Migration

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has for a long time had an all too extensive migration. The large immigration in combination with the deficient integration has created a great sense of exclusion in our country.

The lack of integration is reflected in many parts of our society in such things as lack of language skills, poor school results and the EU's second highest unemployment among foreign-born.

That Sweden continues to sink like a stone in the Pisa Report, which was presented the other day, I believe, by the way, is partly a consequence of that many immigrated parents of small children cannot provide their children with the support from home that is needed to manage homework and school in a good way. A high proportion of those who have come here are not literate, and many have not attended school themselves. It is of course not the children's fault that the parents lack these basic skills. But it becomes the society's duty to give the children fair opportunities, and then migration cannot be as large as it wants to be.

Add to that the effects on crime when young guys, often second-generation immigrants, are drawn into or involve themselves in gang conflicts with deadly violence. We have far too many vulnerable areas. Soon one can speak of entire cities being vulnerable areas because the shootings and explosions are spreading and risk affecting anyone who happens to be - or now live - in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Too large a migration in combination with poor integration paves the way for a failure, at the societal level and at the individual level.

There are terrible consequences of the irresponsible migration policy and non-existent integration policy that the Social Democrats, together with their coalition partners, pursued during their eight years in government. But we Moderates are determined to reverse that development.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that immigration has also had positive effects for Sweden. Many people have come to Sweden, integrated into our society, and made Sweden a better country. Those people contribute to Sweden's prosperity by getting up every morning to go to school, work, or run businesses and behave correctly.

The immigrants who behave correctly every day are often those who are hit hardest by the fact that some are in Sweden for the wrong reasons and do not behave correctly. Many of them risk being exposed to crime and violence as they live in areas where we have major problems today. They also risk being criminalized and questioned for the violence simply because they happen to be immigrants and live in these areas.

Not least, immigrant girls often become victims of honor culture when this type of unacceptable norms and values are allowed without any consequences whatsoever. In recent days, a new measurement from the city of Gothenburg was released, which examined this among the city's youth. The measurement indicates that honor oppression is increasing and that the proportion of young people living with chastity or violence norms has doubled in five years. This is completely unacceptable. Sweden shall be a place to live for those who want to behave correctly and be a part of Swedish society - no others.

One of the most important tasks of the Moderate-led government is to reduce the great exclusion in our country. We need to gain control over who is in Sweden and address the shadow society, where people risk being harmed. For us Moderates, it is important that a yes is a yes and a no is a no. Those who are granted residence permits in Sweden shall be integrated and become part of Swedish society. Those who are not granted it shall, of course, leave the country immediately.

We Moderates and our friends and coalition partners the Christian Democrats, the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats agree that immigration to Sweden needs to decrease if we are to manage integration and reduce exclusion. Therefore, the Moderate-led government is now implementing a necessary paradigm shift within Swedish migration policy.

Until now, the Moderate-led government has, among other things, raised the maintenance requirement for labor immigration from countries outside the EU, tightened the requirements for family immigration, limited the possibility of residence permits, and reduced the number of quota refugees that Sweden accepts from 5,000 to 900 per year. The Moderate-led government has also tasked the Swedish Migration Agency with prioritizing the revocation of residence permits, increasing the number of detention places, strengthening the work with repatriation and return, and promoting high-skilled labor immigration.

People from other countries have great potential to contribute to Sweden - not least by bringing high-level expertise to Swedish companies, which is crucial for us to be able to compete in a global environment. It is therefore important that we shift labor migration to focus on highly qualified labor, as it is very important for Swedish business and Swedish prosperity. We also ensure, therefore, that it goes faster to obtain a permit for those who want to come here and work with those types of jobs.

Alongside this, we are acting at the EU level for common European efforts. During Sweden's presidency in the EU, our Migration Minister succeeded in getting the EU countries to agree on the migration pact, which, among other things, involves strengthened controls at the EU's external border. This creates better conditions for us to achieve the changes that we need in Swedish migration policy.

We Moderates have a solid agenda, and together with our coalition partners, we are now carrying out step by step the paradigm shift in migration policy that the Swedish people demand and that Sweden needs. We already see now, just over a year after the Moderate-led government took office, that while immigration to the EU is increasing, immigration to Sweden is decreasing. Our government's policy has therefore had an effect, but more needs to be and will be done to turn the development in our society.

Right now, a number of investigations are underway which, among other things, look at stricter requirements for obtaining Swedish citizenship, how the return activities can be strengthened, and qualification for welfare. During the mandate period, the Moderate-led government will take many measures to further tighten migration and improve integration.

In the budget for 2024, the government invests, among other things, in establishing state accommodations for asylum seekers and return centers for persons who have been denied their asylum application. I believe these are important measures to ensure that people do not disappear into a shadow society and that those persons who do not have the right to stay in Sweden also leave the country.

The Moderate-led government also changes in this budget the migration policy goal to a responsible and restrictive migration policy that provides temporary protection to people who have a need for protection in accordance with the minimum level resulting from EU law, reduces irregular migration to Sweden and the EU, and contributes to ensuring that persons who lack grounds for protection or for other reasons do not have a legal right to stay in Sweden leave the country. I note that a unanimous committee has stood behind that position.

Madam Speaker! I see that I have exceeded my speaking time. In conclusion, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal and the government's budget bill.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

In the Left Party's budget alternative in the Riksdag, there is the proposal that unaccompanied children and young people who have been in Sweden for over a year shall be granted residence permits through amnesty. It concerns children and young people who sought and needed protection in Sweden but who have been treated terribly as a result of political decisions.

Today, eight out of ten of those who arrived in 2015 are employed, primarily within health care, elderly care, and social services. This is unique in the world, given that it is a higher employment rate than among those born in Sweden and considering what this group has gone through.

Then there are all those whom one will not read much about - all those unaccompanied minors who are stuck in limbo and whom the government pushes into undocumented status and vulnerability. They receive deportation decisions, most often to Afghanistan, which cannot be executed for reasons outside the individual's control. The government uproots these people from jobs, housing, and studies and throws them out of the system - into lawlessness, insecurity, uncertainty, and what is called the shadow society.

My question is: What does the government intend to do so that the unaccompanied minors who cannot be deported are not cast into limbo year after year? Deportation is not an option for them, and I hope the member agrees that an increased shadow society is counterproductive. The only remaining alternative for the group I am talking about is to let them stay. But again: What does the government intend to do so that the unaccompanied minors who cannot be deported are not cast into this limbo year after year?

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Something I do not think we should do is grant a group amnesty.

If we want a regulated immigration to Sweden, it is required that a yes is a yes and a no is a no. If one is denied their asylum application, one does not have the right to remain in the country. If we are to maintain a regulated immigration and if we do not want to have back the chaos we saw in 2015 – and which the member's party helped and contributed to through its support for the government at that time – we shall not grant amnesty to any persons who have remained here despite a no.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I had hoped for a more constructive answer. That a yes is a yes and a no is a no is not correct – asylum cases are processed, and then they can be changed. The Afghan girls are an excellent example of that: They received a no, and they were cast out into the shadow society for many years. Then the situation was seen, and then it became a yes. A no can therefore become a yes. Cases are processed.

The problem I am speaking about here, Madam Speaker, is that year after year so many unaccompanied minors are thrown into a lawless limbo. This occurs as a result of deportation decisions that cannot be executed. I understand the member when he says that a no is a no, but it is simply not possible to execute the decisions. These people are torn away from jobs, housing, and studies and thrown out into lawlessness, uncertainty, and insecurity. Legal decisions continue to be made that one knows cannot be executed. That is the fact that we all in here have to contend with, namely that it is not possible to deport these people. Then they are cast out into the shadow society.

The only option that remains after all these years is residence permits, that is, amnesty, straight up for this group - also for the reason that they have been treated incredibly poorly by the Swedish Migration Agency. They ended up at the back of the queue, and it did not proceed in a legally secure manner. It ranged from unscientific assessments to ending up at the back of the asylum case queue. And time works such that age increases as time passes, so many were registered.

I believe in the name of honesty that the government has reached a dead end with this issue. Unaccompanied minors are subjected to a lawless limbo outside the system, year after year. If they still, year after year, cannot be deported - is it not better to keep them in the system? Most have established themselves here, have jobs and housing, perhaps are studying. Is that not better than them being outside the system, in the shadow society, lawless? Is it not better to have them inside the system?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! As I said earlier, it is my honest opinion that those who do not have the right to be in Sweden should not remain here. Then there are certain people who cannot be deported from our country. This does not only apply to unaccompanied minors. It also applies to certain grossly criminal people who are also present in our society, persons who are convicted of horrific crimes. We do not deport them either.

With the logic that those who are not deportable should receive amnesty, there are quite a few people whom, in any case, I do not want to see in this society at all, whom we are suddenly going to start issuing residence permits to. It is not a path I want to take.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we could read an article in the newspaper from the Tidögänget in the Social Insurance Committee regarding migration policy. There is a clear focus on the fact that the opposition is not in agreement. I think that is good. We have different opinions and ideologies, and we stand for different things. It is quite reasonable, because that is how politics works. Many of us have previously been local politicians and know that one can compromise but still stand by what one believes.

In this chamber, the focus of the Tidögänget in the Social Insurance Committee is often on the fact that we in the opposition think differently. Then I wonder: Do the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna always think alike?

Centerpartiet thinks it is good that the government takes action when it comes to deportation due to crime, for example. But the Sweden Democrats' latest decision in their principle program regarding the deportation of stateless persons raises the question of what the Moderates actually think.

My perception is that if one has once obtained a Swedish citizenship, one has a fundamental right to reside in this country. That someone is deprived of their citizenship and made stateless only means that the person ends up in an exclusion and that segregation grows.

Furthermore, no one has answered the question of where one is to return to. One simply has nowhere to return to. One just ends up in an exclusion.

Therefore, my question is: Do the Moderates, like the Sweden Democrats, believe that one should be able to be deprived of their citizenship if they have "betrayed their civic duties" and thereby become stateless?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Cato speaks as if it were something completely new that we can take away people's Swedish citizenship. I want to inform the member that it is something that we have been engaged in for quite a few years.

For quite many years, those who grew up in Switzerland, France, or some other country have lost their citizenship the day the person turns 23 if the person has not been registered as a resident in Sweden during their life. Depriving persons of Swedish citizenship and making them stateless is something we engaged in for many years. Now, however, we have closed that possibility, so now one may not take away the citizenship from persons and make them stateless. But it is nothing new in Swedish politics that we do this.

Now we are reviewing the possibilities of taking away citizenship from certain people if they do not deserve to continue being Swedish citizens.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Apples and pears - here we are mixing everything, it feels like.

This is not the same thing, and we had a discussion about it during the last parliamentary term. Swedes who have citizenship in Finland or Switzerland are not the same as the people we are talking about now.

It is about people who are to be deprived of their citizenship because they - to quote the Sweden Democrats' principle program: have "betrayed their civic duties". It is this we are talking about. They are people who have no other country to return to. They are not in Switzerland and they do not have dual citizenship. They are therefore to be deported from Sweden but, exactly that, they have nowhere to be deported to. That is the whole point.

I must say that I am surprised, because I have seen Moderates who have reacted and acted on this. The Liberals and Christian Democrats have been opponents of this. But now it sounds from the member that this is not something strange. Things move very fast in Swedish politics.

Therefore, I ask: Do the Moderates really think that the decision recently made at the Sweden Democrats' national conference is good policy? It is not something old, but it is a completely new proposal from the Sweden Democrats, which suddenly is the Moderates' policy. It went very fast.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' policy is something the member must take up with the Sweden Democrats. We are four parties cooperating, and we will arrive at good solutions for Sweden's future.

It is strange that Jonny Cato does not think it is particularly serious that someone who has grown up with their parents in Switzerland, attended the Swedish school and wants to come here to study at a university and suddenly does not have the right to do so, loses their citizenship, while that a person who has lied to obtain their citizenship or has gone and fought for a terrorist organization ever losing their citizenship is the most serious thing that has happened.

