Integration

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now going to debate the report AU5, which concerns integration. I want to begin by announcing the Sweden Democrats' special statement, which touches upon how we view the question of adaptation to Swedish society. Even though we are a supporting party to the government, we are the largest party in the Tidö agreement. And even though we have pushed through much of our policy so far, we are in no way satisfied yet. We are not leaning back but want more. With our influence, we are now on the right path towards a changed, united, and improved Sweden.

Madam Speaker! After this government, with our support, came into power, Sweden has changed course on integration policy. The policy that the Social Democrats, with their red-green mess of a government, implemented during their eight years in power has led to the integration failure that the current government now has to handle. The responsibility for everything going wrong lies with all its weight on the shoulders of the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party. Cynical mass immigration was seen, completely without forethought, as something that would enrich us all and provide gains further down the line. Nothing could have been more wrong. Tax billions after tax billions were poured over certain designated areas without anyone actually clarifying the benefit of it. Subsidies after subsidies created fast lanes into the labor market without anyone reflecting on the long-term outcome.

The result of the social democratic governments' irresponsible and headless integration policy was not only extremely costly from an economic perspective. It was also directly harmful to people who truly tried and wanted to adapt. Suspicion increased, the division became clearer, and social cohesion was completely shattered. The consequences of the mass immigration are already evaluated and clear. The final result is that it became a complete catastrophe.

Madam Speaker! With this as a starting point, the Swedish people have given us a mandate to change, because they, just as we do, believe in a better Sweden and that we can create something that is the opposite of yesterday. Through the Tidö Agreement, we completely changed direction. We already see the so-called paradigm shift bearing fruit, and this only a little more than two years after the election. I am proud of it.

The goal is not only a purely policy-based change but also to change attitudes in the long term.

We are upgrading the value of Swedish citizenship. Becoming a Swedish citizen should be seen as a privilege and not as something you are simply granted routinely.

We emphasize the importance of your own effort when it comes to qualifying to take part in our common welfare.

Adequate language skills, which were previously seen as secondary, now play a significantly more central role thanks to us. Language is the most important social code, which is directly decisive for success in studies and work and, of course, for becoming a part of Sweden.

It is not acceptable that an individual who has lived in Sweden for more than 15 years can neither understand nor make themselves understood in Swedish. It is an extreme failure. If you want to adapt, you learn the language. It is in your own interest. No buts, no maybes, and no "we will see." This is what applies. Period.

We are also pushing hard regarding the issue of being able to revoke citizenship. There is a limit to everything. If you have dual citizenship and through active actions show that you hate our country and pose a danger to innocent people, and perhaps also commit serious crimes against completely innocent people and participate in gang criminality, then in any case, I do not see any reason whatsoever for you as a person to stay in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps the most important integration policy measure is based on reduced asylum-related immigration, increased return migration, and a clear set of requirements on what is expected of those who come here. More frequent deportations must also, of course, be part of that equation. Why it is a must should be obvious. It is about understanding that many of those who have come to our country actually want clear guidelines on what applies. They want order and clarity.

It is about understanding that not everyone wants to or can be integrated. All they want is to live as they always have, even if it is according to ancient values that absolutely have no place in our beloved Sweden.

There is, therefore, a door into Sweden, and there is a door out. For those who choose adaptation to our Swedish society, and have a legal right to be here, the door is open. We have plenty of opportunities for those who want to adapt. For those who do not want to adapt, it is the other door that applies. It is the door out.

It is not at all particularly difficult. That is how it works in other countries in our neighboring area. That is how it should work even in Sweden. It should have been a guiding principle since several decades ago.

Madam Speaker! It requires no great ability of logical thinking to understand that the adaptation rate is linked to volume. We now see how the Sweden Democrats' policy is slowly taking effect. Last year, 6,250 asylum-related residence permits were granted, which is thus the lowest number in 40 years. The Sweden Democrats are making a difference. How one votes makes a difference.

Think if we could have carried out what we are doing now 10–20 years ago! Would Sweden then have been a country that wakes up to new explosions daily? Would we then have been portrayed in the international press as a horror example of an irresponsible migration policy? Would we have been a country where the news about shootings, murders, and rapes no longer shocks us?

Madam Speaker! We have changed the direction for Sweden. If we want effective results moving forward, that is the direction that applies. There are no shortcuts. To go back to the politics that the parties on the left wing in this chamber held so highly, but which collapsed like a house of cards, would be devastating.

The guarantee that we will continue to have a policy that actually makes it possible for people to adapt is not the parties that have repeatedly failed. That guarantee is spelled SD. We see the problems, and we are doing something about them.

It is we who will continue to speak truths in this chamber regardless of how uncomfortable they are for some. We will hopefully do so as part of the government after the next election. Because after the next election, it is a matter of sitting in government or going into opposition.

The path to a successful policy for adaptation presupposes that the Sweden Democrats are included and take responsibility, even if it is not we who have caused the mess. Responsibility we have taken so far, and we will continue to do so.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! When the Left Party negotiates with a government, we ensure that we invest in welfare, households, and ordinary people. We increase equality while simultaneously strengthening welfare. We push through a higher guaranteed pension, improvements in health insurance, deductions for the unemployment insurance fee, and many other good things.

When the Sweden Democrats negotiate, workers and welfare must take a backseat. Cuts are being rolled out across the entire country. Households and families with children shall take a backseat and live in economic insecurity while the cost of living only increases.

The Chairman said: We take responsibility. With the Sweden Democrats, we reach a mass unemployment of a record-high 10 percent. It is a record-high unemployment that is left completely without measures. Closer to 600,000 people in Sweden are unemployed. That is an entire Gothenburg. It is an increase of 114,000 unemployed just during the last year.

Unemployment is rising in all ages, among men and women, both domestic and foreign-born. Youth unemployment is rising, and long-term unemployment is rising. Entire industries are crashing. The Sweden Democrats have paralyzed the economy. People are being left at the mercy of the elements.

I debated unemployment with the representative for Sverigedemokraterna last December. I received the answer from the member: "We will, of course, do everything to try to stop that development."

Now we can conclude that the Sweden Democrats have done everything except stop the development. On the contrary, they have given us a record-high mass unemployment which they let spiral out of control and leave completely without measures.

Then the question arises: Was it so wise to spend all the money on tax cuts for the richest? It has not created jobs directly, on the contrary. Was it so wise to spend all the money on the Moderates' core voters, the very richest, and leave people behind?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tony Haddou, for your questions!

Tony Haddou stands at the rostrum and says that Vänsterpartiet has the solutions to all problems. That is obviously not true. There was not a single word in the member's contribution about the fact that Vänsterpartiet is making any measures against mass immigration at all.

On the other hand, Vänsterpartiet wants to continue to fill up our country without solving any of the problems that exist here and which Vänsterpartiet has, to the highest degree, been involved in creating. It is not I and my party who have ensured that we are in the situation we are in today.

Unemployment is a major problem. I stand by what I said in our previous debate. As the member just said in his speech, we discussed it then as well. It is a major problem. We do everything we can to try to do something about it. Now, one must not forget that the Sverigedemokraterna do not sit in government fully. Sverigedemokraterna is a support party to the government. The member perhaps should rather pose these questions to the government representatives.

What we can say from the Sweden Democrats' side is this: The fact that unemployment is this high is also, to a large extent, an imported problem. The members know this just as well as everyone else in this assembly.

Now I must remember the figure correctly: Approximately 5.7 percent of those born in Sweden are unemployed today. Among those born abroad, outside of Europe, the figure is three times as high.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I said that unemployment is increasing at all ages, among men and women, and among those born in Sweden and those born abroad. I understand that the Sweden Democrats must point to immigration, but unemployment is not just about that. Unemployment is increasing among both those born in Sweden and those born abroad. I think that at some point during the parliamentary term, the Sweden Democrats should start taking responsibility for the situation.

And since I am not getting an answer to the question I asked, I think I have to explain this pedagogically. We have mass unemployment, and it is at a record high. The mass immigration that the member speaks of is at a record low. That is what we have to work with here. Immigration is at a record low. Mass unemployment is at a record high. This is a fact.

What does the member even intend to do about the mass unemployment, which is a serious problem? It makes it difficult for people out there to pay the rent and other living costs and leaves them at the mercy of the elements. Nothing, not a single labor market measure, do the Sverigedemokraterna come forward with!

These are the consequences of the Sweden Democrats' policy: workers who are told every day that they are not allowed to stay, young people who face ever higher thresholds to enter the labor market, and the long-term unemployed who are not given any chance at all. It is entirely the Sweden Democrats' responsibility.

When it comes to measures, perhaps the Sweden Democrats are worsening the situation; that is how far they can go. But it is a fact that we have unemployment, and it is the Sweden Democrats' responsibility. When will the Sweden Democrats take responsibility and ensure that workers in this country are not left behind?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker and Tony Haddou! I like it when one is pedagogical. I have studied pedagogy at the university level in Uppsala.

(TONY HADDOU (V): It didn't go so well.)

It went very well.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Third Deputy Speaker has the floor.)

