Integration

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we stand once again in this chamber to debate the issue of integration, which belongs in the Committee on Employment. The policy area includes, in addition to integration, social exclusion and discrimination, issues that unfortunately are rarely debated. I have raised them in another debate.

Some of the other parties' debaters are borrowed from other committees because the integration issue lies as a responsibility with this specific member. Perhaps it is also because that member is considered a skilled debater and is sent out to try to crush us others, perhaps primarily me and my party, in their speech or through their replies.

I myself have debated the issue of integration from this rostrum for nearly six years. I, who on the one hand am a completely ordinary mother, grandmother, wife, sister, colleague, friend and fellow human being, and on the other hand am an elected Member of Parliament and a proud Sverigedemokrat, have been called one derogatory epithet after another. When the left flank has spoken, I have been accused of being a racist, Nazi and fascist, and I have been accused of looking down on people with an origin other than my own.

Nothing could be more incorrect than the assessment, whether by me as a person or by my party. We as a party have evolved. Sweden has developed for the better since we entered into a government cooperation. But the left flank remains and tramples in the same place and blasts out the same epithets without any other solutions to the problems in Sweden than to continue the reception and fill our country with even more segregation and contradictions.

Mr. Speaker, facts always carry more weight than the unreasonable epithets thrown around, including in this chamber. Since the voters for the first time in 2010 gave us the confidence to stand in this speaker's chair and represent them and make their voices heard, we have, to the chagrin of the other parties, grown in every election. Swedish voters have seen us as the only alternative to ensure that their everyday lives will once again become safe and secure. It is Swedish citizens who, whether they are born in the country with a family that has lived here for many generations or have moved here to us to, for example, escape the spread of Islam with their lives intact, want to make their democratic voice heard in this assembly. It is Swedish citizens who want well for Sweden. It is Swedes who every day live out there in reality and are good fellow citizens. It is Swedes who live in areas of exclusion and have been mistreated as a result of lacking language skills. It is Swedes who fight for their family's security and for our country's well-being.

Madam Speaker! Our coalition parties in the Tidö Agreement have been constructive in many issues. We have already succeeded in implementing a number of changes and improvements, not least within the area of integration. These include requirements for adaptation to our Swedish society, combating exclusion, and assistance to return for those who do not wish to adapt to our Western values or the rule of law.

In today's debate, I want to particularly highlight the fact that the month of January in the year 2026 became the first month in eight years to be free from fatal shootings, the first full month in eight years without a fatal shooting in Sweden.

Had anyone during the joyful 80s told me that our country would have been destroyed to such a mild degree that in 2026 we would celebrate a month free from fatal shootings, I would of course have thought it was a joke. It would have been completely unthinkable. But here we stand with the results of the Social Democrats' irresponsible integration policy in our laps, and explosions, gang crime, and fatal shootings are a fact.

I hope that the trend has finally been broken, and we should be able to have more months in the near future that are free from fatal shootings in our country.

Madam Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats are now implementing, step by step, the changes required to increase the requirements for adaptation and facilitate the return of those who have not integrated into Sweden. Asylum immigration is now at its lowest since 1985. The reforms are important steps in the right direction, but more needs to be done and the pace of reform must be maintained. Therefore, we submit a special statement on this report.

We Sweden Democrats will return with further proposals to create a society where those who have a legal right to stay in our country are expected to become a part of our society, primarily through effort. It is our starting point that this work will continue far beyond the next election.

Madam Speaker! Today I stand here not only to point out the Social Democrats' and the rest of the left's, or for that matter, the Center's broad center's, lack of ability to handle integration, social exclusion, and discrimination. I also stand here to do everything I can to save the future of coming generations. Soon the Swedish people will stand at the ballot boxes, and that is when it will be decided. That is when the Swedish people decide whether Sweden shall be driven into the ground by the Social Democrats or if they shall let us Sverigedemokrater continue the path towards a free, safe, and secure society.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Facts carry more weight, the member said in his speech. It made me think of a large survey that was released last week. It shows that 82 percent of the municipalities across Sweden want continued reception and believe that the reception contributes positively to the municipalities. Only 2 percent of the municipalities believe that it contributes negatively.

According to the municipal politicians, the newly arrived are not a problem or a burden – which the Sweden Democrats frequently express. Instead, they are appreciated municipal citizens who contribute to solving the municipalities' difficult situation with demographic aging, depopulation, and lack of skills supply within both the public and private sectors.

This also became very clear when Kommunsverige protested against the government's proposal on repatriation grants. They care about their municipal residents, plain and simple. That is how reality looks in the country's municipalities. They do not want the Sweden Democrats' rhetoric or politics, and I believe the reason lies largely in the fact that exactly nothing gets better with the Sweden Democrats.

The Sweden Democrats do not want integration. At the same time, almost all of the country's municipalities want a reception, education, and people in the welfare system who ensure that the municipality grows. This is shown by every survey and all statistics, and it is also shown by the survey that arrived last week. When will the Sweden Democrats listen to these needs out in the country?

The chairman requested facts. This is very fresh statistics and facts from last week. When will the Sweden Democrats listen to them?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Haddou for that the member wants to discuss the issue of integration in this debate instead of doing as he usually does and sliding in solely on labor market issues. I really appreciate this, because it is integration, exclusion, and discrimination that we are to discuss here today.

Facts are important, as I said in my speech, and regarding responsibility in municipalities, we can observe that as large a proportion as 230 of Sweden's 290 municipalities have more municipal residents who are supported through benefits than through work – 230 of 290 municipalities. That is a very large proportion. It would be interesting to hear the member's reflection on this.

As usual, the Left Party tries to put words in our mouths and say that we dislike people, even though I have just said from the rostrum that that is not the case. As usual, however, the Left Party continues in that direction. I regret that.

I would welcome it if the appeal we received here also applied to the Left Party, so that the Left Party actually starts listening to Sweden's citizens and Sweden's population.

Speaking of facts, the opinion polls speak a clear language. The fact is that the Swedish people have very high confidence in the Sweden Democrats and very high confidence in our party leader Jimmie Åkesson. That is not the case for the Left Party in the surveys.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! This was absolutely not an answer to the question I asked about facts and about the municipalities. I do not know if I should repeat it, but it was about when the Sweden Democrats are going to listen to the municipalities. I said exactly that 82 percent of the municipalities want continued reception because they consider that it contributes positively to the municipality's development. In response, I get a Sweden Democrat who says that 230 of 290 municipalities have problems with, for example, people getting into work and with social assistance.

I do not know if the Sweden Democrats understand that they are in a governing position – or rather, that they are the largest support for the government. Do the Sweden Democrats reject their own policy during this mandate period? Is this what the Sweden Democrats are expressing here? It is a completely serious question. If things go badly for people and we, for example, have the high unemployment we have, and the Sweden Democrats are the largest support and it is the Sweden Democrats' policy that is being conducted, then the member is rejecting their own policy here. That is surely a serious problem.

I honestly believe that for the Sweden Democrats, where people come from is more important than what they achieve for our country and than listening to the municipalities' needs. We have people all around in the municipalities who uphold the Swedish welfare and ensure that the country functions, but I believe it is much more important for the Sweden Democrats where they come from.

I received no answer at all regarding the fact that so many municipalities – almost all municipalities in Sweden – in the survey say that the reception contributes positively to the municipality's development. These are pure facts, which the Sweden Democrats should listen to.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! As usual, we need to clarify a few things when we debate against the Left Party. The first is, of course, that we are a cooperation party with a Tidö Agreement. We are therefore not part of the government, but we have a number of points in an agreement that we have agreed upon with the government. The member knows very well that is the case.

The chairman speaks about how there are many municipalities that want to continue the reception and who think it is positive. I can understand that it is in that way. I also want to highlight that Sweden's municipalities are self-governing, so it is not at all certain that those municipalities are governed by a government party – in any case not as the largest party – but many of our municipalities around the country are governed by the Social Democrats. Then one can understand that the municipalities are very positive towards a continued reception. In my opinion, this is not representative at all, but it depends on who governs the municipalities.

Since then, this government has taken over after eight years of completely incompetent rule of Sweden. That is where we stand today. In one parliamentary term – or in three years, we can say – this government has succeeded in reversing the development when it concerns, for example, the fatal shootings in Sweden and gang crime. That is what I spoke about in my speech. We have introduced higher penalties and removed the sentence reduction – I could rattle off many more, but we don't have time for that.

I say it again: We have taken over after eight years of careless governance of Sweden. It takes time to rectify it, but we will continue our work.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for an engaged speech!

Let us state the facts: Labor market policy is a state responsibility, and the Sweden Democrats are involved in governing. The Sweden Democrats have had a significant role as the government's largest support party for more than three years. This means not only the opportunity to influence the political agenda but also the responsibility to deliver concrete results. The Member of Parliament said himself that one must strengthen integration and break segregation, and for that, concrete reforms are also required.

Given that the Sweden Democrats have been – and are – involved in and governing the labor market policy, my question to the member is what concrete and successful measures the Sweden Democrats have actually proposed and pushed through to solve segregation and create real social cohesion – which the member himself was involved in.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

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

The member has the good taste to say that the Sweden Democrats are a cooperation party to the government and nothing else. In this cooperation, we have signed an agreement that we in the four parties have agreed upon. We have so far during this mandate period implemented very many of the points. Some remain, and some we will need another mandate period to push through. It simply takes time to rectify eight years of mismanagement, as I choose to call it, of a country. It is the party that the member belongs to that is responsible for that mismanagement.

Regarding the labor market policy, it is problematic; we know that. Unfortunately, there are far too many people in our country who are unemployed and do not have a job to go to. I do not believe that "occupancy" helps, but it is work that people need to go to. An occupancy is often a labor market measure, and I think it provides figures that are not representative.

Regarding the issue of integration, if I jump over to that, it concerns, among other things, the return migration grant, which we have pushed through. We are prepared to give a grant to those who do not want to participate in our Western way of life and who do not thrive here, so that they can return home again. That is one example.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! The member mentioned that many points and reforms have been carried out, hence my question as to which reforms have been carried out in the area of labor market policy.

We have de facto almost half a million unemployed people today. We have a high youth unemployment and an integration that needs to be managed. These questions are connected, because work affects everything around it. Work makes it possible for people to get a home, pay the rent and pay their bills. It makes people's economic situation better and ensures that they contribute to the welfare society.

I therefore ask the question again. The member says that reforms and points within the labor market policy have been implemented, and I am genuinely curious about and interested in what those reforms are. I also wonder if there is anything else in the works, given that I, as a member of the Committee on Employment, have not seen a single proposal during the last three years. There are no reforms on the agenda. Very many of our committee meetings, Madam Speaker, involve meeting others and talking about things other than labor market policy and the situation on the labor market.

Here, the Sweden Democrats have a responsibility as a coalition partner to the government. I therefore ask again: Which reforms have been implemented, and what is on the agenda given the situation on the Swedish labor market today?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate the member's genuine interest in the labor market policy. I share that, and that the situation is concerning, the member and I can agree on that. Unemployment is far too high, which is concerning. It is something we already take most seriously and will continue to take most seriously.

As far as the facts are concerned, it is important to point out that youth unemployment is not at all as high as the Social Democrats want to claim. The figure is due to the fact that even those who are studying are included in youth unemployment, which is not representative. Even if youth unemployment is too high, which I agree with, it is therefore not at all as high as the Social Democrats want to claim.