The Sweden Democrats must answer for their policy. I answer for what lies within the Tidö agreement, and that is good policy.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There was a time when Miljöpartiet and Moderaterna agreed that it is actually the employers and the companies who best decide which labor needs to be hired and recruited.

We in Miljöpartiet view with concern the policy that the government is now pursuing regarding companies' ability to hire labor even from other countries. We have a labor shortage in incredibly many industries.

Recently we met with Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, who pointed out a need for a 30 percent increase within elderly care. The business sector would like to have more than 70 percent of those who enter the Swedish labor market. At the same time, the police, the defense, and the Prison and Probation Service are to hire more and grow.

It is fundamentally very positive that more people are living longer in our country. But the age pyramid means that we also need labor from other countries. The EU has a common challenge here.

That the government at that stage closes its eyes and pretends as if the only thing Sweden needs is high-quality labor - or what was it the member said? - is astonishing. Taken as a whole, the number of unemployed and young people entering the labor market will not be sufficient to fill the vacant jobs. Ultimately, welfare and Swedish competitiveness are threatened.

If one were to proceed with the proposal that 100 percent of the median wage should be a minimum requirement, the majority of the qualified skilled workers within the technology companies would no longer be eligible. It would be a hard blow to Swedish prosperity.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! This year, between 50 and 100 nursing assistants from third countries, i.e., countries outside the EU, have come to Sweden to work here. The rest of the nursing assistants who have been employed in Sweden this year have come from Sweden or another EU country.

We are greatly exaggerating this concern. We have in Sweden over 300,000 unemployed people who should be in work and should be able to take simple jobs. In the EU, there are half a billion people who in no way are covered by the subsistence requirement that we are now introducing. I believe that we can find skills supply even for the simple jobs in Sweden or at least in the EU.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One can believe all sorts of things. But if you ask the employers, they say that is not true.

We recently had a seminar in the Riksdag with the green industries and LRF. They said that we will see reduced food production in Sweden as a result of the new wage requirements.

People talk about low-skilled labor. It is not the same thing to have a salary below the median wage and not have qualifications. Many times, these are people who have key competencies and a vocational education. They are not highly paid but are absolutely crucial for the companies' ability to continue their operations.

Take CNC operators for example! I meet companies that say that if they can hire a CNC operator, for example from Georgia, they can hire ten Swedes who do not need to have as high an education. Then, one can therefore give jobs to more of the unemployed. They are now worried that the government's policy will lead to them not only losing their key competence but actually also having to lay off people who do not have as high an education. The risk is that it leads to increased unemployment in Sweden.

We can hope that everyone from other EU countries wants to travel here, but the fact is that many countries are now competing for labor within Europe. We truly risk Swedish prosperity if we deport those who have work permits in Sweden today – who have never done anything other than work and pay tax – and furthermore forbid companies, municipalities, and regions from recruiting even outside the union when they assess that it is the only solution.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! Think then what a stroke of luck it is that we have a wise government that understands that we will need to have exceptions to these rules and that will introduce exception rules. This is a government that takes responsibility for solving the Swedish unemployment and that also takes responsibility for our country and our entrepreneurs.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The realignment of migration policy under the previous government, with the limitation law as the primary example, signified a shift regarding the view on migration, integration, and rights. Instead of seeing rights as a path to integration, a majority in the Riksdag chose to use the withdrawal of rights as a way to try to scare away people on the run. The realignment of the policy was justified almost exclusively by that the worsened living conditions for newcomers would cause fewer to seek out Sweden.

The right-wing conservative government, which took office last year, takes this shift one step further by proposing a policy aimed at making people who are already in Sweden want to leave the country. This means that the living conditions are worsened even for people who have lived in Sweden for a long time.

So that is what it becomes with a government that builds a cooperation between parts of the former Alliance and the Sweden Democrats - the parliamentary representatives of organized capital and organized racism. Their political project is based on portraying people from other countries as responsible for all problems in society - partly to cover up the failures of their own policies and partly to be able to dismantle our welfare and security systems. The provisions of the Tidö Agreement point towards an economic policy that resembles the Alliance's negative work line but now with ethnic undertones.

The alliance government directed its attacks towards the sick and the unemployed. When the health insurance and the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) were to be dismantled, these groups were described as lazy and as burdens on society. This made the cuts easier to justify.

In the Tidö Agreement, those born abroad have been made to take over the role as the basis for all of Sweden's problems. By portraying those who have not been born here as a threat and as a burden, it becomes easier to condition their welfare and rights. Dismantling the safety systems, the welfare, and rights is easier to justify if one points at certain groups and starts there. It is, however, clear that it will not end there.

The dismantling of the welfare state, healthcare, schools, and housing construction naturally affects us all. We will face eroded safety nets. And today, we are already facing a welfare state on starvation rations and wages and compensations that are not enough. The rich pull away, and the poor are left behind.

It is at that intersection that the new government needs racism. Regardless of whether it is about unemployment, the housing crisis or the neglected welfare, it is the government that is obsessed with pointing to immigration in order to evade responsibility itself.

People who are wondering how they will make ends meet at the end of the month are not thought about very much. One does not want to do much about food prices. It would probably not be an overstatement to say that Sweden finds itself in a situation where an already pressured welfare state is heading into a full-scale crisis.

But instead of acting or even commenting on the alarming new forecasts for healthcare and other welfare, they have instead managed to come up with all kinds of other initiatives on how to facilitate the deportation of seriously ill children, or how to make more people stateless, or expose minorities to a hateful rhetoric.

Vänsterpartiet will never accept a policy that splits and divides society into different groups with different rights. We know that our strongest tool is solidarity. We know that the best societies are built equally and with reduced economic gaps. Through a strong and robust welfare state that includes us all, we can create the conditions to create good lives for ourselves and a secure society together.

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

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

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party's budget alternative regarding expenditure area 8 means that unaccompanied children and young people who have been in Sweden for over a year are granted residence permits through an amnesty. It concerns children who sought and needed protection in Sweden but who have been treated poorly as a result of political decisions. A large part of the group has also established themselves here in Sweden.

There is also a proposal regarding the daily allowance for asylum seekers. It is low and has not been increased since 1994. The allowance is lower than in other comparable countries. This leads to increased social vulnerability. The daily allowance for both asylum seekers and Ukrainian citizens who have been granted residence permits with support of the mass flight directive should be raised to the level of the national standard and be adjusted upwards. This means that the appropriation for allowances and housing costs is increased.

In addition to this, we reject the government's proposal on strengthening returns, a new order for the reception of asylum seekers, the introduction of return centers, and the reduction of the flat-rate compensation to municipalities for unaccompanied children. We also reject the government's proposal to strengthen returns through international cooperation.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! The member is welcome to speak about everything that is wrong with our migration policy and the changes we are now making within the framework of the Tidö Agreement. But we can observe that the Social Democrats quite often vote with the government on the changes we are making. Therefore, I just wanted to ask the member: What will you demand that the Social Democrats back down from so that you will support a Social Democratic government at some point in the future – hopefully never?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the member in his speech earlier told how many proposals have been submitted. It was not that many. The Social Democrats have therefore not made that many positions. Therefore, it is difficult to answer that question.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Left Party, like the Social Democrats, are prepared to negotiate quite a lot on most things in order to run the country. That which one stands here in the speaker's chair and speaks about – red lines, bad policy, and what is wrong – lies on the negotiating table as soon as ministerial posts and other things are at stake.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I did not really receive any question. But I can say that I see a pattern in the government's policy. It is said like this in a migration debate: visitation zones, secret wiretapping, reporting laws, more internal border controls and so on; I can continue for quite a long time. But do you know what? Those proposals are things that exist in countries from which people flee. The Moderaterna should consider that.

When the Moderates take a tone, I hear that they only want to talk about these things to cover up failures and their own responsibility. There is a shortage of over 20 billion in welfare. They do not want to talk about that. Healthcare is on its knees. Schools are on their knees. It is a catastrophe. It is a welfare crisis out in the country's municipalities. But they do not want to talk about it at all.

Not even when they request the floor do they want to talk about their own policy. Then they only want to say what the cooperation will look like in two and a half or three years. I truly call that evading one's own responsibility when one sits in the government.

There is such a large lack of money in welfare, and now the Tidö parties have tested some of their policies. They have severely limited the number of quota refugees who are allowed to come to Sweden. A record-low number of people are coming here. Those who are visible in the statistics are people who are on their second or third asylum review. Very few people are coming to Sweden.

Still, there is no money left. The money that remained, the Tidögänget chose to send to their rich friends, and one lets privatizations continue to drain the welfare so that one's friends can continue to dip their straws into the welfare. And when there is no money or any welfare left and when the schools and healthcare are on their knees, one points again at immigrants and says: There is the problem. But one day, perhaps, one takes responsibility.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! At this moment, a large number of wars are ongoing in our world - in Palestine, in Ukraine and in Sudan, to name a few. Turkey and Iran are bombing Kurds, seemingly completely unnoticed in Swedish media. The crimes against international law and international humanitarian law are certainly many. Being able to condemn all crimes against international laws is important. International law and peace must be the guiding principles that lead us into the future.

The question of international law and peace has a great impact on this debate. War is one of the absolute biggest causes of migration. Just look at Gaza! There, millions of people are fleeing and displaced from their homes in a humanitarian catastrophe occurring right before the world's eyes. When people then flee to Europe, many here stand and wonder with indignation what they are doing here.

Mr. Speaker! That is exactly why Sweden's efforts are incredibly important. To always stand up for international law and peace means acting for this in international forums and supporting the international forums. Our current SD-led government has done exactly the opposite. In the UN, the vote is withheld when voting on peace.

The successful and highly effective Swedish aid is frozen, redirected in a panic, halved, and cast into suspicion. When the EU and the government's own agencies then conclude that there is no foul play regarding the aid, that it is not going to the wrong organizations, the government does not act to release the aid again. Instead, it is to be analyzed. These are words about glossing over the shortcomings in its own policy and about trying to find a way to justify continuing with a policy that is not built on facts but on entirely other things.

Aid to Palestine and the UN must be restored and expanded so that a two-state solution becomes possible. With a two-state solution in place, the return could also increase. But that requires that the occupation be lifted, that the settler violence and the expansion of the settlements cease, that the blockade be broken, and that peace and international law are followed.

Mr. Speaker! Here in Sweden, we are living in a cost crisis. Ordinary households are having an incredibly difficult time right now. In that situation, the SD government chooses to give banks, high-income earners, and luxury-rotators fine gifts for Christmas. Sickness pensioners, on the other hand, receive a harsh Christmas present in the form of higher taxes.

Others who receive harsh Christmas presents are the unemployed, who do not get jobs because they are outcompeted by low-skilled labor from distant countries. It is labor that, moreover, themselves receive a harsh Christmas present in the form of a senseless and insolent exploitation. We all know how berry pickers are exploited in the Swedish forests. Despite demands for subsistence support and agreements, the misery continues. Poor people are deceived into Sweden by people who want nothing else than to drain all the strength out of the labor that comes here to then discard them and pick the next person who can be exploited.

With the government's exception policy, this misery will only continue. Furthermore, it will become a mishmash, a pure Swiss cheese filled with holes and exceptions.

To stop the fraud, exploitation, and human trafficking, a labor market screening must be introduced. We Social Democrats commissioned an inquiry into this, but the SD government unfortunately shut it down. It is a betrayal of Swedish workers who are subjected to unfair competition and thus receive worse conditions at their workplaces. It is a betrayal of the poor people who are deceived into coming here and exploited by unscrupulous employers. It is a betrayal of all the unemployed in our country who are competed out by cheap labor. Furthermore, the number of unemployed people is increasing due to the government's passive policy.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say something about the quota refugees. In light of all the wars ongoing in the world, it is a disgrace to reduce the number of quota refugees so much in the way the government does. In a situation where children in neonatal wards are left behind in panic when bombs fall to be found weeks later, rotten and eaten by street dogs, the government reduces the number of quota refugees who are allowed to come here. Children were to be prioritized, according to the government. Now, fewer children will come here.

