Inhibition of execution - a new order for certain foreigners during temporary execution obstacles

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are fundamentally positive about this product. However, we have submitted a specific statement for two reasons.

One thing is that some instances make the assessment that it could increase the risk of crime. We think it is important to follow that. The other is that we think the children's perspective is very important in this context.

We do not want to end up in a situation where the people who have been affected by the inhibition end up together with families with children.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I accidentally pressed the button to vote in favor. I hope that it is adjusted away, because I do not agree with exactly everything the member said, but I agree with most of it.

It is exactly as the Social Democrats during the term have agreed on most of what we have thought regarding migration issues. I would therefore like to ask a simple question to MP Möller.

After this parliamentary term: Who do you think has driven the best migration policy, we in the Tidö agreement or those who intend to form a government with you after the election?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the Social Democrats have pursued the best policy in all areas.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I interpret that as you thinking that we in Tidögänget still have the best migration policy. You have practically voted with us on every issue throughout the entire mandate period, in contrast to those whom you intend to cooperate with.

I look forward to continued support from the Social Democrats even during the next mandate period in these important and serious issues in which we pursue a reasonable policy.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, Member Resare's contribution is as confused as his button-pressing in this case.

We have not supported the Tidö government in the totally insane ideas that have been put on the table. This concerns, for example, withdrawing permanent residence permits retroactively and introducing a return migration grant that is completely ineffective and which is also formulated in a purely racist way.

We have not experienced the privatization of detention activities or the separation of children from their parents when they are in detention.

We have been clear that we want to give more money to Ukrainians in the municipalities. We have been clear that we have thought that more quota refugees should be accepted and so on.

We also have, for example, a number of reservations in very many of the matters that are now moving forward on the table regarding the defense activities and the reception. We think differently on the issue of citizenship and so on.

If Magnus Resare had had more knowledge of how he presses the buttons, followed the parliamentary debates and read the documents that the committee had, he would not have asked the types of questions that are very confused. They do not correspond with reality.

It is illuminating that Magnus Resare first rises in the debate and asks a Social Democrat who has the best policy. Obviously, it is the Social Democrats.

I then advise him to follow the parliamentary debates. Then he will know that the Social Democrats stand for a clear, balanced, limited and strict migration policy that has nothing to do with the Tidö parties.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Persons whose deportation decisions cannot be executed for various reasons and whose execution is proposed to be postponed can be expected to remain in Sweden for many years.

Today, a temporary residence permit is usually granted. The order the government wants involves that, instead of being granted a temporary residence permit during this time, the execution shall be inhibited – that is, it shall be postponed – for a potentially long period. This entails far-reaching effects on the target groups' rights by, for example, not allowing them to live where they want, move freely, have access to private life, work and support themselves, and so on.

In summary, the proposal therefore entails far too significant restrictions for people, and as recently as yesterday, Amnesty directed criticism at Sweden for backing down when it comes to fundamental human rights. Here, one opens up for arbitrary assessments that risk affecting individuals in a disproportionate and legally insecure manner. The Left Party cannot accept that.

Particularly serious is the proposal regarding the unclear wording about special circumstances attributable to the foreigner's lifestyle and that it could lead to an inhibition of enforcement and thus restrictions on one's freedom of movement. It could also be about not being allowed to work, support oneself, or live where one wants.

The concept lacks clear delimitation and specified meaning in the legal text. Referral bodies such as Asylrättscentrum, the Institute for Human Rights, and the Swedish Bar Association have directed sharp criticism toward the proposal. Vänsterpartiet shares this criticism.

The legislation must be so clear that the individual can, to a reasonable extent, foresee the consequences of their actions. Such a requirement for predictability in legislation is a fundamental principle in the Swedish legal system and a prerequisite for a rule of law. The expression "special circumstances attributable to the foreigner's lifestyle" does not meet this requirement.

Mr. Speaker! Migration policy must rest on the principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights. Vague assessments regarding lifestyles and so on do not belong in a legally secure legislation. This is an opinion that the Left Party shares with several of the referral bodies, such as Asylrättscentrum, Sveriges advokatsamfund, the Institute for Human Rights, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, to name just a few.

In summary, Vänsterpartiet argues that the proposals involve far too extensive restrictions on fundamental human rights. Like several referral bodies, we also question whether the proposed reforms actually lead to more effective enforcement and fear that they instead create long-term legal uncertainty.

Vänsterpartiet moves for the rejection of the bill in its entirety, including the proposals concerning the obligation to report, area restrictions, limitations on the right to work, restrictions on assistance, and the allocation of housing without the possibility of appeal.

In one case, the Left Party (V) considers it reasonable that an inhibition of execution may be granted if a foreigner has been deported due to a crime or if a foreigner poses a security risk. But it is not only these target groups that the government is aiming at with its proposal, and therefore we also have a notification in our motion.

With that said, I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Inhibition of execution – this is a matter that we have worked on for quite some time. It is therefore incredibly pleasant to be able to stand in the chamber and finally be able to talk about this.

The bill is quite technical, so I thought I would start by briefly explaining what type of problem it is that we are trying to solve here. A situation that arises relatively often concerns a person who does not have the right to stay in Sweden; it could be that the person has been denied an asylum application or has had a residence permit but was then deported due to a crime or for some other reason. This decision cannot always be enforced, and the person cannot be deported to their home country. This is called a non-deportable case.

This situation can arise for various reasons, for example, the applicant's state of health or – if we are to be honest – perhaps rather the alleged state of health. It can also be due to the situation in the home country or to the fact that the home country refuses to accept the person. But it is usually not about the person not being able to return home if he or she chose to do so of their own free will.

The persons are thus not stuck in Sweden in the sense that it is technically impossible to get home, but it is precisely the forced deportation that, for various reasons, cannot be executed. This is a distinction that is very important to make.

