Migration

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are to debate the budget regarding the migration policy. The immigration issue remains one of the voters' most important issues. It is not strange. During the Social Democrats' eight years in power, Sweden received 320,000 asylum seekers without any plan whatsoever for how these people would enter employment and be integrated into Swedish society. The Social Democrats' irresponsible migration policy and requirement-free integration policy have had serious consequences. Today we have a large sense of exclusion in Sweden.

Many people who have come here have not learned the Swedish language despite having lived in Sweden for many years. Many adults have become stuck in benefit dependency, and as a consequence, far too many children do not see their parents go to work. Marginalization risks being passed down generation after generation.

Furthermore, our open and free society is threatened by separatist forces that want to split our country by creating parallel social structures. We inherited a chaos from the Social Democrats.

Migration policy is therefore one of the Moderate-led government's most prioritized reform areas. We are implementing a paradigm shift, and Sweden is now conducting a responsible migration policy which has resulted in us now having the lowest asylum-related immigration since 1985, that is, as far back in time as we can measure. We are now creating order in migration policy, so that those who have grounds for protection are given good conditions to be integrated into Swedish society and become part of the community, while those who do not have grounds for protection shall leave Sweden without delay and return to their home country. It is right, just, and correct.

Madam Speaker! In light of the negative, the positive effects that immigration has and has had for Sweden are all too often omitted in the migration policy debate. Many of those who have come to Sweden have learned Swedish, established themselves in the labor market, and become part of the Swedish community. Every day, hundreds of thousands of people born abroad go to work or to school. They build their companies, their families, and their future. They follow Swedish laws, and they share our Swedish values. They make Sweden a better country.

It is the Moderaternas conviction that all people should be able to grow and reach their full potential through their own effort. Where a person is headed shall be more important than where they come from. For those who are legally present here and are prepared to be a part of the Swedish community, Sweden shall be a land of opportunity.

In order for us to succeed with integration, we however need to have a minimal asylum immigration for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we need to deal with the requirement-free integration policy. Becoming a part of Sweden involves many opportunities, but it also involves obligations. For us Moderates, these obligations mean the following: In Sweden, one supports oneself, in Sweden one speaks Swedish, and in Sweden one accepts and complies with Swedish values.

Madam Speaker! After three years with a Moderate-led government, it is clear that Sweden is on the right track. But we are not there yet, and now we are ramping up the pace. During the remainder of the mandate period, a long series of new legislative proposals will be presented by the government so that we can continue to get migration in order. I particularly want to highlight three of the upcoming legislative proposals – proposals that are especially important for us Moderates.

Firstly, we will carry out a major subsidy reform. That newcomers from day one have been able to access the entire Swedish welfare system without any requirements whatsoever to integrate into Swedish society is not fair. It has contributed to many who have come to Sweden being passivized and stuck in long-term subsidy dependency and exclusion. Furthermore, it is both absurd and enormously unfair that for some people, it does not pay to take a job. Living on subsidies can, in some cases, provide more money in the wallet than working for a wage.

We Moderates stand on the side of hard-working people. Therefore, we are implementing a benefit reform so that it will always pay to work. Additionally, we are introducing qualification for certain social insurance benefits for newcomers. In order for it to pay to make an effort, those who work will qualify for welfare faster. It is right and just. Furthermore, we will introduce an activity requirement in the social assistance.

Secondly, we will introduce stricter requirements for becoming a Swedish citizen. Almost as effortlessly as benefits have been distributed to those who are new to the country, Sweden has distributed Swedish citizenship. It has not even been required that one can speak a single word of Swedish or know anything at all about Swedish society to become a Swedish citizen. How then can one be a part of the Swedish community?

We are now introducing requirements for knowledge of Swedish and of Swedish society, requirements for self-sufficiency, and requirements to have legally lived in Sweden for a longer period in order to be granted Swedish citizenship. We Moderates want people to be proud of being a Swedish citizen, and one becomes proud only after having made an effort.

For the third, we will introduce stricter rules on deportation due to crime. Now, it is final regarding persons who come to Sweden and commit crimes. We Moderates stand on the side of the crime victims. No girl who has been subjected to violence should have to be afraid of meeting her rapist on the street. We are now introducing rules which mean that all crimes with a stricter penalty than a fine will be grounds for deportation. Prosecutors will also be obliged to demand deportation. The new regulatory framework is expected to lead to the number of foreigners deported due to crime increasing sixfold.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates are in agreement with our coalition partners on a budget with a number of measures to tighten immigration to Sweden so that we succeed with integration. Opposing us is a red-green mess. The Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Centre Party are basically not in agreement on anything.

Magdalena Andersson often claims that she wants to pursue a strict migration policy, but it is obvious that the Social Democrats' definition of a strict migration policy is completely different from ours. When she was Prime Minister, she described 19,000 asylum seekers per year as a very strict migration policy. That is three times more asylum immigration than what Sweden has today, when we have a Moderate-led government.

It is also obvious that Magdalena Andersson will never be able to conduct any form of so-called strict migration policy together with Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Centerpartiet. C wants to significantly increase the number of quota refugees from today's 900 to 5,000 per year, and Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet say no to all the proposals we are now to implement. As if this would not create enough chaos, Vänsterpartiet wants to go back to how the migration policy looked in 2015 – the year when over 160,000 people applied for asylum in Sweden. They also want to introduce amnesties and grant residence permits to everyone who has stayed illegally in Sweden for a sufficiently long time.

This is the recipe for a red-green leftist experiment that risks having devastating consequences for Sweden. We have seen how it has gone before – the upper secondary school law is just one example of how a red-green mess can create chaos in migration policy.

Madam Speaker! As if it were not enough that the Social Democrats pursued an irresponsible migration policy and a demand-free integration policy, they now want to use the Swedish people as an integration tool to solve the chaos that they created together with the red-greens. They want, in fact, to forcibly mix the population. According to the Social Democrats' own calculations, 42 percent of low-income earners must move to another residential area in order for a mix of high- and low-income earners to be achieved. It is almost every other person who will be forced to move. As a voter, one must therefore ask the question: Will it be me or my neighbor?

Madam Speaker! It is no secret that "power above all" is the Social Democrats' true motto. But they are also unfit to govern – especially in the company of Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Centerpartiet.

Thanks to the moderately led government, Sweden is now on the right track, but we are not there yet. In less than a year, there will be an election in Sweden. Then the Swedish people will face a crossroads: Shall we continue on this line, with the lowest asylum migration since 1985, or shall we return to the politics that led to the asylum crisis in 2015 – in combination with measures and integration solutions that involve a social democratic forced mixing? The choice next autumn will be completely decisive.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to move for the approval of the moderate-led government's budget proposal, that is, approval of the committee's proposal in report SfU4.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) and Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) concurred.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker and members! Much was raised in the speech, but I intended to be a bit forward-looking.

Next year, the government wants to present the proposal to abolish permanent residence permits. They also want that already granted permanent residence permits can be retroactively converted into temporary ones. According to the government's own investigation, this could affect thousands of people, many of whom have long periods of residence in Sweden; it could be about ten years or more.

This obviously raises a number of serious questions about legal certainty and respect for fundamental rights, and in the name of honesty, it obviously contradicts Sweden's rule-of-law principles when the government wants to withdraw favorable administrative decisions and review them to the detriment of people. Something like that does not even belong in a democracy. It is both unlawful and arbitrary.

The government has in stages tried to downplay the seriousness of this by saying that the purpose is to make those affected want to become Swedish citizens to a greater extent. But if the government is serious about wanting the target group to become citizens, it can actually move forward with proposals for that without revoking permanent residence permits. If the purpose is that more people should become citizens, why does the government not arrange that in a legally secure manner? Why does it want to revoke permanent residence permits?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! It is true that an investigation, the Minimum Level Investigation, has now looked at the possibilities of doing exactly what Member Haddou describes, namely converting permanent residence permits into time-limited ones. The investigation is now out for consultation, and we will have to wait another week to see what the consultation responses contain.

I still think it can be worth pointing out that this is not the Moderaternas most important issue. It is part of the Tidö Agreement, because there was an agreement there to look into this. What it eventually lands on, we will have to return to.

The important thing is that we are prepared for the various reforms that could come to be implemented. Therefore, this is included in the budget proposal.

With this said, it is therefore no promise that we will definitely return to this. That we will have to decide, above all against the background of how the referral bodies respond and how it looks thereafter.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament says that this is not the Moderaternas most important issue. For thousands of people out there, it is exactly the absolute most important issue right now.

They have received a permanent residence permit, and it is not just a legal document. They have received a promise, completely in line with everything they have done that is right and proper: Here they can end their flight. Here they are safe. Here they can build their lives and their future.

The problem now is that the government is looking at whether they should tear up the security and present proposals that tear up these people's lives and mean that they risk being thrown out of Sweden. This is the problem. People feel insecure, afraid, and uncertain because of the government's proposals.

I also think it is unjust and arbitrary. One is looking at reviewing decisions that have already been made.

Much of it is about them becoming citizens, quite simply. It can be solved, and that is what I would have wished for from the Moderates and the Tidö parties. This can be solved if one wants people to become citizens. Then one can ensure that they actually simplify for them to become citizens. That can be done. There are many ways to legislate so that people can become citizens. That can be done without revoking permanent residence permits.

The problem with the entire fundamental issue, that people shall become citizens, is that there are built-in problems that are beyond the individual's control. It concerns problems with such things as verifying identity and date of birth, as well as the fact that many people come from countries with collapsed administrative systems. These are people who have received permanent residence permits here in Sweden a long time ago. Now they risk being thrown out. They risk receiving temporary residence permits, which creates uncertainty and insecurity.

When the member from Moderaterna is still standing here, I want to ask: Why are you even looking at this? You know that it is still possible to create citizenship.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I repeat what I said earlier: The committee's proposal is now out for consultation, and we will return to what the consulting bodies answer when the consultation period has ended.

For us Moderates, it is absolutely central that we now carry out the important reforms to come, as I also described in my speech, namely that we ensure that those who commit serious crimes are deported to a greater extent than today. This is something that the Left Party says no to.

We also think it is important to tighten the rules for citizenship, something that the Left Party also says no to. We think it is important that we maintain a minimal asylum migration to Sweden for the foreseeable future, something that the Left Party also says no to.

We and the Left Party simply have different priorities and different starting points in migration policy. The Left Party stands for a diametrically opposite line compared to the government and the Moderates. We will have to return to the investigation and the various political proposals contained therein.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Viktor Wärnick says that the Moderates stand on the side of hard-working people. Sara Ghorbani and Farhood Masoudi are two hard-working people. They moved to Sweden in 2018 and sought asylum. Then they changed track because they got work.

The shift, that one can apply for a work permit from Sweden, was something that Miljöpartiet and Moderaterna introduced jointly. It has meant that many people who have received jobs, behave themselves, pay taxes and contribute to the welfare have been able to continue their lives here.

For Sara and Farhood in Norsjö, the Moderaternas complete U-turn turned their entire lives upside down. As Christian converts, they now face deportation to Iran together with their 13-year-old son, because the path to residency has not only been abolished for those arriving in the future but also for those who have worked here for several years, who have children in school, who have established themselves and bought houses or started companies.

In Norsjö, people are desperate. Just as in large parts of northern Sweden, there is a cry for labor, not least within health and social care. That promise from politics that Sara and Farhood believed in – if you come here, behave yourself, work, learn Swedish and integrate, you are welcome and are allowed to stay – yes, that has now collapsed. In what way do the Moderaterna mean that Norsjö or Sweden will become better because these hard-working people are deported?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! It is true: We Moderates stand on the side of hard-working people. We lower the tax on earned income. We lower the food VAT. We lower the tax on fuel. We have ensured that fuel prices have fallen sharply compared to the time when Miljöpartiet was in power and instead pushed them up to the ceiling. We lower the tax on savings. This makes a difference of thousands of kronor per month for hard-working people and ordinary families. It is completely correct.

This with track switching – the regulatory framework that was changed this spring – meant that the person who was denied their asylum application and thus did not have grounds for protection could switch tracks and instead receive a work permit and work. It is a system that has been associated with a lot of fraud and problems. Therefore, we have removed it. It also means that the person who has received a work permit on that basis, i.e., by switching tracks, does not receive an extension of the permit.

It does not mean, as Annika Hirvonen wants to give the impression, that someone who has grounds for protection is deported from Sweden. That assessment was already made in connection with testing the grounds for asylum. The person who has changed tracks therefore has not had any grounds for protection.

This is a system that has been very problematic. We stand by the fact that we have now removed it. We are restoring the principle of regulated immigration even regarding this part of the migration policy. That is to say: If one seeks protection in Sweden, it shall be examined. If one has grounds for protection, one may stay, but if one does not, one must leave the country.

If, on the other hand, one wants to come to Sweden to work, one must first apply for a work permit before traveling into the country. It is an arrangement that we think is completely reasonable and that I fully support.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Viktor Wärnick still avoids answering the question. Now, it is not about people who are to come in the future, but about people who have already lived for a long time in Sweden – in this case for over seven years. They have had permits and worked. They have behaved. They have done everything right. In what way does Sweden become a better place by these people now being deported?

It would have been a different matter if one had said that no person in the future should be granted permission in this way. But it is incomprehensible that one can tell these people that they are allowed to sell their house, take the children out of school and move, after they have built a life in Sweden, because the Moderaterna have changed their minds. It does not align with the rhetoric that it should pay to work and that there are positive sides to immigration – people who contribute, integrate, and speak Swedish.

We are, therefore, talking about thousands of people who are doing exactly this. They have trusted the decisions they have received. They are now affected in a way that is completely incomprehensible.

Hopefully, some of those who are now terrified of returning could be granted asylum today. In fact, some, for example this Christian family, are incredibly afraid of having to return to Iran, where it is simply not permitted to convert.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, it is only Swedish citizens who have an unlimited right to be and move in Sweden.

These are not easy reforms, but they are absolutely crucial for us to be able to re-establish the migration policy, the issue of a rule-of-law order, and a regulated immigration. The system has been exploited, and it has not functioned as intended. Therefore, we have removed it. It is not simple. It affects people, and it also affects those who have come to Sweden and are now considering changing paths. But it is absolutely necessary, and therefore we have done this.

What Annika Hirvonen claims is something that often occurs in the debate when Miljöpartiet speaks about immigration. It is about the fact that Miljöpartiet makes an assessment, a different assessment than the one that Migrationsverket or the courts in Sweden have made. Miljöpartiet can almost always say with certainty that people who do not have the right to be in Sweden actually have grounds for protection, while we have several different stages of Swedish authority exercise that have concluded that they do not have grounds for protection.

If we are to have regulated immigration, those who do not have grounds for protection must leave the country; otherwise, we have unregulated immigration. If that is what the Green Party actually wants, I think the Green Party should say so. We have authorities and courts that examine this. It is not members of parliament or parties that do that.

These are not easy reforms to implement, but they are important reforms for us to get order on the migration policy that has been chaotic, especially after the last eight years with the Social Democrats and the Green Party in government.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country with our Swedish model, our general welfare, our strong civic life, an innovative and strong business sector, and our allemansrätt. It is a democratic and free society where the principles of the rule of law and equality before the law apply.

Unfortunately, we see how many of these things are being nibbled at the edges. Some parts are even starting to crack. The union organizing rate is falling, as the policy has unilaterally favored the employer. Mass unemployment has taken hold. In three years, we have had 100,000 more unemployed in Sweden.

General welfare is challenged by privatizations and market thinking, and our social insurances and unemployment insurance are worsened or eroded. Association life is pushed back when people's education is attacked and critical voices are threatened. The business sector's transition and productivity development are threatened by a policy that looks unilaterally at the energy issue and at the way forward regarding which industries we shall live off in the future.