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker! When it comes to respect for democratic parliaments, perhaps the Left Party are not the ones who should comment on how other parties behave and whether they are pedagogical or not.

One must not forget that it is primarily companies that create jobs in Sweden. We who sit here as elected representatives cannot conjure up 10,000 jobs that people can directly go to – unless it concerns labor market measures, which Vänsterpartiet wants. Such measures must also be taken sometimes, but I do not believe in them. I believe in real jobs. An individual should be able to go to a real job and not to some made-up job.

Vänsterpartiet knows just as well as I do that the government, with the help of Sverigedemokraterna, has taken various measures to make it easier for, for example, the long-term unemployed to get into work. This applies, for example, to those who are 55-plus, who have more difficulty getting a new job. It has become easier to study at older ages. We have made it easier to get funds from CSN to facilitate this.

I actually do not intend to stand here and defend myself, Member Haddou, against the parties that have created the problems we face today but who do not intend to do anything about them if they were to come to power.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats, as the government's largest support party, have had a significant influence over Sweden's integration policy during the last two years and some months. With this influence comes also a responsibility to deliver concrete results to break segregation and promote integration.

Madam Speaker! In the latest issue of Ekonomisk Debatt, three researchers present a study showing that early and intensive labor market policy interventions have long-term effects on the establishment of newcomers in the labor market. The study shows that newcomers who have participated in such interventions have had 10–20 percentage points higher employment rates for several years after the intervention has ended. This means, Madam Speaker, that investments in language, jobs, and education yield clear results in integration.

Despite this evidence and despite extensive research, the Sweden Democrats have been involved in and carried out significant cuts in active labor market policy. The appropriations for labor market policy programs and initiatives have decreased, and been halved, during the Sweden Democrats' time.

We know that these cuts make it more difficult for newcomers and other unemployed people to receive the support they need to enter the labor market and establish themselves. The Sweden Democrats speak about the importance of people adapting, but at the same time, the party has voted against investments in language training and labor market measures – measures that we believe are crucial for people to succeed in integrating. The Sweden Democrats' actions stand, as said, in direct contrast to the research that clearly shows that this type of intervention works.

My question to the member is therefore very concrete and simple: How can the Sweden Democrats defend a policy that goes against evidence-based methods for improving integration? The member previously stated that a lot of measures have been presented. I would very much like to hear what the concrete measures are to improve integration.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Serkan Köse, for your questions!

I will begin with the question regarding jobs and labor market measures. We can be clear that the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats do not think alike on these issues. Both the member and I know that. As I said earlier, I am for real jobs. It should be a real job, where one can receive a real salary and where one can feel security every day. It should not be some makeshift job that has come down from above so that people are not in work but in employment. That is what one often engages in up here.

It also looks better in the statistics. There, one does not speak of individuals being unemployed because they are then employed. But it can be completely made-up employment.

In Västmanlands län, which I myself come from, the county administrative board, for example, had a project called Woman into Sweden. Women who had been in Sweden for over 15 years participated, and what was practiced in the project was to keep a time, to get to a place, to go and fish, and so on. That is not a job! And these individuals will never be integrated into our society. They will never have a job. They will never contribute to our common tax cake and our common welfare. On the other hand, they will continue to make withdrawals from it for another 15 years. This costs money.

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask Member Köse to personally mention three points that show that mass immigration has facilitated integration.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

Again: The research is clear. It shows that early and intensive labor market interventions are crucial for breaking exclusion and improving employment among newcomers.

As I mentioned, the researchers in the latest edition of Ekonomisk Debatt show that precisely these measures lead to higher long-term employment and better establishment in the labor market. This means that investments in jobs, language, and education are the key to a functioning integration. It is not about cuts in language training and labor market support, which the Sverigedemokraterna stand behind.

The Sweden Democrats talk about how integration has failed and that repatriation is the solution. But let us be clear: It is the Sweden Democrats' own policy that undermines integration. It is SD that in this chamber time and again votes for cuts in adult education, in active labor market policies, and in the measures for establishment programs. It is SD that time and again opposes reforms that research shows work. The question back to the member becomes: How does the member and the Sweden Democrats justify that the party actively votes against the measures that research time and again points out as crucial for a successful integration?

If the solution is not jobs, education and investment in people, what then is the Sweden Democrats' long-term plan for integration? Or is the party's only answer that certain people should simply leave the country?

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, the solution is that those individuals who do not want to contribute to Sweden should leave our country. The solution is also that those individuals who have a legal right to be here have their own interest in learning the language, becoming a part of Swedish society, studying, making themselves employable and working.

Serkan Köse speaks about research and researchers. It is an interesting subject. Research can show different things. Members of the Riksdag, Sweden's population, and the entire world's population can rely on different types of research. It is not uncommon for them to contradict each other. Then it is up to us to evaluate which research we believe in.

Regarding integration, the solution is simple for us: It is about repatriation, and it is about you learning the language and doing your duty – then you get your right. These are things we are working on and addressing.

I would like to urge the member to, as a Social Democratic member, take a step back and try to remember what has happened along the way to us standing here today. The Social Democrats have appointed groups that have written reports. These reports are the solution for the Social Democrats when it comes to doing something about the problems that the Social Democrats have, to the highest degree, created themselves. It is actually quite embarrassing. It is genuinely embarrassing towards Sweden's population.

If the Social Democrats have and have had all the solutions, Serkan Köse, why did the Social Democrats do nothing about this policy during the eight years when you were in power?

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the other parties in the Tidögänget use the term marginalization instead of segregation. Marginalization implies something individual, as if people choose to stand outside of society themselves rather than society creating divides. By replacing segregation with marginalization, the structural causes behind the problems are blurred.

Therefore, my question to the member is: Do the Sweden Democrats consider repatriation to be the solution to segregation?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Elmi, for your question!

It is true that the Sweden Democrats talk about exclusion. That is partly because the policy area in the committee is called exclusion. Therefore, we think it is quite practical to talk about it. This policy area is also an integration area, isn't it?

We can also discuss segregation. It is also highly important. A solution to segregation is naturally return migration, just as the member himself touched upon. A solution to segregation is also that people who come to our country take advantage of all opportunities available to them to take their own responsibility, as I said earlier – that they educate themselves and become a part of Sweden and Swedish society.

It is not the case that when one comes and knocks on Sweden's door at the border, one should have a complete smorgasbord served that one can simply partake in. One has to do and contribute a little bit as an individual. One such thing is wanting to be in Sweden, to begin with. If individuals do not want to be here but actually loathe our country, why should Sweden's population accept them? Why should Sweden's population not say: You are not welcome here if you do not take part in our Sweden and learn the language?

If they engage in crime, what is Elmi's answer to Sweden's population who are exposed to the crime as to why those people should not be deported from here? It would be interesting if Miljöpartiet could clarify for Sweden's population why those who have committed crimes should not be deported.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to say that the policy area was previously called measures against segregation. It is the Tidö government that has changed it to exclusion – this is said for the sake of clarity.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have submitted a special statement in which they link the return migration to segregation. It says everything about their view of humanity that the solution to segregation is not increased equality, better opportunities, or social cohesion, but quite simply to get immigrants out of Sweden. I am, however, genuinely curious, Madam Speaker, whether the Sweden Democrats have other solutions, beyond the well-known that immigrants should leave Sweden. Does one have other solutions to segregation?

I think the member is very contradictory. In a previous exchange, she said that these people will never come to work and that they will never be integrated. At the same time, the member says that they are going to learn the language.

Segregation and integration are linked. Besides wanting to throw out immigrants from Sweden, Ann-Christine Frohm, do you have other solutions for how to break the segregation?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member Elmi presents in her latest reply are pure lies. The member also shows that she has not listened to me at all. What I spoke about was those who will never contribute to our society and come into work. It was about the people who have already been here for 15 years, who perhaps are already old and who have never contributed. They cannot speak Swedish and cannot make themselves understood. It was them I spoke about. Member Elmi, however, completely skips over that information and creates her own truth.

Neither I nor we have ever said that all immigrants should leave. It is a lie. It is completely appalling to say so. That is not how the truth looks. The truth is – I have said it several times in the rostrum, and I am happy to say it again – that those who do not want to be here, those who do not want to contribute to our society, those who also do not strive for it but have some own drive, they should not be here.

Those who commit crimes against innocent Swedes and others who have moved to our country, where we are to be a united country together, the Green Party chooses not to want to deport – people who engage in gang crime, shoot and kill innocent twelve-year-olds or mow down people on Drottninggatan. These people shall be allowed to stay and commit new crimes. What kind of responsibility is that towards Sweden's population? There is no responsibility at all, I believe, when one as a politician does so.

We can talk about segregation or integration, but the Sweden Democrats' goal is to unite Sweden. Sweden is not united today. The Green Party's policy will only cause segregation to increase in our country. It is not the solution.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! On February 4, one of the worst acts of violence in Sweden's modern history occurred. Ten innocent people were murdered in cold blood at Campus Risbergska in Örebro – a place for learning, dreams, and faith in the future. My colleagues and I went there on Friday to show our participation in the mourning.

