Migration issues

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish migration policy has been unsustainable for a very long time; let us be honest about that. Immigration has been too large, and integration has been lacking. The problems affect the entire Swedish society with, among other things, segregation, unemployment and welfare dependency, poor school results, crime and honor oppression.

Hundreds of thousands of people from other countries have come to Sweden in just the last decade alone. Sweden has had such so-called pull factors that have made it more attractive for a migrant to seek out the edge of Northern Europe to have their case examined here than to do so in other EU countries. The asylum migration, the family reunification migration, and the labor migration have been too large. So we obviously cannot continue to have it that way.

Migration issues

Of course, one should have great respect and also understanding for people's desire and longing for a better life and that they have seen Sweden as a country to seek out in order to obtain a better existence. These are deeply human drivers. But we have, and shall safeguard, the principle of regulated immigration, partly because our welfare systems presuppose this. All exceptions, amnesties, and generous regulations that have been introduced have counteracted this for far too long.

A paradigm shift is required within Swedish migration policy, and that is precisely what the Moderate-led government, with its coalition partners, is in the process of implementing.

The Tidö Agreement places great emphasis on migration policy because it is absolutely necessary that we act now, just as the Swedish people have also expressed in the latest election. There is now a majority in this chamber to pursue a strict and sustainable migration policy because we know that in order to get integration in order, it is required that we reduce immigration.

Mr. Speaker! The House now has to take a position on the Social Insurance Committee's report number 15, which concerns precisely migration issues. The report deals with motions in the area from the general motion period. The committee's majority proposes that the House reject all motion requests, primarily because the work on many of the proposals submitted in the motions is already being handled and prepared by the government in various ways. I therefore wish to move for approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement lays the foundation for a sustainable migration policy. We Moderates, together with the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals, agree that Sweden shall not be more generous in its view on asylum than what follows as obligations according to EU law or other legally binding international treaties. The pull factors to just Sweden must simply be minimized.

Our approach is that the person who receives a legally binding rejection of their application for a residence permit shall leave the country. One shall not have the right to public support in the form of benefits while simultaneously being able to stay illegally in the country. More internal foreigner controls are needed, and the prescription period regarding deportation decisions, which today is not particularly long at four years, will be extended or completely abolished in order to reduce the incentives to go underground.

Up to a quarter of all asylum applications in Sweden come from persons who have already had an asylum application assessed and rejected, with all the legal safeguards that the Swedish system offers. Previous governments have not addressed this carousel, but we are doing so now.

The work with returns regarding those who do not have the right to be in the country is also being intensified. Family immigration shall be tightened, among other things, regarding a limitation of the exemptions from the maintenance requirements, and the conditions shall be tightened for granting residence permits on the grounds of ties.

We will also propose a model for successive qualification to the benefits of the Swedish welfare state through, for example, work or citizenship. Requirements to learn Swedish and requirements for self-sufficiency shall be introduced in order to obtain Swedish citizenship.

Mr. Speaker! On this, we coalition parties are in agreement. A solid reform agenda has been launched, with majority support in the Swedish Riksdag, which we will successively deliver on. The right of asylum will be upheld, and Sweden will follow international commitments.

Opposing the Moderates' and the coalition parties' policy, however, stands a fragmented opposition. The Social Democratic alternative to the government base, in fact, has a complete lottery of proposals, all of which counteract a sustainable migration policy.

Even though the Social Democrats say they stand for a restrictive migration policy, it has in practice shown that they have acted differently when it comes down to the wire, and that is also what happens if one needs to negotiate with parties that want something completely different – in this case, Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet and Centerpartiet.

Miljöpartiet wants, as is well known, to return Swedish migration policy to what culminated in chaos in 2015, with permanent residence permits as the main rule and expanded opportunities for family reunification. That is to say, even stronger pull factors to Sweden as a country.

Vänsterpartiet wants to introduce what is called regularization, which means that those who stay illegally in Sweden will still be allowed to stay after a certain period. The incentives to go underground would increase significantly, especially for those who do not have grounds for protection, and those who do not comply with legally sound decisions would be rewarded.

Furthermore, the Center Party, for example, wants to retain the so-called "track switching," i.e., the possibility for asylum seekers who lack grounds for protection to be able to become labor migrants while in Sweden - in contrast to how it actually works when one immigrates for work from another country. The system of track switching, which has been strongly criticized by, among others, the Swedish National Audit Office and which we intend to abolish, is not only unfair, but it creates a completely incorrect incentive structure for persons who do not require protection.

Mr. Speaker! The question therefore becomes how this is to work at all for the Social Democrats without it leading to Sweden also in the future being a country that stands out with far too high immigration and for too poor integration. On this I hope, and surely the majority who are listening, will receive answers during this debate.

The Swedish people know what they get with a Moderate-led government. We are now delivering, together with the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, a long-awaited paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish people know what they get, one could say, as the final word.

Therefore, I feel that I need to ask a question. It is no secret that the Center Party and the Moderates have chosen different directions in migration policy. But we are, on the other hand, in agreement that migration is an international issue. We agree that Sweden cannot do everything, and we agree that Sweden does not solve this on its own. Sweden is a small part of a larger context.

