say the companies. We must take that into account. To then claim that the wage floor constitutes an obstacle makes me have to ask a very concrete question. Let's say we make up a wage of 34,000 for someone who works for free or for 10,000 in reality. Is it harder to write 34,000 than 28,000 and lie? Is it harder to write those figures than others? That is the only difference, that is to say, making up a higher figure. Does it make any difference at all with the fraud?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Niels Paarup-Petersen for the remark. Welcome to the committee! We did not meet during the previous debate.

It is always exciting to listen to the Centre Party, which in some way tries to have its cake and eat it too. It is said that one seems to act in a direction, but we can state that it is difficult to steer the policy in one direction if one stands alone in the middle and does not choose a side. It seems, unfortunately, that the Centre Party chooses the side that is divided.

We heard in a previous exchange that the Social Democrats and the Green Party are pointing in completely different directions. I wonder how Niels Paarup-Petersen thinks he can pursue a business-friendly policy in that company.

One can also speak of – it has been said in many posts here – who still come here with work migration permits. It is the highly qualified workforce. They are the ones we need. Of those who applied in 2022, actually over 6,300 such persons were granted permits. They were IT architects, system developers and test leads. They were approximately 1,900 engineers. They were approximately 2,000 civil engineers. But there were also very many who worked at, for example, fast-food restaurants and cleaning companies.

We heard in the previous exchange of remarks from Vänsterpartiet that there was a fear that the cleaning companies would go under because they do not get access to low-paid cleaners. But there are over 400,000 people in Sweden who need a job.

For me, it is important to ensure that the development results in more people in Sweden getting work. I hope that C shares that view. I believe, just as it was said earlier, that you are more welcome and will get much more benefit from your politics in our company.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I can state that I did not receive an answer to my question on whether it is harder to write a sum of 34,000 than 28,000 when one wants to lie about the salary one intends to give someone. It could be nice to remind of that. There is a good opportunity for the member to answer, and I assume that the member wishes to do so.

Let us talk about fast-food cooks. I urge the members to speak with the staff at one of the many fast-food restaurants that serve Thai food and ask how easy it is to find a qualified cook within Sweden's borders or in the EU at all, and why they import staff from other countries and pay wages in accordance with collective agreements, which we believe should be done. I strongly urge a visit. Why does the government want to pursue a policy that reduces their opportunities to make a living?

I have been asked several times which side we choose. We will choose the side that can provide good politics after the election. And in this area, the government's policy is deplorable. It is not I who is saying it; all business organizations and technology companies that I have met, for example representatives for ABB, hate this. They think it is stupid and bad. It destroys their growth. ABB is not a poor little company, and neither are the others. But there are also small companies that are completely dependent on competence from outside. They think that this is bad. The Chamber of Commerce and Svenskt Näringsliv say that it is a catastrophe.

We will choose a side after the election. In the current situation, there are well two prime ministerial candidates, right? The party leaders have been clear about that. It is Magdalena Andersson and Jimmie Åkesson. There are those who say there are three. We will see after the election whether Ulf Kristersson or Jimmie Åkesson will lead on that side. But we will choose after the election, and there are several candidates. We have not chosen a side.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! One can, of course, interpret things differently depending on the context. We can state that for highly qualified labor, the processing times have now been shortened from 100 days to around 20 days. That facilitates things. Persons from the largest work groups who have applied have been granted residence permits. This applies to IT architects, engineers, civil engineers, operations, support and network technicians, insurance consultants, and so on. It is, therefore, highly qualified labor. We decide on this continuously. We took a decision on a proposal that comes to the Riksdag and which concerns exactly that labor which is needed in a development and innovation country.

I can feel sympathy for the fact that Niels Paarup-Petersen misses going to a Thai restaurant, buying a cheap hamburger at a fast-food restaurant, or sleeping in a tidy hotel room. But I believe, just as has been said previously in the debate, that we need to create jobs for the over 400,000 in Sweden who do not have a job. They can certainly become cleaners. They have a longer way to go to become Thai cooks; I agree with that. But we need to ensure that we get them into work.

The wage floor we have established is about countering fraud. The government's policy means that we will continue to work to create good conditions for companies and innovation. I believe in a line where the Center Party would get much more out of its ideas than in the red-green rowdy bunch.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In his speech, Ingemar Kihlström spoke about how it would become harder to cheat now that the wage requirement is being raised. But it does not become harder to cheat just because the figure for the minimum wage that one must cheat that one has is changed.

Those who cheat will only continue to do so if one does not tighten the controls so that more are detected, and if one does not ensure that more employees dare to whistleblow when the employer cheats them out of money or forces them to pay back part of their wages. The schemes for cheating can be used regardless of what wage we require the employee to receive.

If you want to crack down on the cheating, you need to do several different things that we in Miljöpartiet have proposed, for example, tightening the sanctions against the unscrupulous companies that distort competition by cheating. You need to increase the controls and also ensure that the people who are being exploited dare to report it. The fact is that it is they who are punished most severely when a cheating employer is caught. They are punished with deportation and by having their children torn away from a functioning schooling, friends, and a life in Sweden. Read Miljöpartiet's motion and tackle the cheating for real!

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Annika Hirvonen! Thank you for the great interest and commitment for those who are affected by problems, exploitation, and abuse!

Annika Hirvonen said that we should read the Miljöpartiet motions. I would perhaps advise Member Hirvonen to read the report we are currently working on. It is the case that in that report, as a response to the motions submitted within the area, it is presented that the government is working on the issue.

A number of bills are specified concerning new rules for labor migration. These include stricter rules to counter fraud and labor-related crime. Work is also ongoing to provide increased protection. The possibility of damages is also provided in various SOU reports. These are things that the government proposes in its bills. We will stand here in a few weeks and debate labor migration again, specifically regarding measures to address the entire shadow side that has been created.

