Migration

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has received a new government that seriously intends to tackle our country's problems. This concerns, in particular, the previous government's failed migration policy. Sweden has an integration crisis with extensive exclusion where far too many people lack their own livelihood and thus do not enter society, as well as a regular shadow society with people who do not have the right to stay here according to decisions but who nevertheless remain in the country. In both cases, the consequence is that people suffer and that trust in the migration policy is lost.

It will take time to reverse the development, and we must work on several fronts. But it is completely obvious that we need a paradigm shift in migration policy and in particular regarding the view on asylum reception. If those who come to Sweden are to be able to be integrated, a reduced immigration is simply needed.

The Tidö Agreement between the four coalition parties Moderaterna, Sverigedemokraterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna contains a comprehensive reform program in the area of migration. I will therefore make some points regarding the government's priorities moving forward.

Firstly: We shall carry out a paradigm shift within the migration policy.

It is obvious that Sweden has for a very long time taken a disproportionately large responsibility in relation to other countries - a responsibility that we have not managed and which has created major problems with integration. As an example, Sweden has over the last ten years received twice as many asylum seekers as our Nordic neighboring countries combined.

In 2015, 150,000 asylum seekers came across Europe to reach little Sweden, and a third of the world's unaccompanied children came to our country. It is not a reasonable order, and it is obvious that our regulatory framework must be adapted to the rest of Europe's.

Therefore, Sweden should not be more generous in its view on asylum than what follows from obligations under EU law or other legally binding international treaties. The starting point is that protection shall be temporary. Asylum-related residence permits shall be time-limited, and permanent residence permits shall be phased out in favor of a new system based on the relevant immigrant's protection status.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for a long time stood out through more favorable rules and conditions than other countries. The Government will therefore appoint an inquiry with a mandate to propose a model for successive qualification to the welfare system and Swedish welfare benefits. The possibility of removing the right to financial assistance for those staying illegally in the country shall be investigated, as well as the possibility of setting higher activity requirements for maintenance support or establishment support. The inquiry will also be given a mandate to analyze and consider to what extent it is compatible with EU law to let qualification for welfare benefits be based on citizenship rather than where one lives.

The new government will prioritize the work of achieving better order in the reception of asylum seekers. The government will take the initiative to analyze and produce proposals on how transit centers can be introduced in accordance with Article 43 of the Asylum Procedures Directive.

Since we will be working on all fronts, we will also during the mandate period receive fewer quota refugees than we have done in previous years. Just as other countries have done for a long time, we will also set requirements for the UN agency UNHCR regarding which basis quota refugees should be sourced from. The selection shall be based on criteria that provide a well-founded forecast for good integration into Swedish society. Women and girls as well as vulnerable groups such as hbtqi-persons shall be prioritized in that work.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker: The shadow society shall decrease and the return shall increase.

To maintain confidence in regulated immigration and to prevent a shadow society, it is absolutely crucial that those who receive a yes are allowed to stay, but those who receive a no must leave the country. People who stay here illegally also risk being harmed very badly or being drawn into crime.

The government will take several measures to tackle the shadow society. Among other things, we will develop proposals concerning information exchange between authorities, for example, a reporting obligation between the police and authorities that may come into contact with persons who are illegally in the country. We will strengthen the possibilities for internal immigration control and give the relevant authorities the opportunity to use more tools. The number of detention centers also needs to increase.

Crucial in the context of an increased return is also that other countries respect and follow international law, that is, accept their own citizens in cases where these are denied asylum in our country. Therefore, the government will intensify the political dialogue with countries that it may concern. If countries refuse to accept their citizens, it can have an impact on visa rules. Ultimately, it may involve us conditioning parts of the Swedish aid with the requirement that the recipient country takes responsibility according to international law and accepts its own citizens.

We will also return with resource reinforcements to finance efforts that increase returns, including efforts in the countries of origin, to establish cooperation on repatriations.

For the third: We must achieve changes regarding labor immigration, so that we prioritize high-skilled labor immigration while simultaneously preventing the fraud and abuse that is commonly occurring within the low-skilled.

We know that highly qualified labor immigration enriches Sweden in many ways and is incredibly important for companies to be able to find the right competence and to strengthen Sweden as a knowledge nation. We will review and improve the rules. We will also look at specific provisions for doctoral students and researchers regarding the possibility of residence permits after a certain period of continuous employment.

It is equally important, however, as said, to address the fraud and abuse that occurs to a large extent within low-skilled labor migration. We have today a situation with a large degree of exclusion. Very many people live in Sweden without means of support, people who could take many of these jobs. Instead, people from the other side of the world travel here to wash dishes and clean. It is not reasonable. We also know that the abuse of the system is one of the largest areas of crime within serious economic crime, where people are subjected to exploitation.

The government will therefore tighten the conditions for low-skilled labor migration. The maintenance requirement shall be raised from today's 13,000 kronor. That decision was made by the Riksdag last week. The starting point shall be that work permits shall, as a rule, only be granted if the work for which labor migration occurs in the normal case has a wage level corresponding to the median wage.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to say a few words about Ukraine. Since February this year, a brutal war has been ongoing, and we are seeing immense human suffering. It is also the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II. Following Russia's invasion, the EU activated the so-called mass exodus directive, which gives people from Ukraine the right to temporary protection. Since then, 8 million people have left Ukraine. The Swedish Migration Agency estimates that 55,000 people will be granted protection in Sweden during 2022. Many Swedes have opened their homes in a completely fantastic way. I am proud, partly of the warm welcome from the Swedish people, and partly of the government's support efforts, most recently with a record-sized winter package with both military and humanitarian support, and in recent days, increased support for reconstruction.

The Swedish Migration Agency has, in a very short time, scaled up the reception system and restructured its entire assessment operations in order to be able to handle this large influx. We also see that the war continues. The activation of the mass flight directive has been extended. The Government is therefore increasing the appropriations to the Swedish Migration Agency for, among other things, housing and staff. In addition, the Government is allocating more money to shorten processing times, which are far too long in the migration courts and risk becoming even longer with an increased number of asylum seekers from Ukraine. I hope that peace will soon be achieved in Europe and that people will then have the opportunity to return to their homes, but until then, both we and other countries have an obligation to help in our immediate vicinity. The Government's budget contributes to this.

With these words, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the government's budget bill and rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Jessica Rosencrantz highlights large parts of the Tidö Agreement in her speech. But I am actually more interested in the parts that she does not highlight in the debate here today.

For me, the Moderaterna are known as a party that stands for fundamental principles of law. We may disagree on many things, but I hope that the Moderaterna still believe that one should be able to rely on the fact that the administrative and legal decisions one has received apply.

There are currently incredibly many people in Sweden who feel very strong anxiety over parts of the Tidö Agreement. Many people who have fled for their lives, received protection status and been granted residence permits and today live in our country just like anyone else here are now at risk of deportation.

I quote from the Tidö Agreement: "An investigation shall review under what conditions existing permanent residence permits can be converted." That one should be able to overturn a decision that is positive for the individual is completely in conflict with the administrative law principles that apply now.

In this question, we have not received many answers from the government. I think the government is answerable. There are many people who are feeling anxious right now. I wonder: Who is it that can be deported? How is it going to work? When can we get a clearer statement from the government?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Jonny Cato for the question. I actually mentioned this briefly in my main speech as part of the Tidö Agreement. At that time, I also described that it concerns an investigation that shall look at the possibility of phasing out permanent residence permits. Not least, this aims at a future situation where we consider it reasonable that protection is instead granted temporarily with the starting point that people shall subsequently return to their home countries if the situation changes. It is therefore a question of a shift from permanent to temporary residence permits. That is the future perspective, and I think it is fully reasonable. The ambition is that people shall become citizens in this country or leave it after sufficient protection.

In the same way, one can look at the people who are here today. Jonny Cato is completely right that it is not unproblematic. We need to look at how this is to be done in practice. If one has been granted permission to be in this country, it is a decision that must be respected, just as Jonny Cato says. But the starting point is that we want to try to ensure that those people who have permanent residence permits and meet the conditions for citizenship should be encouraged to become citizens. We want to look at those factors, so that a lot of people do not get stuck in the category of permanent residence permits. If one does not have the intention or the will to become a citizen in this country, one should perhaps return to one's home country if the situation changes there.

But we must return to the details. An investigation must look at exactly how it is to be done, and obviously, it must be done in a legally secure manner.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! There is a very big difference between revoking permanent residence permits and converting permanent residence permits into something completely different.

In connection with the January Agreement, we received an incredible amount of criticism from the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Sverigedemokraterna because everything was to be investigated. But I note that the only answer from the government right now is that everything is to be investigated. Two weeks ago, we stood here and talked about labor immigration and which groups can be exempted. Then, that was also to be investigated.

There are incredibly many real people who feel anxiety about whether they will lose their work permit or not. We received no answer on this from the government. Those who risk being deported can be people who have lived in Sweden for a long time, who this morning left their children at school or preschool and went to work, and who this evening might leave the boy or girl at football practice. They feel anxiety about not being able to get an answer on whether their permanent residence permit can be converted or not.

I believe that as the governing party, one is responsible to all the people who are currently feeling anxious. What can they expect from the government? Will they be covered by the investigation or not? I would like to have clearer answers there. And there is a difference between permanent residence permits being revoked and a positive decision one has received from an authority or, in some cases, a court being able to be converted.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Jonny Cato should be more worried if I had all the detailed answers today, before we have even adopted the first state budget from the new government. These are complicated issues. I think it is a perfectly reasonable answer that a serious investigation must look at this question, as well as a number of other questions. It is a comprehensive reform program that is presented in the Tidö Agreement and from the government's side. Several of the things that are in the Tidö Agreement are described based on the fact that a serious investigation must look at how they can be done in a serious way with respect for the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

I agree with Jonny Cato that it is important to take into account that people have received positive legal decisions. That should, of course, carry very great weight. That is why I also emphasize that under the point on permanent residence permits, there is a part about converting them, as Jonny Cato describes, but not least also a part about phasing them out, that is, moving from one system to another. That is the main goal, I would say. In a future system, the goal should be citizenship or temporary residence permits. Either one only wants to be here temporarily with the ambition to leave the country as soon as things look better in one's home country, or one should strive for full integration and ultimately citizenship. That is the target vision.

I hope and believe that many of the people who are already here want to become citizens in this country. We must intensify the work to get more to become citizens. But when it comes to those who are already here, we must fully respect what it means to have received a positive legal decision. It is about respect for the fundamental principles. An inquiry may look closer at exactly how this should proceed.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I choose not to make any motion in this debate, but I naturally stand behind our special statement.

In 2015, I was a municipal council member in Helsingborg. I was involved in managing the extreme situation that arose when over 10,000 people per week arrived, primarily to Trelleborg and Malmö. We had to take gymnasiums and decommissioned elderly care homes into use to be able to accommodate all the asylum seekers. Great efforts were made both in Helsingborg and in the rest of the country.

This situation arose because we essentially had the most liberal migration laws in all of Europe. These laws had Sweden introduced with the Moderaterna at the forefront during the Alliance government. Therefore, the Löfven government changed the migration policy in October and November 2015. An unsustainable and liberal migration policy underwent a paradigm shift.

We moved from liberal right-wing ideas to order and tidiness, from a policy that aimed to tear apart our Swedish labor market and our Swedish model to a policy that safeguards our country and our model, which safeguards popular anchoring for migration policy and which safeguards the welfare.

The Moderaterna do not want to be held accountable for this story. Gone are the happy tones from the orange-clad Alliance party members who danced at the convention. In comes a different color of historical revisionism. Everything is now the socialists' fault.

That the temporary law was made permanent and that it was through the Social Democratic-led government's migration committee that it happened is not to be acknowledged by the Moderates either. For the Sweden Democrats, a historically low asylum reception is, of course, a hard blow. How are they to describe a Social Democracy that does what Social Democracy has always stood for, namely order and clarity in migration policy?

We have the answer in the Palace Agreement. In pure desperation over the fact that Sweden is now taking its, and only its, share of the asylum responsibility in Europe, proposals are being put forward that violate both the principles of the rule of law and the foundations of democracy. People who have not broken a single law shall be able to be deported. Prostitutes, addicts, those who "despise the Swedish people" or who are otherwise considered reprehensible by the Palace parties shall be able to be deported.

We Social Democrats have repeatedly in this chamber tried to get some sensible answer, some single example of what is meant by that people who follow the law shall be able to be deported. In the exchange of remarks earlier, we also heard that if one has received a favorable decision, it should of course not be overturned. Then the question becomes: If one cannot give examples and one is not to overturn favorable decisions, why is it included in the palace agreement?

