Integration

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now we are going to speak about integration, and finally something is happening in the area. Finally, we have begun to build a policy on integration worthy of the name. Many of us have longed for the paradigm shift that we are now finally seeing in Swedish integration policy. Yes, not only longed for, by the way, but which we have fought for. This is the Sverigedemokraternas merit.

People all over the country have seen the failure that the old parties, with the Social Democrats at the forefront, have stood for from close proximity. These people know that something is very wrong. They are, in fact, out there in reality.

Gradually, that realization emerged even among parties other than the Sverigedemokraterna. From having a position - you are not speaking with - most have now acknowledged that the Sverigedemokraterna were right. Most have seen and understood that SD has led the development to the common sense half-plane, and that others have followed at different paces.

The Social Democrats, who according to their own grandiose self-image never do anything wrong, have, as we all know, difficulty admitting that they have done so. But for us – as large parts of the Swedish people have noted – it is not even a question of whether the Social Democrats have handled it correctly or not with their political line during the last decades.

A great responsibility for what we see today falls precisely on you Social Democrats. That you are now trying to evade that responsibility is, in the name of honesty, simply ridiculous. For you naturally cannot believe yourselves that you have stood for a restrictive immigration policy, something that you are now trying to trick the voters into believing.

Madam Speaker! I am proud to stand here today with a clear conscience on these issues. I am proud to have finally succeeded in getting several of your other parties on board. I am proud of the policy that has already been implemented and for that which will come in the future.

We now have a long way to go. As we all know, the Social Democrats' sluggish and demand-free policy was tested during your time in power. We all see the result: insecurity has increased, fear has spread, and humanity has been put on hold.

Billions upon billions that have been shipped out into areas of exclusion have had a minimal, yes, barely even measurable, effect. There are many parties in here who should be ashamed. It is not just for all the insults that we Sverigedemokrater have had to receive, but primarily because of all the billions you have plowed into failed integration projects.

It is money that could have gone to our own pensions, to the school or to healthcare. It has not been much bang for the buck, if one does not count all the shootings and explosions that are now commonplace.

Above all, you should reflect on your responsibility for the suffering you have subjected ordinary, honest people to. There are citizens who have even been killed because they are responsible fellow human beings who have shown civil courage and tried to make everyday life better for our citizens and for Sweden. What you have failed to achieve, the citizens pay dearly for.

Madam Speaker! Now it is we who are forced to untangle the mess that the other parties have created, and we will not do it by trying to sugarcoat a picture of the effects of mass immigration. That is over now. No more tiptoeing, and no more excuses. The lack of requirements shall be replaced by a clear set of requirements. Vagueness shall be replaced by order and clarity. The broken compass of values shall be repaired and let us navigate correctly.

We are now ensuring the implementation of a series of measures that will have effects both in the short term and in the long term:

We will ensure that the requirements to become a citizen become stricter. Only those who show a sincere will to seriously become a part of Sweden shall become citizens.

We are working to reach the EU's minimum level when it comes to asylum migration.

We are introducing qualification for the welfare: only those who contribute to the welfare shall be entitled to share in it. Sweden shall not be a buffet for people who come only to try to grab as much as possible.

We are working very hard in different parts of the country to introduce language requirements within the various sectors of the welfare system. Staff working in professions that ultimately concern people's well-being must be able to speak the Swedish language, period.

We ensure an increased income requirement linked to the possibility of being allowed to work in Sweden.

We are working very hard to close Islamist schools and preschools that spread views that directly counteract the will for integration into a democratic and equal society.

We increase the penalties, hunt down criminals, and are persistent in our view that the more misery criminals are forced to experience in their daily lives, the less attractive it becomes to follow the same path for those who are watching.

All this and much more, individually but also together, will provide significantly better opportunities to conduct a responsible integration policy. It is a very restrictive immigration policy combined with requirements for those who behave and prison or deportation, or both, for those who do not behave.

If migration worked, we would not need any integration policy, because then people would be in our country for the right reasons. Then those who come would contribute to making our society better, and not tear it down and destroy it.

That the Sweden Democrats are now part of the Tidö agreement and a support for the government is the only way forward. It is the only way forward if we are to seriously succeed in getting everything that primarily the Social Democrats have caused into order.

The Tidö parties have negotiated a new integration goal, and we will closely follow the government's development of the integration policy. We are, of course, not completely satisfied yet, but this is a step on the Sweden-friendly path. We therefore refer to our specific statement in the report.

The Sweden Democrats are and remain the guarantee for a safer and more inclusive Sweden.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! One gets feelings of unreality as usual when one hears the Sweden Democrats. It may perhaps be due to disinformation.

Regardless of this, the consequences here and now are that incredibly many people in Sweden will have to step back under an SD-led government. But not everyone, because the Sweden Democrats have succeeded in introducing yet another job tax deduction where 90 percent of the money goes to the half of the population that has the highest incomes. It increases the economic gaps, and it increases segregation in society.

At the same time, the household crisis has steadily worsened and intensified, and it is those with small margins who have been hit hardest. And the government is doing nothing. Welfare is being mismanaged, households are left at the mercy of the waves, and the construction crisis is in free fall. The Sweden Democrats and the government want to give the appearance of making investments while simultaneously letting a wave of cuts sweep across Sweden and deliberately increasing the economic gaps.

I have a simple question for the Sweden Democrats now that the member in the speech said this is the government's merit. The member's policy either exacerbates or stands passive in the face of all the crises ongoing in Sweden regarding welfare, healthcare, the labor market, school, climate transition, and construction. But the policy from the government turns out to be very active when it comes to giving money to those who are very well off. Why are you increasing the economic differences more than ever before?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! I certainly do not believe this is a tax debate, but we are debating integration in the Committee on Employment. I therefore leave the question there, and I naturally do not agree with the Member that we distribute the money in such a way.

I want to remind the member that the Sweden Democrats are not in the government, which the member knows very well. I therefore advise the member to direct the question to one of the government parties. The Sweden Democrats are, as is known, a support for the government in the form of the Tidö Agreement, and the member also knows that very well. I therefore, as I said, leave the tax issue and the distribution of income to that point.

But in and with the fact that we are talking about integration here, I can still mention that it is the Sverigedemokraternas merit that there has finally now been a reorganization of the integration policy. That was also what I said in my speech.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The member's economic policy worsens and complicates integration in Sweden. It is incredibly strange that the member stands here and says that she does not agree with me when I, for example, brought up the taxes. When one gives 90 percent of the job tax credit to those who are best off and says that it does not affect integration and has nothing to do with the debate, it is out of touch with reality.

But perhaps that is what happens when one, as the Sweden Democrats have done, settles down in a castle behind walls far from the everyday lives of ordinary people and negotiates the political content. Then there is no politics for ordinary people. These are the consequences we are facing now, and these are the ones I am speaking about right now.

The economic gaps are increasing, and despite the crisis situation, the government is not reacting to the actual problems that people out there are experiencing. We are in an integration debate and have a party that is responsible for the policy but disclaims responsibility when it feels like it. This policy tears our society apart in every way. It tears society apart and worsens the welfare crisis and household finances. Instead, the government should make investments that strengthen our society and allow us to have good integration.

The Leader of the Opposition exacerbates the entire situation. She abdicates responsibility and says that the economy has nothing to do with the debate. It is out of touch with reality. The Sweden Democrats want to prioritize lowered taxes for those who have the best and increase the economic gaps instead of doing anything about integration in the form of integration measures. The measures are conspicuously absent, and now the rich can pull ahead and the poor are left behind. It increases what we call segregation. Why do the Sweden Democrats pursue such a policy?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! It seems to have etched itself firmly into the member's consciousness that the Tidö parties were located at a castle. It is, moreover, a castle located outside Västerås, where I myself live. It is a fantastic castle. I do not know if the member, who I want to emphasize comes from Vänsterpartiet, would have been more satisfied if the Tidö parties had been located somewhere else and negotiated their agreement. But I do not think so.

I think that in my speech I was very clear about all the measures that we have now taken within the integration area. There is more to negotiate in the future; as I said, we are not satisfied. But it simply is not true that we would be without measures. On the topic of disinformation, it is precisely this that Vänsterpartiet is engaged in right now.

If the migration policy in Sweden were to work, we would, as we have said, not need any special integration policy at all. Then people who came to our country would also be interested in working and contributing to Swedish society, which many are - but unfortunately not all. It is those who are not interested in this who should not stay here. They should go home again.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! We shall set requirements for newcomers. But how we as a society meet and welcome people from other countries matters. How we talk about people with a foreign background matters. How we behave matters.

When society in general and political parties in particular constantly speak ill of people from other countries, the image grows that there is a "us" and a "them." If we want people to become part of our common Sweden, we must also welcome people with an open mind, with faith in the future and with opportunities – not with suspicion and hatred.

A cold factual review shows how the Sweden Democrats have a well-studied and structured operation to cast suspicion and spread hate and, quite bluntly, to make the Swedish population think poorly of people with a foreign background.

The Sweden Democrats' troll factory contributes to splitting Sweden. It contributes to a "us" and a "them". The Sweden Democrats' troll factory is a threat to Swedish democracy, but it also affects integration very negatively.

I have a very simple question for the member: Does the member share the view that hateful comments and mudslinging against people from other countries contribute to a "us" and "them" and thereby hinder a good, fast, and successful integration?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your contribution and your questions!

Everyone knows that the Center Party was the basis for the Social Democrats' government previously. If there are any who have failed in the integration area, it is precisely Social Democrat-led governments, regardless of who else stood behind them. It has been somewhat different over the years.

You from the Center Party have, to the highest degree, been involved and contributed to the us-and-them society. You have not succeeded in building a society that includes and is us together – Sweden, Sweden's citizens, Sweden's population. In that, you have failed fatally. That is why in our everyday lives we see shootings and explosions where ordinary honest people lose their lives. It is nothing that I can defend. I do not believe either that the member from the Center Party defends it. It is, however, the sum of the politics that the Center Party has been involved in conducting.

To have a completely requirement-free society for the people who come here is not fair to anyone. It is not fair to the people who live here. It is not fair to the newly arrived citizens whom we have welcomed and who want to become a part of Sweden. It is not fair to anyone, as said.

Regarding the troll factory, which I understood was to be discussed here, Jimmie was in the media almost all day yesterday regarding this, so I leave that aside. It is not at my level to speak about it, I think, in an integration debate.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Christian Democrats, the Liberals, the Centre Party and the Moderates have all had a responsibility for the integration and migration policy in Sweden. But today it is the Sweden Democrats who are part of the government. Now it is you who have the responsibility, and you have had it for nearly two years. Everything can no longer be someone else's fault.

I am well aware that the Sweden Democrats are not in the government. But I am also well aware that the Sweden Democrats are part of the Tidö Agreement. There, certain policy areas are covered, and integration is one of them. The Sweden Democrats are responsible for Sweden's integration policy.

We are in complete agreement that we are going to set requirements. But my question concerned whether the way we as a society treat people with a foreign background matters. It actually has to do with harassment and hateful comments. The member, as the person responsible for the Sweden Democrats' integration policy and thus also Sweden's integration policy, must be able to answer whether she thinks it matters how one talks about people from other countries.

I do not think it facilitates integration for young boys if they constantly hear that they are a problem, that they should leave, and that everything they dream of is in vain – they don't want to enter society anyway. I believe that these boys want to learn the Swedish language and become a part of the common Sweden, but then there must be integration opportunities for that.

I want an answer to the question, because Jimmie did not talk about this yesterday. He talked about completely different things. He attacked TV4. I want an answer on whether the member thinks it matters for integration how we politicians talk about people. It has to do with integration.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I will start by answering the question so that I do not miss it. I absolutely think it plays a very large role how we humans treat each other and how we act as fellow human beings. Whether it concerns our own countrymen, newly arrived citizens, or people who are in our country for some other reason, it is naturally important how we treat each other. I certainly did not say anything else in my speech either. To treat someone in a hateful way is very far from me as a person. It is also, I want to assert, very far from my party.