I can agree with Niels Paarup-Petersen. We were involved in deciding on the 13,000-kronor level. But we reached an agreement. I hope that more parties will now reach an agreement and realize that the decision was in the wrong direction and that one can take another that creates an opportunity to rectify it. That is exactly what we are doing in the government. We see the problems, we commission investigations and we propose measures. The response to Member Hirvonen will be: Read what we propose in the bill! I look forward to wholehearted support for the proposals we will present.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, let us read, among other things, about the question of compensation to labor migrants! It says on page 15 of the report: "Several investigations have looked at the question of compensation and submitted proposals for an obligation of compensation for employers upon revocation of work permits based on that an employment does not meet the requirements in the Aliens Act ... None of the proposals have so far led to any further measures."

The oldest ones already arrived in 2018. What I wonder is whether a such proposition will come from the government. That would, in that case, be good news.

I think Ingemar Kihlström should answer whether the government will present proposals that protect labor migrants against immediate deportation if they are exploited, so that they have the opportunity to seek another job. That would be good news, and I believe that in that case more people would dare to report fraud. It is primarily the workers who are affected, even though competing companies are also affected when fraud occurs and competition is distorted.

Mr. Speaker! My motion is about strengthened rights for labor migrants and about putting those who cheat behind bars. But it is also about companies and employers being able to recruit the competence they need. I would welcome it if the government took sense and began to invest heavily in educating those who are unemployed so that they can take the jobs where people are needed. I would also welcome a major investment that allows people who are unemployed to move to the municipalities that need labor instead of paying municipalities and migrants for them to move away from there.

Mr. Speaker! I hope for good news.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the prompt. However, I do not have knowledge of all the content in all the bills, but I can state that the government is submitting bills that provide increased protection for labor migrants.

We have clear rules for labor migrants to be able to come to Sweden. One must fulfill the requirements that exist. There are examples of companies that have gone bankrupt. In the north, there was a large such company. If one was a labor migrant there, one had the opportunity within a certain period to seek a new job when one had lost one's previous job. I assume that it will be that way.

It is about order and tidiness, about fair conditions and clear rules. We shall have a strict, regulated and fair migration.

Based on the exchange between members Hirvonen and Möller, and if, against all odds and to my great horror, there were to be a change of government, we do not know what would apply. Is the red line to be that 13,000 shall apply again? Is it to be without requirements? Will there be further opportunities?

Just as has been said in other posts, it is important that Sweden puts those who currently do not have a job to work. But at the same time, we must ensure that competitiveness is maintained and that it is possible to recruit to municipalities, regions, and companies. Therefore, we will come forward with a proposal on relevant exemptions for shortage occupations, something that we are currently preparing. It is also clear which rules apply if one is to come as a labor migrant.

That is how we create order both in the labor market and in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! "This is idiocy." It is not I who is saying it, but it is the companies. Let me return to that small statement.

I would first like to move for approval of reservation 1.

We are going to discuss labor immigration here. Why is labor immigration good? Well, it contributes to our GDP with 57 billion kronor. That is not small change. These are also old figures, so it is surely more now. It contributes 17 billion kronor to taxes, which contribute to our welfare. It is good for every Swede with higher tax payments.

It contributes to growth and so that companies can obtain the competence they need so that they can deliver better to their customers: deliver better products, deliver faster and deliver to the whole world. Then they earn more money and also increase their tax payments. They can also hire more. Every single one who gets work creates opportunities for more to get into work. That is how the economy works, which one can remind one's former bourgeois colleagues of. But I do not know to what extent one should call them bourgeois anymore.

The tax revenues are more than 30 times greater from the labor immigrants than the transfers that go to them and their families. It is completely absurd to hear parties that have previously understood growth and how the cake can become larger in companies by hiring the right people stand here today and express a socialist basic attitude towards the economy which argues that the cake cannot become larger.

The whole thing is completely absurd, and I don't understand how we have ended up here. I do, however, understand why. There is a party that they must accommodate, a party that has never been conservative. But it is very sad.

Companies must be able to obtain the competence they need if Sweden is to be strong. They must pay the wages and live up to the conditions that exist here in the country. That is obvious, and several good proposals will come from the government that go after the cheats so that companies that, for example, do not behave are punished.

But the salary requirement has nothing to do with that, because it is not harder to refrain from paying a salary because someone has lied that the salary is 28,000 instead of 34,000. It is exactly the same thing. One must include this, that is to say that the salary requirement does not affect the fraud.

The challenge is that this government has decided that those who have the absolute best grasp of what is the right salary in a company are those sitting on the government benches here in the chamber. It is an absurd view of Swedish companies. Would you have a better grasp of their wage formation and what competence they need than they have themselves?

This is not conservative, it is socialist. You sit with the central authority and believe that you can control a company's competence needs and say, "Now this is needed, not that. You don't need that." You can sit in Moscow instead from now on.

Mr. Speaker! Recurring lies have been heard today that we consider 13,000 kronor to be sufficient. We do not. We believe that the foundations in collective agreements and practice should apply. The Social Democrats also think so – with some extra additions that we do not support. The Left Party thinks so – possibly with additions that we do not support. And the Green Party also thinks so – certainly with some adjustments.

It is what all parties that are not on the government side think. There is not a single party here in the chamber today that thinks that 13,000 kronor should be a floor for labor migration. Several parties claim it despite knowing that it is not true. It cannot be how the political debate in Sweden should be conducted. We can be completely disagree on things, but let us at least refrain from lying about what the other stands for. That is what I think we and those who are listening are worth.

Mr. Speaker! There will always be someone who does right and someone who does wrong. We would like to deport those who do wrong and keep those who do right. There are surely parties that want to keep slightly more of those who do wrong than we think. But what is happening right now is that the government is deporting those who do right, and that is absurd and does not contribute to making Sweden better.

I appreciate how the Moderates were previously clear that Sweden has always been built by both those who have been here for a long time and by those who have come here to contribute. That is the Moderates I recognize, and very many carry that opinion in their hearts. But it must be noted that what is delivered in actual legislation is not based on the same idea. It is very unfortunate, otherwise we would have had it much easier to support this.

We have moved from labor immigration, which we were actually supposed to talk about, to handling labor deportation, which is another thing. We deport people who do everything right every day and who contribute to the welfare, the companies, the growth, the taxes, and the GDP. That is what we are doing right now because of the government's policy.