There are several countries that have a large number of citizens residing in Sweden and which may not be very good at cooperating regarding the repatriation of these individuals if they are not allowed to stay here. That has at least been the case until very recently. On that point, it should be said that this government has done more than any other government in many decades. The voluntary enforcement to several of the countries that have previously posed major problems has increased.

The top list for this type of case consists of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria, that is, the countries from which very many asylum seekers have come.

One might ask: Why does this problem actually arise? What is it that makes these countries unwilling to cooperate regarding the repatriation of their own citizens? This is an international obligation, as it is usually called, and it is actually a rather simple self-evident truth that a country takes back its own citizen who is deported from some other country.

Why do the countries do this then? The answer to that naturally requires some speculation on my part. But it is not a completely wild guess that it is about the fact that several of these countries have very large revenues from remittances – that is, that people living in Europe and the USA, preferably, send money to these countries, i.e., back home to relatives who live there.

Somalia, for example, which is another of the countries known to be a bit tricky in this regard, receives approximately 15–20 billion kronor in remittances annually. This corresponds to 25–40 percent of the country's GDP. It is therefore not entirely irrational, from the country's own perspective, to act in that way.

Such countries often have an unspoken policy of increasing the foreign diaspora to obtain revenue, but in some cases, it can also be about wanting to strengthen the Islamist voice in Europe and in that way exert pressure on our democracies. It is a significantly worse problem than it just being about money.

This type of enforcement case has until now been resolved by granting such persons something called a residence permit due to enforcement obstacles. This means that the person admittedly does not have the right to be in Sweden but still receives a time-limited residence permit, simply because he cannot be sent back by force.

This has therefore applied even if the obstacles to enforcement have been temporary, that is to say, that they have depended on a situation that can be assumed will not last particularly long. This residence permit has since granted access to Swedish welfare, subsistence support, child allowance, other settlement-based social insurance benefits plus work permits in the normal case. It has even entailed a possibility to bring additional relatives from the home country. Worst of all is that this has also applied to persons who have been deported due to crime or because they constitute a security threat in Sweden.

It is important to point out that residence permits due to execution obstacles are an entirely national regulation. There is nothing in the EU's return directive that forces Sweden to have this arrangement. EU law leaves it entirely up to the member states to define what is and what is not legal residence and what should happen in this type of execution case. This is therefore an entirely Swedish invention, even though a similar legal figure also exists in other countries.

Let me summarize how the left-wing parties view the issue. It can be about cases where a person has committed serious crime or, for example, belongs to a terrorist organization, which means he should be deported from Sweden to his home country, but this cannot be executed because the home country does not want the person there. That person is therefore to be rewarded with subsidies, work permits, and even a right to bring more members of his clan here.

It is difficult to find a more flagrant example of how the left-wing parties are deliberately working to undermine regulated immigration. But what is perceived as grotesque and offensive by normal people is something completely normal in the left-wing parties' world.

Now I see that in the report there is a dutiful acknowledgment from the Social Democrats and the Center Party that this order should be changed. The Left Party and the Green Party do not actually reserve themselves either in the part concerning deportation due to crime. But this, Mr. Speaker, is quite obviously a show for the gallery. If these parties had really wanted to change this order, they would naturally have done so during the recent parliamentary terms.

The problem is not new in any way. It has even been pointed out by the Migration Court of Appeal. In a case that I believe is at least six years old, the court points out precisely the problem that these persons are granted this type of residence permit.

Furthermore, there has been a legal figure that quite closely resembles this and which can be called Säpo-inhibition, i.e., where certain qualified security threats have received this type of inhibition without it having been explicitly stipulated in the Aliens Act.

The problem has, therefore, been well known, but the left-wing parties have systematically just ignored doing anything about it. But we do not, Mr. Speaker, fortunately. This government is significantly more action-oriented.

What will happen now is that these persons, instead of residence permits due to execution obstacles, will receive suspended execution or inhibition, as it is also called – hence the name of the new legislation: inhibition of execution.

This will apply to persons who appear in a security case according to the Aliens Act and persons who are excluded from being considered refugees or have been denied refugee status – this is therefore about suspected war criminals or persons with criminal records. It will also affect persons who have been deported from Sweden due to crime and persons who constitute a threat to public order and security. Finally, it will apply if there are special circumstances attributable to the alien's lifestyle that justify inhibition instead of this special type of residence permit.

The last rule is based on criteria that somewhat resemble the new legislation on lack of integrity, which we will be debating here in the near future.

A question that someone might then ask is: Why are people who "only" have had an asylum application rejected not also covered? That is because this legislative product is a compromise between several parties. My party naturally wants this legal figure, residence permit due to execution obstacles, to be abolished as much as possible, preferably entirely, at least when it concerns execution obstacles that are temporary or non-permanent. But that being said: What we are doing now is, of course, a very good start.

What does inhibition then mean? What is it that happens when a person falls into inhibition? Well, first and foremost, the person loses their residency and will also, in the eyes of the law, be staying illegally in Sweden. This means that the person also loses the right to the residency-based social insurance benefits, i.e., the ordinary benefit systems. The person loses the right to social assistance. The person loses the right to LSS. The person loses their work permit. He will not have the possibility to, for example, study at Komvux or participate in other parts of society in that way. The person also receives a more limited right to healthcare and dental care, which is naturally important.

The person will then be assigned a place at the Swedish Migration Agency's return center. If the Swedish Migration Agency assesses that there is a risk of absconding, the person may also be subject to a reporting obligation at the accommodation in order to monitor that the person is indeed staying there in accordance with the decision. He may also receive a decision that he is not allowed to stay outside a geographical area which may not be decided to be less than one municipality. If he breaches these conditions, he can then be sentenced to imprisonment.