The same applies, in fact, to unemployment in general. Half a million people is a figure that is completely unacceptable for all of us who work in the Committee on Employment, regardless of which party we belong to or whether we are part of the government base or in opposition. But it is the same there: A large proportion of the unemployed are people who have moved here. We know that. There are people who have lived in Sweden for more than 15 years – it is approaching 20 years now – and who do not know the language and so on.

One requirement we have set is the language requirement. It is about making oneself employable. Adapting to our society and making oneself employable is one of the requirements we have set.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It was, as usual, a very engaging speech from Ann-Christine Frohm. The member spoke, however, very much about herself, and I thought that perhaps we can also talk a little about other people – people who are also mothers, neighbors, members of society, etcetera.

We can talk about daughters – for example, Ayla, who is sitting up there in the gallery listening and who is now to be deported because of the government's policy. The leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson, "doesn't feel much" when he hears about Ayla, who is one of the many teenagers who are to be deported. I would therefore like to hear what Ann-Christine Frohm feels about Ayla sitting there up in the gallery and being deported despite the fact that her entire family has citizenship or permanent residence permits and despite the fact that she studies and works. She is training to be a nursing assistant.

Does the member feel anything? Does the member feel that it is sensible and smart legislation to kick out persons whose parents and siblings have citizenship or permanent residence permits? Does it feel better that yet another immigrant is sent out? Not least, is it not an essential question whether it makes Sweden better? How does Sweden become better from that? Seriously: Exactly how does Sweden become better from Ayla and all the other teenagers who are being deported right now leaving the country?

The Sweden Democrats must, in fact, consider that it makes Sweden better, because it is with clinical precision that this regulatory framework has been created. The rules have been changed precisely in order to be able to get rid of people between the ages of 18 and 21. That was the purpose of ensuring that family ties do not count as much as before. That was done deliberately and with knowledge of the consequences. That one chose to do this must surely be because one wanted that effect.

Therefore, I would like to hear from the Sweden Democrats why it is believed that Sweden becomes better if Ayla leaves the country.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is about an individual person, and it is nothing that I think we should be talking about in the speaker's chairs here. We do not usually talk about individual incidents and individual cases, but in our contributions we usually talk about the majority and the general.

That I spoke about myself is because I am also a citizen and a resident of Sweden, just like so many other completely ordinary women – ordinary mothers and grandmothers. I of course feel a whole lot of things when the member speaks about an individual, but I do not want to go into and debate an individual case here in the rostrum.

When a country is as mismanaged as Sweden was during the Social Democrats' last eight years in power, before we took over, it can happen when one makes legislative changes – and this is known even by the members of the Centre Party – that unfortunately sometimes the changes do not turn out as intended in all cases. Then perhaps one needs to adjust a few things, but that is a question I do not feel I own. It does not belong with me as an individual member of the Committee on the Labour Market, but at a higher level.

The member uses expressions such as that the Sweden Democrats or the government would want to get rid of persons in the age group 18–21. I would still like to say that I do not recognize that at all, but that is for the member to say. It is not an expression that I use.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall take this in stages.

The day the Sweden Democrats stop using individual cases in the rostrum, I shall also do so. The last time we had a debate here, the member raised an individual case in the rostrum. In that instance, however, it concerned crime, and then it is apparently fine. I believe we have all talked about the Nytorg man, which is an individual case. We are allowed to do that. But this is not about the member taking into account Ayla's case, but I asked about the regulatory framework that has created the case. That was what I asked about.

The regulatory framework that had the purpose of ensuring that people could remain if they had ties to Sweden has been changed. The framework was intended to ensure that one can stay here until the age of 21 and that special cases of compassion can be taken into account. The Sweden Democrats have removed it. The members voted to remove it.

It is clear that I expect a representative for the Sweden Democrats to be able to explain why they have voted for specific policies that they themselves have pushed through. It is the Sweden Democrats who have pushed this through. I know that there are many Christian Democrats, Liberals, and Moderates who would not have wanted to do this if the Sweden Democrats had not pressured them.

It is the Sweden Democrats' policy that has become reality. To then say that one cannot defend it is actually a sign of poverty in this parliamentary chamber. Democracy consists of explaining the policy that one forces through or wants to force through.

I believe that the Sweden Democrats wanted to get them out. There was a regulatory framework that was intended only for this group, but the Sweden Democrats removed it, together with the government. It was not the case that it was a regulatory framework that allowed a lot of criminals to stay and that these people were sidelined, but this was only for that group. When the Sweden Democrats stepped in and removed this, they did so because they wanted to get them out – there is no other explanation.

Why did the Sweden Democrats want to change the regulatory framework? Why is it considered good that the deportations of teenagers occur? We do not need to mention Ayla, because this is not about a single individual case but about many individual cases.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Just as I said in my speech, the member of the Center Party is a skilled debater – that is my opinion, and the member should have all the credit for that.

I, however, have some problems with individual cases being brought up at this level, in a debate on integration, exclusion, and discrimination. I would say that these are serious cases, and I felt a lot when the member described the individual. This, however, does not really belong in this debate, but it belongs at the government level, in government negotiations and at the party leadership level.

I see that the member considers it problematic, but if we are to be at that level, we can also talk about democracy in the municipalities. The member's party has been clear that we need foreign labor and men working in elderly care for us to manage. Unfortunately, this has contributed to the number of cases where elderly women have been subjected to rape having increased. I choose, however, not to hold the member responsible for this in this debate, because if we are to be at that level, we can discuss everything between heaven and earth – democracy, government, and so on.

As I said earlier, the Sweden Democrats is a party that cooperates with the government on the issues where we have agreed to pursue a policy. I feel that the question belongs more at the government level and at the party leadership level.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! A few days ago, I parked my car outside Fittja centrum – along the red metro line, a half-hour journey from here – on my way to my parents. There, I met a mother whom I had met before. She waved and wanted to talk. She didn't say anything big or dramatic. She just said: I want a job. Then she continued: I want my children to get a good school. I want my son to avoid having to choose between fear and the gang when he goes home in the evenings after football practice. I want to live safely in my residential area. After that, she said, very clearly: I do not want to move from here.

Madam Speaker! What she spoke about was not a private wish list, but it concerned the social contract and was expressed with a mother's voice. This debate should be about precisely how we strengthen the sense of community in our country.

This mother is not asking for another life somewhere else. She is asking for a normal life where she already lives. She wants to work and do the right thing. She wants her children to have the same life chances as other children. She wants to feel that society stands on her side – not that society looks away.

She is not alone. What she put into words is everyday life for many people who all too often are met with longer queues, higher thresholds, and a silent signal that their neighborhoods count for less.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country. It is a country where people fundamentally trust one another, where the welfare state carries us when life shakes, where association life teaches us that we belong together, and where freedom has never been a solitary right but has always been linked with responsibility and an idea that we build society together. Sweden is strong precisely because we once took that idea seriously and built institutions that held our country together. Precisely for that reason, it is so serious when the sense of community is weakened, when inequalities are allowed to grow, and when segregation makes the zip code a kind of predetermined future.

Segregation is not just a housing issue or a school issue. Segregation is a system that reproduces itself. Unemployment becomes overcrowding, overcrowding becomes poorer school results, and poorer school results become higher thresholds to employment.

When society withdraws, a vacuum arises. That is when criminal structures step in and offer their false community, their own order, and their own loyalty, built on fear, silence, and control. That is why we say that integration is fundamentally about community. Shall we live in a country where we meet as citizens with common rights and obligations, or shall we get used to parallel lives where class becomes geography and zip codes become the future?

Madam Speaker! I say this with both political conviction and personal experience. I grew up myself in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area along the subway's red line, just half an hour from here, where neighbors shared everything from sugar to sorrow. There, I also saw two Swedens in the same square. I saw hope for the future and obstacles side by side. I saw how quickly hope for the future can grow when society is present. I also saw how quickly it can erode when institutions retreat, when the school changes teachers too often and lacks resources, when the housing shortage squeezes families so that children lack a place to study, and when the community life chases every krona and the leisure activities close evening after evening. Then it becomes not only harder to succeed but also harder to even believe that it is worth trying.

Let us be honest about the mechanisms: Segregation is built by social structures. Segregation is built by unemployment, by overcrowding, by school failures, by the withdrawal of welfare where it is needed most, and by the dismantling of labor market policy when it needs to be ramped up. It is reinforced by discrimination that can still close doors that should stand open.

Here, the Sweden Democrats and the government usually speak of requirements. We Social Democrats have no problem with requirements – on the contrary. Expectations should be high. We must have high expectations of one another. One must learn the Swedish language, work, and respect laws and democracy. One must simply do one's duty and demand one's rights.

But demands without tools are not responsibility, they are populism. In this debate, it is so clearly visible. Throughout the report, it is referred to that one prepares, follows, and analyzes, but the reforms that would support the rhetoric are conspicuously absent. The list of reforms echoes empty.

At the same time, one moves from words to action in the wrong direction. When unemployment persists, and when work is integration's most important engine, the Sweden Democrats and the government choose to weaken the tools that can actually take people from exclusion to jobs. There will be fewer labor market measures, fewer active measures, and fewer educational paths for adults who need to transition.

On the housing side, the reform power required to build away overcrowding and residential segregation is missing. One preaches the work line while simultaneously dismantling the ladder up to work. That is not reform power. It is a policy that retreats, leaves people to fend for themselves and leaves it to municipalities and civil society to hold the country together on their own.

Madam Speaker! We shall also not shrink from the fact that people have experienced that the politics over a long period of time has been too slow, too divided and too reactive. Yes, we should have done more in several areas. We should also have done it earlier, not least to break the residential segregation and ensure that the establishment becomes faster and more work-oriented.

The difference today is however decisive. We Social Democrats have drawn our conclusions. We have sharpened our policy, and we take responsibility for the whole.

What has built segregation is not a single decision or a single year, but it is decades of choices where market logic has often preceded social construction, where investment in welfare and housing has not kept pace with the needs, and where a large migration has not been met with sufficiently effective integration.

We see the consequences now. The police still describe vulnerable areas where the criminals' influence is growing. It is not just statistics, but it is a map of where the social contract is at its weakest. It is a result of political choices, and thus it can also be broken by political choices. Social Democracy therefore has a clear objective: Sweden shall have no vulnerable areas.

However, this requires more than police and punishment. It requires that the school functions, that housing is built, that the labor market is opened, that civil society is empowered, that discrimination is combated, and that language training maintains high quality and is linked to jobs.

Madam Speaker! Housing segregation is not a side issue, it is an engine. It affects networks, schools, safety, and the path to jobs. That is precisely why housing policy is labor market policy.

The municipalities are forced all too often to bear a responsibility alone that the state should share. Here, the contrast to the government's emptiness is revealing. Out in the country, there are municipalities and housing companies that do the work because they cannot afford to wait for the government. I will take up an example I have seen firsthand. In Botkyrka, Botkyrkabyggen has shown how work can become integration in practice by employing women who have stood far from the labor market for a long time. I have been there and seen what a job can mean for these women: language in everyday life, pride, security, and a new daily rhythm, which rubs off on the children, the neighbors, and the entire area.

The point is simple. There is a path that builds, but this path requires political tools, not just empty rhetoric.