Mr. Speaker! The conclusion of the time so far with the SD government is that fewer vulnerable people in the world are being saved, that the horrors of war hit people on the ground harder, and that the aid that was supposed to help them is being reduced. It is no wonder that the world wonders where the Swedish values of humanism, freedom, and the pursuit of peace have gone.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Member described parts of our migration policy as a Swiss cheese. I would rather say that it is like a soft cheese. It is smart, popular, and works for most things.

But that was not why I requested the floor. I want to ask the member something. In the previous exchange of remarks, I was told that it was strange that I was asking questions regarding the speech, because I sit in a governing party. I think it belongs to the matter when one requests the floor.

I read a report that you Social Democrats released last week. There you write, among other things: "The economic, ethnic and linguistic segregation needs to be broken at a structural level, which requires that the population be mixed. Society will need to carry out interventions we have not done before, on a scale we have not seen before."

We can also read the following: "Breaking segregation requires that one structurally breaks the spatial separation of different groups."

I must ask Member Möller what you mean by this. How do you intend to mix groups? Is the idea that you are to forcibly relocate people? Which groups are you talking about?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is nice that Member Resare is reading the Social Democratic working groups' free thoughts. It pleases me, and I hope that it enlightens the Member so that he understands more about how excellent the Social Democratic policy is.

It is about the economic segregation and the material conditions. It is something one learns first of all in our membership courses, namely that it is the economic conditions that determine where people can, for example, seek housing.

With job policy, more people get an income and can demand housing, and with the housing policy that we now propose with stronger lending, targeted subsidies and renovation grants, one can also raise the status and build new in different residential areas. If one builds mixed tenure forms as was done to remove the so-called vulnerable areas in Gårdsten, one can improve people's socioeconomic status and thereby also get them to mix better. We thus raise the living conditions by raising the material conditions for people.

That is how social democracy has always worked. By living next door to people who have different views on life and perhaps different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, understanding in society also increases. It increases the possibility for people to look each other in the eye and say: I may not always think like you, but I understand you and respect you.

This is also based on the fact that one does not have anyone who is subordinate and superior, and that is social democracy's great goal: that people shall be free through equality, because equality is the prerequisite for freedom.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I did not become much wiser either when I read your report or when I heard what the member just said.

"The ethnic and linguistic segregation needs to be broken at a structural level, which requires that the population be mixed." How does one practically intend to do this? I do not see how it can be done in any way other than by forcing people to do it. It is what I am genuinely worried that the Social Democrats will try to do in some way and fashion, just as in many social democratically governed municipalities, for example, buses students against their will.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is unfortunate that a member from a party that claims to be government-bearing is standing and spreading myths that children are forced into bussing in some municipalities. That is not how it is.

What is interesting is that Magnus Resare obviously does not see that this is living proof of the Moderates' lack of job policy. That is what I am standing here and saying: If you increase people's opportunities for self-sufficiency and invest in housing construction – then you change the material conditions and then people will also mix. It is quite natural. If the income span changes, then the opportunities to demand also change.

I see Magnus Resare knitting his brows, but that is also due to the fact that there is a lack of knowledge precisely regarding economic policy, labor market policy, and housing policy that shines through now that ordinary people are being left behind. Unemployment is increasing. 40,000 too few homes will be built per year. We see that the municipalities are suffering under an enormous cost increase for which they are not compensated, and the regions receive a total of 10 billion in cuts.

Then it is clear that rather than taking responsibility for his own policy, Magnus Resare reads reports from Social Democratic working groups and, just as MP Haddou said earlier, fixates on ethnicity. Because that is what it is about, Magnus Resare. Your policy has gone straight into the same rut as the Sweden Democrat's, and I can say that I see no difference between you today. It also means that your voters are walking over to the original.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking Ola Möller for actually raising the perspective and speaking about the root causes of why people are forced to flee from the very beginning. It is easy for those perspectives to disappear in the Swedish migration debate.

I would like to ask Ola Möller about another matter that he also spoke about, namely the exploitation on the Swedish labor market that a considerable number of foreign citizens are subjected to.

The government pretends that the new labor migration policy will solve these problems. We from Miljöpartiet's side do not really believe that with even stricter wage requirements one will reach those who are already cheating with the requirements that apply today. On the contrary – the setups where there is a wage on paper and then one is forced to pay back to the employer risk continuing in secret.

I have therefore submitted a proposal that I believe could contribute to fewer people being exploited and more of those who exploit being caught, and that is simply to start punishing those who exploit instead of those who are exploited.

Today, it is the worker who is exploited who is punished with deportation if the employer is caught. Filipino nurses who have worked for five years in Sweden are now being deported because their employer made a mistake with their advertising a long time ago. It can even be the case that one has changed employers, and then there is no effect at all and no consequences for the one who committed the crime.

I wonder if the Social Democrats are also prepared to move forward with such proposals.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, the legislation regarding this was tightened, and employers could, among other things, be convicted of human trafficking. It was a step forward.

We are obviously prepared to discuss taking harder action against people who cheat and commit crimes. That is completely in line. I believe, however, that the fundamental problem is that we are not addressing the core issue, that is, the question of means-testing. If we can get a means-testing of the workforce and involve the trade unions in the assessment, much of this problem will also disappear. Should one in such a system discover that cheating and corruption still occur, I think, of course, that the employers involved in that should be able to be prosecuted properly.

I have not seen the member's proposal; she must be excused for that. But what the member describes sounds perfectly reasonable.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am completely convinced that the solution to the exploitation of people on the black labor market is more controls and more cooperation between authorities, and also that the person who is being exploited should not be afraid to report it.

Today, many who are being exploited or who see their employer engaging in crime, such as perhaps handling drugs and other things, need to weigh their own future in the balance. Should one report how one is being treated or the crimes that the employer commits? If one reports, Migrationsverket will, in a next step, remove the residence permit for the employee.

We mean that we must turn the perspectives around and have the harshest sanctions for the one who exploits and also sensible damages to the one who is exploited. I am thinking a bit like with the usurious rents on the housing market – that one should be able to claim back wages that one has not received in retrospect, if that was what was stated on paper. One should also have the possibility to stay in Sweden and seek a new job. For even if it is not called "punishment" in these cases, many people, of course, experience the deportation as a huge blow.

It could mean that one has to take the children out of school and move from a life in Sweden where one has established roots. It could mean enormous consequences.

We think it is those who exploit who should be afraid, not those who are exploited.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The hotel and restaurant union organizes undocumented people. I think it is exemplary of that LO union, because just as the member describes, it is about workers being exploited by unscrupulous employers. As a representative of the Social Democratic Workers' Party, I always try to see the worker's perspective.

There is, however, a part of this that should well be considered. It concerns damages. Now I am thinking out loud, and that is always dangerous. Perhaps some Moderate will read a quote from me later. But I'm taking a chance.

I can understand the idea of compensation, but the proposals the member of parliament put forward regarding people being allowed to stay and seek other jobs, I do not think is the right way to go. The purpose of labor immigration for our benefit is to solve a shortage situation. It is not free access to the Swedish labor market. That is also the point of the labor market assessment. If there is no shortage, it is not reasonable that people from third countries should be allowed to come here and seek work freely.

If one were to receive compensation in this situation, it would mean compensating for the damage the person in question has suffered. A permit to seek work on the Swedish labor market because one has been exploited would probably not align with the intentions of the labor migration from our side. They are about solving the shortage within a certain profession.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Ola Möller raised his eyes in a very exemplary manner. We live in an incredibly difficult time in many ways and aspects. It is also a very restless security policy situation both in Sweden and around the world. Several humanitarian crises are occurring simultaneously.

In this situation, it is important to have many thoughts in your head at the same time, to quote Ulf Kristersson. It is important not to forget and stop talking about Putin's illegal war of invasion against Ukraine, which continues to leave deep scars in the Ukrainian population. It is a war that unfortunately looks set to be long-lasting.

Even though I am often sharp in my criticism of the government's migration policy, I want to thank the committee and the Minister for Migration for good discussions in the committee regarding what should happen after the mass flight directive expires. I believe it is a strength to be as united as possible when it comes to the mass flight directive and Ukraine. But the fact is that the mass flight directive applies, and for many Ukrainians who are in Sweden, the situation is tough and difficult.

Centerpartiet is therefore proposing a budget initiative to increase the daily allowance for the Ukrainian refugees who are here with the support of the mass flight directive. It is time for the government to realize that the conflict will unfortunately be long-lasting and act by creating the conditions for the Ukrainians who are in Sweden to live a bearable life here.

Mr. Speaker! Ludvig Aspling of the Sweden Democrats often takes to the floor in the debate and says that the opposition does not read bills and budgets. But I have done so, and therefore I would not only like to discuss crowns and öre but the goals that are stated in the government's budget for migration policy. They are clear, and that is appreciated. If one were to summarize them very simply, one could say that preferably no one should come here, and those who are here should leave.

In the somewhat longer migration debate in April, I tried in my speech to answer the questions of how we ended up here and where we are headed. I said, in summary, that we are partly here because certain parties, for party-strategic reasons, have approached the Sverigedemokraterna, and that journey continues. Then the answer to where we are headed is quite simple. We are headed towards an even more closed, intolerant, and cold Sweden.

Let me now ask what has actually happened since April. Where did we end up? Well, we have already become a more closed, more intolerant, and colder Sweden. One might think that I am throwing around harsh and empty words, but let us look at what has actually happened. Let us look at the substantive content of the budget and the propositions that the government has presented recently.

The government's goal is on its way to being fulfilled. We can start with the reporting laws which mean that public employees shall be forced to report people on the run who are staying in Sweden. If they do not do this, they can be punished. The government has not cared to answer the question of whether doctors and teachers shall be exempted or forced to report their sick patients or their students in school.

Another question that has also been raised here today is labor immigration. On November 1 of this year, a wage floor of 80 percent of the median wage was introduced. This is perhaps the clearest example of several parties approaching the Sverigedemokraterna for party-strategic reasons.

I could stand here for a very long time and highlight organization after organization, company after company that has directed sharp criticism at and feels concern about the government's wage floor. Upon its introduction, the government highlighted that the jobs that are now excluded from labor migration shall be performed by someone who is already in Sweden. Organization after organization, company after company has explained that the reality does not look like that.

Now I experience that the government representatives in this chamber have dropped that argument and started with completely different arguments. Instead, they talk about that the wage floor was introduced to counter fraud and irregularities. Let me, once and for all from this rostrum, strike down that argument. In the investigation on which the legislation regarding 80 percent of the median wage is based, the investigator and the investigation state that a wage floor does not counter fraud and irregularities. The one who wants to cheat simply puts a wage on paper but pays out a different one in practice. This we could even read about in SvD this past week.

If one wants more people who are in Sweden to be in work, it is not wage floors that are needed but reforms. Next week, Mr. Speaker, we are going to discuss labor market policy, but I can state that in the labor market policy area, the list of government bills this autumn has been empty. This also applies to the integration area.

When it comes to family reunification, the government has made it harder for children to be reunited with their parents. In other words, the government has introduced a policy that keeps families divided.

There is also a new, narrower, humanitarian ground where seriously ill children risk deportation. I am myself a so-called heart child. I underwent heart surgery when I was small. I was eleven months old. I have understood, when I have spoken with my parents or looked at pictures from my childhood together with my new husband and with my mother, that it was not just an operation, and then it was over. It was long-term aftercare – for some, it perhaps never ends. I have the luck of only needing to go for check-ups now and then. But there are many cases that require proper aftercare. It could concern a person who, on the new humanitarian ground, could be deported by the government. One can get their surgery, but not the aftercare – not even if it cannot be guaranteed in the home country.

This is part of the government's paradigm shift. The tragic thing is that the journey has only just begun. If one is to answer the question "Where did we actually end up?", one can perform the evaluation in 2026.

We can observe that in many areas - integration, the labor market, environment and climate - progress is very slow. But here, we actually have to give the minister credit that it is going very fast.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In the Centerpartiet motion, there are a couple of positions that I find quite interesting. Jonny Cato writes as follows: "For the EU to take a greater collective responsibility for people on the move, it is required that the EU countries have equivalent asylum legislation. At the same time, it is important to create the best possible conditions so that people who come to Sweden can be integrated." We can start with the pure factual errors. According to current rules, the EU has no responsibility whatsoever for the reception of asylum seekers; rather, it is something that lies entirely with the member states.