How many people will then be affected by this? A preliminary assessment is that it will involve approximately 200 decisions per year. But since the rules are implemented without transitional provisions, this will also involve persons who have previously been granted the type of residence permit that is to be extended. These can vary between one and three years, and when they are renewed after the new rules have entered into force, the person will instead be placed in inhibition.

Then one must remember that the permanent residence permits for this group will also be phased out in a parallel legislative matter, which naturally means that more will end up in inhibition in the future because the path to a permanent residence permit is now closed.

Then the question is: Should we have people who have lived in Sweden for a long time with this type of permit, if one wants to call it that? No, that is naturally not the intention. I do not believe that it will happen either.

A small implied factor that is not written out directly in the investigation is that asylum applications and reports of obstacles to enforcement are mostly fabricated. Most of it is fake. What will happen is that people who have applied for asylum and said that they absolutely cannot return to their home country and so on will simply choose to go home when they reach a stalemate instead of getting a residence permit, because there are no longer any benefits to be lifted in Sweden.

I see no major risk that people will end up in this system for any longer period. Therefore, no one who votes for this needs to have a guilty conscience for placing people in a more difficult situation for a longer period.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats can call me and my party's policy confused, or whatever expression they use, as much as they want. The truth is that the Social Democrats themselves almost never participate in the debate in this chamber. To claim that I do not know what is being said here – I, who participate in or listen to virtually every migration policy debate, just as my party does – is a bit strange. Then they vote in favor of our proposals almost always, which is very positive. It is good that we pursue good policy.

But in any case – to the matter and the issue! We are now tightening Swedish migration legislation in another area. We are changing the legislation that means that people who have committed serious crimes or pose a security threat and have been sentenced to deportation can be granted a residence permit in this country.

This residence permit entails that they can access certain welfare benefits or perhaps travel freely in the EU. Furthermore, it can prevent a deportation from being carried out immediately when the temporary obstacle to carrying it out has ceased.

It sends a wrong signal when criminals who actually should have left the country are granted a temporary residence permit. It is about justice in who has and who should not have a residence permit in Sweden.

I do not think it is reasonable that people who pose security risks or have committed serious crimes should be allowed to stay in Sweden and live just as normal simply because there is a temporary obstacle to carrying out the deportation they should actually be subjected to. So that is not what I want, and that is definitely not what the Moderate-led government wants.

I do not think that the Swedish people want it that way either. I believe that the Swedish people are quite tired of us always coddling and making up excuses as to why criminals should be allowed to stay in the country. Now, however, we are putting a stop to that.

I and with the new rules, the execution of a deportation will be postponed instead of a residence permit being granted when a deportation for one reason or another cannot be carried out. The difference will be that there is then no time-limited residence permit that makes a deportation impossible in the event that it suddenly could be carried out.

It also means that society will have better control over where the deported persons are located. The idea is that the deported person should be able to be subject to a reporting obligation, i.e., a requirement to report their whereabouts at specified intervals, and at the same time be prohibited from leaving a limited area.

The deportee will also be given a specifically assigned place of residence by the Swedish Migration Agency, so that the person does not risk disappearing into the shadow society. The right to work and participate in our welfare shall also be severely restricted. The person who has committed serious crimes and is to be deported but for some reason remains in Sweden shall no longer be granted a smorgasbord of rights.

Mr. Speaker! This autumn, the Moderate-led government is also introducing stricter rules for deportations. It will become the strictest deportation legislation in the entire Nordic region. It is estimated that the number of deportations in the coming years will increase by up to 600 percent, as all crimes with punishments more severe than fines shall lead to deportation and the requirement for prosecutors to demand deportation will be tightened.

The signal to the foreign criminals will be clear, namely that if you commit a crime in Sweden but are not a Swedish citizen, you shall be deported from here. This is about restoring confidence in Swedish immigration policy. We cannot have a society that is torn apart by foreign criminals. The immigration policy in Sweden needs to have confidence both among those of us who are born in Sweden and among all those who have immigrated to Sweden, live here and behave correctly.

It is about the people who go to work every morning and during weekends help sell hot dogs at their children's football matches. It is those people who are often hit from two sides when the immigration policy has gone off the rails. Partly because they are affected by the crime, just like everyone else, often to a greater extent because many hardworking immigrants live in areas where the situation has gone off the rails and is out of control, partly because the coddling that has been carried out in Sweden's Riksdag has actually led to a mistrust towards immigrants as a group. It is absolutely not fair.

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe that particularly many Swedes are fundamentally racists. I do not believe that it lies in our Swedish open and curious culture. Yet, there is still an enormous criticism of immigration. I believe that is due to the fact that the previously conducted immigration policy has not worked. When racism spreads, when people's perception is that the policy is not addressing the issue, we have created a major problem in our society.

Despite this, the Social Democrats intend to go to the election with the aim of conducting immigration policy with Vänstern, Miljöpartiet, and Centern. These are three parties that can never help but try to get Sweden back to 2015. One only has to look at the report. There are three reservations from the three parties. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have voted no to virtually all the tightenings we have made during this parliamentary term. Furthermore, they have long lists of proposals that they want to implement to increase asylum immigration to Sweden. If the left side were to win the next election, the Socialdemokraterna would be alone of four government parties in their view of a strict migration policy.

Mr. Speaker! This is relevant. A government must be united in all its decisions. I do not believe that the Social Democrats will be able to withstand three parties fighting for increased asylum immigration. If the left wins the election, there is a very great risk that the stricter migration policy that we are now in agreement on will also be torn up.

Mr. Speaker! Many people who have come to Sweden have made an effort. They have learned Swedish, they work and they support themselves. They accept to comply with the Swedish values and norms that we agree upon in this society. They also behave correctly and truly contribute to our society. I am of the opinion that one should be able to move to Sweden to contribute and become a part of our open and tolerant society.