It is correctly understood that the Sweden Democrats are part of the Tidö agreement. It is also correctly understood that it is therefore why we now see a reorganization of the integration policy. That reorganization is absolutely necessary.

The Speaker and the other parliamentary parties must not forget that it is the voters who have given us this confidence. The voters have spoken. This is not something we have made up ourselves. We have a mandate among the voters out there, who want us to be involved in changing the integration policy - and besides that, also other policies. The voters feel a confidence that we can manage to turn this ship around, which has been heading towards the waterfall for a long time and is now in the middle of the rapids. Now we are going to try to turn it. It will not happen in a heartbeat, but it will take time.

Jonny Cato has, as he has said, been a basis for a government that has not only acted naively but also, I claim, acted recklessly.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! The Member spent a very large amount of her speaking time blaming the Social Democratic government. The Social Democratic government did nothing during its eight years, she said. Let me just briefly state a few things that the Social Democrats did during their period 2018-2022 when it came to promoting integration and combating segregation.

The Social Democratic government produced a strategy to combat segregation in the long term and also allocated funds based on this strategy, which unfortunately the Sweden Democrats and the current government removed. The Social Democrats also introduced a fast track for newcomers. We introduced establishment jobs to get more newcomers and the long-term unemployed into jobs. We introduced a language requirement to ensure that everyone living in Sweden can speak the Swedish language. We introduced an education requirement so that those who refuse the education needed to be employable can have their benefits withdrawn. We introduced social orientation. We also introduced very many regulations and changes, not least when it concerned the law on own housing.

I would like to stay just on the law regarding own housing, Madam Speaker, and ask a question to the member. The Sweden Democrats have expressed criticism both of the EBO Act and of the Settlement Act, but in the report, one argues only for the abolition of the Settlement Act. That would mean that a system would be reintroduced where asylum seekers must find housing, which would potentially reinforce the problems with EBO that exist today.

In view of this, I would like to ask the member from Sverigedemokraterna: Why is the member and Sverigedemokraterna not for abolishing EBO but for abolishing the Settlement Act, which according to SD contributes to both segregation and integration problems?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your questions, member!

I can only state that the member today, in an exchange of remarks with me, presents solutions that have not been presented previously during eight years in power. The answers and solutions that did not exist then suddenly exist now when the Social Democrats are not in power. It is very typical for the Social Democrats to act in that way: in a governing position, one does not have the solutions. One does not have the answers. Sweden is moving more and more towards decay under Social Democratic rule. We have seen samples of that, and we hope that we will never ever get there again.

Regarding the Settlement Act, it is mandatory for the municipalities today. All 290 of Sweden's municipalities are self-governing, except in this matter. Through the Settlement Act, the state intervenes and points with the whole hand and directs what the municipality shall do. One does not have the right to choose for oneself how many one should receive. This means that a municipality can be left without enough housing, without preschool places, without enough places in school, or whatever it may be. But no consideration is taken for that. Instead, the state forces.

It is clear that we want to abolish that law. It speaks for itself. There is nothing strange about it. I think, however, that it is very strange to want to keep it.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! The measures I mentioned were the reforms and measures that were implemented during the Social Democratic government's time, between 2014 and 2022. I was not speaking about any reforms for the future. It was an answer to the member's previous question about why the Social Democrats did nothing during our eight years in power.

I want to ask a simple question to the member. The member spoke about how the Sweden Democrats have overhauled the entire integration policy. What is the Sweden Democrat overhaul of the integration policy? What are these integration measures?

The member spoke about how they have now changed course, are proud, have a clear conscience, have included other parties, and have had their proposals passed. I have a simple, concrete question: What are these measures? What are these reforms that the member spoke about?

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have been part of governing Sweden for 18 months. In the Committee on the Labour Market, the list of reforms is empty. I therefore wonder where these reforms are.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not mean that the Social Democrats have done nothing. I mean instead – and I believe I have been clear about this – that the measures that the Social Democrats pushed through with their government base have not succeeded. I believe I have been clear about that, but I thank you for the opportunity to repeat it, so that it becomes even clearer.

I believe that the Social Democrats, during their time in power, did not succeed with anything, really, regarding integration policy. Otherwise, we would not see the emerging parallel society that we see today. There we see that equality, where we in our country have been so prominent, is now in decline. Today, women in our country are prevented from being self-determining. It is tragic. It is one of the developments that we really do not want to see in Sweden. I actually believe that the member agrees with me on that, even if there is much else that we do not agree on.

I also thank you for the opportunity to repeat some of our integration measures. It is, as said, about higher requirements to become a citizen and about hunting down criminals, imprisoning them, and deporting them if they are not interested in living in Sweden as we expect and require one to do when one comes here.

We are working, as said, for the EU's minimum level regarding asylum migration and for qualification for the welfare state. One must contribute to the welfare state to be entitled to participate in it. I think that is respectful towards all people in Sweden who today work and pay tax. It is not respectful to share that welfare with anyone, as it actually has been for a time.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! We live in a fantastic country, which is rich in opportunities. Yet we face significant challenges in our country. Increasing economic vulnerability and growing segregation are tearing our country apart, increasing mistrust and fueling the recruitment of new members to the criminal gangs.

Segregation did not arise overnight and has multiple layers, including increased gaps and an unfair distribution of society's resources. Many have reason to reflect self-critically on why segregation has grown so strong in Sweden.

We Social Democrats see it as our most important mission to work actively to reduce these inequalities. We believe in long-term thinking, early interventions, and increased cooperation. We know that there is no quick solution, no quick fix, to reduce segregation. It requires persistent work and efforts from all parts of society. It concerns the state, the municipalities, the business community, and civil society. It begins from preschool and onwards.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the current government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has shown a crushing passivity in these issues. After more than 18 months in charge of the labor market and integration, not a single concrete reform to break segregation has been presented. Instead, the first thing they did was to dismantle the Delegation against Segregation, Delmos. Thus, they have worsened the coordination of the long-term work against segregation.

Now the government has presented a new goal for integration policy in the autumn budget. We agree with the government that there should be high expectations for the individual to integrate into Swedish society. But this is not a major reorganization but an adjustment in line with the policy that has already been pursued for some time, where both the individual's and society's responsibilities are emphasized and requirements, support, opportunities, and obligations go hand in hand.

It was, for example, the Social Democratic government that, within the establishment program, introduced a proportionate sanction system for newcomers corresponding to that which applies for other job seekers.

Madam Speaker! To effectively combat inequality and segregation, will and a clear political vision are required. Today we have a school segregation that contributes not only to inequality in educational outcomes but also to a deeper societal division. We see how children from different socioeconomic backgrounds are separated, not only geographically but also in terms of opportunities and future prospects. To address this problem, a better redistribution of resources to our most vulnerable schools and improved quality of education and support for both teachers and students are required.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats advocate for powerful investments to reduce school segregation. Schools in vulnerable areas must receive the resources needed to individually meet every student's unique needs and circumstances. It is also crucial that more young boys choose the school desk over crime, which requires an increased investment in teachers, student assistants, and other safe adults in the school.

Madam Speaker! The labor market situation is crucial for the establishment times. Unfortunately, the economic crisis and the recession risk affecting the establishment. The number of registered unemployed has increased since last summer. At the end of April, nearly 346,000 people were registered as unemployed. This is an increase of nearly 19,000 people compared to the same period last year, according to Arbetsförmedlingen's statistics.

Just as in previous recessions, an increased influx of new unemployed people means that groups with poorer prospects are pushed further back in the queue. This results in longer unemployment for those who already have it hardest, not least women born outside of Europe. Therefore, it is alarming to see cuts of almost 2 billion kronor in active labor market policy. This means less money for Arbetsförmedlingen and labor market policy programs. This hinders integration, exacerbates segregation, and has long-term effects on social integration.

The support in establishment needs to be sharpened and improved. Letting a large group of people stand outside of working life and society is not an option. There is also no lack of proposals in the area.

The investigation on improved labor market establishment for foreign-born women was commissioned in the summer of 2022 by the Social Democratic government to gather knowledge, draw lessons from other countries, and present new solutions. In the partial report, which is titled Establishment for more - equal opportunities for integration, many good proposals were presented.

The investigation suggests, among other things, that the establishment program be made more ambitious, content-rich and individually adapted, partly through individual final goals and earlier and more parallel activities, but also through extended program duration when needed.

Establishment measures must be offered until the individual is established in the labor market rather than under inflexible fixed-term frameworks. Furthermore, the investigation proposes that even persons who immigrate for family reasons, mostly women, should be able to participate in the measures and become eligible for compensation. This means good conditions for increasing labor force participation and, in the long run, employment, but it also concerns the freedom of the individual. A reduced economic dependence means greater equality.

All these proposals are excellent and support long-term establishment, and it is a must today for the Swedish labor market.

Madam Speaker! Minister for Employment Johan Pehrson expressed how proud he was of the proposals during Järvaveckan, and he has on repeated occasions promised that one will come back with concrete proposals and reforms. My urge to Johan Pehrson is therefore to prioritize the integration measures by promptly changing the regulations and allocating resources. Furthermore, the proposals contained in the committee report must be implemented. It has now been almost a year since the proposals were presented.

Madam Speaker! We also see a growing residential segregation that reinforces exclusion, unequal living conditions, and increased crime. This development makes housing segregation an urgent issue that requires rapid and effective measures. Therefore, it is remarkable that the government and the Sweden Democrats have not presented any concrete reforms, and the list of reforms is also empty here.

Madam Speaker! We must invest in our everyday heroes: our teachers, field assistants, and sports clubs, who play a central role in the work against segregation. They are crucial for inspiring and strengthening our young people. They provide hope and future prospects to those who would otherwise be left out. We must give these everyday heroes the resources and the support they need to be able to continue their valuable work.

Mr. Speaker, it is worrying that even though the current government and the Sweden Democrats do not want us to talk about taxes and tax cuts for high-income earners, they affect the welfare. Today, the welfare is underfunded. Despite the general and targeted state grants to the welfare for 2024, these are not sufficient to compensate for the ongoing cost crisis. This highlights the need to strengthen resources for schools, field assistants and sports associations, as well as to improve the active labor market policy and manage housing segregation.

Madam Speaker! Segregation today is not just an economic issue, but segregation affects people, their chances in life and their future. We must give people hope and give opportunities to those who have grown up in poverty, who stand outside the labor market and who are shut out from housing and education. We must fight against discrimination and racism in all its forms in society and on the labor market. We cannot accept solutions that solely focus on lowered taxes or cooperation with parties that contribute to further polarization, including troll factories that manipulate the democratic conversation and play those who want to divide us into their hands.

It is time for the government to have a serious discussion on how to combat segregation. We must build a society where suburbs are once again places of opportunity, where every individual feels a sense of belonging, and where we together create a sustainable society for everyone.

We Social Democrats naturally stand behind our separate statement and all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for the approval of reservation 2 and reservation 13.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for an engaged and well-delivered speech.

When I listen to the Social Democrats and other more left-oriented parties, segregation often concerns economic gaps or housing issues.

Let us look a little at how we in Sweden have worked. In the 70s, we introduced preschool. We have moved school attendance forward with preschool class, which means that one begins school attendance at that point. We have built up youth centers, and we have done that in all parties. We have pursued a housing policy that I myself have had many views on, but the purpose has nevertheless been that the apartments should be cheap.

Many of us who have been local politicians have done exactly what has been proposed from the rostrum, namely to give extra money to vulnerable areas. I have been a school politician in Uddevalla, and Uddevalla was one of the first municipalities in Sweden to do so. In northern Uddevalla, one receives approximately 20 percent more resources than what is received in Ljungskile.

I was a municipal politician for 13-14 years. I sat in the majority for eight years, and I sat in opposition for eight years. I handed over the chairmanship of the Children and Education Committee to a Social Democrat, Cecilia Sandberg - a fantastically skilled person. She and I noted at one point that during the years we sat together in the committee, approximately 13-14 years, we increased the appropriations every year except 2009. Regardless of government, we added resources. Here in the chamber, we sometimes stand and argue over one krona or another, but it is approximately a 0.5 percent difference in the budgets in different appropriations. The interesting thing is that we saw no change for the better in Uddevalla - despite all the investments. Do the Social Democrats have any other proposal, any other thought, than just money? Money does not seem to be the solution.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for Magnus Jacobsson's analysis and question.