Madam Speaker! We stood at the memorial site. We saw the lights, the flowers and the children's drawings. But above all, we saw people holding together in a difficult time. We also saw people lighting candles for the hope of something better, despite the hatred, the violence and the terrible sorrow.

After the visit to the memorial site, we met the family of the murdered Aziza. Aziza was 68 years old – a beloved sister, role model, and mentor. She had survived Saddam Hussein's oppression and moved to Sweden in the early 90s with her family to seek freedom. By the summer, she would have retired. She taught mathematics and ran a YouTube channel with 120,000 subscribers where she helped Kurdish children around the world learn math. She was a bridge-builder, a teacher, and a woman who wanted to contribute to society.

Madam Speaker! So far we do not know what motives lay behind the horrific act at Campus Risbergska, and in this, we shall not speculate either. But I still want to recount what Aziza's family said to us, because their words testify to how scarred our society has become. They said: "Enough is enough. Hate must not win. Polarization must be stopped. We do not want to be called immigrants anymore. Sweden is our home." And they are right; enough is enough.

Madam Speaker! The family's words echo in my heart, because this is not just a story about Örebro. It is a story about Sweden, about who we are and what we are becoming.

Madam Speaker! Today's debate on integration is important, because integration is one of the most decisive social issues for Sweden's future. Integration is about the opportunity to get a job, to learn the Swedish language, and to become a part of the community. For us Social Democrats, integration is about rights and obligations but above all about building a strong and cohesive Sweden where no one is left behind. There must be jobs, education, and opportunities – not walls. Today we are debating based on the committee's report on the Settlement Act, establishment measures, and how we create better conditions for people to enter the workforce, contribute to our society, and become a part of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! When society fails, polarization grows. When welfare cracks and security is eroded, fear and polarization grow. Then Sweden is split. We see it everywhere. We see it in schools, where segregation increases and resources decrease. We see it in healthcare, where care queues spiral out of control and emergency rooms are overloaded. We see it on the housing market, where young people cannot afford to move out of home and the housing shortage drives up prices. We see it on the labor market, where the government cuts back on labor market training instead of helping people into jobs.

Madam Speaker! We have seen this happen, but not in a day or a year. It is about 20 years of a right-wing majority in this chamber characterized by cuts, tax cuts for the richest, and a policy that divides instead of unites. This was also evident from previous speeches.

Madam Speaker! Let us look at what reality looks like today. Sweden is on its way to having one of the EU's highest unemployment rates. Figures from SCB show that over half a million people are without work. Long-term unemployment is sticking. Almost one-third have been without a job for over six months. Among foreign-born people, unemployment is three times higher than among domestic-born, and it is even worse for foreign-born women. It is not because they lack the will to work, but because they repeatedly encounter obstacles.

Madam Speaker! The Equality Ombudsman's latest report clearly shows that those born abroad have more difficulty finding jobs and poorer access to the housing market, and that they face prejudices in working life. Someone named Ahmed or Fatima is rejected even before the interview despite having the same merits as Anders or Lisa. Young people in the suburbs graduate without seeing a future. Women who want to work get stuck in a system where one does not have access to childcare if one does not have a job, and where educational places and internship positions are lacking. Thus, segregation is cemented, and thus, exclusion is created.

What is the government and the Sweden Democrats doing in a situation where the gaps and polarization in society are growing? Well, they are lowering taxes for the richest instead of investing in jobs and education. They are cutting back on establishment measures. They are withdrawing language training. They are weakening the areas where people struggle the most to become part of society. And now they also want to tear up the Settlement Act.

Madam Speaker! The Settlement Act was introduced to ensure that municipalities in Sweden take their responsibility to ensure that newcomers reach all municipalities. No municipality shall be able to evade its responsibility. Integration shall take place fairly so that not certain municipalities, for example Botkyrka and Södertälje, have to bear the entire responsibility while others, such as Danderyd and Täby, close the door to people. And do you know what? The Settlement Act has functioned. The National Audit Office's review shows that the reception has become faster and more equal and that the establishment has improved.

The government and the Sweden Democrats want to erode the system. An investigation has been commissioned, and they want to let certain municipalities opt out of their responsibility. What would that mean, Madam Speaker? Well, it would mean that even more people would be forced to settle in the already vulnerable areas where segregation is greatest. We Social Democrats believe that you do not build cohesion in society by creating ghettos. You do not create integration by placing people where they lack the conditions to succeed. Therefore, we Social Democrats stand up for the current Settlement Act and move for the approval of reservation 1.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has always been at its strongest when all people are given the chance to contribute. I have seen what happens when people are given that opportunity. I have seen young people in our suburbs fight their way through education despite all odds being against them. I have seen single mothers learn Swedish and get their first jobs. I have seen newcomers start companies, hire others, and create jobs and welfare in our country. Therefore, I am incredibly tired of the rhetoric that paints integration as something impossible. It is a rhetoric that time and again in this speaker's chair points out people as problems instead of highlighting concrete solutions.

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to read the Sweden Democrats' specific statement in the report. It is clear that the Sweden Democrats do not want integration. They do not want people to be given a chance to contribute. They want certain people to leave Sweden. This became very clear in the previous exchange of remarks.

The Sweden Democrats often speak of repatriation, as if people who have lived here for decades, built their lives here, worked, paid taxes and raised children would suddenly pack their bags and leave the country. The Sweden Democrats speak of a lack of adaptation. What they actually mean is that they do not want people here who do not look like them. But do you know what? Sweden is bigger than that.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has always been built by people who have come here from other countries. They have worked in industry, healthcare, and schools. They have built our roads and railways, started companies, developed culture and science. And they continue every day to contribute to Swedish welfare and Swedish prosperity. Yet the right and the Sverigedemokrater stand here time and again and speak of immigrants as a collective problem and imply that all of Sweden's challenges would be solved if we only had fewer people with foreign names. It is not only untrue; it is dangerous.

The rhetoric of the Right and the Sweden Democrats creates a social climate where certain people never feel welcome. Children born in Sweden are told that they do not belong here. It is a we-and-they society instead of a society where we stand side by side.

Madam Speaker! Let me be clear: Integration is about rights and responsibilities. Those who come to Sweden shall learn the Swedish language, work and contribute. But we as a society also have an obligation to provide people with the conditions to succeed, to not discriminate and to not close doors – but to open them.

It is here, Madam Speaker, where SD's policy falls apart. SD says that immigrants must learn Swedish but cuts back on SFI. It is said that immigrants must work, but cuts are made within labor market policy. And it is said that immigrants must be integrated, but it is made all the harder for people to do just that.

SD's policy is full of contradictions, because SD actually does not want integration. They want division. In the Sweden Democrats' principle program, it even states that assimilation is necessary for social cohesion. One must be honest enough to say that.

We Social Democrats say no to the Sweden Democrats' policy. We will never accept a policy that is built on fear, hatred and polarization or that pits people against one another.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have a different vision for Sweden. We want a country where we stick together and where everyone, regardless of background, is given the opportunity to work, contribute, and feel at home. We know, Madam Speaker, that integration requires political decisions that work in practice.

We Social Democrats stand up for an active labor market policy that provides people with support to enter employment. We stand up for a settlement law that ensures all municipalities take their responsibility. We stand up for investments in education and language, because without Swedish and without knowledge, one does not move forward in society. And we stand up for more measures so that more foreign-born women can get jobs, because integration is also an equality issue. We also believe that the government should take measures to individualize the establishment allowance. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 8.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: Sweden is a fantastic country, built by people who came here with dreams of a better future and of working, studying, building a home and giving their children a secure upbringing. Regardless of whether your name is Anna or Ahmed, whether your parents come from Småland or Kurdistan, and whether you learned Swedish from birth or later in life, you shall have the same opportunities, the same rights and the same obligations. Therefore, we Social Democrats want to build a Sweden where everyone gets the chance to contribute, where no one is held back by their background, their name or their skin color. Sweden shall not be a country where children are sorted by background, where the zip code decides the future or where a few become rich at the expense of others.

Sweden shall be a country where we stick together, where we build the future together and where we see each other as equals, as fellow human beings and as part of the same community. That is why we choose Social Democrats: cohesion over division, hope over fear, and a Sweden where everyone, not just some, has a place.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is not just a country for some. Sweden is our country, everyone's country.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Serkan Köse, for a speech that was good in some parts! But I was a bit startled when the member spoke about the Settlement Act. Does the member know something that I do not know? What I know is that there is an investigation that we have not quite seen yet.

You also speak of your opinion that the Settlement Act has functioned well, Serkan Köse. But what I, as a municipal politician, know is that the current form has been an enormous challenge, not only for Danderyd and Tyresö but also for little Burlöv and Åkarp in Skåne, which are located near Malmö.

It has also been shown that the parameters that have determined whether the municipality has had the possibility to receive and integrate new citizens have been misstructured. I look forward very much to what the investigation into the new Settlement Act will hopefully lead to. It is well known that places such as Östersund and Åre have indicated that they could have taken a larger share of the newly arrived but have not received it, because the existing parameters have been used as the basis.

My question to Member Köse is: Do you mean that the Settlement Act works as it does in its current form?

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for an important question.