I have many friends who are immigrants, and I have family members by marriage in my family who are immigrants to this country. When the football World Cup is played this summer, I look forward to cheering for a national team with players whose names have origins in completely different parts of the world than Sweden. I will guaranteed toast and cheer with friends with immigrant backgrounds when Sweden scores, and we will all gather around the Swedish national team jersey. I believe that is how most in the Riksdag want it, and they recognize themselves in the Sweden that we are trying to build.

Mr. Speaker! For us Moderates, it is clear that effort should pay off and crime should be punished. It is something that everyone should agree on. But when the Moderate-led government presents proposals that those who have committed serious crimes shall no longer be rewarded with residence permits and benefits, there is once again whimpering and coddling among the left-wing parties. Then the Left Party and the Green Party again feel sorry for criminals. They do not think that those who are deported because of crime should live in the Swedish Migration Agency's shelters, but that they should be able to live as usual. They shall also have the right to benefits. Now we are talking about people who are deported because they have committed a rape or another serious crime in the country. I do not think that is so controversial. The one who comes to Sweden and commits a crime chooses away their opportunity to stay in this country.

Mr. Speaker! When the Left Party and the Green Party feel sorry for the criminals, I feel sorry for the crime victims. I feel sorry for and think of the girls who have been raped and received deep scars for the rest of their lives. I also think of the parents who have lost their son in a shooting. It is not fair that those who have committed serious crimes should be rewarded with a residence permit and the right to certain benefits in Sweden. Sweden shall not continue to be a paradise for criminals. It is finished for foreigners who come to Sweden and commit crimes. Now Sweden will become a tougher country to live in for them, and I hope that they leave the country as soon as possible so that we can build safety for all those Swedes and immigrated Swedes who long for it.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I need to clarify that the proposal being presented here is not only about criminals, but it says something about the Moderaterna that one stands here and in a speech only talks about immigrants as criminals. It is racist; just what the member says that he is not. This is often about people who cannot be deported or rejected to their home countries due to the principle of non-refoulement, that is to say that there is an obstacle to carrying out the deportation because a person risks torture or the death penalty in the home country. In that case, the rule today is to grant a temporary residence permit, and now the government wants to remove the system in its eagerness to deport as many as possible.

I thought about yesterday, when it became known that the government intends to invite the Taliban, the world's leading terrorist organization, to discuss deportations. It is common knowledge that they use torture and systematic violations of human rights. The rule of law is non-existent, and it is above all women's rights that are being trampled on.

The Taliban want to be internationally recognized. Here they have found the Moderates, who legitimize them – one makes the Taliban internationally recognized when one is going to conduct discussions with them – in their eagerness to deport as many as possible. This happens despite the fact that there is international law which says that these people may not be deported there due to torture or the death penalty. The whole world knows what kind of terrorist organization the Taliban are.

This shows how little respect the Moderaterna have for international law and human rights. What do the Moderaterna intend to agree to in their talks with the Taliban?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is completely bizarre to call me a racist when I have spoken about how fantastic it is with the Swedish football players who hopefully will deliver a World Cup victory this summer, and I think it is fantastic with all the people who contribute. I want those people to be safe and avoid being subjected to crimes in their home environments and local environments. Many immigrants live in areas where the crime during your time in power, when you supported a Social Democratic government, spiraled completely out of control. We have in Sweden among the worst situations in Europe and in almost the entire world when it comes to fatal shootings. It is the situation you have created, and it is the situation many immigrants in this country live in.

I understand that it is easy when you sit in the chamber with a decent salary and perhaps do not live in those areas. But go and visit them! Ask them what they think about the people who should have been deported ten years ago but who remain and continue to plague the environment for their neighbors. It is not racism to say that the one who has committed a rape should leave the country so that those who are here to work and do right by themselves can have a good everyday life and their children can be part of football practice or their niblings can play hockey and have a safe upbringing environment. It is not racism at all – on the contrary.

I have several married relatives, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, who have origins in other countries – who are born in other countries and are citizens there. They are here and live with my family members, and I like them very much. They have origins in the Middle East and are fantastic contributors to this society, and they enrich my everyday life. To call me a racist is therefore completely bizarre.

The people you are talking about, Tony, are people who have committed crimes and are to be deported from here. Then there are some others who have not committed crimes but who are to be deported from here. But none of them risk torture, because then they would have been granted asylum and a residence permit here.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I said it was racist – I did not call the member a racist. But what the member now showed for two minutes is that he thinks it is more difficult to be called a racist than to subject people to racism. This is pervasive among the Tidö parties. For two minutes, the member avoided answering my question.

It is not true that it is only criminals who are deported. I just raised the principle of non-refoulement. There are many times when there are obstacles to carrying out deportations due to precisely the principle of non-refoulement, i.e., that persons risk torture or the death penalty. But then we have a system today: One receives a temporary residence permit. The Moderaterna want to remove that system so that one is only here indefinitely, and that is to be postponed.

During this time, the Moderaterna, in their eagerness to deport people, want to have talks with the Taliban, the world's leading terrorist organization. And this is something the Moderaterna do not want to be acknowledged or answer questions about at all. It is, therefore, the Taliban we are talking about, who violate human rights in the most extreme way and who want to be internationally recognized. And so they have found the Moderaterna here, who can contribute to that in their eagerness to deport as many as possible.

This is not just about criminals, it is also about ordinary people. The Moderates have made it seem as if all deportations concern criminals, but that is not true.

But I must ask the questions again, given that this shows how little respect the Moderaterna have for international law, human rights, and women's rights. How much do you intend to bribe the Taliban with in order to be able to deport people there? How do you imagine that talks with the Taliban, the world's foremost terrorist organization, are going to go? And why do the Moderaterna legitimize the Taliban?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! To claim that we would bribe some Taliban members is completely absurd. I do not even understand why we should have that type of discussion.

