Integration

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report on integration that we are now to debate here in the chamber.

Sweden has, following the 2022 parliamentary election with the help of the Sweden Democrats, been blessed with a change of government. After several decades of mismanagement, we now finally have the political conditions to implement changes that steer our beloved country back on the right course.

That Sweden now gets a second chance through the Sweden Democrats and that we truly manage this chance is absolutely crucial for our country's future. Now there is a real opportunity. Through the Tidö Agreement, the conditions now exist to banish the "juice-and-bun" politics to the scrap heap of history once and for all.

Sweden has, under the Social Democrats' leadership, had the destructive lack of requirements as a guiding star, a lack of requirements that has brought about fatal consequences for our country and us citizens. The irresponsible migration has destroyed all possibilities for an acceptable integration, which in turn has created spaces for crime and gang criminality.

The Social Democrats never saw this. They never saw the forgotten Sweden. They turned away their gaze when the reports of shootings, explosions, and attacks on ordinary honest people began to stream in from north to south.

Integration

We who live in reality have been forced to both see and experience how insecurity has taken our Swedish society in an ever tighter grip. People of reality feel a creeping anxiety in their bodies when children are out of sight at the playground. People of reality no longer dare to go out. People of reality have, in recent years, no longer been able to be offered a safe everyday life in their own country.

The consequences of the collapsed integration policy have been and still are literally life-threatening.

Mr. Speaker! Now we are going to deal with this devastating development for real. It is over with the self-destructive fawning, and it is over with protecting and taking care of individuals who do not want to submit to our laws.

We have the course forward ready for us. The important thing now is to ensure that we achieve quality in every single part of the political decision-making. And it will require focus, and it will require patience.

A broken country is not something one rebuilds in a few weeks or a few months. It has taken years to destroy, and it will take years to build it up again.

Mr. Speaker! The starting point for the Tidö Agreement when it comes to integration policy is clear. The policy shall reward those who have a genuine will to become a part of Sweden and in the same way mark opposition against those who actually never have had any intention of integrating. There must simply be negative and positive incentives built into the system for it to work.

The goal is, therefore, to introduce a requirement-based integration policy, where the core itself consists of the very simple message that the person who stays in Sweden for a long period shall take personal responsibility for becoming a part of the Swedish.

How do we achieve this? How do we give people the opportunity to take greater responsibility? I intended to highlight some important points that the Sverigedemokraterna, within the cooperation with the government, have initiated.

One of the most important proposals is to settle the basic view on our welfare country. It is not enough to set one's foot in Sweden to be entitled to take part in our entire welfare system. If we build a demand picture linked to welfare, people will show a greater willingness to be included in Swedish society.

The investigation proposed within the framework of the Tidö Agreement shall, among other things, be tasked with proposing a model for qualification for welfare. The starting point is that a newly arrived person shall not immediately be qualified to receive social benefits and grants. Instead, it will be about gradual qualification based on personal effort. That one works, pays tax, and has a permanent and legal residence in Sweden within the framework of this context is a self-evident matter.

We must also set higher requirements linked to Swedish citizenship. It is, from an integration policy perspective, particularly important that greater efforts are required to become a full-fledged citizen. Knowledge of Swedish and social studies is, of course, completely central. By increasing the value of Swedish citizenship, we will create positive incentives for adaptation, which in turn will lead to more effective integration.

We shall also investigate how the rules linked to social introduction for asylum seekers, social orientation for newcomers, and SFI teaching can be adjusted. In order to be entitled to daily compensation, it should be required that one demonstrates a willingness and, through actions, ensures that they learn the language, that they adapt socially and culturally, and not least take part in our democratic system of government.

All this and more is concretely described in the Tidö Agreement. It is detailed. It is well-anchored. It is a carefully developed roadmap where we now, after years of mismanagement, steer Sweden back onto the right path. The common thread consists of the fact that we can and dare to set demands in areas where a lack of demands and resignation have previously been the norm.

The Sweden Democrats will continue to act as a spotlight and ensure that the government does not lose sight of this ball. We will, of course, also be a reliable coalition partner. If we are to succeed in tidying up the mess that Social Democrats with allies have caused, there is no time to slow down. There is no room to start drifting off target. A strong policy must be consistent. It must withstand routine and illogical questioning from politicians who act like sore losers.

Mr. Speaker! Finally: Let us not forget. We are making this reorganization now because we care about Sweden and about the people who live here. It is not about punishment. It is about encouragement. By creating space for people who truly want to be a part of Sweden, we show that we actually care. We show that true humanism emerges as we highlight the strength, not the weakness, in people. To set requirements is to care.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! In 2008, the previous bourgeois government abolished the authority-based labor market assessment. Since then, it has instead been the case that employers may decide whether there is a need to recruit labor from outside the EU in the individual case.

This has led to an increased labor migration, often within low-skilled occupations where there is no labor shortage. On the contrary, there is already labor in Sweden, among the unemployed. Within these occupations, there have also occurred extensive problems with abuse of the system and exploitation of people who have come here to work.

Sweden shall never compete with low wages and poor working conditions. We must have order and clarity on the Swedish labor market. The deregulation of labor immigration has benefited organized crime and contributed to the gross exploitation of foreign labor.

The Sweden Democrats have also here, just as in many other issues, had a high level of self-importance and claimed to be the guarantor of order and tidiness on the Swedish labor market. On Friday, it became clear that the list of prestigious political losses for Sweden's second-largest party has become even longer: The investigation we commissioned to introduce labor market screening was removed. There will be none. I want to ask the member if she feels it feels good now that a clear direction has been set for this country.

I think it is unemployment that we must tackle. It is that people come to work that is the basis for integration.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your questions, member!

I think it is good that the Social Democrats now seem to have come to their senses and are speaking a bit more like the Sweden Democrats have done for many years. It is actually quite fascinating, one must say, because what only a short while ago was racist to utter is now politics that the Social Democrats pursue without blinking. But it is, as said, good and positive that we can approach each other in that way. It is good and positive for Sweden.

I do not believe that I discussed labor immigration particularly much in my speech, but it is of course an important topic in the area of integration that the member is raising. We have said for a long time that everyone who can work shall work. It is no news that it is that way. Then it is unfortunate if we have a labor immigration to our country if it is not needed. So it naturally should not be, and I believe the member agrees with that.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Everyone who can work shall work. It is a classic Social Democratic quote that has existed since we began to exist. It is nice that more parties choose to use it in days like these.

It is actually the case that the government and the Sweden Democrats choose not to stop the labor migration to the type of jobs that the unemployed - I repeat this - can still take, under fair conditions and under fair conditions. I cannot see anything other than that we need to get people into jobs. That is the basis for breaking the segregation to achieve the integration we need in this country. I can state that this reform will not happen either. That is what I am actually really sad about.