That we get a migration policy at the EU level is absolutely crucial. I believe that Centerpartiet and Moderaterna can agree on that.

Sweden has pushed for this for a long time. We have not always agreed on the content of the matter, but we have agreed that we need to get a new migration policy at the EU level. The government has also been clear about this, and the government has also worked for this during the Swedish presidency.

There was a lot of nice talk in the speech about what people agree on. Therefore, I wonder: Is there any reason why one does not raise exactly the EU policy? The Sweden Democrats have, this week, been very clear that one should do everything possible to stop and delay the EU's work in developing a new migration policy. They have clearly declared that the EU should not decide over the countries' migration policy.

I am genuinely worried if it is the case that the government will not stand behind a new migration pact. Therefore, my question to the Moderaterna and Viktor Wärnick is: Are you in the government support agreement in agreement that a new migration policy is needed at the EU level?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think it has escaped anyone that the Centre Party and the Moderates have made different choices in migration policy. Therefore, I highlighted in my speech that there is now a majority for a different direction that does not jump between different majorities which weaken and deteriorate the outcome and starting points of migration policy moving forward.

It is still important to signal that this is the case, and it is also important to signal that the other side, where Magdalena Andersson is the prime ministerial candidate, is not at all in agreement on the direction required for the migration policy to hold together.

I share Jonny Cato's image regarding migration policy in general. It is an international issue. It is also a national matter, and therefore it is what we have developed in the Tidö Agreement and what we are now working on so importantly to get in place.

What we now know is happening at the EU level with the negotiations being conducted regarding the asylum and migration pact, we will have to continue working with. The government has been very clear that consensus is required in the EU. A guarantee is required so that the EU, for example, will maintain the external borders and ensure that it works with the border demarcations that are required. We will continue to negotiate in the direction that the government has communicated, namely that this pact needs to come to fruition.

The mandatory redistribution mechanisms and other things that have been brought up here previously have been successfully negotiated away by Tomas Tobé in the European Parliament, as we saw that it was not a viable path for us. There was no possibility of finding support for it.

I naturally hope that there will be broad support for the line that the government chooses, even in the Swedish Parliament.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I became much wiser from that answer. The answer was that they are not in agreement on Magdalena Andersson's side in politics. Then there was some talk about what Tomas Tobé does in the European Parliament. But there was no answer to my question about whether the government base – the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna – are in agreement with the Sverigedemokraterna that a new migration policy is needed at the EU level.

I also did not receive an answer to my question on whether the Moderaterna, Sverigedemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna agree that it is an urgent issue for the EU to have a common migration policy.

Unlike the member, I think it is a pity that there is no mandatory redistribution. The big problem during 2015 and 2016 was that many came to Sweden and were not redistributed to other countries. But now we are here, and it is more important that we move forward than that specific mechanism is introduced.

It is always so very pleasant to listen to the Moderaterna, because everything is about problems on the other side of politics, but one is very limited when it comes to answering how it looks on one's own side.

We could read in Världen today that you were in disagreement on a completely different issue, even though it is in the Tidö Agreement. Therefore, I want an answer to my question: Are you in agreement that it is important that the EU comes up with a common migration pact, and are you in agreement that it is an issue that the EU has the mandate to actually make decisions on? According to Charlie Weimer in SD's own propaganda channel Riks, the EU has nothing to do with migration policy at all. I hope that the Moderaterna think so, but it is not you who decide, but it is actually the entire government base that must be in agreement.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that we have secured the Tidö Agreement, it is pleasing that we now have a government basis that is stable in migration issues and it is pleasing that we now have a reform agenda to move forward with.

We naturally also have to take into account what the European Union is working on. We have different views in parliament regarding this, and we have to see what the outcome will be. The government has been clear that it is important that the European Union's migration policy works, that we ensure that the external borders are secured and that the various distributions needed between the member states work.

All this is important. We will return in a sharp position regarding what this means for Sweden's Riksdag moving forward.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In the Tidö Agreement, Viktor Wärnick, you establish that as few rights as possible should be given to people who come to Sweden as refugees.

We can look at what the situation looks like for the approximately 30,000 Ukrainian refugees who have come to Sweden. They have truly been given as few rights as possible. We are the worst in the Nordic countries regarding rights for Ukrainian refugees.

They do not have the right to SFI. The adult women do not have the same right to healthcare as others who have residence permits in Sweden. They do not have the right to help to get into work through the establishment program, and they are to manage on 71 kronor a day. That must be enough for food, it must be enough for clothes, it must be enough for hygiene products, and it must be enough for travel with public transport. That applies to an adult. A teenage boy is to be managed on 56 kronor a day.

We also see a disappointing result when it comes to what the Moderaterna themselves call the work line. Approximately 150 individuals are reported according to DN to have received help to get into work in Sweden. In Denmark, every second Ukrainian refugee is working. These are enormous differences.