When the wage floor is raised this summer, another 10,000 who earn 30,000 kronor and more will be deported. How does Sweden become better by us deporting people who work, contribute, and earn 30,000 kronor or more? I have never understood it and will never be able to understand it. I also do not really feel that I am getting a clear answer from anyone who knows about economics on how it makes Sweden better.

We have talked a lot about figures. It is important to have correct figures then. It will, as said, be 10,000 more people who will be deported, according to the Riksdag's investigation service. Of them, 4,000 live in Stockholm. That is 75 percent of all labor migrants on Gotland.

How will Gotland become richer from that? How does it help their economy? Will an unemployed immigrant from Malmö who has sat in inefficient municipal measures suddenly go to Gotland and take a job he cannot do, tomorrow when you deport the other one? It will not happen. No one who has any understanding at all of how the world works believes that. It will not happen. That is not how it works.

Yes, introduce activity requirements, press people into work and ensure they receive training – absolutely. But that does not solve the problem for the entrepreneur who suddenly has less growth, has to sell less and will not be able to afford the rent because you have destroyed his company because you have deported the competence he needs. It does not help him. Therefore, we actually must talk about reality, and the reality right now is that the government, in all possible areas, is increasing the deportations of those who work.

There was an article in Dagens industri yesterday, I believe it was, about Bruzaholm, a foundry that has existed in Sweden since the 1660s and which is currently losing core competence due to the government's policy. Why? There is no point with that. It helps no one at all.

When the government presents proposals on labor immigration and reviews the regulatory framework, they want to change the framework so that the teenage deportations we see now regarding people with permanent residence permits will also begin to occur regarding those who have work permits. Their children shall also be deported when they are between 18 and 21. Right now, 21 years applies to them, but with the government's proposal, it will be 18 years for them as well. From the government's side, it is not about stopping the teenage deportations, but it is about making them more frequent. It is completely insane.

Yes, we are going to regulate labor immigration. But we are not going to destroy it, and we are not going to destroy Swedish companies. That is what this does, for real. It is not difficult to call around to business owners and check how this affects them. Everyone is against this. We will come back to the fact that this is idiocy. The business owners say that it is socio-economic idiocy. The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce simply says idiocy – it must be stopped and withdrawn. Svenskt Näringsliv says back down. Saco thinks it is stupid. TCO thinks it is stupid.

Why is this government so incredibly happy with the Sweden Democrats that they do not care about Sweden? That is something I would very much like to have an answer to.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I reacted a bit to a previous exchange regarding fast-food restaurants. It reminded me of a story I was told when I was at the Swedish Migration Agency for an operational visit a couple of years ago. They told me about a person from a third country who had submitted an application form to start working as a chef at one of the country's larger hamburger chains. Someone had called from the Swedish Migration Agency and checked that everything was under control. The person who answered said: This is going to be good; we look forward to having this person employed for the next two years.

After two years, the Swedish Migration Agency calls the hamburger chain's headquarters and says: We just want to check in before the renewal of this work permit – has everything functioned as it should? We don't know what you are talking about, the hamburger chain responds. What is this?

It turns out that no hamburger chain has ever applied to employ this person as a labor migrant. Instead, it is a person who has forged and filled out a form and provided the phone number of a friend who can speak Swedish. One has received a work permit for two years that gives full access to the entire European Union – one can travel around here. God knows what this person has done during those two years. Only when this is discovered two years later do we know that this person has not paid a single krona into the Swedish tax collective.

How could it have become like this? Well, it is because there has been no control at all in Sweden. From the Swedish Migration Agency, it has not been possible to control that money has arrived at the Swedish Tax Agency every month, as it should have. Nothing has been known. Had it not been for the fact that this was checked by chance, this person would still be here now and pretended to work at a large hamburger chain but did something completely different, God knows what. That is why we want to get this in order. Is it not good that we have taken action on this?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now I do not remember exactly what I said in the contribution, but I believe I said that this should be regulated and controlled and that those who cheat should be punished. This is what it is about.

That you set a wage floor of 33,390 kronor does not affect how one can forge documents. So that's not how the world works – I can say that much. Those things do not affect each other.

I am completely in favor of us stopping the cheating. I think that forgery of documents should be punished. I think the authority should gladly have an overview of which organizations they are entering. We support all the parts that the government puts forward when it comes to this. We are completely in favor of it; it is wonderful. But it has nothing to do at all with the wage floor, which ruins Swedish companies. They are two completely different things. So just remove that part, and we are in agreement.

To stop the cheating, you are stopping the growth of Swedish companies. It is stupid, and it makes no sense. This is the problem, according to everyone who has any knowledge whatsoever of the Swedish economy and growth, or of economics at all. You are going after something that has nothing to do with the cheating, but it is just some kind of strange symbolic politics that makes it harder for Swedish companies to acquire competence, completely unnecessarily.

Yes, we shall have order and tidiness. But what you are presenting here, with a wage floor of 33,390 kronor from June 1, is not order and tidiness. It is disorder, and it is absurd.

And again: You are also presenting proposals that will increase the deportations of teenagers. I do not understand why it is considered something that implies order and a better Swedish economy or in any way is good for Sweden at all.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is exactly the point: We are trying to regulate immigration, and that means we are starting to set requirements for people – that we are starting to set certain boundaries that one must adhere to if one wants to be a part of Sweden and if one wants to come here and work.

It is about being able to support oneself. We cannot, as in previous regulations, have a wage floor of 13,000–14,000 kronor per month. The truth, if one is to be completely honest, is that most who have come to Sweden in recent years to work in low-wage jobs have either applied for a study permit here or have come here and applied for asylum even though they are aware that they do not have grounds for asylum. And then they have made a track change three weeks later, because it has been a faster way in.

Now we have organized the Swedish Migration Agency and reduced the pressure on the Swedish Migration Agency to the extent that one can obtain a work permit in Sweden in approximately four weeks, if one meets the requirements. This is because we are no longer busy bringing people from the other side of the world to do the jobs that 368,000 unemployed people, which is the situation right now in Sweden, could do here, at home.