Madam Speaker! In order to strengthen social cohesion, all of Sweden must take responsibility. The Settlement Act is therefore important. It is based on an idea that should be self-evident: that all of Sweden shall take responsibility, not just a few municipalities and not the municipalities that already have the greatest socio-economic challenges.

The Swedish National Audit Office has audited the Settlement Act and pointed out that the state needs better follow-up, earlier chains of responsibility, and more consistent governance in the settlement and establishment systems. It is an important reminder that it is not enough to just write down goals. One must also build functioning chains that hold all the way to jobs and self-sufficiency.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 1.

Madam Speaker! Settlement is the starting point, but the decisive question is the chain that follows. Therefore, we need early, intensive, and work-oriented establishment measures where language and profession go hand in hand, where validation works, and where internships lead forward. We must understand that contacts and networks are often the real threshold. Therefore, more bridges into society are needed, such as mentors, contact persons, civil society forces, and local collaborations with employers.

Madam Speaker! If we are serious about social cohesion, we must talk about one of the greatest losses in Swedish integration policy, namely foreign-born women who want to work but get stuck in isolation and dependency, not because the will is lacking but because the path is missing. It is an integration issue, but it is also an equality issue and a freedom issue. Therefore, the measures must be designed so that they actually reach those who today end up on the outside, also when the path in occurs via a relative. The drivers must strengthen independence, not reinforce dependency.

That is why we Social Democrats say no to abolishing the establishment allowance. On the contrary, it needs to be individualized so that the incentives to participate in the establishment process and to work become equal for women and men. A first job is more than a salary. It is the key to the language, to the networks, to self-confidence, and to the children seeing their mother as a part of the pulse of society.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 7.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude where I began, in Fittja centrum with the mother I met. What she said is actually nothing remarkable, but rather the most fundamental thing a welfare state can promise its citizens: a fair chance, a job to go to, a school that works, and security for your children.

That is exactly why we must talk about social cohesion, not as a slogan but as a policy in practice. Sweden is our common home, and a home is not built with suspicion and division but with work, justice, and rules that apply to everyone. That is why we Social Democrats always return to the core: Sweden shall have full employment, a strong welfare state, a common language, and a social cohesion where both rights and responsibilities are taken seriously. It shall be a Sweden where dreams can become reality, where social cohesion is strengthened, and where no one gets stuck because of their zip code, thresholds, or closed doors.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech, and it would please me if the Social Democrats wanted to strengthen the sense of community for more.

By this point, everyone has probably understood that the Social Democrats want a strict migration policy, but what is happening right now in Sweden is not about people who come here, but about people who live here, grow up here, educate themselves or work here, are deeply rooted and established here, and have their entire lives here. We can read in the media that teenagers all over the country receive deportation decisions when they turn 18. Their parents and siblings get to stay, but just the one in the family who turns 18 receives a deportation decision.

Previously, there was a safety valve in the Aliens Act that protected young people, but the voting government and the Social Democrats removed it two years ago. Therefore, we now have several cases of teenage deportations in Sweden. I will not ask about the Social Democrats' self-criticism now as they read about all these cases, but does the member think it should continue this way, i.e., that one receives a deportation decision when one turns 18 despite being strongly established in Sweden? Should young people receive a deportation decision as an 18th birthday present despite having their entire lives here? Is it not time for the Social Democrats to re-evaluate their position and ensure that we have a safety valve that protects these strongly established young people?

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Tony Haddou for his commitment and for asking an important and good question. I share the member's view that people who behave correctly should not be punished in this way. Young people who have grown up in the country, have gone to school here, have made friends and are a part of Sweden should absolutely not be deported.

The question is being discussed in the Committee on Social Insurance, where it is being closely followed. I have also understood that the Minister for Migration is open to a discussion about reviewing certain parts of this legislation, and we shall monitor that process.

But personally, I think, as I have said, that people who behave correctly should absolutely not be deported.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that the member shares my view.

We submitted a committee initiative in the Social Insurance Committee yesterday. Actually, there isn't that much to think about, and there is no reason to wait for the government. If the Minister for Migration submitted a proposal for a valve in the legislation, it would probably be the narrowest ever because the Sweden Democrats would do everything to stop it.

The committee initiative is, firstly, about raising the age for own asylum grounds from 18 to 21 years to avoid these situations. Secondly, we want to get back the safety valve that existed in the legislation for particularly sympathetic cases. It would ensure that these children are protected when they turn 18 because they have their entire families and their connection in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! This is not a debate because the member agrees with me, so the only thing I can do is to urge the member and his party colleagues to vote for the committee initiative and talk to the government parties so that we can protect these children and young people.

In the debate, one hears from the Social Democrats, who will likely become a governing party, that they do not want this to continue. It is possible with simple legislation – a simple rule change – to ensure that these deportations are stopped and avoided. The Aliens Act can be changed today so that it becomes that way; it goes very quickly.

This is not a debate, Madam Speaker, but an appeal: Take the chance to ensure that the teenage deportations are stopped! I expect the Social Democrats to take that chance.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! Again: I do not have a grasp of the committee initiative. I am not familiar with it, and I have not read it. In that case, it is difficult to know exactly what is stated in the committee initiative, but I think overall that the young people who are in our country, who have done right by themselves and who have grown up here, should stay in Sweden.

As I mentioned, the Minister for Migration has opened for a discussion on a valve for this group, and as I understand it, it will arrive at any time. I have no idea of which date, but it should be in the spring's propositions. We Social Democrats have said that we are ready to cooperate with the government if it chooses to present such a proposal.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Now it is our turn, and not least Serkan Köse's turn, as I can read out what the proposal entails.

The proposal contains an expanded possibility for family immigration for young people up to 21 years of age. The committee proposes that the Aliens Act be amended so that persons up to 21 years of age shall be able to be granted residence permits as relatives of their parents and be counted as part of the nuclear family. The purpose is to prevent young people who are still dependent on their parents and who have lived the majority of their formative years in Sweden from being separated from their family as a result of a narrow age limit. Such an amendment strengthens the protection of family life and reduces the risk of children and young people falling into a legal gray zone in the transition between child and adult. That was the first part.

The second part is about reintroducing humanitarian grounds for protection under particularly distressing circumstances, which the Riksdag abolished in 2023 due to the Tidö government. The Social Democrats voted for this, if I remember correctly.

Now that we know what it is about, we have the opportunity to ask: Are the Social Democrats in favor of reintroducing particularly distressing circumstances? And are the Social Democrats in favor of young people up to 21 years of age being able to be granted residence permits as relatives of their family members who are here? This concerns, for example, Ayla who is here today and whose parents have permanent residence permits and citizenship. These rules you in the Social Democrats have voted away once. Are you open to reintroducing them?

The Sweden Democrats opened up to review the regulations, obviously in theory. It would be interesting to hear the Social Democrats' view on this.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Niels Paarup-Petersen, for your commitment to these issues!

It is very difficult for me as a member to be able to give an answer here regarding a writing of which I have not seen parts. The issue is being handled in the Social Insurance Committee, and I have great confidence in my party colleagues who sit in this committee and are looking very closely at these parts. I am not informed on the issue even though I have now heard parts of the writing. I need to look at it carefully in order to be able to make an assessment.

Overall, I think, apart from what the member just read out and which is important, that the children who have attended school in Sweden and who have done well should be treated in a factual manner. That is my conviction in this discussion. Again: I have a strong confidence in my party colleagues in the Committee on Social Insurance, and I believe that a good decision will be reached there.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I have full respect for the fact that it is very difficult to answer on the spot – I accept that. But now the member knows what it is about, and he can call his colleagues and check what they think. That would have been nice.

Regarding the questions mentioned in the rostrum, we are in complete agreement that it is crucial for integration that people get jobs. The challenge right now is that this is not enough, because they are still deported. This harms integration, but I will come back to that later.

When we are now to get more people into jobs, I wonder why the Social Democrats time and again say no to making it cheaper to hire, which the Center Party proposes. We want to lower the employer contributions etcetera so that it becomes cheaper to hire, but this does not mean that the individual receives a lower wage.

I know that our parties see this a bit differently, but lowering the costs for those who get their first job and ensuring that they have more left in their pockets by lowering the tax would lead to more people being able to leave exclusion and enter the labor market, and thereby improve integration. Why do the Social Democrats repeatedly say no to that type of solution, when we agree that it is crucial that more people get into work?

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

Economic policy and tax policy are always interesting. There is a correlation between tax policy and labor market policy.

I solemnly swear that the Social Democrats have even negotiated with the Center Party, not least when it comes to the reduction of the tax for young people. We have, therefore, not always said no, but there have been occasions when we have looked at those parts and how they should be handled. When it comes to tax policy, it is important to look at more cyclical measures. We have not said no to that, but we were involved in pushing it through.

However, we can observe that there is a lot of research that has looked at the reduction of taxes for young people, and which has landed somewhat differently. There are those who have shown that perhaps it did not quite result in the effects that were expected, for example when the Alliance government lowered the tax for young people. It could be observed that it did not create many jobs, and the jobs that did come cost very much. A tax reduction of just over 100 billion gave 15,000 jobs. Then it was calculated that it landed at 1–1.5 million per created job. We must consider how we manage the tax funds in the best possible way to achieve results.

I think we should consider this type of discussion in light of the economic situation. What measures need to be put in place to ensure that more people, especially young people, get into work? This has been tested previously by the Social Democratic government, and it has had an effect. I believe this is something the incoming government must look into.

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your speech!

The Social Democrats have changed their policy, at least that is what is claimed. It is wise and good. It is about time that the Social Democrats finally seem to have woken up, but the question is whether it is credible. Is it credible that the Social Democrats will introduce a strict immigration policy if they win the election? How is that supposed to happen in that case?

The Social Democrats' former coalition parties are all for increased reception and increased immigration. The question remains: Who will the Social Democrats cooperate with in a government? I believe that question is justified and relevant, because, as I know, none of the former coalition parties have any other opinion than that immigration and reception should increase. At the same time, the Social Democrats claim that they will pursue a strict immigration policy. How is that going to happen?

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! The election is on September 13. That is when the Swedish people will have their say, and after that, it will be a different discussion. To stand here today in February and say which parties one will cooperate with and what the government constellation shall look like, I do not think is relevant. Today's discussion is about labor market policy, how we shall ensure that more people get into work, how we shall build away the segregation that exists today, how we shall strengthen integration and how we shall ensure that Sweden continues to have a strict migration policy so that we can manage the integration debt that exists today. That is the main focus of the discussion. How shall we ensure that more municipalities take their responsibility?

I also pose another question now that the Sweden Democrats have the opportunity to answer. Based on today's situation, where very few municipalities have taken a large responsibility when it comes to receiving people, the Sweden Democrats have repeatedly voted against what concerns the municipalities' responsibility. Now, the Sweden Democrats do not want the municipalities to have to take a greater responsibility to ensure that segregation is built away and integration is strengthened.

The question back to the member is therefore: Do the Sweden Democrats still think that certain municipalities should be allowed to escape their responsibility and place the responsibility on other municipalities, which today have taken a great responsibility when it comes to migration policy?

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, we believe that the municipalities should have the right to refuse reception if they do not have the possibility to do so.

The member surely knows just as well as I do the chairman of the municipal board – who belongs to the member's party – who previously sat and cried in the media. It was about a small municipality in my home county of Västmanland that did not have the possibility to receive all the assignments and at the same time do a good job.