I must ask Viktor Wärnick: Is this how the government wants it? Should it be as bad as possible for Ukrainian refugees so that they will seek out other countries than Sweden?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are in agreement within the government basis that Sweden cannot stand out and have attractive factors that are too extensive and which cause more people to choose to seek out Sweden than other European countries to have their grounds for protection assessed. This we are completely in agreement on, and there Annika Hirvonen is completely right.

Then we have the Ukrainian migrants who have come to Sweden and been granted residence permits based on the mass flight directive. Let us first establish the terrible nature of the situation with Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, which has led to these people having to flee their homeland and move to other parts of Europe.

We have a situation in Sweden where the mass flight directive applies. We have had discussions in, among other places, the Social Insurance Committee on how best to move forward regarding the situation of the Ukrainian refugees.

We have a government that has acted on the issue and which earlier during the spring gave a mandate to the United Nations International Organization for Migration IOM to investigate the situation of Ukrainian migrants in Sweden in order to obtain a better basis linked to what we can do to ensure that they can establish themselves on the Swedish labor market in a faster and better way while waiting for them to be able to return to a free Ukraine.

Furthermore, we have in the spring budget announced that we will compensate the municipalities that choose to offer SFI, Swedish for immigrants, to the Ukrainians they have in their municipality. This is entirely voluntary for the municipalities, and a number of municipalities have done so. Alongside what else there is – Svenska från dag ett, which is another system that Ukrainian migrants have access to – one can therefore offer SFI. I think it is good that we are now saying that the municipalities shall receive compensation for this.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One does not have to go to the UN to find out how to improve the integration of Ukrainian refugees. Good God! Do as we do with all other refugees who are granted residence permits in Sweden: Offer Swedish language instruction within the framework of SFI, and enroll them in the establishment program so that they receive active measures to find jobs!

Then we have validation of professional skills and education. The majority, almost 90 percent of the Ukrainian population, have a high school education. Ensure that grades are translated and validated! Do exactly what we do with all other refugees who receive residence permits in Sweden!

The government does not want to. It has been over a year since Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. When I first proposed in the Education Committee that the Ukrainian refugees should be granted the right to SFI in Sweden, the Moderaterna responded that it would be to betray Ukraine and send a signal that we do not believe the war can be won.

A long time has passed now. People sit in idleness, in poverty. For goodness' sake! Sweden should be ashamed of the way we treat the children, women, and elderly who have fled. It is big and beautiful words, and we send military support. But those who have come here are treated in a plain and simple shameful way. I can only interpret this in one way: that it is in line with the Tidö Agreement's ambition of as few rights as possible so that Sweden will not be an "attractive country for migrants".

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a difficult situation for all Ukrainians who have been forced to flee from their homeland. We are in complete agreement on that. But it is, which I am completely convinced that Member Hirvonen knows, the mass exodus directive that regulates this and thus provides temporary protection.

Ukrainians are not considered to need residence permits of the character that one receives because one is in need of protection. It has therefore not been carried out any type of assessment of their need for protection at the Swedish Migration Agency, but it is a temporary protection that is given to all Ukrainians who come to Sweden. This entails that a number of regulatory frameworks are activated. Among other things, Ukrainians do not have the right to SFI according to the regulatory frameworks that otherwise exist when residence permits are granted because one has grounds for protection.

We are now addressing in the budget that the municipalities shall receive cost coverage if they wish to offer the Ukrainians the opportunity for SFI. It may be that we need to return with other types of proposals that give the Ukrainians even better opportunities to utilize, for example, SFI.

It is not so strange if one wants to ask for expertise to look at how the situation looks. That is why we have given the United Nations agency IOM the assignment to look at the situation of the Ukrainians, in order to get a picture of what is most needed.

What is needed in this situation is, naturally, to ensure that they enter the labor market until they can return to a free Ukraine, which we also support in many other ways, including with decisions here in Sweden's Riksdag to send materiel and other things to the country so that they can defend themselves against the aggressor.

There are many measures being implemented. The Government takes this most seriously. We have signaled in various ways that this needs to be reviewed further, and we will return to the issue.

I do not believe that taking a high-toned approach on this issue is the right way to go, but rather it is better that we do this in the right way, a solid way, that will benefit the Ukrainians.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of our reservation number 1, but we stand behind all of our reservations.

Approximately 7,000 people were granted asylum in Sweden last year. If one includes the 2,000 Ukrainians who arrived before the mass flight directive was activated, it becomes a total of 9,000 people. A total of 9,000 asylum seekers were allowed to stay in Sweden last year. The rest had to leave the country.

Mr. Speaker! These are historically low figures. It is the paradigm shift that is talked about so much in Swedish migration policy - away from the ultra-liberal moderate policy that the Reinfeldt government introduced.

Mr. Speaker! It is the result of Social Democratic policy - a Social Democratic policy for order and tidiness. It is an order that is completely in line with the migration policy that the Social Democrats have historically stood for, at least since the 1940s.

We have, of course, heard in the chamber, and we will hear today, that everything is the Social Democrats' fault. These are big words filled with signal politics about how the palace parties in the Tidö agreement will indeed set everything straight. A friend of order may wonder what it is that they are actually going to set straight. Asylum reception is, after all, at historically low levels.