It becomes a somewhat strange discussion if we cannot talk about economic policy, the budget, or taxes and the consequences that the pursued economic policy can have for, among other things, municipalities. It is about the efforts and measures that municipalities need to implement to combat segregation and ensure that there is a functioning preschool, more employees in the preschool, more teachers, and that people have access to leisure clubs. These are some examples of what the municipalities engage in, and it requires that the municipalities have economic resources. If they have no economic resources, it becomes difficult.

It is difficult to base it on the individual example, that in one municipality resources have been increased but it has not led to results. Then one has to ask what priorities have been made. Why have you not succeeded?

I have also been a local politician. One usually sets frameworks and goals for what one wants to achieve, and then there is a bag of money. In this case, one asks which goals exist and how the flow of money has kept pace.

In my world as a social democrat, it is incredibly important that if an equal society is to be created, there must be economic resources distributed according to need. Everything else would be strange, if we are not to talk about economic policy, tax policy and budget.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have no problem talking about money during an integration discussion as well. It is obvious that money enables what one can do and wishes to do.

The problem is that sometimes in this chamber it sounds as if there is a big difference between the budgets. But if you look at the budgets, you see that it can differ by half to one percent. Then we are only talking about the state budget. Out in the municipalities and regions, they have their own budgets and their own tax bases. So that is not where the difference lies. Half a percent more or less will not solve the segregation, rather it is a pseudo-discussion.

It is completely correct that Uddevalla is a local example. The difficult thing is that research within the school field shows that money has no decisive effect on what happens in a school. What has an effect is whether there is a good principal. There are several exciting studies that show that a change of principal in a disadvantaged area has created change. I will myself take up such an example in my speech.

So, it is about how we work with values, the social community, the attitude towards civil society, how other adults become involved, and how we get the stay-at-home parents to not stay at home. It is not just a budget issue, and that was my fundamental criticism. I respect your commitment, but I think you are making an analysis that is too basic and too simple.

I will take one final example. I believe most of us defend leisure centers. I asked a question to RUT about whether leisure centers have any connection to being able to achieve a better situation in neighborhoods.

Research shows on the contrary that youth centers become a gathering place for crime in some places. Then we must have the strength to talk about that too if we want to succeed with integration.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Jacobsson, for your commitment to these issues! These are important issues and an important debate.

But let me state that we do not quite agree with that analysis. The member speaks of how 0.5 percentage points do not have such great significance in the big picture of the local budget. Let me point out that it is incorrect.

In the case of the municipalities, 0.5 percentage points means 20, 30, 40 million. That is a lot of money, not least in the small municipalities where every single krona is important in order to ensure that the preschool, the school and so on receive the resources they need. Money is absolutely important for the municipalities, not least for the small municipalities.

We are discussing the labor market policy a bit today. During the years of high economic growth, we had 13 billion set aside for active labor market policy. Today, that budget stands at just over 7 billion. It is a halving at the same time as we are in an economic crisis. We have a recession. We have increased unemployment. The costs are rising, and the economic crisis is now hitting very many industries. In that case, it becomes very difficult to say that the budget, the money set aside to combat unemployment, would have no significance.

We can always have a philosophical discussion about the budget and the economic policy. We can lean on different research reports and different schools of research. But for me as a social democrat, it is a firm conviction that if we are to achieve an equal society, the resources need to be distributed according to each individual's needs.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker and honorable members, colleagues and listeners! It is not the first time I stand up in the integration debate, and there is a risk of repetition. But on Walpurgis Night this year, I, just turned 36 and born in Sweden, experienced Swedish culture for the first time.

Where I grew up, in Hässelby and Rinkeby with different cultures, we rarely came into contact with Swedish culture. In preschool, we were to speak Swedish. In school, we learned Swedish and spoke in Swedish. But what was the Sweden outside of Hässelby, what people from the outside called Arabdalen? That was what my area was called, but there were not that many Arabs living there. It was people from the Balkans, the Middle East, and other parts of the world.

We came into contact with that Sweden when we took the bus from the million program area to Vällingby and when we took the subway into the city. People there looked different. They spoke much better Swedish. They had other interests. That was the Sweden that the younger Arin would grow up in.

I had a discussion with a colleague from the Sweden Democrats, Mattias Karlsson. We got to know each other along with Serkan Köse when we were part of the IPU delegation, where I sat as chairman and Serkan as vice chairman. Back then, one had heated discussions late at night, and it is not the case that I, as a moderate, am always in agreement with a Sweden Democrat. One starts to end up where one does not agree. Then I said: For God's sake! I have never been asked to celebrate Midsummer or Walpurgis or Swedish Christmas Eve.

I am Christian, but I celebrate in the Armenian way. I am not used to watching Donald Duck, so when people talk about Donald Duck, I do not recognize myself. I celebrate Christmas on the night between the 5th and the 6th of January. My grandmother was Catholic and celebrated Christmas on the 25th of December. Of course, we had a gathering at home on the 24th of December, but it was something that mom just sort of arranged so that one didn't feel lonely or a bit left out. When one went back to school, one could say in conversation with classmates that yes, we also had something at home. One did not feel left out.

It is what integration and segregation are about. Do I feel included or excluded?

The same thing happened when I joined the Moderate Youth League. There, they didn't listen to the same music as I did where I came from. There is nothing wrong with that.

One might hear: But Carola, it's Carola. I can promise you that if we were to have a big party here and play Carola, 90 percent of all colleagues would dance. But I didn't know who Carola was. My mother didn't know who Carola was. Would I have felt any community then, when people were having fun and everyone was on the dance floor and jumping? No, I might have felt something inside: What is this? Why are they so strange? They can say that sometimes in the suburbs: The Swedes, they are a bit strange. But if I come into contact with that culture and understand what significance Carola or ABBA or other Swedish music artists have had for this country, then maybe I wouldn't think they are strange. Then maybe I would think it's bad taste in music; I don't like that type of dancing. But I can still socialize with the people.

It is the same thing in the Swedish school system. Are the same requirements set in our suburbs as they are in the city center?

We already know in advance that the suburban parents often cannot speak the language or can speak the language but not fully. It is usually the inner-city parents who set very high demands and email the teachers during nights and weekends, while the suburban mother and suburban father might think: Yes, but I trust that teacher. I put my hope in that.

Then, after 5-10 years, they see that it didn't go so well. They lose control over their child because the child is no longer 6-7 years old and listens to the parents, but is 16-17 years old and perhaps ends up in the clutches of criminal gangs. It does not necessarily have to be criminal gangs. It could be mental illness. It could be that the child has fallen behind in school, has low self-confidence and does not have the network of contacts.

One might not have spoken with a friend who says: When you turn 18, on the same day you turn 18 or actually the month you turn 18, you should register in the housing agency's queue. Do not do it three months later. If you do it three days after your birthday, it is already too late, because then you will not get onto the housing market.

One might not have parents who have money for a down payment. Consequently, one does not get a first-hand contract, but instead ends up in the second-hand contract mess. One might have to stay at home because one does not have money to pay the high rents.

Mr. Speaker! What I am talking about, that is how reality looks. Here in politics, we commission inquiries. We lower taxes. But what we must do and what we are doing now is what Sweden has not done for far too long, because we are afraid of conflict. We mostly want to talk about something else than what we actually should be talking about: language requirements. There should be language requirements for parents as soon as they come to Sweden. There should be passing results in order to be able to obtain a residence permit.

People talk about the "us-and-them" society. But "us" is us in Sweden, and "them" are those who are on their way to Sweden. If "them" are to become a part of "us," we must re-evaluate what we want those who are coming in to us to know about us and what expectations and demands exist. But at the same time, if they fulfill it, we have a hand that welcomes them. One gives, and then one takes.

It is about getting the school in order. There should be mandatory language preschool for children and for those in areas where the Swedish language is substandard, because we know that if one has the right schooling and a good schooling, one will also succeed.

When we talk about equality and Swedish values, we must realize that people come here from other parts of the world where this is not self-evident. Then we cannot just have educational initiatives. We shall have them, but there must also be consequences.

There must be consequences. If you hit your child or prevent your child from marrying the person your child wants and you are prepared to use violence against that person, you should, at best, be locked up. Then you shall be deported.

Somewhere we have to draw the line. Sweden is not a large hotel. One cannot just come here and believe that one can live exactly how one wants. Equality is a given. Men may love men, and women may love women. One chooses one's partner; no one else chooses for you. One shall have the same opportunities, the same obligations, and the same conditions. What the outcome looks like, we cannot control.

Mr. Speaker! I see that some colleagues have requested the floor. I will then explain the government's policy from the reply stand. I move that all motions be rejected.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! There are many different things that constitute Swedish culture. I myself took the ferry to Finland for the first time this weekend - that is also a form of Swedish culture that was a new experience for me.

A few weeks ago, many of us across the country celebrated Walpurgis Day and welcomed spring in different ways. I saw on social media and also heard here in the rostrum that Arin Karapet was given the opportunity to speak in Småland. I myself was invited by Björketorp's village association and local heritage society and spoke precisely about the home region of Björketorp, my home region.

I agree that the Swedish culture that exists in the countryside is fantastic and needs to be experienced by more people, not least people with a foreign background. I share the member's view that this would be good for integration and social cohesion.

In my speech, I pointed out that my home region is flourishing, and it is not thanks to the state, the region or the municipality. It is thanks to voluntary forces and civil society.

Over the years, a great deal has been done by civil society and the association life in the countryside to promote integration, by among others Landsbygdsnätverket, Hushållningssällskapet, Bygdegårdarnas riksförbund, our study associations such as SV and ABF, as well as Folkets Hus och Parker. Some of these organizations are absolutely crucial for the countryside. Civil society is crucial for integration, not least in the countryside.

My question is therefore very simple. Will the Moderates in the government cooperation push for increased investments in civil society and association life in rural areas for better integration?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am well aware that Member Jonny Cato is not a Stockholmer and naturally comes into contact with the countryside. He is indeed from Helsingborg, which is a large city, but has much closer ties to the countryside than I do.

We as politicians, regardless of which of us is best and becomes most popular, shall of course always ensure that civil society receives support from the public sector. But the fine thing about civil society – we can take the example from when I was in Småland – is that someone is boiling caramels, someone is making potato pancakes and someone has made juice. People put in heart and soul; it is part of the real people's movement. One takes the time and puts in the most precious thing, one's commitment.

I believe that most of us here in the chamber have been members of a youth organization. Much of what we did could have been done without money, except perhaps for the congresses and the travels. But it is about the hours one put in and about the sense of community.

What I wanted to convey in my speech was that people come here from different parts of the world, and it is completely natural that they will retain their culture, their values, and their language. We are not robots. You cannot just press "Ctrl Alt Delete" and install a new operating system. But it is also about showing from day one that this is us; this is how we live. Understand us, let us socialize and let us understand you! Then it is a shared journey. But we must be clear, because at the end of the day, this is Sweden. It is not Sweden that is to change by one hundred percent, but it is the one who comes here who shall adapt to how we live in Sweden.

I cannot answer your question about more money - that is for the Minister for Finance to do.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! We hardly need to have any more debates, because there is no one from the government parties who can answer anything. It is either another party or another person who has the responsibility. Honestly - Arin Karapet is responsible for the Moderates' integration policy. The Moderates have no one in the government who works with integration policy. Then Arin Karapet must be able to answer those questions.

Not everything is about money. But when you see how an association in the countryside twists and turns every single krona, you realize that that small support that the associations receive is absolutely crucial. Two of the organizations that have done the absolute most for integration in the Swedish countryside are Studieförbundet Vuxenskolan and ABF. The government has slaughtered the grants to them. This means that integration in the countryside will become worse.