However, I believe that we in Swedish politics need to have a serious discussion about what is racist and what is not racist. That is why I chose to spend my two minutes on this. You continue in this speech to speak about how it is not me who is racist, but it is my rhetoric. I mean that my rhetoric is not racist. I mean that there is nothing racist at all about saying that people, regardless of whether they come from Norway, Belgium, or Sri Lanka, who have committed a crime here in the country are not welcome to stay.

We do not want those people who plague the living environment for other Swedes, regardless of whether they have been here for twelve generations or three years, to remain in this country. We want to create a safe environment even for immigrants who are in this country. Most crimes are committed in the types of areas where very many decent immigrants live. It is there that we have gang shootings and the problems that all of Sweden is affected by. We want to put an end to this now.

We have worked throughout the entire parliamentary term to put a stop to this. You worked for two parliamentary terms with your coalition partners to make it escalate. Why, I do not know. We said all the time: Stop now – that's enough; we are putting a stop to this! The Social Democrats agree with us. But there are two parties that always at the last second realize that there might be some small way to keep the criminals in the country.

I am so tired of this and of being called a racist or accused of having a racist rhetoric. I do not share that perception at all.

I look forward to listening to the Left Party's presentation. Perhaps we might get some explanation as to why you have chosen to pursue this type of policy for so many years.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to briefly say that there is no Member of Parliament in this debate or in this chamber, nor any of our voters, who stands on the side of the rapists, but we stand united on the side of the crime victims. There is actually no party in this chamber that does not think it is reasonable that persons who are convicted of serious crimes or who pose a security threat should be able to be subject to what is called inhibition of enforcement instead of being granted a residence permit.

I think it would be welcome if we devoted ourselves to talking about the real dividing lines instead of fabricating, polarizing, and attacking each other over things that we do not think – that is, inventing a conflict that does not exist. It would be good for the political conversation if it became more objective.

But I would, above all, like to follow up on the question that Tony Haddou asked but that Magnus Resare did not answer. Yesterday, we received a dramatic announcement. For the first time, the Swedish government will enter into talks with the Taliban – to begin with at an official level, but still. The Taliban are a horrific Islamist terror regime that oppresses girls and women, dissenters, and many large minority groups. How can Magnus Resare defend the legitimization of the Taliban regime?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! What Member Hirvonen begins with, that everyone stands united on the side of the crime victims, is easy to assert. But then come the reservations nonetheless, as now when we are dealing with this bill, from Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet. One cannot be satisfied that this proposal, which everyone claims to stand behind, could be completely okay. One must find something – maybe we can have some small vent, or maybe we should make it a bit more pleasant to live here for the one who has committed a serious crime and been deported. It is always like this when we present proposals: reservations come from Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. They are not in favor of this.

It is easy to stand in the speaker's chair and say things. Member Hirvonen has explained this before, and I do not doubt for a second that she is of the opinion that we should stand on the side of the crime victims when it comes to rape. But it always ends up in practice with reservations being put forward.

Regarding the Taliban regime, I have nothing else to say than that I think it is a terrible regime that subjects the Afghan people to terrible things and which I hope is replaced by the Afghan people in democratic elections as soon as possible and as soon as the Afghan people can overthrow it. What takes place at the official level must be answered by someone else. The Moderates' view is clear: We do not believe in the type of Islamist dictatorships that the Taliban regime stands for.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This feels important, given Migration Minister Johan Forssells' announcement yesterday that one should enter into dialogue with the Taliban. He nevertheless stepped out with pride, stating that he is breaking down the wall that not only Sweden but also our allies have maintained against the Taliban regime, which we, moreover, fought on the ground in Afghanistan for 20 years, side by side with those parts of Afghan society who thought that girls should also be allowed to go to school, that people should be allowed to have freedom, that women should be able to go out without covering their entire bodies, and that people should be allowed to make their voices heard and be allowed to sing.

We now see that Johan Forssell is going to engage in talks with the Taliban regime. We know that one was prepared to send money straight into the Somali Prime Minister's office. How much money will the Moderaterna and Johan Forssell be prepared to pay this dreadful Islamist dictatorship regime? What is the next step regarding the Taliban? We were agreed: We do not legitimize the Taliban regime. We were agreed until yesterday. How far is the Moderaterna prepared to go? What carries the most weight? The resistance against the Taliban or this?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! That one engages in dialogue with a country, regardless of what one thinks of its governance, does not mean that one legitimizes those who rule or that one thinks there is anything positive about them.

Look back, Hirvonen, and see what your government engaged in! You went to Iran and dressed in veils to kneel before the regime there, even though we know that women in the thousands are hanged in Iran for walking without a veil. Is that legitimizing that regime? You were part of this. It was your Foreign Minister who did this. You have had coalition partners who for decades have praised dictators and traveled to visit the strangest countries and supported the regimes there.

To claim that we Moderates would be in favor of any kind of Taliban rule is completely absurd. I do not mean that Annika Hirvonen would be in favor of what is happening in Iran, where they hang thousands of women for showing their hair, just because you had a foreign minister who went there and dressed in a veil. I do not mean that. I have never claimed that, and I have never accused you of those types of things. So stop accusing us Moderates of something that is not true when it comes to one of the most horrific regimes on earth!

Sweden has an embassy in North Korea. That does not mean that either you or we think that the North Korean regime is anything positive. Perhaps the parties that stand furthest to the left have such an ideology, but I believe that even they have washed it out of their party programs.

I think this is a completely crazy discussion. It should be about how positive it is that the people who have committed the most serious crimes in Sweden are now actually being deported for real. They do not get a new residence permit just because the deportation cannot be executed. I think this is something that we all could have agreed on.