When should a prostitute who sells sex, and only sells sex, be able to be deported? When should a gambling addict or an alcoholic who risks being sent to persecution or torture be deported for the sole reason that they are ill? WHO classifies alcoholism and gambling addiction as diseases. What is it to disrespect the Swedish population? That is what we have stood here and tried to find out. Which court shall conduct house inquiries with people and deport the reprehensible? No answers are given. It shall be investigated. On one hand, it shall not be done. On the other hand, it shall be investigated. If it is not to be done, why is it then included? It is a waste of taxpayers' money.

Friends! The paradigm shift within asylum migration has occurred. What is happening now is a paradigm shift within the rule of law. It is something that is very, very serious.

It was thanks to the fact that we abolished the ultra-liberal laws that the Moderaterna had introduced and introduced Social Democratic order and tidiness in migration policy that this paradigm shift occurred. Everything else is historical revisionism.

Mr. Speaker! There is, however, a question that is not as debated within migration policy as asylum migration, and that is labor migration. The reason for that is quite simple: Strong economic interests, i.e., the right's constituents, earn staggering sums, here and now, from being able to exploit poor and vulnerable people.

Where the long-term goal of liberal asylum migration was to lower reservation wages in the long run, labor migration can be used here and now to press down wages and conditions in the workplaces. It weakens the union, distorts competition and additionally creates higher unemployment among those who live and stay in the country as citizens or with residence permits.

That is also why the Sweden Democrats have a very ambivalent view on labor migration. One day, they are for labor market testing. The next day, they are ready to compromise on it to reach an agreement with the Moderates. The Moderates, in turn, are stressed because they have now suddenly been given the power to set a wage floor via ordinances.

The government could therefore already have raised the floor. That decision could be made. But here, the Moderaterna have so far not acted, which is due to the fact that they want to make exceptions, especially in those industries where exploitation is highest. It is a dilemma.

If one is to speak about the need for a paradigm shift in migration policy, it is in the area of labor migration that it should be made. It is here that the paradigm shift actually needs to occur. Even here, the Social Democratic government has laid the foundation, partly through the bill on a raised wage floor, and partly with the investigation commissioned this summer regarding precisely labor market screening.

It remains to be seen whether the right, with the Sweden Democrats at the forefront, will complete this paradigm shift and protect the Swedish labor market and the Swedish model from lowered reservation wages and shattered conditions and, above all, of course, stop the reckless exploitation of people. That is what it is about.

I allow myself to doubt, because labor immigration serves a different function for the right by keeping unemployment high among asylum seekers. With imported labor from third countries, for example Bangladesh and Pakistan, many are pushed out of the Swedish labor market. Then the right can run their race that people do not want to integrate, that they do not want to take jobs, that they lack integrity. But the whole thing is about that people who live permanently in Sweden need and demand higher wages, both because they have better insight and knowledge of the Swedish labor market and for the simple reason that the cost level for the one who lives more permanently in the country is much higher than for the one who does not. Then higher wages are also required. It is clear that the right's clients who want a liberal labor immigration do not think it is a good idea, because then they would have to pay higher wages.

This is, of course, a perfect cocktail for an SD-driven agenda where refugees and people fleeing from IS, the Taliban, or the regime in Iran are unwanted here in the country, and where those who are allowed to come here can live on dirty mattresses in a restaurant kitchen or in a storage shed with drafty walls.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I just have to mention something about the quota refugees – Yazidis who have been forced to become sex slaves for IS, child soldiers fighting for militias in Congo, people who have had the misfortune of being born with disabilities in a refugee camp in a war-torn area, or for that matter, homosexuals fleeing persecution and risking the death penalty. These are the people that the right thinks we should help to a lesser extent.

In this context, it is interesting, because the government goes to the EU and drives an agenda that the best way to stop flows of people to Europe is for the countries in the region - in Africa and in the Middle East - to become more stable. I do not quite understand how countries with already weak institutions would be strengthened by the world's most vulnerable having to live in refugee camps in those countries. That is not helping these countries to become more stable. It is, in fact, increasing their burdens. There we can make an effort. But the right does not want that.

Mr. Speaker! The Right speaks, time and again, with a divided tongue when it comes to migration policy. In pure desperation over that they have not succeeded in making a paradigm shift within asylum migration, the Right puts forward increasingly extreme proposals.

I will, however, conclude positively, Mr. Speaker. There is an opening for a paradigm shift. It is about labor immigration. If the right, with the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates at the forefront, chooses to complete what the Social Democrats began last mandate period, there is an opportunity to carry out a paradigm shift regarding labor immigration and protect our welfare and the Swedish model. Take that chance!

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Ola Möller claims that the paradigm shift is something that the Social Democrats offered during the previous parliamentary term. Let us therefore quickly examine this.

After the Social Democrats stood completely paralyzed while hundreds of thousands of people who did not need to come to Sweden were allowed to walk into the country in 2015, they implemented the so-called temporary law a year later, which meant a few minor restrictions on the right to family immigration, permanent residence permits, and the humanitarian safety valve.

After this, a reform was implemented in 2017 that created the possibility of residence permits based on upper secondary school studies, even if the person had no grounds for protection or other grounds to be in Sweden.

Following this, a reform was introduced in 2018 that enabled persons who did not have grounds for protection, who could not make their identity plausible, and who were also adults to stay due to high school studies even though they had no other grounds to be here.

This was followed by a 2019 reform that expanded the right to family migration and removed parts of the maintenance requirement. This meant that more people received permanent residence permits faster.

Finally came the Migration Committee's report, which expanded the right to family migration again. It concerns persons who intend to form a relationship, the so-called Tinder law. It concerns statutory exceptions from maintenance requirements for quota refugees and an expanded right to stay for persons who have no grounds for protection but who simply do not want to go home because they find it convenient to stay in Sweden.

In what way can this be called a paradigm shift? The reasons why we have fewer asylum seekers today are entirely due to partly the Turkey agreement, partly the European Union's external work, and partly the pandemic. When this parliamentary term began, we were largely back at square one, with a regulatory framework that in parts was more generous than it was in 2015.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ludvig Aspling, for the question! The problem for the Sweden Democrats is that reality and statistics show that this has worked.

It is here somewhere that the Sverigedemokraternas policy becomes a problem for the Sverigedemokraterna themselves. They achieve the goal, our rules now, of reducing asylum immigration. Sweden takes its share of the asylum seekers in Europe, and I think that is reasonable. There we can have different opinions. I know that SD pushes that they want to send people out, i.e., net-zero immigration. But in my opinion – and I have no problem with us having different opinions – we should take our share of the asylum seekers. That is why we have pushed the asylum and migration pact in Europe.

It is also reasonable to solve these issues internationally, with other countries. It is therefore not just a matter of Sweden having changed its policy, but obviously there are European factors that also influence this.

But it is de facto that the number of asylum seekers last year was historically small. It was the lowest in 20 years, and it decreased steadily during the last parliamentary term. So it was not just the pandemic that had that effect, but the number decreased steadily.

It is somewhere there that the Sweden Democrats' policy becomes a problem. The Sweden Democrats want to send people out. It is going to be tough. Get rid of them! If they do not want to become citizens, they should leave. They are here because it is convenient, not because they live here, have family here and have rooted themselves here. And quota refugees, people who cannot be useful to the Swedish nation, should not come here! That is how it sounds, and that is how it continues.

This is about the Sweden Democrats wanting to build a different country where the principles of the rule of law as we know them are not to apply. It is not just about the asylum migration, but it is a reshaping of the entire nation.

If one talks about asylum migration, a paradigm shift has indeed occurred. One only has to look at the figures. Reality tells us that is the case, regardless of how much the Sverigedemokraterna argue for something else.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is no serious judge who does not conclude that the greatest impact on the volumes that has occurred during the last few years is partly the EU's external work, partly the pandemic, and partly the Turkey agreement. It is completely obvious.

The small adjustments to the Swedish regulatory framework are a feather that the previous government is now trying to turn into a chicken. They have had, at most, a marginal impact. It is completely obvious. I know it, Ola Möller knows it, and everyone who follows this with some degree of accuracy knows that is the case.

What I intended to ask next has a bit to do with what happened earlier. It concerns primarily how the Social Democrats view accountability and a bit on their own role.

There are migration policy rules that are more or less ill-considered. We can talk about introducing completely new grounds for residence permits, for example, upper secondary studies or the "sexan" as it looks today. That is what is usually called the humanitarian protection ground. Today, one can practically expect a residence permit. The reason for obtaining a residence permit is thus that one has once arrived in Sweden. That is completely incompatible with the principle of regulated immigration.

My question is: Is there any rule that the Social Democrats would not be prepared to introduce in exchange for being able to take or keep power?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the previous discussion about the Turkey agreement, it is the proportion that is the most important here. That is what I am saying! It is clear that there have been changes in the flows into Europe, and that of course affects Sweden. We are a part of the EU. But the proportion of asylum seekers who come to Sweden is now in parity with our responsibility depending on our economic and population size. That is a fact.

But it is unambiguous that the flows into Europe have changed. The interesting thing is that we have larger flows in of asylum seekers now than we have had for many, many years. The Turkey agreement has therefore not led to a reduced number of asylum seekers into the EU, but the routes have changed.

Furthermore, it is incredibly embarrassing that the Sweden Democrats have now finally, after twelve years in this chamber, managed to be part of the government and yet are talking about it being the Social Democrats' fault. What have the Social Democrats done, and what is said about a bit of self-criticism here and there? That is how it sounds.

I can stand here and think that the Sweden Democrats should practice quite a bit of self-criticism regarding the issue of profits in welfare, which they have stopped, or everything surrounding iron pipes and such things. We can talk history as much as we want.

But the Sweden Democrats love to talk about the Social Democrats, because it is the Social Democrats' fault, all of it. Then you don't have to take responsibility for the fact that you, for example, want to remove favorable administrative decisions from people, that you want to send out prostitutes and that you want to send out sick people who abuse drugs, Ludvig Aspling. Then it is good to be able to talk about the Social Democrats instead.

Instead of being embarrassing and standing here time and again and talking about how everything is the Social Democrats' fault and about our history – talk about your own future! What is it that you want to do? We are getting no answers to that.

Now even your partner Moderaterna stands here and says: When it comes to that matter of sending out people with permanent residence permits now and converting them, we shall see. We cannot do that, but we must investigate it. You are not even in agreement! In that part, it sounds like Moderaterna are actually being deceived.

Focus a bit more on the future instead of talking about the Social Democrats' history!

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ola Möller, for the speech! Much criticism was directed at previous conservative governments. I can state that there are quite a few parties in this chamber that have a historical responsibility for the fact that we have ended up in the situation we find ourselves in today with high immigration and failed integration policy.

But what Ola Möller did not say was that it is the Social Democrats who, more than anyone else, have convulsively held onto the unreasonable line that Sweden had for a long time. Therefore, I do not know whether I should laugh or cry when Ola Möller claims that it was the Social Democrats who implemented a paradigm shift.

It was Stefan Löfven who said in 2015: My Europe builds no walls. No municipality shall be able to escape its responsibility, he also said, regarding the large reception in Trelleborg. Let us therefore state that the Social Democrats, together with the Green Party, for a very long time have maintained a migration policy that has not functioned.

There were so many distortions in Ola Möller's post that I don't quite know what to comment on first. But I can state that I think it is reasonable that one should investigate whether people should be able to be deported if they, for example, have dealings with criminal clans and gangs. I think it is unreasonable that Sweden received 45 percent of the EU's total quota refugees during 2021. In that case, it is reasonable to review the levels.

It is we who have pushed for tightenings regarding labor immigration, while the Social Democrats and the Green Party have had eight years.

My main question after Ola Möller's speech becomes this: Am I to conclude that the Social Democrats consider that no changes are needed in Swedish migration policy moving forward? Because that is what it sounds like from Ola Möller. Everything has already been done, and everything is already good. The only thing remaining are some marginal adjustments in labor migration. That is not what it has sounded like from Magdalena Andersson when she has commented, for example, on the proposals in the Tidö Agreement.

Is it the Social Democrats' view that no further adjustments were needed in the Swedish migration policy?

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Jessica Rosencrantz has surely heard of the Settlement Act – that law which the Social Democrats introduced against poor moderate municipalities like Lidingö, Täby, and Danderyd that refused to take their share of Sweden's reception? This was, in fact, the opposite of Sweden taking too large a share of Europe's reception. These municipalities were the equivalent of Hungary in Sweden. Then we introduced the Settlement Act. When it comes to distributing refugees in the country, the Social Democrats have therefore adopted that law.