I thought I would start by saying "Once upon a time," but I won't. I remember the story of the Laval law, and many construction workers in this country do too. It was the Social Democrats who tore it up. Now it stands clear that the story may need to repeat itself and that it is the Social Democrats who stand up to regulate and bring order to the deregulated labor immigration to get order on the Swedish labor market. That it will not happen with this government has been crystal clear since Friday and today.

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We see our country and our society somewhat differently. For my part, I have much greater confidence in this government than I had under a Social Democratic government; I want to be very clear about that.

We may also succeed better than the Social Democrats have during their hundred-year rule when it comes to getting people who can actually work into work. I hope that my party, which is a bit younger, can succeed better in that matter.

A large part of the unemployed in our country unfortunately do not have the right qualifications to be able to take a job. It can be so that one has lived in this country for 15, 17, or soon 20 years but still cannot speak the language. It can also be so that one cannot take a job because one simply is not allowed to leave one's home to work.

I spoke a little bit about this in my speech. If one is to be a part of Swedish society and see oneself as a full Swedish citizen, one should also stand behind the democratic system of government we have in this country. I think that is quite self-evident.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are, as usual, very good at describing the problems with Swedish integration, and there is much in the description of the problems that I can agree with.

Integration is, however, a complex and large issue. That we should set requirements for people who come here, the Centre Party also thinks so. We can note that the Sweden Democrats think so – I believe the word "requirements" was said a couple hundred times, but not a single word was said about how more people should learn Swedish and not a single word about how more people should enter employment.

It is very important that we have strict requirements for people who come here, but we must also give them the opportunity to enter our common society. The Sweden Democrats talk very often about immigrants as if they do not want to and cannot, but I believe that many times it is about them not knowing how. They do not feel that they are given the opportunity to learn the Swedish language, and they feel no security.

When I travel around the country and visit particularly vulnerable areas, I hear people talking about the importance of civil society. I did not hear the member talk about that even once. There is talk about specific language initiatives for young girls and vulnerable women. I did not hear the member talk about that even once. There is talk about more social workers, field workers, and more teachers in schools. I did not hear the SD member talk about that even once.

Now I have a concrete question for the Sweden Democrats. I have tried before, and I will try again in four years if I do not get an answer. What do the Sweden Democrats want to do, concretely, so that more newcomers become better at the Swedish language and so that more newcomers move from exclusion to inclusion and thereby get their first job?

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for your questions, Jonny Cato! I am flattered that you think I am good at describing problems. I will try to get better at presenting solutions to problems going forward.

I can state that this chamber, since we changed government - and since this government concluded a cooperation agreement with the Sweden Democrats - suddenly seems to be in agreement. It is in agreement on labor migration. It is in agreement on integration requirements. It is in agreement that Sfi must function better. It is in agreement on a lot of different things that have been used as a cudgel against the Sweden Democrats since 2010, when the Sweden Democrats entered this chamber.

I think, as I have said, that this is positive; I really want to emphasize that. I think it is good that the other parties finally seem to have opened their eyes.

The question that the member raised - SFI - is actually part of the Tidö Agreement. We are going to let an investigation be conducted and see what we can improve within SFI, the social orientation for newcomers and all that. It is under development.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by saying that we are not at all in agreement regarding labor migration. Everyone knows that the Center Party is the only conservative or liberal party in this chamber that stands up for continued liberal labor migration. But we can leave that aside.

All parties would therefore suddenly be in agreement that SFI does not work or could work better. There are seven parties in this chamber that have concrete proposals on how SFI and language teaching could work better. The Sweden Democrats are not one of them, but are instead the eighth party. This is quite symptomatic, I think, for much in the integration policy. It is usually the Sweden Democrats who problematize the most, but they usually have the fewest concrete solutions on how integration should become better.

It is about language, about values, about how more young girls should be able to participate in football when they come home in the evenings and so on. It is complex. It is a lot. But language and jobs are two very central parts of that, and then one needs to have concrete solutions.

The Sweden Democrats were founded because immigration was the problem in Sweden. For many years, you in the Sweden Democrats have spoken about how integration must become better. The absolute biggest thing you have gotten through when it comes to concrete integration measures is an investigation into SFI that is to look at what can be improved.

I have concrete solutions on how SFI can be improved; for example, it concerns an SFI-fund that can be moved around between different actors. But regardless of what one thinks, there are many parties that have concrete proposals on how, for example, SFI can be improved. SD is not one of these parties.

We are submitting the investigation. I wonder: What, concretely, do you want to do with Sfi so that it functions better for newcomers?

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Jonny Cato has forgotten to read the committee motions. I can point out that since we entered the Riksdag, we have submitted committee motions. We have a good deal of policy concerning integration. We assert that this is a highly fundamental political issue when a country like Sweden is being destroyed in this way. Integration is a fundamental issue.

I will now, as a Sverigedemokratisk member, take care not to anticipate any investigation in any way. We have an agreement together with the government parties. This is to be investigated, and I will not comment on it until the investigation is finished and it can be presented concretely - in black and white - how this can be addressed in a better way. I thank you, however, for the question and will gladly follow up.

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Mr. Speaker! What is quite clear between the lines – and it is also the Sweden Democrat policy on migration and integration that I have read about in the Palace Agreement – is that the policy regarding the migration issue is completely legally uncertain and violates human rights. However, that is something we can take up in another debate.

The Sweden Democrats have two extreme points in their policy, and they also permeate the issue of integration. The main proposal is always deportation; that is where the Sweden Democrats want to end up in their policy. The only other proposal that exists is not integration but assimilation, which has nothing to do with integration at all. Assimilation is indoctrination so that individuals should completely abandon their culture, their religion, and their ethnic heritage. How is this integration?

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions, even if the word allegations perhaps better captures what the member put forward here.

It is no secret that Vänsterpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna are not in agreement at all on the issue of integration. I perceive that Vänsterpartiet may very well have misunderstood Sverigedemokraterna's view on integration; I think the member showed it with all desirable clarity when she spoke about Sverigedemokraterna having two solutions and that one of them would be deportation. This is generally not correct, but I am very happy when I can fill in some knowledge gaps.

It is like this: If one is convicted of murder or serious crime, one must absolutely be deported. For my part, it is incomprehensible that Vänsterpartiet is not interested in this. Vänsterpartiet wants to keep other countries' criminals in our country, and I think that is very strange.

I also want to point out and draw attention to the fact that what the member calls the palace agreement - that is, the Tidö Agreement, as it is called - is not the Sweden Democrats' agreement but the coalition parties' agreement. It is our agreement with the government, or with the government parties. Now I have cleared up this as well.