As the Settlement Act is constructed and based on the review that has been made of how well the law functions today, I feel secure with it. But as with all legislation and all reforms, it needs to be evaluated. One needs to review if there are parts that can be improved.

But from what I read about what the government wants, the intentions are not to improve the current settlement law and ensure that all municipalities take responsibility. What I read is that the law is to be torn up and the municipalities given greater opportunities to be able to say no to people. This is what we are against.

We believe that all 290 municipalities in Sweden should take a common, and solidary, responsibility to ensure that people can establish themselves, get a home, and learn the language. The context one finds oneself in and where one lives is important. Many people move to areas where it is difficult to get a home or a job.

Of course, one can look at the current Settlement Act as it is constructed. It has its flaws and may need to be strengthened. But I am looking for the intention behind the change. What does one want to change? Does one want all of Sweden's municipalities to take a common, and solidary, responsibility for people who are here? Or does one want certain municipalities to be exempted so that they can refuse to receive people? That was what I criticized in my speech.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! Neither you nor I really know what the intention is, Serkan Köse.

As I perceive it, the intention is that the municipalities must have more to say, whether they have more capacity or less capacity in relation to what they receive. It requires a municipality that is on its toes for people to be integrated.

Another thing is that the legislation works very well today when we have low application numbers. Few come to the country. But historically speaking, it is now we are to change the legislation, so that the municipalities can in a sensible and reasonable way receive large numbers of people who need help and safety in our country if we end up in a new situation in the future.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind the members that we say "the member" or the name and not "you".

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the commitment to these issues.

Again: The Settlement Act was enacted when we had a large wave of refugees. Very many people sought out Sweden. But it also came about because we saw that very few municipalities took a greater responsibility in relation to what responsibility they had taken historically. The purpose and spirit of the Settlement Act was to ensure that more municipalities – all municipalities – in Sweden take a greater collective responsibility, and we think that has worked. This is shown by both the National Audit Office's report and much else.

All reforms can be questioned, reviewed, and developed. But when I read about the government's intentions, I do not quite see what the member is trying to portray here. It is possible that the Liberals and the member have these intentions, but when I read the purpose in the directives to the commission, I see that it is not intended that all municipalities in Sweden should take responsibility. Municipalities should be given greater opportunities but also more power to be able to say no. We will have to see what the commission concludes.

I think that all municipalities in Sweden need to take greater responsibility and ensure that people are integrated into the labor market and can move to where the jobs and housing are. It must not be that very few municipalities in Sweden, which have historically taken a greater responsibility, should continue to take responsibility when there are municipalities that until now have not done so much. They should perhaps be involved and collectively ensure that all people are integrated into our country.

Thank you once again for the question!

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Member Serkan Köse is the second person in the chamber today to lie straight out in the speaker's chair about the Sweden Democrats' policies and our views. I think it is unfortunate. It is also not like Member Köse to do so, as I know him from the committee.

For my part, I could sink just as low and start lying about the Social Democrats' policy here in the rostrum. But I will not do that. I do not need to lie to convince citizens and show that the Social Democrats' way of governing Sweden has been abysmal.

I would like to ask the member to mention three points showing that mass immigration has facilitated integration. Question two: In what way does it become easier to adapt people who come here if we do not set any requirements? Question three: In what way would Sweden become a better country if people who commit violent crimes retain the privilege that it actually is to be a citizen?

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member from the Sweden Democrats for the question.

I do not really know what in my speech was wrong – it would be interesting to hear. Is it about the Sweden Democrats' cuts to active labor market policy and adult education, the deteriorations in housing policy, the investments in welfare, or tax cuts for the wealthiest? It would be interesting to hear what in our criticism the Sweden Democrats do not recognize themselves in. Does one mean that the Sweden Democrats do not contribute to hatred and polarization? Or is it that the Sweden Democrats have so far not presented any concrete proposals for people to be better integrated and for us to combat segregation? The list can be long. It would be interesting to hear what in what we say the Sweden Democrats do not recognize themselves in.

The Speaker has the opportunity to reflect and say: "This is not our policy, but this is what we stand for. We absolutely do not think like the Social Democrats, but for integration to work in Sweden and for us to be able to combat segregation, we have these concrete proposals for reforms. We have not cut, or halved, the appropriations for labor market measures. We have no policy at all when it comes to integration and segregation, but our purpose is that everyone should be assimilated."

Then we know that. The member may stand up and speak about what policy one has.

When it comes to requirements, there is no one here who does not want requirements to be placed on people. As a Social Democrat, I have the firm opinion that one should do one's duty and demand one's rights, and that everyone who can work shall work. For this, education is required, and then one shall undergo an education. If it is required that one adapts, then one shall adapt. I have not heard anyone in here who does not want requirements to be placed on people.

People are not off the hook either. There is some image somewhere of people walking around without any demands being placed on them. It is a caricature. The Sweden Democrats are trying to put labels on people and say: You do nothing, you just walk around, no demands are placed on you.

So our systems do not work that way. Requirements are placed on people to establish themselves in the labor market. In order to be able to get a home, you must have an income. There are therefore very many parameters in our systems today that mean that requirements are placed on people.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I note that I did not receive an answer to, for example, the question of why criminals who have committed aggravated rape or murder or have been involved in gang crime should have the privilege of still retaining their citizenship and being able to remain in our country and continue to pose a threat to Sweden's population. I would like to have an answer to that.

There were many things that MP Köse said in his speech that I reacted to and that are not true regarding the Sverigedemokraternas policy. MP Köse spoke about skin color in the speaker's chair, in the Swedish Riksdag 2025. It actually makes me really afraid that a Social Democratic representative talks about skin color. I never do, nor does my party. It is about epithets – mudslinging, "brunsmetning" or whatever you call it – that the Socialdemokraterna are trying to smear on me and my party. That is not true; it is a lie. Serkan Köse knows that. But it is rhetoric. We are already in the election campaign, and it can be noticed in the speeches.

I am a human being and I belong to a party that believes well and positively about people, until the day they show the opposite: that one is not good but is a murderer or a rapist. Until that day, I believe well of people. The division that Member Köse speaks of, I do not recognize at all. It is nothing that my party stands for, on the contrary. Sverigedemokraterna want a united Sweden.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! Sometimes one gets lost when listening to Member Frohm. I cannot reconcile the fact that I should have pointed out skin color. What I have tried to problematize or very clearly highlight in my speech is that one should not make distinctions between people based on background or skin color. It is not about pointing out, but rather the opposite.

If there is any party that frequently contributes to this discussion, it is the Sweden Democrats. The member spent their eight-minute speech casting suspicion and pointing out individuals and groups, and very clearly pointing out that almost all or most people in a certain group are a problem for Sweden. If one is not adaptable, one should leave the country.

The member says that she thinks well of people. I absolutely believe that the member does, but something else is conveyed when, in the rhetoric, one points out groups of people as a collective problem and as collective criminals in our society.

It is this rhetoric that I tried to problematize, criticize, and question. We Social Democrats will never be part of or contribute to that rhetoric. We will also, once again, be a wall against a rhetoric that means making a distinction between people and people depending on where they come from, what they are named, and what skin color they have.

Sweden is a rule of law state. If one is a criminal and commits a crime, one shall be punished. There is no one here who will accept or stand behind any criminals, on the contrary. If one commits a crime, one shall go into prison. Then one shall be brought to justice.

Our entry into the discussion on integration is very much about creating conditions for people to become a part of Sweden. We Social Democrats believe that active measures and efforts are needed to ensure that people enter our society. But with the Sweden Democrats' rhetoric and policy, it is only about pushing people away, and then one complains about segregation and about integration not working. There is a contradiction here, and that is what I have tried to problematize.

I really hope that the Sweden Democrats take this discussion and criticism to heart, and I look forward to a continued discussion on the integration problems.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker and honorable colleagues! A warm welcome to the Swedish Parliament, listeners!

Now we have heard the fine words from the Social Democrats: equality, equity, solidarity. Here in the chamber, people talk about the great values.

Once upon a time, the Social Democrats stood up for restrictive immigration. Sweden shall receive people who are fleeing for humanitarian reasons. But Sweden cannot welcome the whole world here.

One always hears the emotional arguments. But ask the students who have grown up in our suburbs and attended the schools there how often a new classmate arrives. Every time someone who cannot speak the language arrives, everyone falls behind. Or perhaps one's parents cannot speak the language, and one has to sit and act as an interpreter. One might live in a three-room apartment, a rental unit that has been allocated by the municipality. One has four siblings and is never allowed to be alone in one's room and do homework.

In the debate, the government's entire policy is being portrayed as racist – that is completely wrong. What we have done in Sweden is that we have betrayed the weakest. We have betrayed the Swedish working class and the Swedish middle class.

Our entire Swedish welfare is built on people doing their duty and then claiming their right. I cannot claim my right and then do my duty. All of Sweden is built on the fact that I go to work and my children go to school and have the right to a secure upbringing, but also on the fact that I pay my tax. When I pay my tax, we can indeed afford to finance our school, the police, the Armed Forces, healthcare, and those who cannot take care of themselves. It is this that is the very core of the Swedish welfare society.