The Social Democrats are to the highest degree responsible for the lack of integration and increased segregation. The question remains: How can the Social Democrats be able to introduce a strict immigration policy? I think the voters deserve to be told.

The Tidö parties have been clear about what they want after the next mandate period. I, and surely also the voters, would appreciate it if the Social Democrats were just as clear.

I shall take the opportunity to make a clarification now that I am meeting the member in an exchange of remarks. We have previously discussed youth unemployment, and it is therefore at 6 percent when one has stripped away educational placements and such. There is a big difference compared to how the Social Democrats choose to present youth unemployment.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! My answer is very clear: Social Democracy is clear when it comes to the strict migration policy. There, we will not back down a single millimeter.

Regarding the discussion on youth unemployment, we can observe that the member has included all those students who are also available to the labor market and who are taking a lot of courses because they cannot find the right job. Let us look at how the situation de facto looks: Sweden ranks very high in comparison with the rest of the EU when it comes to youth unemployment. We have many young people who do not get a job.

We also have very many young people who do not exist in any system; the members know that. Today we have over 100,000 young people in what is called the uvas-group, young people who neither work nor study. It is an alarming figure. All these young people, therefore, do not exist in any system, and the government has almost placed the responsibility on the municipalities.

Given that the member is passionate about youth issues and is engaged in youth unemployment – she has indeed gone in and looked at the figures – I want to ask what the member believes we need to do, not least when it comes to the fact that we have 100,000 young people who do not exist in any system. Is it an issue that the Sverigedemokraterna care about? I believe the member should account for that in another exchange of remarks.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker and honored colleagues in the committee! I would like to begin with a small message to the Speaker's Presidium.

We are now heading towards an election campaign, but in the next parliamentary period, one should, together with the group leaders, review whether integration should really be handled in the Committee on Employment. Our integration debate repeatedly lands in the immigration debate, that is to say in migration and migration matters, which should actually be handled in the Committee on Social Insurance. The best thing would be if immigration, migration and integration ended up in a new committee. This was only a suggestion and a request so that we can handle the issue in a proper and honest way.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating integration. We must be completely honest. It is as if one is standing here repeating oneself. For 30 years, we have had a migration policy in Sweden that has been completely ill-considered. It may have been guided by good intentions, but it has not worked.

Earlier in the debate, we heard that the municipalities are positive about increasing immigration. This concerns a survey from Linköping University, where 60 percent of the municipalities have responded. But it is the civil servants who have answered the survey, not the elected officials. This is the problem. It concerns the activism that we see among our authorities, in the Riksdag and in municipalities, where it is the civil servants who have taken over the politicians' role.

I am now completely sincere, and I can say this to every single voter. I have said it before, I will say it today and I will say it tomorrow: It is not uncommon to have a paper product in front of you, and then you change a letter and vote it through. It is civil servant-led.

In the debate here in the chamber, we have heard about individual cases that affect us all. With all due respect – because there is a human being behind every case – but we actually have an order in Sweden where it is the authorities who make decisions in migration cases. If the Left Party thinks that is a problem, then one should propose the previous order, where the government made decisions in all cases.

We are, however, in agreement that we shall have regulated immigration in Sweden, and I will fight for it. Sweden shall receive those who have grounds for asylum, but Sweden has received far too many for far too long. It is very easy to stand in this chamber and talk about human rights and the great world conflicts. But when a person comes to Sweden, we must ask ourselves: Are there enough teachers in the municipality? What do the classes look like?

I do not think it is okay that children with foreign backgrounds in Sweden attend Swedish schools and speak Swedish with an accent. For 30 years, where I grew up, it was not considered wrong to speak Rinkebysvenska. I can say this: They have lied to these children! When they go to their first job interview and cannot speak so that people understand them, it is clear that their self-confidence is broken.

Some are starting to talk about structural racism and yada yada yada. Sweden is not a racist country. One only has to go out on the street and see how many people look different than oneself. One only has to look at the composition of this chamber. Right now, I see that we are four or five members in here who have a foreign background. I count you too, Niels, and I look at Serkan, Tony, myself, and Sara. I might have forgotten a sixth.

Is Sweden racist? Sweden is not a racist country. Sweden is a country where you can succeed if you make an effort and behave correctly.

Integration in Sweden is about us having to put our foot down, and we have now done that. When one comes to Sweden, it is about temporary residence permits, where one can receive a permanent residence permit after three years if one has behaved correctly. This entails requirements that one must learn the language, live an honest life, and be able to support oneself. These are the three pillars for a successful integration.

Parents are responsible for their children. For far too long, we have been told that more money is needed for the school. Yes, there may be cases where it is needed, but it is also about utilizing the resources in the right way.

We must set the right demands from day one. We must not have the racism of low expectations. Children attending school in our suburbs should not be told that they are doing great when the adult world knows that they will not get anywhere. Sure, they get a grade on paper, but then it's good luck! Then they are sent on to the next state institution, like komvux, sfi – you name it. It is no longer our problem, people think. It becomes a self-playing piano that increases segregation.

Madam Speaker! I want everyone who lives in Sweden to succeed. But then we must have an order. We must be clear. We must set requirements. To set requirements is to care. That is what we do from the government side, four parties together.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The Member does not want to talk about individual cases. That is good, because then we can talk about the structural problem we have, which is a consequence of the rule changes the government has made in the legislation. We do enact laws here, and this can be corrected.

The Moderates spoke well for several minutes about integration but are thus issuing deportation decisions to the most successful integration examples we have in Sweden. Was this what Arin Karapet intended when he became a politician – to issue deportation decisions to young people who have lived here their entire lives? When they turn 18, they are to be deported. They may have their connection here in Sweden and have lived here for five, ten, or fifteen years. The whole family may have permanent residence permits or citizenship, but when a family member turns 18, they receive a deportation decision instead. I still think that the politicians here in the Riksdag can make decisions to change that rule back.

It is not about a single case, but about a structural problem we have in Sweden. We have a deeply serious situation, a horrific situation, where teenagers receive deportation decisions as an 18th birthday present – regardless of whether they have been here for five, ten, or fifteen years, regardless of whether they study, work part-time, have 100 percent connection to Sweden and meet all the requirements that the member speaks about, just like their parents.

Was it this Arin Karapet envisioned when he became a politician – that this specific target group should be subjected to deportation decisions so unjustly?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall answer Member Haddou. I personally have no problem talking about an individual case. I think that politicians should actually dare to say certain things. There is a difference if one is a minister. When we are so well-paid and have the privilege of sitting in the Riksdag and legislating, we should also be able to answer questions even if they are uncomfortable.

Let us go back. In 2016, the Social Democratic government introduced temporary residence permits. Vänsterpartiet supported that government. I think Vänsterpartiet should be sincere towards the people they say they fight for: You have cooperated with the Social Democrats. It may not have been exactly when the temporary residence permits were voted through, because then I believe you voted against them – I assume that, but I do not have the facts. But you still joined forces with the Social Democrats, and in that case, I think one should be sincere.

The problem is this: If you are 15 years old, you receive a temporary residence permit for three years. It says of itself that when you turn 18, you are to receive a new decision, and then it automatically becomes a deportation decision.

Then there was a valve for compassionate reasons. The problem was that this was exploited in very many cases where there were no compassionate reasons. Refugee memory is an example. So many exceptions were made in migration policy that the Swedish people lost faith in the Swedish migration system.

I have no problem with a young person who behaves well getting to stay in Sweden. An investigation has been launched, and the minister has said that this will be looked into.

I am also moved by the case that was raised here. I can return to it in my next speech.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The member says here that the legislation was exploited, but in asylum cases, individual assessments are made. When it comes to specifically compelling circumstances, nothing in the Aliens Act has been used as narrowly as this in the assessments. It was a small, final safety valve that saved lives. It was life-saving for families and for these young people. It is nothing that has ever been exploited at all.

This is also not about 2016. It is about a rule change that was removed in 2023, two years ago. The government submitted the proposal, and the Socialdemokraterna voted for it.

What I demand here is that the Moderaterna rethink, quite simply. There is nothing that justifies the teenage deportations we are seeing right now. They can very easily be avoided with two simple rule changes that will give us a valve in the legislation.

This was nothing that was exploited as long as it existed. It was used very narrowly, only those times when it could be established that there was a connection, that parents or families had citizenship or permanent residence permits, that one had spent the majority of their life here, that one didn't even have any relation to the home country at all or that one was threatened with death there. That was why one had this safety valve.

There is no prestige in this issue at all. It is about ensuring that turning 18 does not mean that one loses their family, their security, and their future. One can have their entire connection here and have met exactly all the requirements that the Moderaterna speak of and despite that receive a deportation decision as an 18th birthday present. Here, I think the Moderaterna should rethink.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! It is as I said: An investigation has been submitted to the Minister, and the Minister has himself said that this should be looked into.

People always say: Those who behave should get to stay, and those who do not behave should go home. However, I want to zoom out a bit – not talk it away; we must be honest with each other. The problem is that for so many years we have seen so many cases with people who have been allowed to stay in Sweden even though they should not have been. They have lied. They have broken the rules.

Then, from the member's side, one has always wanted exceptions – let people stay, this is racism, yada. Here, a trench has emerged between the two sides in Swedish politics. Those who behave, a small group of people, end up falling between the chairs.

I am open to looking at this. I have no problem with that. I do not hold the power, but I can call the Minister for Migration and say that perhaps we should rethink a bit here. I promise nothing, however, because while I think this way about those who behave, I want those who rape, commit crimes, lie, beat their wives, or practice honor-based oppression to be deported from the country on the same day. I can make a distinction between those who behave correctly and those who do wrong.

Here we potentially have a problem. I am open to saying that I, as a member of Parliament and as a citizen, think that those who behave themselves should be allowed to stay here. At the same time, politics is difficult. At some point, one must also have a regulatory framework that is general. It cannot always be individual, and sometimes people end up between the chairs. In these specific cases, one must well look at that.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate the conversations with Karapet, also listening to them. They are always honest and serious conversations.

It was raised that it is a challenge that we always talk about integration and migration. At the same time, Karapet began by saying that the migration policy was ill-considered, so perhaps he himself contributes to this.

We are in complete agreement that a no is a no. This applies to migration policy. If you have received a no, you must leave. The question is what one should receive a no for. That this should be official-led, we also agree on that. The question is which rules the officials should follow. That is what we are discussing in this chamber.

The consequences of the regulatory framework will be a case such as the one we have with Ayla. We knew it would come. The purpose of removing the rule about the age of 21 was that those people would otherwise not be given the opportunity to stay. It was only for that group and had nothing to do with crime. When you remove those regulatory frameworks, the consequence is that the officials make those decisions. I also appreciate that Karapet is open to reviewing the regulatory framework. That is very good.

The question of compassionate grounds deserves a brief word. In 2018, it was 200 people who were granted residence permits on that basis. It is not directly an amnesty. One might think they are too many, but since then, it has become fewer and fewer. It is not a huge number. Eight people were granted residence permits on the basis of special reasons, and that is not so many that they are perceived as an amnesty.

Just as Karapet says, there are people behind every decision. Karapet spoke about those who strive, behave correctly, learn the language, live honestly and support themselves. I understood it as you promising to call Forssell and say that it is not sustainable, that we must change the rules.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! As an elected representative, one must be sincere about what one thinks and believes. Then there may be someone who does not agree, but that is democracy. That is why there are eight parties in the chamber. I am not always in agreement with my mother or my wife, and sometimes I am not even in agreement with myself.