Even the right of public access comes under pressure when one tries to privatize parts of our beautiful country. Democracy is shaken to its core when proposals to limit the right to participate are put forward.

But there are also other threats – threats that arise in the wake of overcrowding, failed school results, lack of linguistic understanding and knowledge, high unemployment, and cultural and religious norms and structures that eat their way into our residential areas.

For us Social Democrats, this is one of the absolutely most important issues to address. Managing integration is a crucial issue for Sweden. Sweden should not have any vulnerable areas. We should not have parallel social structures. We should be able to understand each other and make ourselves understood. Everyone should have the opportunity to contribute according to their ability.

That is why we Social Democrats have begun a process where we want to remove the vulnerable areas. We want to do it through a language policy that gives everyone the opportunity to learn the language and where everyone who meets a representative of the public sector can be sure that Swedish is the primary way of communicating. We want to do it through a job policy that ensures everyone who can work shall work and where all children can see a parent go to work.

We want an urban planning policy that gives people opportunities to grow in their residential area and an education policy where everyone can succeed. It is simply a society that holds together.

To reach that, it will require enormous investments in lifting people in this country so that everyone can be involved in strengthening the Swedish model. Through the universal welfare, we shall enable life journeys – life journeys where everyone, as Hjalmar Branting so beautifully formulated it, can reach the longing of their best aspirations.

We want a society where full employment shall characterize the labor market and where the education system allows people to develop their full potential. We want a Sweden where the right of public access takes precedence over private beaches and a Sweden characterized by democracy, freedom, and the conviction that we will all be treated fairly.

Madam Speaker! In order for us to manage this integration policy, it is required that the migration policy is in sync with the integration challenges we have. Years of liberal migration laws in Sweden have led to us deviating significantly from the rest of the EU. EBO has governed where people settle. This has resulted in us being in a situation today where our integration capacity has not kept pace.

I think that it is wise to then pursue a strict migration policy. It is right and proper. In that respect, migration policy is actually a practical political issue. Reality, not ideas, must determine the policy. But there are, of course, also fundamental ideological parts in migration policy.

Sweden has committed itself to following internationally agreed treaties and rules. We have even written these rules into our constitution. The right to asylum shall be protected. We shall follow the levels determined by the EU. That is what we owe, and in that way, it is a duty for us to do so.

For us Social Democrats, practical politics and ideological politics interact. In order to be able to maintain trust in migration policy regarding the right to asylum, integration must work. That, in turn, is determined by the depth, organization, and scope of the welfare system.

In the same way, the areas where we are not obliged to receive people, for example labor immigration, must be designed so that the Swedish model is protected and trade union organization is not undermined. Conditions and wages must not be dumped, and we do not want displacement effects in the form of increased unemployment as a consequence.

For that reason, we Social Democrats believe that labor immigration should be need-tested via authorities in cooperation with the parties in the labor market. In the absence of parliamentary support here, which we unfortunately do not have right now, we have proposed that the subsistence requirement should be discretionary. That would have given the Swedish model free rein, and it would have been to the benefit of us all.

Based on the fact that Sweden faces major integration challenges, we Social Democrats at our congress have taken a clear position that the EU's minimum levels shall apply. These levels are sometimes fluid, even though the Asylum and Migration Pact clarifies some boundary issues. However, not all boundaries are entirely self-evident even with the new legislation. But in the question of withdrawing favorable administrative decisions, there must be no doubt. It shall not occur on summary and unjust grounds.

We have further pointed out that a reduced pressure of applications in Sweden is a desirable and necessary effect of us aligning with the EU's minimum levels. With that said, we shall still fulfill the obligations regarding the right of asylum; there shall be no doubt in that part.

In the same way, we turn against amnesty legislation. These amnesty legislations have repeatedly proven to be insecure in terms of legal certainty. They have created problems, which have put people in a bind later in the processes. Order and clarity must simply prevail in migration policy. For the same reason, we want to abolish EBO, which has created so much anxiety, disorder, and suffering.

Madam Speaker! Migration and integration policy are interconnected, as I have explained in this speech. It is my firm conviction that one cannot decouple these two from each other. Theory and practice must simply hang together. Otherwise, it is not possible to achieve broad popular support for the policy pursued, and that is something which, in the long run, only leads to misery and the undermining of the entire migration policy. So, I do not think we can have that.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to refer to the Social Democrats' special statement and announce that we, of course, stand behind it.

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democratic party leader and former Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson claims that her party – which is also Ola Möller's party, as Ola Möller repeated here – wants to pursue a strict migration policy.

Let us then look at the track record that exists around this. What was it with Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister? Well, during the last year of her government's period, there were 19,000 asylum seekers. It was then called the result of a strict migration policy, i.e., more than three times as many asylum seekers as today.

Therefore, one needs to ask the question: What does this mean? What does a strict migration policy mean for the Social Democrats? We often hear the words about wanting to pursue such a policy, but it is rarely that they fill them with anything regarding which reforms they want to implement.

Should we interpret it in that way that the Social Democrats want a three times higher asylum immigration to Sweden than today, that is, at the same level that Magdalena Andersson called a strict migration policy when she was Prime Minister?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! The definition of a strict migration policy must lie somewhere in that we should have a policy that ensures that people do not seek to come here in increasing proportions compared to other countries in the EU. Exact figures on how many it concerns are difficult to say. It is very dependent on global factors and on the composition of the asylum seekers. We have, for example, seen that Venezuelans are now seeking to come to Spain. They are not interested in coming to Sweden. Such things have an impact.

The strict migration policy is about having institutions in place that mean the rules do not significantly differ from the rest of the EU because we are common.

The interesting thing about this is that during the Social Democrats' time in power, we received fewer asylum seekers than we did during the Moderates' time in power 2007–2014. The substantial part of the asylum seekers we received came in 2015, when we had the Moderate legislation in place. Then we changed it. From the 300,000 who came in 2015–2022, we can then subtract 163,000 people. This means that the downward trend that began in 2016 and which has continued into this parliamentary term came through the paradigm shift that we Social Democrats led in government in 2015. Then I cannot stand here and say exactly whether it should be 4,000, 8,000, or something else.

I think the changes during the term that we Social Democrats have paved the way for – tightened family migration, abolition of track-switching and so on – and which the Moderates in government have continued, show that there is broad consensus in here regarding the strict migration policy. I think that is positive.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I still think that Ola Möller is drifting a bit off target here. He does not want to describe whether an increase from current levels would be a strict migration policy or not. It is clear that global factors play a role, but now we have, in fact, the lowest asylum-related immigration since 1985. It would be good if the Social Democrats could guarantee that they want to go in that direction.

I do not think that one can guarantee that, given the coalition partners that one has to deal with, especially regarding the power. The Center Party wants the quota for refugee reception to increase from 900 to 5,000 people in a year and says no to tightening the rules regarding low-skilled labor immigration. The Green Party says no to everything that the Moderate-led government puts forward and proposes. The Left Party wants to return to the situation that prevailed in 2015 when we received over 160,000 asylum seekers and also wants general amnesties.

What then would be the Social Democrats' version of a strict migration policy? What would it be like if Magdalena Andersson became Prime Minister again and Morgan Johansson became Migration Minister? I think that is a question that one, as a voter, really must ask.

For us Moderates, it is important that we have a minimal asylum immigration for the foreseeable future. We also pointed out, even before the Social Democrats, as they claim, changed the policy – already in May 2015, when we saw the tendencies toward the problems that later came with the large asylum crisis – that we in any case needed to start by switching to temporary residence permits rather than permanent residence permits.

What was the answer from the Social Democrats at that time? Well, Migration Minister Morgan Johansson said: Then we are no longer human.

The rhetoric that one has always been for a strict migration policy and that one has always been the guarantor of this does not hold up. Therefore, it is relevant to ask these questions to the Social Democrats. Therefore, it is important to scrutinize the rhetoric and see which reforms you intend to drive and what the red lines are against the others in the red-green mess.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Magdalena Andersson has been clear that we do not intend to conduct a migration policy that is not strict. In terms of content, Viktor Wärnick has received an answer on how I view it. For example, the tightening of family migration has been a tightening, the abolition of path switching has been a tightening, the abolition of EBO has been a tightening, and so on. We have made many tightenings, and I think it speaks for itself that we have put these proposals on the table so that the Moderaterna have been able to implement them.

The chairman speaks about minimal asylum migration. I wouldn't formulate it that way, but our perception is that we are to reduce the pressure of applications to Sweden. However, I will not stand here and take the blame if it is 2,000 or 5,000. That is not possible.

If we were to have a war in the surrounding area where the mass flight directive had not been activated, we could get very many asylum seekers here. That is what has saved the Moderaternas asylum figures. During the first year of the Ukraine war, 50,000 people came. Next year it was about 9,000 who were to come. Had one applied the same methodology in the calculation that the Moderaterna now apply regarding the people who came during the migration crisis in Syria, one could have removed 100,000–120,000 Syrians, if the mass flight directive had been activated, and said that we then had a low number of asylum seekers.

It is therefore a bit problematic how Viktor Wärnick calculates and that he stands here and demands exact figures.

I am, however, completely certain: Of course, no migration policy will be changed if, or when, the Social Democrats win the election in the autumn. It shall be a strict migration policy, and our party leader Magdalena Andersson has been very clear about that.

Then I understand that the Moderates have a need to paint a conflict here. However, I have previously said that I would gladly reach an agreement with the Moderates on migration policy. Then we would have received broad support in here for a long-term sustainable migration policy.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden received approximately 1,900 quota refugees per year for a long period. Under the Löfven government, that figure was raised to 5,000 quota refugees per year. This increase took place after the migration crisis in 2015, which clearly shows the Social Democrats' lack of judgment.

The Tidö parties lowered the number of quota refugees per year to 900. If the Sweden Democrats were to decide entirely, we would prefer to see the figure be zero.

In the Socialdemokraternas budget motion, one can read: ”The international quota refugee system is a humanitarian matter for the whole world. Sweden should, like other countries within the EU, take its international responsibility so that this system can be maintained.”

Given that the Social Democrats increased the number of quota refugees that Sweden accepts the last time they governed, I wonder if the Social Democrats will do so also the next time they get the opportunity to govern. I ask this question given that the Social Democrats themselves highlight precisely the quota refugee system as a way for Sweden to take international responsibility.

Can the members here and now promise that a Social Democratic-led government will not increase the number of quota refugees that Sweden accepts?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! The interesting thing about the quota refugee system is that it is a system that bypasses the class dimension that exists in migration policy. Those who flee first to Sweden and Europe are often middle and upper class, while the most vulnerable, especially women and children, remain in their home countries and suffer terribly. That perspective in migration policy is often missing, and therefore I believe that the quota refugee system has many merits.

What I said in my speech, I believe one should take note of when answering the member's question. Sweden's integration capacity will be completely decisive for how the migration policy is conducted going forward. This means that I cannot bet on the fact that we will never ever increase the number of quota refugees, if it were to turn out that it becomes a good situation in Sweden, that everything works and the concern disappears. But obviously, the application pressure and the integration problems that come with many people with weak educational background, linguistic ability, or the like need to decrease in the foreseeable future.

I do not foresee that we will have resolved the major problems in the medium term and thus be able to significantly increase the number of quota refugees.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What the Social Democratic member just did was to confirm exactly what I wanted to point out, namely that the Social Democrats cannot promise the Swedish people that they will not increase the number of quota refugees again.

It is exactly the same pattern as before. When the Social Democrats are in opposition, they talk about order and tidiness, but when they get into power, the figures regarding migration always go up. We saw that last time when they increased the number of quota refugees from 1,900 to 5,000. This happened after the migration crisis when Sweden had already received far too many migrants. Then the Social Democrats decided to increase the number of quota refugees to 5,000 per year.

Now we received no announcement, no promise, no guarantee, not even a hint. This means in practice that the Social Democrats are leaving the door open to once again increase immigration through the quota system, while at the same time saying they want to have a strict migration policy.

The Swedish people have the right to know what awaits if the Social Democrats are to form a government. Is the ambition level 900 quota refugees, as it stood in the Tidö Agreement, 1,900, 5,000, 10,000 or more? When one cannot give a clear answer, it is usually because the answer is not particularly popular.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think, on the other hand, that one should be intellectually honest enough to say that things can change and that we cannot promise for all future that we will do exactly this. It is still a reasonable position. I gave an answer to the question regarding which parameters we will evaluate when we look at the number of quota refugees.

If I remember correctly, the member himself has come up with the quota. I actually have confidence that quota refugees can succeed, that they can make a good impression in our country and even become members of Parliament. Then I feel that one perhaps should be a little humble towards the quota refugees' opportunities to have a good life, when it is the absolutely most vulnerable people in the whole world that we are bringing here on a quota.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! What Ola Möller said just now, in the previous exchange, regarding quota refugees was fine.

Something else that was welcome was when Ola Möller, in his speech, announced that the Social Democrats stand for that already favorable administrative decisions should not be summarily overturned. I can only interpret that as the Social Democrats rejecting the proposal that all permanent residence permits should be overturned and converted into time-limited permits or that persons in the worst case are deported.

My question of control is whether I have interpreted it correctly. Which arguments have led the Social Democrats to land on saying no to this?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! According to Chapter 7, Section 7 of the Aliens Act, it is already possible today to revoke permanent residence permits. This is done to a small extent, but according to the investigation conducted, there are quite a few, perhaps 30,000 people, who would be relevant. Based on the objectives that the government seems to have in this matter, we think it would have been more expedient if one started by applying the legislation that is on the table.

The answer is that we are not to revoke favorable administrative decisions on unfair and summary grounds. It does not mean that I stand here and exclude the possibility that there may be some basis that we have not considered or that the investigation does not point out. Something may come up that we think is sensible. We saw in the investigation regarding lack of integrity that there was a mention of crime, but there were good examples: many imposed fines, parking wardens and so on. In those cases, we are prepared to conduct a review.

If something such as that were to emerge from the work, we can absolutely look at whether an adjustment should take place. But the customary-law completely draconian and outrageous proposal that the investigation presented regarding withdrawing 220,000 permanent residence permits, promises from the state of Sweden to individual individuals, is bizarre. So we are not handling Swedish law.

I have read quite a few government inquiries, and I must say that the inquiry presented here is one of the worst I have read. This applies both to how the legal aspects are handled and to how it is argued how it should be implemented. It was clear that the inquiry had only one purpose, and we also heard member Wärnick say that it is not the Moderates' main idea. This is the Sweden Democrats' policy. I hope that Viktor Wärnick can stand up for what he said in the rostrum, namely that it is not something they intend to prioritize.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This is an incredibly welcome announcement, above all for all those thousands of people whose entire existence has been called into question. One wonders now if families who have lived here for over a decade, children who are born and raised here, will be deprived of everything they have built since they finished their flight in Sweden. I can only share the hope that the government will not proceed with the proposal either. We may get a clearer statement from the Minister for Migration during the debate later this evening.

Miljöpartiet and I believe that it is completely central that people who have fled should be able to end their flight and find security. Of course, we believe that if one has received a promise from the Swedish state – here you can stay, here you are safe, here you can settle down and build a life – it should be honored. We also know that the probability of being integrated into society increases when one can obtain that security, when one knows that one can continue to live here for the rest of one's life and that one's children can grow up here and find work. It is easy to understand that it increases the incentives to learn one of the world's smaller languages or to undergo a long validation of a medical education – which takes two years – when one knows that one is allowed to stay here for a long time.