It would have been so positive if, for once in migration issues, we would stand united and in agreement even with Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet. But once again it is shown that it is not possible. If it is possible to coddle the criminals, if it is possible to find some small outlet and it can be a little bit of a pity if that rapist who has a cousin's uncle who needs help or something of the sort – yes, then one should probably find some way to let that person stay in the country. I think that is wrong.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that I find it deeply distressing that the migration debate is being unnecessarily polarized and vulgarized. It is well known that we disagree on many issues in the migration debate. One does not also need to invent that we disagree on things that we actually agree on.

Today we are debating the inhibition of execution, a new rule for certain foreigners during temporary execution obstacles. We are actually in all parties completely in agreement that this in some cases is a reasonable rule. When it concerns persons who have committed serious crimes or pose a security threat to Sweden, all parties think it is a good rule that if there are only temporary obstacles to carrying out, i.e., executing, the decided deportation, one should be able to inhibit the execution. Instead of granting a time-limited residence permit, one should be able to inhibit the execution to make it possible to deport the person as soon as the temporary execution obstacle has ceased. So far, all parties are in agreement.

Then there are differences. Some of them concern legal certainty. The government has, in fact, not limited this proposal to only persons who have just been convicted of a crime. In the chamber, during several different debates, we will touch upon precisely those legal certainty deficiencies that arise when one opens up for persons who behave badly in different ways to also be subject to serious legal consequences. This has many referral bodies objected to, and so do we in Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet.

This matter of a yes being a yes and a no being a no sounds simple and good, but the reality is unfortunately not always quite that simple. Sometimes people are sentenced to deportation that cannot be carried out in a purely practical sense. There are many different reasons for that. Something that often stands in the way and leads to the feeling that it is completely unreasonable – despite it being about a person who has committed one of the absolutely most heinous crimes – is that the person, for example, risks the death penalty in their home country. In that case, it is not possible to carry out that deportation, because it would mean that we deport someone to their death.

This is something that Sweden, which has distanced itself from the death penalty in many different ways, has committed to never doing. Not even when it concerns the most despicable people does Sweden accept the death penalty – not in our country and not in other countries either.

This principle has a fine French name, namely non-refoulement. It is about countries that are bound by the conviction that human dignity is always inviolable, regardless of what a person has done, having committed themselves to not deporting anyone to the death penalty or torture. If there is then this type of enduring, long-term execution barrier, or other execution barriers that persist for a very long time, one must also ask under what conditions the person shall live after having served their sentence and come out of prison.

With the Tidö parties' order, these people will, within a foreseeable future – perhaps for the rest of their lives – be locked up in prison-like conditions or in so-called return centers, which unfortunately do not meet the most basic requirements for reasonable living conditions. They will not be able to work, i.e., have permission to support themselves, but will instead become a burden for the taxpayers, who will therefore need to support them.

And somewhere, this is what the discussion should be about – it should not be a simplified debate about some being for rapists and others being for rape victims. I truly think that is to vulgarize and polarize unnecessarily. We must have the rather difficult discussion about how we should treat also those people who have committed the most heinous acts: What kind of treatment should we give these people when they cannot be deported? This really brings difficult moral questions to a head. I think that the Riksdag is a forum that deserves for the questions that are truly difficult to be treated seriously.

From the Green Party's side, we think that the government's proposal does not land correctly. But we also want the government to come back with proposals that mean those who have committed serious crimes and pose a security threat shall not be granted time-limited residence permits when deportations cannot be carried out temporarily. In those cases, one should be able to inhibit.

We also think that one must look at the whole of the migration legislation. Many different changes are happening simultaneously, and the combined consequences are difficult even for our most skilled lawyers to oversee. The Council on Legislation says that too. We in Miljöpartiet agree. It is important that the legislation is not enacted in a way that risks leading to unreasonable and unwanted consequences. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In reservation 2, Review, Miljöpartiet writes as follows – I read it out: It is reasonable that an inhibition of execution shall be able to be granted if the foreign national has been deported due to serious crimes or if the foreign national poses a security risk, but not with the broad and vague formulations that are proposed. The Government should therefore return with a new proposal where it clearly appears that only foreign nationals who have been deported due to crimes or who are judged to pose a security risk shall be able to be granted an inhibition of execution.

Miljöpartiet therefore wants that persons who have been convicted of crimes should be able to be placed under inhibition, but not the other categories that we raise in the report.

One such other category is exclusion cases. Exclusion cases are regulated in Chapter 4, Section 2 b of the Aliens Act. It is stipulated there that – I will read it aloud again – a foreigner is excluded from being considered a refugee if there is compelling reason to assume that he or she has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity.

It is therefore not persons who are convicted of crimes but who have a suspicion against them, and this is the same rule that is used to exclude persons from refugee status even if they would otherwise fulfill the criteria. I would therefore like to ask Annika Hirvonen: Why does Miljöpartiet want suspected war criminals to be granted residence permits in Sweden even when they stay here illegally – instead of deporting them as quickly as possible?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! No, I would absolutely not formulate it as we propose. We naturally want people who are suspected of war crimes to be prosecuted for the war crimes or crimes against humanity that they have committed – of course.

Sweden does this as well. Sweden has on several occasions prosecuted persons who have committed very serious war crimes also in other countries. A very well-known case was the Iranian leader who was subsequently extradited to Iran after being convicted for exactly this.

This is our view. Of course, they should be prosecuted and also serve long prison sentences for the serious crimes they have committed.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! For the sake of information: The reason the rule on exclusion from refugee status looks the way it does is that it is very difficult to prosecute people for war crimes due to the state of evidence – which is very often the case. For natural reasons, it may be difficult to get people to testify against such persons. They are not in Sweden. Someone may be in Sweden. But there may be a justified fear of these people. It is also quite unusual for people to be convicted for this type of crime in Swedish courts. It has occurred, but it is very, very unusual.