I would also like to ask a question so that I am not just telling anecdotes here in the speaker's chair. You have now heard what the Social Democrats want to do regarding labor market testing. In my world, it is to go even further. You have heard what we want to do regarding subsistence requirements. The Social Democrats want, in addition to their labor market testing, to force companies to sign collective agreements in order to bring people here.

If it is plague or cholera for the Centre Party, what does one choose? We have an election in a few months. We have two government options with two different proposals. Is theirs better, or is ours better? That is what I am genuinely curious to hear, because you will have to choose – if you do not get 51 percent; perhaps you will succeed.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for Magnus Resares' optimism about a beautiful Sweden, which it would become if we received 51 percent. I agree that it would be nice. I also agree that the probability of it happening is not so great.

Yes, a government will need to be formed after the election. I am quite convinced that it is only possible to form one that is better than this one. One still has to be satisfied with that.

Now Magnus Resare unfortunately cannot answer, so it will be a bit unpleasant to ask a question back. Otherwise, I would have liked to know if he considers Tidö to be plague or cholera. He has stated that one of them is, and I can at least agree with that; there we are in agreement.

What we will choose after the election is hopefully neither the Sweden Democrats nor the Left Party. I believe that for very many years we have been extremely clear that we do what we can to keep them away from government power. We have sacrificed quite a lot to succeed in that. And we succeeded with that during the January Agreement. Unfortunately, the Liberals were a bit too impatient for it to hold over time. And the Left Party is a bit too troublesome, as everyone knows.

But we go back to the issue at hand. We are in complete agreement that one should be able to have a livelihood. In Sweden, we have collective agreements to define this. That is why we say that collective agreements and practice are a reasonable basis for you to be able to come here and work. All the other things have nothing to do with the cheating.

The labor market assessment would mean that wage floors still remain, but that it is not as bad for some. I would think it was not as bad for everyone. But here it is almost as if their idea is a bit better, which is completely insane – that is, the Socialdemokraterna are better on labor immigration than the Moderaterna. It is actually more companies that find it easier to hire the competence they need with the Socialdemokraterna than with the Moderaterna. Taste that a little!

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is still, despite the fact that we are talking about very serious issues, wonderful that we can have such a good atmosphere. I welcome Niels Paarup-Petersen to the migration policy debates here in the chamber of the Riksdag. It will, in any case, not be boring.

We in Miljöpartiet are perhaps also a bit extra happy that we have Centerpartiet with us in the labor migration policy when other former coalition parties no longer stand by. We are, unfortunately, only two parties in this chamber that fundamentally believe it is a good principle that a company that needs to hire a person and does not succeed in finding them on the Swedish labor market should be able to recruit from other countries. It is good for the companies, and it is good for Sweden.

Furthermore, one must remember that labor migration is one of the few safe and legal ways for people who need to seek escape from an unsafe place. If you want to seek asylum in Sweden, you first need to have made it here – there is no way to get a visa to take a safe flight or boat trip to Sweden. But for those who have the skills that our companies demand, there is the possibility to come safely and legally in this way. That is also something to remember in the time we live in.

Mr. Speaker! We are debating various motions on labor immigration, and I have written one of them. It concerns strengthened rights for labor immigrants. I chose that name because the motion covers many things. It is about reducing fraud regarding specifically labor immigration. It is about those who cheat being punished. It is about making it easier for companies and other employers to recruit the competence they need.

But a very central part for this to become good is that those who come to Sweden to work have strong rights, that they have knowledge of their rights and that they have practical opportunities to realize those rights. The person who is afraid of being deported if he or she goes to the police to report crimes that the employer engages in will not make any police report. Today we unfortunately have a system that makes it so that the people who are exploited on the labor market many times do not dare to report. They risk deportation, and that can have major consequences both for them themselves and for family members who are in Sweden as relatives to them.

We propose that the controls should be increased. We propose that those who are caught cheating shall receive harsher penalties and that they shall also pay damages to the person who has been exploited. The person who has been exploited shall have more time to find a new job, so that the person has a real chance to continue the life that he or she has established here and not be forced to withdraw the children from school and other contexts in order to travel back to the home country in haste. The home country is, moreover, in some cases a place that many are terrified of traveling back to.

Mr. Speaker! The government often speaks about the so-called wage limit of 13,000 kronor. There is no party that advocates that we should have 13,000 as the minimum wage for labor migrants. On the other hand, several of us suggest that there should be a wage that corresponds to the level in the collective agreements. This means that there should be a higher wage requirement for someone who is a doctor and a lower wage requirement for someone who is a nursing assistant, just as it is for everyone else who works in Sweden. We think that is fair and reasonable.

It is not fair to have the same wage requirements for everyone, regardless of whether it concerns highly qualified labor or jobs that do not require as long of an education.

Of course, one should be able to live on one's salary. It is also an absolutely reasonable minimum requirement. To live on 13,000 a month, perhaps one can if one is a student and eats instant noodles all day. But we in Miljöpartiet think that it is too low a level for everyone.

Mr. Speaker! We have a deportation policy in Sweden which means that we deport people who have come to Sweden to work. They have worked here from the very first moment. They contribute to our society. They pay tax.

The deportation policy is unjust. It destroys people's lives, and it affects our societies negatively. All over Sweden, people join in when their colleagues receive the notice that they are to be deported from here. It is about the family in Norsjö who have to shut down the company and sell the house. It is about the Iranian couple of doctors who have worked in Sweden as nursing assistants at Södersjukhuset and about many more.

We in Miljöpartiet think that the deportation policy has gone too far. It is time to pull the emergency brake on the Sweden Democrats' repatriation train when lone babies and youths are torn from their families and when we deport people who would be needed in the Swedish welfare system. They are being deported to Iran and to other countries where it is currently so dangerous that even Migrationsverket does not send people there. They have, therefore, received the message that as soon as things calm down, they must leave – not because they have done anything wrong, not because they have cheated and not because they have committed a crime, but because the Tidö parties have as their goal that immigrants should have as few rights as possible and that as many as possible should be deported.

We in Miljöpartiet want to tackle the cheating and rectify the deficiencies that the Swedish National Audit Office has pointed out regarding the switching of tracks – but do not remove the possibility for people who have established themselves in Sweden to stay and work and apply for work permits from Sweden! Do not force people to travel back to Afghanistan to re-apply for their jobs from there! It is a bad idea. There is nothing that becomes better from such a system.