I am the first to know that it is the great voluntary commitment that makes a community center function – it is not money. It is what makes the local heritage association function – it is not money. But if you are to be able to make the larger investments, which I believe the member would think would be good, for the countryside and not least for integration, the state also needs to dare to invest. Now they are cutting back. It will have consequences somewhere. I have seen what priorities the study associations must make, and it affects integration in the countryside, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore, I ask again: Does the government's largest party, Moderaterna, want us to invest more in civil society, which is absolutely crucial for a functioning integration throughout Sweden and not least in the countryside?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is very interesting to hear the member who I actually believe is the most neoliberal here in this chamber, who wants to lower taxes as much as possible and in his dream world basically wants to remove everything related to subsidies, now ask a question to a Moderate about the money for civil society organizations. We have had genuine problems with fraud in civil society organizations. It is about cleaning up and streamlining. We are heading towards a new world; things are changing.

I do not want to speak down about ABF or Medborgarskolan - they do many good things. There are also other organizations that I did not mention. But we have had many cases with study circles and the like. I have a friend myself who has attended ABF's interpreter training; it has gone very well for him, no problems. It is a good activity. Think that a Moderate can say that ABF has a good interpreter training! But I understand that many also have it difficult.

Member of the Board Jonny Cato also knows that we work for years, and it goes slowly. But more money does not always mean that you get a better outcome. It is as our colleague Magnus Jacobsson said here: More money has been invested in the school, but the outcome has, for every year that has passed, either remained the same or become worse.

Real integration is, I would say, mandatory language preschool, language requirements for parents, follow-up and evaluation of the Swedish language, and setting requirements in the classrooms. We should not have cases where teachers need to step in when there has been a fight, as in the case with Stefan Holm, and the principal just backs down and says "You may leave your job." It is the disorder that disturbs in the classroom. This would solve integration for real.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, we have seen a strongly downward trend regarding asylum applications in Sweden. Record few are seeking to come here, and the Swedish Migration Agency is once again lowering the forecast for the coming years. The asylum system has become more repressive, and the Moderaterna have gotten exactly what they wanted. The Moderaterna and the government justify this policy, of no longer giving people protection in Sweden, by saying that we must solve the integration problems first or take care of what they call our own.

Promises were made for improvements in schools, healthcare, and the rest of the welfare system. As usual, people who come here are pitted against the rest of society, but it turns out very clearly that the government is worsening the situation, both for those who have come here to Sweden and for society as a whole.

In terms of welfare, labor market policy, household finances, or the housing situation, this government is worsening integration. They have retreated and are implementing system-threatening cuts in our common welfare.

I heard the member speak warmly about the school. But the government is also driving powerful cuts to schools all over the country now.

Was it not the case that we were to be flooded with welfare and jobs if fewer people come here? Now the member's party has choked several parts of the asylum system. A record low number are seeking to come to Sweden. Where is the better welfare and the upgraded healthcare? Where are the jobs, the initiatives and the investments - what is it that is happening?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! What has happened in Sweden over the last 34-35 years should be a textbook example for MP Haddou that the generous immigration has not led to better welfare. It has not led to better school.

The only thing one hears from the left side is that they want more resources. I have full respect for this given that we have ideological differences. On the left side, they are for higher taxes and argue that it is the state, the public sector, that should manage everything. I do not intend to stand here and call the member a communist or say that the Soviet Union was a good example, but they have the idea that the state and the public sector should manage everything.

But there are others like us who say: Let us finance this jointly! But it is not just about crowns and öre. One does not learn more Swedish just because we pump money into the school.

Do we have the right trained teachers? Do they have the right legal support if there is disorder in the classroom? Do they have the right backing from the principal? Do they have the right curriculum? Is it just mandatory attendance, or should one have passing results to move forward? I never hear anyone from Vänsterpartiet talk about any of this. It is only more money they want: More money, and everything will solve itself, as long as we hope a little! But that is not how it works in reality.

Yes, we must reduce the number of asylum seekers. I am proud that this government has proven that one can, in a short time, take responsibility for the mass immigration that we have had in Sweden for 30 years. Most of the problems we have today are unfortunately in one way or another linked to the large immigration. If one is to truly solve the integration problems, perhaps one should start by recognizing the real problem first.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The fact is that many studies show that Sweden has, during certain periods, had the world's best integration policy. Then came insanely bad proposals that destroyed it. But I also think that the government's policy shows that it is actually how we invest in society and the people in it that determines how well we succeed. It is not about how many who come here or how much Sweden can handle, but it is about how active one wants to be.

This government is the clearest example of this. It has not only shown itself to be very passive, but it is a total failure, which does not act, invest or do anything. Then you use platitudes like: It is better to look at content, so we can avoid adding money. It is totally irresponsible!

When politics retreats as much as this government has, it only results in deterioration. That is what people face. The household crisis is constantly worsening. Welfare is mismanaged every day, and labor market policy is absent. It does not even exist with this government.

The government itself notes in its economic spring proposal that it may take several years before the average real wage is back at 2021 levels. Which members of the Riksdag do you think are affected by this? Yes, those who are in the worst position. Does the government act to do something? It lowers the tax for those who are in the best position. It is a textbook example of how to increase the gaps as effectively as possible. It is under this government.

Nothing indicates that this government wants to build Sweden stronger, safer, or better. During the years you have sat in power, you have only pointed at immigration and said that it is the problem. You have pursued a culture and values policy to gloss over your own responsibility and evade accountability. It is irresponsible!

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall try to answer these emotional arguments. Let me take an example from our real Sweden.

When I was in Älmhult and sat with the elderly who came from the Swedish countryside, I felt very ashamed as a Stockholmer. I realized that the whole country does not look like the Sweden I grew up in and live in. Älmhult Municipality was forced – my party was also part of that policy – to accept immigrants. This also has consequences for the Swedish social services with its laws. The elderly home was forced to close because ten children were taken into care according to LVU due to honor-related violence and oppression. It became relevant with Sis-placement or foster home placement.

The elderly care home has been forced to move seven miles. It is people who have lived there their entire lives and paid taxes who have had to pay the price.

Then Member of Parliament Tony Haddou stands here and says that immigration has almost not affected anyone at all in this country. Go to the elderly care home and talk to the elderly, who have had to travel longer distances to see their loved ones. In their autumn years, they are not given a dignified old age. Tell the relatives: It is only seven miles one way! They have difficulty putting together the puzzle of life with the high fuel costs, which Vänsterpartiet also helped to increase, even though we have now, thank goodness, lowered them again. Ask them if they are open to more immigration. Ask them if they feel confidence in a policy that opens the borders.

No, those who have been involved in building Sweden should not pay the price!

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Arin, for an engaging speech! Since Arin Karapet addressed me, I felt prompted to come forward and ask a couple of questions.

I can often share the feeling described here. One grows up in a suburb, a socioeconomically disadvantaged area, and does not always feel like a part of the majority society. Both Arin and I have grown up in suburbs outside Stockholm. I grew up in the suburb Fittja and went to Fittjaskolan. There, I got to meet many Swedish friends and socialize with them.

Since then, the population composition in some areas has changed very much. We spoke earlier about segregation in society, where people are split and do not really meet.

I took part in a very interesting survey, Integrationspulsen, where 966 people who came to Sweden between 1980 and 2024 were investigated. I do not know if Arin has seen it. It is the first survey of its kind in Sweden. There, 59 percent of those who responded indicate that they feel like a part of society. The integration experience varies and is influenced by factors such as which country one comes from, gender identity, parenthood, gainful employment, social relations, and experiences of discrimination. It is interesting that it is noted that there is a positive correlation between regularly socializing with ethnic Swedes and feeling like a part of society.

In this context, perhaps one should problematize the discussion on how we are to succeed with this if we do not ensure that we have a better integration policy and have more resources so that people can succeed and be able to travel to Värmland or Skåne and celebrate Midsummer.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is with pleasure that I address Member Serkan Köse.

Many voters do not come into contact with us politicians when we sit in joint delegations or committees. One travels with each other. One gets to know each other. One learns more about family life and interests. I have had many nights and mornings - very funny mornings - with Serkan. I am the one who is sleepy in the morning. The one who is morning-active is member Köse.

It is very natural that we enter into these discussions. That is why we both stand here. We have become politically engaged. We have each made a journey. I must say that we are most often in agreement at the individual level regarding the problems and the solutions. Then we have our parties, large machineries. Do they listen to us? Or do we get a majority? That does not always happen. So that is what most people in here in the chamber think when it comes to the issues they are engaged in.

But as a response to Member Köse's description of the problem, I would say this: We have had such large-scale immigration that we will not be able to solve this in a heartbeat. I believe it will take 20-30 years. It hurts to say it, but one must simply be sincere.

When we grew up in the suburbs, there were some Swedes there. Today, there are hardly any that one comes into contact with. What I think is most important now, when we have areas where practically every single person has a foreign background, is that they learn the language, that there is order at least in the classrooms, and that the parents know that their children will not end up in the clutches of criminal gangs or end up in religious groupings and be radicalized. It is about them reaching an age where they can make their class journey through hard work or entrepreneurship. It is about us at least making that journey for the next 20 years. That is the answer to the question.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Arin Karapet, for your answer! This survey is very interesting in many different ways. I wish for the members of the Committee on Employment to look at it. It shows what has happened in Sweden from the 80s, when I, for example, grew up in a suburb, to today. Very much has happened in Sweden.

In the 80s, the question was asked: Do you socialize with people of Swedish background? Then 74 percent answered yes. Have you experienced any form of discrimination? To that question, 52 percent answered yes - already in the 80s.

In the 90s, it was 75 percent who socialized with ethnic Swedes. 61 percent experienced discrimination.

In the 2000s, the figures went down. It was 52 percent who had contact with ethnic Swedes. 68 percent experienced discrimination. It began to increase.

In the 2010s, it was 42 percent who socialized with Swedes. 52 percent experienced discrimination.

Why do I bring up these figures, Mr. Speaker? What happens if we do not talk about the discrimination that exists and if we do not talk about the fact that people are not meeting?

In the 2020s, 39 percent responded that they had contact with ethnic Swedes.

This is a rather large and deep problem. Therefore, I believe – I know that Arin Karapet also feels passionately about these issues – that in the government parties, one must have a larger discussion and take a greater responsibility when it comes to how we are to combat segregation, which is challenging, and discrimination, because they are connected.

If cultures and people are to meet, we may perhaps need to make an effort from both sides.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall be honest. I have not read the report, but I would very much like to read it in the near future if I can just get the link or if I can print it out.

There is racism, and there is discrimination. But it goes both ways. I have many times sat in a group where there is no ethnic Swede. Then one can hear many things:

Swedes only open up when they drink. Swedes can change partners very quickly. They do not have the same values. One can be 15 years old and sleep over at each other's places, be boyfriend and girlfriend.

Yes, such things are said. Then one can sit and be surprised: My God, can people think such things?

This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about it if it is someone Swedish who has said it to someone with a different background or if it is discrimination and racism between immigrant groups. It is incredible. I have Armenian heritage. Serkan has Kurdish heritage. They are two oppressed peoples. What have they had to endure? Even today, one sometimes has to, like, bite one's tongue when one is going to say where one actually comes from.

It is like about the attitudes. We also live in a culture today where everyone can feel offended by anything. I had a very good boss who said: Arin! Life is about being offended. Move on and show that you were right! And fight hard!

It is something I take with me.

Yes, racism and discrimination must be combated, but we must also dare to talk about what is right and wrong and say no to all types of discrimination and racism, regardless of from which side it comes.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I share the member's upbringing. Like the member, I grew up in a million program. I also agree with Arin Karapets' description. I believe we are approximately the same age. Growing up in a million program means exclusion and segregation. It means that one does not come into contact with the rest of society and that one therefore does not share reference frames and experiences.

That is why I want to ask the member, who has this upbringing and experience of the housing programs (miljonprogrammet), what he thinks about the government's policy regarding the removal of funds when it comes to segregation. You have dismantled the expert agency Delmos, which worked with segregation. You also have a rhetoric where you speak very disparagingly about people who live in the housing programs. You are introducing visitation zones and a reporting obligation.