But one thing that is even more important is that Jonny Cato does not seem to understand the contradiction between, on the one hand, equivalent asylum legislation and, on the other hand, integration conditions that are the best possible. When it comes to integration conditions, we are talking, for example, about people having access to generous benefits and perhaps about the program that we have had previously for newcomers during the first two years. When it comes to equivalent asylum legislation, we are talking about the conditions being roughly equal in the member countries.

Does Jonny Cato understand that there is a fundamental contradiction here? We can have a generous system in Sweden with different types of subsidized employment, grants and so on, which the Centerpartiet wants. But that will create a distortion, because there is no EU country that is anywhere near as eager to distribute generous grants as Jonny Cato is. Or we can have equivalent rules and an even distribution, but then on the other hand we cannot be anywhere near the generosity that Jonny Cato wants.

Does Jonny Cato understand that he cannot both keep the cake and eat it, and that the two concepts "a generous system" and "an equitable system" stand in fundamental contradiction to each other?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not quite know where to begin. There was a lot that concerned whether I understand. I actually do not quite understand the question, if I am to be quite honest.

Ludvig Aspling talks about contributions. The Sweden Democrats are, in some sense, a contribution party, if one compares them with the Center Party. Ludvig Aspling talks about that people who come here should have everything. But the Center Party was perhaps the very first party in this chamber that began to talk about qualification into the welfare system. It is very good that the government is now going to look at that with a broad investigation. I welcome that. It was something where we actually did not reach all the way when we negotiated with the Social Democrats.

Otherwise, I actually do not quite know how I should comment on this. One can have equivalent legislation at the EU level without being at the minimum level. It is not the case that all European countries are at the minimum level.

Ludvig Aspling often says that representatives of Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Centerpartiet do not understand. No, I actually do not quite understand the question. The member is welcome to repeat it.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can try to express it in a slightly simpler way. Jonny Cato says that we should be generous towards migrants who come here and have the best possible conditions for integration. He also says that we should have equal legislation among the EU countries to level out the flow of asylum seekers. These two things are completely impossible to combine without us deciding what other countries should do. This is not hard to understand, Jonny Cato.

I have another question. These two things are in your motion: "Centerpartiet stands behind the migration legislation that was introduced in the summer of 2021. - - - A migration policy that combines humanity with order and discipline presupposes that the person who has been denied their asylum application returns to their home country."

There is a problem here, and it is that the migration legislation that C now wants to reintroduce—this is the proposal from the Migration Committee's report from the previous parliamentary term—specifically aims for those who have been denied their asylum application still not to have to return to their home country, thus contrary to the objective in the second sentence. The order that C wants to reintroduce contained a rule, the humanitarian protection ground, which was so generous that people who had no grounds for asylum could still obtain residence permits by simply waiting for them in Sweden. A ground for a residence permit according to this rule is, in fact, to live in Sweden illegally.

Jonny Cato! How can one, on the one hand, say to stand behind the principle of regulated immigration where a no is a no, but on the other hand want that people who have received a no should be able to get a residence permit because they stay illegally? How can one stand behind both of these positions at the same time?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I could turn the question around. There will continue to be a humanitarian valve. It will just become much narrower. That question can, therefore, be turned back to the member.

Now I understand what this is about. It is about the fact that the Center Party has real proposals for integration. The only thing the Sweden Democrats have is that people should not come here and that people who are here should be deported. I believe that one needs to have an offensive integration policy. That is what must be invested in. One must invest in that people should learn the Swedish language, enter the Swedish labor market, and become a part of the common Sweden. I think that a migration policy must be combined with a serious integration policy.

I genuinely believe that many who voted for any of the Tidö parties voted for a better integration policy in this country, because it has been poor. In that, I can agree with the Social Democrats' social analysis. But then one needs to invest in the language, the jobs, and the reception so that people can come in and become a part of our common Sweden.

Next week, Mr. Speaker, we will debate the integration report. I can state that not a single bill has been submitted in the Swedish Parliament on the area of integration since the Tidö Government took office. It has been completely empty. I believe that one must invest in integration in the short term so that people can come in and contribute to our common Sweden.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for a long time had the world's most dysfunctional migration policy. The very idea of building a harmonious society with equality, security, and a good economic standard by in practice allowing free immigration from some of the world's most backward societies is naturally not particularly wise. The result is naturally what we predicted. This enormous experiment, for which actually all parties in this chamber except my own bear a debt, has created problems that at best will take generations to repair, if it is even possible. But it is the work that we began a little over a year ago.

Mr. Speaker! A reminder of what it is we are fighting against came just this week in the form of the Swedish National Audit Office's review of the System for Revocation of Residence Permits. The review is, I would say, the most brutal dismantling I have ever seen. The National Audit Office concludes that, in principle, nothing works regarding the follow-up and control of whether conditions for residence permits are actually being met, which has, among other things, resulted in at least hundreds of millions of kronor but likely – since the National Audit Office emphasizes that these are cautious estimates – many billions in incorrect payments from the welfare state that the Social Democrats have allowed to occur.

Many of the serious deficiencies that the Swedish National Audit Office points out are due precisely to the fact that the Social Democrats and the Green Party systematically and deliberately, with the help of funding and governance, dismantled fundamental functions within the Swedish Migration Agency, always completely indifferent to the corruption, crime, and human trafficking that they facilitate. When the former Minister for Integration, Märta Stenevi, threatened that her party's goal was to create chaos, she obviously meant it seriously, for it was the Green Party members who created chaos. There is no doubt about that matter.

Mr. Speaker! We are moving towards a brighter future. The chaos at the Swedish Migration Agency will be cleaned up. Fundamental functions within the rule of law will be restored. In fact, what I believe in any case was the first official assignment that the new government gave was precisely about reviewing the system for the revocation of residence permits that have been issued incorrectly or where the conditions are no longer met.

The work continues. The recovery has doubled this year compared to last year. We have found plenty of examples of people who absolutely should not be in Sweden who have nevertheless been allowed to be here due to pure laziness from previous governments. The investigation into a decent way of life also includes important issues regarding official secrecy that will be addressed. The winds of change are blowing in this area - be sure of that.

Mr. Speaker! What we are debating today is actually expenditure area 8, Migration. These are tables for the state budget. But since migration policy is governed by laws and regulations, it is naturally the rule changes that are important here. The budget changes will come as a consequence of these.

Changes in this area will occur as the regulatory framework changes during the mandate period. But I still want to say something briefly about the initiatives that we are making already now.

We are making an investment to strengthen the work with voluntary return. It is about developing the Swedish Migration Agency's capacity and organization. It is therefore not an increase in the support that one can receive if one chooses to return to their home country. The latter support is being investigated right now. An investigator is reviewing the regulatory framework. Proposals will come, and more will take it in the future - be certain of that.

We are making an investment so that the Swedish Migration Agency can prepare for an upcoming bill on a new order for the reception of asylum seekers. This will, among other things, mean that the choice of own housing - the EBO Act, which we have often debated in this chamber - now finally disappears as an explicit housing option. We will make it possible to assign asylum seekers to certain residential locations. We will tighten the rules for those who behave poorly.

We are making an investment to prepare for upcoming tightenings of the rules on citizenship. Due to the so-called classical social democratic policy in this area, for example, the famous gym murderer last year was able to receive a citizenship while he was detained in his absence while fleeing from justice in Armenia. It is a disgrace to Sweden. We will put a stop to that.

We are making an investment for the establishment of return centers. It is therefore only the physical facilities that we are talking about. There will also be a number of legislative changes in the area that will make return significantly more efficient. This includes, for example, a reform of the prescription of deportation decisions, increased opportunities for detention, streamlined return, and so on.

Last but not least, we also make a saving on the flat-rate compensation for so-called unaccompanied children.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to this, the coalition partners presented yesterday something that has long been missing in Sweden, namely an overall and state-sanctioned calculation of what the mass immigration experiment has cost.

Calculations in this area already exist today and are quite good ones. This applies, for example, to those from Entreprenörskapsforum in the report When will foreign-born people become self-sufficient? It is almost a rhetorical question. The answer is on average never, in any case not those who came via the asylum route.

There is also a good ESO report, Tid för integration - an ESO report on refugees' backgrounds and labor market establishment. It shows that migrants with the lowest integration potential entail a net cost of 5.5 million kronor on average. But these are smaller investigations. What Sweden needs is a thorough investigation that goes further back in time.

It is deeply undemocratic that Sweden for such a long time has combined the world's most generous migration policy with a hard-line reluctance to ask what it actually costs. It testifies to an incredible contempt for ordinary people's wallets.

Mr. Speaker! A question that I have received many times during the day is precisely what I believe the cost calculation will land on. I shall not anticipate the investigation. But one thing all of us who have followed this issue for a while can probably state. If it had been a plus for Sweden, we probably would not have had to stand and nag in this chamber for ten years to see the receipts. We can be quite sure of that.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal. I thank you very much for the floor. I would also like to wish the chair a Merry Christmas.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is a dark time we live in. We have more people affected by war and conflicts than in a very long time. In Europe, an invasion war is underway with millions of people fleeing. No one can help but be moved by the images we are confronted with from Gaza.

At the same time, the UN climate summit in Dubai, COP 28, is underway. It is led by an oil peak that wants the world to continue extracting and burning fossil fuels. The IPCC is alarming louder and louder. On the climate report's maps, we can see how more and more areas will become uninhabitable for more and more days of the year. More people than ever are fleeing in the world.

In Sweden, we have a government that is increasing climate emissions, lowering aid, and reducing its responsibility for refugee reception through the UN's quota refugee system. Today, the Swedish domestic political debate has been characterized by the discussion about what refugee reception costs, as if the right to asylum has ever been any business activity, as if we saved lives because we made money from it.

Mr. Speaker! The nurse Omid's words have etched themselves into me: One feels worth nothing in Sweden today. That well summarizes the effects of the SD-controlled government's migration policy. One feels worth nothing in Sweden today. Those were the words he uttered at the same time as he hung the life-saving drip at the hospital bed.

In the corridor, his colleagues stood and talked with each other, one of them in a hijab. They are some of all the people who have been demonized by high-ranking politicians who have spoken very poorly about immigrants as a group and in particular about Muslims. To blame entire groups of people for major societal problems is to deflect responsibility and to divide Sweden.

I wish for a policy where, instead, one engages in integrating people and making everyone feel like a valuable part of our country. We can learn from Lars and Dalya, whom I met at Ölands folkhögskola.

Lars and Dalya work with a class of immigrant women whom I had the honor of speaking with. They told me that here, in this classroom, they feel safe. Here they dare to speak—not only in Swedish, but here they also dare to speak about difficult things in life. They ask questions about how one can integrate and meet more Swedes. Will there be a job for me as an older woman who does not speak Swedish so well? Just these women would not have found their way or passed SFI. Folkhögskolan was the environment they needed.

In the same way as the folk high schools and adult education for a long time caught those who had not come to their rights in the regular upper secondary school or adult education, work was done here with women who had stood outside for far too long. Together, they did not only practice Swedish grammar, but they also went to the swimming hall and learned how it works with the different parts of Swedish society.

This is truly integration in its most valuable sense.

Or we can learn from all those who, year after year, have stood by and supported the unaccompanied minors who came to Sweden in 2015. We can read the receipt in the Statistics Sweden report from November 28 - absolutely fantastic results! It is 82 percent of the unaccompanied minors who received residence permits as children and 85 percent of those who received residence permits through the new upper secondary school law who are working.

I am not surprised, for I have already met them at Världen i Värmland, the association that stepped up and ensured that when the youth were drafted at age, they did not have to leave their schooling and Karlstad but were given a roof over their heads and the chance to stay. There, I met youth after youth who stood up at the meeting that we politicians were invited to, said their name and with pride told that they worked in home care, as pavers or as electricians - youth after youth, all around our country.