Those who are already here because they have received a work permit after a change of track should not be punished because the government now wants to change the rules for others who have not yet arrived in Sweden. The government has now, however, introduced a regulatory framework that means that even babies born in Sweden during the time the parents have had residence permits are deported. It is so unreasonable that even party leaders in the government have protested against the consequences of their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker! We heard from the Moderate Party's representative earlier that one thinks it is good if one is against such things as the Green Party is for. I think that is an incredibly strange position. The reasonable thing is to evaluate the actual consequences of the proposals that we and others put forward.

The consequences of the policy that the Sverigedemokraterna have put forward and which has been agreed upon in the Tidö Agreement will be that more children will be torn from their parents because the parents have lost their jobs or perhaps become so ill that they cannot work. We envision that a low-income family might have to choose which of the twin children they must send back to the home country – if they happen to have more children than they planned for and the income does not meet the requirements for the extension of permits for family immigrants.

This is a policy that I am convinced the Swedish people consider unreasonable. The debate over the deportation of teenagers over the last few weeks, I think, illustrates this. One can ask: Do you want a strict immigration policy – yes or no? Do you want more or fewer immigrants? Then one can easily believe that the majority of Swedes agree with the Tidö parties' policy. But when one instead sees the consequences in reality and what it means for real families, real people, a completely different reality emerges. The majority, even among the Tidö parties' voters, says that they want to reintroduce the valve that stopped the deportation of teenagers.

That is how it looks in Sweden. The Swedes do not want this unreasonable deportation policy. I hope that we will hear loud protests even in the future when we see unreasonable deportations – both unreasonable competence deportations and unreasonable deportations of children who are torn from their families in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all the Miljöpartiets proposals, but to save time, I move for approval only of reservation 10.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In reservation 5, which is common to C, V and MP, the parties write as follows:

We are critical of the wage floor, which creates difficulties for labor migrants and has a major impact on companies' ability to recruit the right skills. This concerns, for example, industries in northern Sweden that have a need for, among other things, electricians.

This is not an insignificant objection; I agree with that. There are situations where it can be extremely important to be able to quickly bring in labor from third countries if the need arises, as the Miljöpartiet writes. This can, of course, include electricians.

I would therefore like to ask Annika Hirvonen how she believes the wage floor, which she is critical of, has affected the number of people who receive work permits as electricians in Sweden. How much does Annika Hirvonen believe the number of electricians who come as labor migrants has decreased after the wage floor?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I heard incorrectly. I do not see that text in reservation 5, but perhaps it was some other reservation that Ludvig Aspling meant.

Anyway: We have seen in reports from not least the technology companies but also other industry organizations in Swedish business that they have warned that the government's raised wage floor means that it will not be possible to recruit for many manual occupations. This applies in particular to various technical jobs, where Sweden would really need more workers.

We have for a number of years trained far too few people for various occupations, partly due to a high school policy which has meant that fewer parents have recommended that their children study the vocational programs. They have not been college-preparatory. It has simply affected the attractiveness enormously. It would be very positive if more young people in Sweden trained for these shortage occupations.

We in Miljöpartiet were involved in reforming the upper secondary school policy during the last parliamentary term, precisely because we saw a major skills shortage. But it will take time before we have educated everyone we need in these occupational categories. The fact is: Given that so few children are born in our country, it is not certain that we, even if everyone were to be educated for shortage occupations, will be able to meet the needs. We will need to have a labor immigration policy that enables recruitment for companies that need that competence.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet writes in reservation 1 – I apologize – that the wage floor threatens the companies' opportunities to recruit electricians to Sweden if it should be needed.

I asked a very simple question to Annika Hirvonen: How has the number of electricians arriving as labor migrants been affected by the wage floor?

This is quite central to this hypothesis. Annika Hirvonen says: The wage floor threatens the possibility of bringing in electricians. Okay, Annika Hirvonen: How many fewer electricians will come to Sweden because of the wage floor?

Annika Hirvonen has no idea. This is, like, the core of Miljöpartiet. One must be totally ignorant to represent that party – it seems to be some kind of rule. But don't worry! I am here to help. That is why I am here.

The number of electricians who came to Sweden in 2022 was 96. The number of electricians who came in 2025 – that was, after the wage requirement was introduced – was 132. That was, therefore, 36 more people who were granted permission to be electricians in Sweden after the wage requirement.

I would need to follow up on this with two questions:

Does Annika Hirvonen understand that these statistics speak very strongly against her hypothesis – that the wage floor is an obstacle to bringing in electricians? It should be obvious to any thinking person that what Annika Hirvonen writes in the reservation is not correct, as the number of electricians has increased.

The second question is: Could it be that the entire opposition to the wage floor from Annika Hirvonen's side simply stems from the fact that she has no idea what she is talking about?

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

TALMANNEN

I think we should perhaps be a bit careful about commenting on people's mental faculties here.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate that remark. I began my speech by speaking about the good atmosphere. It is possible to have a good atmosphere and to be respectful towards one another even if one does not agree with one another.

I must say that Ludvig Aspling is truly poisoning the debate. We could have a good atmosphere despite the fact that we stand extremely far apart. I think it is terribly disrespectful and unpleasant that we have this tone. I would never – never – have tolerated it at my scout meetings with nine- and ten-year-olds. I would never have accepted my children speaking like that to anyone else. And I think we in the Swedish Riksdag should have a decent standard.

It can be tough. We can criticize each other's opinions. We can criticize each other's proposals. But we shall not resort to personal attacks. That level does not belong anywhere. If we do not think one can behave that way if one is a child, then one really should not behave that way as a member of Parliament. It is completely disrespectful.

I do not intend to continue this debate. If Ludvig Aspling wants to debate with me in the future, I expect, firstly, an apology and, secondly, that he raises the level and sticks to the issue.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jan Riise (MP) agreed.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! Since my party was mentioned in Hirvonen's speech, I just wanted to take up that matter.