The reason this rule exists is that a suspicion that a person has committed war crimes must be sufficient for the person to be denied a residence permit in Sweden. And this is, as stated, provided for in Chapter 4, Section 2 b of the Aliens Act.

I have never heard that Miljöpartiet has anything against that rule in itself, that people can be excluded. On the other hand, Annika Hirvonen naturally thinks that suspected war criminals should be granted residence permits according to the rule we are discussing today. They should therefore be excluded from being placed in inhibition instead of being granted a residence permit, benefits, the right to bring relatives, work permits, and all that other stuff.

There is a very, so to speak, strange reasoning on the part of Annika Hirvonen. It is completely incomprehensible. Annika Hirvonen considers that the rule on exclusion from refugee status due to suspicion of war crimes in itself is reasonable. But when we introduce inhibition instead of residence permits for persons to be deported, it is suddenly not reasonable to put those persons who are suspected war criminals into inhibition instead of giving them residence permits.

How is this possible? The logic is very severely flawed in this. Why is it okay to exclude suspected war criminals from refugee status but not okay to include them in the inhibition that prevents them from receiving residence permits in Sweden?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that we think it is reasonable that persons who for particular reasons are suspected of having committed this type of serious crime should be able to be excluded from specifically being granted refugee status. I actually think it would be good if an analysis were made to achieve a legally secure order so that this category of persons could also be subject to inhibition in the case of temporary execution obstacles.

We are saying that it concerns persons who have been deported due to serious crimes or who are judged to pose a security risk. But I think priority one must be that we do everything we can so that these persons are prosecuted. I still want to say that I have great confidence in the Swedish justice system. In these days, an enormously large and difficult trial regarding Lundin Oil was concluded, with witnesses who had come from very far away. It is not at all impossible to achieve prosecution in these cases. We have seen it before, and we shall do what we can so that those who have committed gross violations against humanity, war crimes, etc., shall be prosecuted. That is our priority one.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposed decision. This also entails the rejection of the motions contained in the report.

Today we are debating the bill Inhibition of execution – a new order for certain foreigners during temporary execution obstacles. It has come from the government and is now here for parliamentary consideration.

One of our society's fundamental tasks is to ensure safety and order in our society. It is a responsibility that all of us in this chamber have to fulfill.

The regulatory framework that has existed and still exists in Sweden gives persons who have been sentenced to deportation but where the deportation is difficult to execute the possibility to receive benefits and to work with freedom of movement, despite the fact that they have actually lost the right to be here in Sweden.

Through the bill that the government has now submitted, mobility is restricted and also the possibilities for benefits and work. The purpose is to emphasize and ensure that one shall leave Sweden after a decision on deportation, that is, one no longer has the right to remain here. It is a decision that has been taken after a legally secure handling.

These are important steps to create a safer society.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's work on this issue is an important step in the mission and the mandate that the Christian Democrats and the other Tidö parties received from the voters in the last election to transform Swedish migration policy.

The transition to a responsible and restrictive migration policy occurs through powerful measures in several areas, including through a tightened regulatory framework on deportation due to crime, where we lower the threshold for deportation while simultaneously cleaning up among the many exceptions that have existed. This will lead to an increase in the number of persons sentenced to deportation due to crime. We also use various diplomatic tools to get more countries to accept citizens who have received a deportation decision.

Then I come to the subject that we are debating today. Now we are revising the rules that apply to certain persons who have a deportation order but where the deportation cannot be carried out for one reason or another.

The overall purpose of these reforms is to maintain a strict immigration policy, to improve integration, and to strengthen the significance of Swedish citizenship.

But perhaps the most decisive thing is that the migration policy shall be fair. The person who comes to Sweden and strives to become a part of our society shall be given the right conditions to become a part of the Swedish community. But the person who comes here and commits crimes and chooses another path also chooses out a future in Sweden. The principle of justice permeates the proposals that I have mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker! What does the current situation mean then? Well, a person who has received a deportation decision but where there are temporary obstacles that prevent the deportation from being executed is today granted a time-limited residence permit, not infrequently combined with a work permit. What does that mean? Well, that people who are actually supposed to be deported can continue to live and work in Sweden. They can move freely within the EU, and they also get access to the Swedish welfare system, which in the long run also means a risk that money ends up with the wrong people.

This is not a good order. It is not fair. It is not reasonable. But despite this and despite recurring observations from both Migrationsverket and Säkerhetspolisen, the previous S-led government chose not to implement any rule changes. The consequence has been that persons who have posed a security threat or been convicted of serious crimes have been able to continue living as usual in Sweden.

This naturally should not have been allowed to continue. Nevertheless, the situation was not seen as sufficiently problematic for the then-current government to act. Now, this government is ensuring that the rules are finally changed.

What do the measures mean then, Mr. Speaker? The new main rule regarding temporary obstacles to deportation is that the deportation is postponed, that is, the execution is inhibited, instead of a time-limited residence permit being granted. This also means, Mr. Speaker, that there shall be a reporting obligation and a geographical restriction.

It is important that the state has control over those foreigners who in various ways do not have the right to stay in our country, as they pose risks to order and can also affect the security in our society. A foreigner whose deportation is postponed shall therefore be obligated to regularly report to Migrationsverket or Polismyndigheten and simultaneously be prohibited from leaving a residence area, a so-called area restriction.

Mr. Speaker! With the new regulation, the affected foreigners will in most cases not be able to be registered in the population register and settle in the country. The Swedish Migration Agency shall allocate a person with a suspended deportation a place in one of the Migration Agency's residences and also register the person in that regard. That the authorities have knowledge of the place of residence is a prerequisite for being able to conduct effective return work during the time that a deportation decision is suspended. The place of residence shall be known.