I really hope that we do not see the proposals being realized – for the sake of trust in the rule of law.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! For us Social Democrats, it is important to distinguish between retroactive decisions and the way forward. There are decisions that the migration policy shall remain within the EU's minimum level, and that does not include the permanent residence permits. That is something that we have mainly used for administrative reasons in Sweden.

The way forward when it comes to permanent residence permits or not, I keep completely open. We will see what happens regarding that part.

I still think that this issue regarding permanent residence permits needs to be problematized. I am the chairperson of the network Sverige Kurdistan. There are quite a few Kurds who are here and have been here for a very long time on permanent residence permits, because they cannot return to Turkey. It could have devastating effects if that residence permit is withdrawn from them.

There are other groups where one perhaps has a citizenship and a permanent residence permit here and there, and where one sits and waits and hopes that one day there will be peace in the home country. But that country does not allow one to have dual citizenship. If one then receives a Swedish citizenship, one loses the old one. And then the dream of being able to return falls away.

There are, therefore, a lot of such boundary-setting problems that I think the investigation does not take into account.

Furthermore, it would lead to a completely absurd cost. The workload would flood the courts and authorities. It is therefore an inefficient proposal as well. I believe that one should safeguard tax revenue. That is not being done in this case.

I share the same hope as the member that these straight-up and down unlawful proposals never reach this chamber.

But when it comes to the way forward, we will hold a firm line. It is clear, because this chamber has requested it.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The cleanup after the Social Democrats' and the Green Party's mass immigration policy is heading in the right direction. The number of asylum seekers to Sweden continues to decrease. And this is happening before all the Tidö legislation is in place. Of course, the numbers will continue to decrease until the entire Tidö agenda is implemented.

It would, however, have sufficed with signal politics to begin a reduction in the number of asylum seekers. But the signal politics from the Social Democrats came from a Prime Minister who shouted: "My Europe does not build walls." After that came the migrant chaos to Sweden.

The Social Democrats bear a great responsibility for the mass immigration. Even if the Social Democrats' politicians are now pretending to be Sweden Democrats, it is important not to forget that. The Social Democrats' Europe still does not build walls. Let us not forget that. They can pretend to be restrictive now, but their policy continues to echo "My Europe does not build walls."

The reduced influx of asylum seekers results in a shortened processing time for asylum cases. Foreigners can receive a faster answer on whether they have the right to stay in Sweden or not. This shows that a restrictive asylum immigration is also a more legally secure, sustainable, and humane asylum immigration. Asylum is for those who have genuine protection needs, not for those who have sought themselves to Sweden for economic or social reasons.

The chaotic migration policy that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet still advocate for helps no one. It only results in disappointment, bitterness, and exclusion when mass immigration ensures that the system ceases to function and the individual is squeezed.

Sweden must be clear from day one. Many will be rejected in their asylum application. Few will be granted asylum. The reason is simple: Sweden cannot receive the whole world.

More foreigners who have received deportation decisions are returning voluntarily to their home countries. It has become harder to be an illegal migrant in Sweden, thanks to the Sweden Democrats and the government.

During 2024, 37,953 completed internal immigration checks were registered, which is almost 80 percent more than the year before. The increase in the number of internal immigration checks is due, among other things, to access to new technology and that more police officers have been trained for the purpose. The number of individuals without permission encountered during these checks has increased by 38 percent and amounted to 3,429 people in 2024, which is approximately 1,000 more people than in 2023.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have also implemented legislation ensuring that deportation decisions can no longer be prescribed until the illegal migrant has left Sweden. When the Social Democrats were in government, illegal migrants in Sweden waited for four years until the deportation decision was prescribed. After that, they applied for residence permits again. That is no longer possible. If one has been denied, one must leave the country.

Even the track switching has been phased out. If one has been rejected in their asylum application, one can no longer stay in Sweden to work. Today, a no really means no. If one is to apply for a residence permit again, one must start by leaving the country. That is why more who have received a removal decision leave the country voluntarily. We have been clear about what applies. Either one is granted a residence permit, and then one is welcome. Or one is rejected, and then one must leave. It is not more difficult than that. There are no shortcuts.

The clarity is also evident by the fact that the number of places at return centers and detention centers has increased. We have moved past the concept that foreigners who have been denied their application for a residence permit should linger around. Now there are different facilities for those who must travel to their home countries where it becomes quite clear that they are no longer welcome in Sweden. We shall ensure that these detention centers and return centers are filled. Illegal migrants have no place in Sweden, and they shall be sent home as soon as possible.

Last year, we also ensured that the time from the removal decision to deportation was shortened by 60 days. We will continue to work to ensure that deportations occur faster and that those who have been denied do not remain here and burden the public sector.

Applications for residence permits in Sweden as labor migrants are decreasing, but the decrease occurs among the low-skilled, not the high-skilled. The raised maintenance requirement for labor migration has had a positive outcome. Sweden is moving towards becoming a country that focuses on high-skilled labor migration.

The simple jobs in Sweden should go to those who are already unemployed today. The unemployed in Sweden should not have to compete with the whole world when they try to get a foot in the door on the labor market. We shall continue on this path through a wage requirement that ensures the emphasis on high-skilled labor immigration is strengthened. The principle is that labor immigration shall benefit Sweden. It shall not be a way for low-educated people to get to Sweden.

Due to the fact that labor immigration is decreasing, the processing time has also decreased. This means that highly qualified labor can arrive in Sweden and start working faster, because the Swedish Migration Agency does not need to handle masses of applications from low-skilled labor.

That is what a functioning migration policy looks like. Employers get the skills they need that do not exist in Sweden. At the same time, we have less labor immigration of low-skilled labor, where widespread abuse occurs, which in turn benefits organized crime.

But the Tidö agenda is far from finished. The Government and the Sweden Democrats intend to tighten the regulatory framework for family immigration, among other things by tightening the maintenance requirement. The starting point is that the conditions shall not be more generous than what is required according to EU law, while at the same time Sweden's international commitments continue to be respected.

For several years, foreigners who have hardly been able to support themselves have brought relatives here. This, in turn, has created a large sense of exclusion. It is important that those who bring relatives have both established themselves and can support themselves and their relatives. For most, this is something taken for granted, but it is not until 2026 that a bill is to be submitted to the Riksdag to realize this.

Another important reform that is underway involves tightening the requirements for acquiring Swedish citizenship. It is an important reform to counter cultural exclusion in Sweden. Until now, people who have not been able to speak Swedish and have not been anchored in Sweden have been able to become citizens, but now we are changing this.

Those who become citizens shall fully integrate into the community. Those who become citizens shall be able to support themselves. Foreigners who are recipients of benefits shall not be able to become citizens. A longer period of residence shall be required. And the requirements for an honest way of life shall be tightened.

It means that those who become Swedish citizens are people who genuinely love Sweden. If one is merely present here and has no interest in learning Swedish or learning about Swedish society, it will be impossible to become a Swedish citizen. This is very good. Swedish citizenship should not be a souvenir but a privilege and a commitment. Swedish citizenship is a part of our national community. One should grow into it, not stumble into it.

Order and discipline within the migration policy is not harshness. It is consideration for the country. It is humanity. It is caring about one's neighbor.

The difference between the red-green parties and the Tidö parties can be summarized in the following way: We build systems – the red-green parties build chaos. We tighten laws – the red-green parties scream slogans.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats always said that what we proposed was impossible, that it was not feasible, that it was not realistic. But during this parliamentary term, we have shown that what was impossible for them is possible for us. We have reduced asylum migration. We have shortened processing times. We have prevented the expiration of deportation decisions. We have stopped track switching. We have made it harder to live illegally in Sweden. We have reshaped labor migration so that it benefits Sweden. We will soon tighten the rules on citizenship.

This is the difference between political will and political games. A strict migration policy is not just a technical issue. It is a question of Sweden's future. It is about safety, cohesion, and justice. And we are far from finished.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now, the Sweden Democrats have been budget-negotiating with the government for a few years. They have deceived the voters regarding, among other things, the welfare fund, which they said would not be worsened but which they are now worsening during record-high unemployment. They also promised to do something about the unfair interest rates, which hit Sweden's wage earners hardest, but when the proposal finally lies on the table, they vote against it. It has all the time been more important to lower the tax for the very richest than to improve the conditions for the country's wage earners and for everyone who upholds the welfare. It is an enormous betrayal.

The Sweden Democrats were supposed to get Sweden back on its feet through migration policy and still blame everything on immigration, as we could hear in Nima Gholam Ali Pour's speech. I don't really believe in that scapegoat policy. I don't really think it helps families with children, retirees, or single parents to manage everyday life. Now it is your migration policy that applies. But what actually got better?

I want to ask two concrete questions about things that to the highest degree affect people's lives and everyday routines. I believe that many people want answers to these questions from those who govern the country. For the first: What do the Sverigedemokraterna intend to do about the record-high unemployment? For the second: What do the Sverigedemokraterna intend to do about the cuts in healthcare? These are two simple questions about things that, according to the Sverigedemokraterna, would in some way become better with their migration policy. The member is welcome to answer these two questions as factually as possible.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A restrictive migration policy leads to order and tidiness. It is not that it directly leads to the welfare being strengthened. We get more resources to allocate to the welfare, but it is not that one directly leads to the other.

I would like to comment on this issue of scapegoat politics. I want to ask Member Haddou where he was when Swedish women were raped during the migration crisis. I want to know where Member Haddou was when adult men went to school with minors here in Sweden. The migration policy did not work, and it is that we are changing now. We ensure that the people who come to Sweden and are denied their asylum application actually leave Sweden. That is what happens.

It is obvious that in the long term this will lead to us having a stronger welfare state. In the long term, our transition of labor immigration will also lead to those people here in Sweden who do not have much education being able to take the simple jobs without having to compete with the whole world. This is easy to understand for most, but I believe that Member Haddou for ideological reasons does not want to understand it.

The years 2015 and 2016 were chaotic in Sweden. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Member Haddou was on holiday then, for no one could miss what happened during those years. That is why the Swedish people fully support a restrictive migration policy.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I can only state that there were two very simple questions that the member avoided answering for two minutes.

The logic becomes incomprehensible. The Sweden Democrats have given us record-high unemployment. There are 100,000 more unemployed under the Sweden Democrats, and deteriorations are being made in working life. What is indecent and irresponsible is that they continue to blame immigration. The core of this is that we have only seen deteriorations with the Sweden Democrats. The cash register has deteriorated. The unfair queue remains. They have made medicines more expensive. Cuts are being made in welfare and healthcare. Unemployment is at record-high levels, and they do not move forward with a single labor market measure.

If you are involved in budget negotiations and governing, you must be able to take responsibility for what I have raised? I asked two questions: What do the Sweden Democrats intend to do about the record-high unemployment? What do the Sweden Democrats intend to do about the cuts in healthcare? I believe I have never met a member who avoids questions in this way.

Instead, the member posed questions to me. One of the questions was what I did in 2015. Well, I worked at Rädda Barnen. I stood at the Central Station and helped out. All of Sweden was out helping. People ensured that the reception functioned in the municipalities. The question is what the member in front of me did during this period. I would very much like to have an answer to that.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can tell the member what I did during these years. I pursued Sweden Democrat politics in order to achieve a restrictive migration policy so that such a catastrophe would not happen again.

Now we are debating the part of the budget that concerns migration policy. But this government has invested heavily in vocational training. This government is the government that has restructured Arbetsförmedlingen so that it actually starts placing people in jobs. This government is the government that has set requirements that the unemployed must move geographically to take the jobs where they are located.

However, it is not this we are discussing now, but we are discussing the migration policy. Vänsterpartiet wants an amnesty for illegal migrants. It states in their budget motion that they want to investigate this. The member says that he was out and helped during the migration crisis. But the member wants yet another migration crisis. What happens in Sweden when one gives amnesty to all illegal migrants? What will the more than 100 million refugees do when one says that Sweden gives amnesty to illegal migrants? Yes, they will come to Sweden, and then we will have another migration crisis, with all the tragedies it entails. Think of all the gang rapes! No one in the media wanted to address them, so they were forgotten. It was, in fact, politically incorrect to criticize the liberal immigration policy at that time. But Sverigedemokraterna will not forget, even if member Haddou has already put all those tragedies behind him.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to simply state that it may be the first time after years of scapegoat rhetoric that the Sweden Democrats nevertheless concede that welfare does not directly improve by us deporting thousands of people from Sweden. It was still the first time that I heard the Sweden Democrats acknowledge this.

What I took the floor to ask about is actually a follow-up on what Nima Gholam Ali Pour and I debated at an earlier occasion. It concerns the issue of the employees in Afghanistan who worked for the Swedish military there to fight the Taliban. Their cases did not manage to be processed, and they could not be evacuated to Sweden after the Taliban's takeover of power in Afghanistan.

After our exchange of remarks, TV4 among others reported that the government has a finished proposal which would mean that these approximately 50 people and their closest family could be evacuated from Afghanistan. It is therefore about people who now live under death threats because they risked their lives side by side with Swedish soldiers to fight the Taliban and who were left behind.

According to TV4, there is a finished proposal, but it is being blocked by the Sweden Democrats. I simply want to ask: Is that correct?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, that is correct. As I previously said to Member Hirvonen: The Member must choose. Which ones are they?

Should we bring patients from Gaza here to provide them with care? Are they those who have had their asylum applications rejected and have changed tracks and received work permits? Are they those who are to stay? Or is it those Afghans who helped the military when the Swedish military was in Afghanistan?

Who are they? We cannot take in the whole world. We must prioritize. When the Social Democrats and the Green Party have pursued a mass immigration policy, it becomes harder for us to bring here people from Afghanistan who have helped the Swedish military. That is how it is.

Then I also want to briefly go through the welfare system. Welfare is based on the fact that people actually work. Many have come here from abroad. This applies particularly to asylum seekers who are granted asylum in Sweden. For several years, they have not entered the labor market and have not been able to pay taxes.

It is a problem for the welfare that we have a large proportion of the population, often with a foreign background, who do not work. One can link deportations to the welfare. Of course, it is good for the welfare if one deports those who burden the public sector for several years.

I absolutely believe that in the long term it is good for the welfare that we deport those who burden the public. That is how it is.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In any case, I thank you for the straightforward answer.

Then I must still say that I never stop being shocked by the appalling rhetoric from SD of pitting vulnerable groups against each other. I certainly did not think, however, that one would put bombed children from Gaza in relation to interpreters who have worked against the Taliban.

If we do not deport people who work in home care in northern Sweden, it does not become harder for Sweden to help care for some of the mutilated children from Gaza. If we bring here the interpreters who assisted Swedish forces, it does not become harder to retain the entrepreneurs who started a street kitchen and keep the only restaurant open every day of the week in a northern small town. Those things have nothing to do with each other.

What we know is that when we deport 4,700 people who work in Sweden, pay taxes and many times work in the welfare sector itself, the welfare becomes weaker. If we do not take our moral responsibility for those people who risked their lives side by side with Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan, future Swedish forces abroad will have a harder time recruiting competent interpreters and colleagues.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We must prioritize. When we have a shortage of healthcare beds in Sweden to such an extent that many doctors need to send patients home before they have become well, it is strange if we were to bring in patients from Gaza.

We have elderly people who are suffering because they are not getting their surgery. They have to wait three years for their surgery here in Sweden. Then it is strange if we bring patients here from Gaza. Of course, we have to prioritize.

Mr. Speaker! The sad thing is that every time we have to prioritize, the Green Party has prioritized another group, some others, than Swedish citizens and people here in Sweden.

The Afghan high school students have been prioritized. Now, those Afghans who helped the military in Afghanistan are being prioritized. When is it the Swedes' turn?