So it was Löfven who changed the migration policy. He implemented the paradigm shift. It is Löfven's legislation that has pushed the figures down. If we are now to quote former party leaders, we have "Open your hearts" from Reinfeldt, which was also said in another time and another context.

But let us focus forward. There is talk of adjustments. Yes, adjustments are absolutely needed – they always are. But if we talk about the levels, I think they are reasonable when we take our share in Europe. The Social Democrats think so. My party leader thinks so too. On the other hand, we need to strengthen the return. We need to get better there. On the other hand, it is the case that we, both numerically and proportionally, send back more than, for example, Denmark, which is often highlighted as an example by the right.

When it comes to the labor market issue, the Moderaterna have stopped the labor market review. Had the Moderaterna agreed to it and said much earlier that we are going ahead with this, we would have introduced it. But it was not until this spring when we saw that there were opportunities to do something that we could appoint the investigation – appointing investigations that are not to be carried out is something that no responsible government does. The Tidö Agreement shows, however, that the new government has a somewhat more relaxed attitude when it comes to appointing investigations and using tax money to investigate things that one is not interested in anyway or that one does not believe are possible to carry out.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I did not quite receive an answer to my questions.

Everyone could probably take in the previous exchange, so I do not need to repeat everything. It is, however, obvious that it is global factors rather than the Social Democratic reassessment that has resulted in us having a reduced pressure against Sweden today.

I note that one is opening up for certain adjustments. In that case, one should rather welcome what is stated in the Tidö Agreement, which is about us in Sweden ourselves taking responsibility for ensuring that we have regulated immigration and that we do not continue to build up the integration crisis that the Social Democrats have allowed to continue for eight years.

When it comes to labor immigration, which seems to be the only thing the Social Democrats think we should look at moving forward, I can state that the Moderates already demanded tightenings regarding labor immigration one and a half years ago, for example a raised wage floor. Now, five over twelve, we finally received a government bill on the Riksdag's table that enables the government to set a raised wage requirement, which the government will also do.

I also think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss certain exceptions, for example, if there are some categories that should not come into question for labor migration at all, categories where we know there is extensive fraud, for example, personal assistants. Can it also be reasonable to see it from the other side: that some industries should be exempted because it would simply have an excessively far-reaching effect for those industries if one set the wage floor there?

So, what is Ola Möller's answer as to why the government has done nothing for eight years if it was now so incredibly urgent? Is it really reasonable, in connection with Ola Möller's post, that it is only unions and authorities that should decide which professions we should have labor immigration for? No, the Moderaterna do not think so. We want an arrangement where Swedish companies also get to be involved in deciding when they need this competence. But we shall have high wage requirements, and we shall have requirements for good conditions.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that in migration policy, it is the rest of the world that has solved everything, while in energy policy, on the other hand, it is all the Social Democrats' fault. From the perspective of the Moderates and the right, it seems to depend a bit on what suits the situation when it comes to whose fault it is, but it always ends up being the Social Democrats' fault.

It is an interesting question regarding wage floors versus labor market testing. I think labor market testing is what applies. It is what we have wanted to have, and it is what we still want. The wage floor was what was possible to agree on because the Moderaterna suddenly thought that we could go with that. It is a way for you to avoid the labor market testing, Jessica Rosencrantz. You have also gotten the Sverigedemokraterna on board to avoid the labor market testing. So the Moderaterna are fairly satisfied right now and should probably just exercise the power they have received through the ordinance and raise that wage floor as soon as possible without a lot of exceptions.

When it comes to the labor market assessment, I think it is reasonable that the unions and the authorities have significant influence, but I obviously think that both parties in the labor market should have something to say about it. In that part, we are therefore in agreement, and that is also what we said when we debated this issue in the chamber.

Finally, I also want to bring up the quota refugees. The Moderates and the Sweden Democrats think we should engage in cherry-picking and pick out more of the quota refugees.

When I sit with victims of rape who have been sold as sex slaves by Daesh to Muslim sheiks down in the Middle East, and those girls have managed to escape, first to a camp and then to come to Sweden, it doesn't matter to me whether they are integrated or not. For me, it is about that these girls actually need help to such an extent that Sweden should be able to give it to them. That Member Rosencrantz intends to look them in the eyes and say "You shall not be here", I don't buy that.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit exciting to listen to Ola Möller in this debate. One could get the impression that it is the bourgeois new government that has held power for eight years and that the Social Democrats took office eight weeks ago. It is actually the opposite, Ola Möller. It is your party that has had the responsibility for the last eight years.

We can observe that the party has not had a majority in the Riksdag and has been forced to adapt its policy in many areas and perhaps make decisions that it did not like. But we can also observe that Sweden today has a situation where integration has not functioned. Does Ola Möller also want to move that back another eight years and say that we, who held power then, are responsible for the situation we have today? We can only look at the Easter weekend riots. Was it a successful integration we saw happening there?

We can observe that on average one hundred thousand people have been granted residence permits in Sweden every year during the last decade. Despite this, also a thousand people have gone underground. Is it a successful migration policy?

We see today the result of the eight years in power. Just as the previous speaker has said, the former Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson stated that she did not see any major problems with the migration policy. On Ola Möller, however, it sounds as if what is problematic are the proposals put forward by parties that have been in power for eight weeks and who perhaps have not quite had time to launch all proposals because we want to investigate them first.

I want to ask Ola Möller if he is satisfied with the integration that has taken place during the eight years we have behind us.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is wonderful that Member Kihlström thinks it is exciting to listen to me! I am happy to speak more times before both the Member and his colleagues in the rest of the right-wing group. People's education is needed here.

It is also interesting that the member from Kristdemokraterna specifically tries to give the impression that they are so tough, those who are the party of broken promises: What happened with the aid and the quota refugees, member Kihlström?

Furthermore, it is good that Member Kihlström also points out that the Social Democrats have not had a majority in the chamber with parties that stand on the same side in politics since 2006 when this mandate period is over. Of the last 17 budgets that have been presented in the chamber, 12 are Moderate budgets, which have received support from either only bourgeois parties or also from the Sweden Democrats. That says a lot about why the Social Democrats' policy has not been possible to implement. I wish we had had full power for eight years to pursue our policy, because then it would have looked better.

What happens when the Moderaterna and their allies come to power is that they cut back on labor market policy. Labor market policy takes a heavy beating in the budget that is now being presented. At the other end, people then complain that the asylum seekers are not entering the labor market, which is also not true because we have the highest employment rate ever measured in the EU and have had it for a longer period. This is largely due to the fact that, for example, foreign-born women enter the labor market in Sweden to a greater extent than many domestic-born women do in other European countries. It is therefore a higher labor force participation among foreign-born women in Sweden than among many domestic-born in other countries. Integration is therefore both good and, in some cases, absolutely deficient.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ola Möller, who allows the discussion to flow outside the area of migration.

I can take the opportunity to inform Ola Möller that despite our parties not having the same goals for aid, Sweden still has the second most generous aid in Europe. Only Luxembourg gives more. We also want to focus the aid so that it truly does good, something that the previous government was quite cold-hearted about evaluating.

Regarding quota refugees, the quota refugee system shall be the primary one. We can be honest: Are it really the migrants that Ola Möller highlights, who are worthy of compassion and who should be granted asylum, who have been granted asylum in Sweden?

The head of the Migration Agency said just a few weeks ago that we in Sweden still receive between five and ten times more than the other Nordic countries. It is a situation that is not sustainable. Furthermore, of those who have come to Sweden, it is only 50 percent of those who have come from the Middle East who are self-sufficient after 20 years in Sweden. Approximately 1.3 million inhabitants of working age cannot support themselves. The majority are people who have immigrated to Sweden.

If Ola Möller thinks it is successful integration policy, that is okay. But it is not for us. We see that changes need to take place. And in the Tidö Agreement, we have pointed out a number of changes that need to be investigated.

Ola Möller may also find out that many of the changes that have occurred during these eight years have occurred due to announcements from the Riksdag. In many cases, it was some others who spoke about what the government was going to do.

I hope that we can continue the debate in this area.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Wonderful! So now Kihlström gives the announcement that it is not the Social Democrats' fault that the Riksdag has voted through a policy that has not led to successful migration. It was the Riksdag that made the announcements and that has driven the policy. Now there is a conflict area within the right. According to the Moderates and SD, everything is the Social Democrats' fault. Kihlström is still honest. I must give the member that, and I thank him for it. We Social Democrats have not had a majority in the chamber since 2006, and it is the Riksdag that has driven with announcements so that it has gone pear-shaped, according to Kihlström. Thanks for that!

I can state that it was Member Kihlström who asked the question about integration. Integration does not fall within our committee's area. That is correct. But then Member Kihlström should not accuse Member Möller of drifting off. Member Kihlström should reflect on his questions.

It is pathetic with these figures that are coming, for example that 1.3 million are not self-sufficient. Those figures were used in the election campaign. According to the Moderaterna, it was 700,000. Then independent media reviewed it, and it turned out that one had baked in student grants and all sorts of things in the figures. Instead of focusing on made-up figures and baking in everything that fits, it would be better to look at that there are parts of the integration policy that work very well and parts that work very poorly.

When it comes to the lack of integration, the Easter weekend riots were highlighted as an example. The police leadership said this week that they also contributed to the escalation. I do not believe that the solution is to do as the Christian Democrats think, that is to shoot more. The Christian Democrats' party leader's proposal for a solution was actually: Why were not more people shot?

Regardless of how bad the Social Democratic integration policy is, according to the Christian Democrats, I can think that the alternative of more people being shot should be a much worse solution to the integration problems. If you get shot, you have hardly been integrated.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In September, the Swedish people chose a migration policy paradigm shift, but although that concept is often perceived as a rapid change, it is a process that must be allowed to take its time. What the voters stood behind was, in fact, a political alternative that not only takes those issues as seriously as they deserve but also works in a deliberate and long-term manner.

An important difference between this mandate period and the previous one will be that Sweden will now be spared hastily concocted emergency solutions to appease the extremists in the Riksdag. When the Council on Legislation condemned one of the Social Democrats' least well-thought-out reforms with the famous words that the limit had been reached, many of us concluded that it simply could not continue in that way.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say something briefly about the paradigm shift, because there has been a bit of a tug-of-war over that concept. Who is it, really, who has stood for or stands for the paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy?

In reality, the previous government implemented a minor reform of the rules on permanent residence permits, the rules for family immigration, and the humanitarian safety valve, or the "five-six" as it is also called, through the so-called temporary law.

To begin with, we can surely agree that if one aims to achieve a paradigm shift, one should perhaps not start by making the rule changes temporary and time-limited for a couple of years. The reforms were, in and of themselves, welcome. But they were not anywhere near sufficient. Furthermore, they were rolled back step by step through essentially four reports between 2017 and 2020. This concerns, among other things, the famous upper secondary school law and the Migration Committee's report. After the last reform, parts of the Swedish regulatory framework were more generous than they were in 2015, when the crisis was a fact. At the beginning of this parliamentary term, we were essentially back at square one. One must have very low expectations to call it a paradigm shift.

Mr. Speaker! The new government's path forward is clear, distinct, and rests on a few quite simple principles. The European Convention, the Refugee Convention, and the European asylum legislation shall be upheld. But the rules that go further and which make Sweden particularly attractive, and have caused us to have a reception far beyond both our own proportional size within the union and our integration potential, will be removed. The legal minimum level according to EU law shall apply, plain and simple.

I want to make an addition. If one wants to live in Sweden with a residence permit, which one should absolutely have the opportunity to do – many with me have loved ones who do – one must also have a good reason, for example work, family, or international protection. Just staying put despite not having asylum grounds or being able to support oneself, because it is convenient, will no longer be okay.

Why are we doing this then? Many are asking. Is it because of hatred? Is it to spread unrest, or whatever the left is claiming this week? If by any chance there is anyone in this chamber who has reflected on this, especially among the parties that have held power during the previous terms, I have a tip. Look at yourselves in the mirror!

The reason why we now must have a minimum level, Mr. Speaker, is quite simply that the left-wing parties hardly wanted any restrictions at all when they governed the country. And we got a result accordingly. If I could have turned back the clock 30-40 years and implemented a long-term sustainable migration policy, which would enable a somewhat more generous regulatory framework today, I would of course have done so. That would naturally have been preferable. But that was not the path that the left chose.

On that very point – why we are in this situation – it is perhaps a bit of the irony of fate that one of the public figures who was among those first to speak out about this is back in Sweden's Riksdag and participating in this debate. He is both a brave and clear-thinking academic. Great that he is here!