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are a racist party - to say anything else is actually completely devoid of historical sense. My position as a Left Party member is to be the opposite pole of the Sweden Democrats, and this is a task that I am personally very proud of.

The chairman referred to the fact that it is people who have been convicted of serious crime who should be deported. I want to ask: How is dubious conduct serious crime? This is something that is stated in the government agreement as a reason why someone can lose their permanent residence permit.

That the Sweden Democrats are a racist party we see through the politics the party pushes forward. They are afraid of different people. They are still locked into these extremes. This is my view, and that is what I stand for.

It is about either assimilation or the risk of being sent back to a country where one risks being subjected to violence, harassment, and violations of human rights. It is also about a potential danger to life.

Mr. Speaker! I do not see that what the member has raised has had anything to do with integration. Rather, I see it a bit like the nursery rhyme where one says "ole dole doff - you may go home."

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I had some kind of hope that we could have a good debate and a good exchange of remarks, but I have left that hope behind in light of the member's statement here. I think it is regrettable that the member stands here and calls all the people who voted for us – the second-largest party in Sweden's Riksdag – in the 2022 parliamentary election racists. I think it is substandard; it is not worthy of a debate in Sweden's Riksdag 2023.

The Member of the Board claimed that we should be afraid of different people, and I can absolutely agree with her on one of these issues. Yes - I am afraid of rapists. Yes - I am afraid of murderers. I will always stand on the side of the crime victims - not on the side where the perpetrator is.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the motion report on integration.

Integration is absolutely crucial for us to have a country that holds together and is characterized by community, democratic values, and faith in the future. If we do not succeed with integration, it leads to division, conflicts, and despair, which is not worthy of a country like Sweden.

We Social Democrats believe in a society where everyone meets equal rights, duties, opportunities, and demands. Our welfare state is built on both duty and right. In Sweden, we should not have parallel societies. But today, segregation is tearing our country apart, increasing mistrust, and fostering crime. There is more than one explanation for segregation, but one explanation is increased gaps and unfair distribution of society's resources.

Now that the migration policy has been rearranged, the major focus and effort should be placed on breaking the segregation. Today, we have a housing segregation and a school segregation, and we have a labor market segregation that divides people into those who are inside and those who are outside the labor market. This is something in our society that it is absolutely crucial to deal with and break in order for us to succeed with integration.

Mr. Speaker! But instead, the right-conservative government focuses on abolishing the investment support for the construction of rental apartments. Boverket says that over 63,000 new homes are needed per year until 2030. At the same time, forecasts from the construction companies show that housing construction is falling from over 67,000 new homes to a record low of 38,600 new homes this year, 2023.

The government also wants the Settlement Act to be dismantled so that certain municipalities can escape their share of the collective responsibility for refugee reception. The government does not stop there but wants to keep the EBO Act, the Act on Own Housing, which means that an asylum seeker who comes to Sweden can choose to arrange their own housing.

We Social Democrats want to abolish the EBO Act because we believe that it unfortunately leads to increased segregation when already socioeconomically disadvantaged areas become even larger, which hinders integration.

Furthermore, there will be no means-testing to address the uncontrolled labor immigration. The Government and the Sweden Democrats choose to continue allowing a black labor market with slave-like conditions instead of stopping labor immigration to the type of jobs that unemployed people in Sweden could take under decent conditions and terms.

Mr. Speaker! In order for us to succeed with integration, it is absolutely crucial that people have a job to go to, and in order to get jobs, people need to be employable. The requirements must be high for the individual, but not unattainable. But high requirements for the individual place high requirements on society to provide the individual with support and opportunities to meet the requirements.

Let me take some examples of what we have done in government. Together with the labor market partners, we have established a fast track for newcomers so that those with skills in shortage occupations can quickly receive supplementary education, internship, and work. We have created establishment jobs to get more newcomers and the long-term unemployed into work. We have introduced a language obligation for all newcomers, so that everyone living in Sweden can speak Swedish. We have introduced an education obligation for newcomers, and those who refuse the education needed to become employable can have their benefits withdrawn. We have changed the social orientation to have more focus on current norms and values in Sweden, and we have made targeted interventions to get more newcomer women into work.

We have seen that it now takes less time to establish oneself in Swedish society, but it is going too slowly. More needs to be done.

This government chooses instead to cut back on adult education so that there will be fewer places and opportunities to make oneself employable. The government also removes extra services and cuts back on labor market measures. It concerns several billion.

The government is completely blind to the fact that the solution is to have high demands on the individual and cares noticeably little about the fact that there must also be effective proposals for support and opportunities to meet the demands.

Mr. Speaker! I wonder if the government really wants all people to succeed in getting a job and being able to contribute to our common society. It is perhaps not so strange that I ask that question, because the government's base rests on the Sweden Democrats, who clearly lack ambitions to break down segregation. Instead, the government pursues a policy that leads to division and social tensions and actively chooses tax cuts and increased economic inequalities over a strong Sweden.

We Social Democrats want a broad, long-term general plan for integration across several policy areas, where a common responsibility is taken so that no one is left out of society. It requires hard work, and that is something we are always prepared to do.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations but move for approval only of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have a simple, short and concise question for the Social Democrats: What was it that caused the Social Democrats to fail with integration during their years in power?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Such things are difficult to measure qualitatively. But let me take the opportunity to repeat a number of things.

As I said in my speech, which I believe the member heard, we have, through the education obligation, created conditions, support, and opportunities for people to get into jobs.

I also mentioned the Settlement Act briefly. When people come here, the municipalities should not be able to decide for themselves whether they can accept them or not, but everyone should take a collective responsibility. According to the National Audit Office's report, this has provided better conditions to enter society more quickly.

As I also mentioned in my speech, the establishment time has also been shortened. After the Reinfeldt government, we succeeded in halving this time, which has contributed to integration.

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

Ann-Christine From Utterstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office's report concerned whether the mandatory settlement law fulfilled its purpose, which was that newcomers should be allocated to the municipalities, and the National Audit Office has judged that the state has succeeded in forcing the municipalities to do what it wanted.

It is good that we are now in agreement with the Social Democrats on language requirements. It has previously been a bit vague from the Social Democrats.

But after eight years in government, I think the Social Democrats need to tell the Swedish people why they failed with integration.

So I ask the question again: Why have the Social Democrats not succeeded with integration during their time in power? And I add a question: How long do the Social Democrats believe it should take before an individual is considered integrated?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! To ask when Sweden is fully integrated or when there is no more segregation and to ask for a date for that, I think is actually quite irresponsible and unserious. But a basic prerequisite for succeeding with this is to take a common, broad approach and perhaps not have such high tail-following in all issues all the time, but come down and see how things actually stand, take these issues deeply seriously and see how difficult they actually are.