But the immigration we have had in Sweden for 40 years has been devastating. Those who have paid the price are the Swedish people and the children and young people who grow up in families that have not entered into society.

That is why the government now steps forward and says: When you come to Sweden, you shall learn Swedish from day one and not after year five, six, or seven. You have an obligation to make yourself employable on the labor market by learning the language. If you do not learn the language, you will not get far in Sweden.

For a long time, it was said that language requirements were racism and that those who come to Sweden should receive permanent residence permits directly, as it would improve integration. Yes, look at how it looks! That is why the government is now moving forward with language requirements, livelihood requirements, and temporary residence permits. When you behave correctly, you are rewarded.

And let me be completely honest: Sweden does not force any people to come here. We have built a society and a regulatory framework that says that the person who is in need of coming here has their protection needs assessed. But just because the person is allowed to stay in Sweden does not mean that Sweden should open all doors and that the person should have no obligations.

The reason why so many people want to come to Sweden is that we are doing something right here in Sweden. But that does not mean that Sweden should be worsened.

Now we are fixing Sweden, and it takes time. We heard a colleague from Vänsterpartiet who said that we have solved all the problems just because we have reduced immigration in two years. No, we haven't. It will take 20–30 years.

Every time immigration has been increased over the past 30 years, have you asked the teachers out there how they manage their classes? Have you asked nursing assistants and nurses what it looks like at the healthcare clinic? Go down to the nearest emergency room! Sometimes it feels as if we Members of Parliament never visit the healthcare system. Go down to S:t Görans sjukhus or Södersjukhuset and see what it looks like!

It is easy to say that one should take in immigrants. But how long does it take to train a nurse, a nursing assistant, or a police officer? It is a matter of three, four, five, or six years. Do even all want to train as nursing assistants, nurses, or police officers? Does Vänsterpartiet perhaps want to force people into certain professional roles? It is some kind of communist-socialist idea where you have big management here from above, from the chamber, and then society out there is just supposed to fix the whole thing.

I was born in 1988. I remember a Sweden where my father in Rinkeby used to park and sometimes leave the key in the car. Try leaving the key in the car in Stockholm's city center today, or in Djursholm! Then it disappears. But this was the Sweden I grew up in.

The idea that Swedes would be racists is a completely crazy idea. If the Swedes were racists, we would never have had an immigration that has been among Europe's highest during the last 40 years.

Madam Speaker! This government – the Moderates together with the Liberals and KD, with the support of the Sweden Democrats in the Riksdag – will ensure that Sweden feels good again. We set requirements for the Swedish language, self-sufficiency, and that one shall live an honest life. And we shall stand on the side of the honest immigrants – those who do right by themselves and toil for 12, 14, or 16 hours over six or seven days a week as self-employed entrepreneurs or drive delivery vans or taxis. Then there must be consequences for those who do not behave. This is what we have not done in Sweden, and this is what the government is now doing.

If you commit a crime, you are not welcome. We carry out deportations. We do not end up in any Catch-22, where some bureaucrat is going to sit and turn over papers, and then we are supposed to shrug and say: Well, that's how it turned out.

We politicians may not be supposed to review what is happening in society, but I must still do it. We could see a young girl from Ukraine who speaks fluent Swedish. She must now return. Then we see gang criminals aged 18–19 who commit serious crimes. They may have shot someone's head off, committed a murder and extinguished a life. But we cannot deport them, because there are enforcement obstacles.

Then one asks why the Swedish people are frustrated. People speak of polarization. The polarization in Swedish society has been created through incorrect political decisions in this chamber. The government is now taking hold of this.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Arin Karapet, for a very inspiring speech! It was almost a Marxist analysis, where the member spoke for several minutes about how the working class has been betrayed.

There was a lot of talk about how this government is going to fix Sweden. The Member of Parliament raised some central points that I think are important. He raised the issue of overcrowding. That takes us into housing policy. It is a sector where this government has completely stalled. It doesn't solve the overcrowding that less is built, that construction workers are unemployed, or that investment subsidies are withdrawn.

The Chairman spoke about jobs. We are in a state of mass unemployment. It is 10 percent unemployment in Sweden. It is high youth unemployment and long-term unemployment. This leaves the government where it is.

School was also raised in the speech, that one should learn Swedish and so on. Brutal cuts are ongoing all around in the municipalities in Sweden.

It was a rather long speech, but it did not say particularly much good about immigration. There was a lot of collective blaming. One actually wonders when the member will speak well of immigration. People have come to Sweden for decades and have been involved in building up and renovating this country. Whether it has been during the pandemic or other crises – in Sweden, people step up, and it doesn't matter where you are from. People step up and renovate the country. People build Sweden. Immigrants do too.

But what we heard from the member was seven to eight minutes of collective blaming of immigrants.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! When I mention overcrowding, I highlight the problem that Sweden does not have the capacity to receive as many people as one likes. One cannot conjure up housing.

I also wonder how fair it is when someone comes here and gets a first-hand contract. Let me take an example. It does not have to be about Swedish children; we can take children with a foreign background. Not all of their parents have known that one can be registered in the housing agency's housing queue directly from the age of 18. Those who pay the price are those who also have a foreign background.

Take all the gang shootings. In almost all cases, the perpetrators have foreign origin. The victims also almost always have foreign origin. Does Swedish integration work?

Can we manage the Left Party's immigration policy, to bring in as many as we want? Is there room in our schools? Are there premises? Do we have enough health centers? How does Swedish maternity care work? There will be a pressure on the entire society. And as soon as one talks about the problems, one is told that it is racism, that one is generalizing all immigrants and so on.

I myself have foreign background. I can take my mother as an example. She would have received 200 kronor less in pension if she had not worked a single day in Sweden and had not broken her back.

This is the real Sweden. Facts do not lie. Many immigrants contribute to Swedish society. But many immigrants also pay the price for the failed immigration and integration policy.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! One then comes a bit to the core when it concerns what message the member wants to put forward.

When we came to, for example, housing policy and overcrowding, which was taken up in the member's statement but also now in the speaker's chair, it was immediately the case that the member pitted groups against each other: Is it right that a person comes here and gets an apartment and so on? That is the serious problem here: that people are being pitted against each other.

It is not about Sweden taking in the whole world. We have well over 1 million refugees in the world. Not even a tiny, tiny, per mille comes to Sweden. Hardly 0.002 percent comes to Sweden. It is so few that come. A record few come to Sweden.

If we have a housing shortage in Sweden, the core must be that politicians must take responsibility and think: How do we build housing that people can afford? That is the political responsibility I am looking for. The problem with the member and this government is that they, at the first breath, set groups against each other. That is what I have a big problem with.

I do not think it makes Sweden better. It is nothing that prepares Sweden for the better. It is nothing that builds better community in this country, and it is nothing that will contribute to us, for example, getting more housing.

Suppose we were to have exactly zero percent immigration, that no one would come here. Would housing be built then? No, it would not, because this government has withdrawn the investment supports and crashed the housing industry. It is nothing that can be blamed on immigrants, and it is nothing that one needs to set groups against each other for.

I wonder: When will the member – in a government position, when one has passed the halfway point – take responsibility for this?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting when one talks housing policy with a Left Party member. I myself have an Eastern European background. I have seen the Stalinist, Khrushchevian, and Brezhnevian houses, which were simply slammed up. It looks roughly like how it looks in Blåkulla out in Solna. You just put up panel houses. What happens then – in 20, 30 years? It becomes exclusion and poor maintenance. People do not move. It becomes their permanent residence for their entire lifetime. That is when social problems arise. It is roughly like the Swedish million program, when you just slam up housing.

Yes, it is a housing shortage. But there is a larger idea. How do you get commercial actors and shops in? How do you get a living city, where people build a social control and a common safety?

The Left Party does not mention all of this. The Left Party has forgotten that they were involved and contributed to a ten percent inflation. We had a covid pandemic. The construction companies say: We do not need investment support. It is other regulations we must change. Are you prepared to change the rent regulation, Tony Haddou? No.

Who is then going to pay for all of this? The most heavily taxed working class will have to pay for this. I have never heard the Vänsterpartiet say: But at least let nursing assistants have a 10 percent tax cut! Every time people talk about the rich getting higher taxes, it is those who have the smallest margins who end up paying higher taxes. We have tested your politics for 100 years. Just look at Eastern Europe. It doesn't work.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The problem with the Tidögänget is that they use lies as a political method. The claim that any party in this chamber is pushing for all the world's people to come to Sweden is simply not true. First and foremost, not even all the world's people want to come to Sweden. But the biggest lie is still that immigrants do not want to integrate.

The members of the board pointed out several societal problems. I share the description of the problems. We have a huge problem with crime. We have problems with overcrowding. But we also have problems with the skills gap in Sweden.

At the same time, the SD government is reducing the resources for segregation work. They are reducing the resources for the labor market policy. They removed the investment support.

My question to the member is: In what way do the return grants and the reporting obligation – the proposals that you have put forward – solve the problems that you yourself point out?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! It is very simple. A reporting obligation was needed. It is an information obligation; you can call it a reporting obligation, Leila Ali Elmi.