When is it time for Miljöpartiet to start prioritizing Swedish citizens over foreigners? When will that day come? I would like to see that day.

It is not about scapegoat politics. It is about putting Sweden first. The Swedish people have waited for a government that prioritizes its own population.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The debate could have been about making Sweden a better place for the children and families seeking protection here. It could have been about a girl and a boy who, after many years of waiting, finally get to be reunited with their parents.

It could have been about how we best ensure that children fleeing to Sweden receive security and are able to be with their families. It could have been about how children receive more rights and opportunities in Sweden instead of fewer.

The debate here could have been about how children can be listened to better during the asylum process and how children can best process their traumas after the horrors of war or a childhood spent in flight.

It could also have been about who is building Sweden 2025, who you meet in healthcare, who you meet when you drop off the children at preschool, when you take the bus to work or when you visit the convenience store, and who is there for you in your old age. It could have been about who are the front-line workers in Sweden.

The debate could have been about sticking together and looking out for one another. But it is not, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that.

From the side of the government parties, it is usually deathly silent about which people uphold the Swedish welfare, despite the fact that almost every other nursing assistant and every other healthcare assistant is born abroad. It is they who uphold Sweden, and they deserve respect.

The tone from the government in recent years has not only been irresponsible but also deeply indecent. There are parties here in the chamber that continue to compete over who can treat people on the run the worst, or continue to pursue a boundless scapegoat policy like the one we have just heard about. It is indecent and dishonest.

We have seen the results of such a policy. It has only entailed deep deteriorations and gross restrictions for asylum seekers. And it is above all children on the run who have paid the highest price.

Migration policy has been characterized by legal uncertainty and constant deteriorations from the child's perspective, a diminished equality, a diminished integration, and deteriorations regarding the health of newcomers. One can ask: Is it worth it?

Mr. Speaker! This government has also systematized deportations in a terrible way. Every day we are met with new reports about lives and dreams being crushed before our eyes. It concerns people with deep roots in Sweden. Children who are born here and young people who have grown up here are deported to countries to which they have no connection and which they have never been in. They also do not know the language. Parents who work in healthcare, elderly care, or other shortage occupations are deported. It concerns family friends, colleagues, the children's classmates, and the football or basketball coach. They are well-established like everyone else and have done everything right and correctly.

In the government's eagerness to deport as many as possible, they have discarded valves and exceptions so that people who have a deep anchoring and who are rooted in Sweden are deported. It is an indescribable stain. It is the abolition of track changes or a raised wage floor just to make more deportable despite their strong connection to Sweden.

This inhumane policy does not only crush people's lives and dreams. It crushes our society while fascists openly walk the streets and feel a tailwind.

So it cannot continue. We need to break this development and build a better and safer Sweden. A government that destroys people's lives, splits families and tears society apart in the way that is now happening cannot stay in power. It needs to be voted out next year.

We need a well-considered, legally sound, and and solidary migration policy that takes its starting point in asylum law and the spirit of international conventions. But instead, we have a government that has no ambitions whatsoever to create a safe and secure reception. On the contrary, there are only deteriorations and restrictions and more insecurity and uncertainty.

In the government's eagerness to deport as many as possible, they are signing agreements with Somalia, one of the world's most corrupt countries, which we read about the other day. They have tried to buy deportations there in a setup where money goes to so-called ghost services. No Swedish authority seems to have any idea where all these millions from our tax funds are going, but the Migration Minister still thinks that this is a good idea. In DN yesterday, we could therefore read that the money goes to three officials who have all previously been accused of corruption.

We have a government that completely seems to accept open corruption. Wouldn't it be better to admit that this didn't turn out very well and start taking responsibility for this situation and cancel such an agreement and investigate it properly? One wonders what the government is doing.

Mr. Speaker! This is also a policy that comes with a high price. It is not only asylum seekers who are affected by the policy. I believe that many who are listening to the debate can agree with me that Sweden is more fragile than it has been in a long time. People are left to fend for themselves. They have to handle the economic crisis on their own. Cost shocks mean that parents have to choose between paying rent or putting food on the table. The welfare system is breaking down, not because it has to be so, but because the government has prioritized and decided that it shall be so.

The record-high unemployment is left completely without measures, and the government has succeeded in paralyzing and crashing the housing market. That is why this government repeatedly and consistently needs scapegoat politics. It can only be stated that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are failing point by point to handle serious societal problems and can do nothing other than blame immigration.

Bit by bit, the government is breaking down parts of a welfare state that people need. How can we call Sweden a welfare state when people cannot afford food? They cannot afford to pay rent or essential medicine, which the government has chosen to make even more expensive.

Believe me! It is not any immigration that has made Sweden more fragile. It is this government's priorities and ill-considered signal politics that damage the cohesion in society, which worsens and deepens the social and economic gaps between people and which makes it increasingly difficult to rebuild Sweden.

Instead of acting against or even commenting on the record-high unemployment, the alarming forecasts for the welfare system, or the ever-increasing cost of living and food prices, the government has chosen to spend billions on tax cuts for the very richest, only to return with something as meaningless and counterproductive as a return migration grant in the budget. It costs over a billion. The government's own investigator has cut it down to the bone, and municipality after municipality says: Thanks, but no thanks!

But that is how it is when the Sverigedemokraterna negotiate the budget. Then ordinary people must stand aside and be forced to bear the economic crisis themselves. Welfare shall take a backseat in favor of ill-considered billion-dollar payouts that the government throws into the sea. It is a recurring scapegoat policy from the government and the Sverigedemokraterna, who flee from the responsibility for the real problems that exist out there.

Mr. Speaker! The key to success for Sweden has never been deterioration, cuts, and worse conditions. Our strength in Sweden has been to invest in society and in each other – in welfare, education, housing, health, and equality. That is how Sweden develops, and that is how Sweden grows. Our entire modern history has proven that.

Previous generations received better education and better jobs while we became more numerous. That was possible thanks to long-term profitable investments. It is possible to build a more spacious and stronger Sweden by investing in society and the people in it. That is the most effective and important thing we can do, and then we also need to invest in and work for a dignified reception.

I am convinced that people succeed better with better conditions. It is how we invest in society and the people in it that determines how well we succeed. It never happens through this government's scapegoat policy, which we are now hearing about and which we have repeatedly heard about, for the entire society has lost out on it.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought we should talk a little bit about the Left Party's migration policy and the policy that is wanted to be pursued in the expenditure area that this debate is about.

Then one can see what Vänsterpartiet does for different priorities and what signals one makes for the politics that will come during the remaining part of this parliamentary year.

Vänsterpartiet rejects the means when it comes to the upcoming bill on a new regulatory framework for supervision and storage. Vänsterpartiet rejects the means when it comes to the bill on stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship. Vänsterpartiet rejects the means when it comes to the bill on a new reception act. Vänsterpartiet rejects the means when it comes to the bill on the establishment housing act. Vänsterpartiet rejects the means when it comes to the removal of special rules for fees for dental care for asylum seekers and undocumented persons. Vänsterpartiet rejects the means when it comes to the bill on stricter conditions for family immigration.

One wants to introduce an amnesty for unaccompanied minors who have stayed for more than a year in Sweden. One wants to increase the daily allowance for asylum seekers. One rejects the government's restrictions on asylum seekers' right to free legal advice, i.e., public counsel. One rejects funds regarding the bill on a tightened regulatory framework for deportation due to crime. One rejects funds regarding the implementation of the EU's Asylum and Migration Pact. Vänsterpartiet says no to everything.

There is now a great interest in hearing which parts Vänsterpartiet will absolutely demand in order to let Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister and potentially Morgan Johansson as returning migration minister. What are the red lines in the red politics from the red Vänsterpartiet?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I feel flattered that the Moderates are spending two minutes highlighting the Left Party's policies. I believe the member said that we reject everything. Yes, we are in opposition and do not share the government's migration policy. I believe that is what people out there count on. It is probably not particularly strange for people out there that the Left Party is opposed to the Tidö parties' migration policy. It did, however, take the member three and a half years to realize this, which pleases me.

Let me summarize: We are not for worsening conditions for asylum seekers, but we are for improvements. We do not think that one should make life as bad as possible for asylum seekers or undocumented people. Only someone with an incredibly rotten view of humanity deliberately and aggressively puts forward proposals that worsen their living conditions, their health, and their children's upbringing. I think it is incredibly bad and frighteningly cynical.

I was asked about what policy the Left Party would pursue with the other parties. We do not negotiate from the rostrum, but there is one thing I believe we agree on with the Green Party, the Social Democrats, and probably also the Centre Party: We all want to get rid of this government. I am glad that the opposition agrees on this point, because then we can build a much better, safer, and stronger Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I did not think that the Left Party's only idea in politics was to join the Social Democrats' sphere of power and idea of power above all else. I did not get that feeling when I heard the Left Party's party leader and party secretary last week demand ministerial posts in order to let Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister. I thought then that the Left Party probably has a certain policy that they will demand to have implemented and not just be content with finally getting a ministerial post, God preserve us. But what is the policy, and what are the demands?

Ola Möller claims to represent the Social Democrats' so-called strict line. Against this stand Tony Haddous' words that he supports neither the reforms nor the paradigm shift we are now undergoing. What are Tony Haddous' demands for letting Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister and Morgan Johansson as Migration Minister? I think it is relevant to get an answer to that question. It cannot just be that one wants to change the government in general, but some policy must also be wanted to pursue.

Tony Haddou therefore needs to answer the question: Will you agree to minimal asylum immigration, i.e., the Socialdemokraternas direction? Or will Tony Haddou demand increased asylum immigration to Sweden and eased rules so that more people than today come to our country? Where does Vänsterpartiet's line lie? One must be able to cooperate in order to get policies through, and Vänsterpartiet's only idea cannot be to join the Socialdemokraternas sphere of power.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I answered the question. We do not buy the cynical politics, and we want to offer improvements for this target group.

That was exactly what I spoke about in my speech. Today we have a government that has systematized deportations in a terrible way, and we cannot continue like this. Every day we are met with new reports about lives and dreams being crushed before our eyes. This is not my Sweden. It is about people with deep roots in Sweden becoming deportable because of this government. It is about children born here and young people who have grown up and lived their entire lives here being deported to countries they have no connection to, have never been to, and whose language they do not know. We must improve things for them so that they can stay. It is about parents who work in health and social care or in other shortage occupations. It is about family friends, colleagues, the children's classmates, and football or basketball coaches. We do not accept a policy that makes these people deportable. They are a part of our Sweden. They are well-established and have done everything right.

We will pursue left-wing policies, so the member does not need to worry. We will never agree to the deteriorations we see. We will move forward with improvements. We will improve for the people, so the member does not need to worry. The opposition agrees: To achieve improvements, we need to get rid of this government, and I am glad we agree on that. If Sweden is to become better, safer, and stronger, it is central to get rid of this government.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If I have understood the Left Party's proposal correctly, they want to see an amnesty for foreigners who arrived as unaccompanied children to Sweden and have now grown up and live here as illegal migrants. The Left Party has calculated that it concerns 2,700 foreigners who should receive amnesty and be rewarded with permanent residence permits for having lived in Sweden as illegal migrants. According to the Left Party, this would cost taxpayers 130 million kronor between 2026 and 2028. But the Left Party goes even further. In addition to this amnesty, they also want to investigate an amnesty for all illegal migrants.

It is therefore this kind of politics we have to deal with in a party that is supposed to function as the Social Democrats' government base. According to the Left Party, all illegal migrants shall be allowed to stay in Sweden.

I must ask the member: What is the point of trying to obtain a residence permit according to the rules that apply if Vänsterpartiet still wants to grant permanent residence permits to all illegal migrants?

I must also ask the member: Is it fair that the taxpayers should pay 130 million kronor so that illegal migrants can stay in Sweden?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is about young people who have suffered very badly due to previous decisions and therefore deserve redress. A report was released last year regarding unaccompanied minors. Eight out of ten have entered employment, primarily within elderly care. When one has suffered from decisions due to sudden legislative changes, one deserves amnesty, and we naturally stand behind that.

When it comes to the regularization of undocumented persons, previous governments conducted an investigation. A no can be a no and one is deported, but sometimes one cannot be deported and lives in Sweden as undocumented year after year.

Many of those affected are established in the labor market and have education and children who go to school and so on. They have often lived here for 13 years or more. The question is whether one should continue to have people outside the systems or if one wants people to be inside the systems and part of society.

A no is not always a no, quite simply. Unfortunately, that is how it works in reality. A no can become a yes. The Afghan girls and women are a clear example of that. They had been told no, but one day the Swedish Migration Agency decided that it is not possible to deport girls and women to Afghanistan. They got a yes. Migration policy is complicated.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party is therefore standing by the position that 2,700 illegal migrants shall be granted amnesty. Even a possible general amnesty for all illegal migrants shall be investigated. Such an arrangement means in practice that we abolish the entire idea of regulated immigration.

If the message is that those who stay illegally in Sweden for long enough receive permanent residence permits, it completely undermines respect for laws, authority decisions, and the rule of law. It is unfair to all those who actually follow the regulations, wait, apply, appeal, and accept the decisions even when the decisions go against them.

It is also an expensive proposal where taxpayers are to provide hundreds of millions of kronor so that illegal migrants can stay in Sweden. They have no right to stay in Sweden and have completely ignored how the regulatory framework works. It is not reasonable. It is not sustainable. It is not a responsible migration policy.

What signal does this send to the more than a hundred million people who are fleeing in the world? Yes, Vänsterpartiet says that these people should come to Sweden. How does the member intend for Sweden to handle such a situation? Does Vänsterpartiet want to take Sweden back to the migration chaos of 2015 with rape-violence, crime, and all the commotion that prevailed then? Is that what Vänsterpartiet wants?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member has sat in the committee and worked with migration for a while, so he probably knows people's situation. I hope he is not making himself look dumber than he wants to appear. Does he perhaps want a cool clip for social media about how Vänsterpartiet just wants amnesties and so on? I think one should be more objective and not throw out things like the member does.

The members of the committee know that people can end up in limbo for 10–15 years. The question is how we want it to be. Do we want people in the systems or outside? I have never heard the government or the Sweden Democrats resolve that situation. I do not think that people should live year after year in limbo.

In the investigation, the border police state very clearly that it is not possible to deport these people. There are many groups that end up in limbo. Undocumented, stateless Palestinians are an example of people who have lived in Sweden for many years but cannot be deported.

One also cannot have a policy that is not legally secure. I believe that one should have a legally secure migration policy. It is very important. If a person cannot be deported despite efforts having been made for ten years, I think one should consider what to do. What do you do, for example, if the person's children go to school and have grown up here, if the parents work here, if the person is established but stuck in limbo?

I think that Member Nima Gholam Ali Pour should meet someone who is an asylum seeker or undocumented. He chose to use the word illegal, but I do not believe that people are illegal. Perhaps the Member should meet some in this situation? Then they can tell how it is. They might ask the question: What should we do? And then perhaps he has an answer. They cannot be deported but live here in limbo.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with the obvious. The Christian Democrats support the government's proposed budget for the expenditure area migration.

Madam Speaker! If there is anything our country needs, it is long-term perspective, legal certainty, and responsibility. These are three words that, for many of the years preceding this mandate period, have been conspicuously absent from Swedish migration policy.

Let us be honest. During the mid-2010s, Sweden received more asylum seekers than it was possible to integrate in terms of language, work, housing, and social cohesion. At the same time, insufficient measures were taken to stop the exploitation of the asylum system. It was a policy that led to parallel societies and laid the foundation for the segregation we are still struggling with. That is why Kristdemokraterna holds firm on the need for a strict, long-term, and responsible migration policy.