I have followed the case, and I want to thank Ayla for her commitment to a free Iran. I am also committed, and I myself have a connection to Iran. I especially think of women who fight for women's freedom. There are many in Sweden who talk about women's rights, but when it actually comes down to it, they are not seen. So a big thank you!

I want to say the following to Member Niels. If we go out on the street, we can see that people are generally angry. Let's look at the timeline. There was a refugee amnesty for a group that did not have grounds for asylum. The public is losing their minds, and they don't trust what the politicians say at all anymore. Then come these cases with people who have made an effort, and they fall between the cracks. Here, I mean that the policy has not been consistent.

If one is consistent, one can also solve the knots where the legislation becomes a Catch-22. The problem is that we are doing several things at the same time. It is also about maintaining trust in the migration system, and many members and parties have been involved in dismantling and destroying it. People do not feel trust.

It is about ordinary, hardworking people, and it is clear that those who behave themselves should be allowed to stay.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It is wonderful to be able to have an open and free conversation that is not bound by speaking points, as we sometimes see in the party leader debates. I have seen on both the right and the left that many people talk but do not really deliver when it comes to going out on the streets and squares and having the difficult conversations about honor oppression, sitting in on debates in mosques and telling them that such behavior is not acceptable. I have done these things. The earliest video on YouTube where I talk about honor oppression in the squares of Malmö is from 2012. I agree that there are many who have not tackled that issue properly in time. But fortunately, much has improved on that front.

I also believe that more came than Sweden could handle, and we see the consequences of this. There have been discussions about unaccompanied Afghans. That decision was incredibly shady, but it was because no one knew what to do with them. The Moderates had no answer. They could not be sent back to Afghanistan or Iran. What was to be done with this somewhat special group?

80 percent of this group work, and the rest study. Then, unfortunately, some are criminals, and they must, of course, be sent out. But that lies at the individual level, and we must make that distinction.

Let me return to the concrete question. We want those who have come here and do everything right to be allowed to stay. Will Arin Karapet and the Moderaterna make an effort? I know you cannot promise how it lands – and I respect that – but will you make an effort so that more of those who actually contribute, do everything right, learn the language, support themselves, and live honestly are allowed to stay? That is how we build integration.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! This man often says that one is pushed against a wall, and then one cannot back down.

I cannot promise what Ulf Kristersson, Johan Forssell or the government will make for decisions. I can only speak for myself.

Even a Sweden Democrat does not want to send home those who behave themselves and manage their affairs. I have always been of that opinion, and that is what my entire political engagement is built on. The problem is that far too many who have not behaved themselves are allowed to stay here. We have not been consistent over the last 30 years, and therefore the lid has blown off.

What do we, the elected, do then? Either we solve the problem and accept reality, or we close our ears and get chaos. I do not believe in chaos. I believe that one should solve the problem. Certain values go with me, namely that those who behave should be allowed to stay. But one must also have followed the regulatory framework. I do not know how the order has been in the asylum case, and I do not want to precede decisions on right or wrong. I must see the papers and what is stated in the legislation.

I have also met people who have done right by everything, but they have made mistakes in the asylum process. There must be an order there as well. Otherwise, it will be a total sea of storms.

In this case, the Migration Agency has, thank goodness, temporarily stopped deportations to Iran, where they have slaughtered 40,000–50,000 of their own people. We will have to see what happens. I will try to contact Johan in the coming days.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! "Those who behave may stay" has been repeated by, among others, the Moderaterna. It could not be more wrong considering, for example, the law on change of status without transitional rules. It means that all people who have met the requirements that the government has set receive deportation decisions when they apply again. The only thing that needed to be done was to include transitional provisions. It concerns 4,000 people in Sweden who work, set their alarms, wake up and go to work, and who are afraid of being deported. Most often, they work in shortage occupations and in the welfare sector.

The whole issue of the deportations of teenagers is such an example. People who have done everything right and correctly are receiving deportation decisions. Those who behave themselves also do not seem to have a chance in the Tidö parties' Sweden.

We are debating today the issue of integration with a government that has shown, with all clarity politically, economically and institutionally in Sweden, that they do not want integration at all. People with the strongest connection to Sweden are being deported. People with the deepest roots in Sweden, who are well-established and have lived almost their entire lives here, are being deported by the government to countries they many times do not even have any connection to.

It is not enough to do everything right and correctly, learn the language, get an education, get a job and behave yourself, regardless of whether you have lived here for five, ten or fifteen years; you still get a deportation decision on completely insane grounds, as this government has decided.

We have a government that in every way harms integration in Sweden and, with that, harms people, families, and entire local communities. They are people who have done everything right and whom you meet in the store, at the children's preschool, in the school, at the university, and in our hospitals. They are a part of our social body but are currently affected by a very degrading and unjust policy.

Madam Speaker! It seems to be more important for the government where a person comes from than what they achieve for our country, if they behave themselves and so on. Right now, for example, assistant nurses, nursing assistants, and nurses are being deported, despite the fact that there is an enormous shortage in these staff groups and despite the fact that they have wages in accordance with collective agreements, which are set by the parties in the labor market. But the government has shown, for example when it comes to the question of switching tracks, that in order to make as many as possible deportable, they are happy to run over the Swedish model.

It is cynical and incomprehensible that we have politicians who aim to make more and more people deportable, despite the fact that they work here, uphold the Swedish welfare state, and are part of our social body. This has been shown, not least in the reports that we are faced with every day, about young people whose lives and dreams are crushed before our eyes. Children who are born here and young people who have grown up here are deported to countries to which they have no connection and have not even been to. They also cannot understand the language.

It is about family friends, colleagues, and the children's classmates. I meet teachers and classmates of children who are being deported. They cannot understand why the government is pushing through such inhumane laws, which are sometimes retroactive and without transitional provisions. Absolutely nothing is improved by the policy that this government is pursuing, neither for the individuals nor for the society, which this government is tearing apart bit by bit. It does something to children and young people and to local communities across the country when, in schools, there is time and again a classmate who is threatened with deportation. It is as undignified as it can get.

Last week I met Jomana here in the Riksdag, together with colleagues from Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet. She has lived in Sweden almost her entire life and dreams of becoming a social worker. In four months, she would graduate from high school in Solna. She was four years old when she and her parents came to Sweden. A few years later, her little brother was born, who received Swedish citizenship. Now they live in Upplands Väsby and have established roots in Sweden. The parents have permanent residence permits, but Jomana does not. The reason is that she has turned 18. At that point, one is no longer considered part of the nuclear family. The rest of the family gets to stay, but she does not.

That we have a government that, together with the Social Democrats, has actively voted for it to be this way is completely incomprehensible. One of Joman's friends said: You educate young people who grow up and live here their entire lives, but when they start working, you are going to take them from their families and deport them.

You hear how unjust this sounds.

Madam Speaker! I have also met Ayla and her family who are here today. Her two little brothers and her mother and father have permanent residence permits and citizenship. She receives a deportation order as an 18th birthday present. She is to be deported alone to Iran – to Iran!

Do you understand what kind of policy is being pursued? These stricter rules, which you others here in the chamber have voted for, mean that people like Ayla, who still lives at home, studies and works at an LSS residence, receive deportation decisions, regardless of ties or how much right and correct they do.

This situation is not unique. It is the consequence and the effect of political decisions. All around Sweden, young people who have lived in Sweden for years with their families are being told that they are not allowed to stay, even though their parents and younger siblings are allowed to do so and even though they have a deep rooting in Sweden.

Lawyers, advocates, and organizations have for a long time warned about these deportation of minors. This can be changed through a simple legislative amendment. Yesterday, we proposed a committee initiative in the Social Insurance Committee with two proposals to prevent these deportations of minors.

Firstly, we must raise the age for independent asylum grounds from 18 to 21 years, in order to avoid these situations.

Secondly, we must ensure to reintroduce the final valve that existed previously. Then those who reach the age of majority can stay due to particularly compelling circumstances, for example if one has a strong connection and establishment, has grown up here, knows the language, has educated themselves, and so on.

My appeal is: Take that chance! This situation can be changed through simple rule changes. Turning 18 should not mean losing one's family, one's security, and one's future. There is no reason whatsoever for these teenage deportations to continue. Young people living here should look forward to graduating, hanging out with their friends, and entering the workforce. They have their whole lives ahead of them. Do not deprive them of that, please!

Madam Speaker! With that said, I would like to move for approval of reservation 4.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

Today marks one year since Sweden was shaken by the horrific mass murder at Risbergska skolan in Örebro. My thoughts go out to all the relatives who, in an indescribable and horrific way, lost a family member. The site – a school for adult education – which should symbolize opportunities and dreams was transformed into a crime scene. The grief and longing will never completely disappear for those who were affected.

But on this dark day, I still feel hope. The wave of violence that has long been strongly present in Sweden is finally in retreat. January 2026 was the first month since 2018 that was free from fatal shootings.

On Saturday, I had the privilege of attending 3 Arena and the demonstration "Det räcker" (Enough is enough). It was incredibly moving to hear relatives share their stories, and it was completely impossible to hold back the tears. My feeling is that this demonstration became a starting point for us to together – politics, the police, the authorities, and civil society – can join forces to collectively show that enough is enough now.

A question that recurred during the demonstration was: What have we adults done to prevent children and young people from falling behind? It is a question that carries a responsibility, Madam Speaker.

Sweden was once a country characterized by a strong sense of community, built on duties and rights, and with security and shared values that mark right and wrong. But over the last decade, this has eroded, and the sense of community has fallen apart with growing parallel societies, passivity, and insecurity. This also applies to our integration work.

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 first and foremost. We know, after all, that an insecure society without common 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 not only to newcomers but also to those who have lived here for a long time but live in loneliness and isolation and stand far outside the labor market. A starting point in our integration policy is that people should be given the conditions to take responsibility for their own lives. The state shall contribute to facilitating and creating conditions but not plan and take control over people's lives.

Madam Speaker! When I speak about integration, I repeatedly return to the fact that language is the most important factor. Knowledge of the Swedish language is a decisive factor for people to be able to support themselves and participate in society.

On Monday, I had the privilege of visiting two SFI classes. I also know that many Members of Parliament, just during January and February, are out visiting middle and high schools on behalf of the Riksdag to talk about democracy. It was incredibly positive to see their commitment to learning Swedish, but they also showed frustration when they felt that the grammar was very difficult. In individual conversations with some of the students, I urged them to speak Swedish more actively at home, as it emerged that this was not the natural situation. To learn a language, it is important that one uses it regularly and continuously.

Language is absolutely crucial for becoming part of society and for more easily getting into work. The Christian Democrats have long advocated that it should be possible to study SFI even, for example, for a mother who is on parental leave – all so as not to fall behind but to learn Swedish faster.

The government has restructured the integration policy and has set a sub-goal that language skills shall increase among foreign-born women and men. Now, the government has tasked SCB with monitoring the Swedish language skills of the foreign-born. There are far too many foreign-born women who do not have jobs. One of the most important tools to reverse this is knowledge of Swedish. Therefore, it is positive that language requirements for employment are being introduced in, for example, elderly care. This follow-up will provide us with a good basis for the government's continued integration work.

Jobs, knowledge of the Swedish language, and civil society are important keys to integration. To set requirements is to care. It is a way to show care and confirm another human being as valuable and significant.