I wonder if the member considers that the policy and the rhetoric that the SD government, together with the member's party, has contributed to more young people – more young boys and girls – from the suburbs being able to participate on Midsummer Eve and feeling included in society. Does your policy and your rhetoric contribute to more inclusion?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to answer Member Leila Ali Elmi's question as follows: It is not more agencies that will solve the problem in reality. Sure, we need to research. We need agencies. We need to acquire more knowledge. That is not where the shoe pinches. The shoe pinches when one hears the rhetoric.

I actually have to give the Liberals the right. When the Liberals spoke out, during Lars Leijonborg's time, and said that we must have language requirements, people shouted "racism" everywhere. They still do that today. Unfortunately, the Liberals backed down. They did not get support from the bourgeois parties then. But now we are introducing language requirements. I have to give the Liberals the right. When Mauricio Rojas said that we have problems with integration, it was all racism. We are not to talk about the problem. What happened?

It was the immigrants' children who fell behind in school. It was the immigrants' children who had to learn poorer Swedish. It was the immigrants' children who got poorer academic results in school. It was the immigrants' children who did not get into university programs. It is the immigrants' children and the immigrants who are in the majority when it comes to long-term unemployment and exclusion.

Was it good? Was it the rhetoric?

I see myself in the mirror every day and know that I look different than the majority society. But it is about getting away from the bickering we have in Sweden that everything is racism. And those who most often scream "racism" are those who are doing well, because they want to feel good. They have everything fixed. They have everything in order, while it is our children who take the hit.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the member regarding the fact that the Swedish language is the key to society. My question concerned the government's policy, regarding visitation zones and the reporting obligation. In your rhetoric, you pit groups against each other – the member did that in the exchange with Serkan Köse – and in the policy, you remove preventive measures. You do not invest in welfare. You shut down an expert agency against segregation and remove the money for measures against segregation. Does it lead to more people being included? Does it lead to less racism? Does it lead to more integration?

We agree, Arin Karapet, that the Swedish language is important for people to enter society. There is no conflict on that issue. But does your rhetoric and policy lead to more young people from the suburbs actually being included in society?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are surveys that show that those who live in our suburbs, where the majority are immigrants, are more in favor of visitation zones than ethnic Swedes who live in the city center and feel worried and have a lump in their stomachs over the fact that there will be racial profiling or the like.

It is in the suburbs that the gang shootings occur. It is there that the youth are forced into drug dealing. It is there that children either become murderers or become tomorrow's torpedoes. It is there that mothers and fathers have their sons shot dead outside their front door or their property blown up.

It is they who deserve the visitation zones. It is time for the adult world to start being adult and for children to be children. Children should not raise children, and children should not dictate to the adult world how the world should be.

Children come into being because two adults have decided to reproduce. That also entails a responsibility. In Sweden, it is somehow like this that we are to talk about things that are up here, even though we know what the core problem is.

We need a duty of information. Yes must be yes, and no must be no. We politicians have a responsibility for who is allowed and not allowed to cross the border, who is allowed to be here and who is not allowed to be here.

If I, with a foreign background, have received a yes and it feels good in my stomach, I should know that when I go and work and pay tax, there is no one else who is getting a free ride. We shall not have benefits for undocumented people. Undocumented people shall not be in Sweden, because one has not been granted the right to be in Sweden. We are a rule of law state. Somewhere there must be an order.

I do not want more immigrant parents to see their children become criminals or be shot dead. We need visitation zones. We should have had them much earlier. Now we are implementing them.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! You are 13 years old. The year is 2024, and you live in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area in Sweden.

The area where you live has a bad reputation. The media image of your area is negative.

The school you attend has a bad reputation and is threatened with closure. Your teachers have low expectations of you because of your background and the area you live in.

You are told that your name can become an obstacle for you in the future.

All the adults around you work in low-status or service jobs at best.

Your parents' situation is debated as a problem.

Your culture and religion are debated as a problem.

You were born in Sweden but are called an immigrant. You are told that you do not belong here.

You are told that the social problems being debated are your fault.

You see the difference between your area and others. You see few or none whom you can identify with in the corridors of power or in the media world.

Here are some questions for you as a 13-year-old: What dreams do you have for the future? What opportunities do you see ahead of you? Do you feel that there is a place for you in society? Do you feel that you belong in the public sphere?

I now turn to the government parties; I see that a member is about to leave the chamber. You should ask yourselves what is happening within this 13-year-old [government] with the policy you pursue and the agenda you set. What responsibility do you take here?

Mr. Speaker! Today we have a government in Sweden that does nothing but reinforce the feeling of hopelessness and powerlessness, not least among children and young people. I understand by this point that it doesn't even provoke any kind of reflection, but to leave people behind, ignore their living conditions and extinguish their hope runs like a red thread of contempt from this government.

We are debating integration here today - with a government that consistently has a very strong policy to increase what we call segregation and make integration less possible. It creates an incredibly pressured situation for people, but the government totally ignores people's real problems. It hits hardest against the households that already have small or no economic resources. It concerns single parents and families with children whose incomes are now additionally eroded by inflation. It is they who have to pay for the government's total passivity.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has been dismantled for a long time, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that parts of the strong Sweden have broken down and become fragile. Political reforms laid the foundation for, for example, one of the world's best schools regardless of your background, where you live or where you come from. That is no longer the case. It is a failure, not only for the individual child but also for society as a whole.

This is not something that just happened by chance. It is political decisions that have pushed aside the construction of justice. Deteriorations drive people apart and cause mistrust and racism to take root. It divides and splits. When the right and the Sweden Democrats marry their ideas and express who belongs and who should be out, the words do not stay in the corridors of power. It has consequences.

What is happening out there is that people are terribly tired of inequality, cuts and right-wing politics, of passivity and constant deterioration. We have a government that only gives us a welfare in crisis, increased inequality, insecure employment, high prices and a racist scapegoat policy. One builds their government base on a party that actively and systematically spreads disinformation.

Vänsterpartiet will never accept a policy that splits and divides society into different groups with different rights. The key to success for Sweden has never been mistrust, cuts, lower wages or worse conditions. Our strength has been to invest in society and in each other - in school and education, housing, health and equality.

That is how Sweden develops and grows. That is what our entire modern history has shown.

Previous generations received better education and better jobs while our numbers increased. This was possible thanks to long-term profitable investments and an active labor market policy. It is a lesson that Sweden must internalize even today. But it is impossible with this government, which takes the workers' work for granted and ignores developing, improving, investing, and redistributing.

The absence of all this means that people are left behind. A 13-year-old no longer dares to dream and is deprived of hope and faith in the future. It is a monumental failure. We simply need to build a stronger, safer, and better Sweden by investing in society and the people in it. This is the most important and effective engine for integration, and it can be done.

It is also possible to avoid upcoming cuts in welfare if one simply chooses to prioritize it. We have historically proven that it is entirely possible to invest in general welfare and reduce economic inequalities. I am convinced that people succeed better with better conditions. It is how we invest in society and the people in it that determines how well we succeed.

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

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are talking about integration. In my opinion, this is one of our greatest challenges. However, when we talk about integration, I think we most often get stuck on issues concerning education, jobs, and housing.

Even in this debate, we have perhaps gotten quite stuck on taxes and money. All of that is important, but fundamentally we are in fairly good agreement. I believe that most of us consider adult education to be important and that the folk high schools, the study associations – even if we may have different views on how they should be managed right now – and the universities are important.

We also agree on the challenges of the future. There is unemployment, but there is also a labor shortage. Sweden also has a housing segregation. We can discuss how it should be handled - I belong to those who believe that more thought needs to be given to own homes - but it is still a fact that we agree that the housing issue is important.

Mr. Speaker! What I miss in the debate - and I have actually missed it for 30 years - are questions of values. When I, as a young Christian Democrat in the late 80s, started with politics, we Christian Democrats highlighted the concept of values and talked about Christian values. Not a single debate, article, or anything else passed without people laughing at us to some extent. What is interesting is what has grown in society since then. Today, there is probably not a single company that does not have some form of discussion about values. I also note that most parties today at least sometimes mention the word values.

However, we do not always talk about which values are at stake. What is it that builds a good society? How do you create a good and respectful integration? What was it that built Europe?

Strictly academically and historically, Mr. Speaker, it is the case that the democracy we consider important did not emerge in a vacuum. It did not emerge within the Indian clan system. It did not emerge in Confucianism, Shintoism, or parts of the African belief systems. It did not emerge among the Aztecs or the Inca people, or within Islam. It is not there that democracy has emerged.

Academically speaking, democracy has emerged over 2,000 years in a connection between Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. In Athens we have democracy and philosophy, in Rome we have law and order and in Jerusalem we have theology.

We see that this is being highlighted by more and more researchers. When we live in a more mobile world - in a world where we encounter more and more cultures and can fly somewhere else in a short time - it becomes important to ask ourselves how we build the safe and good society.

A professor I find exciting is Robert D Woodberry, who, among other things, has written the text The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy. In his research, he has tried to study what it is that makes it possible to build a democracy where people, regardless of origin, feel a sense of belonging. He points to the missionaries. What was unique about them then? Yes, it was the view that all people have equal value—that you should do to others what you want them to do to you—in combination with the commitment to building schools and educating everyone.

In Sweden's democratic development, we can see how the integration between city and country emerged in the late 1800s when the free church movement invested in education together with the state. We also see how the temperance movement worked with these issues and how the labor movement emerged with the heritage from the free church movement and the temperance movement.

There was a discussion on values here. When one talks about work ethic, it is about a perception that there is a morality, often expressed as "Do your duty, demand your right." That is connected to daring to talk about values.

When I raised this 30 years ago, no one agreed, but I am glad that more and more people today realize that integration will never be able to be just about crowns and öre. It will not just be about education, jobs, and housing, but it is also about what kind of Sweden we want to be part of and create.

Let me take some concrete examples where I see strengths and weaknesses with today's situation.

I will begin with the situation in the Balkans in 1998. Very many fled. There was war in Europe, which we had hoped we would never have to see again.

Then came Syria in 2015, 2016 and 2017. It was a terrible war. Russian forces bombed civilians, and people fled for their lives.

I finish with Ukraine in 2022. It was the same situation again.

The interesting thing about all these three situations is that society actually couldn't handle it. Many forget it, but as early as 1998-1999 we had discussions about this. I sat in the Riksdag myself then. We introduced, for example, visa requirements for people from the Balkans, even though it was a burning war. I say we, because I sat in the Riksdag then. It was a red government, but I do not think that later governments have always been better. It is a "we". It became tough, and then we set limits.

But what happened at the same time? Civil society stepped forward. I saw in 1998 how civil society - churches and others - engaged to help. We saw it in the Syrian situation and when it came to Ukraine. We also saw, however, that the state did it - for example, the Swedish Migration Agency did it in 1998.

My mother worked as a family supporter. It was a fantastic task. She met women, mostly from the Balkans, who had experienced things I don't think we understand. My mother and other family supporters had to work with supporting and explaining how Sweden works. It wasn't just about rules here and there, but also about being someone who listens. I don't know if Migrationsverket still has this today, but I know that it existed in 1998 and that it was a very good initiative.

In my own municipality and in many other municipalities, for example Gothenburg, Malmö and Stockholm, there have been interreligious councils. In Uddevalla we had such a council with priests, pastors and imams. I probably never understood how important it was when we created the council.

We unfortunately had a terrible situation in Uddevalla a few years ago. Three young people were murdered. In that case, it happened to be two Christian Lebanese who shot two Kurds and a girl from Orust, if I remember correctly. We were on our way to ending up in a situation where people entered family clan systems and would take revenge.

But what happened then in Uddevalla? The priest of the Church of Sweden, the imam from Dalaberg, and the municipal director stood at the crime scene. The municipal director went up and down to the town hall for coffee and buns. Some do not have respect for that, but I do. The priest and the imam spoke with people. The situation was calmed through a joint effort.

The perpetrators were convicted later, which I believe was very good. It created trust in the city.

We Christian Democrats were involved in starting Soheila Fors's tea house in Uddevalla precisely to try to work closely with civil society. There was only one small problem: When IS and the war broke out, the tea house was shattered. There were Swedish women, Kurdish women, and Arabic women there. But it stopped working with the advent of IS, because then another conflict entered which made the work difficult.