Migration must remain at a continued low level. It is reasonable, realistic, and absolutely necessary. Something that is sometimes forgotten is that we must prioritize the most vulnerable, i.e., those people who truly need protection.

Madam Speaker! The right of asylum must be protected, but to protect it, we must also protect the systems around it. That one must seek protection in the first safe country is the foundation. That we need to strengthen control at the EU's external border is a self-evident matter. That lives must be saved by stopping irregular migration and human smuggling is a moral duty.

The EU's migration agreement is a big step forward, but we Christian Democrats are not satisfied there. We want to see a migration pact 2.0 where asylum is sought in centers outside the EU and where the countries' responsibilities are determined by their capacity to integrate, not by who happens to be located closest to a border.

Madam Speaker! While we stand here in the chamber and debate the budget regarding migration, a brutal war of aggression is taking place in our neighborhood. Russia's aggression against Ukraine must continue to be condemned as clearly and forcefully as on the first day.

Millions of Ukrainians have been forced to flee. The Mass Flight Directive has made it possible to offer protection quickly. The government has ensured that those who come here get access to work, education, healthcare, and support. Ukraine's cause is and remains ours. Sweden stands by Ukraine's side even moving forward.

Madam Speaker! Let us speak plainly. The migration policy pursued in Sweden under previous governments was not long-term sustainable. We know that. The Swedish people know it, and now the Social Democrats admit it themselves. The difference is that in the Tidö cooperation, we are doing something about the problems. The Government, supported by the agreement in the Tidö Agreement, has established a clear change of course.

Where the previous government got stuck in compromises with Vänstern, Miljöpartiet, and Centern, the current government delivers reforms. ”We also did things,” say the Socialdemokraterna. That is true, Madam Speaker, but not even close to enough – not even according to them themselves, most recently manifested in Lawen Redar's analysis.

Madam Speaker! Since the change of government, the following have become reality: The number of asylum seekers has decreased significantly and processing times have been shortened. No really means no. The shadow society has been pushed back. More people who have received a rejection are leaving the country. Persons who commit crimes now risk deportation to a significantly greater extent. Labor migration is steered away from low-wage jobs that can be taken by the unemployed in Sweden and directed towards needed skills. That is what responsible politics looks like. That is how a country gets back on the right track.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats have long advocated that the cases of converts must be assessed with greater legal certainty. Many different reports point out deficiencies, but the previous government chose to look away. This government does the opposite. We act. The proposals in the National Audit Office's report were implemented as a direct consequence of the Tidö Agreement. Clearer requirements have been set for the Swedish Migration Agency through regulatory letters and also requirements for reporting back. The work is yielding results, but we in KD will continue to hold on until legal certainty is fully guaranteed.

Madam Speaker! The opposition – the eternal enigma. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want to return to a policy with lower requirements and open borders. Centerpartiet usually nods along. The Socialdemokrater say, as most recently here in the chamber, that they support the government's stricter lines while the intended coalition parties want to do the opposite.

It is not a line or an alternative, but it is a patchwork with such large gaps that you can see straight through it, not least if one places the different parties' policies side by side. If there were to be a change of government in 2026 – it sends shivers down my spine – no one knows what applies – not we in Tidögänget, not the voters, and least of all those who are in opposition now.

The Social Democrats stand here in the speaker's chair and speak of a strict migration policy with order and discipline, but not even Ola Möller can say what line it will be after the election. It will certainly not be the strict line that is advocated. It is enough to hear what the Left Party just said here. Power is most important. We will see what happens.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats stand for a migration policy that is both strict and humane. We in the Christian Democrats will, together with the rest of the government base, continue to deliver. The investigations will become propositions in an unprecedented scope or pace. Reform after reform is on the way next year. We are, in fact, taking responsibility. We put legal certainty and human dignity at the center. We know that a country that receives people must give them a real chance to become a part of society.

Madam Speaker! We stand for a responsible, legally secure and humane migration policy. It is a policy that holds, not only today but also tomorrow. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and the government's budget for the migration area.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Long-term perspective, legal certainty, and responsibility were words that Ingemar Kihlström thought should characterize migration policy. At least, that is what he said in his speech. How long-term did it become for the 4,700 people who trusted that they would be allowed to continue working in Sweden? This concerns, for example, Sara and Farhood, who even heard from Ebba Busch herself that they were welcome in Sweden.

The Christian Democrats speak of values such as the family being important. But what we see in reality is something completely different. The Christian Democrats conduct a policy that splits families. The Christian Democrats have pushed through a legislative change in the Riksdag that ensures that young people after the age of 18 are sent back to their countries of origin, even though parents and siblings are allowed to stay in Sweden.

The Christian Democrats conduct a policy that makes it harder for poor mothers and fathers to take care of their own children. These may be children who have been left behind in, for example, refugee camps or with relatives to avoid the life-threatening journey of flight. They are not allowed to come to their mothers, but they have to live with only having contact on WhatsApp or Facetime because the parents have too little in wages.

I miss the Christian Democrats as I used to know them, as a party that truly cherished humanity and family.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! The image that Annika Hirvonen gives of us as a party does not match how we perceive ourselves. We can certainly disagree on that, but that is not what we should debate here.

Annika Hirvonen's party was part of the government coalition that ruled together for seven years, with a partially active support in the eighth year. Much of what is mentioned by Annika Hirvonen here in the post shows that there is a difference in politics when one is in opposition compared to when one is part of a government base. Austerity measures also occurred during the Green Party's time in government.

Annika Hirvonen makes an analysis and concludes that many of the examples raised would have been different if Miljöpartiet had been in power. Then we can look forward: What will happen if, against all odds and against my own wish, it were to become another type of red-green mess after 2026? Will Annika Hirvonen have red lines that satisfy the needs that were raised here?

I interpreted what Ola Möller from the Social Democrats said as a sharp commitment; the policy shall continue in the same tracks. Can Annika Hirvonen answer whether there are requirements to join a government together with the Social Democrats? Will the change of tracks come back? Will the requirements we have now set to achieve good integration be torn up if the Green Party is to give its support to Magdalena Andersson? It would be good to have a clarification on that front.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would very gladly answer the questions if Ingemar Kihlström were to request a reply from me. But now I have requested a reply from Ingemar Kihlström.

He claims that my description of the Christian Democrats does not correspond with his own perception. Then I wonder what of what I said does not correspond with Ingemar Kihlström's own perception. Was it that Ebba Busch did not tell the Christian family in Norsjö that she wanted them to be allowed to stay? Is it this that does not correspond? Is it not true that the Christian Democrats used to defend the family but have now pushed through a policy that only makes it harder for families on the run to live together in Sweden?

It is still only in one direction that the politics has gone now with the Christian Democrats in a government position. More families have been split after the government at the end of 2023 submitted a proposition that made it easier for persons who have a strong connection to Sweden but who have become adults to be deported. It affects precisely families where a young adult managed to turn 18 before the person received permanent residence permit. The parents are refugees while the children perhaps have never had the chance to engage in any political activity, for example against the regime in the home country.

This is what the Christian Democrats have pushed through. If the Christian Democrats do not share the description of themselves, I would like to hear how the Christian Democrats themselves describe themselves.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I note that Annika Hirvonen, during eight years with an S government, in no way succeeded in bringing the issue of converts closer to a better situation. But after three years with a small party like the Kristdemokraterna in a large government coalition, we have taken a decisive step to improve the situation for just such families. We cannot, of course, discuss an individual case, but if we look at the legal certainty of Christian converts, investigation after investigation has established that legal certainty was not secured during the previous terms.

Annika Hirvonen is now asking what we have done. Together with the other government parties, we have ensured that Statskontoret has produced a report showing that there was no legal certainty. We have also set clear requirements for Migrationsverket through the regulatory letter, which has been followed up by a report that arrived just a few weeks ago. There is also ongoing work.

We have looked out for those who need legal certainty so that the whole is examined, so that those who, for example, convert shall receive a legally secure treatment. We have ensured that. Miljöpartiet did not succeed in doing that during its seven plus one years as a supporting party for an S-government.

I can state that we ensure we meet those who have the greatest needs. Then we can state that the policy that the Green Party was involved in and supported has led to an integration debt. We now need to take care of that, and therefore we have tightened the requirements. It is about relevant requirements, such as being able to support oneself and having a home in order to bring over one's family.

As for the 18-year-olds, we will see how we handle that; there are thoughts about it in the investigation on tightened family immigration that has been submitted.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! We have been able to see democracy retreating in the world for a number of years, and this year – 2025 – we can see that the number of authoritarian countries is more than the democratic ones. People's freedom is decreasing while conflicts are increasing and climate change is beginning to leave significant marks. The consequence is obvious: Today, 123 million people are in flight, and the figure has increased for twelve consecutive years.

At the same time, we must remember that people at all times have migrated for various reasons – to work, to study, or because they have found love. For the Center Party, it is clear that people who want to move to another country should be able to do so. At the same time, it is important to be clear about which requirements and rules apply. For example, the person who comes here to work shall have a salary that is in line with collective agreements, and the person who wants to be reunited with a relative shall be able to support the person in question. It simply must work both for the person who wants to move to Sweden and for Sweden as a country.

The turmoil prevailing in the world makes migration policy increasingly important and it will continue to be so. It must work. We must have clear and distinct rules for what applies. The person who comes to Sweden must feel secure that their reasons are examined in a legally secure manner and at the same time know what happens in the next step, whether it becomes a yes or a no.

For the Center Party, the right to asylum is inviolable and one of the foundations of migration policy. Those who flee to Sweden shall have their grounds for asylum examined. Those who do not have grounds for protection shall be deported in a safe and secure manner, but those who have grounds for protection shall be welcomed and receive the best possible integration, with a focus on jobs or school and language, in order to enter society as quickly as possible.

It is also a matter of view of humanity. Today, there is a rhetoric in the Swedish debate that divides people into us and them and that points out ethnicity and cultural differences as a problem. Every person who arrives is a potential problem until the opposite is proven. The person must therefore show that they are honest before they are accepted.

For me and the Center Party, it is the opposite: Every human being is a resource. I assume that a person who has had the strength to flee from oppression to save themselves and their family also both wants and is prepared to take responsibility – responsibility for their family and for their livelihood, but also for becoming a part of the new society in which they live.

It is just a matter of looking at oneself. How would you think if you were forced to rebuild your life anew? In the beginning, support, friendly treatment, and clarity are needed, but as soon as possible, when one feels secure, one wants to manage on one's own. It is, so to speak, human. Our responsibility as a receiving country is to ensure that we support our new residents and remove any obstacles so that they have the opportunity to participate and get into jobs in our society as soon as possible.

Our view of people and how we talk about people who have moved here from another country affects the possibility of a successful integration. If you are met as a person who is naturally included and can contribute, you will also usually want to be involved and contribute. If you are instead met with suspicion, it is not so strange if you withdraw.

The possibility of succeeding in life is not only important for the individual but also crucial for Sweden's future and growth. It applies to everyone, and it should not need to be said. The worry and insecurity that the government is now spreading, especially when it comes to the 4,700 that we have mentioned a number of times here today, is not something that makes people feel secure and want to contribute.

The right to protection is more important than rapid access to all welfare benefits. Therefore, we want to steer migration towards more self-sufficiency. Asylum seekers who come to Sweden on their own should therefore be able to qualify for the security systems. We also believe that Sweden should take its responsibility and once again accept at least 5,000 quota refugees per year.

Madam Speaker! Let us speak plainly: Without labor immigration, Sweden stands still. A third of all doctors are born in another country, and the same applies to 40 percent of all healthcare assistants. There are also sectors that are crying out for more foreign labor. The tourism industry and the restaurant industry want an international mix among their employees, not to mention how great the need is for welders, electricians, and systems engineers within the industry.

An analysis from Ikem shows that labor immigration contributed 45 billion SEK to Sweden's GDP and 15 billion in tax revenues in 2025. Unfortunately, the government has made it more difficult for labor immigrants, not least through the wage floor that has been introduced despite employers protesting loudly because the labor that is needed often has a lower wage than the wage floor.

Madam Speaker! Of course, there are major problems. For many years, and regardless of government, poorly functioning integration in combination with exclusion, increased polarization, major deficiencies in preventive measures in, for example, schools, as well as closed youth centers, have contributed to dropouts and, in the long run, the crime that we see today, not least among young people. But the solution is called jobs, legal certainty, and clarity – not poster politics and not the insecurity that the government is now spreading with its us-and-them politics, where working people risk being deported.

Madam Speaker! Let me make a reflection on the unfortunate connection that has been created between migration policy and Swedish international aid. This has to do, to the highest degree, with the budget.

Swedish aid is a very important security policy instrument that, if used correctly, can contribute to a safer world and thus increased security for Sweden. By contributing to reduced poverty and reduced oppression, we build up a resilience in the world. But to, as the government does, link back by paying large sums of aid money to corrupt states so that they will accept their deported citizens from Sweden is a convoluted way of thinking. It is irresponsible, and it definitely does not contribute to Sweden's or the world's security.

Nor neither the large increase of the return migration grant from 10,000 to 340,000 kronor per person is something that contributes to better integration or to increased prosperity in Sweden. Therefore, the Center Party chooses to take the nearly 1.5 billion that the government allocates to the return migration grant during 2026 and allocate them to other things in the budget.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by referring to the Center Party's proposal for the 2026 budget. It should be seen as a whole. It is a budget for all of Sweden where we invest in making jobs more and where emissions are to be reduced. For that reason, we do not participate in the decision on the budget for expenditure area 8, but I stand behind our special statement.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! One of the few things that the red-green parties seem to agree on is that the number of quota refugees shall increase.

There are already many foreigners who are in a state of exclusion in Sweden, and there are already many who have not integrated. Nevertheless, the Center Party proposes in its budget motion that the number of quota refugees should more than quintuple. This means that the Center Party and the other red-green parties want Sweden to receive more quota refugees than the total number of foreigners who were granted asylum in Sweden last year.

It says exactly what direction the migration policy will take if the Social Democrats begin to govern the country with the help of parties such as the Center Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party. Mass immigration is the only thing these parties agree on.

My question to the member from Centerpartiet is whether the member considers that a fivefold increase in the number of quota refugees is something that Sweden needs, after a migration crisis that has created major problems for Sweden which the Tidö parties are now working to rectify. Has Centerpartiet not learned anything from what it means to pursue a liberal migration policy that damages social cohesion and trust in the entire migration system?

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! Quota refugees are a very good way to give precisely those people who are absolutely most vulnerable an opportunity to gain security. Therefore, I think the answer to the question is obvious: Yes, we have room for these people. They have a need to come here.

When it comes to how we are to deal with the integration policy, we must look at the preventive work. We must get our schools to function. We must ensure that there are youth centers in the areas where we have problems with crime. There must be more jobs. An active job policy is probably the absolute most important instrument to achieve a sensible integration. And naturally, we shall ensure that people learn the Swedish language and enter society as soon as possible.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! There are many people in the world who need to come to Sweden. But what is the migration policy that the Swedish people need? I believe that it is this that we should prioritize.

The chairman continues to avoid speaking about what the Swedish people see and notice, namely a Sweden where integration is not working and where the Center Party wants to increase the inflow even further.

Regardless of how the member chooses to formulate it, the fact remains that the Center Party wants Sweden to accept more quota refugees than the total number of people who received asylum in Sweden during the entire of last year. This is desired in a situation where schools, housing, and healthcare are already pressured by the mass immigration that the Social Democrats are responsible for, and where parallel societies have emerged under precisely the policy that the Center Party itself has been involved in shaping. To then say that Sweden needs more migration is not responsible – it is a repetition of exactly the migration policy that created the problems from the beginning.