In other words, the voters have put the adults in the room to clean up after the left's children's party. It is not fun to clean. The children get angry sometimes. But it must be done.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say something about how the Tidö Agreement relates to the right to asylum. That question seems to arise actually every time we discuss migration policy here in the chamber. When we talk about the right to asylum, we are talking about the rules in the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. These rules are rarely applied directly by a Swedish court or the ECJ. That is because they are implemented through a number of legal acts at the EU level, which in turn are implemented in the Swedish Aliens Act.

It means that, in and of itself, there is not particularly much case law regarding exactly how the convention should be interpreted. On the other hand, there are some statements, handbooks from for example UNHCR and statements from the EU Commission plus some other material. The Refugee Convention is relatively concise and sets out a few fairly simple principles. The most fundamental is Article 33 on non-refoulement.

This principle means, in simplified terms, that a signatory state may not send back or reject an asylum seeker to a country where they risk protection-grounding treatment, i.e., that the person suffers badly in various ways. On the other hand, according to the convention, it is perfectly acceptable to send back or reject at the border to a country where the person does not risk any protection-grounding treatment.

It is this rule that gives rise to the so-called first-safe-country principle, which means that as an asylum seeker, you have the right to be admitted and to remain in the first safe country you arrive in. But if you seek further from there to the next safe country, you have no right to be admitted.

Something that is often asserted from the left, and which in itself is true, is that there is no obligation to seek asylum in the first safe country. That is entirely correct, but it is to misunderstand the legal issue itself. The Refugee Convention is, in fact, not built around obligations for individuals but around rights for individuals. The point is that one has no right to seek further from the first safe country. That is how it is. There are also a number of legal sources that confirm this, including statements from UNHCR, the EU Commission, and so on.

In the large sense, all asylum seekers that we have had over the last 30 years have actually not relied on the Refugee Convention but on the rules in EU law and national law. We could have denied almost every person who has passed through the land border into Sweden without violating the Refugee Convention. That is, in fact, how it works.

The answer as to whether the reforms proposed in the Tidö Agreement are in line with the Refugee Convention is therefore a clear yes. There is no doubt about that matter.

But what on earth does this have to do with expenditure area 8, one might ask. This debate usually drifts off and becomes about asylum policy and immigration law in general. I think that is perfectly okay.

One could say both everything and nothing. The expenditure area primarily regulates statutory expenditures. The reforms must come first; the savings will come later. This means that there will not be such dramatic changes just this first year. But as said: This government will make systematic, deliberate, and long-term changes to Swedish immigration law. The result will come in time.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! One must start by congratulating the Sweden Democrats. You have, point by point, had your entire migration policy passed through the Tidö Agreement, Ludvig Aspling. Many of the points in the Tidö Agreement are also the Sweden Democrats'.

Given that the Moderates, the Liberals and the Christian Democrats do not seem to be able to explain some of the points in the Tidö Agreement, I hope that Member Aspling can do so instead.

I am still interested in which permanent residence permits can be converted and how it is to be done. Can, for example, permanent residence permits that have been reviewed in the Migration Court of Appeal be converted to temporary ones? And how many people are we talking about when we speak about persons who are to be deported and who today have permanent residence permits?

These are questions that I have tried to get answers to both previously and today. The Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats – the government parties – cannot answer. But I assume that this is exactly the point of the Sweden Democrats, since none of the government parties even seem to want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. I therefore hope that the member can give a clearer statement.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jonny Cato, for the question! I will absolutely help Jonny Cato with this. It is no problem.

First and foremost, there is no difference between a residence permit that has been reviewed by a court or that has been issued by the Swedish Migration Agency. It is exactly the same thing. There is no difference in status between them.

When it comes to the conversion of permanent residence permits, there is something called positive legal force. This was mentioned by Jonny Cato in a previous speech. Positive legal force means, as a general rule, that an authority itself may not withdraw a favorable administrative decision. If you have received a benefit from an authority, the authority cannot just take it back hipp as happ. That is the general rule. Then there are a number of exceptions.

There are three exceptions in Swedish case law: compelling security reasons, dishonesty – i.e., that one has lied – and I do not remember exactly what the third exception was. Then there is also a fourth exception that has emerged through court practice but is of a slightly later date, namely the so-called revocation reservation, which comes through legislation. It simply means that even if it currently stands in the law that a favorable administrative decision can be taken back, one can change the law and introduce it retroactively.

Retroactive legislation in Sweden is prohibited in criminal and tax law but not within administrative law. It is therefore fully permitted and also completely normal in Swedish legal practice with a retroactive clawback provision for beneficial administrative decisions.

Jonny Cato belongs to a green party and must be aware of this. Within environmental law, for example, this is very common. The entirety of Swedish environmental law is based on the principle that laws can be changed, and that means that favorable administrative decisions can be withdrawn.

Jonny Cato wants to phase out nuclear power, for example. This is just one example. It is not possible to phase out nuclear power if one can never change a favorable administrative decision, because a permit to operate nuclear power is a favorable administrative decision. It is therefore not more difficult than that.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! It was actually a very clear message. I really appreciate that the member can be so clear.

Then I can state that as long as you are not a Swedish citizen, even if you have a permanent residence permit, your status can be converted. Then you can be sent back to the country you came from.

This is not what the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna have said. But here we have received the answer. Everyone who currently has a permanent residence permit risks deportation. It is a paradigm shift. There we can be in complete agreement. It is something entirely new.

I also think it is quite remarkable to compare this with an environmental permit. Here we are talking about people of flesh and blood. These are people who this morning, just like all of us in here, woke up when the alarm clock rang. Some went to work and left the children at school. As I said earlier, perhaps they are going to pick up or drop off the boy or girl at football practice, dance practice, or hockey practice this evening.

It is about people who have fled situations that none of us can even imagine. They have been granted security – a positive decision by an authority or a court. They should be able to feel security in Sweden and build up their lives here.

We have said welcome home, and now we are going to send them back. Thank you for the answer, Ludvig Aspling! That was not the answer I wished to hear.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the confusion is due to the fact that Jonny Cato knows nothing about either administrative law or immigration law.

On this point, there is absolutely no paradigm shift. Permanent residence permits can be revoked already today, and not only on the grounds of crime, i.e., deportation due to criminality. There is a rule in the Aliens Act that says that a permanent residence permit can be revoked. It is therefore absolutely no paradigm shift, but we will work more with this regulatory framework and develop it. But the possibility already exists today. It is nothing strange.

In the European Asylum and Migration Pact, which I know Jonny Cato stands behind, there is also an explicit rule stating that member states shall revoke residence permits issued on the basis of international protection if the international protection is no longer needed. It says so explicitly.

What Jonny Cato also does not understand is what this is aimed at. The rule changes are aimed at ensuring that people who do not have a good reason to be in Sweden are not in Sweden, unlike how it is today. Such a reason can, for example, be that one needs international protection.

What Jonny Cato says here, that we should deport people who need international protection, is not correct. It is exactly the opposite. Those who could potentially be in question are people who no longer need this protection, if they cannot obtain a residence permit on any other basis, for example work or family.

The difference that comes with the Tidö Agreement is that we will see that persons who want to live with a residence permit in Sweden must have a good reason for it. One should not be able to linger just because one wants to or because one thinks one has a better standard of living generally, but there must be a reason. But if one has a reason, as in the example that Jonny Cato brings up – i.e., a person who still has grounds for protection against their home country – then is it this that applies. In that case, the residence permit should not be withdrawn. It is completely self-evident.

I do not know if Jonny Cato has actually read the Tidö Agreement and if he is really this poorly informed or if what we are seeing here is some kind of drama. We shall see.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, women and girls from Afghanistan were denied their asylum applications with the justification that it is possible to return. Today, women and girls from Afghanistan are granted residence permits with exactly the same grounds as yesterday but with the opposite conclusion - from one day to the next.

One day, women and girls from Afghanistan were the shadow society that the government, which speaks so cynically about people, was to eradicate. The next day, they were not.

One day, women and girls from Afghanistan were deportable, despite reasons to stay, despite ongoing genocide and despite brutal sharia laws. The next day, they were not deportable.

One day, women and girls from Afghanistan were simply to accept the government's "No is a no" and be thrown into the hands of the Taliban. The next day, a no became a yes.

Mr. Speaker! It is a good opportunity, I think, to reflect on Swedish refugee policy. It is a good opportunity to reflect on the freedoms and rights of women and girls and how a majority in this chamber treats these, as well as what "tightening up" can mean. We can now state that the Sweden Democrats' and the government's signal policy that a no is a no in the asylum process does not always correspond with reality. A no can naturally become a yes, and many times it should have been a yes from the very beginning.

But that it should have to go so far between insecurity, rejection decisions, and limbo before Sweden recognizes the human rights of women and girls - that they are in flight and need safety and protection - is undignified and violates the rule of law. It is the same Taliban there now as it was one and a half years ago, and the country can more or less be described as hell on earth. It will also not be possible to deport people there for the foreseeable future.

Let asylum seekers from there stay! It is a group that has rooted itself in Sweden for a long time. This needs to be reviewed. Continuing to issue rejection decisions to a group that cannot be deported does not make the people in the group more deportable or the decisions more enforceable. You are allowing legal decisions that cannot be implemented to be made. This risks undermining the already lacking legal certainty and legitimacy in the asylum process.

The only thing this leads to, Mr. Speaker, is that more people are pushed into limbo - into that shadow society that the parties in here have spoken about and say they want to combat. It is a policy that has been tested in several stages and always yielded the same result, namely that the vulnerability and lawlessness of this group increases. Then they are made scapegoats for the politicians' failures.

Mr. Speaker! Taken together, this, along with the Sverigedemokraternas and the government's ambitions for migration policy, means a policy that is almost perfectly designed to make integration impossible and to create a lawless group that, to a greater extent than today, will be forced into insecurity and black market work to support themselves. In this way, the attacks on asylum seekers and refugees also become a direct attack against the Swedish model and secure jobs, against the welfare, and against the principles of community and cohesion that we have built up in Sweden.

It is here that the four parties behind this government meet, surely shielded within the castle walls, far from the reality of ordinary people. From one side come the traditional right-wing parties, who are out to limit the Swedish welfare and see this as a good start. From the other side come the Sverigedemokraterna, who take their chance to go after people with a foreign background.

By portraying people seeking asylum here as a threat and a burden, it becomes possible to deny people basic rights and access to welfare. The right wing wants to cut back the safety nets for everyone. The Sverigedemokraterna offer them a scapegoat to begin that project, where welfare and human rights are conditionalized.

The result of the palace agreement will therefore be a society where the right's old usual cuts and erosion of safety systems are justified with ethnic markers. In the long run, this dismantling of the welfare state will naturally affect us all.

Social construction in the form of investments in housing and infrastructure as well as initiatives for jobs, school, and welfare is completely absent in the future Sweden that the right-wing nationalists have sat in the castle and sketched out. When people are then affected by a housing shortage or there is a lack of staff in welfare, it is, once again, a certain group that is to be made into a scapegoat.

The Left Party's political project is fundamentally something else. We know that material security and human rights go hand in hand. We will never accept lies and inverted arguments that one best combats overcrowding or child poverty or fixes the labor market by splitting up families or letting children wait in overcrowded refugee camps to then deny them reunification with their parents.

Instead, the Left Party wants to invest in our society and in the people who live here. The Left Party sees the right of asylum as an international insurance for those of us who must flee. These two ideas are not in conflict with each other. We will always defend a future that encompasses both parts, because a strong and robust welfare that gives all residents good conditions to succeed in society is completely necessary to create a functioning integration.

Those who seek protection in Sweden shall have their grounds for asylum examined in a legally secure manner. Those who seek protection shall receive it and have the right to be reunited with their family and be granted secure residence permits on which it is possible to build a future in Sweden.

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

Mr. Speaker! The right of asylum, which we heard Ludvig Aspling speak about earlier, was not created for days of peace and freedom but for difficult times when humanity shows its worst sides. In the ruins of the atrocities and dangers of the Second World War, which had then driven 60 million people into flight, the realization came that a promise between states is required to be able to guarantee people a sanctuary from war, persecution, and torture in the future.

Historically we have seen - from failed international attempts to agree on saving Jews from the then-impending Holocaust to today's failed attempts to find common responsibilities - that it is much easier for states to agree on closing borders, militarizing and tightening legislation than to decide on systems that save lives.