Those who come to Sweden have their protection needs assessed. Those who receive a yes shall be allowed to stay. But there are far too many who do not have the right to stay here who stay here illegally, and then the entire right of asylum is eroded. That means, by definition, that whoever wants can come here regardless of whether one has protection needs or not, and one has a right to all the welfare that the average Swedish citizen has helped to pay for.

Return migration grants are completely correct. There may be people here who are asylum seekers or who have come here as alternatively needing protection or who have refugee status but have realized: No, Sweden is not the right country for me. In that case, we help those persons to return, and they receive a start capital. There is nothing terrible about that.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I feel that the member did not quite answer my question. My question was linked to how return grants and the obligation to report would solve the problems that the member raises regarding overcrowding, segregation, and crime. These are major societal problems that we need to solve, so I would like the member to answer the question, Madam Speaker.

No one here is claiming that the whole world should come here. No parties in Sweden's Riksdag are saying that society is without requirements. We agree on those things. On the other hand, we do not agree that this is the solution to the social problems. Therefore, I would like to know how your proposals solve the problems with segregation, crime, overcrowding, and the skills shortage while you simultaneously cut resources in all these areas, Arin Karapet.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Leila Ali Elmi asks me how we are to solve the segregation problems. Then there is the question of the obligation to provide information. Those affected by the obligation to provide information are people who are not to be integrated into Sweden. They are people who are here illegally. It would be completely insane if our government, or if one generally, would want to integrate anyone who does not have the right to stay here. They must return.

The return migration grant is good. We should provide support to people who feel they have not settled in Sweden and who want to return, and they should be allowed to return. This does not collide with anyone who has the right to stay in Sweden. What you are doing is merely fear propaganda, Leila Ali Elmi. You are frightening immigrants and painting a picture of Sweden as a racist country.

Again: Sweden is among the countries that have received the most immigrants in Europe. Sweden is one of the few countries in the world where immigrants receive a home and have the right to healthcare, dental care, school, and university education. Is this your racism?

The only thing you do is tell the immigrants who are furthest away from society and who are to become a part of Swedish society that Sweden is not their country, that there is no point in them making an effort or in their children going to school and learning Swedish. What you do is cement the problems and create a we and a they.

When it comes to integration, Leila Ali Elmi, my children have an Armenian father. But they will be more Swedish than I am, and my grandchildren will be too. They will live here for generations, and therefore we must do right from day one so that they get the opportunity to live out their dreams.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 5.

Sweden faces many and great challenges. In light of the previous exchange of remarks, I want to state that racism is one of our many challenges. Integration and unemployment are two others. More people must move from exclusion to inclusion. More people must become a part of the common Sweden. More people must undertake a life journey that involves having a job to go to. More young boys and girls must see their parents get up in the morning, work, contribute, and pay tax.

Yesterday, new unemployment statistics arrived, the worst in 25 years. It is no one else's responsibility but the government's and Mats Persson's. It is good that unemployment is now truly starting to become a discussion. The opposition in the committee has warned about it for a long time, and now we are starting to see that others are also warning about it.

One in ten Swedes is unemployed. One in ten! It is almost difficult to take in. In all groups, unemployment is increasing, but it is worst among foreign-born women and young men. One cannot say anything other than that integration and unemployment are linked.

I will give the Tidö parties one thing: You do a lot of things. You do a lot so that people will return. You do a lot within the migration policy, and you do quite a lot – not least in this chamber, at this rostrum, and in this committee – to fuel the polarization.

What one does not do is reverse unemployment and solve integration. It is not a lie, but it is the truth. Look at the list of government bills, I usually say. The Government Offices deliver more bills than Mats Persson and the Ministry of Employment. Look at the list of bills for this year – members who are lazy will soon start fighting to get to sit on the Committee on Employment, because nothing is happening here!

A lot of other things are happening, but nothing is happening within this committee's area of responsibility. Honestly, what is the government doing so that more foreign-born people will learn the Swedish language? What is the government doing so that more people will get up in the morning, go to work, contribute and pay tax? Very little is happening there. It is no lie. It is the truth. It is a fact.

Everyone needs to examine themselves. I have said it several times, and I say it again: the Center Party should also have done more for integration, and we are now doing what we can to deliver new politics when the government does not.

We have had five reform groups that have presented new, sharp proposals to deliver a better Sweden so that more people can make a life journey. I have had the honor of leading one of these reform groups, and it has been very exciting. There have been good discussions where we have chosen to turn and twist new stones to find new proposals. It is possible to do things even within the committee's areas of responsibility and in other areas that involve integration.

A proposal that we present is to limit and condition parental leave for newly arrived people who do not speak Swedish. When the child has turned one year old, one shall study Swedish two days a week. It is not mean to set requirements. It is kind to set requirements. But we must also set requirements on ourselves in politics to deliver. That is why we, for example, want to convert SFI to job-Swedish, which means that the person studying SFI shall have a focus on entering the labor market. There shall be a much closer connection between the business sector and education. The person who has the prerequisites to study shall learn academic Swedish with a focus on further studies.

One does not have to think that these are good proposals, but they are at least more proposals than the government has delivered for SFI.

For me, integration is very much about jobs. It is not we politicians here in the chamber who create new job opportunities, but it is small and growing companies, but even here, too little is being done.

A proposal that I would call classic bourgeois alliance politics is to make it cheaper for companies to hire so that more young girls and boys around the country can see their parents get up in the morning, work, contribute and pay tax. One such proposal that we present is that companies going from zero to ten employees shall be exempted from the employer contribution so that more not only dare to start companies but also dare to hire, for that is today the big problem.

Another such thing is that it must always pay to move from benefits to work. In that, I share the government's policy, and the government speaks well of this. But very little has happened in the chamber for us to go that way.

There is a lot of talk about what is Swedish. I have previously said that for me, it doesn't matter if one likes baklava or sockerkaka, and if one celebrates Christmas or something else. It also doesn't matter which god one worships. For me, the most important thing is that one works, contributes, and pays tax, because honestly: What is more Swedish than getting up in the morning, working, paying tax, and ensuring that the Swedish welfare works? There is probably nothing more Swedish than that.

What then is the big problem? I must say that I believe the big problem is that the Tidö parties do not believe in people. People are seen as a problem that should get out of this country. But honestly, no matter how much one tries, one will not succeed. What one does is deport a small part and get a small part to return, but the large mass that remains in the country, one does not care about. But it is them we must take care of. It is them we must invest in.

Centerpartiet believes in people, and therefore it annoyed me a little when the member from SD stood and said that they do not think ill of people. One only has to look at how Sverigedemokratiska representatives express themselves, such as that Sweden would import rapists. The Sverigedemokraternas rhetoric fuels the polarization here in the country and makes it harder for people to integrate, enter and become a part of the common welfare.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the opposition is ready to roll up its sleeves and begin working in the committee. I truly hope that Mats Persson now takes the unemployment figures and the signals regarding integration problems seriously and begins delivering bills so that we can stand here in the chamber and debate and discuss sharp proposals that make Sweden better and stronger.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It has been a long debate so far. Initially, there was some talk about made-up jobs and so on from the parties on the other side, especially from the Sweden Democrats. When it comes to labor market policy, I think some parties somewhere pretend that one has no power over labor market policy. They pretend that politicians would have no power over which jobs are created or over job opportunities at all.

We should not have made-up occupations, I believe the Sweden Democrats said. It was also said in an exchange of remarks that we should not make up jobs from here. I think that is as offensive as it can get, because many of the occupations one invests in are welfare jobs. It is about the welfare workers out there who keep this entire society running, and when you cut back on welfare – as this government does – it is they who have to leave. They are not made-up jobs, but they are the most socially important jobs we have. They are the ones who uphold this entire society.

I think that in this debate, one should view the issue from this perspective, that is, that politicians actually have power over the labor market policy. The market experiments and so on have had their time. One should not lean back and pretend that one has no responsibility for the unemployment we have in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I believe the priorities of the government and the Sweden Democrats are very clear: instead of facilitating things for households, healthcare, welfare, or schools, they have largely invested in tax cuts for the very wealthiest. It is only to be noted that the government, point by point, fails to handle serious societal problems. Large groups seem invisible when the parties in the government base completely ignore the problems affecting those people who have difficulty making their everyday finances work.

Inequality is increasing. The climate transition is being put on hold. Major cuts in welfare are being rolled out across the entire country, and the growing unemployment is left completely without measures. With this government and the Sverigedemokraterna, we reach a mass unemployment of over 10 percent. Closer to 600,000 people are unemployed in Sweden, which is an increase of 114,000 people. Unemployment is also rising in all ages, among both men and women as well as those born domestically and abroad. Youth unemployment is rising, and long-term unemployment is rising. That is what we get with this government and the Sverigedemokraterna: mass unemployment and more people living in economic insecurity.

It is not that the government is only failing the unemployed; they simply do not care about them. They do not care about their economic security. Had they done so, they would have started prioritizing them. They would have taken control of the labor market policy, and they would have invested and committed. But this government does not do that, and neither do the Sverigedemokraterna.