Why does the Center Party want to increase the inflow before the problems that already exist are solved? Why does the Center Party argue that Sweden, which already has major integration problems, should receive more quota refugees than all other Nordic countries receive combined? How could it be in Sweden's interest to quintuple the number of quota refugees?

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I agree that other countries should also take greater responsibility.

I can state that 75 of the Swedish municipalities wrote and declined to meet the coordinator for repatriation grants simply because they do not want fewer citizens in their municipality. They want more.

We need more people in a number of different sectors. We do not need fewer. On the other hand, we must ensure that integration works. We must invest more in school. We must pursue an active policy that ensures children, young people, and adults enter our society. This is not what the government is doing now.

The government is conducting a poster policy that absolutely does not lead to either better integration or better trust between people in our society.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country, and Sweden shall always be a haven for people fleeing from war and persecution. At the same time, we must maintain a regulated immigration and a reception that is stable and sustainable over time. Ultimately, it is about safeguarding the trust in our asylum system, so that those who have grounds for protection can stay and build their future here, while those who lack grounds for protection return.

A long-term sustainable migration policy requires both clarity and consistency. The work on returns is therefore completely central and a prioritized issue for this government. Among other things, the rules have been tightened since before, so that a deportation decision can no longer be prescribed automatically after four years. Previously, persons could remain hidden for four years and then have their case reviewed. We have now closed that loophole.

The new order is clear: If one has been denied, one must leave the country. In order for this to work, we are expanding the capacity for our detention centers and internal immigration controls. The authorities have received more resources to hold persons in detention prior to departure when needed, and the police are conducting more controls to seek out those who stay here without permission.

Madam Speaker! To counter shadow societies is also to stand guard over our social cohesion and the security in our country. The Government has, among other things, since earlier appointed a ministerial group against the shadow society that concentrates efforts across departmental boundaries.

We shall close all loopholes exploited by unscrupulous actors, whether it concerns work-life crime, false identities or the exploitation of people, for in the shadows of the shadow society, insecurity and crime flourish.

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall not bear the responsibility for migration alone. European cooperation and solidarity are required. Therefore, the Liberals and the government are pushing for a greater shared responsibility within the EU when it comes to the reception of asylum seekers.

Pleasantly enough, we now see historical progress within the EU's asylum policy. After years of deadlocks, the countries in the union have agreed on principles for a new asylum and migration pact. This means, in short, that all member states must contribute, either by accepting more asylum seekers or through economic and administrative solidarity. It is precisely the fair distribution we have long called for.

The refugee situation must be managed collectively. We must not leave countries such as Greece, Cyprus, Italy and Spain alone with the responsibility, and countries such as Sweden should also not have to unilaterally bear a disproportionate burden.

The new cooperation practice that now applies within the EU is not only about redistribution but also about strengthening our borders and streamlining the asylum process. Order at the EU's external borders is a prerequisite for free movement within Schengen.

Through more efficient examinations of asylum applications, we will be able to determine early on who actually has a need for protection. Those who lack grounds for asylum will then receive a faster notice of rejection and be able to return instead of disappearing into Europe and living irregularly. This benefits our entire continent.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must compete for the sharpest talents. We need highly qualified labor to strengthen our country's development and prosperity. Unfortunately, the Swedish system for labor immigration has for a long time been hampered by an all too slow and complicated bureaucracy. Therefore, this government is making a reorganization in order to be able to attract more top talents to Sweden.

Since earlier, the Swedish Migration Agency has been tasked with significantly shortening the processing times for work permits in qualified occupations. It simply should not take an eternity for a company to hire an engineer from abroad.

Already now we see that the process is starting to move faster. The original mandate given was that complete applications for work permits for highly qualified labor should receive a decision within 30 days. The actual average time is now approximately 18 days. That is excellent. A well-functioning process is crucial for our companies to be able to grow and invest here in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I have already touched upon it, but when companies cannot find employees within the country with the competence they need, it is important that they can recruit from abroad. The Government and the Sweden Democrats will not raise the wage floor for labor migration to 100 percent of the median wage, as we had previously signaled. Instead, we have agreed that the wage floor shall remain at 90 percent. At the same time, the announcement is that the list of 152 exempted occupations is no longer applicable.

It is no secret that we Liberals would preferably not have wanted to raise the requirements at all, but instead wanted to see the arrangement that collectively agreed wages would apply in respective industries, but we are relieved that it will at least not be 100 percent of the median wage.

An important point in this area is, however, that we are simultaneously tightening the rules against fraud and exploitation. Work permits can now be denied to employers who have received sanctions directed against them or who are suspected of or convicted of crimes, and new criminal classifications are introduced to punish exploitation of foreign labor as well as trafficking in work permits. This is also very good. The message is clear: In Sweden, we do not tolerate anyone exploiting labor or making money from selling work permits.

Madam Speaker! A reform that is particularly close to the hearts of us Liberals is the introduction of language and social studies tests for Swedish citizenship. The Government is now working on developing this, and it is truly high time. Citizenship is one of the finest commitments and rights one can receive in this country. It marks that one has become a part of our community and the democratic society, with everything that it entails of rights and obligations.

Language is the key into the community. Without the language, it becomes difficult to enter the labor market, to keep up with society and to exercise one's rights fully. The person who wants to become a Swedish citizen shall show a willingness to become a part of our country.

Madam Speaker! During this parliamentary term, we have shifted the direction of the migration policy. For a long time, we have had a situation that has not been good for us or for the people who came here.

Sweden takes its responsibility with effective returns, a stop to shadow societies and a focus on protection and integration, and by seeking solutions together with other countries in the EU.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! At the Liberals' convention, you decided to advocate for a migration policy that rewards self-sufficiency, responsibility, and establishment as the basis for residence permits. This can at least be read on the Liberals' website.

I therefore wonder if Patrik Karlson will take any initiatives so that the Tidösamarbetet will stop the deportations of the 4,700 asylum seekers who are precisely self-sufficient, responsible, and established. The policy that the government has pursued means that people who have worked in Sweden for many years with work permits, who have learned Swedish, who have become a part of society, and who therefore work or run businesses now risk losing their opportunity for continued residence permits.

One has to sell the house and pull the children from their schooling and is referred to travel to the home country. If one is lucky, perhaps the employer can keep the job vacant so that one can apply for one's own job again from, for example, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran, or whichever country it is that one is deported to.

It is, of course, an enormous uncertainty that affects these people. One of all these, whom I have met, is a woman from Iran. She has fought for women's rights and against the Iranian regime. She is forced to go there, and if she is lucky, she can seek her job within health and social care from Iran.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Annika Hirvonen for the question!

Let me first and foremost state that one still has the opportunity to work in this country as a labor migrant through the regular process. Just as I mentioned in my speech, Sweden has a need for skills in many sectors.

I believe that the rest of the government also shares the view that we need attractive labor. But we cannot allow the asylum process itself to be transformed into an alternative track for labor immigration. There must be order and clarity, and we shall adhere to the regular procedures that exist for recruiting foreign labor where it is needed.

With that said: We see the problems that have arisen with the legislation. Based on the framework and the opportunity that exists with the time remaining in the mandate period and with the work that is already being carried out at the ministries, we shall do our best to see how the issue can be resolved for the number of people who have been caught in the crossfire.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It would be incredibly welcome if the Liberals did it, because it is truly no order to, after several years in Sweden, receive notice that one must suddenly leave Sweden and go to Afghanistan to re-apply for one's own job. It is no order to hear: Now you must wind down your company to go to Iran, and then perhaps you can apply for a work permit again in Sweden.

It is rather total chaos. It is not being able to trust the decisions that politicians have once made. I really hope that the Liberals and Patrik Karlson do this and see to it that they stop this retroactively applied change. But as recently as today, Patrik Karlson voted no to it in the Riksdag's Social Insurance Committee when we in Miljöpartiet submitted a proposal to stop this.

Well; I also understand that one might have to have that discussion internally when one is part of a cooperation. But in the end, for the people, families, entrepreneurs, colleagues and classmates who are affected by the decisions, it is the result that counts.

I spoke earlier with the Christian Democrats, who clutched their chests because they have found an opportunity to push through an evaluation showing that we have legal uncertainties in the asylum system for converts. Congratulations! Fine, and good so! But in reality, converts are being deported right now because rules regarding, among other things, change of track have been altered. It feels like it has nevertheless been the Sweden Democrats who have dictated everything until now.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

It is exactly as the member himself states: We negotiate within the framework of the government and the Tidö Agreement and do not act spontaneously on any committee initiatives.

I must point out that the government stands firm that we must re-establish order and clarity in Swedish migration policy, and it is only to be stated that the possibility of switching tracks that previously existed has unfortunately undermined much of the legitimacy of the system.

If one comes to Sweden and seeks asylum even though one does not have grounds for protection, we think it is unreasonable that one can, from within the country, look for other ways to stay. It sends completely wrong signals that one can bypass the laws and rules that we have. One exploits loopholes, and it simply creates an imbalance.

With that said: Now that this new order is nevertheless established, we shall do what we can to see to those people who have been caught in the middle and how their situation can possibly be rectified.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating expenditure area 8 Migration. Migration issues are something that has been discussed very much in the public debate in recent years. Perhaps a third of the Tidö Agreement's various proposals concern migration.

Very often when we listen to representatives of the government parties, we hear that they justify various legislative proposals by saying they want to strike at crime. That we want to combat crime is probably one of the things that we all agree on in this chamber. But what the representatives of the government parties perhaps do not speak as loudly about are all the hardworking, law-abiding people who have immigrated to Sweden as part of building Sweden stronger. These are people who are now being cast into suspicion, people who now have their rights curtailed and diminished, people who now worry about their future and ask themselves: Is Sweden a good country for my children to grow up in?

Some may have once felt that Sweden was a homeland where one felt at home and was proud of. But when the government begins to pay out hundreds of thousands of kronor in repatriation grants to get rid of immigrants, many have this feeling shaken to its core. It weakens the trust between people. It makes Sweden weaker.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet want to see a different direction where we talk about people as resources and where we talk about human rights as something to defend and strengthen rather than something that one should try to minimize and bypass.

In the Environment Party's Sweden, all children should be able to feel safe in the country they grow up in – go on the school trip, get a driver's license, and dream of a university education. I have met children whose greatest wish is to get a personal identity number – children who are born in Sweden, who have lived their entire lives here, and who are about to start middle school but who still do not have the most basic of securities. These are children who are forced to live their entire lives without papers due to this government's policy.

Recently, I met one of the women who has had her entire existence shattered into pieces by the government's policy. She has worked in health and social care and lives with her partner, who is a refugee. She has been involved in opposition against her home country's oppressive regime and Iran's restrictions on women's freedom. She has had a residence permit in Sweden with a change of track, but now the government has taken away her chance to continue living here. She asks: Where am I supposed to go? What will happen to me if I return to Iran?

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet think that what the government talks about—that it should pay off to work, learn Swedish, behave, and become integrated—should mean something for real. The people who have done exactly that but are now being made deportable by the thousands should have been able to continue building their lives and building our country stronger here.

We therefore want to put a stop to the removal of the possibility for asylum seekers to apply for a renewed residence permit in Sweden that the government has introduced. We in Miljöpartiet submitted such a proposal in the Committee on Social Insurance. The Tidö parties and the Social Democrats voted against it today.

Madam Speaker! A migration policy that does well for people to integrate into Sweden is based on people being able to feel security here, that one is allowed to live in a place where one comes into contact with Swedish society and that one can start learning Swedish as early as possible. Therefore, we propose that refugees should be given apartments that are spread out in different parts of society instead of everyone being gathered in one place. That would promote integration much more than the policy that the government is conducting.

Security – knowing that I can now end my flight for the last time – is something many first feel when they receive a long-term residence permit. The permanent residence permits give people a good foundation to feel that they can take root in their new country. It simply becomes easier to concentrate on the grammar lessons at SFI when one does not need to worry about losing the right to stay in Sweden next year.

As the Ukrainian doctor I met at the Red Cross food distribution said: It takes two years as a Ukrainian doctor to get a Swedish medical license. My residence permit only lasts one year at a time. I wonder if it is even worth starting to validate my medical education.

It is unfortunately the type of decision people make when they do not have long-term, predictable security in a country.

We in Miljöpartiet think that one of the biggest problems today is that refugees risk dying on the flight across the Mediterranean. Secure and legal routes for refugees to seek asylum are needed. Today, the quota refugee system is the secure and legal way that exists. It is the only way for the absolutely most vulnerable refugees, who do not have the possibility to take these life-threatening escape routes.

We think it was wrong that the government cut the number of quota refugees so significantly while the number of people fleeing in the world is increasing. We need to ensure that more EU countries take responsibility for offering an opportunity for some of the world's most vulnerable refugees to receive protection.

Madam Speaker! Legal certainty in the asylum process is something that we in Miljöpartiet have often highlighted. There are major deficiencies today. This is shown, not least by the latest report from Statskontoret but also by many reports before that. These are reports that, for example, have examined LGBTQ+ refugees' opportunities and rights, but also converts.

We have seen how people changed their minds from one day to the next. First, it was said that women could travel safely back to the Taliban's Afghanistan. The next day, it had nevertheless been realized that it was not safe for women.

The issues in legal certainty need to be addressed. We in Miljöpartiet think it is completely the wrong way to weaken legal certainty as the government has signaled in its budget. Specifically, for example, the possibility for asylum seekers to receive support from a lawyer or competent jurist is to be minimized. The public counsel, as it is called, which functions as support for the asylum seeker during the process at Migrationsverket, shall now only be allowed one hour with the asylum seeker. One hour which is also interpreted means, in practice, only 30 minutes to explain what rights one has and what one must keep in mind to present one's grounds for asylum in a way that the authority actually understands.

Madam Speaker! There are many fine words about wanting to strengthen legal certainty from representatives of the government parties, but the fact is that in practice, one is doing the exact opposite.

We in Miljöpartiet want to see a debate on migration policy that highlights the fantastic contributions that people who have moved to Sweden every day make to our society. Every other bus driver, assistant nurse, and childcare worker has just moved to Sweden, as well as every third doctor. Our welfare would be much weaker without these people.

When the government limits the possibility for companies and municipalities to employ labor migrants, yes, that makes Sweden poorer. We in Miljöpartiet therefore oppose the limitations that the government has signaled regarding labor immigration. Since our proposal has fallen in the framework decision, we only have a special statement, and we therefore do not participate in the vote on expenditure area 8.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! My quest for consumer information, or rather voter information, continues tonight. It is entirely relevant, especially regarding migration policy, I want to assert. In this, one still needs to contrast the Green Party's policy with the Social Democrats' policy in the area.

The Social Democrats, led by Magdalena Andersson, and in an echo tonight by Ola Möller, say that they want to conduct a strict migration policy at the EU's minimum level. Then we hear the Green Party propose something completely different. They propose that more people should come to Sweden. They want to increase the attraction factors to Sweden, and they are not satisfied that we now have the lowest asylum-related immigration to Sweden since 1985.

Therefore, I also intend to ask Annika Hirvonen the following questions: What are the requirements for letting Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister and Morgan Johansson as the new Migration Minister? What will Miljöpartiet demand to have pushed through of its own policy?

I can take an example that we saw earlier today, when we in the Social Insurance Committee had deliberations with the government regarding parts of the EU's asylum and migration pact and the subsequent policy resulting from it, the so-called solidarity pool – a pool to distribute refugees across Europe. The Green Party has said that they want to see a mandatory redistribution. The Social Democrats do not want a mandatory redistribution of asylum seekers in the union, but the Green Party stated that they had a dissenting position and wanted a mandatory redistribution. Is this something that will be required by the Green Party to let Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Democracy is not a market, politics is not a commodity and the voter is not a consumer. I am glad that Viktor Wärnick corrected himself at the beginning of his speech.