In a school in Uddevalla, I won't mention which one, we faced exactly the same dilemma when the IS situation emerged. A conflict in the Middle East had a direct effect in Sweden: Shia Muslim youths were bullied by Sunni Muslim youths. It was a situation we were not prepared for, because we did not know how the culture functioned. It ended with the then Social Democratic leadership and the opposition cooperating, changing the principal and bringing in a person who did what he called the rounds, meaning every day he went to the classrooms and met the students. The entire situation was calmed by skilled leadership, and I really want to highlight that principal and the work the staff did.

Integration is about people. I have a good friend, a Chechen and UN refugee who fled from the second Chechen war. We sat one day after Ramadan, on Eid, and ate when he tearfully said: I will never go back to Chechnya. I said: Why then? The war will surely end, and Russia will sooner or later change. It is not about that, Magnus, he answered. My children have married and had children in Sweden. My grandchildren are Swedish. I will never travel home again, because I want to be with my grandchildren.

The journey that is taking place regarding integration, we talk about too little. This also applies when integration is not working. I am out walking with my dog and meet young Palestinians who recognize me as a Christian Democrat and ask why I am against Palestinians and why I support Israel. One of the young girls says: I wish that Israel would be bombed with nuclear weapons. Don't you think that quite a few Palestinians will die then, I ask. It doesn't matter, as long as Israel disappears, she says. When I walked away, I reflected a lot on this conversation. Some of these young people were born in Sweden but still identified with a refugee status. Somewhere we have failed with integration when we get these types of reactions.

I have also listened to demonstrations at home and seen demonstrations in other contexts. When a young woman says to me "we are all Hamas" and no adult objects, and when one celebrates October 7 by firing rockets in northern Uddevalla, then, friends, we have failed with integration. We have failed to create a Sweden where we reflect on what are good values. One can disagree about a conflict and criticize a government, but it is something violently different when one fires rockets and celebrates an atrocity. Then we have failed with integration.

We also sometimes fail to talk about history and culture. Among historians and in the debate, there is an image that Europe is imperialistic. It is true that there has been a European imperialism. But we never talk about the Arabic imperialism that is ongoing here and now. We do not talk about how the 20th century was a period of great population displacement and ethnic cleansing. After 1948, 800,000 Jews were forced to leave the Middle East. No one talks about these refugees. But we also do not talk particularly much about the Palestinian refugees. Some do, but we do not do so generally speaking. The 20th century has actually meant that people from both sides have moved.

Even less do we talk about Christian refugees. Sometimes we bring up Seyfo, but we do not talk about the fact that ethnic cleansing is occurring here and now in Africa. The Christian persecution is having an impact.

When I speak with some Christians, they say: Magnus, you politicians do not understand; Islam is dangerous. When I speak with some of my Muslim friends, they say: You do not understand; we feel excluded.

We have thus moved these conflicts here because we ourselves have not managed to talk about these problems.

Mr. Speaker! I am going in for landing. We are good at talking about education, jobs, and housing. We can even be good at arguing about taxes. But we are not good at trying to understand how people who, for various reasons, have been violated and come to Sweden as refugees feel, suffer, and experience their situation. We have given them a lot, but we do not always give them the chance. They have been allowed to come here, but they have not been given the chance to go home.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Despite the member's long speech, we were told nothing about the Christian Democrats' integration policy in this government. But the member shall be given the opportunity to answer a question.

I meet very many women who are frustrated. They often describe how difficult it is to enter the labor market. They have come to Sweden and are trying to establish themselves, but their stories testify to how difficult it is. When the women describe to me how important it is to learn the language, start working, and enter Swedish society, I can do nothing but be happy and agree that yes, that is so.

On March 8, on International Women's Day, the organization Hand in Hand organized a meeting in Skärholmen. Representatives from several parties were represented. We then heard women from different backgrounds describe how difficult it is to integrate and that the door is closed despite the fact that they have good educations and have learned the Swedish language in a short time.

My question is simple: Can the Christian Democrats give any example of a concrete measure aimed at these foreign-born women so that they can enter the Swedish labor market?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! No, I will not respond with a single concrete measure. I do not believe that it will solve anything. What we are doing is working with labor market measures, adult education, and civil society, and I believe that it will suffice to some extent. But since we are heading into a recession, it is tough, and unfortunately, it is always tougher for those who are a bit far from the labor market than for those who are close to the labor market. We both know that.

Then there are other things that are important. The government is doing what it should, but the municipalities are also looking at exciting things. In Norrköping, they reviewed their organization in order to be able to work with labor market issues, social assistance, and education in the same committee in a better way. I know that my home municipality is looking at such a solution and that Örebro is working with this model.

I believe that we will have to cooperate, and that was the main point of my speech. I do not believe in a single solution or a percentage.

I believe it is about values. We must agree that certain values apply in Sweden. I could take more examples from home. I know that polygamy occurs in Uddevalla, because I have sat in such discussions and said that it is not okay in Sweden. I have sat in discussions about gender-segregated sports lessons and said no to that.

Besides values, it is about the practical, and I am very satisfied with what the government is doing.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! The government is doing practically nothing, and the Christian Democrats are very pleased with that. It is almost shameful to claim otherwise.

I asked a concrete question about a targeted measure for women who are outside the labor market and who want nothing other than to work, who do everything in their power, who are incredibly creative and driven, and who ask us in politics: Do you not need us? What is the Christian Democrats' answer to that?

I think it is important that the Christian Democrats and other government parties actually take responsibility for what is happening, that one is part of the government and represents the government. But that is not what is happening in this chamber right now. What is happening right now, Mr. Speaker, is that the Christian Democrats are talking about a lot of other things. I don't really know how they are supposed to be related at all.

What it is about is practical politics with measures that make a real difference for those we need to make a difference for. You are welcome to come up with more concrete measures aimed at this target group who are far from the labor market, but I still thought I would try to say that one measure can still suffice for today. Which measure is aimed at foreign-born women so that they will enter and establish themselves in the Swedish labor market and become independent and self-sufficient in this country?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I turn to this type of superiority. What is happening in Sweden, if one looks at the budget, is that we are spending billions on the labor market and education. We do the same in the municipalities.

When it comes to individual measures aimed at the group the member is talking about, namely women who want to enter the labor market, I want to say that one of the absolutely biggest measures that we all do is preschool – that one has the possibility to leave one's children while searching for a job, working, or studying.

This is the difference between us and the Social Democrats. I do not believe in having just a single individual measure; I do not believe that is how it works. I believe in the collective package of measures.

When I myself was a municipal politician, I was genuinely frustrated when governments came with specific funds for specific projects. Many of us pleaded: Please, give us general funds so that we can take measures locally, we who see how it looks! I perceive that it is exactly what the government is doing - one changes a part of the distribution, makes it more general and gives more money to municipalities and regions in a more general solution. The answer is then not a specific project, because the point itself is that one does not work with specific projects.

I am proud that the government is investing more money in municipalities and regions, that we continue to develop our labor market policy, that we continue with adult education, and that we continue to provide support to study associations and folk high schools. I am convinced that the entire package of policy measures, in its entirety, also makes it easier for women to enter the labor market.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not usually request the floor to make a point, but with this specific speech, I feel that I need to do so.

When one has no politics to stand behind, one talks about everything else, but here the member of Parliament is moving on to Palestine. A brutal genocide is taking place in Palestine. I think it is completely unacceptable to express oneself in the way the member of Parliament does. That the member of Parliament, in order to strengthen his integration theses, takes up individual examples of that he has heard someone wants to move nuclear weapons over Israel or that some have said they celebrate Hamas and so on, casts suspicion on the entire solidarity with Palestine and Palestinians.

It is completely unacceptable to stand here and express oneself in the way the member does. If one has a policy and wants to strengthen one's thesis, one does not need to create mistrust. I find that completely unacceptable.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the member should listen to what I said. I did not say that I have heard. I said that I have spoken with people.

What is happening right now in Sweden is not just a legitimate protest against a single government, for one has the right to protest against governments, but what is happening right now in Sweden is a powerful development of antisemitism that I firmly distance myself from.

Just look at what has happened. In Stockholm, at a university, they have even stopped, hindered, a lecturer simply because the person was Jewish. We have people who do not even dare to be in Malmö because they are of Jewish descent. Memorials of the Holocaust in different parts of Europe are being destroyed. One cannot say that memorials of the Holocaust are linked to the state of Israel. They are linked to the Holocaust of the Jews.

We have a problem that we must dare to talk about, and which concerns the fact that there is an educated, to some extent culturally conditioned, antisemitism even in the Middle East. In the same way that we must discuss the antisemitism that existed in Europe and that has existed within the church – where I myself have a responsibility as a Christian to dare to take a discussion on where the boundaries are for how one expresses oneself – we must manage to discuss the antisemitism that exists in the Middle East and the connection that exists between demonstrations in Sweden and Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who was a close friend of Hitler. We must manage to discuss even uncomfortable questions if we are to manage to talk about integration.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Antisemitism must be pushed back. It is the suspicion towards Palestinians in the way the member expressed himself that I strongly oppose. To cast suspicion in that way is unacceptable.

I am pleased that the member wants to take a stand against antisemitism. In that case, I think first and foremost that the member should look at the largest party in the member's government support - why they were formed and what they are trying to hide right now. But that did not fit into the member's worldview when he stood up and spoke, because there was another purpose. That is what I am opposing.

It is completely unacceptable to create mistrust towards a group in that way in order to then try to strengthen one's thesis. It is dishonest.

If the member wants to work strongly against antisemitism, he should ask the member sitting here a bit away in the chamber why his party was founded. It was founded because they hate Jews.

It is an unacceptable development.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! If one reads Säpos reports and looks at what the threat looks like against the Swedish Jewish minority, there are three groups that are pointed out: extreme nationalists, extreme left-wing politicians, and extreme Islamists. I condemn all three of them. I have no problem with that.

I also have no problem questioning some of the operations that Israel carries out. I have on several occasions criticized Israel's individual policies in various contexts, including the situation in 1982 with Sabra and Shatila.

I have no problem with people criticizing a single country's government or a single country's policy, but what we have seen in Sweden, Europe, and the USA since October 7 is not just about criticism of a country. What we see right now, which is deeply uncomfortable, is how parts of the left and parts of the Islamic movement are de facto engaging in antisemitism, and we must dare to say no to that. It is not acceptable to crawl for antisemitism, regardless of where it comes from.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I really did not intend to take the floor, but there was a fiery speech here at the end from the member. He said that we have not listened. I agree. We are bad at listening to people from other countries when it comes to what they need and want from us.

I truly agree with the member's picture that how we behave and how we welcome and receive people from other countries matters. For quite a few minutes, this was discussed, and I truly agree with that picture. But it becomes a bit contradictory in light of the exchange of remarks I had with the Sverigedemokraterna here earlier.

The Christian Democrats have let the Sweden Democrats into the Government Offices. The Sweden Democrats have a troll factory that aims to fuel hatred, divide and rule, and create a "us and them." Listen is a word that I don't even believe exists in the vocabulary of the SD's troll factory. On the contrary, one is to hate and hate.

KD has legitimized this by letting the Sweden Democrats into the Government Offices. The Sweden Democrats' press chief even receives a salary from the Government Offices. My question to Magnus Jacobsson is therefore: Does the member agree that hateful troll factories that contribute to a "us and them" hinder integration?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! My party leader Ebba Busch has already stated in a very clear way that it is not okay. She has the full support of the Christian Democratic parliamentary group. Furthermore, I have no comment on that part. We have already said what we think. It is not something that we stand behind, but it is a matter that SD themselves must handle.

When it comes to the issue of listening in and about hateful rhetoric, it is unfortunately how I believe many of us experience it. I started very early with Facebook when I was a municipal politician. I experienced at that time that it was a way to have a close dialogue with the citizens at home. I often received questions about individual matters and could clarify political processes.

Over the last five years, I have increasingly wondered why I remain on Facebook and Twitter. Those who know me know roughly where I stand in terms of values, and I can state that I am regularly subjected to hate from two sides. There are those who, from my perspective, are extreme right-wing nationalists and who explain that I am a traitor to the country, and then there are those who are further out on the left wing and who think I am the evil on earth.