But both the government parties, who introduced the ultra-liberal laws that applied during the migration autumn of 2015, and the Sweden Democrats have very much to lose by admitting that it was the Social Democrats who actually carried out the overhaul of Swedish migration policy. It was the Social Democrats who brought down the asylum numbers - from 163,000 during the peak year with the moderate legislation to 7,000 last year.

It was someone from the Moderaterna who in a previous debate asked if we are satisfied. No, we are not satisfied with everything. Not everything is obviously finished. But we are, of course, satisfied that Sweden today takes its share of the EU's asylum reception. It is probably something lower now, because it has changed quite a bit in terms of how the flows go in Europe.

We are also pleased that we have a migration pact on the table, which Stefan Löfven pushed very hard for us to have. He saw this need early on. We also see that it is now beginning to be delivered in that matter.

We are satisfied with the Settlement Act which made it necessary for Sweden's municipalities to start taking their responsibility - that even Danderyd and Vellinge were forced to take their responsibility.

We are very satisfied with many of the investigations that have been commissioned and which are now beginning to deliver good proposals, so that the current government can start working directly with good proposals thanks to us Social Democrats.

We are satisfied regarding the issue of that residential facilities are underway. And we are satisfied that proposals on social studies and language requirements are on the table.

It is very good that the coalition parties carry this policy forward.

But we are not satisfied with how the reception is proceeding. We are not satisfied that EBO was not abolished. It was a stable right-wing majority in this Riksdag that during 2006 ensured that it did not happen.

We are not satisfied that the return is not functioning to the extent that we want. That was also why the Social Democrats commissioned an inquiry into strengthening the return.

We are not satisfied that the right repeatedly hinders integration by removing extra services, worsening education and labor market policies, stopping housing construction, and so on every time they get the chance.

Mr. Speaker! I shall nevertheless be humble but somewhat dissatisfied and quite concerned. The Government and the Sweden Democrats are, despite everything, trying to implement major changes - not where it is needed, such as in the area of labor immigration, but instead in the area of the rule of law.

The proposals are well-known at this point. They concern bribery in the public sector, withdrawn rights to an interpreter with the risk of deficient care, education, and legal certainty as a consequence, the abolition of favorable administrative decisions to withdraw permanent residence permits, and perhaps the most attention-grabbing, namely the reintroduction of an old-fashioned and outdated idea about lack of integrity.

Mr. Speaker! People shall be deported by this government and by the Sweden Democrats because they are ill. They shall be deported because they are victims of crime. They shall be deported because they show contempt for the Swedish people. Or else they shall be deported because of something else that one, with a stock-conservative set of values, considers reprehensible.

If one is to believe the culture warriors in the Sverigedemokraterna, drag queens are, for example, reprehensible. Should they be deported in the future? Where is the line drawn for reprehensible behavior? No one knows because the lack of misconduct in the form written in the Tidö Agreement is something completely arbitrary. It is taste and preference dictated by the Sverigedemokraterna with the good memory of the other three right-wing parties.

Of course, people should be able to be deported and lose their residence permit. But it must occur on a substantive and legally secure basis. We Social Democrats lowered the requirements for deportation when someone has committed a crime. More crimes lead to deportation today thanks to us Social Democrats. For that is the reasonable basis to start from when talking about what constitutes a lack of conduct.

What the government and the Sweden Democrats are doing is a restriction of the principles of the rule of law that is a very dangerous path to tread.

Mr. Speaker! I shall conclude by stating an important fact. This year is - lo and behold - 2023, not 2015. Many people in our country live in the notion that Sweden is receiving masses of asylum-seeking people. The images of tens of thousands of people who came to Sweden and stood outside the Swedish Migration Agency's premises have etched themselves into the minds of many people - including mine - rightly so.

I was a municipal councilor in Helsingborg at that time and was responsible for the school. I saw the consequences of the unsustainable moderate policy. We Social Democrats do not, in any case, want to go back there. Therefore, we have changed the asylum policy. Last year, 7,000 people were granted asylum in our country, apart from the 2,000 Ukrainians who came here according to the mass flight directive.

The right-wing government is being driven by SD to make major interventions in our rule of law due to perceptions that are old, from 2015, that people are flooding over the country's borders. These are perceptions that are almost a decade old. It is completely absurd.

We have an integration problem in Sweden, not an asylum problem. And it is the investments in the municipalities, the welfare, education, jobs, the families with children, the pensioners and the weakest households that are needed. There, the government and the Sweden Democrats completely lack a plan. There they are accountable.

Then it is, of course, a well-used tactic from the right's side to throw the immigrants under the bus, in classic national-conservative fashion. As a Social Democrat, I can never accept that, because human dignity, democracy, solidarity and equality are my guiding principles.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is always entertaining to listen to Ola Möller. It is considerably more entertainment than content. But when the proposals are lacking, one must fill the speeches with something.

The Social Democrats have three reservations in this report. And for those watching and listening to this, I can say that reservations are, therefore, usually own proposals. But that is not the case here. The Social Democrats have no own proposals, but the reservations are about the government doing what the government already does. But, as said, one must fill the statements with something. It would be embarrassing if it were completely empty.