Every time the promise is tested, the same thing is heard; I have heard it for many years in this chamber: "We cannot accept them." "They are too many." "It leads to integration problems." "It is someone else's responsibility - we have already taken a large responsibility."

We know what it has meant historically, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, the right of asylum - the special status of refugees - and the resulting rights in society are fundamental rights that must be defended both in our society and internationally today and tomorrow.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin this debate by moving to approve the government's budget proposal for the expenditure area migration.

For us Christian Democrats, it is central that migration policy is long-term responsible, legally secure, humane and manageable. The recent years have however shown the opposite. Sweden has received more asylum seekers than it has managed to integrate. Sweden has also not taken decisive action against the exploitation of the asylum system and the emergence of parallel societies.

The Christian Democrats therefore see the need for a strict migration policy in order to be able to manage the lack of integration and other problems that we see in many ways and places in our country. The Christian Democrats see a need to reduce the total migration to Sweden with a goal that it should be at the levels that apply for our Nordic neighboring countries. Within these levels, it is reasonable to prioritize the most vulnerable refugees.

Secure and legal routes, such as the quota refugee system, should therefore be the primary method for people seeking asylum in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The past year has largely been characterized by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The war has displaced millions and caused the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II. The European Council decided to activate the so-called mass exodus directive, which means that persons fleeing from Ukraine are granted temporary protection. According to statistics from Migrationsverket, the authority has, up to November 2022, received 49,000 applications from asylum seekers from Ukraine. During the same period, Migrationsverket has received approximately 15,400 asylum applications that do not concern the mass exodus directive.

It is difficult to assess how the war will develop. It will be decisive for how the refugee situation in Europe and Sweden is affected and for how long the mass flight directive will be activated. This, in turn, will have significance for the scope of the Swedish Migration Agency's assessment and reception activities.

We Christian Democrats therefore share the assessment that funds must be allocated to manage a high workload within the operations for examination and reception due to a sharply increased number of asylum seekers as a result of the war in Ukraine. The addition to the budget also contributes to shortening processing times, that older cases can be cleared, and that constitutionally mandated processing times are achieved during the forecast period.

Mr. Speaker! Furthermore, the Christian Democrats consider that an important part of a long-term sustainable migration policy is that those who have been denied their asylum application leave Sweden. A no is a no, and it is important to maintain this line. In order to enable people to return and repatriate to their home countries, extra funds are therefore included in the budget that is now before the Riksdag.

One might wonder where S stands on that issue. Ola Möller advocates for repatriation, but despite that, S withdraws the appropriation in its budget proposal. One might wonder what politics is.

Against the background of extensive immigration to Sweden over a longer period, confidence in regulated immigration needs to be restored. A responsible, strict, and long-term sustainable migration policy is required.

The right of asylum shall be upheld, but the starting point shall be that those fleeing a conflict or crisis shall be offered temporary protection, as shall those fleeing from Sweden's immediate vicinity. The Christian Democrats give their support to the budget bill stating that it will return with proposals for revised goals and sub-goals within the expenditure area migration.

Mr. Speaker! As many speakers have already said, Sweden needs a new direction for the migration policy. In the Tidö Agreement, the governing parties together with SD have given the migration policy a new direction, and as we have previously spoken about, it concerns a number of proposals to change it in Sweden.

It is about changing the view on asylum reception. It should, of course, take place in accordance with EU law and other legally binding international treaties, but responsibly and with a requirement-based integration policy. It is about dealing with the shadow society.

Mr. Speaker! The changes that have been accounted for concern a number of proposals, and I can state that the proposals mentioned here and which are mentioned in the Tidö Agreement have not caused any major problems for former Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, while Ola Möller in this debate previously said that he does not see any great need for the changes being made. The question is what the Social Democrats' line is.

Mr. Speaker! A few weeks ago, we debated and decided on a first step in a change of labor migration. The Swedish regulatory framework has been pointed out as unique. Unlike practically all other countries in Europe, which specifically target highly educated individuals, Sweden accepts everyone regardless of education and occupation.

The decision that was now taken to change the current system is a first step, but it needs to be followed up by further definitions and rules, which the government has indicated will be coming.

Sweden has historically distinguished itself in the Western world by offering great opportunities for people to immigrate as labor, also to perform relatively unskilled tasks. But it is also about having the possibility to ensure competence for the companies that are needed for Sweden's further development.

Mr. Speaker! When one analyzes the proposals that the opposition parties submit within this budget area, one can observe that the priorities and the distribution of resources differ. One can ask what consensus would have existed in an alternative government.

The parties that are in government now also did their homework in opposition and negotiated valid budget proposals, which the debate has also shown passed through the chamber. That is not the case with today's opposition.

The Green Party and the Left Party are, as usual, spending lavishly, while the Centre Party and the Social Democrats are actually spending less than the government in this area. There is therefore no holistic view, but rather a motley opposition.

Nor even within the political positions is there consensus. S claims to be those who implemented the paradigm shift, while C, MP and V continue to advocate for a line that provides a continued greater opportunity for migration into our country. One might wonder what such a government would have decided.

The citizens of Sweden have in the latest election shown which path our country shall choose. It is also that which the new government is now commencing the work to implement.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats give their support to the budget for 2023 which has been pre-negotiated between four parties. These parties have together agreed on a political action program in many areas and a new direction for Sweden also regarding migration, and I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for the budget.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by welcoming Member Kihlström to the migration policy debate. Member Kihlström's representative, Hans Eklind, and I had many very good discussions and spirited debates here in the chamber.

One thing that the Christian Democrats have often highlighted, and which I have appreciated, has been legal certainty within the migration policy. We have had a very good dialogue about it linked to the parliamentary migration committee that worked for a couple of years.

I miss that perspective a bit in the member's speech, and I would like to ask about a specific matter in the Tidö Agreement. I want to start by saying that I think it is good that Sweden has a safe countries list which allows for a smoother and better handling in the asylum process and quickly manage certain obviously unfounded asylum applications.

We have a long tradition in Sweden of the Swedish Migration Agency producing country information about countries and assessing their security. In the same way, it is the Swedish Migration Agency that, as part of its exercise of authority, assesses which countries are considered to meet the criteria that the policy has set up for the list of safe countries.

Now the Tidö parties, the government and the Christian Democrats want to move that assessment from authorities, experts and specialists to Rosenbad. Instead of non-political civil servants and experts, it is the Sweden Democrats, political civil servants and politicians who shall make decisions on which countries shall be included on the safe countries list.

I wonder in what way the Christian Democrats believe that leads to increased legal certainty.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Jonny Cato. It is nice to see you again. We have seen each other in the committee, and now we get to cooperate here.

Jonny Cato has extensive experience in the field, and I do not really know what Hans has said in all matters. However, I can state that we are strengthening legal certainty in the migration area.

I want to particularly highlight that it states in the Tidö Agreement that legal certainty shall increase, including regarding an issue that I know Hans has become very involved in, namely the conversion issue. We have seen a lack of both knowledge and commitment that has been perceived among some of the officials who have handled it. It is good to review the issue so that it becomes correct. It naturally also includes LGBTQ+ persons.

I can refer to what the Minister for Migration answered regarding that question in an article in Dagens Nyheter yesterday: Sometimes there is a need to make a quick change to the list of safe countries.

Without having been involved in all the discussions leading up to the Tidö Agreement, I can personally see that in what was highlighted by, among others, Tony Haddou, assessments are made that can differ from one day to the next. I believe it is important for the rule of law that one can make those assessments.

It is the government that makes the assessment, and I shall inform Jonny Cato that it is the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna who sit in the government - with a close cooperation with the Sverigedemokraterna. It is therefore not quite correct to say that it is the Sverigedemokraterna's assessment that will apply. It will be the government that makes the assessment, and that is an issue that we will work on in the future in the spirit of the Tidö Agreement.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer, but given that it is the Sweden Democrats' migration policy that applies in and with the Tidö Agreement, I nevertheless expect that the Sweden Democrats will have a great influence also on this point.

The Swedish Migration Agency can also make quick decisions. We have seen this several times when the situation in an area has changed. Afghanistan is such an example in the recent past. One does not, therefore, need to move the assessment from experts and specialists to Rosenbad and politicians in order to be able to have quick assessments.

But I got stuck on something else that the member said, namely that it states in the Tidö Agreement that one should increase legal certainty. It is very good that one describes in words that one should increase legal certainty. But one also needs political action that increases legal certainty, not just empty words and empty rhetoric.

Those who look at what the Tidö Agreement actually entails see that it means that the right to an interpreter shall be reduced. How is a reduced right to an interpreter to lead to increased legal certainty? How is the possibility to revoke permanent residence permits to a greater extent to lead to increased legal certainty?

It is very nice and very good that it is written down that we shall increase legal certainty, but how is that going to happen in practice? How will the proposals in the Tidö Agreement and in the budget lead to increased legal certainty?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Jonny Cato for the commitment.

I believe that if I were to stand here and give all the answers to all the questions that Jonny Cato has, there would be no need for investigations, and it is very important that investigations are conducted.

Just as I said in the previous exchange regarding the revocation of permanent residence permits, it is about investigating the legal principles. The Tidö Agreement takes a historical starting point in making a number of changes to migration policy that are not fully functional right now.

We can observe that there are many parties that have led to the situation that is currently the case. We need to make changes, and it is important that legal certainty is ensured.

It is the case that regarding permanent residence permits, there is in any case from our party not for a moment a thought that it is those who have grounds for protection, those who have fled violence and oppression and who are threatened to their lives, whose residence permits should be converted. It is about providing protection for persons. But we can simultaneously observe that we have a shadow society in our country. We also have persons whom it is important to investigate.

Is it legally sound to be able to review permanent residence permits? The investigation will show that. In the same way, other issues that are present here need to be investigated. We will put all the effort we can into coming back with exact answers to the questions that Jonny Cato has, because we can state that the migration policy that has prevailed recently has not led to successful integration. We need to turn the ship around, and we promise to do that.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! It was interesting to listen to Member Aspling's presentation on administrative law earlier. It was actually fun.

A question that arises there is the question of the recall provision. It must be included in the decision. The JO has established that. It must be explicitly expressed when the decision is given that this recall decision exists. The JO has established this in its official report 2005/06.

It applies, for example, in the Student Aid Act that one states this explicitly. But in the permanent residence permits, the ground that is now stated, i.e., an unwillingness to become a citizen, has not been explicitly expressed. My question then is to Member Kihlström whether he shares Member Aspling's view that this is not a problem because that ground, which must be introduced, was not included in the favorable decision from the beginning.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that in the Tidö Agreement there are a number of proposal points. There is talk of a strict migration policy. We need to change it. We shall have an inspection for migration issues. We propose asylum application areas, internal foreigner control, electronic surveillance and such.

When it comes to permanent residence permits, I want to read out how it is expressed in the agreement. It says as follows: "An investigation shall review under what conditions existing permanent residence permits can be converted, for example by, with a time limit, giving the affected residence permit holders realistic opportunities to obtain citizenship. Such changes shall occur within the framework of fundamental legal rule of law principles."

I have full respect for my colleague Aspling's legal knowledge, but I rely on what is stated in the Tidö Agreement - that an investigation shall review under what conditions existing permanent residence permits can be converted.

To stand here and define this to the letter is, as I see it, to precede this investigation. And just as I said earlier, it is not for one moment about issuing permanent residence permits for those who have grounds for protection. A person who has grounds for protection may stay even if the limited-time residence permit cannot be converted into a permanent one. It is, therefore, about an investigation to see under what conditions it can happen, if it can happen.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Kihlström for the answer, even though it was not an answer to the question.

It is interesting that it is to be investigated because Member Aspling has already told how it is to be done. One wonders what line the government has. There are very many investigations that the Sverigedemokraterna already know the answer to while the government constantly lands in this.

I will try one more round with another matter that I have thought a lot about. It is this when one is to deport prostitutes and addicts.

When we speak with the Minister for Migration in this chamber, we cannot get a single, single example of when a prostitute or a sick person should be deported, even though it is stated in the Tidö Agreement that they should be. I would then like to give Member Kihlström the chance to tell when he thinks that only the fact that one sells sex or that one is sick from, for example, gambling addiction or alcoholism should constitute grounds for deportation.

If it is the case that Member Kihlström says that it should be investigated, it should be investigated, it should be investigated, I wonder: Can the Member - since he does not sit in the government and is therefore somewhat freer than the Minister - indicate any kind of political direction, reasoning, or ideological basis for deporting someone who only sells sex, which is completely legal in Sweden?