When it comes to a number of things that I have mentioned, we Social Democrats still think it is good that the member also thinks that the Settlement Act has fulfilled its purpose and that the establishment period has been shortened under Social Democratic rule. On that track, I think that one should continue. It does not quite feel like the current government wants that, but it is at least the Social Democrats' will.

To say when a person is integrated or not, and to put that definition in the hands of the Sverigedemokraterna, I find feels alarming. A country where one breaks the segregation in school, on the housing market, and on the labor market is the way forward for integration.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! In Sofia Amloh's speech, a couple of points of criticism were raised against the current policy. It began with vocational training. It was claimed there that cuts are being made, but I assume that the Social Democrats are aware that compared to pre-pandemic levels, vocational adult education is still at historically high levels. Social Democracy has a history of believing that one should pursue an active labor market policy, that is, invest more when the economy is weaker, and could perhaps therefore justify that there were reasons to add some extra training places beyond those that existed in the long-term plan that applied during the pandemic, when many sought education instead of work.

During the Social Democrats' time in power, only 70 percent of the funds allocated for vocational adult education were used. My question is: How could the Social Democrats allow only 70 percent of the resources allocated for vocational adult education to be used when, for example, one could have expanded the compulsory education, as we Moderates have proposed, to set requirements that even more people should educate themselves for jobs? Why not tell those who are unemployed because they lack education that they should be so kind as to educate themselves for work at any of the places offered here in Sweden?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by mentioning that the member is a government representative in this debate and that I note the high tail-end already early in the mandate period, before anything has been delivered. One starts at a rather high pitch and is to get through the remainder of the mandate period.

Seventh and last, it is still a matter of that cuts are being made in this budget. It might not be your own from the beginning – I know nothing about that – but compared to the budget that has applied in recent years, there is less money for the labor market policy and adult education.

I don't know, but I believe the member and I belong to roughly the same generation, and when I was little I learned at least that five ants are more than four elephants. That is roughly what I experience with this budget and all the trickery. It is about fewer places and a less active labor market policy. It cannot be avoided. I understand that it can be difficult to defend and to be credible in these issues. But the fact remains: the places are fewer.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! The point with an active labor market policy is that it follows the economic cycle, and that there are therefore fewer places planned in the current budget is thus not difficult to stand by. That is how it is. It is also reasonable. One difference is that we Moderates prepare policy with strict requirements that one must train for work and de facto fill the places that are created. The Social Democrats failed for eight years, when 70 percent of the grants to yrkesvux were used because no requirements were set that one must train for work. That is a problem.

The chairman also raised the investment support in his speech. One could have hoped that the Social Democrats had known that the Social Democrats have also cut the investment support in their budget. But the most relevant thing in that discussion is, after all, how it was used.

The average income among those who live in apartments that have received investment support is as high or low as among those who live in apartments that have not received investment support. This thus creates a distortion in the distribution policy on the housing market, something that otherwise is usually a branch the Social Democrats like to boast about.

Another problem is that because the average rent is 2,000 kronor lower for an apartment built with investment support, it becomes more attractive, even though it might otherwise be identical to another one. What happens then? Yes, the waiting time for it becomes longer. This can also be seen in the statistics. Fewer young people live in apartments that have received investment support. Are the Social Democrats satisfied that 11 billion of the taxpayers' money was spent on policy that turned out to lack redistributive effects and did not reach young people, while arguing that it would work exactly the opposite?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can only state that several of those parts are incorrect. I think that I can probably understand the Social Democratic policy better than the Moderate member, so I will stop there.

But as I said in my speech: We had record-high figures for housing construction. Over 67,000 homes were built per year then. Now it is under 38,000 homes per year. Many more need to be built. What is this government doing about it? Housing segregation is huge and needs to be broken so that people can begin to be integrated. It is the same thing with labor market segregation. Where are those measures?

As I said earlier in this exchange, it is not I who represents the government and is to come forward with proposals. It is actually the member's own party that is to do that, and it is quite empty on that front right now.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

Integration and migration go hand in hand. Migration is needed in order to then have an integration. Many political representatives throughout history have made completely incorrect decisions. There is an idea that as long as people come here, everything will get better. There is an idea that as soon as one lands at Arlanda, Landvetter, or some other airport, or disembarks in some port, one automatically becomes Swedish, learns the language and our social codes, and understands how the organization Sweden works.

We Swedes sometimes have not reflected ourselves on how much we stand out. We have associations for everything. If you are going to buy a home, you must be a member of a housing cooperative. You are also expected to attend at least twice a year and clean. If you are going to rent out your apartment, you must ask for permission from the cooperative. If you have children in school, you are expected to be active in the parents' association. If you have children who play sports, you are perhaps expected to stand and grill sausages on Saturdays in the middle of the rain, winter, or whatever it is, because the sports association is built on volunteer work. It is the same thing within politics. Our political parties are built on association life.

In the Sweden we live in today, there are no requirements from day one for those who come to the country, but the requirements come a bit vaguely after five or ten years. But the voters have given us a mandate. From the Social Democrats' side, it is heard: Oh, what a high tail-wagging the coalition partners have! But if one has just lost an election and not received the majority of the Swedish people's votes, perhaps one should be a little humble and devote time to self-reflection. One must not believe that one has a patent on power in Sweden, for we have democracy. One must take responsibility for one's irresponsible politics.

Now we have a government that takes responsibility. We are going to have a requirement-based integration policy, not coddling and half-measures where one puts compulsory schooling in SFI but then writes: If there is a need for Swedish, you shall be covered by the language obligation. No! If you come to Sweden, you shall learn Swedish from day one. There shall be language requirements to obtain a permanent residence permit together with a requirement to be able to support yourself. If you have a family that you bring here, you shall also be able to support them. If you are to become a Swedish citizen, there shall be increased requirements for knowledge of the Swedish language and a continued requirement to be able to support yourself.

When one comes to Sweden, one must also become a part of Swedish society. Learning Swedish and becoming a part of Swedish society does not mean that one gives up one's religious faith, one's ethnicity, or other language skills that one has. In order to be able to live in Sweden and be a functioning member of society or an entrepreneur who contributes to Sweden, it is required that one fulfills certain conditions. The welfare society Sweden is built on the fact that each of us goes to work or creates work as an entrepreneur, as well as pays tax funds into our jointly funded welfare. In this way, we can also get something out for those who are in need and for what we consider important. Healthcare, school, care, defense, police - all of this is financed by doing one's duty. After that, one receives the opportunities and claims one's right.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country. But I sometimes describe Sweden as a dinner party where people have been invited who have only been given the door code but no information on which apartment they are to go to. It is better to set requirements from day one. It becomes clear for those who come here. Many who have come here and ended up outside say themselves: Why has no one told me this? Furthermore, at every contact with an authority, some poor authority official stands there and tries to perform magic with their knees.