In one of the reservations, it states: "Knowledge requirements should be established for permanent residence permits. The Government should therefore, without delay, draft a legislative proposal once the ongoing investigation has submitted proposals on how the requirements for language and social knowledge for permanent residence permits shall be designed."

It says: without delay, Ola Möller.

During the last parliamentary term, and perhaps also during the one before, there has been a parliamentary majority for this proposal.

The investigation that was to examine how this proposal could become a reality was therefore initiated on 23 June 2022. At that time, the Social Democrats had been in power for almost eight years, and there were a couple of months left until the election.

Without delay, it now states in their reservation in the report.

My simple question is: Does Ola Möller think that the previous government acted without delay when it waited eight years to appoint the investigation?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It was, as said, we who appointed the commission. And as Ludvig Aspling's party comrades have shown with merit in this chamber during previous debates, one must make concessions on certain matters when governing with other parties. Now, the Sverigedemokraterna are the real governing party in this country and have truly made concessions on providing compensation to those who have suffered damages within the health insurance. And when it comes to all those who thought they would get a reduction of ten kronor at the pump, the Sverigedemokraterna have truly made concessions, if one makes a benevolent interpretation. Or they just blew people off. That is also a variant.

We made concessions during our years on some of the policies we wanted to pursue. But we also pursued a policy that meant we restructured Sweden's migration policy. Everyone remembers the press conferences where representatives from other parties stood and cried because it hurt so much, while we pushed forward for the policy that has now resulted in 7,000 asylum seekers.

It was we who ensured that the government can act quickly regarding these issues because we commissioned the inquiry. It is also why much of the policy in the Tidö Agreement, specifically regarding reducing the number of asylum seekers, is such that it builds upon the previous government's inquiry. It was a strict migration policy that the Social Democrats presented.

However, we cannot accept what is happening in the area of the rule of law. There, we have no ongoing investigations.

The difference in how we view the number of asylum seekers in the country is not particularly large between the three parties sitting in the government and the Social Democrats – even though I know that the Sweden Democrats specifically want net zero. Therefore, it is quite remarkable to try to give an impression that we in some way would want to increase immigration. That is what Ludvig Aspling is trying to do, Madam Speaker.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is as usual – plenty of entertainment but very little information and no concrete answers. My question was quite simple: Does Ola Möller think the Social Democrats acted without delay during the last parliamentary term, when they waited eight years to appoint an inquiry in an issue where they knew they had the Riksdag's support, at least during the last four years? It is this that stands in the reservation now: Without delay, they want to see these proposals implemented.

That is also what I want. And now we will see these proposals implemented without delay. It will happen. One does, however, become a bit curious. There might be a reason why Anders Ygeman did not want to hold the main proceedings.

Regarding the principles of the rule of law, we can observe that Ola Möller knows nothing about international law or the principles of the rule of law and what they entail in these cases. There is an absolute right for all states to determine which foreigners are allowed to be on their territories. This is a fundamental principle within international law. It does not involve any restrictions whatsoever on the principles of the rule of law to deport persons for lack of conduct. Ola Möller should know this, given that this legislation has existed in Sweden before, introduced by – can he guess which party? – his own party.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I am always surprised that Ludvig Aspling is actually a lawyer, considering that I myself have sat in the Council of Europe and know quite a lot about the principles of the rule of law, which conventions we have signed, and what we have committed ourselves to doing. I also know that countries that Ludvig Aspling's party loves - Hungary, Poland - are constantly criticized for deficiencies regarding the principles of the rule of law. It is the same countries that the EU notes do not follow the principles of the rule of law. I can state that Ludvig Aspling is not a truth-teller when it comes to what a rule of law principle is.

Have we acted promptly? Yes, considering that we could have made the decisions ourselves from some point in December 2021, when we sat alone in government. Then, a couple of months later, a war broke out, which Ludvig Aspling actually was also involved in trying to manage here in the chamber. We had to handle the final stages and the aftermath of a pandemic. I would therefore say that coming up with that investigation in six or seven months was a prompt handling under those circumstances. During the first seven and a half years, we - I am completely open about this - compromised away a lot. I believe that most parties in this chamber that do not have 50 percent understand and have respect for this.

But when we could do it and did not have to handle war and pandemic, we launched this. I think rather that Ludvig Aspling should be very grateful for it, because it means that this government can complete the policy that we initiated since the investigation is already in place.

Perhaps we can also find long-term conditions for a sustainable migration policy in this country, which we also laid the foundation for in 2021. Last year, 7,000 people were granted asylum; even Ludvig Aspling cannot be dissatisfied with that.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats say they defend a long-term sustainable migration policy, and that is something I truly welcome. The important thing, however, is that words and actions go hand in hand and that one has a government basis that can agree on the direction one claims to pursue.