The reason why I speak in my address about how one might react with a shudder at the Green Party's proposal when it comes to migration is because we have the last ten years fresh in our memories. Practically all other parties in the Swedish Riksdag said that we might have to put a stop to it when over 150,000 people had arrived in the country and it began to become a problem to take care of them. People had nowhere to live. The Swedish Migration Agency sent people around in buses from place to place because there was no sleeping space. The gymnasiums were full, the Migration Agency's conference rooms were full. There was nowhere to put people, and somewhere we therefore had to say stop.

Those who resisted the longest when the Social Democrats finally decided that enough was enough were the Green Party. They sat in government with the Social Democrats and said "a little more, a little more" until it really could not go any further. Only then did they change their minds.

What happened then? Then there came demands for secondary school laws to find a solution for a number of people who had arrived but who did not have grounds for asylum. Then there were crises in the government, not infrequently because the Miljöpartiet thought that if they did not get through any migration issue, they intended to leave the government. That type of defection has never been threatened with when it comes to any environmental policy decisions here in this chamber, but when it comes to migration, one can imagine jumping out of governments. One does not issue that type of ultimatum in any other issues, even though one is still a party for the environment.

I wanted to ask about this valve. We Moderates have today said that we want to see an opportunity for young people to complete upper secondary school. Doesn't Annika think that is good?

(TALMANNEN: We address each other here in the chamber with first and last names.)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Just that, I do not feel particularly offended by, I want to say.

The fact is that we left the government in 2021 when the Moderaterna completely wrecked the environmental and climate policy. I don't know how Magnus Resare sorts his historical facts, but now he has at least received a bit more information to sort in. So that was the case.

To the issue: This week, an 18-year-old boy was torn from his upper secondary education in Värmland, from his family, to be deported alone from here just because he has turned 18. Do I think it is good that the government now intends that the possibility for family members who turn 18 to stay in Sweden should be extended instead of deporting them before they have completed their upper secondary education?

I think it is obvious and the only decent thing is that these young people get to stay with their families in Sweden and realize their dreams of becoming ambulance nurses, social workers, and everything else they want. But it is not enough to just extend a few months so that they can finish high school. The goal is not for them to finish high school and then be deported when we have invested in their education and they are Swedish to at least the same extent as they were three months earlier.

We want a solution that is long-term and that gives these young people the right to live in their home country Sweden. We do not want to tear adoptive children away from their parents, we do not want to tear bonus children away from their families, we do not want to send young people alone to Iran while the younger siblings get to become Swedish citizens. It is indecent.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I still feel that you think it is positive that we move forward now, and I am very pleased that the Minister for Migration has been as clear as he has been over the past few days. We see an opening and an opportunity to ensure that those young people who would otherwise risk being deported can finish high school. It is a temporary solution that I believe can give these young people the opportunity to then move forward, either to study at a university or enter the workforce – an opportunity to stay in Sweden.

The difference between your proposal and our proposal is that our proposal is feasible and ready, and can be in place quite soon to help these young people. It is almost ready for the Riksdag's table. The opposition has made a big deal in the media about submitting an initiative that is voted down in the Social Insurance Committee, but these are essentially unfeasible proposals that are about calling up the Swedish Migration Agency and telling them to stop applying Swedish law. So, we cannot do that in Sweden.

Your proposal is about us reintroducing systems that the Social Democrats wisely said no to, systems that we abolished ten years ago which made Sweden the country that everyone wanted to flee to. You want to reintroduce that regulatory framework, and it would have required investigative measures that would have taken much, much longer than doing what the Migration Minister now wants.

We are not standing before journalists and waving committee initiatives to get a little effect, some headline, and perhaps an extra vote in the autumn election. The Moderates are instead doing something that will actually have an effect for the teenagers who are in this country and who otherwise risk not finishing high school. It is a serious policy. It is a strict migration policy that points at the people who actually should be here, who behave correctly and whom we perhaps do not need to deport. They may stay.

In the first instance, we should deport people who commit crimes and in the second instance, people who do not have the right to be here for various reasons. I think the Minister for Migration is presenting a sensible proposal that can help some high school youths to be allowed to stay, and I look forward to being part of passing it shortly.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I swear the Minister for Migration has not presented any proposal. Today he refused to tell us in the committee what it is he intends to do and when he will present the proposal. Magnus Resare claims that this is almost ready for the Riksdag and that it will be great – we shall see when it arrives, if it arrives, and if it actually solves the problem.

What I know is that Tabitha, who has received a decision that she must leave Sweden in three weeks, probably will not be helped by this proposal, because it will come too late. What could have made it in time were the Green Party's and the Left Party's proposals, which were not about going back to something that applied ten years ago but were about taking back the valve which meant that if there are particularly compelling circumstances and a person has a strong connection to Sweden, one should be able to obtain a residence permit.

It was a provision aimed at precisely this type of completely unreasonable deportations, a law that we have even had, and it would therefore have gone quickly to vote it through via a committee initiative. The Moderates said no, and honestly: after today's debate, I wonder if it is just because it came from the wrong party, from Miljöpartiet.

I intend to continue to put pressure on the Minister for Migration and ensure that he comes up with something that is not just helping a few people for a few months, but that is a real solution. And that solution must come quickly. We cannot wait until next year, because then even more of these young people will have met the same fate as Darya and Donya, who have now lost their freedom and are locked up in an apartment in Iran without their younger siblings and without their parents who have to stay in Sweden.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Member Hirvonen has a, as always, engaged contribution.

I have a few questions. I understand that Member Hirvonen did not think the salary level of 13,000 kronor per month was relevant for labor migration. Now the government has presented a proposal, and I interpret it as that one can conclude that there was a problem.

My first question is: Did MP Hirvonen see the problem in the situation that existed, where very many came very far away to perform very unqualified work? As I said in a previous exchange, we had very many who performed, for example, cleaning and restaurant jobs and in other ways very important but rather simple jobs to step into when we still have a high unemployment. I interpret it as that the wage level was a problem and would like to have that confirmed.