Democracy is something we create together. Election day is a solemn day. But I hope that many voters participate in democracy on other days than election day as well.

My dream is a world where no one is forced to flee. I do not dream of more refugees to Sweden. I do not dream of more refugees to the EU. I do not dream of larger refugee camps in Lebanon or Rwanda. I dream of a world where no one is forced to flee.

We in Miljöpartiet do not just dream about it, but we conduct a policy to achieve it. It shall be an aid policy that truly reduces poverty, promotes democracy and builds peace. It shall be a climate policy that reaches the climate goals, which ensures that we prevent the worst natural disasters that research can otherwise predict and which we know would drive millions more people into flight.

The question of mandatory redistribution was indeed something we pushed for in the negotiations on the pact in the European Parliament. What I reacted to today was rather that the Moderaterna have shifted from wanting more people to help, to wanting that people should help as little as possible within the EU.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I intend to ask the question once more. What are the Green Party's demands to let through a Social Democratic government, which one naturally also wants to be a part of and where one wants to have control over all those thousands of government decisions that are made annually? What are the Green Party's demands when it comes to migration policy to do this?

I think the voters deserve to hear the demands. It cannot be that Miljöpartiet is allowed to stand here and say that there will be no difference if the Socialdemokrater come to power compared to when we coalition parties rule now. We know that it will not be so. We know that Annika Hirvonen will demand major changes to the migration policy. We know that Tony Haddou will demand major changes to the migration policy. Therefore, we must get answers to the questions so that when the voters go to the polling stations next autumn, they know what it means to have Miljöpartister and Vänsterpartister in a government together with the Socialdemokrater.

Today's question in the Committee on Social Insurance regarding the solidarity pool – that is, whether one should either perform a redistribution of resources to help countries with high migrant pressure, primarily countries around the Mediterranean, or a redistribution of migrants – was whether the Green Party could stand behind the Swedish line that we should not accept any asylum seekers from these countries given the high pressure and the integration debt that exists in Sweden today.

The government's line and the Moderaternas line, the coalition partners' line, is that we should not do it. While the Socialdemokraterna joined this, Miljöpartiet had a deviating position. This is just one in a series of all those parts where Miljöpartiet thinks we need to have more asylum seekers to Sweden. It should be an easier regulatory framework that makes the pull factors to Sweden increase.

Instead of talking about climate policy in general or economic policy in general, perhaps the Green Party could manage to answer what will be required to let Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The short answer is that it has not been decided yet. Recently, we had a party congress where we adopted a new party program. The party program is the Green Party's long-term vision document which extends over many parliamentary terms.

At the next congress, in March, we will develop the policy that we want to pursue for the coming four years in Sweden if we are given the opportunity to decide. After that, we will develop an election manifesto and, of course, also take a stand on what the biggest and most important priorities should be when we are to govern Sweden together with the Social Democrats after the 2026 election.

I understand that the Moderaterna are curious about how it will be after the 2026 election. They spend a great deal of time asking us on the red-green side about it, because they realize that it is we who will be deciding after the 2026 election. I cannot wait until we are sitting there. Viktor Wärnick obviously cannot either. In all the debates we have had on migration policy, he has enthusiastically asked how it will be.

If we are to be a bit serious, it is no coincidence that I am talking about the climate. It is the defining issue of our time, and not only for those of us living in Sweden today. It is a defining issue, not least for the most vulnerable people in the world, for those who already live in refugee camps and for those who will not be able to remain in the places where they live today due to natural disasters, droughts that destroy agricultural production, etc.

Therefore, I dare to say that it will be Miljöpartiet's absolutely most important issue.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet writes in its budget motion that the processing times regarding citizenship are too long. The party wants to allocate 50 million kronor annually so that the processing of citizenship cases can go faster.

Between 2020 and 2024, approximately 391,000 foreigners have been granted Swedish citizenship. Does the member not think that is enough? Should it go even faster? How many Swedish citizens must be granted before the member from Miljöpartiet becomes satisfied? Would the member have been satisfied if there had been half a million new citizens between 2020 and 2024?

Now the Tidö parties must ensure that not every person who makes their way to Sweden can become a Swedish citizen. There must be language and social studies requirements. Those who want to become citizens must be able to support themselves. And there must be stricter requirements on an honest way of life. One simply must be a part of the community before one can become a citizen.

But this is Miljöpartiet completely against. Miljöpartiet argues that we should continue as we do now, when almost 400,000 foreigners become Swedish citizens over four years. It is not sustainable. There is no support among the general public for such a system.

How does Miljöpartiet reason when one argues that a foreigner who has not even learned Swedish should be able to become a Swedish citizen?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I understand the question as the member asking whether Miljöpartiet thinks it should take faster than four years to receive a decision from a Swedish authority when the law says that one should receive their decision after six months. Yes, Miljöpartiet thinks it is bad with illegally long waiting times for decisions on citizenship.

It is not only Miljöpartiet that thinks it is a problem. The National Audit Office recently stated in a report that there are enormous deficiencies in the processing of citizenship cases. It takes far too long.

The law says that one should receive their decision within six months at the latest, and if one has not received it, one even has the right to request from a court that one should receive their decision. It is of course completely unacceptable that people have had to wait as long as four years. It is eight times longer than the law allows.

I have a tip for the Sweden Democrats, who want fewer people to come to Sweden. In that case, it is perhaps not so smart to lie and say that anyone who comes here gets to become a Swedish citizen. That is not the case, and it actually has never been so.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I hear what the member says, but I also note what the member does not address. How many new citizens does Miljöpartiet think it is reasonable for Sweden to receive? It is a simple question, but Miljöpartiet does not dare to address it.

That is exactly where the dividing line lies in this debate. The Government and the Sweden Democrats consider that citizenship should be something one earns. The Green Party treats it more as a formality to be distributed as soon as the administrative hurdles are removed. That is not how most Swedes view citizenship.

It is not about speeding up the processing of citizenship cases. It is about truly becoming a part of the community and confirming this in some way. That is how most in the country view citizenship. It is about those who become a part of this country having a common ground with those who already live here, so that we can feel that we live in and belong to the same country.

One cannot distribute citizenship in the way it has been done in recent years. It is a problem that so many citizenships have been granted to foreigners who have not adopted Swedish values.

I ask again: How many citizenships does Miljöpartiet actually think Sweden should issue?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We believe that those who meet the requirements for citizenship should receive their decision on citizenship in a timely manner. I do not believe that any party, in fact, not even SD, has set any kind of limit on how many people should be allowed to become Swedish citizens, how many children should be born in Sweden or not be born, and so on.

We have for quite some time had a population that has increased. Now many are worried that it is decreasing. We in Miljöpartiet believe that the task of politics is rather to adapt to reality than to wish that reality were different.

I made a small Freudian slip when I listened to Nima Gholam Ali Pour just a moment ago. I believe he said: We should not hand out so many citizenships. But I heard: We should not divide up citizenships. It might be because I think quite a bit about how Nima and his colleagues in the Tidö parties want to precisely divide up citizenships into an A-team and a B-team and quite often divide people into us and them. They pit groups against each other. In our latest exchange of remarks, it was mutilated children in Gaza who were pitted against interpreters who have risked their lives for Swedish forces in Afghanistan.

I must apologize for the mishearing. But I can state that while we in Miljöpartiet present a policy for increased legal certainty and for people who have waited illegally long for their decisions to receive decisions in time, SD puts its resources into divisive politics that make people living here feel unwelcome. This applies, for example, to the return migration grant, which a majority of the municipalities have actually said they are completely uninterested in. Unlike Nima Gholam Ali Pour, they namely want more citizens, not fewer.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can observe that the ranks are thinning here in the chamber. Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone, despite having participated in the debate, has the strength to endure until the turn came to the Minister for Migration, who has sat here and listened the whole time. It is somewhat remarkable that, for example, the Social Democrats are once again leaving a debate. Honor to the members from Miljöpartiet and others who remain and participate.

I would like to follow up on my and Member Hirvonen's previous exchange. Many of us from the rostrum and in the exchanges have requested a line for the intended government alternative. In our latest exchange, Member Hirvonen replied: The Christian Democrats may take the floor on the Green Party.

It can be observed that the Social Democrats during this mandate period have voted yes to practically everything, while the Green Party and the Left Party have almost always voted no, regardless of whether it has concerned migration, asylum, or labor migration.

One can also ask why the Green Party chose not to ask any question about the track change to the Social Democrats. It was, in fact, the case that the Social Democrats stood for that change and even argued for it. Could it be that the Green Party and the Social Democrats have already settled that issue, so that there is a decision? It would have been relevant to also ask Ola Möller about the 4,700, but that question was never asked.

The questions are highly relevant: What red lines exist? What are the requirements? Which changes are to be overturned? Which posts are to be allocated? Is it perhaps the case that the red line for Miljöpartiet is to – to everyone's horror – have the Migration Minister post taken from the Socialdemokraterna? What are the red lines moving forward?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I keep my word, and I will answer Ingemar Kihlström's questions now that he has taken the floor on me.

I will begin with the Social Democrats and the issue of track switching. I must say that I truly think it is wrong that even the Social Democrats voted yes to that 4,700 people who work and contribute to Swedish welfare should be expelled from the country after several years here.

But I asked another question to Ola Möller, and it was about removing permanent residence permits. I have long been incredibly curious about where the Social Democrats will land on that issue. In very many issues, the Social Democrats, just like the Christian Democrats, have landed on the Tidö parties' line. I was happy when I heard that Ola Möller in his statement said something that sounded exactly like the Social Democrats have now landed on saying no. I am very happy to have had that confirmed from the parliamentary rostrum.

Then I received a question about a line. Ingemar Kihlström is calling for a line from the opposition. I would then like to remind that Sweden does not have a two-party system. We have a multi-party system where it is common for each party to go to the election on its own policy; then one negotiates and settles. I actually think it is somewhat of a strength that the voters have many nuances of progressive to choose from on election day.

Ingemar Kihlström also asked if we will issue ultimatums regarding specific ministerial posts. We have not discussed that question, but I believe, if I am to be blunt, that the focus will lie on the content of the policy.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that for a successful and straight course after an election, it is good to speak about what matters before the election. We actually did that on Tidösidan. We said that we wanted to work together. We said what policy we wanted to pursue. We received the voters' confidence.

But here we move into the hazy landscape, where different lanterns shine in any direction. We can observe that the Social Democrats stand for all the changes in migration policy, including the change of track, while the Left and the Green Party set their fire in the absolute opposite direction and say that we should go in that direction instead.

To say that one will reach an agreement after the election is not to show respect for the voters. To show respect is to say what one wants to do together. We can observe that the questions we have posed to the various representatives in the exchanges of remarks have received empty answers. Regarding the change of track, one can imagine that an amnesty will be introduced or that our line will be maintained. One can imagine that the quota refugee level will be low or that it will be high. We do not know, and no one knows.

In my main speech, I took up the patchwork quilt. It has not become denser. Rather, it has just become a frame remaining. One says that one wants to be against something. But it would be relevant to say what one wants to be for as well. It is actually worth it for the voters to know. I hope that Annika Hirvonen can highlight three points that are musts for Miljöpartiet to join a government with the Socialdemokraterna. Three points – that would be very relevant.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Ingemar Kihlström claims that it is a lack of respect for the voters not to reach an agreement before the election. I mean that it is precisely the opposite. To show respect for the voters and for the election result is to ensure that the election result determines how much of the Miljöpartiet's policy and how much of the Socialdemokraterna's policy the next government pursues. If more people vote for Miljöpartiet, it must mean that more of Miljöpartiet's policy will be implemented and vice versa. That is, if anything, having respect for the election result and the voters.

We are all transparent and clear about what we stand for, what vision we have for society, and what basic values it rests on. If there is one thing I feel secure about regarding the parties on my side in politics, it is that we agree on the value of human life. That is more than can be said about the Tidö parties.

In my exchange with Viktor Wärnick, I was asked about requirements and red lines. Now it was formulated as three points. But the fact is that we in Miljöpartiet are currently working on the action program that our congress this year will decide that Miljöpartiet shall go to the election on. We have an internal democratic process where all members are involved in deciding which will be the most prioritized issues. I, of course, have some issues that I think are particularly important, and they concern, among other things, children's rights. But it is not only I who decides, but we have internal democracy.

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Just as several have said in here, Sweden is a fantastic country. It is good that we can at least agree on something here today. We have hard-working people. We have world-leading companies. We have a freedom and a tolerance that is greater in Sweden than in most countries around the world.

But the wonderful country Sweden faces great challenges. For far too long, Sweden has had an almost requirement-free migration and integration policy. There have probably not been any lack of good intentions from the red-green side, but the policy has been characterized by an immense naivety. That naivety has paved the way for a failed integration and for extensive problems in Swedish society, with children who do not see their parents go to work, vulnerable areas, a growing gang criminality, and a sense of hopelessness where there should instead be hopefulness.

This cannot be ignored, and it cannot be explained away either. Swedish voters know that. That is why they told us in the 2022 election: Enough is enough with the red-green chaos in migration policy. They gave us a clear mission and a mandate to bring order and clarity to Swedish migration and integration policy.

Madam Speaker! That is precisely the work we are now carrying out. We are reforming the migration policy with a focus on reduced asylum migration. We are improving integration and strengthening the significance of Swedish citizenship.

Outside in Europe, the refugee crisis is still ongoing. The figures are still very high. Many countries in our international community testify to a continued very high asylum pressure, to problems with an asylum reception that is still all too high, and to the integration problems that are growing in its wake.

The Swedish government's work is yielding results. Our decisiveness in tightening the asylum legislation has led to the number of asylum seekers in Sweden decreasing by nearly 60 percent since we took over government power from the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet.

The figures today are the lowest since 1996, and they continue to decrease. If we also include family immigration and quota refugees, we have today the lowest reception, the lowest asylum-related immigration, since 1985. That is actually as far back in time as we have figures for. It matters who governs in Sweden, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

The government's migration policy work also attracts attention in many other countries. Ten years ago, journalists came to Sweden from the rest of Europe and also from outside Europe to write report after report on how badly things could go when a country like Sweden lost control over migration.

They wrote articles and produced reports about chaos and disorder and about people who suffered. They wrote about a red-green government that, until the very end, refused to implement any changes or tightenings of the migration policy, even though those tightenings were completely obvious for the vast majority in Sweden.

They wrote a report about a prime minister who said that his Europe did not build any walls and about a deputy prime minister who cried when one was finally forced to implement necessary changes to the asylum legislation.

Ten years later, the same journalists return to Sweden, but this time to write reports about Sweden as a pioneering country. It is the result of a both clear and consistent policy. They write reports about a Sweden that has order and discipline and has succeeded in reducing asylum migration while it increases in many other countries.

Our approach in migration policy is clear and distinct. Those who have grounds for protection shall be granted asylum. But unlike previously when the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet ruled, those who do not have grounds for protection must actually return home.

Return migration is also increasing now. After having decreased every year during the previous term, the number of people returning has increased by 63 percent since the government took office. At the same time, we have shifted the focus. Sweden has moved from primarily being an asylum immigration country to today being a country for high-skilled labor immigration.

Let me be clear: It is good for Sweden. It is good for our competitiveness. The processing time that we inherited from the red-green government in these matters was over three months long. Today, Madam Speaker, it is down to three weeks. Again: It matters who governs in Sweden.