As I pointed out in my speech, it is difficult to see how the Social Democrats are going to put together a government based on a strict and regulated immigration. The former government partner, Miljöpartiet, wants to return to permanent residence permits as the rule. Vänsterpartiet, which has shown itself willing to bring down S-governments that do not do as the party pleases, wants amnesties for everyone who has illegally gone underground after deportation decisions. And Centerpartiet, the new coalition partner for the future, wants to keep track swaps for those who do not have grounds for protection.

The question therefore becomes which of these proposals Ola Möller and the Socialdemokrater intend to be able to agree to after the next election when a new majority is to be built. Will it be a return to 2015, a return to amnesty, or continued track-switching?

It was interesting to listen to a previous exchange. "Renunciation" was what Ola Möller called what was done in a government position. What is to be renounced now in relation to one's own line?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that the Moderates, who have waived the abolished amortization requirement, who sent Archer to Ukraine as soon as it was possible, and who follow the calendar – November 1st, well before Christmas, and so on – stand here and have views on the fact that I actually humbly say that it is clear that one must compromise in a government basis. I think it is an interesting starting point from Member Wärnick.

Regarding the other issues, we, together with our support, drafted a migration pact in this parliament in the summer of 2021. We pushed through the policy that had essentially applied since 2015, when we changed the direction of your policy. We got it through here in the chamber with a few adjustments. Magdalena Andersson's government support has thus shown that one is prepared to compromise. One is prepared to take responsibility together.

But on our side in politics, we are not prepared to give up things such as that we do not deport addicts, who have an illness, or prostitutes, or that we should not have reporting in the public sector so that librarians should report the person who perhaps in the future will be described as Anne Frank and so on. This is what it is about - it is the path you are heading towards. You want a public employee to say "you will be reported to the authorities; you must leave" - completely without respect for people's lives, health, family and the like.

On our side, we agree that human dignity must guide migration policy, and we have shown that. The reality, therefore, speaks for us, not for Viktor Wärnick's government.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! It will truly be interesting to see how the Social Democratic parliamentary group positions itself regarding the various bills that will be submitted in this area moving forward. I believe it would be good for migration policy if we could broadly agree that it is tightenings that are now required. The reason I am asking this question is that it is relevant to know what the Social Democrats are prepared to, so to speak, reverse or not do in order to gain government power if, God forbid, there is a change of government after the next election.

The Social Democrats often speak of it being their own party that led the reorganization of the migration policy – that it was indeed the Social Democrats who led a paradigm shift, as it is called. At the same time, one should remember that we had a migration minister who, when the Moderaterna raised the issue of switching to temporary residence permits, accused us of no longer being human. Such a debate climate prevailed just over eight years ago, when this came up for discussion. I think that one should keep that in mind.

I think it would be good if we could find a broad majority and the Social Democrats could join and also guarantee that one does not revert in favor of the Green Party's or the Left Party's various ideas on amnesties or other regressions to what previously has been, which has led to us having received an all too high immigration to this country and a large integration problem that we now must handle.

The discretionary review, which Ola Möller raised, is an institute that exists in other parts of the legal system, including when it concerns the review of citizenship applications and reviews of other residence permit applications. It is nothing new or strange. One beats the big drum when it concerns a part of the proposals being put forward so that one has something to hit, but one cannot say what it is that one wants to reverse or what one is prepared to compromise away.

I repeat the question: What is the Social Democrats prepared to concede to the Green Party, the Left Party, and the Centre Party?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! The migration agreement that was made in the summer of 2021 is fixed, and all these parties stand behind it. From that starting point, there is nothing to reverse.

Regarding the investigations we have commissioned, the government will now carry forward much of that policy. That is indeed gratifying. It is very good if the Moderaterna return to their historical position and try to reach some form of consensus with the Socialdemokraterna. This was what was the stability in Swedish migration policy before the Moderaterna threw the baby out with the bathwater and drove the ultra-liberal laws during the Reinfeldt years. This was what was the history. It was not the Socialdemokraterna who abandoned anything, it was the Moderaterna.

The Moderates' tactic of broad agreements is always based on the Social Democrats accepting the Moderates' policy and then joining it. It is the same thing when it comes to the energy issue - "if you think like we do, we can reach an agreement".

We are happy to sit down and discuss broadly. That was why we sat in the parliamentary committee and tried to drive forward a large consensus in here. There, the Moderaterna pushed themselves out quite quickly and did not want to reach an agreement. The Sweden Democrats' party leader was off playing golf when the Migration Committee had its meetings. They were not interested in reaching an agreement.

I have absolutely no problem standing here and saying: Let us agree on a long-term and good migration policy! But then we cannot deport people because they engage in activities that the Moderaterna consider morally reprehensible, because they are ill, or because they show contempt for the Swedish people. What is that?

I am called a traitor to the country at every turn by the member's government base - that is who the member has joined forces with.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! As some previous speaker said, it is interesting to listen to Ola Möller, who says he sees the need for change. We saw that in 2015. What Ola Möller perhaps does not think about is that there were Social Democrats, I believe, who during 2014 said that one did not need to change the migration policy. I think perhaps one can take responsibility for the situation that prevailed earlier.

It is correct that a large part of the politics saw that a change needed to occur, and such a change also took place. We can now state that the party leader of Ola Möller, Magdalena Andersson, after the Tidö parties had consulted and presented proposals, said that the proposals were largely good and could be implemented.