I believe that we as politicians, you and I, Jonny Cato - forgive the interruption, Mr. Speaker! - together have a responsibility for how we use rhetoric. That is why I react when it is said that a budget difference of half a percent is a disaster. No, it is a difference of half a percent, and it is slightly different priorities in the budget. We must be careful with words. If we are not careful with words, who then shall be?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Integration is difficult and complex. I truly believe that how we as politicians and society talk about people matters. I believe it matters what the little boy in the suburbs hears us say from this rostrum and what he hears Jimmie Åkesson talk about when they watch TV in the classroom, for example. I believe it matters for the opportunities to succeed.

It is very good that Ebba Busch has taken a stand, but that cannot be enough. This is one of the biggest political scandals in modern times. It is not a pity for Alice Teodorescu Måwe, who has been targeted, but it is a pity for all the immigrants who constantly have to receive hate from SD's troll factories. I believe this truly worsens integration. This has been legitimized by the Kristdemokraterna, I argue, by letting in SD employees at the Government Offices and by cooperating on integration policy. It is very good that the Kristdemokraterna think it matters how we talk about people, but then one cannot legitimize the Sverigedemokraterna.

Yesterday, troll accounts continued to spread hate. The troll accounts that Kalla fakta has revealed continued yesterday. In that case, it cannot be enough that the Christian Democrats have signaled, one must act for real. Then the question becomes: Is the government power more important than how we treat people from other countries in this country? Is the government power more important than a functioning integration? The questions are many, but the answers so far are few.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe in a very simple basic principle, and that is that in the chamber, one talks with everyone who enters there. I also believe in another simple basic principle, namely that as a party, one always tries to push through one's own policies to the greatest extent possible.

The catch with the second basic principle is that one then has to talk with several parties, at least for the time being. I naturally hope that we get 51 percent in the next election. It doesn't quite look like that will happen right now, but one can always live on hope. As long as one has the figures one has, one will be forced to negotiate with everyone.

There is a third basic principle, and that is not to take over a responsibility that someone else has. The responsibility for what has now been revealed belongs with SD. Ebba Busch has been crystal clear about what we Christian Democrats think, and now the ball is entirely with SD. I do not intend to take responsibility for other parties for how they handle their communication. They must bear that themselves.

To Jonny Cato's specific question, whether I believe that hatred generally leads to more hatred, the answer is: Of course! Do I believe that good relations generally lead to more good relations? Yes, of course!

I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that here in the chamber, even when we discuss difficult issues sometimes, as we did a short while ago, I try to use my words so that I do not put words in anyone else's mouth. I say "I think". It is so that we should try to have respect for one another even when we discuss difficult issues.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 15.

The government needs to focus on integration policy, because Sweden has for a long time been characterized by a long-lasting and very serious social divide, which unfortunately is growing instead of shrinking. It is a divide that cuts between people and places, between those who have a network, education, jobs, and work experience and those who do not have a job, and between, on one hand, prosperous, forward-looking, and enterprising towns and, on the other hand, vulnerable neighborhoods and industrial towns that are suffering.

The freedom and opportunities in our country are far too unevenly distributed. Sweden has major integration challenges that unfortunately are only growing. Instead of spending a lot of time blaming whose fault it is, I can state that the responsibility now lies with the Tidö parties - a responsibility that has not been taken until now.

Centerpartiet argues that jobs and the Swedish language are two fundamental prerequisites for breaking the growing social divide in our country. To succeed, it needs to become simpler and cheaper for companies to hire, not least newcomers.

Newcomers need to learn about our Swedish society early on. This can involve practical questions such as where to turn if one is in need of help, what the labor market looks like, and which rules apply here in Sweden. What we expect from newcomers and what newcomers can expect from society also needs to be crystal clear. Those in need must be able to receive further education and Swedish language instruction. Newcomers must not get stuck in bureaucracy, administration, and long investigations.

For Sweden to stand strong now and in the future, effective reforms are needed that improve our reception of newcomers and have a clear focus on jobs. I genuinely believe that the first job is the key to much. It is the key to freedom and to becoming even better at the Swedish language. We must not underestimate the importance of getting colleagues and new acquaintances. Getting a social context can be an important door opener into the common Sweden.

Let me also be clear that we need to set requirements for those who come here. It must be clear which laws, rules, and basic values exist in our society. But we also need to set significantly higher requirements for ourselves – Sweden and us as politicians – to create the best possible conditions for a successful integration policy.

There are parties in Sweden's Riksdag and in the government base that believe that the majority of refugees who come here do so with evil intentions and want harm to Sweden. I believe that people who flee here from war and oppression want well, want to learn Swedish and want to enter and become part of our common Sweden, but that many do not get the conditions and opportunities required to succeed.

If one knows what people are fleeing from and what one risks during flight, then one knows that safety is the only thing they seek. It is about safety for oneself, one's family, and not least one's children. Our perspective as a society, fellow citizens, and politicians toward people who have fled war and oppression affects the possibilities for successful integration. The way we talk about people from other countries contributes to successful integration. Friends! I wrote this before Kalla Faktas report was broadcast, and it has certainly not become any less relevant now.

I expect, and I will continue to nag about this in the chamber, that the Liberals, the Christian Democrats and the Moderates take responsibility. They want nothing less than for the Centre Party to take responsibility for the Social Democrats' policy. That is the only thing they talk about from this rostrum. But we are not even cooperating! They must themselves take responsibility for what the largest party in the government support takes responsibility for. It was just said that hate breeds hate. Yes, and hate contributes to poorer integration. That is what the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals are responsible for. Take responsibility!

It is of the utmost importance that society as a whole and politics in particular do not only paint a bleak picture, because even though the integration challenges are great, very much is being done that is good. I shall not only be angry. I shall also be a little grateful. I am grateful to the voluntary sector, civil society, and all voluntary forces which many times are completely crucial for integration. There, there are networks, contacts, and job opportunities, and there is a social context.

Civil society makes incredible efforts, often wants much more, and needs to be given significantly better conditions. When I visit such activities around the country, the absolute most common feedback I receive is that the project-based funding must end soon. I agree. Civil society organizations in Sweden that work with integration need long-term funding. It must not fluctuate from year to year, because that is not how integration works. Long-term perspective is required.

It is easy to generalize and stigmatize when talking about vulnerable areas, but it is often a difficult balancing act. There are far too many young boys and girls in our country who have no hope for the future. Many times, we in politics are involved and weaken it.

Children risk falling into criminal circles at an early age and see early, simple, and fast ways to a lot of money. We often and much talk about this, and that is good, because more needs to be done. At the same time, we talk too little about the young girls who for the most part are only allowed to be in school and in the family's apartment. It creates a short-term and, above all, long-term exclusion. More specific initiatives for young girls are needed. We need to talk about the wrong values that limit young girls.

We also need to create a sense of security for parents to let their children move around in vulnerable areas and participate in activities. We need to help the parents and guide them so that they can become their best selves in order to, in turn, be able to give their children opportunities to become their best selves.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish integration needs to become better. I dare say that all eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag agree on that. The expectations for newly arrived people need to become clearer and the conditions for entering and becoming part of Swedish society better. More young boys and girls need to see their mothers and fathers go to work. Integration is one of this mandate period's greatest issues of destiny.

Mr. Speaker! I will soon conclude, but I cannot help but say that after having participated in the integration debate and listened to the government basis' integration policy – or rather, searched with a flashlight for the government's integration policy – for nearly two years, I have not become wise as to what it actually is. Integration policy can reasonably not just be press conferences on how the government will implement the Sweden Democrats' migration policy? But it does not seem any better because the major reforms to achieve a functioning integration policy are conspicuously absent. Migration policy and integration policy are connected but are not the same thing.

In the Committee on Employment, we handle both pure integration policy and the labor market policy, which is so crucial for integration policy. Integration is one of our time's greatest challenges, but on the list of propositions for the Ministry of Employment for the current year, there is only one proposition on unemployment benefits and one communication regarding a National Audit Office report. Thus, not a single proposal on how integration can be improved is presented. Not a single such proposal does the government manage to submit during the entirety of 2024! To all of you who are listening, I want to say that with the Sweden Democrats' integration policy, one does not get a single proposal in the area of integration.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

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

Today we are debating integration policy. It is undoubtedly one of Sweden's most important issues, both at the individual level and for Sweden Inc. Therefore, I am happy, grateful, and proud that it is liberal ministers who can now realize all the political integration proposals that we in the Liberals have championed for many years. We have shaped them with both heart and brain – or as a colleague close to me often says: with both a velvet glove and an iron fist. The vast majority understand that this type of work is time-consuming and requires changes in many operations. It concerns far more than those whom the Committee on the Labour Market oversees.

Mr. Speaker! The situation is serious, and the future looks bleak if we do not re-establish the knowledge school and succeed in compensating those students who have poorer prerequisites for success. Unemployment is three times higher among foreign-born than among domestic-born. Half of all drop out of SFI. And foreign-born children and children with a foreign background fare worse in school than other children.

The Liberals' and the government's proactive strategy rests on three pillars: education, work, and the Swedish language. Most important of all for a successful integration is a school system that returns to the basics and focuses on conveying knowledge and basic skills. A successful schooling is a strong vaccine against a life in crime, and it is a fundamental prerequisite for being able to decide over one's own future.

Swedish school was for a long time a role model, but unfortunately, it is not anymore. In fact, the latest PISA measurement showed the largest drop in knowledge for Swedish students ever. One in four students today cannot read or calculate properly. At the same time, threats and violence have become commonplace in many schools. The situation is extremely serious, and those who are primarily affected are those who come from homes unaccustomed to studying and homes where one does not speak Swedish.

To reverse this downward trend, the school receives 850 million kronor in a so-called knowledge grant, so that more teachers can keep their jobs. We want to change the Education Act so that all students in Sweden get access to staffed school libraries, and to fill the bookshelves, the Liberals in government have put forward investments in the billions for books and teaching materials.

The teacher shortage is particularly serious in areas where the schools have tough conditions. Attracting the most skilled teachers to the toughest challenges is the most important thing for all schools to be able to perform. Therefore, the Liberals in a government position are investing extra resources into these areas.

The position of the Swedish language also needs to be strengthened. We in the Liberals have known this for a long time, and it is pleasing that even other parties have now realized it. Therefore, we are reforming SFI teaching. It must become more intensive. It is no longer sufficient to have teaching for a couple of hours in the morning. If one is to learn a language, one must speak it much, much more.

The Liberals have, in a government position, stated that we will appoint an inquiry into mandatory language preschool. As you may remember, it was a proposal that we put forward during the election campaign. Then we were accused of wanting to forcibly take away all children who could not count to 20 in Swedish. Now, many of us see the importance of language preschool. We are both proud and happy about that. The goal is, of course, that all children should learn Swedish.

The government is introducing a new mandatory course, Sverigekursen, in social studies for new Swedes, and it concludes with a test. It shall be clear to everyone which laws and rules apply in Sweden. It is crucial for us to be able to break the exclusion and succeed in integration.

Mr. Speaker! On Monday, I was together with Minister for Equality Brandberg in Gothenburg and visited Angeredsgymnasiet. Their work with SSOR - sex, consent, and relationships - shows how one can work with the most sensitive issues in a professional and structured way and make a difference. Both I and the Minister of State were impressed by their journey. They also involved civil society and the business community in the work to, together with the students, find a future with jobs or studies.

Leisure cards to make association life accessible and initiatives on sexual health, initiatives on school health, knowledge of honor norms and resources for the organizing of women and girls in marginalized areas are further examples of integration policy that make a difference in individuals' journey toward becoming a part of Swedish society.

Mr. Speaker! It should pay to work, and we are firmly determined to re-establish a work line that benefits all of Sweden. We are pushing through benefit reforms - benefit ceilings and activity requirements for subsistence support - which increase the incentives for more people to get jobs. At the same time, we are reforming the unemployment insurance in a way that leads to better incentives to find the next job and simplifies things for companies.