Instead, they have invested everything they have in tax cuts for the very richest, and that is why they repeatedly need proposals in the direction of scapegoat politics – a policy that they also implement with brutal hate rhetoric. That one blames immigrants to escape responsibility themselves, we have heard in every debate here through the years. It is an ill-considered signal policy that only harms the cohesion in Sweden. You worsen and deepen the social and economic gaps between people.

At the same time, the government leaves large groups out. What is happening out there is that households and families with children are forced to step back despite the fact that the cost of living is only increasing. Investments are also lagging in a time when unemployment is at a record high, and the construction industry is allowed to crash. Large tax cuts for the very richest are paid for with large cuts all over the country and by people having it worse.

This is not only inefficient and unfair but directly harmful. What the government and Sverigedemokraterna are doing is to reinforce and deepen the societal problems Sweden faces. How can we call ourselves a welfare state if people cannot afford food and rent or even medicine? We are turning a blind eye to the increased cost of living and the economic inequality.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party will never accept the right-wing policies that increase the gaps between people. We know that the best societies are built equal and with reduced economic disparities. The key to success for Sweden has never been cuts, lower wages, worse conditions, mass unemployment or privatizations.

Our strength has historically been to invest in society and in each other – in welfare, jobs and education, housing, health and equality. That is how Sweden develops and grows. Our entire modern history has proven that. Previous generations received better education and better jobs while we became more in Sweden. That was possible thanks to long-term, profitable investments, which is also the most effective integration engine we can have in Sweden.

The government, however, does none of this, and the Sweden Democrats do none of this. They have no ambitions at all to renovate Sweden and ensure that people have it better. I am convinced that we must build a more spacious and better Sweden by investing in society and in the people in it. We have historically proven that it is fully possible to invest in general welfare, reduce economic inequalities, and offer secure jobs.

I am also convinced that people succeed better with better conditions. It is how we invest in society and in the people in it that determines how well we succeed.

Before I conclude, Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words about Örebro. I know that many feel anxiety and fear that their freedom and security are threatened and attacked by forces that see them as less worthy. Regardless of the motive, we have heard politicians single out people on the basis of their background. One can isolate the murderer as a lone lunatic, and one does not need to speculate. But we know that he lived in a context where all problems are methodically blamed on immigrants; I hear it in every debate that this committee has in the chamber. It happens in a country that is being torn apart.

So it does not have to be that way. There must be a turning point, and there must be a will to understand people's life conditions, as well as a will to take responsibility for holding society together. We can choose a different path than the one that tears apart our community. No one should be left behind when we heal the division, and therefore the scapegoat politics and hate rhetoric must also come to an end. People need to know that their lives mean something – that their children mean something and that their lives, dreams and future also matter.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Regarding Tony Haddous's speech, I would like to begin by also expressing my condolences for the horrific massacre that took place in Örebro. None of us want to see that development in Sweden. No party in this chamber wants to see it. I share the sorrow with all those who have been affected by this. Unfortunately, it is not the first time it has happened in Sweden, but it is the worst school shooting so far. I hope and believe – or at least hope – that it will never happen again, but unfortunately, it perhaps will.

With that said, I will move on to the reason for my reply to the member's speech.

The Left Party is the direct opposite of the Sweden Democrats, I would say. The more the Sweden Democrats grow, the larger the Left Party becomes. One difference, however, is that the Sweden Democrats are three times as large as the Left Party. The Left Party is also known for taking the side of the perpetrator instead of the crime victims. Convicted perpetrators, murderers, and rapists should, according to the Left Party, of course retain their citizenship. They shall remain here in our country and continue to pose a danger to Sweden's population. It is not about protecting Sweden's population, but rather about endangering the citizens' security.

I have a simple question for the member. Vänsterpartiet currently has work to do to become government-capable and be able to join a government base together with the Socialdemokrater – who now suddenly want to stop and tighten mass immigration. The question is therefore: What requirements regarding immigration will Vänsterpartiet set for the Socialdemokrater in order to be able to join a government?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! We will negotiate, but not in this chamber.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was a short and perhaps not entirely exhaustive answer.

I interpret it as that Vänsterpartiet will work and negotiate for continued mass immigration to our country. Vänsterpartiet will not have any solutions to manage the integration in our country. Vänsterpartiet will not negotiate any solutions to prevent segregation and division from increasing in our country. Vänsterpartiet will not demand that murderers, rapists and other criminals and gang criminals be deported from our country. Is that correctly interpreted, Tony Haddou?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The Member started by saying that the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats are the parties that stand furthest apart. A Sweden Democrat is allowed to interpret things exactly as they want. I also assume that the Sweden Democrat interprets the answer I give exactly as they want.

I believe the member is very well aware that negotiations do not take place in this chamber; they have never done so. I still think that the member, when she leaves and sits down after this exchange of remarks, should reflect on what responsibility the Sweden Democrats take for the mass unemployment we have in Sweden. We do not have mass immigration, but we have mass unemployment. The Sweden Democrats are completely responsible for that. I think the Sweden Democrats should do something about the matter. They should perhaps see to it that people get a job to go to, that housing is built in Sweden, and that we get a better school. There are ten other points that I could bring up.

What is urgent right now is that we have an unemployment rate at a record high of 10 percent, but the Sweden Democrats want to talk about a mass immigration that does not exist. When we have the youth unemployment and long-term unemployment that we have in Sweden, when entire industries in Sweden crash completely and when the economy has stalled, I think one should take responsibility for this if one is negotiating with a government. The Member of Parliament shrugs off the responsibility and instead talks about someone else's responsibility and about a negotiation that takes place in a year and a half. It is perhaps the most irresponsible thing I have heard in this debate so far.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Integration is one of the most debated topics in Swedish politics. It is a topic where opinions often take up more space than facts, where generalizations replace nuances, and where entire groups of people are reduced to a burden on society. But what does integration mean in practice, and what does reality say about how it works in Sweden today?

Let us begin with some basic facts. Today, more foreign-born people are in work than ever before. The number of households dependent on benefits has decreased for ten consecutive years. Many of the people who came to Sweden during the refugee wave in 2015 have now educated themselves, obtained jobs, and become part of the labor market. Integration happens every day in workplaces, in schools, and in community life.

At the same time, however, we see a growing segregation, a housing market where many do not even get a chance, and schools where students' opportunities depend on where they live. We see a labor market where your name can still determine whether you even get an interview. It is not integration that has failed, but it is society that has not given everyone the same conditions to succeed.

Madam Speaker! Despite this, it is integration that is made to bear the blame for all societal problems. When gang violence is discussed, talk of failed integration is raised. Less is said about the unequal schools, about the higher proportion of unqualified teachers in vulnerable areas, and about the economic segregation that cements differences from childhood. The public debate has increasingly been characterized by a collective blaming of immigrants. Immigrants are described by many politicians as either criminals or as a burden. They are not described as individuals or as a natural part of Sweden. It is therefore why we today must speak about what happened in Örebro.

Madam Speaker! For those of us who are immigrants in Sweden, the connection between how it was handled and where it was handled is painfully clear. We have lived in a political and media debate where immigration has been made synonymous with problems and where we have constantly been told that we are a burden and a threat.

But in death, the picture suddenly changes. When the victims are described in the media, we get to read about their work, their studies, and their striving for a better future. Suddenly they become individuals, people with their own life stories. It is as if we must die to escape the collective label and be described as the people we are.

Madam Speaker! When the government speaks about integration, it points unilaterally to the individual's responsibility. Immigrants are to adapt, integrate, and do more. On the surface, it may sound reasonable, and let me be clear that every individual obviously has a responsibility to become a part of society. Learning the language, seeking a job, and participating in society's norms and rules is crucial for integration. The problem with the government's policy is that it is built on two false premises.

The first premise is that we who criticize the government's policy would exempt people from responsibility. That is not true. What we are saying is that accountability must be met with opportunities and that those who struggle must also have a real chance to succeed.

The second premise is that immigrants, generally speaking, would lack the will to become a part of society. This, too, is incorrect. Reality shows something else. We see people who learn the language, study, take jobs, run businesses, and engage in community life. These people do everything that is said to be important for integration but still face closed doors.

It is here that the government's policy fails. For someone to be able to become a part of society, it is required that the door is open. Right now, we see a policy that rather closes doors than opens them. There is talk of a reporting obligation. There are proposals to register people's opinions, about withdrawn voting rights, and about return migration grants. None of this is about creating integration, but it is about signaling that certain people do not belong here.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet sees a different path. Unlike the SD government, which chooses to blame, divide, and create mistrust, we see that there are solutions that actually work. The SD government's path is the easy and cowardly path – the one that points fingers instead of taking responsibility.

The Green Party knows that there is another possibility. There is a path where we see people instead of problems and where we acknowledge that segregation and inequality – not immigration itself – is what has created exclusion. Therefore, the Green Party wants to establish a new and strengthened agency to combat segregation. The Green Party wants to see an agency with sufficient resources, which can carry out in-depth analyses, support local initiatives, and develop long-term action plans together with municipalities, the business community, and civil society. With economic and political backing, it is ensured that the work against segregation becomes purposeful, effective, and long-term and not just empty words in a debate.