Ola Möller's speech here in the Riksdag made it sound as if all that is good comes from the left and all that is evil comes from the right. We might be forced to accept that.

I would like to ask a question to Ola Möller. We can disregard what has been discussed almost a hundred percent, namely the requirement of intent, which de facto exists in the administration of justice in Swedish law. We set that aside, as Ola Möller has touched upon it in his two turns of remarks.

Does Ola Möller see the same major problems with the other proposals, or could it be that Ola Möller holds the same view as his party leader, namely that these are appropriate proposals to handle the migration policy that we have for the future? Some things are indeed a continuation, as Ola Möller noted, but we need to do much more. The proposals are presented and shall be investigated. I would very much like to hear Ola Möller's view on the other proposals. And do not bring up the wanderings – we have heard enough about that!

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! The reason for the situation in 2014 was that it was a matter of forming a government with the basis that existed at that time. Member Kihlström's party leader was heavily involved in agreements that were subsequently broken from the side of the Christian Democrats.

I move on to things that we have drawn red lines against. Informing on others is one such thing – we do not want a society of informants. This is a red line, and my party leader has been clear about this. We also think it is important with the right to an interpreter within, for example, healthcare and the justice system, so that good medical assessments can be made and legally secure processes can be ensured. My party leader agrees with this.

We shall not withdraw favorable administrative decisions and snatch away permanent residence permits that have been granted to people. Even though this is my party leader completely agrees with me.

Member Kihlström can perhaps enlighten his government base, who are standing here and thinking that we have made concessions on something: How does it feel that Sweden no longer accepts those quota refugees that Member Kihlström's party has championed so much? Does it feel the same as when those with functional variations, who were promised they would get so much better, get nothing but instead have to pay more in taxes? How does it feel, Member Kihlström, to make concessions on these things? That is what I am interested in.

I shall mention a few things that I can accept. If EBO were scrapped faster than quickly, it would be very good. If it were to occur from a Social Democratic investigation into residential facilities, it would be splendid politics. Language skills and social studies to obtain PUT? Absolutely – look at that! Those are very good things. Even these, Madam Speaker, are things that we have appointed from the Social Democrats' side.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Once again we hear about the excellent things coming from the left, but we rarely hear about the proposals that are now being presented in the Riksdag.

Let me take the discussion on the reporting to the next level. Does Ola Möller think it is correct that social services pay out benefits to people who have received a decision that they are not allowed to be in Sweden? We are talking about the fact that there is a shadow society. Is it then good that Sweden's authorities speak with different tongues? One tongue says that persons do not have the right to be in Sweden, while other authorities say: "Of course, you can stay and receive benefits!" Does Ola Möller consider this—that one says no and it becomes a maybe—to be a good migration policy? I do not think it is.

In the same way, perhaps Ola Möller can set the quota refugees' share in relation to this. Our level has been that we have received 5,000 quota refugees. The new level is 900. Is this level not approximately what Sweden should receive at the EU level in percentage terms?

I still want to say that Ola Möller sounds more negative towards the proposals than his party leader Magdalena Andersson does. We shall have to see how it turns out in the future. When the proposals have been investigated, I hope, just like other speakers, that the Social Democrats stick to this strict migration policy.

I want to ask one last question, because I don't think we have really received an answer on this. Are the Social Democrats prepared to form a government basis together with the parties that have a direction for migration policy that is roughly the same as their own? Does Ola Möller see no problem with the fact that the basis that currently exists for the government—if S were to form a government together with C, V and MP—has a very diverse policy?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It is a fantastic game-theoretical overview of the entire government base we get here, considering that half of the government base, according to the measurements, will currently not even be sitting in the Riksdag after the next election. It is very strange to then stand here and boast and say that one's side of politics will have a majority and form a government in three and a half years and that everything will go as well as can be.

We can wait for three and a half years before we form a government and let an election pass first before we discuss who should vote for whom and who should take whom.

The government base during the previous mandate period demonstrated with all clarity that one can produce a good and long-term sustainable migration policy. Last year, it was 7,000 who were granted asylum.

This matter regarding the quota refugees is stomach-turning. Member Kihlström represents a party that has waived more than 80 percent of the quota refugees one would have wanted to take, and yet it is somehow right. Were the Christian Democrats completely wrong before? Was an irresponsible migration policy therefore conducted nine months ago? I find it hard to believe that Member Kihlström sleeps well at night when his own party has been involved in ensuring that fewer Yazidi rape victims, fewer child soldiers, and fewer people with disabilities get to come to Sweden, for that is the consequence of the government's reduction of quota refugees, who are the weakest.

When it comes to detention, we have an arrangement where the Social Services Act allows for emergency assistance, and it may be a municipal assessment in those cases. But we also commissioned an inquiry to increase the deportation of those who do not have the right to be in the country. The Tidö parties will carry this forward, and we look forward to it coming to the Riksdag.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal, which means the rejection of all motions within the area of migration.