If it is not possible to provide a single example, is it then really reasonable to investigate it? I truly respect Member Kihlström's ability to think freely. I believe Member Kihlström has an example if it is to be included. He is, after all, his party's representative in the Riksdag for these issues. Give me an example of when someone should be able to be deported just because they sold sex or just because they are ill!

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ola Möller for the enormous trust in the power and knowledge that I possess - higher than that of the ministers who are appointed to be here.

One can observe that the word misconduct is not a new word. Ola Möller is certainly aware of that. It exists as a legal principle already today, even if it is not used. That it exists, I think, is sensible to investigate.

Ola Möller requests examples. In that case, I suppose I should make Ola Möller just as disappointed as I was by the missing answers in my exchange of remarks with him. I think that is to preempt an investigation.

We have put our foot down on a number of areas. We have also noted that the government that for eight years has had responsibility for migration policy has not put its foot down to make changes that ensure we create an integration that works in Sweden.

In the spirit of the Tidö Agreement, we will investigate and come back as soon as we can, but this must naturally occur from a perspective of legal certainty where we do not make arbitrary decisions. I have full confidence in the Government Offices, where we sit.

I might also inform Ola Möller that it is three parties that make up the government. Even though the Sverigedemokraterna have a clear line, it is actually the case that there is a minister and that an investigation shall be conducted, naturally in close cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna. We will implement the policy we have established, but we will do so in a legally secure and well-investigated manner. I will return to Ola Möller with examples when such are on the table.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! We do not agree on very much here today. But we can agree that Swedish migration policy faces a paradigm shift when the Liberals, the Moderates, and the Christian Democrats are to realize the Sweden Democrats' migration policy point by point.

Sweden is a country that for decades has taken a great responsibility for people fleeing war and oppression - fleeing situations that we perhaps cannot even imagine. Now, the policy is to be changed. As few as possible should be allowed to come here; as few as possible should be allowed to receive protection and safety in Sweden. And if you do come here, your rights shall be minimal.

I had hoped that a new government would mean an increased focus on a functioning integration. Instead, the new government chooses to focus on as many as possible returning to what they once fled from. It is a paradigm shift to a historically conservative and nationalist migration policy - to a historically bad migration policy.

Migration policy is an incredibly difficult and complex issue, for many reasons - primarily because we here do not control how large the protection needs are, but rather atrocities are occurring all around our world that affect whether people need to flee for their lives or not. Most recently, Putin's illegal and horrific invasion of Ukraine has led to large refugee flows in our absolute vicinity.

What I am trying to say is that migration policy is unpredictable as long as one stands up for the right to asylum. And let me be clear: For the Center Party, the right to asylum is inviolable. The person who comes to Sweden shall have their grounds for protection examined. If one does not have grounds for protection, one shall be returned, but if one has grounds for protection, one shall be met with "welcome home!" and be given the best possible conditions to learn the Swedish language and enter and become a part of our common Swedish society.

It is precisely this that the Swedish debate should be about: how integration should work, how one should enter and become a part of our common society and learn the Swedish language, get the first job and see their children grow up and become their best self. That is where the political focus should be - on ensuring that everyone who has grounds for protection receives the best possible integration and the best opportunities to succeed based on their unique circumstances.

Mr. Speaker! We in Sweden can, in many ways in an international and European context, be very proud of our asylum system, which is one of the world's most robust and legally secure. But even what is good can become even better. Certain processing times need to be shortened, as well as the time for the appeals process. We also need a broad and thorough investigation that reviews how the legal certainty in the asylum process can be made even better than it is today, especially in particularly difficult cases such as LGBTQI cases and cases concerning converts.

In connection with the Riksdag's decision on a new migration policy, the Center Party got our proposal through for a broad investigation on increasing the return of persons who have had their asylum grounds examined and received a rejection. If Sweden is to be an open country for people fleeing who have grounds for protection, those who have received a rejection of their application must also return.

Mr. Speaker! The new government's policy is a hard blow for all those forced to flee, but above all for some of our time's most vulnerable. There is much in the new migration policy direction for Sweden that is directly bad. It will become harder for children to be reunited with their parents. It will be a narrower humanitarian basis. Permanent residence permits shall disappear, which is incredibly noteworthy.

Today, temporary residence permits are the main rule when one comes to Sweden. But the possibility of obtaining a permanent residence permit is absolutely crucial for integration and security, and not least, it is decent that someone who has lived in Sweden for a long time, worked and integrated into and become a part of our common society also gets to stay here permanently. Furthermore, the government wants that once one has received that security, the permanent residence permit, the decision should be able to be revoked.

Mr. Speaker! Everything we have talked about here today and everything I have mentioned previously falls into the shadow of a completely different issue. Since the 1950s, for over 70 years, Sweden has been a proud host country for quota refugees. What are quota refugees then? Well, through UNHCR's activities in refugee camps around the world, quota refugees are identified in accordance with well-established guidelines. The criteria are based on protection risk, vulnerability, and special needs. Among those identified as quota refugees are vulnerable women and girls, those who are war-wounded and tortured, vulnerable children, and refugees with legal, medical, or physical protection needs that cannot be met in their current country of asylum.

Last year, Sweden received 6,421 quota refugees. Of these, 46 percent were children and 49 percent were women and girls. The government has announced that within the framework of Sweden's quota refugee reception, it will prioritize women and LGBTQI refugees. That is very good. But it is rhetoric that echoes hollowly.

The problem is, in fact, that the government has decided that we should only accept a total of 900 quota refugees every year. Given that Sweden accepted nearly 3,200 women and girls last year, it means that the number of girls and women who will be allowed to come to Sweden will decrease drastically in the coming years. Therefore, it truly turns my stomach when I hear leading representatives for M, L and KD say they want to prioritize women and hbtqi refugees, because they are doing exactly the opposite.

Mr. Speaker! I had intended to stop here. But yesterday I received a message that reminded me of how important the debate about quota refugees actually is – that this is real. And before I went to sleep, I began to wonder why this is so important.

Bare three years ago, I was in one of UNHCR's refugee camps for quota refugees in Tunisia, near the border with Libya. There, people stay who have received a decision on resettlement, for a safer and more secure life. They wait for someone to come there and say: You may come home with us. The camp is the absolute worst living environment I have ever seen, but for many of the children, the environment was the best they had ever experienced.

In the eyes and stories of the children, I met light and hope. In the eyes of the adults, mostly vulnerable women, I met darkness and fear. There is a story that will always stay with me. It was a woman who had moved with her two children. The man had died; she had fled for her life. When she arrived in Tunisia, she was met by a policeman and felt safe. She was raped by the policeman and became pregnant. This is a story I will always carry with me.

Behind every quota refugee, even behind the 4,100 quota refugees that the government is going to reduce the number of, there is often a story like the one I just told. Therefore, it becomes even more absurd when we are to receive 900 that we are to receive them with the best integration capacity. For me, quota refugees are about exactly the opposite: We are to help those who need protection the most. The government is therefore not only reducing the numbers drastically, but one also changes the need so that those who need the least help shall get to come here. It is a paradigm shift, and this is a dark day for Sweden.

We should be proud that we receive quota refugees, and I know that there are many, especially liberals, who think that this is really difficult. To you, I want to say that just as easy as it is to reduce the numbers, just as easy is it to increase the numbers again. The day you are ready to do that, the Center Party's door is always open.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive that the dividing line between our alternatives is that we believe there should be a reason for people who want to live with a residence permit in Sweden, while the Center Party is very unclear as to whether a reason should be required or not.

In his speech, Jonny Cato said that a no should be a no and a yes a yes. That far we agree. But the world is not so simple, because things do happen. What we refer to when we talk about increasing the possibility to reclaim and convert residence permits is primarily in a situation where the circumstances have changed.

Let me take an example: A person comes to Sweden to seek asylum. We assess that the person has grounds for protection and therefore should be allowed to stay. Then something happens in the person's home country that causes these grounds to no longer exist. During this time, almost regardless of how long it is, the person has not become self-sufficient, has not learned any Swedish, and has not established a network outside of what often, unfortunately, are areas of exclusion. The person has thus mostly socialized with fellow countrymen and has not really entered Swedish society. When the situation changes so that there is no longer any obstacle for the person to travel back to their home country, why should the person still stay in Sweden if there is no sensible reason for it? The person, as mentioned, may have no job, no family, and has not integrated. The person once came here to seek asylum, but the protection is no longer needed.

The dividing line is that we believe that in this situation, the person should go home again. One should be here as long as one needs protection, but if one does not need it, one should go home.

Jonny Cato's position is that these people shall stay in Sweden, even though this builds up exclusion and makes all the problems we have discussed here even worse. Why, Jonny Cato?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Temporary residence permits are now the rule, and when they are reviewed, almost 99 percent receive a positive decision to stay. In other words, it will take a great deal for the need for protection to change for those who have been granted protection in Sweden.

I think it is quite simple. If one has been granted a permanent residence permit, one should be allowed to stay. The positive decision that has been received should apply.

The Sweden Democrats talk about people as if they do not want to enter society, do not want to integrate, do not want to learn the Swedish language and do not want to get their first job. But I believe that the vast majority want exactly that.

We shall set requirements for people who come here, but we also need to set requirements for ourselves as politicians to create conditions and opportunities for people to enter society. I have not once in this chamber during nearly five years heard a single integration proposal from the Sweden Democrats other than that people should return and that we should close the border. We must create conditions for people to integrate and become a part of the Swedish common society.

Does the member have any solid answers regarding the reforms required so that people can have a better opportunity to learn the Swedish language and enter the labor market and become a part of our Swedish common society?

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A very simple thing is to require a Swedish test to obtain citizenship - something we have nagged about and where the Center Party eventually jumped on the bandwagon. But I do not know if you support it today.

It is true that most who have their temporary residence permits reviewed have them renewed. But that is because no proper review is taking place. The Swedish Migration Agency has no mandate today to investigate this properly. In practice, therefore, no proper review occurs as to whether the grounds for protection still persist.

Jonny Cato says that even if one has not found employment, not learned the language, not established a network outside of one's own diaspora and thus not entered into Sweden, one might perhaps want to. Yes, but when we talk about administrative law and the public's relationship to individuals, one does not usually base it on speculations about what people want, but on what people actually do. It is completely unreasonable, Jonny Cato, to build a foreign national legislation based on what people say they want to do.

If the Centre Party now supports the proposal for a language test for citizenship, do you then think that all persons who want to pass this test will automatically also pass it? It is a simple question. This falls on its own absurdity, which even Jonny Cato should understand.

It is exactly the same thing with the other material criteria for staying in Sweden. Just because one wants to stay, wants to learn Swedish and wants to get a job does not mean that one can do it. If one cannot do it and has no other reasons to stay – one has no family, no grounds for protection, no job and no Swedish, i.e., that which one should acquire when moving to another country – then it is reasonable that one goes back, if it is possible.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have presented their integration policy, and it is to introduce a test in the Swedish language. But nothing is said about what should be done so that people will get better at learning the Swedish language to pass this test. The interesting thing is how we are to ensure that more people learn Swedish. The test itself is actually secondary.

When we talk about permanent residence permits, we must also talk about which rules apply to obtaining them. Even today, requirements for self-sufficiency are set. The Sweden Democrats also want to introduce language requirements and requirements for knowledge of society for permanent residence permits, and it will probably be introduced. This means that the person who receives a permanent residence permit must have self-sufficiency and have passed a language test and a test in knowledge of society.

Why should permanent residence permits then be revoked? Is it for those to whom the previous regulations applied, for then we are talking about people who have been in Sweden for decades who are to be deprived of their permanent residence permits?

The Sweden Democrats' policy does not hang together. But above all, I still lack answers as to what the Sweden Democrats' integration policy is. Next week I will participate in the integration debate for the first time, and then I hope to get answers. Otherwise, you actually have four years left.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! There was a lot of heart in Jonny Cato's contribution, and I agree that there are so many destinies all around this earth and so much human suffering where Sweden and other countries want and need to help. But this debate and these questions need both heart and brain to see how we can best receive and help people but also achieve a functioning integration.

If we combine heart and brain, it leads me to the conclusion that we cannot have an immigration that is larger than our ability to integrate these people into Swedish society. It is about Sweden in large, but also about what kind of existence meets the people who come to our country.

Several testimonies in the media have stated that people did not leave their home countries to be met by new moral police in Sweden or to come to a new vulnerable area where they end up in an exclusion without the possibility of getting work.

We need a balance here, then. It sounds like Jonny Cato is saying that there is no connection between immigration levels and integration. I mean, I think there is.