The day when the question of costs and profitability is on the table, I wonder if these figures will make any change in the Tidö parties' policy. Will they stop speaking condescendingly about this group of unaccompanied minors when we now have it in black and white how they are part of society and truly support in elderly care where it is needed and in professions where we have a labor shortage? One can always hope, but I probably hope for too much.

I would, however, like to say to all of you who stayed, to all of you who show what difference this makes for individual people and for integration in our society: Thank you for staying when society failed some of the most vulnerable!

Mr. Speaker! There is a lot of talk about that a no is a no. Say that to those who, just before the war in Gaza, received deportation orders there! Say it to the women from Afghanistan who were deported before Sweden changed its mind and concluded that, despite everything, one year after the Taliban's takeover, it was not okay to deport women to Afghanistan! Say it to all those hundreds of LGBTQI people who have not received legally secure asylum reviews at Migrationsverket, who have been rejected because they have joked too little about their homosexuality, who have not reflected deeply enough on their trans- and intersex bodies to fit into Migrationsverket's stereotypical perceptions and who have therefore not been believed!

No, it is not as simple as a no being a no. Ask the unaccompanied youth with Afghan citizenship who are now living in limbo in Sweden! They are not allowed to work, they are not provided with housing by society, they have no right to any benefits, and for several years it has also not been possible to carry out the deportations to Afghanistan.

Say it to Murhaf Hamid, who broke the record for poppy sales! He has lived his entire life in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations. He has seen more of Sweden than many of us Members of Parliament. He has lived in Kiruna, in Skåne, and in eastern and western Sweden, always with the Migration Agency. He was born in Sweden. Now he is in sixth grade.

A no is not always a no. Sometimes the no should have been a yes from the beginning. Let us nevertheless see reality as complex as it actually is, where circumstances change and everything does not always turn out right from the start.

Mr. Speaker! I wish that Sweden had a government that saw the people who are now affected by nothing but the skin of an ever-harder policy and ever-colder rhetoric. I wish that we had a government that pursued a policy so that fewer people would be in flight in the world and that put all its strength into improving integration and ensured that we no longer spoke of a normal class with 30 pupils. When, Mr. Speaker, did it become common to have 30 pupils in every class?

If we seriously want to address the challenges that society faces, we first need to strengthen the welfare, counter poverty and segregation, and strengthen all the actors, including the folk high schools, who actually contribute to integration every day – not cut back on all of this and point fingers at all immigrants as a collective.

It is our responsibility as politicians to build a strong society and a strong community that encompasses all of us who live in this country, regardless of where we were born, whether we have a religion or not, and if so, which one it is.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by agreeing with Annika Hirvonen on one point. She says that we do not have asylum migration because it is economically profitable - entirely correct. The Sweden Democrats have, however, never claimed that it is economically profitable. It is other people who do that. We must correct when disinformation about migration policy is spread.

Miljöpartiet has the most extreme migration policy of all parliamentary parties. They propose, among other things, a total amnesty for unaccompanied minors in combination with an abolition of medical age checks and that everyone should be believed, which means total free asylum migration for everyone who wants to move here. They propose that we should introduce humanitarian visas or safe routes to the EU, which means that we scrap the visa requirement for persons who want to seek asylum. It is, in other words, free rein for anyone in the whole world to just fly here and move in. They also want to abolish Sweden's border controls and additionally prevent the police from searching for persons who stay here illegally, even serious criminals. They also propose that we should expand the benefit systems and make them even more generous than they already are, even the system for citizenship, just to attract as many as possible to choose Sweden over other countries.

Now, I do know that consequence analyses of migration policy decisions are usually labeled as so-called racism by the left. We have heard this in previous speeches. One is not allowed to ask what things cost or what consequences they have, so I will not ask too much of Annika Hirvonen. But if Annika Hirvonen were to dare to make a guess between her thumb and forefinger: How many more people does she believe would move to Sweden if Miljöpartiet got what they wanted? In that case, I refer to committee motions and also what has been said in the EU Committee by Miljöpartiet's representatives.

Approximately how many more are we talking about? Is it 5,000, 50,000, 100,000 or 150,000? Between the thumb and the index finger, Annika Hirvonen: How many more would come?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Two minutes will not be enough to correct all the errors in Ludvig Aspling's reply, but let me nevertheless take up the issue of the legally insecure age assessments. It is a complete legal scandal. We in Miljöpartiet are not saying that we should not have any form of age assessments. What we are saying is that they must be based on legally secure grounds.

To begin with, what we saw during 2015 were completely arbitrary visual assessments where case officers could look at a person and judge that they were a day older than they claimed or several years older than they claimed. All of a sudden, little brother became big brother.

The consequences were that children were deprived of the rights that belong to children and instead were treated as adults. In some cases, it meant that they were expelled from their family homes and HVB homes and instead placed in accommodations with only adult men. Children were placed there because of the age assessments. But the worst consequences, of course, hit those children who absolutely should not have been deported without an organized reception in the home country, in the worst cases to places like Afghanistan.

What we have said is that the legally secure age assessments that were introduced, so-called medical age assessments, and which have no basis in science, needed to be abolished and evaluated. That evaluation, the Tidö parties chose as one of their first decisions to scrap. They were not interested in finding legally secure methods for age assessments, and this I can only regret.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! My question concerned how many people Annika Hirvonen believes will seek to come to Sweden because of the proposals that Miljöpartiet highlights, including the safe routes to the EU and to Sweden, which would mean an explosion in the number of asylum seekers.

Annika Hirvonen does not want to give me any figure. I do not reproach her for this, but I believe I have a fairly good understanding of why.

I thought I would take a couple of calculation examples, Mr. Speaker, if that is okay. If we receive 50,000 people, of whom 5,000 are children, it costs 9.4 billion kronor in a year. If we receive 100,000 people, of whom 10,000 are children, it costs 18.8 billion kronor in a year. If we receive 150,000 people, of whom 15,000 are children, it costs 28.2 billion kronor in a year.

It is in the magnitude of as much as the entire Police Authority costs, and it would create an enormous hole in the state budget. Where does one find this hole in the Green Party's budget motion? Nowhere.

If we are to be honest, Annika Hirvonen, it is probably in the last example we would end up in - somewhere around 150,000 people per year, of which 15,000 are children. Here I have not included any unaccompanied children, which we know cost exponentially more.

Miljöpartiet has budgeted exactly 0 kronor for this in its budget. There is not a single penny set aside to receive all the people who, with all probability, would show up if their policy were to become reality.

My question is: How can one be so unserious as to propose a complete overhaul of the migration policy to a system that is the most generous the world has ever witnessed and then budget 0 SEK to take care of the people who show up?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think two minutes is enough to correct all the inaccuracies in that reply either. I can only state that Ludvig Aspling bases his calculations on something that has not been accounted for here.

I can state that when we increase the number of quota refugees, we budget for this. But when it comes to how people flee around the world, it is a simplified reasoning that underlies the Sweden Democrats' analyses.

In the migration committee, of which I was a member among others, we were able to establish that the things that affect which country people flee to actually have very little to do with exact regulations in that country. It is to a very large extent about where there is a diaspora and about the general image of Sweden.

One of the factors that deters people from coming to Sweden today and which the Swedish Migration Agency raised at the transparency council some time ago is the gang shootings. It is still quite strange to imagine that we would be influenced in our will to counter shootings in Sweden based on how we view immigration.

I believe that Sweden should be a good country for those who live here, and those whom we receive we shall treat well. We shall have legally secure asylum processes, and we shall invest in better integration.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by saying that I am always positive about people working in our country - always. But regarding the Upper Secondary School Act, since Hirvonen raised it in his speech, I must say that the entire prerequisite for being allowed to stay here and receive a residence permit according to the Upper Secondary School Act was that one had obtained a job within six months after completing studies.

According to the Secondary School Act, a basic prerequisite for obtaining a residence permit is that one has a job. That 80 percent of that group has a job today is, given that prerequisite, a self-evident fact. It is roughly like saying: The majority of all those who have a work permit in Sweden have a job – absolutely fantastic! Of course it is so.

But that was not why I took the floor, I reacted even earlier to the member's description that asylum must never be about money. I cannot agree with that. Asylum is about money.

Sweden has international commitments in Sweden and outside Sweden. We help in the surrounding area where disasters occur, whether it is war, natural disasters or something else. We also have a certain asylum reception in Sweden where we help people who need it.

We can never escape the fact that it is about money. Then we can have different opinions on how much it is allowed to cost. Does the member seriously mean that there is no limit to how many people we can receive in Sweden? Does the member mean that we would, for example, receive 1 million people as refugees during a year? Would that work? That is my question.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, Magnus Resare: Read SCB's report! It states that over 80 percent of those unaccompanied minors who were granted residence permits initially, i.e., not as a result of the upper secondary school law, also have jobs. Thus, the figures are almost as high for both the group covered by the new upper secondary school law and for the group who were granted residence permits as unaccompanied children.

I think they are fantastic figures. Above all, I believe they are telling of the power of the enormous support that foster parents and foster homes have been for these young people to be integrated into Sweden. It is, of course, a conclusion that cannot be read directly from the report. But it is therefore not just about the upper secondary school youth, and I find that fascinating and very positive.

Regarding the costs, there are of course costs related to the reception of refugees. But the question I ask is what you, who are now ordering this investigation based on people's ethnic group, i.e., origin, want to do with the result. Is it about that people who come from countries with lower education levels and therefore have more difficulty obtaining well-paid jobs should not be granted asylum to the same extent when they apply? Is this the purpose of this report, or what is it that one wants to achieve?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! The unaccompanied children who arrived in 2015 and early in the uncontrolled migration wave that we had for a period were allowed to enter people's homes and live with Swedish families. It was older couples who received them and let them live in the children's old boys' or girls' rooms. It is clear that that integration work gave them the opportunity to enter society in a way that is not possible for anyone who comes here. But that civil society stood up and did a fantastic job then to get people into jobs and get them integrated, I agree with that. However, I do not see it as a long-term solution for Swedish migration policy. It was something that happened then and which to some extent has led to positive consequences.

I still lack an answer to the question I asked because the member of Parliament said that one cannot mix up asylum and costs. Is there any limit even for Annika Hirvonen for how many people Sweden can receive?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Looking out into the world, one sees that countries such as Lebanon, where every fourth person is a refugee from Syria, now face challenges with drinking water supply and other very fundamental issues.

I absolutely believe that the world's countries must cooperate if the reception of refugees globally is to be sustainable. It is clear that neither could Sweden alone receive as many as it wants. But what I oppose is the reasoning that we should not receive people just because it would involve a cost. That is what I think has been important to mark against and to question.

I did not receive an answer from Magnus Resare, and I know that his chance to answer is now over, but I wonder nonetheless. What does the government intend to do if it turns out that people from a certain group who have been granted asylum in Sweden have entailed more costs than others? Does one then intend, for example, to work so that vulnerable women are sent to the Taliban, or what is the idea? What is the purpose of this report? If one wants to know how to work better with integration, one could well start measuring different integration measures instead.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! "Migration policy must take into account our ability to integrate. When this does not happen, we get overcrowded suburbs, parallel societies, exclusion, and detention centers with thousands of people. We must see the connection between immigration in all too large volumes and the very serious social problems that we are struggling with."

It is actually my own words, and they were uttered here at this rostrum in one of my first migration debates when I, as a newly elected Member of Parliament, had become the Christian Democrats' migration policy spokesperson, as it is so beautifully called.

This may seem quite obvious now, but it was not then. Miljöpartiet, for example, did not like it at all and requested the floor. Where are you heading somewhere that resonates in this way, they wondered.

I answered then that I strongly like that we Christian Democrats already in 2014 began making policy changes in the migration area - this because what I saw at close range then, in my life before the Riksdag when I worked in two of Örebro's four vulnerable areas, was that a strict migration policy is a prerequisite for us to be able to tackle the integration issues that we struggle with. It was and is crucial if we are to be able to create a Sweden where we live with, not beside, each other.

In this debate, I also clarified something else that I have carried with me ever since. Even though I now sit in a different committee, every day when I have walked around here on Helgeandsholmen, I have tried to remind myself to always analyze the proposals put forward in this chamber, regardless of which party they come from, because right is right and wrong is wrong, completely regardless of who utters it.