Mr. Speaker! In summary, the government is therefore proposing a new order which means that a foreigner whose deportation is suspended can be subject to a reporting obligation and area restrictions. If one breaches this, one can also be sentenced to imprisonment or a fine. One loses the right to work in Sweden, is assigned a place of residence, and has limited rights to welfare benefits.

I began my speech by talking about the importance of a fair migration policy. The proposals that we present here today will make the migration policy more fair and at the same time increase the safety and security for our country's citizens. We Christian Democrats work for and will work for a strict, legally secure, predictable but also fair migration policy. An important task in that work is also to ensure safety. Through the proposals we present today, we will get a significantly better way to meet this than previous governments managed to do.

As in previous debates, there is a lack of unity regarding the opposition's direction. The Social Democrats have joined the government's line and think it is good, even though they had eight years to make changes themselves. Now that it is done, they think it is good; that is what they are putting forward. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet say no to that system to varying degrees. Sometimes we can wonder if they have a greater concern for those who should not remain in our country compared to the security of our own inhabitants. C says a diffuse "maybe" to the proposal, even though they largely stand behind it.

What will be the continuation if, against all odds, it were to become a regime change? Today's debate shows that the commitment that S-marked members have dedicated themselves to on X is not reflected in the debate we have here in the chamber. It is said that one has always had a good policy and does not reflect on the fact that one also internally said that one was on the wrong path during the eight years that one held power. We can ask ourselves whether S, with its motto "power above all," will capitulate in the negotiating room regarding the future migration policy.

I can at least state that the Christian Democrats and the other Tidö parties have led the largest restructuring of both migration and justice policy in modern history. With today's announcement, we continue in the same direction. We ensure that persons who pose a threat or have committed crimes and been sentenced to deportation are truly given restrictions, and we work to ensure that they are deported from the country.

It is clear where the decisiveness and cooperation exist to address the problems in Sweden. We Christian Democrats are proud to belong to that side of the political landscape and will continue to work that way also in the future.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We have today an arrangement which means that a person who is informed that he or she must leave the country due to a temporary execution obstacle has instead been granted a time-limited residence permit. This can concern a person who poses a security threat or a person who is to be deported due to a crime.

That arrangement has given people who have actually lost the right to be here the opportunity instead to continue living as usual in Sweden, with full access to, among other things, the Swedish welfare system. People have also been able to travel freely within the EU, even though the stay was only supposed to be temporary while awaiting enforcement.

This order has also, in some cases, prevented deportation from being carried out directly when there is no longer any obstacle to enforcement in the individual situation, for example if the situation in the country of origin has changed, which has gone against the actual purpose of the law. Now we are changing that.

The government's proposal actually implies something very simple: When the obstacle is not permanent, the main rule for certain foreigners should no longer be a temporary residence permit but an inhibition of enforcement. This applies, among other things, to security cases, deported criminals, cases where someone is excluded from protection or refused refugee status, or where the person's lifestyle shows that he or she simply should not continue to live here. If there are exceptional reasons, there is still a safety valve, but it must be exactly that—a safety valve—and not the main track as the case is today.

Mr. Speaker! This reform will make a difference. Decisions on inhibition shall also be reviewed every year and shall be revoked when the grounds for them no longer apply. The person who risks deviating may be subject to a reporting obligation. The person who otherwise hinders enforcement may be subject to a geographical restriction. The person covered by the new order shall no longer have the same access to work, benefits, and welfare provisions as the person who actually has the right to stay here. Financial assistance shall, as a general rule, be tied to living in an assigned residence.

This is also entirely reasonable. The person covered by this order shall not be able to act and move freely in society as if nothing had happened. It is reasonable that the authorities know where the person is, and it is reasonable that the safety of other people weighs heavily. It is also reasonable that society makes it more difficult to engage in socially harmful activities during the time when the execution must be temporarily postponed.

The person who risks deviating or otherwise hindering the execution shall be able to be ordered to have a reporting obligation and be prohibited from leaving a certain area of residence. The person who violates this shall face consequences. Passports and other identity documents shall be able to be taken into custody. As a general rule, the person covered by the inhibition shall reside at the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodation in order to be entitled to financial assistance.

Mr. Speaker! The protection against execution in cases of torture, death, or persecution is firm. The proposal is based on individual assessments. The control measures shall be proportionate. The decisions are appealable and shall be able to be reviewed and overturned continuously when the grounds no longer exist. A public counsel shall be able to be appointed, and the best interests of the child shall be particularly considered. Among other things, we believe that unaccompanied children shall be able to be exempted from the housing requirement for assistance. Children shall continue to have full access to health care, dental care, and basic education, while adults shall be offered care that cannot be postponed.

Mr. Speaker! Those who have grounds for protection shall receive protection, but those who lack the right to stay or who, through crime or other actions that constitute a security threat to our country, have forfeited that right shall not be granted a new middle ground where the state says one thing on paper and does another in reality.

With this bill, we also clarify towards municipalities, regions and authorities which rules and what responsibility apply for housing, assistance, care and school. With the new order, the state receives a clearer responsibility for housing and financial support. Adults shall be covered by the same care arrangement as other groups with temporary residence, and children's right to school and care shall be ensured.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Madeleine Atlas (C)

Mr. Speaker! The government's proposal can create a more effective return and increased control. It is not a "maybe," as KD says, but we say yes to the proposal.

It is important that the measures to streamline enforcement are proportionate, not least when it comes to children. It is not sufficient, as in the preparatory works, to state that the best interests of the child shall be considered in individual cases. It must also be ensured that the best interests of the child are considered in practice in individual cases and that the legislation does not lead to children's rights being systematically sidelined. Therefore, an independent follow-up of the legislative changes should be carried out from the perspective of the best interests of the child and the perspective of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I move for approval of reservation 4.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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