This leads me to a discussion about quota refugees, which is an area where we say that Sweden has taken a historically large responsibility but where we perhaps must review the levels. In 2021, Sweden received 45 percent of all quota refugees in the EU. We have received more quota refugees, not per capita but nominally, than all other EU countries. Is this reasonable?

Jonny Cato says that we can return to receiving 5,000-6,000 people per year, but then I have to ask him: The needs do not stop there - what does the Center Party have for proposals regarding the number of quota refugees? Should we receive 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000? The needs are endless. It becomes a direct question because Jonny Cato spent so much time in his post on this: What level of quota refugees does Jonny Cato consider reasonable moving forward?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe that one needs to look a bit at what is happening around Europe now. For Sweden, 2015 and 2016 meant an unsustainable situation. We shifted our migration policy, but now we see around Europe that countries are facing similar situations to those Sweden faced in 2015 and 2016. Austria is such a country and currently has high pressure on it regarding reception. Sweden has actually shifted its migration policy in many parts.

I think that if there is something we should prioritize, it is the safe and legal routes and quota refugees, so that people do not have to risk their lives in the Mediterranean but can instead come here safely and legally. It is true that Centerpartiet wants to increase the number of quota refugees, but I also realize that we will not get support for this here in the chamber. We probably would not have received it with another government either, if I am to be honest.

One cannot speak of both heart and brain and then, in my view, have no heart at all. There is not a single proposal in the Tidö Agreement that makes it better for refugees, but it only makes it harder to come here. And it only makes it harder to come in and become a part of Swedish society.

I am well aware that not everything in the Tidö Agreement is the Moderaterna's policy, and I understand that one sometimes needs to compromise. But when it comes to 900 quota refugees - and they are supposed to be those who are easiest to integrate - it makes me wonder: What kind of integration requirements does the government want to set when the selection of quota refugees is made according to UNHCR's quota refugee system?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! It was good to get an honest answer, Jonny Cato, at least regarding quota refugees, even though I did not get an answer regarding the level. I ask the question because I want to illustrate the difficulty in these discussions. We will never be able to help everyone who needs our help, no matter how much we try. It is not something a small country like Sweden can manage, and it is also not reasonable.

Again: In 2021, Sweden received 45 percent of all quota refugees in the EU. We have received more than any other country, not just per capita but in total, nominally. I am very curious to hear what level Jonny Cato considers appropriate and reasonable for Sweden when it comes to reception. I mean that we must take into account the historical reception that Sweden has had and that we have received many more people than other countries. As said, over the last ten years we have received twice as many compared to all other Nordic countries combined, and we have received a large share of Europe's quota refugees.

I think, just as it stands in the Tidö Agreement, that we should prioritize particularly vulnerable groups, for example women, girls and LGBTQ people. I think it is reasonable that Sweden, when we choose which quota refugees we are to receive, looks at those types of particularly vulnerable groups. This, if anything, I think is the heart – to look at which groups really need to be allowed to come to Sweden.

But let me ask the question again: Is there any exact figure for the number of quota refugees that Jonny Cato considers sufficiently humane for Sweden to accept? My second question is: Does Jonny Cato believe there is any connection at all between the size of the immigration and the possibility of integration in this country, or does Jonny Cato want to admit that if we accept very many people who do not have the possibility to integrate, we build up shadow societies and vulnerable areas where people do not get support, do not learn the Swedish language, and are drawn into crime?

Does Jonny Cato acknowledge that there is such a connection and such a problem? In that case, one should acknowledge that we cannot, however much heart we have, have however high levels of immigration as we wish.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Just because we cannot help everyone, we should not help as few as possible.

It is clear that there is a connection, but above all, there is a connection to the fact that we have had an integration policy that is far too poor. The Center Party also wants regulated immigration. The Center Party also does not want to return to the situation we had in 2015 and 2016. That is why I welcome that the government invests in more reception centers, for example.

But if it is so incredibly important and good with quota refugees, then it is good that the Moderaterna are now going to take over the presidency in the EU and that Maria Malmer Stenergard, when she is to push through the migration pact, can put pressure on the other European countries to accept more quota refugees. But I have not heard the Moderaterna mention this even once.

We can absolutely set a figure. I think we can accept 6,000 or 7,000, but the most important thing for me is that we at least do not reduce the number by 4,100. I also realize that Sweden will not be able to help all the millions of quota refugees who need help, but I can at least state that if we are to help 900, I think it should be those who have the absolute greatest grounds for protection and need help the most, not those who find it easiest to enter and become a part of our common society.

It is not the Center Party that is held responsible for how many quota refugees we want to receive. It is the Moderates who are held responsible for how they will make integration better so that we can once again become a proud host country for quota refugees and, hopefully one day, relive that Sweden can receive a high level of quota refugees.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Budget proposal area 8 concerns what is the most debated and sensitive issue within Swedish politics, namely migration.

In the proposition, the new government's both short-term and long-term goals in the area are defined, and this deserves an in-depth analysis but also a reminder of how we ended up in the position where we find ourselves today.

Madam Speaker! Already at the beginning of the 2000s, we Liberals, as the only parliamentary party, highlighted the issue of integration and the exclusion that was about to divide the country in a way that threatened social cohesion as a whole. We were convinced that if integration did not function in a satisfactory way, a shift towards a more restrictive migration policy would become inevitable, something that we Liberals in no way desired or advocated for.

A freer international mobility and a generous asylum policy were and still are central elements in the liberal perspective. But, Madam Speaker, this presupposes that the people who seek out our country are integrated into a strong democratic and egalitarian community where everyone who can contribute to our common welfare with their work and their creativity also does so.

We wanted, and still want, to see diversity grow, because a growing diversity is a natural component of a free and open society. But in order for diversity not to be transformed into a destructive force, a common foundation is required that holds society together and that everyone respects. Therefore, 20 years ago, we highlighted the importance of the Swedish language and democratic culture, but also a clear line of action and, not least, the immigrants' own responsibility in the integration process.

Madam Speaker! Society should clear obstacles, vigorously combat all discrimination and provide opportunities, both material and cultural, that facilitate the integration process. But society can and should never replace the individual's decisive responsibility, whether in this or other contexts.

Guardianship is not something we liberals appreciate because we believe in the human ability to take responsibility for oneself and for the well-being of one's loved ones, regardless of place of birth, ethnicity or religion.

That is why we proposed powerful measures to address the integration deficit that was already palpable at that time and which we documented in a detailed manner in Utanförskapets karta and presented in December 2004.

The threat to social cohesion was obvious but also – and this must be emphasized – against personal freedom and against the life chances for the more than 500,000 people who already inhabited what we called areas of exclusion. Parallel micro-societies were beginning to grow all around Sweden, with their own power structures and values that contradicted the foundations of an open, democratic, and egalitarian society.

Young women were the most dramatic victims of the oppression and the lack of freedom that we had allowed to take root in our country. The murders of Pela Atroshi in June 1999 and of Fadime Sahindal in September 2002 showed with all clarity the unthinkable price that young women could pay for the clan rule and the honor oppression that had taken root in our—at least for so many others, but not for these women—free and equal country.

Madam Speaker! We Liberals could in no way accept this development, and therefore we pleaded, almost alone among the parliamentary parties at that time, for a radical reorganization of the pursued integration policy.

In a parliamentary motion that Folkpartiet liberalerna raised in October 2005, the following can be read, for example, regarding the integration policy that the Social Democratic government, led by Göran Persson, pursued: The government's failed integration policy has devastating consequences for society, not least for the most vulnerable. Significant islands of exclusion can be found today in almost all large and medium-sized Swedish cities. Even in many smaller cities, environments characterized by exclusion are not entirely uncommon. It can be estimated that around 10 percent of Sweden's urban population live in such environments today. Folkpartiet liberalerna has long asserted that a radical change was needed, a shift in perspective that breaks with the segregating integration policy that has been pursued until now and opens the way for an inclusive development policy based on empowerment instead of care, and work instead of benefits.

At that time, we were branded as alarmists, xenophobic, racists, and many other things. To tell the truth then, just as it does today, had a high price.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, not much was fundamentally changed during the 17 years that have passed since this passage was written in a motion. The consequences of this political paralysis became increasingly apparent over the years.

The violent riots that broke out both in May 2013 and recently, during Easter in April 2022, are tangible evidence that something fundamental has gone wrong.

But these spectacular and deeply alarming events were only the tip of a growing iceberg of exclusion, frustration, clan rule, gang crime, and violence-seeking Islamism that now threatens the foundations of the rule of law and splits our country in a way that very few could have imagined 20 years ago.

That is why we Liberals continued to work persistently with the issue, and in May 2021, Nyamko Sabuni presented Förortslyftet, which is the most extensive package of measures that a political party has put forward with the aim of reversing the development towards an increasingly divided Sweden.

Madam Speaker! A fundamentally failed integration policy and very extensive immigration obviously do not go together.

Even the Social Democrats have realized this obvious truth, but the path there has been long and winding.

In September 2020, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven made some declarations in Aktuellt which, given a long history of denial, came to be regarded as nearly sensational. The Prime Minister linked migration with the worrying development of crime. He said, among other things: If one has a migration that involves, in terms of magnitude, that one does not manage the integration, then it becomes so that we get social tensions in a society, and that is not good.

He proceeded and acknowledged that it was not just about the extent or volume of migration but also about a failed integration policy: If not enough of the adults are entering employment, then the children see that the adults are not working, and then one might think that it is the normal thing.

He further said: And yes, it is a problem. That is why the government that I lead changed the migration policy, so now we are receiving significantly fewer.

Previously, Magdalena Andersson, as the first Social Democrat in a leading ministerial post, had made similar observations. In December 2017, the following interview was published in Dagens Nyheter: "Integration is not working as it should. It didn't before the autumn of 2015 either, but for me it is obvious that we cannot have a larger asylum reception than we can manage to integrate. It will not be good for the people who come here and it will not be good for society as a whole either, says Magdalena Andersson. There is reason for us Social Democrats to be self-critical."

Madam Speaker! It is precisely this self-evident conviction, that there must be a balance between integration and migration, which is the basis of the new government's migration policy approach as it has been expressed in both the Tidö Agreement and the budget bill that we are discussing today.

To restore the balance between integration and migration, it is necessary to simultaneously address both the integration and migration areas. Therefore, the new government is pursuing a line that combines a strict migration policy with a requirement-based integration policy based on personal responsibility. This must, of course, be done with full respect for the right to asylum and within the framework of EU law as well as the international conventions that Sweden has committed to follow. Anything else would be completely unacceptable for us Liberals.

Madam Speaker! During the coming years, much of Sweden's future will be decided. If we do not here and now curb the growth of parallel societies, the deadly rampage of crime, the grip of honor-oppression and clan rule over the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, as well as the power claims of Islamism and separatism, our common destiny will be characterized by even more difficult conflicts and a political development that could have fateful consequences.

Madam Speaker! Today we must think anew and change everything, so that everything we love and revere is not lost.

I am aware, as Søren Kierkegaard once so rightly pointed out, that to dare is to lose one's footing for a short while. But I fear in this case that not daring can mean losing oneself forever.

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

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I almost want to start by apologizing to the committee for having requested many remarks and taken up a lot of time here today, but this is an incredibly important issue for me. It is a paradigm shift that we have been given the opportunity to discuss for the first time, so I hope that it is okay for this time.

To be liberal is something that carries an obligation. Sweden has for many years had a humane, compassionate, and not least liberal migration policy that helps people on the run. Even though Centerpartiet and Liberalerna have sometimes had different views on migration policy - not least over the past year - we have shared a genuine commitment to some of our time's most vulnerable refugees.

On the Liberals' website, it says in this current situation: "More legal paths to Europe were needed. More quota refugees must be granted protection, which would benefit women and children." It thus becomes obvious that the Liberals have chosen ministerial posts over their own policy. Last year, 3,200 women came to Sweden as quota refugees, and next year there shall be a total of 900 quota refugees. To call oneself a liberal entails an obligation, and I think the Liberals have exhausted the right to call their migration policy liberal.

I have a sincere question. When I listened to Mauricio Rojas's speech, it sounded as if the member stands behind the migration policy in the Tidö Agreement to the letter. My question is therefore: How many quota refugees do the Liberals, as a party, want Sweden to accept?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jonny Cato, for the question and the contribution!

You are touching on a subject that is very important to us. It is not with a happy heart that we have agreed to reduce the number of quota refugees – not at all. But there is a reality that makes it necessary to make decisions that hurt in the liberal heart.

Between 2012 and 2021, Sweden was the country in the entire Western world that received the most refugees per capita. There is no country in the Western world that received even remotely as many refugees as we did during that time. It is a reality we must take into account when integration does not work, when thousands of people gather in areas of exclusion, and when we see crime, Islamism, and violent extremism grow.