That promise, Mr. Speaker, stands in stark contrast to the Social Democrats' way of reasoning and acting within migration policy over the last decade.

One can indeed say, and I think, that it is a step forward that one very recently in a report on its own migration and integration policy acknowledged that one bears a great responsibility for the problems that an excessively large migration has brought with it.

The rapport author Lawen Redar, Social Democratic Member of Parliament, says the following in an interview: "I am therefore critical of my own party and of myself. We have had Social Democratic municipal councilors who, over a period of 20 years, have expressed that migration must be in parity with the integration capacity." Furthermore, Lawen Redar says: "The segregation in Sweden's three largest cities is among the most extreme in the Western world."

Then one wonders: If one now possessed all this knowledge, why did one not act differently? The answer is probably actually the fear of contact for SD. In Lawen Redar's own words: "When SD entered national politics in 2010, all parties needed to mark themselves against them."

Mr. Speaker! In this, our current government, with Migration Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard at the helm, is delivering point by point to create a long-term sustainable migration policy. This migration policy aims to reduce the pressure of applications, and it is a policy that I believe must apply for many, many years to come. There is no quick fix to rectify the problems we have and reach the social cohesion that we Christian Democrats want to see – a social cohesion for everyone, not just for some.

When migration and integration policy does not work, it actually affects everyone, both those who have come to Sweden and those of us who have grown up in this country. For so many years, due to pie-throwing and mudslinging, we have denied ourselves a discussion on the design of migration policy that is based more on analysis and less on emotional outbursts.

The large-scale reception that Sweden has had over a long series of years has led to serious integration problems. People who have come to our country, to Sweden, with dreams and hopes for a better life have found themselves stuck in unemployment, passivity, and exclusion. Shadow societies, gang crime, and honor culture have been able to flourish, and the social cohesion that I speak of has eroded beyond recognition when our trust in one another has been replaced by estrangement and suspicion.

Mr. Speaker! We have repeatedly, during 2015 and 2016 and most recently in connection with the Ukrainian refugees, seen evidence of generosity and humanity. Civil society with all its associations, communities and organizations but also private individuals have taken their own initiatives so that the refugees who have come to our country shall have a roof over their heads, food in their mouths and care.

I want to point this out, because at the same time, we are also informed in survey after survey that the voters want to receive fewer refugees. And it is thus not an expression of either a lack of generosity or, for that matter, xenophobia, but it is a reaction to what one sees: a Sweden that has broken down. It is also an expression of that we cannot take such a large responsibility that we are unable to help the people who are already here in Sweden. It is called the social contract, and it is something that should be honored between those who live and pay tax in Sweden. They want to see a Sweden that they can rely on when they are in need of help and support.

Mr. Speaker! I have listened to the migration debate so far, and it feels wonderfully fun to be back in the SfU debates. I thought I would allow myself to make a small concluding reflection.

I am in no way reviewing any of the posts, but I still question what a migration policy that is not designed by the government together with the Sweden Democrats, i.e., the Tidö parties, will look like. That question has not been given any answer at all by this debate. What is the alternative – will we get a strict migration policy or a generous migration policy? Will we get a policy aimed at lowering the application pressure or at raising it? I suppose I will have to carry those questions with me after this debate.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Hans Eklind speaks about what the voters want, namely better integration. In a survey commissioned by, among others, Rädda Barnen, it was shown that a large majority of Swedish voters also believe that small children should have the right to be reunited with their parents in Sweden.

I do not understand how a party like the Christian Democrats, who usually put the family first, reason when it is decided that small children located in refugee camps around the world shall live there for several years while their parents stand in a housing queue in Sweden and desperately try to find a steady job with a salary that is high enough to meet the requirements that the Christian Democrats have set up for someone to enjoy the basic human right to be reunited with their children.

How does the important integration, which we both speak of, become better by children staying in refugee camps in Jordan or in other places in the world instead of getting to come to their mothers and fathers in Sweden as soon as possible and starting in the Swedish school at as young an age as possible? We know from every measurement that the earlier children who immigrate to Sweden start school, the better chances they have of completing upper secondary school. For those who start already in the first grades, the chances are as good as for Swedish students, but for those who come to Sweden first in upper primary school, it is really tough.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Annika Hirvonen!

Family separation is obviously not occurring in Sweden. Thus, the question is naturally what will be required for the family to be reunited. I think it is perfectly reasonable that the family who wants to be reunited with their child should live in such a way and have such an income that one can take responsibility for one another. I think that is reasonable.

From my office, I followed a debate that SfU had perhaps a week ago where they talked about exactly this. At that time, there was a major discussion here in the chamber about the Convention on the Rights of the Child – that it is being violated and so on. I just want to check if the following is correct: Has Annika Hirvonen's party, i.e., Miljöpartiet, reserved themselves against the decision to tighten the possibility of family reunification, with reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child? It would be interesting to know, because what has been highlighted is precisely that this would be a violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. If one now thinks that it is so clear, it would be quite reasonable to reserve themselves against the decision.

We would never have stood behind a proposition that violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I actually do not believe that any of the parties in the Tidögänget would have done so. Assurance has been obtained that both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other conventions are actually observed, so that this does not conflict with any of them.

What sets us apart, Annika Hirvonen, is that for me it is immensely important that we get a regulated immigration that we can rely on. In that case, protection reasons must be decisive. We have a series of rules for this, and they must, of course, be met. I think it is terrible that families are split up, and for that reason, we in the Christian Democrats, for example, had a proposal regarding subsistence requirements even for children to be able to be reunited with their parents. We know, after all, that children were also placed in the hands of people smugglers and sent on life-threatening journeys to reach another country.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We all have a choice, and it is whether we shall do everything in our power so that the refugees who receive protection in Sweden shall be reunited with the family they have been separated from, or whether we shall not. Previously, the Christian Democrats were one of the parties that placed children's right to live with their mothers and fathers at the center. Now, the Christian Democrats have instead chosen another path.

Many referral bodies have pointed out that this is not compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In fact, the issue will never be tested legally because Sweden has not acceded to the third protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But the moral question is sufficient: Is it right to keep children away from their parents when we have a choice?

These supply requirements lead to children asking their parents: Don't you love me? They simply do not understand why they are not allowed to come to see mom. They cannot comprehend that the one-room apartment does not meet the requirements that the authorities set for an eight-year-old boy to be allowed to see his mother again. Parents get to watch their children grow up via FaceTime while waiting to get a sufficiently large apartment.

This is inhumane. It violates the fundamental rights that belong to every child in this world. We should really do everything in our power to ensure that the children and parents who are here in Sweden are reunited with family members they have been separated from due to flight.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It becomes clear what distinguishes an environmentalist from a Christian Democrat. Annika Hirvonen's party, Miljöpartiet, wants, for example, permanent residence permits, while we know - and have experience with - what happens when Sweden has its own types of residence permits that no other country in Europe has. It is called a pull factor, which means that there is a pressure of migration towards Sweden that hits directly. We saw it, for example, in 2013, or was it 2014, when Sweden was alone in offering permanent residence permits to Syrian people. That is when they came to Sweden.

The point is somewhere here: We in the Tidö parties have now formulated a policy where we settle on a minimum level. But the regulatory framework we have now developed in Sweden is still completely in line with all conventions. It does not conflict with the family reunification directive, and it does not conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I did not hear Annika Hirvonen say that Miljöpartiet had reserved themselves with reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, so I guess it is correct that Miljöpartiet has not done so. This is, in fact, fully in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I believe it is extremely important to see that the challenge now is that the children in the families that we have actually received - who have received a yes to stay in Sweden - should be able to see their mothers and fathers go to work. That is the reality among those who are here in Sweden.

Overcrowding is not something I usually hear any party say is okay, for example, that a family should live in a room and kitchen. On the contrary, we have established a regulatory framework because we see the child's and the family's need for a certain number of rooms depending on the size of the family. Now, Annika Hirvonen is not able to answer the question, but does Miljöpartiet therefore not think that we should have regulations regarding the housing situation for a family? That was new information for me, but perhaps something has happened during the last year and a half.

As said: Let us now try to take care of those who have come here. To do that, we must have a regulatory framework that meets the EU's minimum level, and we, the Christian Democrats, stand behind that completely.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to ask a question about the investigation regarding this matter of lack of integrity. I note that the Christian Democrats have a new policy chief who has been convicted of aggravated fraud, a party leader who has been involved in aggravated defamation, and a top candidate in the EU election who has smoked cannabis during the performance of their duties. My question to Hans Eklind is whether this should be considered a lack of integrity. Would such things pass by if the person in question were not a Swedish citizen?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to say thank you here, because I think this was almost at the limit of what I consider tolerable.

Here we are discussing migration policy in a serious manner, and in that case, we cannot bring in individual persons. I believe that Ola Möller also understands this. I do not intend to comment on this. The persons in question are also not here. If Ola Möller has questions, he is welcome to ask them directly to the persons in question.

I highlighted the Social Democrats in my speech. I actually thought that Ola Möller would have the courage to address what I said. You have, due to the fear of contact with SD – this is something you say yourselves in a report – pursued a policy whose consequences we are now seeing and which it will take generations to rectify, or at least there is no quick fix. In that regard, the Social Democrats have contributed actively to the highest degree. You say it yourselves.

Then I wonder: Doesn't Ola Möller have anything to say about this? We are talking about the migration policy. It is certainly about the future design, but one must take off from the reality that we face.

We are now conducting a strict migration policy. It has not come out of nowhere, but it is a strict migration policy that is partly a product of the policy that has been pursued over a number of years.

I stand behind a strict migration policy for one central reason: I want us to ensure that we tackle the integration issues. For that reason, we must have a stricter migration policy than I myself would wish if I were the one deciding. But when I see how Sweden has broken down, I also see that the only chance we have to truly deal with things is to have a very strict migration policy that is at the EU's minimum level.

Then I naturally wonder: How is it that a social democrat in a migration policy debate does not dare to address this when you yourselves have presented such a report?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Hans Eklind does not want to discuss the proposals that his own party puts forward in the Tidö Agreement. This is, after all, an issue that is highly relevant for a strict migration policy according to the Tidö Agreement.

So, here I have three examples that I would very much like Hans Eklind to account for. But I can take more examples. We have a secretary of state to the Prime Minister who has dealt with crime. We also have a chairperson here in one of the Riksdag's committees who has had their driver's license revoked. There are members in the Committee on Finance who have large tax debts.

Such things have been mentioned in the debate as something that could constitute a lack of integrity for those who are not Swedish citizens. Therefore, I would like to hear Eklind's opinion on this. This, therefore, has nothing to do with the individuals, but it is facts that are on the table.

I have absolutely no fear of contact regarding SD. It is Lawen Redar who is quoted here, and she will have to answer for that. But I have no fear of contact.

I was, however, not interested in, for example, the politics that the Sverigedemokraterna pursued in 2011. At that time, they spoke of inherited essence, i.e., racial biology, in their principle program. That Hans Eklind in 2014 began to think about cooperating with them, one can certainly reflect on that.

If Hans Eklind has read the Social Democrats' committee motion, he can see that we are for a strict migration policy. Much of the policy that has been implemented during this mandate period is based on investigations that we have commissioned. In that perspective, there is no conflict.

I have stood here many times and said that we obviously would have wanted to do more to, for example, have better integration, but we have not been able to carry that out, because we have had a right-wing majority in this chamber since 2006 that has blocked many of our preventive measures.

When it comes to reforming the migration policy, I want to say: It was we who did it.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Lawen Redar is not just anyone. She is responsible for the report. I guess that the person who is responsible for the report also expresses themselves in a way that is okay for giving a picture of the Social Democrats.

In December 2014, we Christian Democrats announced that those seeking asylum in Sweden should, as a rule, be granted time-limited residence permits. Stefan Löfven, who was Prime Minister at the time, said it was completely the wrong way to go. Then the Social Democrats made the same decision about a year later. Then it was suddenly right and correct.

A few months later, in 2015, we proposed the introduction of temporary border controls, and we came up with proposals for more effective deportations and the appointment of a crisis commission. Then the government criticized the Christian Democrats again, only to then take up our proposals and implement them.