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 value base where every human being has a unique and inviolable value. Here, we respect one another. Here, men and women stand as equals. Here, freedom of religion and democracy apply.

We see today, however, that 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 leading the work to combat honor-based oppression and strengthen the protection for those who are subjected to it.

Madam Speaker! Through our and the government's policy, we are now moving from merely letting people be housed in Sweden to ensuring that they become a part of Sweden. Integration is not just about socioeconomic factors, work and housing. It is about what kind of society we are to live in. It is about values, about combating loneliness, about civil society and about standing up for the Swedish rule of law and good norms and values regarding right and wrong.

The Christian Democrats have a clear view: To set requirements is to care. There must be clear expectations in Swedish society, not excuses. Again: We know that work, language, and a clear set of values are crucial for successful integration. Sweden needs an integration policy that is clear and consistent and that sets requirements. Integration is no quick fix but 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.

We Christian Democrats believe in a society where every human being 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 once again build a Sweden where everyone can become a part of the community.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

On the Christian Democrats' website, one can read that family reunification is important for the party. Furthermore, it states that it is important from an integration perspective. What is happening in Sweden right now, however, is a very strong policy for family separation. I find that a bit strange considering that the Christian Democrats, who are in the government, speak so strongly and positively about families.

Under this government, one can unfortunately receive a deportation notice when turning 18, even though one has lived most of their life here and fulfilled all requirements – the member of parliament did mention that we should set requirements in integration policy. The rest of the family may stay, but not specifically the one turning 18, due to the rules. It can apply if one has lived in Sweden for only a few years but despite that has a very strong connection here, but it can also apply if one has lived here their whole life. According to the rules, one is no longer counted as part of the nuclear family once one has turned 18. So that is how the decisions look.

How is it possible for the Christian Democrats to conduct such a policy against people? For as long as I can remember, the Christian Democrats have said that the family is the most important community and the foundation on which society rests. What is it that justifies these teenage deportations?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Tony Haddou for a question that I appreciate receiving but which I also find very difficult.

I believe that all of us during the recent period have encountered some individual case where someone is threatened with deportation for the very reason the member is raising, namely that they have turned 18. During a visit to a school a few weeks ago, I met a guy in the staff who is an example of exactly what the member is raising. The parents get to stay. The older brother gets to stay. But this guy has turned 18 and has received a deportation notice.

As a Christian Democrat, I can never say that this is a good solution. I actually want to quote my own party leader from the party leadership debate that was here two weeks ago in an exchange where my party leader said as follows: ”Our starting point is always that we shall stand on the side of the human being, not on the side of the system. We know that there is no system that will be perfect. That is why I gladly repeat my answer from earlier. We always remain humble towards our own legislation even when we sit in a government position. If it is the case that we in nuances have landed wrongly here – and the basic intention has been right – we from the Christian Democrats' side are prepared to review the legislation so that it hits more correctly.”

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It is good that the member here says that the situation is difficult. It is incredibly difficult for these families, it is. On that, we can agree. The member simply knows the reality and that there is nothing that justifies these deportations.

These situations can be changed very easily with legislation. I have raised this in every exchange of remarks. It is about being able to introduce a valve in the legislation and raising the limit to 21 years. That ensures that something as unjust as these deportations of teenagers that are currently taking place will cease.

Then there is a new regulatory framework that allows for consideration of particularly distressing circumstances. This ensures that these young people are protected by the legislation and, above all, that families can stay together.

I believe that no one listening to this debate at all can think it is reasonable that precisely the one who turns 18 receives a deportation decision in a family where everyone else has citizenship or permanent residence permits.

Now the Christian Democrats are in the government. Now there is a proposal on the table to avoid these situations. I hope that the Christian Democrats, together with the government parties, take the chance to ensure that this ceases, that they stay, and that one gets a valve in the legislation.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the member also posing the question to the Social Democrats!

The government now has the opportunity to make decisions and change it. I did not know about the committee initiative. In this case, it is a matter of reaching a broad agreement so that it can be possible to implement a change.

I also hope that the Social Democrats will reconsider their decision. What they have stood behind is what the government has decided on.

I would like to personally say, as Arin Karapet also pointed out, that I appreciate the committee initiative. I look forward with anticipation to what it will lead to. We keep this issue constantly alive.

If one has come here, behaves well and does everything we have said one should do – works, supports oneself and has become a part of society – it feels unreasonable that one should be deported.

It is difficult to get systems that are comprehensive where no one falls through the cracks or gets caught in the middle. If we see that it is happening, we must rethink and ensure that we do something about it.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate Camilla Rinaldo Miller's genuine commitment to these issues. There is no doubt that the member is a values-driven politician. I appreciate that there are still some such people left in today's political world.

It is perhaps not a total surprise that I am going to ask a bit about the consequences. I understand the answers in the previous exchange and that it is a difficult situation. It is a challenge to deal with individual cases. They are individual cases, but they become a multitude because of the regulatory frameworks that are consistent and are implemented consistently.

I also appreciate that the Christian Democrats and the Moderates answer the question when it is difficult. That is what we politicians somewhere have to do and take the difficult path. The Sweden Democrats did not even want to discuss the consequences of their policy and believe that the Riksdag cannot discuss the government's policy. It is not so common to hear that.

One sees these cases where people, for example, undergo training, work in healthcare under LSS, or fight for democracy in Iran. It is precisely that type of people it concerns. They have their family here and the others have citizenship or permanent residence permits.

My perception is that both the Christian Democrats and the Centre Party consider that those people should be able to gain a foothold and be welcome, based on what was said from the rostrum.

We can agree on that. Then I understand that one cannot comment on that in specific cases one should be able to remain because of rules. But we can agree that it is precisely that type of people that we want to keep.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Niels Paarup-Petersen, for the question!

I want to return to what I have said. It is difficult to find systems, regulatory frameworks, and laws where no one gets caught in the crossfire or falls through the cracks.

We see that it is happening. We see with facts that it is people who have done what we told them to do and truly are a part of society. They work and support themselves and have learned the language. Yet they are threatened with deportation because they have turned 18 or for some other reason. Then we must step back and see: What did not turn out right in the system?

The people who meet the requirements that we set should have the opportunity to be able to stay in Sweden. It is not possible to make this a joke, but I am a hairdresser. A permanent is something that never goes away, instead, it must be cut off after one has permed a hair.

For me, permanent residence permits were also that. I believe that the people who have received permanent residence permits also think so. We need to become better at urging people who have come here to apply to become Swedish citizens so that they can feel secure. They have then not only practically become a part of Swedish society, but they are concretely Swedish citizens and belong to our country.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate the honesty and that we stand for more than just what is stated in government proposals and in our party programs. Sometimes there are things that one does not completely agree with. That also exists in my party.

I appreciate that one can have the discussion and try to influence both governments and parties. That is why we are here. Otherwise, one could have had some robots sitting here pressing the buttons. I appreciate this very much. To the one who votes for Kristdemokraterna, I want to say that it is an appreciated colleague who stands for things.

I agree that we will always have people who end up caught in the middle in some way. We will always have some cases that are terrible but where there is not much to be done.

We had a case with a family who came here to get care for their child. For that family, it is a terrible case. But in the end, it will never be the case that everyone who is sick in the whole world can come to Sweden and get care. In theory, it would have been nice if everyone could get care. But we will never have that type of system.

In this case with the deportations of teenagers, no one is getting caught. That was actually the purpose. That is what makes it a bit different with them. Sometimes boundaries are drawn, and there are consequences that one does not expect on the margins. I have full respect for that.

There were no others here who were affected by anything, but in some cases, it was only them. If one does this, it is not that someone gets caught or that it happens by chance. It is intentional. That is the part that affects me and that I still haven't really received an answer to.

I respect the member's personal opinion. But is there an answer to: What was the reason for removing the two regulatory frameworks that have given rise to the consequences that it was known would occur?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! The reason for the change was that it was seen that it had been exploited. The problem when one makes changes is if one does not see the whole picture and what can happen.

I still want to return to the point that it was not that we now wanted to send back the one who had turned 18. That was not the purpose. It was to rectify that one had a system that could be exploited.

I repeat what my own party leader said in the party leader debate: ”We always remain humble towards our own legislation even when we are in a government position. If it is the case that we in Nyanser have landed incorrectly here – and the basic intention has been right – we, from the Kristdemokraterna side, are prepared to review the legislation.”

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for a very engaged speech!

It concerns in particular that which related to the sense of community. There I believe we are very much in agreement. But the sense of community is not built by, as in this case, the state abdicating and hoping that someone else will make everyday life function. The sense of community is built when the school is strong where the needs are greatest, when parents can trust that the children receive an education and when the path to work is real and not a flyer.

In our vulnerable areas, we see families who carry a heavy responsibility – the member was very much into families. They often have small margins, are often in overcrowded housing, and often have a concern for safety. There, the Christian Democrats should be the first party to say: We shall strengthen the institutions that carry everyday life, not weaken them.

When civil society has to struggle with short-term project funding, when municipalities are left alone and when the labor market intervention is insufficient, community becomes a phrase instead of a reality. And for the foreign-born women who become trapped in isolation, the consequence is brutal. It becomes a lack of freedom in everyday life and a dependency on a partner, and children grow up with these consequences.

My question to the member, based on the member's commitment to the sense of community, is: What concrete reforms are the Christian Democrats driving in the government that strengthen the everyday lives of families regarding jobs, education, and security?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Köse, for the question!

When I met the two SFI classes, this question came up. A woman had four years of education in law with her when she came here. She is now trying to learn Swedish. She has a goal: to start working as soon as possible. I hope that she will get a chance to validate part of her knowledge in law so that she does not need to study the entire education again. This is very important.

But it is also about something else. We have talked about fundamental values. I asked another woman: What did you do before you came to Sweden? She answered: I worked at home. She cooked, cleaned, and took care of the children. One can come from a culture where it is considered a job. I can think that we should value it higher. It is not ugly to be at home. It is just as nice as choosing to go to work. But if one believes that it is a job, we must start by saying: In Sweden, women also have the opportunity to work so that they get their own income and become self-sufficient.

I believe that it is something that we need to take with us. I believe that we need to rethink when we help immigrant women into the labor market.

In the budget bill for 2026, we – the Christian Democrats stand behind this – have, among other things, tasked the Swedish Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen) with improving the matching and the monitoring of job seekers. It is one way. Now we know that these women may not be available to the labor market. They may not even have registered with the Swedish Public Employment Service. The establishment jobs were intended to function as an integration measure, but that has not worked. Here, the Swedish Public Employment Service will have more demands on it regarding increasing knowledge about the establishment jobs. I believe that is important.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

The Christian Democrats are completely right that values matter. But values without a material foundation become, in some way, a sermon to people who are already struggling.

Parents in overcrowded housing need a functioning school for their children, a functioning labor market, a functioning housing market, and a state that is present. The sense of community is tested in the concrete. I am thinking of a mother who lacks a network and who is seeking a job. Her Swedish is not sufficient for the first employment. The child attends a school with too few qualified teachers, and safety fails in the courtyard. It is there that politics either builds bridges or leaves people to their own devices.

The Christian Democrats often say that they want to strengthen what holds Sweden together – I share that view. But then the Christian Democrats must also dare to say that cuts and passivity are not a neutral action. It is a choice one makes, and that choice has consequences today for children's life chances.