With reduced immigration, we will gain control over the flows into Sweden. We can set requirements from day one. The one who receives a yes also gets an honest chance. When people are assigned to a municipality, the municipality knows in advance whether it has enough teachers and enough nurses at elderly care homes and health centers, so that those institutions do not go to their knees. It is about creating legitimacy in the entire society. Society is, after all, us humans. Then, through politics, we have built institutions and authorities to organize ourselves and be able to move forward somewhere.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must become sober. That is the journey we will make now.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Arin Karapet for the speech.

On Friday is the anniversary of the beginning of Putin's horrific war of invasion in Ukraine. The mass flight directive was good, but it creates limited opportunities for integration. We can only conclude that this unfortunately seems to be becoming long-term. I am afraid that we are not providing Ukrainian refugees, especially women, boys, and girls, opportunities for tolerable living conditions.

The Center Party has today presented three concrete proposals for Ukrainian refugees who are in Sweden. The first is an increased daily allowance from 71 to 132 kronor. The second is full access to SFI. The third is a follow-up of unaccompanied children. When the war began, it happened quickly. Swedish authorities and municipalities did their utmost to ensure that unaccompanied children would receive a placement. But we also know that a considerable number of children were reported to have been placed incorrectly and risked being in danger. One such example was Höör, where ten children were placed in a sect.

I think it is important now, one year into the war, to follow up on whether the children have a good and bearable living environment and whether they have security. I do not believe there is any fundamental conflict between Centerpartiet and Moderaterna on this issue, but I wonder if Moderaterna agree that we need to make a new effort for the Ukrainian refugees who are now in Sweden.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Jonny Cato raises a question that has affected us all. On Friday, it has been one year since the day we woke up and had our phones "flashed" with the news that Russia had begun its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Approximately 90 percent of those who have come to Sweden are women, children, or elderly people.

When it comes to the daily allowance and the inflation we have now, I believe that the government will review this. I cannot speak for the government, but I would say that it would be obvious to review it.

Among the children who have come to Europe and Sweden, there are those who have lost a parent on the way. The parents may also have died. There have also been reports that children who have lost their parents have been exploited in the refugee flows. This is a matter of work that needs to be carried out at the European level. It also concerns children who have been deported from the occupied areas to Russia through illegal adoptions.

But I would also like to say that among the Ukrainians there is an enormous pride and determination - they want to return. We must not forget that those who have had to leave Ukraine are women and children as well as - if I remember correctly - men under 18 and over 65. There is a risk that we are emptying Ukraine before the reconstruction. When the war has been won, Ukraine shall be rebuilt, we say. Then we also assume that many Ukrainians want to and can go back and rebuild their country. Ukraine cannot only be rebuilt by the men who are currently at the front, but both men and women are needed to build Ukraine.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Arin Karapet for the answer. I think it is good that he gives a direction of intent and says that it is reasonable to review the funding.

I share the view that a considerable number are expected to be here during the war and then want to return home. At the same time, no one knows how long the invasion will last. It looks like it will be a long-term war. I think it would be reasonable to at least provide the opportunity to learn the Swedish language by studying at SFI. Of the Ukrainian women who are here today, approximately 30-35 percent are working. But there are more who want to work, and I also think that we should make that possible.

In some ways, it is like a balancing act in this. Making it possible to study within SFI is perfectly reasonable. We are now a year into it. There is nothing to say that we won't be here for another year, even if none of us hope for that.

It is somehow about giving these women and children a safe and secure living environment and rekindling the children's hopes for the future and giving them dreams again. It is very difficult.

I can state that even if Arin Karapet cannot speak for the government, he can in any case speak for the Moderaterna, which is the governing party. A daily allowance of 71 kronor to get food on the table, clothes, and hygiene products is incredibly little in the face of inflation.

I still wonder if Arin Karapet thinks that it should be made possible for more people to study SFI and that the daily allowance should be increased from 71 kronor.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates and I myself are never averse to looking over an issue. Where one ends up on that issue is something else.

When it comes to SFI, it will not just end with SFI. Completely different requirements will come from this chamber. With experience of how we have managed our integration policy and the view on migration, it is also necessary to be somewhat restrictive and stop.

It is going quite well for the many Ukrainians who have come to Sweden. There is a determination and a unity among the Ukrainians. It does not matter whether they are in Stockholm or Warsaw or whether they are currently in Barcelona or Bucharest.

Ukrainian civil society, with the help of European countries and our civil societies, has succeeded in having education in their own language. They must not lose contact with the Ukrainian identity and the Ukrainian language. They shall return and rebuild their country.

We say ourselves that all of Ukraine shall be liberated. Ukraine shall be rebuilt. But that also requires that the Ukrainians return to their country and can build their country. Because if the Ukrainians do not live there, who will live there? It is not Russian occupiers, but it is Ukrainian citizens.

All the way in and wholeheartedly we say: Ukraine shall win the war for their independence and our security. Then we must also ensure that we are consistent in our work and ensure that we create good opportunities for the Ukrainians to return to an independent and free Ukraine that becomes part of the European family.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I listened to the member's speech and took note when he specifically spoke about how as soon as people come to Sweden and arrive at an airport, there is a perception among immigrants and Swedish society that they automatically become Swedish.

I believe it is something that the member has fantasized up themselves. It is far from reality. I do not believe that people in society believe that a person who comes here automatically becomes an established person in society, and I do not believe either that the individual goes around believing that. As someone with an immigrant background, I really know that is not the case.

My question to the member revolves around the great lie that there are hidden ambitions, that people who come here are not real refugees but come here to reap a lot of benefits and that they do not want to integrate. I wonder if the member truly believes that.

I have worked as an interpreter for many years. Most of the people I have met in my profession want to work and enter society. We have young people who have grown up in this country who have university educations but do not get into the labor market because they happen to have the wrong surname.

The derogatory way of speaking about people with a foreign background, does it contribute in any way to the establishment? That is my question to the member.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question! If Member Leila Ali Elmi had listened carefully, she would have heard that I essentially criticized every ethnically Swedish person and no one with a foreign background. It is about the idea that a person arrives at terminal 5 and automatically becomes Swedish. We have a requirement-free integration policy. We do not set requirements and do not inform from day one.

This is not to blacken those who have come to Sweden. I myself have a foreign background. I have seen myself in the mirror for 34 years. I still have an eyebrow that I usually say I am getting a divorce from. I do not look like those in the majority society.

Sweden has had a demand-free integration-based policy that you yourself stand behind. You stand here and try to turn it into that I have blackened every single person with an immigrant background in Sweden.