Income tax has been lowered, and we have invested in 15,000 more summer jobs in municipalities with high unemployment. Add to that a historic expansion of adult education. It concerns about 20,000 new places at the university college and within vocational adult education this year alone.

We are one of four coalition parties, and as always, one is forced to compromise. If we Liberals had been allowed to decide, we would have implemented a faster liberalization within housing policy. The segregation in the housing market and the difficulties in being able to make a housing move create the areas of exclusion that prevent sensible integration today; we all see that. But we continue our earnest work. In my speech, I have pointed out that we have previously succeeded in getting more parties to change their minds.

One step on the way to a changed housing market is to make changes to the EBO Act. The Government is now making important changes to it so that all those in our marginalized areas who live in overcrowding and insecurity will get a better everyday life.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for her speech. She said a number of good things, but I also noted that I missed a part. This concerns, among other things, what concerned the investigation that my colleague Serkan Köse took up earlier. In the investigation on women's opportunities to establish themselves in the labor market, there are a number of concrete proposals, including an individualization of the establishment program.

I have heard in other contexts that the member has been positive towards the proposals and that they are being prepared in the Government Offices. I am very curious about how the preparation is progressing. It has almost been a year since the proposals were submitted, and they have been welcomed by very many. The proposals are necessary for more women to be able to establish themselves in the labor market.

I wonder, then, how the work is progressing. The member says that one must compromise with other parties. I believe fully and completely what the member says about the fact that much has been compromised from the Liberals' side. But what remains, and what will the Liberals get through? Will the Liberals get through the proposals that they are positive about? Despite having two state secretaries at the Ministry of Employment, it seems difficult to get concrete political proposals through.

What are the concrete proposals? Where in the Government Offices' preparation are they located? Will we receive a more individualized establishment program?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sofia Amloh and I arranged a seminar on these issues not so long ago. At that time, the members had the opportunity to ask questions directly to the Minister. As I remember it, that was also done. We then discussed the establishment possibilities and the ongoing preparation of the proposals that were presented.

The committee members know just as well as I do that the mill grinds slowly, and often it goes all too slowly. I have full confidence that we in the Liberals and our cabinet ministers will push forward in these matters, but I cannot give a date or anything more concrete today.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! To clarify, I would like to mention that the Minister was not present at the seminar. I therefore could not ask my questions, which I otherwise would have done.

I understand that the mill grinds slowly. The question is how slowly it goes. I hope that I will not have to stand here again in a year and ask the same questions. Some budgets have already been passed without this being included. And we are not talking about any huge sums. The impact of the measures is much greater than the relatively small sum it is about. I really hope that one grinds a little faster.

Something, however, that was easy for the government was to remove the extra services. It went very quickly. The extra services were aimed at people who needed to get closer to the labor market. It is actually the only labor market measure that has had an equal distribution; it reached many women. You have removed them without replacing them with anything else. Why? And why is the distribution so unequal in the labor market policy measures to enter the labor market?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Mr. Speaker! I apologize, Member Amloh. There are a lot of seminars, and the Minister Brandberg was not present at just this one. You are absolutely right in that.

We also noted that we were in complete agreement that these matters must be introduced and shall be introduced. The discussion regarding how quickly this proceeds in the Government Offices is something I cannot address any more than I already have.

However, I can state that the extra jobs disappeared very quickly. It is not because they had a more equal distribution or anything else, but because they were terrible labor market policy. We have not appointed anything that replaces exactly extra jobs because that type of labor market policy becomes incredibly trivializing. It also does not have any effect in the long run.

We have instead invested in vocational training, in SFI, in school, and in other integration measures. That is what is needed, and not any makeshift and craft jobs that the municipalities hire extra service personnel for to save their own municipal finances when the year is over.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today I want to talk about the dangerous myths that are being spread about integration in Sweden. They are misleading and destructive, and they have become an obstacle to integration itself, when we instead need to strengthen trust in society and our common welfare.

There is a widespread perception that Sweden has failed with integration. This is not a truth, but a myth that has become established through repetition. Sverigedemokraterna and like-minded forces contribute to this false image.

Another myth that these forces spread is that people who have fled from Syria and Somalia are not actually real refugees who have fled from war, but that they are economic refugees who come to Sweden with the intention of undermining our generous welfare system. There is no evidence for these claims; instead, this is pure disinformation that aims to stigmatize and incite hatred against immigrants.

One often hears in the debate a discussion about which people are incompatible with our modern society and that we should bring in people who are easy to integrate. As the debate is conducted, low-educated people from certain countries are singled out as a burden, which can only be interpreted as that it is only a certain type of human who is entitled to flee and be received. That is, you are less desirable if you are a low-educated refugee than if you were highly educated.

Mr. Speaker! This is an unreasonable way to talk about people who need protection. The right of asylum is not based on the idea that we should take in a certain type of people, but it is about human rights and the right to protection. The right to flee and to find sanctuary is a human right regardless of educational background or work experience. These rights are universal.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats speak of cultural burden and link gang crime to culture and origin instead of looking at the real root causes: inequality, a stressed and underfunded welfare system, and extensive segregation.

Furthermore, the Tidö parties claim that no requirements are placed on the people who come to Sweden and that they can exploit the system without any counter-performance. This is yet another falsehood from the right-wing radicals. Requirements for integration exist. To claim otherwise is misleading.

It is not true that people receive grants without any conditions. A number of requirements are already set for one to receive social assistance. In addition to you having to be available to the labor market, the municipality can set requirements that you must participate in internships or skill-enhancing activities, and the individual will be denied if they refuse. To receive establishment support, it is required that you complete the Swedish Public Employment Service's action and activity plan as well as that you actively seek and accept the opportunities offered. Those who are unemployed and receive unemployment benefits must also be available to the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! Myths are often spread about how much immigrant families receive in benefits and that they would lack incentives to work. In the argumentation, it is claimed that it is possible to stack benefits on top of each other, but this does not correspond with the actual regulatory framework.

The Tidö government's own investigation on integration points out that solid and evidence-based interventions should be the basis for integration, which we naturally agree with. But at the same time, the Tidö Agreement goes against evidence-based integration policy. What best promotes integration in the long term are general measures but also targeted measures. A well-functioning welfare state is completely central to integration and needs to be high-prioritized.

The basis is a good and equal school for both children, youth and adults, and that those who are in need of special support receive the support they need. We shall have a well-functioning labor market policy with a focus on labor market training and the Swedish language.

Another important factor is permanent residence permits. A study from the Red Cross shows that people who have been granted temporary residence permits feel uncertainty about whether it is worth investing in language and other studies when they do not know if they will be allowed to stay here. Today's regulation of residence permits and family reunification also contributes to short-term choices being rewarded over more long-term ones. Arbetsförmedlingen argues, for example, that the temporary law provides incentives for newcomers to take low-skilled jobs rather than validating or supplementing their education.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: A more equal society improves individuals' opportunities to be integrated into society. It is not possible to ignore the preventive measures and neglect segregation and the socioeconomic factors if one seriously wants to promote good integration. But that is precisely what the Tidö parties do with their segregating and non-evidence-based integration policy.

The Tidö Agreement is not about facilitating integration, but about enabling the deportation of as many people as possible. The Tidö parties want to exclude newcomers from the welfare system and make already poor people even poorer. Permanent residence permits have been removed, they are scaling back labor market policies, and they want to introduce a benefit ceiling. The preventive measures are being removed.

It would be good if the Tidö government could get a grip on reality and implement exactly what their own investigation proposes: to conduct an evidence-based integration policy. But that is a great deal to wish for, since the Tidö government rules by the grace of the Sweden Democrats and it is SD's xenophobic policy that drives the integration policy. We know that this will lead to less integration, more segregation, and an even more divided society.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for approval of reservation 1 and reservation 10.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have a short question for Member Leila Ali Elmi: How is Swedish welfare financed?

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A short answer to Arin Karapet: Swedish welfare is financed through our taxes.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have clarified that welfare is paid for through tax money, by ordinary people going to work and paying in tax funds. We say that those who pay in shall have a right to a welfare because there is a promise between the state and the public.

Then Member of Parliament Leila Ali Elmi stands here and says that if only people are given permanent residence permits from day one, integration will go fantastically. We have tested it in Sweden for over 30 years, and it has gone completely wrong.

The generous immigration that Leila Ali Elmi speaks of from the rostrum has burdened the welfare system. People should be allowed to come here, but not in the large numbers that Member Leila Ali Elmi dreams of. In principle, the whole world is welcome here. Then we shall expect that people who contribute to the welfare system shall receive the welfare they need when they do need it.

People come here and they cannot speak the Swedish language. This means more efforts. People come with other health conditions. They might have poor dental health or oral health. It costs money. It is a limited resource with nurses, nursing assistants, and doctors. You cannot just push people into the welfare system.

Mr. Speaker! My question to Leila Ali Elmi is: Hasn't the Green Party learned a lesson from how it has gone for Sweden? Permanent residence permits solve nothing. Temporary residence permits where requirements are set solve many problems.

If you come to Sweden, you shall learn Swedish. If you come to Sweden, you shall respect equality, that is to say that there is no difference between men and women. If you come to Sweden, you shall be able to support yourself. When you have done this, you have the right to participate in Swedish welfare.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the member's description. The social contract is important, and people should work and contribute to our common welfare and our common society. There is no conflict there between me and Arin Karapet. I agree with that.

The problem is the description that integration has gone completely wrong. That is simply not true. I concede that we absolutely have shortcomings in our integration. But that it has gone completely wrong is not true. It is far from the truth.

The vast majority of people who have come to Sweden have been integrated. We see this all around in society with our nursing assistants and our bus drivers. There is clear evidence in society that integration is working. But of course, it can absolutely be developed and improved.

What we in Miljöpartiet have learned is to lean on the research. The research says that temporary residence permits are bad for the Swedish labor market and bad for integration. That is what I have to say.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Equality initiatives are crucial for whether we will succeed or not with integration. It is when both parents go to work that the children see how it is supposed to work. It is when mom can pay for new football boots, or can pay for something as obvious as putting food on the table, that the respect and independence come.

Integration is when we need each other. It is when we meet at grandmother's home, I to drink coffee with her and the home care staff who are there to remove the compression stocking. It is when the person in home care is at football practice with their children when I am there with mine. It is when the children from football practice are seen on the schoolyard.

For me, it would have been sufficient if integration was about human dignity. But when that is not enough for everyone, there are strong socio-economic reasons, or it is through integration that society can become stronger. It is when we participate, contribute and shape the society that we live in that it becomes strong. That is what we need in a restless time like today. More cohesion was needed, more community, and not more division, more splitting.

Choose whichever reason or whatever motive you want, but none of us can afford, in any way, to leave anyone behind, except for the Sweden Democrats who win on that as a party.

Mr. Speaker! Neither equality nor integration is something that interests the government. It made that clear directly. They stamped their feet firmly on the ground with the Tidö Agreement. The Tidö Agreement shows the direction and under which premises the government is allowed to sit in Rosenbad.

It is a clear political project that is about increasing contradictions and pitting group against group. It is about pitting human against human. That is the direction we see. It is the direct opposite of integration.

Integration

The government is cutting billions in active labor market policy and in welfare such as healthcare and school. The government has removed the only labor market measure that was equally distributed and retains the measures that are overrepresented for men.

The extra services, which are an example, have played a major role for many in coming closer to the labor market, and especially for the foreign-born women who have stood far away from it. It is an effort that has not been replaced with any other targeted effort. The government is not just closing its eyes but actively chooses to remove efforts that reached the target group of foreign-born women.

Mr. Speaker! With SD and the government, we will get no integration policy. That is crystal clear. It was the case before, and it is the case today. We will get no society where everyone is needed. What we get is a messy mix of class contempt and hatred against immigrants that does not solve housing segregation and school segregation. It will also not solve labor market segregation, the one that divides people into being inside or outside the labor market.

We Social Democrats want a broad and long-term plan for integration across several policy areas where we take a collective responsibility so that no one is left out of society. For us Social Democrats, equality must apply to all women and men. It must apply regardless of where in the country you live or in which country you were born.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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