We received refugees equivalent to 2.6 percent of our population. After us comes Malta with 2.5 percent, and the rest are far from those levels. We should therefore help each other to organize integration as soon as possible, Jonny Cato. We should change the reality that affects so many of those who came here and restore the principles of the rule of law. Then we can return to a policy that allows many more who need protection to come here. I would be very happy if that happened as soon as possible.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! We are obviously in agreement that we need to do more to improve integration in Sweden. But the member does not answer my question: How many quota refugees do the Liberals, as a party, want Sweden to accept?

The aftermath of the Tidö Agreement can benevolently be interpreted as a compromise – that the Liberals have had to agree to something they fundamentally do not believe in in order to get the keys to Rosenbad and ministerial posts. I genuinely want to believe that the Liberals as a party still want us to accept quota refugees, that is to say, some of our time's most vulnerable people. So that is how I interpret the Liberals' representatives across the country when we talk about quota refugees.

That is why I am surprised when it sounds as if the member is defending the reduction in the number of quota refugees. I hope that I am merely misinterpreting him. Therefore, I want to once again have an answer to the question of whether it is the Liberals' policy to reduce the number of quota refugees by 4,100. Or is it a compromise with SD? How many quota refugees do the Liberals want to accept?

If you now want to increase the number of quota refugees, Mauricio Rojas, which you write on your website – is it 6,000, 7,000 or 900 that the Liberals want to receive?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! We want Sweden to receive 900 quota refugees. It is clearly and explicitly written in the Tidö Agreement and the budget bill. I therefore do not know why you are wondering about it, Jonny Cato; it is clearly and explicitly stated.

If all countries in the European Union were to receive a number of refugees per capita corresponding to what it means for Sweden, 900 people, Europe would receive more than what the United Nations has said we need to receive as a region. It is important to remind oneself of that.

You are bringing up what we write on our website, Jonny Cato, and it concerns Europe. It says Europe, not Sweden. We are saying: If all of Europe - all countries - took the same responsibility that Sweden will take next year by accepting 900 quota refugees, we would gallantly meet the requirement that the United Nations sets for our region. I also think it is an entirely justified requirement. So it says Europe on our website, but I may have misunderstood what you said.

If you instead ask how many we would want to receive if integration worked, if Islamism had not taken root in Sweden and if crime did not look the way it does, the answer is that we would discuss many thousands. Then we could compete with numbers such as 10,000, 12,000 or 13,000 - yes, many different figures. But we must manage the problems we have here and now, otherwise this will only be about hopes and utopias.

I want a reality where we receive many, but then we must manage the integration.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Never before have so many people been in flight in the world as now.

The Green Party's vision is a world where all people have the opportunity to move but no one is forced to flee. That is not where we are today. War and conflicts increase as the struggle over insufficient resources intensifies. Climate change also creates new reasons why people must flee.

The right to seek asylum is a human right and must be defended. More countries must take greater responsibility for receiving refugees, and we want Sweden, together with other EU countries, to commit to increasing the number of quota refugees. We want Sweden to immediately return to receiving 5,000 quota refugees per year to then increase the number to 7,500 per year.

One of the current government's first measures was to reduce Sweden's reception of quota refugees. Quota refugees are those refugees that countries, together with the UN, select in refugee camps and who are thus given the opportunity to move to a country where they can live in safety. It has been discussed here today what proportion of the world's refugees Europe receives, but the vast majority of refugees in the world are fleeing in their own country or in neighboring countries - that is, most often not in Europe. Many are in refugee camps and live under extremely difficult conditions.

Reducing Sweden's commitment from 5,000 to 900 per year is a betrayal of the world's most vulnerable. It is also offensive that it is allowed to be touted that the change would lead to the situation becoming better for certain groups of refugees. When one makes such dramatic changes, overall, the risk is great that many fewer people – including hbtqi refugees, women and children – will get to come here, which, among other things, Jonny Cato has emphasized here earlier.

Coming to Sweden through the UN's quota refugee system is one of the few ways to get to Sweden legally and safely. Thousands of refugees have already risked their lives in life-threatening journeys across the Mediterranean in rubber boats out of sheer desperation. We in Miljöpartiet have long campaigned for more safe and legal routes for refugees to seek asylum. Increasing the reception of quota refugees to 7,500 per year instead of reducing it would be an important step in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! The processing times at the Swedish Migration Agency have long been criticized for being too long. For example, the average processing time is 8.6 months in asylum cases in the first instance. Then the courts' processing times are added. The National Audit Office has stated that the handling of asylum cases at the migration courts has efficiency deficiencies. Miljöpartiet notes with concern that three out of four migration courts have never been anywhere near reaching the government's goal that 90 percent of asylum cases should be decided within four months. Furthermore, the differences between the country's four migration courts are remarkable.

In addition to increased economic costs, excessively long processing times can lead to psychological suffering and deficiencies in legal certainty. The time spent in uncertainty can, in the worst case, mean that important care cannot be initiated, for example, trauma care needed for persons who have been subjected to torture.

Having to wait for a year to be reunited with one's child is an unbearable situation for every parent, but a reality for many who have moved or moved to Sweden. To live with one's family is a fundamental human right. Being quickly reunited with one's family is also a success factor for the integration of refugees who have received protection in Sweden. Since relatives usually do not get to apply for family reunification in Sweden, the regulatory framework, combined with all too long processing times, means that families are split apart for a long time. The regulatory framework and the long processing times also cause family separation for many Swedish families when they want to move back to Sweden.

Even Swedish companies are negatively affected by the Swedish Migration Agency's long processing times. Today, there is a shortage of labor in very many industries. When a company succeeds in hiring a person from abroad, it is important that the processes do not drag on at the Swedish Migration Agency.

There are overall very strong reasons to increase the appropriations to the Swedish Migration Agency and the migration courts in order to shorten processing times. We in Miljöpartiet propose such an increase.

Miljöpartiet also wants to raise the daily allowance for asylum seekers. It has not been raised since 1994, while rents and prices of goods have risen. The current allowance, 71 kronor per day for a single adult, is unreasonably low. Asylum seekers must have the opportunity to live a decent life while they wait for a decision. It is not possible to eat one's fill on 71 kronor a day and also afford winter clothes.

Recently, P4 Malmöhus reported an alarming increase in the number of Ukrainian refugees being exploited in prostitution. Ukrainian women now constitute the single largest group of women exploited in prostitution among those that Jämställdhetsmyndigheten has become aware of. Jämställdhetsmyndigheten points out that the vulnerable situation it entails to have protection under the mass flight directive is a factor.

The Ukrainian refugees who receive protection in Sweden in accordance with the mass flight directive do not today have the same rights as others who are granted residence permits in Sweden because they are refugees. They do not have the right to Sfi, all healthcare, establishment measures, or establishment allowance. Miljöpartiet considers that it is wrong and that they should have the same rights.

Ukrainian refugees have the right to work in Sweden, but many have difficulty finding work. One important reason is, of course, that they generally do not speak any Swedish and that one must be able to speak basic Swedish in the vast majority of jobs in Sweden. At the same time, they receive lower compensation than other refugees who have been granted residence permits in Sweden, because they do not receive establishment allowance but instead the low daily allowance of 71 kronor. In addition to the Green Party proposing that the daily allowance should be raised, we believe that all refugees who have been granted protection in accordance with the mass flight directive should receive the same establishment allowance as other refugees who have been granted residence permits in Sweden.

Miljöpartiet already demanded this spring, through a proposal for a committee initiative in the Education Committee, that Ukrainian refugees should be granted the right to Swedish for immigrants (sfi). The committee's majority then rejected the proposal. During a panel debate on August 19 arranged by Nordic Ukraine Forum, however, representatives from all parliamentary parties stood behind the demand to give refugees from Ukraine the right to sfi on the same terms as other refugees. It is neither humane nor sustainable to postpone the opportunity for Ukrainian refugees to receive instruction in sfi.

Madam Speaker! A third of the joint project of the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals this parliamentary term is about making life as difficult as possible for people who have moved to Sweden. At the same time, they are overall conducting a policy that will lead to more refugees in the world. The Christian Democrats and the Liberals are failing their election promises to defend the one percent goal in aid. The government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget instead involves cuts in aid. At the same time, the government is making a 180-degree turn in climate policy. The climate goals will not be reached with the government's policy. Instead, the largest investments in the budget involve increases in climate emissions. This is something that will lead to more refugees in the world.

Overall, this is a policy that runs directly contrary to the Green Party's. Our policy is about creating a world where no human being is forced to flee and where global solidarity means that rich countries take their responsibility to prevent war, conflicts, and natural disasters in the wake of climate change. With our budget, we show that it is possible to meet the climate goals, strengthen welfare, and strengthen Sweden's ability to integrate people who receive protection in Sweden from war and persecution. We show that one does not have to pit the weakest members of society against each other.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! When we have debated this area before, a discussion has often arisen regarding the right of asylum and the so-called first safe country principle. There, Miljöpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna differ very much.

We assert that this principle is highly real. It means that as an asylum seeker, one does not have the right to travel further from the first safe country one arrives in.

Miljöpartiet, for its part, claims that one absolutely has such a right. One has the right to seek one's way from country to country until one finds a place where one feels one belongs.

In support of our view, we have, among other things, the UN Refugee Convention, which does not stipulate a right to avoid being refused entry or deported to a country where one does not risk protection-grounding treatment. We also have statements from the UNHCR's executive committee and from the EU Commission confirming that it is precisely how these rules should be interpreted. We also have, for example, Article 33 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, which stipulates that an asylum application can be rejected if "a country that is not a member state is considered the first country of asylum for the applicant" or "as a safe third country for the applicant." In other words, there is a wealth of sources of law stating that the principle of the first safe country is highly real and exists within international law.

I would now like to know what sources Miljöpartiet has when they claim that this principle does not exist but is something we have made up. Could Ulrika Westerlund give me a few examples of rulings or statements that have come from the Court of Justice of the EU or otherwise that support her position?

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Now Member Aspling wants to debate something other than what I just spoke about from the rostrum. But at a meeting we had just recently on the occasion of Sweden's upcoming presidency in the EU, this was one of the biggest discussions. Guests came from the EU – leading figures from the part of the EU administration that handles exactly the right to asylum and the situation in the EU when it comes to refugees in general. We noted that the big sticking point when it comes to being able to reach an agreement is that there are problems with the solidarity between the EU's different countries.

I do not know exactly what Member Aspling is referring to that has been previously said by other representatives from Miljöpartiet, but a problem in the EU is obviously that we are not solidary among ourselves. There are certain countries in the EU that border countries from which many refugees and asylum seekers come, and other countries in the EU that do not. It is that which creates this friction. What it concerns is probably references to the internal solidarity in the EU and how we are to relieve those member states that are very close to countries from which many refugees come. I assume it is something like that which Member Aspling refers to in his reply.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is not my task in a debate on migration policy to tell the Member from the Green Party what the Green Party stands for. But the Green Party's position in this issue is, therefore, that the first safe country principle does not exist and that we have a responsibility to receive persons regardless of where they come from.

I would then like to ask what the member from Miljöpartiet says about the Turkey agreement. It is an agreement that completely, one hundred percent, rests on the principle of first safe country. It is an agreement between Turkey and the EU's member states. What it says is simply that when a refugee who is in Turkey travels further to Greece, Greek authorities examine the person's application and then reject it with reference to precisely the first safe country principle, whereupon the person is sent back to Turkey.

This agreement was approved by Sweden's government in 2016. At that time, Miljöpartiet was in Sweden's government, which means that Miljöpartiet approved the agreement. Neither the European Court of Justice nor any national authority has ruled against the agreement, but everyone has said that it is entirely in accordance with international law, i.e., asylum law.

Therefore, I would like to hear how the Green Party can, on the one hand, say that this principle does not exist, that it is a misconception on our part and that we have an unlimited responsibility to accept asylum seekers, regardless of which country they come from, and on the other hand, say that the Turkey agreement is completely in accordance with the same international regulatory framework.

These are two positions that are completely impossible to reconcile. How has Miljöpartiet reasoned here?

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must repeat what I said just a moment ago, that I do not know exactly what the member Aspling is referring to. I myself have not heard anyone say that the first safe country principle does not exist, but I tried to give a picture of what is the dilemma with the first safe country principle. It is difficult to combine with a lack of solidarity between the EU's member countries. That is why the discussion has arisen. That is what I want to say.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

Migration

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

Health care, medical care and social care

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