I do not want to end up in a debate about this, but to agree to a historical narrative where it is claimed that the Social Democrats have been in the driver's seat for the new migration policy is to actively attempt to rewrite history.

This week, the Swedish National Audit Office released the report Systemet för återkallelser av uppehållstillstånd. It is a scathing critique of the government at the time and Migration Minister Morgan Johansson. Thousands of residence permits should have been revoked. We are talking about 9,000 people who have retained their permanent residence permits in Sweden despite having moved from the country. Half of them moved more than ten years ago, the National Audit Office points out.

It is said that at least 430 million kronor have been paid out incorrectly. This is raised in connection with studies and work permits. One in ten people who have been granted a residence permit to work has no income.

There is much that the previous government should have done. Now we are cleaning up after you, and we are doing it at a fast and brisk pace.

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's budget proposal for 2024 in the migration area. It contains, in addition to the purely budgetary aspects, an important redefinition of the goals for the expenditure area that is worth commenting on and which we in the Liberals fully stand behind. In our opinion, it is a very good way to concretize the important migration policy paradigm shift that this government is driving forward.

For us, it is about a necessary adaptation to a reality that requires a migration policy that gives us a breathing space to handle the consequences of the striking imbalance that has existed for a long time between a poorly functioning integration policy and a very large immigration. Not least, it has been about a refugee-related immigration from societies that differ in a radical way from modern and democratic Swedish society.

In this context, I want to remind that between 2000 and 2022, over 2 million people immigrated to Sweden. This immigration resulted in a net increase in the number of foreign-born persons residing in our country from 1 million to more than 2 million. Three-quarters of this increase consisted of persons born in Asia and Africa, who today constitute just over 10 percent of Sweden's population.

A significant contribution to this increase comes from refugee-related immigration. Almost 620,000 people were granted residence permits as refugees or relatives of refugees during these years. It is an exceptionally high figure in relation to our population - around five times more than the average for the European Union.

Mr. Speaker! The consequences of the imbalance between a large immigration and a very unsatisfactory integration are many and serious. It is about exclusion and marginalization, parallel and shadow societies, gang and clan rule, extensive honor oppression and norm systems that conflict with the basic principles of a free and equal society, violence-oriented Islamism and system-threatening separatism. These are some known expressions of an increasingly worrying development that must be stopped here and now.

The situation is acute and needs to be taken with great seriousness. That is what we in the Liberals and the government that we are a part of are convinced of. Furthermore, a reassuring majority of the Riksdag considers that under these circumstances it would be completely irresponsible to push forward a policy that would de facto lead to even greater refugee-related but also purely illegal immigration than that which we have already had until now.

It is exactly such a policy as the Left Party and the Green Party advocate. To state this is no trifle, for these parties could tomorrow, in a potential Social Democratic government constellation, obtain a negotiating position that gives them the opportunity to dictate the terms for our future migration policy. That would, of course, be devastating.

Madam Speaker! In this context, I would like to make some clarifications regarding the Liberals' migration policy positions, so that there are no misunderstandings regarding the party's line on this important issue.

First and foremost, our support for a restrictive refugee policy that aligns with the EU's minimum level is justified by the circumstances that have already been mentioned. For us, it is an urgent solution to a situation that has become increasingly unmanageable.

At the beginning of the 2000s, we wanted to transform the foundations of Swedish integration policy precisely so that our country would not be forced to implement a harsh migration policy tightening of the type that we are currently carrying out today. Unfortunately, there were not many who were willing to listen to our voice at that time, and Sweden's integration problems have grown since then in a way that exceeds the most pessimistic forecasts of that time.

But, Madam Speaker, we do not want to make a virtue of necessity. We wish that it were possible to maintain a less restrictive refugee and migration policy, but that is not the case in the current situation. For us, both migration and a growing ethnic and cultural diversity can contribute to a positive development, but that presupposes a functioning integration and, not least, an immigration composition and volume that does not exceed our integration capacity.

All this must, of course, take place within the framework of a society that clearly marks the necessary boundaries for the diversity that can be accepted in an open, democratic and equal society. No one may, in the name of religion, cultural distinctiveness, or honor, violate the equal value of other individuals or restrict their self-determination and fundamental freedoms and rights. That it unfortunately happens here and now and affects hundreds of thousands of people, not least girls and women, is a shame for our country. We do not want this freedom-violating diversity, and we will do everything in our power to combat it.

Madam Speaker! Swedish migration and integration policy is in a formative stage. As a result of an immigration without parallels in our history, something important has happened to our country, which forces us to ask a number of fundamental questions about Sweden and about our common future.

There is a growing consensus that the country is undergoing a very serious crisis, a crisis that has nothing to do with the economy but with something much more important than that: the country's identity and cohesion, that which unites us, the values, norms, and points of reference that create a "we," a shared identity, a binding solidarity, and a fundamental community that gives meaningful content to the word Sweden.

This is ultimately what the whole thing revolves around. Future major political debates will be about different ways to deal with the challenges related to the country's cohesion. Different alternatives will stand against each other – different projects for what Sweden can and should become after the era of great migration.

In that perspective, we Liberals will argue that a diversity-embracing community is not only possible but is the very cornerstone for being able to build a free and prosperous society. But it should be about a diversity that does not divide and that is not in conflict with the liberal democratic principles that form the basis of our society.

With this said, I finally wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal regarding expenditure area 8.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member, for the speech and the commitment! I do not agree.

There are recipes for increasing the shadow society in Sweden. For the first, one can, for example, tighten the laws on reception, as you did a few years ago, so that those who receive deportation decisions cannot be deported. They lose jobs, homes, and studies but still remain in the country. For the second, one can turn a blind eye to the exploitation on the labor market or put forward proposals for much higher wage floors, which results in a lot of cheating and in many who are in the system today and who work legally switching to working illegally under the radar. You can also tick that part off. For the third, one can deliberately make people stateless.

My simple question to the Liberals is: Do you support the Sweden Democrats' proposal which concerns wanting to make people stateless?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! No, we do not - definitely not.

Regarding the shadow society, I would like to ask the member questions. How would it affect things if your proposals, which lead to a radical increase in the number of people who come here, were to receive the Riksdag's support? You propose a general amnesty regardless of the status the person has here. Illegal immigrants who have been in Sweden for a certain period would then be allowed to stay here. That is stated in your migration policy motion.

What would happen if one were to abolish Frontex, as you want according to that motion? What would happen if the agreement with Turkey were terminated, as you want precisely in your committee motion? What would happen if so-called asylum visas were established, that is to say, that people from anywhere on earth could apply to come here to seek asylum? Have you considered the consequences of all this? Have you considered what an amnesty means for refugee smugglers and for human smugglers? What would Sweden look like if your policy were to apply?

If you can govern at all, you will want to govern with the Social Democrats, whose proposals and stance go completely against the migration policy that you advocate. It is probably very difficult for the voters to know what kind of policy they will get if you were able to form a government. It will be a very difficult situation for you to discuss.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It was precisely this commitment that I thanked the member so much for earlier.

I am satisfied with the answer to my question, and I hope that it remains a no - or that you get a government crisis. That, too, one can hope for.

There were very many questions, and I will not be able to get through all of them. But I will do my best.

Amnesty has been tried several times in Sweden throughout history. My ethnic group received amnesty in Sweden. There are many who have received amnesty. It is the group of unaccompanied children who have been here for a year who are to receive amnesty, simply because they have been treated terribly in the legally insecure asylum processes. This the member surely knows.

So, that was the proposal to abolish Frontex. It is a very good proposal. What is happening in the Mediterranean today, and what Frontex has also been complicit in, is no beautiful story. Very many people are dying in the Mediterranean today. I believe the member also knows that.

I strongly oppose us financing such agreements as the agreement with Turkey. There are reports that people fleeing are being shot down to stop them. These agreements also lead to more agreements with dictatorships. For example, there are now also agreements with countries in North Africa. Tunisia is an example where people are found dead in the desert, shot down.

These agreements are intended to prevent people from coming to Europe. It is not a beautiful story. I believe the member should focus on a safe and orderly reception. Instead of evading responsibility and ensuring that people die in the Mediterranean, I think politicians should take responsibility and ensure that people do not die along the escape route.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tony Haddou, for being quite clear that you stand by the policy that I read about in your committee motion! Then you know that your amnesty proposal does not only apply to unaccompanied children but to all persons, regardless of residency status, who have been in Sweden for a certain period, i.e., also illegal immigrants.

If you haven't read your own motion, that is not my problem, but that is what it says. I can send a copy to you.

The problem is that that policy would generate an incredibly strong pressure to come to Sweden. Refugee smugglers, human smugglers - everyone would exploit this in a fantastic way. I do not know why you want to favor that type of industry which is so inhuman, but that is what you would be doing.

And not only that: You would create a completely unsustainable situation in Sweden. Do you think we would manage an even worse migration crisis than the one we had in 2015? Maybe you think we would manage it, but I am sure that a large majority of Swedes would not want anything of the sort but would react very strongly against a Riksdag that passes such laws as your party wants.

But there is no risk, because the Social Democrats are going straight against what you are saying. Or, of course, there is a small risk, because it is power above all for certain parties. You know that. You say "sure, we might be able to force them to say yes to all these things." The voters should think about that!

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! It is, to say the least, a worrying time. Not far from us, Russia's unjust and reprehensible war against Ukraine is raging. The terrorist organization Hamas's attack on Israel has created indescribable suffering, and the humanitarian situation in Gaza is very, very difficult.

On Swedish streets, Hamas's despicable attacks on Israelis on October 7 have been hailed. A previous, seemingly dormant, anti-Semitic glow has been given oxygen and is in full flame in certain parts of society.

This testifies to a parallel society that does not belong in Sweden. Add to that an extensive segregation, where social mobility has stagnated and where it plays all too great a role for a little girl's future in which area she grows up. In the deep exclusion, overcrowding, poor school results, honor oppression, and crime flourish.

Decades of unsustainable immigration policy in combination with a lack of a well-thought-out integration policy have brought us here. I am convinced that it is possible to reverse the development. But it will require a lot, and it will require a significantly reduced immigration for a long period ahead.

Madam Speaker! It is not very noticeable in Sweden, but in Europe, a very strained migration situation prevails. So far this year, the number of asylum seekers has increased by around 25 percent to over 1 million. In Germany, the number of asylum seekers has increased by 70 percent. Approximately half of the migrants coming to the EU are judged to have grounds for protection. The rest constitute economic migration. To these figures that I mentioned, 4 million Ukrainians who have been granted support according to the mass flight directive are added, of whom around 40,000 are currently in Sweden.

In Sweden, however, we see a different development. This year, the number of asylum applications has decreased by approximately 25 percent compared to last year. Apart from during the pandemic, when the borders were closed, we have not had such low asylum migration during the entire 2000s. That development must continue.

But it is not enough with reduced immigration. We must also have order and clarity in the migration policy. Regulated immigration is based on the fact that the decisions that have been made after a legally secure review are also complied with. It ensures that those who receive a yes get all the opportunities and expectations of entering society. But it also means that those who have received a no actually leave the country. Security threats must be identified and incorrect residence permits revoked.

The Moderate-led government has so far presented three propositions for a more orderly immigration. We have commissioned five new investigations and changed three directives for existing investigations on everything from strengthened security at the Swedish Migration Agency's detention centers to stricter requirements for citizenship. All of this will lead to more purposeful legislation in the migration area. Step by step, we will get immigration in order.

But legislation is really not everything. At least as important is how we govern our authorities. One of the first things I did as minister was to task the Swedish Migration Agency with prioritizing the work of revoking incorrect residence permits. It yielded immediate results. During the first half of this year, three times as many residence permits were revoked as during the same period last year.

That this assignment was necessary is confirmed by the review of the recall work during the years 2013-2022 that the Swedish National Audit Office presented last week. It is depressing, if not appalling, reading. Under the previous S-led government, there was a complete lack of governance in this area. "Between the years 2013 and 2022, the Government has not given the Swedish Migration Agency any goals, assignments, or reporting requirements regarding recalls," the Swedish National Audit Office states.