This government sees the problems. We are addressing them, and we are achieving a change. We stand on the side of hard-working people, regardless of whether one is born in Sweden or abroad.

Madam Speaker! The Government is taking a holistic approach. We are reforming virtually all parts of the previous red-green and failed migration policy.

We are reforming the reception of asylum seekers by abolishing the right to own housing, so-called EBO. We are introducing reception centers, which provides faster processes and counters segregation.

We are increasing the number of internal immigration controls. We are expanding the number of detention centers and introducing return centers.

We are tightening the requirements for family immigration with a proposal on waiting time and a stricter maintenance requirement which shall also be assessed upon extension of permission.

We are also lowering the threshold for deportation due to crime. The very largest group of people who have come to Sweden are honest and hardworking people. They are not criminals; on the contrary, they want to work.

As recently as yesterday, I met a Syrian family in Eskilstuna who have started a company and are now hiring new employees in stone quarrying. We see their important work. They make Sweden better. They are a part of Sweden. They are Swedes.

But then there is also a group of people who do not behave, who commit serious crimes, who disregard laws and rules, who create crime victims and who believe that one can behave however they want in Sweden.

Unfortunately, they are partly right. People have been able to do pretty much whatever they want in Sweden. Crimes have not been solved. Serious criminals have been coddled. Instead of being deported, people who have committed crimes have been granted residence permits and even housing allowances by the previous red-green government.

Now we are lowering the threshold for deportation. We are cleaning up the many strange exceptions that the red-green government left behind. We no longer pay out aid completely without conditions. We are clear that we expect the recipient countries to also listen to our Swedish priorities and that they shall follow international law and receive their own citizens.

We do this to maintain the credibility of the migration policy, but also so that these dangerous individuals can no longer commit new crimes in Sweden and so that their crime victims can receive the justice they actually deserve.

Madam Speaker! There are many more examples of the paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy. Next year, a completely new law for Swedish citizenship will be in place. It is well the very finest thing one can be in Sweden, namely a Swedish citizen. Until now, one has been able to become a citizen after only five years. It has been without requirements to be able to speak a single word of Swedish, without requirements to know anything about Sweden, and without requirements on how one behaves.

From the Social Democrats and the Green Party, we inherited legislation where there are even examples of a person becoming a citizen while he was being detained for a murder, for which he was later convicted, and therefore could not be deported. That was the policy with the Social Democrats and the Green Party. But with the Moderate-led government, that is over.

Madam Speaker! For far too many years, Swedish citizenship has been reduced to merely being a travel document. Now it becomes something to strive for. It is a confirmation that one has been fully integrated into Swedish society.

The government is doing what no other government has managed or wanted to do. We are extending the period for citizenship from five to at least eight years. We are introducing requirements for knowledge of the Swedish language and of Swedish society. We are introducing requirements for an honest way of life and, for the first time, also a requirement that one must have their own livelihood in Sweden.

It is important and reasonable requirements both for citizenship to mean something, but also for more people who come to Sweden to learn the Swedish language and become a part of our social community. More people should work and behave correctly so that we do not just manage the integration but also succeed with the integration.

Madam Speaker! We are strengthening the Swedish Migration Agency so that Sweden receives an organized, safe and efficient reception. This means new reception centers, presence controls, new obligations and better security.

We are investing in a social introduction that actually gives asylum seekers knowledge about Swedish norms and obligations. We are implementing the EU's migration and asylum pact with better border procedures and a system that holds together.

At the same time, we are also reducing costs, among other things by limiting the right to a public counsel to the EU's minimum level, and we are demanding efficiencies in the entirety of the Swedish Migration Agency's operations.

The regulatory framework for detention is being modernized and will enable more people to be held in detention or kept under supervision when necessary. With stricter rules for deportation due to crime, we ensure that significantly more convicted criminals also leave Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We are well on our way to resolving many of the problems that Sweden faces. But after the next election, there is a risk that everything we have achieved now will be demolished. The red-green side is hardly in agreement on a single thing in migration policy. But so much we know, is that the naivety remains.

The Social Democrats speak of a strict migration policy. But it is, as this debate has shown, very unclear what they actually mean by that.

We know one thing. The Social Democrats' party leader herself has said that 19,000 asylum seekers, according to her, is not just a strict migration policy. It is even a very strict migration policy.

It is a tripling of today's asylum reception. It is an irresponsible policy that would put Sweden in great problems and severely worsen our chances of succeeding with integration.

Regardless, they will need to reach an agreement with Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet. There, it sometimes sounds as if immigration, even when it was at 2015's record-high levels, was not a problem.

We have the Left Party, who do not even agree that the refugee crisis was a crisis at all. It was a normal day at work with 250,000 asylum seekers in two years.

We have Miljöpartiet which, area by area, says no to tightening. They say no to setting higher requirements for Swedish citizenship. They say no to tightened livelihood requirements for family migration. They say no to reclaiming the citizenship of criminals. They say no to deporting persons who misbehave. They say no to finding collaborations to carry out more deportations of persons who have committed crimes.

But they say yes to one thing. Sweden should, in a situation where our surroundings have transitioned to temporary residence permits, stand out and reintroduce permanent residence permits.

It is, Madam Speaker, proposals and policies that are designed with clinical precision to take Sweden straight back to the 2015 refugee crisis. It is an irresponsible policy that would increase asylum migration, worsen integration problems, and lead to thousands of children having to grow up in exclusion and poverty.

These are the parties the Social Democrats want to give a veto to in migration policy. We know how it ended last time. It ended with higher asylum immigration. During only the year that Magdalena Andersson was Prime Minister, asylum immigration increased by over 40 percent – in a single year. At that time, I have not mentioned the upper secondary school law or the refusal to implement tightenings in important areas of migration policy.

The Social Democrats whistle and pretend as if nothing has happened. There are no common answers and no common policy. Don't look here! There is nothing to see here anyway.

The Social Democrats do not want to have this debate. Ola Möller might not dare to have it, but we Moderates do not fear the challenges that Sweden faces. We do not fear the debate either. We are convinced that a better tomorrow is possible. That is why we are reforming the migration policy – away from the red-green parties' chaos. We say no to returning to a migration policy without requirements. Instead, we are implementing important changes so that Sweden will have a migration policy with more order and structure, so that we do not just manage integration but succeed with integration, hold our country together, increase social cohesion, and move our fantastically fine Sweden forward.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare and Viktor Wärnick (both M), Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) and Ingemar Kihlström (KD) agreed.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! There were many big words. It was a lot about order and tidiness, about establishing credibility and so on. At the same time, the Minister has signed agreements with Somalia, which has been noticed in the media recently. It is one of the world's most corrupt countries. The Minister has tried to buy deportations there in a setup where the money goes to so-called ghost services.

No Swedish authority seems to have any idea where these millions from our tax funds have gone, but the Minister for Migration thinks that this arrangement seems completely okay. In DN yesterday, we could therefore read that money is going to three officials who have all previously been accused of corruption. They go to a personal friend of the Prime Minister, to another who calls himself a cousin of the Prime Minister, and to a third who is the initiator of the arrangement. What these three have in common, besides standing close to the Prime Minister and taking a share of these funds, is that they have previously been accused of links to corruption. This is therefore happening in one of the world's most corrupt countries.

We have a government that completely seems to accept this and which does not seem to see any problems at all with this. Would it not be better to admit that this did not turn out well and start taking full responsibility for the situation? Should the minister not do that against the background that it concerns three officials close to the Prime Minister and that all have been accused of corruption? The minister thinks it is completely okay to buy deportations there.

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! It is a bit ironic that Tony Haddou has stood here and spoken about the rule of law and now thinks we should act because someone has been accused of corruption – there is no evidence. There must be some order and discipline in the Left Party, surely?

But I am glad that Tony Haddou is raising this important question, because it is a very important priority for me as Minister for Migration. We inherited a system from Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Socialdemokraterna where we could see that grossly criminal persons were not being deported from Sweden. It concerns very serious crimes, I want to point out to Tony Haddou. It is about rape. It is about murder. It is about robbery. It is about crime victims in Sweden who have had their lives destroyed and who testify that they have been violated not only because they have been exposed to horrific crimes but also because they have been forced to meet their perpetrators out in the city because the previous red-green government, which Vänsterpartiet supported, failed to carry out their deportations. They have been able to continue committing crimes. They have been able to continue creating new crime victims.

We are changing this. I intend to do everything in my power so that we can carry out more deportations of grossly criminal persons, dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, so that they cannot commit new crimes and so that they cannot make life a hell for their crime victims.

This is perhaps the difference between the Left Party and the Moderates and the difference between this government and the previous one: We take crime victims seriously. We have no indications that there would be any inaccuracies in this. If that were the case, we would of course act. But so far we can see that the crime deportations to Somalia have almost quintupled compared to when the Left Party had a say in the matter.

I am proud of those results. I do not intend to give up until all these dangerous individuals have been deported, so that our crime victims can receive the justice they deserve, Tony Haddou.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! We have heard this before from the Minister. There are also obvious lies in this. It is not only criminals in this. I think the Minister should be honest about that.

The problem is not that Sweden should have a return policy. The problem is that the minister is turning the return policy into a corruption policy. That is the serious matter. One sees nothing here. One says that one sees no indications.

In Somalia, there is an established system, which we can read about, with so-called ghost workers. These are relatives, friends, and other persons who are formally registered for positions without performing any work. Three years ago, the country's president stated that the majority of the government's employees do not show up for work.

No indications, says the minister. According to the review that has been conducted, Somali money has gone precisely to such ghost services. Three already high-paid top officials in the Somali power elite are identified as those who in fact take a share of these funds. They are individuals with close ties to the prime minister and who have been accused of having links to corruption.

This is not maintaining credibility in migration policy at all. This is not Swedish aid policy. This is not Swedish migration policy. This is also not Swedish foreign policy.

I understand that the minister needs to sell this and talk about the crime victims and so on to defend a corrupt arrangement with one of the world's most corrupt countries. But it would be more decent, against this background, to say: Here, something went wrong. Why doesn't the minister stop this? Why doesn't the minister investigate this? He knows that this is happening. Still, he lets it continue and defends himself by saying that it would only be about perpetrators and crime victims.

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Over the last 20 years, Sweden has paid out 10 billion kronor in aid to Somalia, not least under red-green governments. I have never heard the Left Party discuss the risk of corruption in this by a single word. On the contrary, I have only heard criticism when we, as a bourgeois government, have reduced the aid. But when it comes to 5 million kronor for us to carry out deportations of dangerous persons – yes, many are dangerous and have committed serious crimes in Sweden; it even concerns security threats – the Left Party thinks it is appalling.

It is naturally a matter of the Left Party having an ideological opposition to deporting dangerous individuals. That explains this coddling, which the Left Party has been guilty of for many years. Tony Haddou works very hard to ensure that foreign murderers and rapists are allowed to stay in Sweden and are not deported. They shall remain in Sweden. They shall be able to continue committing new crimes. They shall be able to continue destroying the lives of their crime victims.

I am proud that we, as a bourgeois government, are changing all of this. I am proud that we can see that our cooperation with a very well-established UN body yields good results. We can see that deportations to just this country have almost quintupled. It is crucial, and it shows the difference between left and right.

In the large group of people who have come to Sweden, most are respectable and commit no crimes. But the few who choose to do so also choose to opt out of being a part of our Swedish community. Therefore, we are lowering the threshold for deportations, even though Vänsterpartiet does not want that but wants these dangerous people to be allowed to stay in Sweden and continue to commit crimes. But that is something I, as a Moderate, can never accept or tolerate, and I am convinced that our crime victims feel it is very good that there is finally a new government in Sweden and that Vänsterpartiet is kept out of government power for the time being.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The hour is late, so I will keep it brief. We have recently met on two occasions in the Committee on Social Insurance and spoken about an issue that I and the Green Party consider very important, namely Sweden's position that no money from Sweden or the EU shall finance the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Against the background of the Somalia settlement we have heard about, I have on two occasions posed a question to the Minister for Migration and received somewhat different answers: Will the government hold firm on not paying a single krona to the Afghan Taliban regime? I wonder if the same will apply to the EU, i.e., that Sweden will oppose the EU financing the Taliban regime, for example for the corresponding purpose that the Somalia arrangement has had?

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Annika Hirvonen for the question.

This touches on an issue that I know is difficult for Miljöpartiet: that we have a regulated immigration. This means that if one has grounds for asylum, one should be granted sanctuary, but if one does not, one should return home. We have repeatedly seen over the years various initiatives and almost unjust legislative reforms that have depleted the regulated immigration, for example the secondary school laws, which have caused so much suffering for so many people.

This is about something very fundamental: We must maintain a regulated immigration and protect the right of asylum. That means that if one does not have grounds for protection, one should travel home, even if it is to Afghanistan. In the current situation, it is only half of the Afghans who have grounds for protection. It is not I who is saying it, but it is independent authorities and courts that make these types of assessments. Then it is of course very important that we can carry out these deportations, because that is the basis of a regulated immigration. Otherwise, we can scrap the migration policy and have free immigration. That is perhaps what the Miljöpartiet wants. But I do not want that, and I do not believe that the Swedish people want it either.

We have no cooperation with the Taliban regime. It is a terrible regime that violates human rights and has a completely different view on everything than we do. We do not want to have anything to do with that regime. We do not even have an embassy in Afghanistan.

I will, however, never hesitate in clarity regarding the fact that even persons from Afghanistan must travel home. I believe that many different things should be done, not least putting pressure on persons from there to travel home. Deportations must also be carried out, not least when it concerns persons who have committed serious crimes in Sweden. There are quite a few such people as well, even if they constitute a small part of the whole. Here, we Moderates intend to continue to push forward.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have nevertheless understood that the Swedish government has signed a letter concerning the desire for the EU to make some form of agreement with the Taliban regime or take similar initiatives.

It worries me that I do not get a clear no on the question of whether the government will stick to the position that not a single krona from Sweden or a single euro from the EU shall go to the Taliban regime. I completely share Johan Forssell's description of this dreadful regime, so I therefore ask the question once more: Will the government stick to the position that not a single krona shall go to the Afghan Taliban regime?

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I have sat in quite a few ministerial meetings in Brussels, and I have never heard anyone suggest that the EU or Sweden should finance the Taliban regime. That is new information to me.

We have, however, said that we must coordinate our efforts so that more Afghan citizens who do not have the right to be in Sweden return home and that we must carry out more deportations of persons who have committed crimes in Sweden so that they cannot stay here and commit new crimes and create new crime victims whose lives they destroy. It is a very important issue. The EU member states need to coordinate this work and work together. I note that Miljöpartiet often has a completely different opinion, namely that we should not cooperate with other countries. But then not much will get done.

We have time and again learned the lesson from the Green Party's migration policy. We saw it in the autumn of 2015. I may currently be standing opposite Sweden's next migration minister if Magdalena Andersson becomes Prime Minister, and then I think it is distressing, yes, downright irresponsible that the Green Party wants to increase asylum migration to Sweden and says no to all tightenings of the migration policy. We know what it will result in. It doesn't matter whether one has grounds for protection or not, because one does not seem to need to go home. We know what it will lead to. We have seen the consequences of the refugee crisis when 250,000 people came to Sweden in two years. Every day we see the integration problems, the exclusion, the segregation, the thousands of children growing up in poverty and the foundation for a gang criminality that is starting to take hold.

That Miljöpartiet, together with Vänsterpartiet and also many social democrats, says that they want to increase asylum migration is an irresponsible policy. I do not believe that is what the Swedish people want to see, and if this is the case, I believe that the 2026 election campaign will be about this.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 December.)

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