It would be good if the member listened carefully. I have no problem with receiving criticism, but I want fair criticism. We represent two different parties and two different blocks.

When people say that I portray people with a foreign background in a negative light, we know what the discussion will turn into in the exchanges. Then it is identity politics and racialization. Everything is the majority society's fault.

If Sweden is such a bad country, why do so many with a foreign background seek out Sweden? If Sweden is racist, why do so many seek out Sweden? Answer those questions, Member of Parliament Leila Ali Elmi.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The derogatory way of speaking about people with an immigrant background is not just about those who are out there. I could hear the self-internalization here when the member spoke about their eyebrows. But I will not go into that.

What I want to talk about is the great lie that there are no requirements at all. If you have financial assistance, it concerns the minimum you can receive in Sweden. Then you must be available to the labor market and participate in various types of labor market policy measures. This applies if you are not ill or have a reason to stay at home. That problem description does not exist.

We absolutely have a problem with high unemployment among foreign-born people. But that is not due to us having too high benefits. I am grateful that Sweden is a welfare state. I would not have had the opportunities I have today in life if it were not a welfare state.

I want people who live in our country and are new to Sweden to receive the same opportunities as I and many others have received.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree - believe it or not - with the member that Sweden is a fantastic country. Healthcare, school, and care are publicly funded in Sweden.

When you seek care, they do not look at who is your father or your mother or where you come from. You have a personal identity number, and you receive care based on that. They do not look at how much money you have in your wallet. You do not go ahead at the emergency room if you are rich or poor.

They look at your grades when you apply to the universities. It is your own achievement that counts. There are very few countries that are as generous as Sweden. Not a single requirement has been set for you to pay a single krona into the system.

If something happens during one's period of study – one perhaps hits a wall, a parent passes away, or something happens in one's private life – one usually gets an extension, can pause the studies and even come back. They are very generous student loans and a very long repayment period.

It has created opportunities for many people with a foreign background, including me, who grew up with a single mother. I have received opportunities that I would not have received if my mother had chosen to stay where she was born.

To set requirements is to care. It is not as it has been today. People have been allowed to come here. They have been given a contact with an authority, and they have sat there and waited for a letter. Several months or perhaps a year has passed. And then, after seven years, one is told: Why can't you speak Swedish? Why are you not seeking a job?

But has anyone told this person when he or she arrived that this is what is expected of you? That these are the steps you must take to be able to stand on your own two feet. Has anyone told this? The answer is usually no, and that is because one has had a demand-free integration policy and the racism of low expectations. People have not been treated equally.

That is the end of it now. With this government, we will get Sweden in order.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind all members that we address each other via the Speaker and not directly with "you" and "you".

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Madam Speaker! Migration policy is crucial for integration policy. Good conditions for those who seek to come to Sweden create good prerequisites for establishment in the labor market and inclusion in society, and thus a functioning integration.

Unfortunately, both the previous and the current government have chosen a completely different path - the path of deterrence. The will to prevent people from coming to Sweden has become the government's overriding goal.

With the Palace Agreement as a beacon in the dark, the government is heading towards a policy completely dictated by the Sverigedemokraterna. I can do nothing other than summarize and describe parts of the Palace Agreement as an attempt at social dumping on a global level. It is about treating people in need of protection so poorly and so undignifiedly that they choose to give up. The right-wing government's ambition is to deter people from staying in Sweden by driving Swedish migration and integration policy to Europe's absolute bottom.

The right-wing government does not only want to introduce this policy; it also wants to spread the message that Sweden is a bad country, admittedly with a disclaimer that Sweden is a good country if you are ethnically Swedish. The government, together with SD, proudly boasts that they are going to launch an information campaign and spread the previously mentioned message across the world. But I wonder what the government thinks the result of such a campaign will be – that Sweden is a bad country to flee to, or that Sweden is a bad country, period. Will it be an information campaign or a smear campaign against Sweden as a whole?

A study from the Nordic Council of Ministers has compared the Nordic countries. The study shows that the countries with the strictest migration policies also had the least success with integration, and that such a policy and similar information campaigns entail a cost and negative consequences for those who are already in the country and are in the middle of an integration process.

Nor even will integration be helped in any way by letting people live in insecurity, uncertainty, or anxiety. On the contrary, it is documented that permanent residence permits are better for both the individual and society from a security, integration, and cost perspective. This is something that the Red Cross has described in a report where they investigated just temporary residence permits. They create anxiety and impair the mental health of those who receive residence permits in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Successful integration stands on a foundation of security. To give people stability and a belief in the future is that foundation – something that permanent residence permits create. It becomes a knowledge that here I will be able to stay and a calm in being able to settle down, establish an everyday life and build a home. This is what integration is about, and here the migration policy is crucial.

We know that the type of policy that the right-wing government is pursuing is bad - bad for integration and bad for society. This is shown by the collective knowledge and experience that both the Red Cross and the Nordic Council have gathered when they have compared conditions in the Nordic countries. Still, the right-wing government thinks that this is a reasonable and good policy. We see a paradigm shift based on opinions, a bit like political pseudoscience.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for the approval of reservation 6 from Vänsterpartiet in the report.

It is unfortunate that the government cannot view our motion in an objective manner, because what we touch upon is the importance of obtaining the conditions to enter the labor market. Here we agree with the government that one of the most important parts of a successful integration is work. But that is also where our agreement ends.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see a strong labor market with secure jobs and real employment. This is part of the security and stability that is needed for a successful integration. We need a labor market where equality and gender equality are the foundation. We build that foundation by strengthening the working class. Then we create the conditions for a functioning integration.

The implementation of the maintenance requirement for obtaining permanent residence has given employers a power advantage, where they can, in principle, decide completely arbitrarily whether the employee is allowed to stay or not.

Workers in such a situation are easy to exploit and underpay, and people become replaceable. That is why it is impossible to talk about integration without addressing work and employment. The insecurity that exists on the labor market implies a failed integration.

So why is the right-wing government breaking down the prerequisites for entering the labor market, when it concerns integration, equality, and gender equality? Just as much as integration is linked to the labor market and migration policy, integration is also interconnected with a functioning welfare society – a society where we see people as more than figures in statistics.

The right-wing parties' project aims to attack the welfare state and break down our security at its core. This is what it means when the right wants to cut back on our welfare system for everyone. It is classic right-wing politics. And it is easiest to start here - by pitting groups against each other.

Madam Speaker! It is difficult not to mention the war in Ukraine one year after Russia's violation of international law invasion. But I will be blunt and say that it did not quite turn out as we thought. The Ukrainians who have come here through the mass flight directive have not been given the opportunity to enter the workforce as was initially discussed.