The question remains: Are the Christian Democrats prepared to stand up against their own government base and demand more resources for early interventions, for schools, and for an active labor market policy in these areas, or will the Christian Democrats continue to call it community while the toolbox is empty?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for a good question! It is an important question for me.

Now that we have adopted the new Social Services Act, which in large parts is based on preventive work, I, as a Christian Democrat, am very, very happy. We have, in fact, for a long time said that if one does not work preventively, the problems that the members have listed will occur. They become a consequence of not receiving the interventions one needs, not receiving the schooling one has a right to, and not receiving the care or support to become a part of society.

Civil society has a crucial role. We are aware of all the associations and churches that have organized language cafés and that have taught people to speak Swedish. People have also been able to become part of a community. The Christian Democrats have at all times supported civil society. That is why we have also allocated extra funds for civil society and measures regarding integration.

We also see the leisure card as a strong task. Now I know that the Social Democrats actually think that the leisure card has become good. It is a good integration measure. Here we have children and young people who may now get an opportunity to participate in a leisure activity. It is a way to be able to enter society. They then do not only see their classmates going and playing football but have the means themselves to pay the membership fee and can become part of a community. In that way, they get to come out and grow into society.

The Christian Democrats continue to pursue their policy for a more integrated society, which is built on shared values and where every human being is seen as a resource and a unique, inviolable individual.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I received an email while there were rebuttals here. I quote: But speak slower, or else you will learn to speak Swedish properly, you...

I will try, Bernt.

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

Madam Speaker! Jonathan and Silvia Perez came to Sweden in 2017 from El Salvador to escape the gang crime and insecurity in their home country. Today, both are working – Jonathan as a cleaner, Silvia as a planner within home care. They have built a life. They have become people's neighbors and friends, and they have had a daughter who has lived her entire life in Sweden – Gabriella, eight years old.

Now they have been informed that they are to be deported because Jonathan does not earn enough for the government's wage floor – this despite the fact that he has permanent employment and a salary in accordance with the collective agreement. Silvia also works and has a salary in accordance with the collective agreement, within home care services.

The government's wage floor therefore means that an entire family – where both parents work, receive wages in accordance with collective agreements, pay taxes and contribute – is excluded entirely unnecessarily. At the same time, Sweden loses tax revenue. Welfare loses competence, and employers have to find new employees again – completely unnecessarily.

This is the government's integration policy.

It is the deportations of teenagers like Ayla, who is sitting up in the stands here listening to the debate – Ayla whose entire family has permanent residence permits or citizenship here in Sweden, Ayla who has a boyfriend here in Sweden, Ayla who has completed upper secondary school here in Sweden despite growing up without the Swedish language, Ayla who works at an LSS residence. Ayla who is to be deported. This is the government's integration policy.

It is deportations of a four-year-old child who was born here. It is deportations of those who have never lived in another country, deportations of those who work and earn according to collective agreements, deportations of those who have followed all laws and rules. It is deportations with the help of laws that seem to act retroactively, where one is punished for something that was legal when one did it but became illegal when a migration minister suddenly had that thought.

This is the government's integration policy, implemented time and again with poor quality and without listening to the referral bodies. It is actually not serious, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker! Yes – migration shall be sustainable. But that does not mean that migration legislation must be a rush. They are two different things. The Center Party wants to deport the rapist who is not a Swedish citizen. But the Center Party also equally wants to retain the healthcare assistant who is not a Swedish citizen. That is what is a sustainable basis for integration: to deport those who have come here and destroy and reward and appreciate those who come here and behave and contribute to our country. They are many, many more, but the Moderates have forgotten them, the Christian Democrats have forgotten them and the Liberals have forgotten them. Even the Social Democrats have quite often forgotten them.

It is only fair to congratulate the Sweden Democrats for not only having won the policy issues in the Tidö Agreement; they have also won the souls of other parties. That is, in fact, what has happened. It is not one proposal or the other. It is the very view of "the others" that has changed, from distinguishing between those who behave and those who do not to cutting everyone over one comb. That is the big change.

Madam Speaker! This is not about the Center Party not wanting to set requirements – on the contrary. For the Center Party, integration is about both setting requirements and offering a way forward. For the government to have deportation as the only future prospect for people who are here will not promote integration and the will to behave correctly. When the only political project is to make all immigrants insecure about what comes next and to create an everyday life where immigrants can never feel safe and feel that they have a home, then integration is damaged, and then Sweden is also damaged.

It is what I believe the government has completely missed. If not a single person can feel safe and welcome here, regardless of how they behave and contribute, the incentive that is the basis for society's offer to those who come here disappears. That is what is new.

The Center Party has always had what many on the left consider to be a tough integration policy, because we believe in the people who come here. We believe that they can contribute. We believe that they should have the opportunity and the duty to work and contribute, and that those who, as a consequence of that, when they deliver, are actually welcome to stay.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, we have worked for the fact that one must qualify for parts of the welfare system. Therefore, we also believe that newcomers should to a greater extent contribute to the long-term financing of their own maintenance. Just as students support themselves with the help of student loans, newcomers should also be able to support themselves with the help of loans during their first time in Sweden. That the government is not for this and truly wants to re-establish the work principle also for newcomers is a pity.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party believes in individual responsibility and opportunities if they are given the chance. Society must also make the investment required to bring new labor into the Swedish labor market. When the government makes it more expensive to hire, refuses to let those who have had it difficult in school enter the vocational programs, and says no to intensive Swedish for those who do not have the language with them from home, then both the individual and Sweden lose. Unemployment increases and integration worsens. That is the consequence, and the only ones who win from it are the gangs, who get new recruits, and of course the Sweden Democrats, who can continue to pretend that all immigrants are a problem.

It is not them. The reality is that the government stands helpless when it comes to creating better integration. They do not want to do what is required to give immigrated youth a positive path forward. They only want to deport when things go wrong. It is a reckless and worthless policy to build a country on. We need both – both tough requirements and great opportunities.

Madam Speaker! While the Tidö parties build their integration policy on deportations and mistrust towards immigrants, the Center Party builds its integration policy on education and faith in the individual. It is a huge difference, and we see that what makes the absolute biggest difference for integration and for the path into society and the labor market is the school. It is the school that is the foundation for the language, it is the school that is the foundation for self-sufficiency, and it is the school that is the foundation for learning the values that Swedish society is built on. That is what the research says, that is what the police say, and that is what the government's parties actually also say quite often, it should be said. But they do not deliver on it. That is the difference.

When the Center Party wants more teachers for the schools that have the most difficult students, not least in marginalized areas, the government says no. When the Center Party wants to increase school funding, the government says no. When the Center Party wants to give those who have a passing grade average from primary school the right to enter the vocational programs so that they get a profession instead of a place in the queue at Arbetsförmedlingen – or in the worst case among the gangs – the government says no.

But when SD wants to deport the one who is educating themselves, the government says yes. When SD wants to deport the one who works and contributes, the government says yes. When SD wants to deport the one who is born and raised here, the government says yes.

Madam Speaker! In that way, there will be no integration.

In this speech, Ulrika Heie (C) agreed.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! In order to be able to influence as much as possible when it comes to decisions and legislative changes in Sweden, it is a clear advantage to be part of the government and the government base. That means, of course, that one has to negotiate and perhaps even make decisions that one would not have desired. So far, the Kristdemokraterna do not have 51 percent of the number of votes in the Swedish Riksdag, otherwise we could have changed many decisions ourselves.

My question to the Centre Party and Member Niels Paarup-Petersen: Does the Centre want to be involved in influencing? Who would one want to govern with in that case?

We have previously heard that the Social Democrats stand behind the stricter migration policy and voted for these changes. Therefore, I wonder if the member and the Center Party want to participate in a government where the Social Democrats are included.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Many do not think so, but I still believe that we have been quite clear that in reality there are two prime ministerial candidates in Sweden: Ulf Kristersson and Magdalena Andersson. I would, of course, prefer to have a prime minister from Centerpartiet, but the probability of that is probably not so great, just as Ebba Busch does not look like she will be able to get that opportunity even if Camilla Rinaldo Miller would like it.

We are open to both candidates, and we are not against a strict migration policy. We are against a stupid migration policy, and that is what this is. That is the difference. It is not strict to say that young people who are born here, or those who have grown up here, have gone to school here and whose parents have permanent residence permits and citizenship, should be deported when they turn 18. Sending them out is not strict. It is not even about migration policy, because they are already here, but it is about what view we have of those who are here and contribute.

We are incredibly firm and hard in that we actually want to give them a chance. We want to give them an education and an opportunity to enter society. We are very clear about that, and therefore Centerpartiet stands behind the fact that we must get back particularly compelling reasons. We also stand behind the fact that we must get a solution for those who are currently deported when they turn 18 and give them the opportunity to stay due to attachment to their family until they are 21 years old.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I agree completely, and I believe that most people living in Sweden do as well. We need to have a controlled and structured immigration, but we shall help people who have problems.

I do not believe there is anyone who sees any concern with deporting a person who has not adhered to Swedish laws, who does not follow our regulations or does not meet the requirements that we have set up. I also believe that just as many feel that it feels wrong to deport someone who does everything that we have said one should do. I have myself already spoken about that I think so.

The problem remains nevertheless when it comes to the formation of the government. I would have wished that our two parties could have had a majority of their own. That perhaps would have made a big difference for the political decisions in our country. But the Social Democrats stand firm. They have also not closed the door for the Left Party to be part of a government basis.

I do not believe that the Center Party wants completely open borders. A controlled migration policy is needed because we want people who come here to receive a dignified welcome and be taken care of and not, as I said before, end up in detention. Can the Center Party imagine being part of a government where the Left Party is included?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I can start with a few quick answers. When it comes to the strict and regulated migration policy, we want to receive 5,000 quota refugees. The government wants 900, if I remember correctly. That is the big difference. We also say that children and parents should be able to be together. The government is not always clear on that. Those are the two big differences regarding the migration policy. Anyone who thinks that means totally open borders is welcome to call and find out a bit more about how it actually is.

I do not believe that anyone other than the Left Party wants the Left Party in government – if even they want it. At least we in the Center Party and my party leader have said that.

One thing I think is worth bringing up is that my and the Center Party's work here in the chamber and in the Riksdag is not about someone at all. It is about something. That is the difference. There are very many who would like to discuss someone. I would rather discuss something.

It is about how we are to get more people into work and how the 20,000 students who currently do not pass school every year are to do so. It is the government's policy that is causing records to be broken. During this mandate period, the largest number of students ever in Swedish history have not passed school. That is something for me.

Something – and some – are also the people who have done everything right, who contribute, who attend training etcetera but who are nevertheless deported. Such is the regulatory framework. That is the reality. I take that in any debate on any day. I think it is wonderful to discuss this with Camilla Rinaldo Miller. I perceive the same thing there.

The discussions about someone can the political reporters take care of. They certainly won't be talking about anything else until the election. They apparently don't have much else to talk about. I think Sweden would benefit from more talk about issues. I am going to talk about something, not about someone.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Madam Speaker! It is not possible to begin this day without thinking about the horrific act that took place at Risbergska exactly one year ago and the trauma that the massacre caused and which we will carry with us. Risbergska school is in many ways a center where integration becomes possible in practice. Therefore, my thoughts in Örebro today are with respect for the relatives and victims and with determination not to back down.