It is stated in a reservation that we risk a situation where the removal of the right to change tracks implies a loss of important labor in, for example, the healthcare and construction industries. In a similar vein to when my colleague from Sverigedemokraterna previously spoke, I would like Member of Parliament Hirvonen to quantify this. What number is it when it comes to the loss of important labor based on the fact that the possibility of changing tracks has disappeared? What is stated in the reservation suggests that we would not be able to care for anyone and not build anything, which would be a very large impact. I would therefore like to hear how large the loss of important labor will be.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now I might have forgotten the first question.

(INGEMAR KIHLSTRÖM (KD): It concerned the 13,000-kronor level.)

Just that, the 13,000-kronor level! I'll start with that.

To begin with, one must know that it was not any politician who sat here in the Riksdag and voted on whether it should be 13,000, 15,000 or 10,000. It is instead the courts' interpretation of what one can live on. They asked themselves: If one has a part-time salary in accordance with a collective agreement, what is the minimum amount one needs to survive in Sweden?

This dates back many years, before the inflation, so I would say that no one thinks one can get by on 13,000 – even though unfortunately there are very many people who need to get by on even less today, for example if one lives on social assistance. It is therefore an entirely too low level; I want to be very clear about that.

I actually do not think the wage level is the absolute biggest problem. The absolute biggest problem is that people have also been exploited and hardly received any payment at all. They have been forced to work under almost slave-like conditions. That is the absolute biggest problem.

This obviously leads to great suffering for the people who have been forced to live on construction sites and have been exploited. People might not even have access to their passports and are basically stuck. At the same time, they have no knowledge of their rights and are perhaps afraid to seek help. I think this is the absolute biggest problem, and if we are to get rid of it, we must go after the cheating. Then we must strengthen the rights for labor migrants.

I will return to the second question in my next speech.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for that answer, Member Hirvonen! I await the answer to the second question with anticipation.

Since I have no more points to make after this, I must now get into the figures. It can be stated that during 2022, there were 87 nursing assistants who immigrated for work. This corresponds to 0.04 percent of that professional group. That figure applies to labor migrants, but we are also talking about switchers here. Figures are being discussed; we have heard the figure 4,000, and I believe a relevant figure might be lower – approximately 2,000. Of these, a very small portion work as nursing assistants.

When it comes to the loss of important labor, I would therefore say this: It is clear that every single hand in the workforce is important, but it is not this that is making it so that we cannot care and build. I therefore do not believe that the words about this will cause municipalities and construction sites around the country to stop really correspond with reality.

Furthermore, it is also the case that through labor immigration, nursing assistants who meet the existing wage requirements still come to Sweden. The highly qualified workforce is also increasing, as mentioned.

I would like to ask a few quick questions because my speaking time is running out. One might wonder if Annika Hirvonen thinks we have the wrong regulatory framework in Sweden now. We actually have the same regulatory framework as the rest of Europe. Does that mean the rest of Europe is inhumane and has rules that are too tough?

Earlier, there was an exchange of remarks between members from two potential coalition partners in government, and it was quite interesting. There, Member Möller was more on my side of the fence, while Member Hirvonen went in another direction. What red lines exist? What things should be reopened in an eventual government cooperation? Will we get a policy shift back? Will we get a lower limit for labor migration? Will there be anything of that sort? That answer would be interesting to receive.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Is there anything we know for sure about that scenario, is it, that it will at least not be the Sweden Democrats who decide what salary labor migrants shall have in different jobs. It will therefore be better.

No, I do not think that all construction projects will stop or that no one will be cared for. If I have expressed myself so carelessly at any point, I will of course have to eat those words. What we have seen instead is that this hits hard, especially in northern Sweden. A residence is alarming that every fourth employee has been deported. This is therefore having consequences in those places. It is seriously very difficult for them to recruit employees for these rather low-paid jobs in welfare. The mine takes all the labor because it pays so much better.

I am not against investing in ensuring that more people who are unemployed receive the skills they need to take these jobs. It would have been very good if the government had made a major investment in ensuring that the unemployed received those skills, but that is not what has been done. I am also not against looking at the substantial billion that is now being invested in paying people to travel out of Sweden, through an emigration grant. Perhaps it could instead be used for what Ola Möller – I believe that was it – proposed, that is, a relocation grant for those who move to northern Sweden, where labor is needed. Why not?

This is something we can perhaps agree on when we soon take power. It looks good in the opinion polls. I understand that the Christian Democrats feel some nervousness, because it is not going as well for the Christian Democrats and the Tidö agreement in the polls.

I think that we must have a reasonable policy. This policy, where we deport people's children and people who are here and contribute and work, does not make Sweden better. It harms Sweden.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have just realized that my speaking time is significantly shorter than I planned. I am not a regular member of this committee but am stepping in for Patrik Karlson, so I registered late for the debate. I apologize in advance for exceeding my speaking time, and I will try to keep it brief.

Sweden is a small country on the outskirts of a large world market. We will not build our prosperity by being the cheapest. Instead, we must strive to be the best – in ideas, in innovation, in quality, and in getting things done. For that, people are required. It does not require labor as an anonymous commodity, but people with competence, drive, and dreams.

Therefore, labor immigration is fundamentally a liberal issue of freedom. It is about people's right to seek opportunities and about Sweden's opportunities to develop. But it is also about something that we liberals are at least equally clear about, namely that no system survives without legitimacy. If people are exploited by criminals or unscrupulous actors, if unscrupulous companies outcompete serious ones, and if trade permits become a commodity, we lose trust.

Therefore, I move for the rejection of the motions that have been raised and for the approval of the committee's proposal.

The motion for rejection is not due to the questions being unimportant, but because the work is already underway. Concrete legislation is to be debated here in the chamber in a few weeks, and it concerns sharp tools against abuse and a clear direction towards, among other things, promoting high-skilled labor immigration.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a country that says welcome to the engineer who can electrify the industry, the researcher who drives the next breakthrough, the IT specialist who strengthens our competitiveness, and all those international talents who feel they are being limited by thought bans or protectionism. Sweden shall say welcome to those who want to pay taxes, build companies, and become a part of Sweden. But Sweden shall say stop to those who want to import low wages, bypass rules, and make money by exploiting people.

Sometimes I hear two extremes in the debate. One is: Open everything, then it will be good! The other is: Close everything, then there will be order! Both are wrong. Sweden needs an openness with a key and a lock – a door that welcomes labor but also makes it very difficult to exploit the system.