And the effects are clear. Almost every tenth work permit and every fourth study permit can be questioned. Citizens' hard-earned tax money, which could have gone to welfare, has instead been incorrectly paid out to persons who should not have received them. The review shows that 9,000 persons retained their residence permits despite having moved from the country. This has resulted in incorrect payments from state authorities and municipalities of up to 430 million kronor during the period 2013-2020. The payments have partly gone to persons whose residence permits have been revoked, and partly to persons who had permanently moved from the country without their permanent residence permits being revoked.

Relevant authorities - and the Swedish Migration Agency is not alone - have received neither the conditions nor the guidance to keep track of who has the right to be in Sweden and participate in the Swedish welfare state. That ends now.

Another thing I did during my first time as minister was to task the Swedish Migration Agency with promoting the immigration of highly qualified labor. As a result of that, the agency is now rolling out a completely new model, where those who have a university education or are seeking a managerial position are guaranteed a decision within 30 days. A smooth application process is necessary so that our companies operating in a global market with very tough competition can attract talent from all over the world.

Madam Speaker! I mentioned how important the work with returns is. This is yet another area that has been very low priority under the previous, Sledda government. Far too many who should have left the country after a rejection of an asylum application have stayed and become part of a growing shadow society where many suffer and are exploited. The fact is that every fourth asylum application that is submitted right now comes from a person who has a previous legally binding decision to leave the country.

Now we are moving step by step away from EBO, own housing, which contributes to segregation and hinders the return. Municipal politicians of different political colors across the country have warned about the effects of EBO for many years, but nevertheless, it has been allowed to remain.

From the budget we are debating today, it appears that the government is creating a completely new model for reception and return. A large majority of those who come to Sweden - approximately two out of three - will be informed that they must return. This places demands on efficient asylum processing and efficient return. The new model means that everyone shall live in reception centers instead of in their own housing while awaiting a decision. It shall be clear from the very beginning that the decision can result in that one gets to stay or that one must return.

The large majority who receive a no shall move to return centers where they can get closer contact with case officers, information, and support in the return and reintegration. The minority who receive a yes on their asylum application shall receive full support in entering Swedish society, learning the language and culture, and becoming self-sufficient.

In the budget, we also invest in increased dialogue with countries of origin to encourage them to accept their own citizens. We also conduct that dialogue at a political level, tirelessly and from several departments. Everyone speaks with a common voice.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to highlight the importance of the Riksdag now adopting new goals for the migration policy. The previous goals were adopted in 2009 and reflect a different time and a completely different migration situation.

In this year's budget bill, the government has proposed new migration policy goals. I am pleased, if somewhat surprised, that there is full support for them in the chamber of the Riksdag.

The new goal for the expenditure area is a responsible and restrictive migration policy which first provides temporary protection to people who have a need for protection in accordance with the minimum level that follows from EU law and the binding international rules that Sweden has committed to follow, including the right to asylum, as well as maintains a controlled immigration.

Secondly, the migration policy reduces irregular migration to Sweden and the EU.

Thirdly, the migration policy contributes to the fact that persons who lack grounds for protection or for other reasons do not have a legal right to stay in Sweden leave the country.

Fourthly, the migration policy ensures a purposeful labor immigration that contributes to Sweden's competitiveness.

Fifth, the migration policy prevents, detects and addresses fraud and abuse.

For the sixth, the migration policy stimulates voluntary return.

As I have mentioned earlier in my speech, goals and steering towards goals are important for an efficient public operation. Now we receive new goals that make it easier for us to push through the restrictive policy that the coalition partners have agreed upon. It is good for integration, it is good for security, and it is good for Sweden.

I note that the Social Democrats are no longer remaining in the chamber. I regret it, because I would have liked to debate this very important and difficult issue with them. But in some way, it is symptomatic that they are now giving a walkover in migration policy just as they did during the previous terms to, among others, the Green Party. It is not good for Sweden. We need more people who take responsibility for immigration. I wish that the Social Democrats had stayed in the debate and in the match.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M), Hans Eklind (KD), and Mauricio Rojas (L) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I can agree with the last point. I am pleased that the Minister is present at the debate, and I regret that many misjudged how late it would run and are therefore no longer here.

I also want to say, for the sake of clarity, that no part of our follow-up motion was intended to provide support for the government's changed goals regarding migration policy. I want it to be recorded in the minutes if it has been unclear. We have a different view than the Tidö parties on this area, and I believe most are well acquainted with that.

My questions to Maria Malmer Stenergard concern an area where I perceive that we have had somewhat greater consensus than on other issues. It concerns the support for Ukraine and the reception of refugees from there. In the committee, we have discussed it several times but still have not been able to get an answer from Skatteverket regarding what will apply for the population registration of Ukrainian refugees. That question requires an answer.

It has taken far too long. People have lived without basic rights to healthcare and have had a daily allowance that is not livable. It is too little to receive 71 kronor a day. Then one cannot afford food, bus trips, hygiene products, doctor visits, medicines, etc.

We know that women have traveled back to Ukraine just to get access to gynecological examinations. It is a disgrace for Sweden that this group is treated in this way.

I wonder if the Minister can give a clear statement on when the population registration issue is resolved and the daily allowance is increased for Ukrainian refugees and asylum seekers.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! The member and I truly share the commitment to the Ukrainian refugees, and the government's support is strong both militarily and humanitarily on the ground in Ukraine. We also naturally support those Ukrainians who have come here and settled here to seek protection. They receive basic healthcare, school, and work permits.

It is very pleasing that the extensive report we ordered from the UN's migration organization, IOM, shows that Ukrainians in Sweden have entered employment to a greater extent than in other European countries. In the able-bodied part of that group, 55 percent are working, and that is naturally very pleasing.

At the EU level, we are pushing to find out what applies if the dreadful war continues after the mass exodus directive has expired. Annika Hirvonen also spoke about this earlier. I think it is important to provide clear messages from the EU's side early on, and my hope is that the directive can be extended even beyond these three years and that we make decisions on it as soon as possible.

The government is constantly analyzing how we can best help the Ukrainians who are here. I see several needs, just as Annika Hirvonen does. It concerns rather complicated legislation. The directives were implemented over 20 years ago, and it was a different situation then.

When it comes, however, to the daily allowance for asylum seekers in general, we do not intend to carry out any increases. Our intention is instead, as I mentioned in my main speech, that everyone shall live in reception centers where they naturally receive food and accommodation.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I understand that the government did not have solutions to these problems ready when they took office. But now it has been over a year, and it is still referred to that the legislation is old and that one had not thought everything through 20 years ago. The problem is here and now!

I have myself met a doctor who does not know if it is worth starting the further education to become eligible in Sweden, because one knows nothing about the future here and the further education takes two years.

I am meeting Ukrainian refugees here and now who receive charity from the Red Cross consisting of potatoes, onions, oatmeal, and diapers - the very most basic things. This is because the housing allowance is too low. Asylum seekers do not manage on that either.

I do not support the government's plans for the future, but regardless of what one wants, we should agree that the basic allowance, which was decided upon 30 years ago and has not been increased since then, is not enough to live on here and now. We all know how much prices have gone up just in the last few years on basic goods such as food.

My impression is that the government has not prioritized or put effort into resolving the situation regarding the housing allowance and the issue of population registration. When the government wants to, it is obviously possible to both quickly investigate and quickly handle various pieces of legislation. But at the same time as the government says it gives full support to those who are now fighting for Ukraine's freedom, their children are growing up poor in Sweden.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! This is an important debate. I share, as I have said, Annika Hirvonen's commitment to the Ukrainians. When I have conversations with politically active Ukrainian youth, which I had most recently this weekend, they say: Give us weapons, weapons, weapons! That is what they are demanding. We are doing everything we can from the government's side to do just this to ensure that they can win the war against Russia.

But of course, we also work to improve the conditions here in Sweden. That was the reason why we allocated money to Sfi, so that they could receive Swedish language instruction. They themselves say in the survey that we had conducted that the language is the primary obstacle for them to enter the labor market, and that is what we are trying to address.

We have been awaiting assessments from Skatteverket regarding the population registration in order to know how we should handle the issue further. I can guarantee Annika Hirvonen that we will continue to work on these issues.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Migration for participating in the debate today. I want to return to a question that has come up a few times now by reason of the Left Party's motion and our budget alternative. We want unaccompanied children and young people who have been in Sweden for over a year to be granted residence permits through an amnesty. Today, eight out of ten of those who arrived in 2015 are employed, primarily within health and social care and social services. This is about children who sought and needed protection in Sweden but who have been treated dreadfully poorly as a result of political decisions.

I previously asked the Migration Minister's colleague in the Moderaterna about how very many of these people receive deportation decisions, many times to Afghanistan, but cannot be deported and instead end up in limbo and year after year remain in what is called the shadow society. Very many of them are torn from their jobs, studies, and housing and are cast completely out of the system they have been part of. Many have worked legally but are now forced to work illegally because they have lost their livelihood. What are they supposed to do? They cannot be deported but are not allowed to stay. This happens year after year. Deportation is not an option for them, and the shadow society is counterproductive. I see no other alternative for this group than to let them stay. What does the government intend to do for the unaccompanied minors who cannot be deported?

In this speech, Annika Hirvonen (MP) agreed.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! Tony Haddou and I, the Left Party and the Moderates, have very different views on migration policy. I have full respect for the Left Party's proposal, but I want to assert that we have tried that path before, that is, making concessions from the regulated immigration and granting amnesty to persons who do not have grounds for protection. The most recent is the upper secondary school law that was pushed through under the Social Democratic-led government. It is not good or fair. It undermines our opportunities to help those who actually have grounds for protection. Is it not something that is our duty as politicians to make the difficult decisions and to prioritize those who actually have grounds for protection over those who do not have grounds for protection when the needs in the world are enormous.

The fact is that it is possible to carry out deportations to virtually all countries in the world if the individual cooperates. It may be the case that it is not possible to carry out a deportation because the person to be deported would, for example, be subjected to torture or death. In that case, we grant a residence permit for a shorter period due to obstacles to enforcement. I think that is a reasonable procedure. As said, it is our duty to prioritize those who have grounds for protection.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The problem is that the group I am talking about is cast into a lawless limbo while the Minister stands here and tells us about his migration policy. This happens year after year. They live in the shadow society. My question is: What are they supposed to do? They are in Sweden. Many of them have received legally insecure decisions after unscientific age assessments. Their asylum applications ended up at the very back. Just this group has suffered very badly.

I no longer know how to say this, but the fact is that they cannot be deported. I understand the intention of the Minister for Migration when she says that one can deport to all corners of the world. I do not know if it is the case that the Minister has a return agreement with the Taliban in Afghanistan in her back pocket. But otherwise, the fact is that one actually cannot deport to Afghanistan.

Then the question is: What is it that this group is supposed to do? It is probably better that they are inside the system than outside. It is this that is totally counterproductive. We have cast these people out into lawlessness, insecurity, and uncertainty year after year and deprived many of jobs and studies. They are outside of society. They will be here next year when I ask these questions to the minister. They will be here even next-next year when I ask these questions to the minister. Is it not better that they are in the systems than outside?

(Applause)

In this speech, Annika Hirvonen (MP) agreed.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! The simple answer is that one must follow the decisions that have been made. If it is the case that it is actually not possible to carry out a deportation, the Swedish Migration Agency and, in applicable cases, also the courts grant temporary residence permits due to obstacles to enforcement.

But I think the real basis for Tony Haddous' question shines through. People do not trust the authorities and the judges. They overrule them and say that they do not make legally sound decisions. They probably do not actually think that the decisions they make should be followed, because they do not think they are correct.

I have a completely different view. I am of the firm opinion that we have a rule-of-law process in Sweden where one has their case examined, usually in several instances, and when one has finally received a ruling, one also as an individual has an obligation to follow that decision. As I said initially, it is a prerequisite for us to be able to maintain the regulated immigration at all and, in the long run, a prerequisite for us to be able to continue being an open country that helps people who are fleeing and truly have grounds for protection.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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