But it is not enough to understand the problems, we must also have solutions.

Miljöpartiet wants all people in our society to feel worthy and have the opportunity to have their rights upheld. Therefore, we propose concrete measures to strengthen integration. We want to individualize the establishment program so that it meets every person's needs and circumstances. We want to establish a national center for social orientation so that all newcomers get a real chance to understand and navigate Swedish society. We want to give the citizen centers a central role in integration work to create accessible and effective support structures.

For Miljöpartiet, integration is not a matter of rhetoric and signal politics, but a matter of real opportunities to build a society where everyone who wants to contribute also gets a chance to do so. Integration is not a one-time effort and not a test one must pass to be accepted. It is an ongoing process where society and the individual meet, where responsibility is taken from both sides, and where the task of politics is to create the conditions.

Madam Speaker! The SD government wants to make us believe that there is no other choice than to blame, exclude, and withdraw support from those people who want to be a part of Sweden. That is not true. We have a choice and another way.

I move for approval of reservation 6.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! On February 4, Sweden was shaken by a horrific mass murder at Risbergska skolan in Örebro. An adult education center, a place that should symbolize opportunities and dreams, was transformed into a crime scene. Ten innocent fellow citizens did not return home from school or work after being murdered in cold blood, and the entire country was struck by sorrow and shock. Afterwards, Queen Silvia expressed what many of us feel: "Where did the beautiful Sweden go?"

Madam Speaker! The question is compelling. Sweden was once a country characterized by a strong sense of social cohesion built on duties and rights, security, and shared values that mark right and wrong. But over the last decade, this has eroded. The social cohesion has fallen apart and been replaced by growing parallel societies, passivity, and insecurity.

The Christian Democrats have long warned against this development. We are the value-driven party for a reason. We prioritize family, security, care, and community, because we know that an insecure society without shared values and clear expectations risks falling apart and splintering.

We must restore the sense of community in Sweden, and integration policy is part of this work. Integration has failed for decades. This applies both to newcomers and to those who have lived here for a long time and who live in loneliness and isolation and stand far from the labor market.

Madam Speaker! Knowledge of the Swedish language is a decisive factor for people to be able to support themselves and participate in society. The Government is now restructuring the integration policy and has set as a sub-goal that language skills shall increase among foreign-born women and men. Now, the Government is commissioning SCB to follow up on the knowledge of Swedish among the foreign-born. There are far too many foreign-born women who do not have a job. One of the most important tools to reverse this is being able to speak Swedish. SCB's follow-up will provide the Government with a good basis in the continued integration work.

Madam Speaker! Common values create cohesion. Integration is not just about language and jobs but also about which values we share. Sweden is built on a Christian foundation where every human being has a unique and inviolable value. Here we respect each other, here men and women are equal, and here freedom of religion and democracy apply. But today, these values are being challenged. Honor-based oppression, religious extremism, and criminal parallel societies have taken root in parts of our country. It is unacceptable. The Christian Democrats have therefore been driving the work to combat honor-based oppression and strengthen the protection for those who are subjected to it.

Madam Speaker! The change of government in 2022 marked a turning point, and we are now approximately halfway through the parliamentary term. Through our and the government's policies, we are now moving from letting people merely be housed in Sweden to them becoming a part of Sweden. Integration is not just about socioeconomic factors, work and housing, but it is about what kind of society we are to live in. It is about values and good norms, about right and wrong, and about standing up for the Swedish rule of law. It is also about civil society and about combating loneliness.

The Christian Democrats have a clear view: To set requirements is to care. There must be clear expectations in Swedish society, not excuses. We know that work, language, and a clear set of values are crucial for successful integration, and that is why we stand behind this committee report.

Sweden needs an integration policy that is clear and consistent and that sets requirements. Integration is no quick fix, but it requires clear measures and courageous decisions. Sweden has succeeded with integration before, and we can do it again. But it requires that we have the courage to tackle the problems, even when it involves difficult decisions. It requires that we stand up for that Sweden is a country with rights and obligations where we welcome those who want to be a part of our community but also expect them to adapt to our laws, our language and our values.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats believe in a society where every person has a place, where freedom and responsibility go hand in hand and where we hold together instead of being divided. By setting requirements and offering opportunities, we can break down exclusion, strengthen integration and rebuild a Sweden where everyone can become part of the community.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

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

Today we are discussing integration policy. It is undoubtedly one of Sweden's most important issues, both at the individual level and for Sweden as a whole. Integration stands on three legs: language, jobs, and values. Integration has been a priority issue for the Liberals over several parliamentary terms. It is required that one dares to both highlight the problems one sees and come up with solutions. My liberal predecessors have, from the speaker's rostrum, highlighted the core issues and that the Swedish language is the key to all integration, as well as that where overcrowding is greatest, so too are insecurity and lack of freedom. Here, the greatest reforms and the ability to think anew are also required.

In the Chamber, there have been and there are parties that say the problems are not large enough to be addressed. They think that we liberals over-dramatize and exaggerate and that we stigmatize and point out areas or immigrant groups by highlighting the problems. One party says that Sweden can receive more migrants as long as these take greater responsibility for their integration and pay tax.

We Liberals conducted the analysis and shaped a completely new integration policy in Förortslyftet a few years ago. It pleases me that practically everyone who has spoken in today's debate does not only seem to have read but also adopted some of the important conclusions in this analysis. It is in Sweden's vulnerable areas that people are most unfree, and therefore these areas need to be lifted up.

The areas of exclusion must become safer. On the map of areas of exclusion that has been developed, one can identify 180 areas, and there we now have fixed parameters that show self-sufficiency, school results, and values. In this way, we can work strategically towards the goals. Integration must, of course, be able to be measured and evaluated, just like all other policy areas. In this way, both the municipalities and the government can work strategically to reduce the number of areas of exclusion.

Being safe in one's home is a prerequisite for being able to live a rich life. The crime and insecurity that many residents in our suburbs testify to, and which is now beginning to be felt in areas such as Hammarby sjöstad and Vasastan, is creeping ever closer in the form of blown-up stairwells and shootings. It is only now that it becomes headlines in the newspapers. The result of the lack of promptness, because we politicians failed to do anything when the problems were not right outside our own doorstep, is what we have to live with now.

Earlier social interventions and stronger crime fighting are needed. Repressive measures in the form of more police and new tools for police and prosecutors must and shall be linked to this, which means a historical investment in preventive and social interventions. Confidentiality barriers must be torn down, and there must be more tools in the toolbox. Furthermore, a new social services act must be enacted that provides the opportunity to provide help early. The trend is not reversed by a single actor – whether it be the police, school, civil society, or parents – but it requires a collective gathering of forces.

Madam Speaker! The field trip begins in the classroom. It is a slogan we Liberals like. A well-functioning and compensatory school system is extra important in our vulnerable areas. That schools fail in their educational mission in the areas where the needs are greatest is devastating. To give all children and young people access to a safe environment that stimulates their intellect, curiosity, and thirst for knowledge is our duty. The school shall give all students access to new knowledge and new perspectives. Knowledge is empowerment, and empowerment inspires hope. Everyone should feel that they can get somewhere with the help of the school. That the government clarifies Sfi's role in integration and tightens requirements and expectations on both organizers and individuals is a step on the way. Sfi has been spoken about earlier today in the rostrum, and I can inform that a proposition is on the way. But according to the current regulatory framework, it will be handled in the Education Committee, not in the Committee on Labour Market.

When people do not support themselves and do not get to experience the freedom of earning a wage for work performed, tensions are created in society. When the liberal work line was rolled out during the 2000s, it meant a major shift. Sickness absence rates fell, and employment gained momentum. The job tax credits and benefit reforms that were controversial at the time have, in hindsight, come to receive broad political acceptance. But the work line did not apply to everyone. For the person who has never worked or for the person who earns a small wage, it does not pay off many times over to work at all instead of living on benefits. It is devastating. Far too many stay at home with a small possibility of the empowerment that self-sufficiency provides. Far too few get to experience workplace community and professional pride. More adult role models who go to work are needed. While we discuss these problems, we must never forget that in the suburbs, thousands and thousands more workers and self-employed individuals live and operate who go to work every day. These people too must receive the attention of politics. Through a reduced regulatory burden, more of the suburbs' entrepreneurs can put more effort into job creation and business utility.

Madam Speaker! Liberal integration policy is also about reinforcing the democratic, equal, and secular values that characterize our country. It is about countering parallel societies that manifest themselves, for example, in honor culture with violence and oppression. Those who, through threats and hate, prevent others from living in freedom shall never be met with tolerance. The government is launching a new social orientation where one learns about Swedish society. Furthermore, we clarify responsibilities and expectations for organizers. It is a step along the way.

Sweden shall be an open country that welcomes new inhabitants, a country where we, regardless of origin, create a common future but where the regulatory framework is clear. Sweden as a country never accepts parallel societies where women's and children's rights are not upheld. In all of Sweden, an individual shall be able to live their best life and love whom they want. It is only through decisiveness that we create safety, knowledge, and a Sweden that is the land of opportunity for everyone.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

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