Since November 1, 2023, there has been a subsistence requirement, which we have heard about here in the debate. It is no secret – I will be completely open and honest – that the Liberals would prefer to see that Sweden does not intervene and set a general wage floor. The Liberals believe in the Swedish model of collective bargaining and want wages and conditions to be negotiated by the parties, not established by politics through a standard. This is, however, a policy that takes responsibility for the whole.

The agreement we have in the package is that there should be sharper tools against exploitation, faster and clearer processes for highly qualified persons, as well as a threshold through a higher wage floor. We Liberals do not accept the wage floor as an isolated idea, but we accept it as part of the whole in order for it to be legitimate and feasible.

One thing that I think has been forgotten in the discussion that has been held here for a few hours is that it is not the government that is supposed to sit and hammer out all the exceptions. Now, Migrationsverket and Arbetsförmedlingen are sitting together to produce a proposal on which shortage occupations should be exempted from the wage requirement. Swedish companies should be able to recruit competent labor from abroad, and the exceptions should target shortage occupations with long-term recruitment needs. It is not just about raising and closing eyes, but it is about raising but also calibrating according to new conditions. This is an important part of the new order.

Mr. Speaker! When making major changes, it is important to have focus on what one wants to do moving forward. We see that there is a great need for highly qualified labor – not just an extra person on the labor market. International analyses repeatedly show that it contributes …

(TALMANNEN: When one registers in retrospect and ends up last, the time limit is unfortunately absolute. Generally, the agreement regarding a recommendation of eight minutes applies, but here the time limit is absolute. Say something nice to conclude!)

We have ensured that from June onwards, doctoral students and researchers will receive permanent residence permits faster. This also applies to their family members. At the same time, we are working on new legislation to solve the problem that their children are no longer considered part of the nuclear family when they have turned 18. There is probably not a single family that does not consider 18-year-olds to belong to the nuclear family, regardless of whether they are born here or somewhere else.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I ask to be allowed to thank you for the time I have taken. I could have spoken about liberal politics for another four minutes, but there will surely be more occasions.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When I listened to Helene Odenjung, it sounded so much better than what we have read in the proposals coming from Tidö. It is, however, unfortunately clear that the Liberals have not succeeded in implementing their policy in this cooperation.

It will, after all, be the government that, based on the list from Migrationsverket, shall decide which shortage occupations we shall have labor migrants for and which shortage occupations one does not like it that labor migrants come to. It will not have anything to do with how large the shortage is. The shortage of personal assistants is, for example, huge, but it has already been decided politically that labor migration shall not be permitted there.

The wage requirements will result in an incredible steering from politics regarding wage levels. I know that many employers are now trying to ensure they retain their employees and raise their wages. In the long run, however, it will of course be completely unsustainable to have higher wages for labor migrants than for everyone else, even though I know that many employees have said that they are prepared to waive wage increases because they do not want their colleagues to end up poorly and be forced to leave Sweden with family and everything because of this new policy.

I have a question for Helene Odenjung regarding the last thing she raised, namely the deportation of teenagers. It is complete madness to tear 18-year-olds away from their families in the way we have been able to read about in the newspapers.

We in Miljöpartiet warned that this would be the consequence when one removed the valve that was designed to avoid completely unreasonable deportations of people who have Sweden as their home country. I have a simple question: When will the government present a solution?

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Annika Hirvonen for the question.

I believe we are in complete agreement on how unreasonable it is that a person as an 18-year-old – or younger, for that matter – receives a deportation decision. We have seen many examples of this during the past weeks. Work is therefore ongoing in the Government Offices to develop a regulatory framework that will address this issue.

No one should have to be met with a deportation decision on their 18th birthday. The idea that the Liberals have put forward is that one should follow their parents' residence permit. Then we would not have received the insane decision regarding the little baby, but instead, the decision would have followed the parents' residence permit.

It can only be stated that one should have thought about it earlier, but since that was not done, we are thinking about it now. As I said, such work is ongoing in the Government Offices.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Every week that we wait for this proposal, time will run out for young people. Just this week, a family has had to say goodbye to their 18-year-old and put him alone on a plane from here, while the rest of the family, including the little brother, continue to live here. His classmates continue their education and will graduate this summer.

These breakups are incredibly draining, and in the worst cases, the consequences can be dramatic. We are talking about young people who worry that they will be forced to marry against their will or that they will not manage to survive alone in the patriarchal structures that exist in the country of origin. I do not say the home country, because it is Sweden that is the home country for these young people.

There are young people who are now waiting, who have appealed their decisions in the courts and who could receive a notification at any moment.

We in Miljöpartiet think that what is reasonable is that even the Liberalerna, who say that they want to solve this, vote for our proposal to quickly put in place the provision that existed previously, so that not even more end up in this situation.

The siblings Darya and Donya, who have been deported to Iran, have testified about how they are now held in a state of deprivation of liberty in an apartment. In practice, they cannot live a normal life. They dreamed of becoming nurses in Sweden. Their family remains here. It is a terrible fate. They have also been denied their application to return. The consequences of these deportations can therefore become terribly dramatic.

I think the Liberals should give a clearer statement. I understand that this is being prepared, but for the sake of these young people, a statement needs to come now.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Annika Hirvonen!

The statement I can provide is what the Liberals are pushing for. We agree with the picture and share the desperation with all the teenagers who are worried that this will happen, and also with their parents. It is not reasonable to be deported when one has grown up in Sweden or to risk deportation because one earns a few thousand too little.

We have advocated for an establishment valve; I believe that Annika Hirvonen is aware of that. I also believe that Annika Hirvonen knows how negotiations are conducted in a government. It is done in the government, not in the speaker's chair here or anywhere else in the media. That work is ongoing in the Government Offices.

I want to be clear: With the committee initiative that has been raised today, which implies that new legislation is to be developed, it would most likely not go any faster than what is already ongoing, because it is a request for new legislation. We want a long-term solution for this group. These people should not have to be worried, but they should know what conditions apply.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(The decision was to be taken on 4 March.)

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