The Mass Migration Directive was introduced about 20 years ago, and it is only being tested now. It is a test that has shown that the directive has hit completely wrong. By only granting residence permits for one year at a time, the possibilities to register one's address in Sweden are missing. This means limited access to healthcare, and one is left without the right to study SFI. One is forced to live on the low daily allowance for asylum seekers, which has not been raised since 1994. It is 29 years ago. As a small reference, I can say that it is the same year that The Lion King was released in cinemas for the first time.

In this regard, we need to do over and do right by granting the right to expanded healthcare and the opportunity to learn Swedish. Here, Sweden should take a leading role, not least when we hold the presidency in the EU.

Unfortunately, my fear is that the government would rather join Europe's absolute worst migration policy than stand up for people on the run and give people in need of protection the opportunity for a new start and a safe home.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The goal of the integration policy has been formulated in different ways ever since the first goal was set in 1997/98. But regardless of how different governments have chosen to formulate the goal, it aims at us all who live and work in Sweden working together to make Sweden a better country to live in.

We have a shared responsibility to develop our country based on the capacity we have, or as Ebba Busch usually expresses it: We shall not just let people come here; they shall come home!

Coming home is a good description of good integration. In a home, one takes collective responsibility for everything that needs to be done for the home to be a place that one longs for and that one is proud to show off to one's friends.

Madam Speaker! We face great challenges today. Many young people growing up in our country feel excluded. They see how their parents have difficulty finding a job even though they have made an effort, learned Swedish, and tried to convert their previous education into a Swedish vocational qualification. This creates discouragement and frustration, which in the worst cases leads to continued exclusion. Unfortunately, we can state that we today have a system where we create an exclusion that affects immigrants over several generations. We must do everything we can to break this trend and create an integration policy that leads to social cohesion instead of exclusion.

Madam Speaker! Already today we assign immigrants to municipalities in order to achieve a distribution across the country that is intended to facilitate integration. At the same time, we know that there have been problems with this model. Some municipalities have to receive more than they can manage in a good way, while other municipalities wish that more people would settle in the municipality as they see that they have the possibility to offer jobs to those who settle in that specific municipality. We therefore believe that the model should be reviewed, in order to create greater municipal influence.

We have also established an establishment program which enables immigrants to study Swedish or to obtain a full-time internship. It is a bit early to evaluate the effect of the establishment program. Within the Tidö Agreement, we say that the future "measures should focus on education required to enter the labor market, the Swedish language, a higher degree of workplace-related experience, as well as high and effective job-seeking activity."

In the report that we are debating today, we note that more newcomers must learn Swedish as soon as possible and be given the opportunity to work. This is a fundamental matter of justice and is crucial for breaking exclusion, increasing safety, and strengthening welfare. Education and jobs are necessary if new citizens in Sweden are to move from exclusion into a functioning community.

Madam Speaker! Another important area that determines whether one has merely "arrived" or has "come home" is our values. All societies are characterized by different religious, philosophical, and political ideas. It is the sum of these ideas that creates the traditions that characterize a country. These ideas naturally change over time, and it is not always so easy to capture this type of cultural values.

At the same time, this is important for one to understand the country where one lives and works. In our case, it is very important that one understands how we view equality, child-rearing, marriage, honor culture, and so on. Part of this can be learned through the municipalities offering social orientation. The goal for these educations shall be that the participants develop knowledge about human rights and basic democratic values, about the individual's rights and obligations in general, about how society is organized and about practical everyday life. These educations shall be able to be combined with work, studies, and other activities to facilitate and accelerate establishment in the working life and normally be completed one year after they are started.

The Swedish Migration Agency also provides immigrants with social orientation, which is good. Social orientation and social introduction are important, as they provide our new Swedes with better conditions to enter Swedish society.

Alongside these efforts, civil society also makes large and important contributions to ensure that immigrants become part of Swedish society. Their work has unfortunately sometimes been underestimated in the public debate. Without all the volunteers in civil society, we would never have managed the situation in 2015, and without their commitment to our Ukrainian refugees, several of these would have fared even worse today.

Madam Speaker! Many of us have become involved for Ukraine. Sweden is today helping Ukraine with both civilian and military resources, which is good. At the same time, we have approximately 50,000 Ukrainian refugees who have come to Sweden due to the mass flight directive. These refugees are not covered by the same regulatory framework as other refugees. This difference is based on the treaty's basic idea: that one should be able to receive very many refugees in a short time and for a limited period.

Now we see that the Ukrainian refugees will remain in Sweden for a longer period, and even though many have managed to find a job, we have those who have become stuck in an exclusion. I am therefore pleased that the government, via the media, has informed that it intends to review the situation for the Ukrainian refugees who have come to Sweden in accordance with the mass flight directive.

As a Christian Democrat, I would like to share some reflections. The rules have not changed since 1994, and just this year we have had a 20 percent inflation. It is probably quite obvious that we need to review this regulatory framework.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to raise an issue that is not addressed in this report but which is crucial for a better functioning integration, and that is the Swedish housing market.

In principle, almost all Swedish cities have been built up according to the same principle, namely that rental apartments are concentrated in certain areas, owner-occupied homes in other areas, and factories and shopping centers separately, and everything should revolve around a center. Schools and preschools have been placed in the different residential areas.

The effect of this housing strategy is that we today have established a large number of segregated residential areas where those who arrived most recently to Sweden live primarily in rental apartments and their children attend schools where they are in the majority and thus risk finding it more difficult to learn the Swedish language.

This is not a good order. If we are to break segregation over time, we must change our cities. Some rental apartments must be sold, and in other residential areas, new rental apartments need to be built. A better housing mix is necessary if we are to give all children and young people better conditions to live up to their future dreams and not get stuck in exclusion.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish debate has had and continues to have an all too great focus on who should be allowed to come here and who should not, instead of focusing on how we should create the best possible conditions for those who have grounds for protection to enter and become a part of our common society. Unfortunately, the government has begun its term in exactly that way. The press conferences on how the government will implement the Sweden Democrats' migration policy have succeeded one another, while the major reforms to achieve a functioning integration policy have been conspicuously absent.

The government needs to focus on integration policy. Sweden has for a long time been characterized by a long-standing and serious social divide, which often grows instead of shrinking. It is a divide that cuts between people and between places, between those who have education, language, and work experience and those who do not have a job, between on one hand prosperous and enterprising towns and on the other hand vulnerable neighborhoods and industrial towns. The freedom and opportunities in our country are far too unevenly distributed. One can only conclude that Sweden has major integration challenges. All parties, including my own, have a great responsibility in this.

Jobs and language are two prerequisites for breaking the social divide. It needs to become easier and cheaper for companies to hire newcomers. Newcomers need to learn about our Swedish society early on. We need to set requirements for those who come here, but we also need to set higher requirements for us as a society and politicians to create the best possible conditions for a well-functioning integration.