Madam Speaker! When I prepared for this debate, which concerns integration, I chose to read the national coordinator Gulan Avcis report and could confirm the same thing that has been stated many times before: "Marginalization is our time's greatest societal challenge, which affects us all in different ways. It divides our country and threatens, not only our safety, but the institutions and the values that form the basis of our social cohesion. Combating marginalization is therefore a national matter."

When the Liberals, or the People's Party as we were called then, proposed language requirements for citizenship in 2002, we were met, besides with compact opposition, also with insults that we were racists because we emphasized that the Swedish language was needed to break the exclusion.

When we then continued to talk about the map of exclusion, the discussion was about that it was bad to point out areas and call them exclusion areas – as they de facto are. There, the education level is low, unemployment is high, school results are weak, housing segregation is extensive, and honor-related violence and oppression is widespread.

It is particularly serious that exclusion risks being passed down as an inheritance. When we said all this, we were met with a compact resistance to looking at facts and statistics and an unwillingness to have concrete policies to meet it.

The generation growing up in areas of exclusion is an important part of Sweden's future. They also need the right conditions for a good start in life. I want to quote Gulan Avci, who was national coordinator: "In societies where children grow up without faith in the future, criminal networks, Islamist movements and foreign powers advance their positions and exploit the vulnerability in marginalized environments."

For me, integration is ultimately about getting more people to feel that they both belong and can contribute. To belong is to feel at home in the society one lives in. It is about being able to use one's competence, one's strength, and one's ideas. One does not exclude the other; rather, they work together. It is when people are able to both belong and contribute that both the individual and Sweden as a society grow.

In the report that we were to discuss today, there were 49 motions. The committee has chosen to move for the rejection of all of them. Reference is made to the fact that the government is already preparing several reforms regarding settlement, establishment, social orientation, and work against parallel structures. There is a point to not preempt that work, but it also implies a responsibility to ensure that the reforms become effective, legally secure, and long-term.

For us liberals, it is not about where you come from, but where you are headed. A clear policy was needed where clear demands are made. But opportunities were also needed, and they were needed just as much. That combination creates empowerment.

Language and jobs are usually the key to integration. Many agree on that now. I will also say that now we use the right words and talk about exclusion and about clear requirements towards those who come here and want to live in our country. We also talk about how important it is to contribute to that together.

The work regarding honor killings is not the subject of today's debate – it will come later – but it has been alone on that arena. Now there is a consensus. I welcome that.

One thing I don't quite understand is how some parties, especially the Center Party, can think that establishment loans are more important than opportunities to contribute to one's own livelihood in other ways. One risks both indebtedness and insecurity. We believe that empowerment is built through language, education and work – not loans.

The establishment of refugee women has been somewhat of integration's blind spot. I have worked for a long time as a municipal politician and, for the first time, during the last year as a member of Parliament. For a long time, the view was that it was most important that there was a family breadwinner who had work. It was not important that the woman learned Swedish. We have seen what that has had for consequences. Today, I would like to turn the concept around and say that to integrate a woman is to integrate a whole family. There therefore needs to be much greater flexibility regarding when one can study SFI.

When I questioned why women on parental leave in Gothenburg were not given the opportunity to study SFI, I was told that childcare was not being offered. Was it a problem that could not be solved in the municipality, or did they simply not want women to learn Swedish? I can say that it was resolved.

These are important issues that deserve great respect – we need to work together to create a society where we stick together. Many point to civil society and argue that it is often there that one gets the opportunity and the ability to speak and practice Swedish. By, for example, playing football at the same time, one can also be involved in an association and the sense of community that it entails. I believe that long-term partnerships are needed, not short-term project grants.

Madam Speaker! To conclude this integration debate, which we have now had for a couple of hours, I believe it is essential that we together try to create opportunities to establish a Sweden where more people can belong and contribute and where more people move from dependency to self-determination. It is a future policy that holds together. When people get the chance to do that, we also get a society that holds together.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Helene Odenjung for an in many ways excellent speech! If there is anything we truly agree on, it is that for good integration, language is important. Education is important, and a job is important.

When it comes to education, at the current situation, 20,000 students are dropped out every year, primarily in rural areas and in our areas of exclusion. Never in Swedish history have so many students left school without being able to proceed to upper secondary school as right now, during this parliamentary term, when the Liberals have responsibility for school policy. Nothing that the government has done will change this in the next five years. It is an additional 100,000 students from our areas of exclusion – or not only from our areas of exclusion, but a very large proportion of them are there – who will not get the opportunity to learn a trade and thus get a job.

The language – yes. We propose that everyone who enters school, regardless of whether they are born here or not, and who has difficulty with the Swedish language, should receive intensive Swedish as soon as they enter. The Government has not said yes to that proposal.

When it comes to work, we submit proposals to lower the costs of hiring, especially young people and particularly for the first job. We want to see tax exemption so that it becomes cheaper for small companies that hire the first one. But the government says no.

When it comes to these parts, we present concrete policies that the government says no to. While the government's policy has resulted in more people failing school, our policy would ensure that more people pass it. We would ensure that the children take the language with them, regardless of where they were born, if they do not have it with them when they enter school. And we would ensure that it becomes cheaper to hire. It is this that makes a difference, but the government says no. I therefore do not quite understand the criticism of Centerpartiet on this point.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the member for the question!

I believe it is incredibly important to invest in the school right from the beginning. It is not at the end of a school period that measures should be implemented, but they should be taken from the very first day. We must have high positive expectations for the students and give teachers the conditions to actually be teachers in the classroom, that is to say, ensure that a sufficient amount of the administration does not fall on the teachers but on others in the school so that the teachers can focus on their main task.

It is not uncommon that teachers also have to take care of quite a lot of other things that are not their responsibility either. We have proposed school social teams to take care of that part so that teachers can truly focus on the educational mission.

I think coming with this proposal at the end of schooling is a bit late. The measures should be made from the very beginning. Quite a few may perhaps, I believe, need to repeat a year or two because they have not taken in what they need from the start.

Gymnasieskolan is another issue that we also do not have on the agenda today. But it is about getting the prerequisites right from the very beginning. There are, for example, many vocational programs that one could make much simpler so that you can enter employment more easily and faster, even if you do not have the entire language catalog with you.

But when it comes to the integration work, I am talking about children who are born in Sweden but still do not succeed in school. I believe that is due to a systemic error. We have had too low expectations for those students. The teachers have not been given the right conditions in the relevant areas. I say this with the experience of having been a school municipal councilor in Göteborg.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree with the last thing that was said. The reason I am involved in school issues is that Värner Rydénskolan in Malmö had 32 percent qualified teachers. I became furious; the social democratic municipality did not do the job. Now it is over 80 percent – much better. One can make a difference if one believes in these students, takes action, and invests in the teachers. But the government is not investing in the teachers. The government wants to train 1,000 fewer teachers every year according to the bill that is now coming before the Riksdag. That is the reality: One does not invest in the school but only talks about it.

We talked about upper secondary school. Upper secondary school is a good question to take up, because we have these students here: Ayla, who has just finished upper secondary school, and Jomana, who has just ordered her graduation cap when she finds out she is to be deported. Her only crime is turning 18. She hasn't done anything wrong at all – she has snorted, possibly. Why should she be deported?

Why did the Liberals vote for these rules, which with clinical precision removed the possibility for exactly 18–21-year-olds to stay despite their parents having permanent residence permits or being citizens? Many times it is both – one parent has one and the other has the other. Why was it so important for the Liberals to vote away that possibility? That is the big question, which we still have not received any answer to today.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not think I have received that question before, so I have not been able to answer it previously. But I will try to answer it. I definitely do not believe it was with any precision that it was decided that this was exactly how this legislation should be designed so that this group would certainly not be allowed to stop. I absolutely do not recognize that.

If I am to act as an interpreter for those who sat here then – I did not do it myself, so I cannot really make that assessment – is the truth that one would replace the patchwork of systems that has existed. That had this effect. As I have also been made aware of, so has the minister on the migration area, where the matter we are discussing right now is not included, responded that work is ongoing to ensure that there will be a safety valve for this group. This has been communicated. Such work is also ongoing in the Social Insurance Committee, as I understand.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for an engaging speech!

It is true as the member points out that the Liberals have for many years said that the key to integration is language and work. It is a reasonable starting point. But then one must also deliver policy and not just a lot of formulations.

Here is one of the clearest gaps in the entire integration policy. It concerns foreign-born women who want to work but who get stuck in isolation, with a lack of contacts and an everyday life where the path to a job never even begins.

Against this background, the Social Democratic government commissioned an inquiry in 2022, the report of which, Etablering för fler, had a particular focus on women with a foreign background. The inquiry pointed out how establishment needs to become more ambitious, more individually tailored, and more parallel, with clear end goals, early interventions, and the possibility of longer program duration when needed. It is these types of reforms that could make a real difference. The inquiry report was presented in 2023.

I have asked very many liberal ministers, because it is the Liberals who govern the Ministry of Employment: Where is this bill? What has happened with it? What we have heard so far is that one is preparing, following, and analyzing. Three years have passed, Madam Speaker, and we have waited for the Liberals to deliver concrete proposals based on the investigation that was presented. I would like to give the member an opportunity to provide an answer. When will this bill arrive?

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question and for the trust that I would have a different answer to it than the liberal ministers who have answered earlier! Unfortunately, I do not. I can only emphasize how important it is for us that women also get a real chance on the labor market. It is incredibly important that they, just like many before them, get their own opportunity for establishment, self-sufficiency, and the opportunity to separate from their partner to create their own life. All of this is incredibly important for us liberals.

If we have not yet succeeded in negotiating measures in that direction, it is certainly still underway, if one has answered that it is being prepared in the Government Offices.

During this time, I would like to point out that already quite a lot is being done with the conditions that exist in the partnership between state and municipality. Real networks are being established and it is seen what the own region has for opportunities and what is needed for labor, and adult education initiatives are being created that target people who perhaps are not very far from the labor market but definitely get a job when they have completed the vocational training.

I believe that many more measures of this type are needed for us to achieve establishment and integration for real.

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

Serkan Köse (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. This question has been raised several times before, as we have posed it to liberal ministers. There have been some such at the Ministry of Employment. Time and again, we have received the answer that the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices.

It has been three years since the investigation presented its proposals. They are, as I pointed out, very good proposals that show that interventions need to be individually tailored. There should be clear end goals, early interventions, and so on. There are, therefore, very good proposals in the investigation. But it has been three years since May 2023. Now it is January 2026. I do not know how long a government bill should be prepared in the Government Offices. It may need its three years.

Or is it that the problem does not lie with the Liberals but rather in the government base? Perhaps it lies in the cooperation that the Liberals have with a party that slows things down and does not want to deliver concrete proposals to get more people into work and be able to implement early interventions?

The question remains: Will we ever see a proposal from the Liberals, who are the party that governs the Ministry of Employment?

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the same question again! I have no other answer to it than I had before, except that I am becoming a little curious about what government option the Social Democrats envision and what you are going to achieve together in these issues that you have not managed to agree on previously. It is interesting.

I must admit that you too have made a journey regarding how you view things. But it is still a bit scary to produce statistics that can point out which measures we actually need to take.

Now we have introduced integration goals, which we intend to monitor continuously. You have previously, at least in the speaker's chairs here, been hesitant and critical of.

It will be interesting to follow how the Social Democrats will act and with whom you will cooperate moving forward. I believe that the voters also have a great interest in that.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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