In the name of honesty, I believe there is a clear dividing line in Swedish politics. There are parties in the Swedish Riksdag and in the government base that believe people come here with evil intentions. I genuinely believe that everyone who comes here, fleeing from war and oppression, wants well. They want to learn Swedish and enter and become a part of our common society. But many simply do not get the conditions and the help required to succeed.

Just as there is a gap in terms of employment between foreign-born and domestic-born individuals, there is a gap between foreign-born men and foreign-born women. Integration is therefore also a matter of equality. Here we have much to do. Especially foreign-born women who have fled from their home countries have had difficulty quickly entering employment. The initial period in Sweden is all too often dominated by the woman working in the home, which significantly reduces the chance of entering the labor market.

It is important with a clarity from society when it comes to fundamental values regarding people's equal rights and value. Economic compensations to households, for example social assistance, should be paid out equally between spouses. The response from authorities must also to a greater extent reflect that society has the same expectations on women and men to be integrated and enter employment.

Madam Speaker! It is important not only to paint a bleak picture. Even though the integration challenges are great, very much that is good is also being done. For those who are new to Sweden, the association life, civil society, and the voluntary forces are many times completely decisive. There, there are networks, contacts, and job opportunities. Civil society makes incredible efforts and often wants much more. Significantly better conditions need to be provided.

When visiting establishments around the country that work with a clear integration focus, there is always a common denominator for the most successful efforts. It is the passionate souls who work day and night so that integration will work. It is people who are passionate about their field and for young boys and girls to have a bright future. It is people who are passionate about doing good.

The truth is that firebrands are not something we in here can make decisions about or that we politicians create. But we can provide the firebrands with much better conditions. We really need to review how the support for civil society can become more long-term. It might sound like a simple thing. But I truly believe that it really makes a difference for integration.

In far too many cases, it is about short-term projects that need more long-term thinking and that could be implemented on a much larger scale. Stop with the projects! It is a simple sentence and one of the absolutely most common things I hear when I visit vulnerable areas – stop with the projects! Now, it is therefore time to stop with short-term projects and create long-term rules of the game. It is deserved by all the country's enthusiasts.

Madam Speaker! When we talk about vulnerable areas, it is easy to generalize and stigmatize. It is often a difficult balancing act. But there are far too many young boys and girls in our country who do not have hope for the future. The boys risk falling into criminal circles at an early age and see easy and quick ways to large sums of money early on. We talk about this very often. That is good, because much more needs to be done.

At the same time, there is a group that we often forget and talk about too little. It is the young girls. They are girls who more or less only get to be in school and in the family's apartment. It creates short-term and long-term exclusion.

More specific initiatives are needed aimed at just young girls. I visited such a project last week: IK Uppsalas Tjejbollen. There, football is at the center. But football is actually secondary. It is about coming from home and being able to talk about other things than one does at home. One gets to learn that it is okay for a girl to be with a girl. One learns about one's rights as a young girl, gets role models and the opportunity to start dreaming about one's own bright future.

We also need to talk about harmful values that limit young girls and boys.

We also need to create security for parents when it comes to letting their children move in vulnerable areas and letting them out in the yard. We need to help the parents and guide them in giving the children the best possible conditions to achieve their dreams.

Madam Speaker! Swedish integration needs to become better. We in the chamber can stand and accuse each other regarding whose fault it is. The truth is that we probably all have a responsibility for the integration failures that often exist. It is not only the Social Democrats' fault, and it is not only the Moderates' fault. We all have a shared responsibility.

The expectations for newcomers need to become clearer, and the conditions for entering and becoming a part of our common Swedish society need to become better. Newcomers have their own responsibility, but we also have a great political responsibility. Integration is one of this mandate period's absolute biggest issues of destiny.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 11.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! Many years ago, my liberal predecessors stood in this speaker's chair and spoke warmly about the importance of being able to speak the Swedish language when it comes to functional integration. Back then, it was about language tests and language requirements. In order to achieve a change, it was seriously debated whether it had any significance or not. Today, it is hardly a question anymore. All parties have today joined the staggering idea that in order to be integrated, one needs to be able to communicate and understand one's surroundings. Thank you for that!

Now that I, as a Liberal, no longer need to debate whether language is a decisive key to integration, I want to focus on what we need to do in practice. If one grows up in Sweden without being able to participate in the Swedish language during the first five years, one falls behind. It is an uphill battle when one reaches preschool class, regardless of how good one is at counting or forming letters.

I have for many years worked with school issues in a medium-sized municipality in Skåne. In 2020, we had five three-year-olds who did not attend preschool. That was five three-year-olds in a population of 33,000. It is no coincidence. It is due to persistent and consistent work and an insight that all children must be able to speak the Swedish language to succeed in school.

Clear expectations, skilled integration officers, and a sensible labor market policy yield results for the whole family. In Sweden, both parents are expected to contribute to the family's livelihood. This means that the children get the opportunity to be in the Swedish preschool, where there is an extra focus on language. It makes a difference throughout primary school and, in turn, has an effect on work life and freedom.

I wish that more children would get the same opportunities as the children in my home municipality. In the Tidö Agreement, it states that the introduction of language preschools should be considered. I hope this is done promptly as an important means in the fight for better integration.

If one is not allowed to practice the Swedish language at home and furthermore finds oneself in a residential area where one is not safe, where Swedish is not spoken in one's free time, where sports and cultural associations do not exist and where the majority of the adults do not have a job to go to or a social circle to be in, one has significantly worse conditions than some of the classmates. It is not a fair start. Residential segregation affects school segregation.

It is more important than ever to break with decades of short-sighted projects, grant initiatives, and identity politics that have created and cemented segregation. More than 550,000 people live in our vulnerable areas. It is a staggering figure. The vast majority are honest, work, and pay taxes. But many are also insecure because criminal gangs, clans, and extremists set the agenda. How can we allow that?

What is needed is liberal politics, which provides stronger integration of new Swedes, and more effective work. It must be possible to have greater power over one's own residential area and local neighborhood.

Schools must deliver. Where the greatest challenges exist, we must have the sharpest educators. Ensure that there are alternatives to overcrowding! All forms of housing must exist in all areas. Owning your own home provides security, and it must be possible to save up for that very first down payment.

Sweden should not be a requirement-free community. If one wants to become a citizen, one must have passed a language and social studies test, where one demonstrates that they understand the Swedish language and know how democracy works. It is actually no longer enough to just welcome people to Sweden and then let separatists, benefit culture, and ethnic nationalism keep them out of our community. We Liberals know that everyone can take part in the social community. Everyone can be a part and use both their rights and obligations. It provides opportunities, not only for the individual's freedom but also for Sweden's future.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(cont. § 22)

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