For the Christian Democrats, it is central that migration policy is long-term responsible, legally secure, humane and manageable. Unfortunately, it has not functioned fully for a number of years. We can see that Sweden has received more asylum seekers than we have managed to integrate, that society has not taken sufficient decisive action against the abuse of the asylum system, and that the growth of parallel societies has not been able to be stopped.

The Christian Democrats therefore see a need to have a strict migration policy in order to address the problems that we see in many ways and in many places in our country.

The goal for total migration in Sweden should be at the same level as our Nordic neighboring countries, and with this objective, it is reasonable to prioritize the most vulnerable refugees. Safe and legal routes, such as the quota refugee system, should be the primary method for people to seek asylum in Sweden. The starting point is that refugees, or those in need of protection, seek asylum in the first safe country. Thus, the right to asylum is protected.

But to defend openness and free movement within the EU, we must also see strengthened control of the EU's external border. To prevent people from being exploited, harmed, or tragically perishing in flimsy boats in the Mediterranean, the EU must, at a common level, counter irregular migration and human smuggling and have a greater focus on helping refugees in the surrounding area.

Madam Speaker! The past year has largely been characterized by Russia's horrific invasion of Ukraine. The war has driven millions into flight and caused the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II.

In March 2022, the so-called mass flight directive was activated, which means that persons fleeing from Ukraine are granted temporary protection. Of the approximately 50,000 refugees who came to Sweden, about 30,000 are estimated to remain, but it is uncertain.

I am pleased that the spring budget that has just been submitted to the Riksdag aims for these Ukrainian refugees, through targeted financial support to the municipalities, to have greater opportunities for instruction in the Swedish language. This means that those from Ukraine who have taken their temporary refuge to Sweden will have greater opportunities for contacts and work during their time here.

During the corona pandemic, fewer refugees came to Sweden, but now we see an increase in reception. Therefore, measures must be taken to be able to integrate those who are already in our country and are not yet a part of our society in terms of, for example, work and other community. This means that our country's migration policy needs to be changed, and that work began after the change of government six months ago.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties have negotiated a large number of points in the Tidö Agreement that cause the direction and content of the policy to change. During eight years with an S-government, it was difficult to see a straight line in the migration policy, and that prompted a need for change.

It is true that the Social Democrats have implemented changes, but the coalition of different parties and wills that characterized the majority of the governing period over the last eight years produced a result that can hardly be seen as fortunate, but rather a situation that takes time to rectify.

We in the Tidö parties cooperate and approach the issues with a collaborative climate and a direction that ensures we do not constrain or lock each other. The migration area needs to be organized so that we can together address the problems in our society. Today's government cooperation provides the basis for the capacity for action that Sweden needs.

Madam Speaker! I see that the cooperation will yield results, and I assess that when the proposals in the Tidö Agreement have been investigated and implemented, the result will, for example, be that the number of asylum seekers to Sweden decreases, that a no means no, and that we get long-awaited measures against the shadow society. More people who have received a rejection will return, and persons with residence permits who do not live an honest life will risk deportation. This is, among other things, how Sweden will get back on the right track.

In this debate, one can also ask whether there is a united opposition. Different Social Democratic representatives, most recently here, say that the Social Democrats stand up for a sustainable migration policy. It is truly time to wake up, and I welcome this position because a tightening of the refugee reception we have had over the last eight years is required.

Can we see a unified government alternative where S will be able to stay on this new path forward when we know what the objectives for the migration policy are from the opposition friends they have, which we can interpret as the basis for a future government alternative?

I find it difficult to see how the tightening that S advocates for can become a reality with these coalition partners. The compromises that a cooperation requires will likely mean that the journey towards a tightening becomes very crooked if MP, V, and C are to have their demands met, demands which in different ways take us back to the migration policy that prevailed before 2015. The question hangs in the air. What kind of policy does S intend to be able to drive together with MP, V, and C when they have had their demands met?

Madam Speaker! We Tidö parties promise to deliver. Investigations are already underway and are in the planning phase for a large number of issues.

The Christian Democrats see that the migration policy must change direction. But it must happen in such a way that we maintain the focus on ensuring that those who need protection also receive it, and so that the responsibility for providing support to refugees occurs in such a way that all EU countries take their responsibility based on size and capacity. As it stands in the Tidö Agreement, the changes shall also occur so that they meet the obligations and requirements specified by EU law and other international treaties.

We Christian Democrats will continue to work for a responsible and humane migration policy, where people whom Sweden receives are given good conditions for integration into our society.

As I have previously stated, I move for approval of the committee's proposal, which means the rejection of all motions.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! A wise man once said that one of the most important things we should do was to love our neighbor as ourselves.

An exercise in this is to listen to the mother whose three-year-old daughter was in a refugee camp in Syria while she was in Sweden. For two years, they had only had contact via video calls. My daughter is five years old, and the thought that I would not have been able to hug her for the last two years is unbearable. I would not wish that reality on my worst enemy, let alone all the refugees fleeing from war and receiving protection in Sweden after the Tidö parties' and the Christian Democrats' proposals on restrictions in the possibility of family reunification become reality.

The Christian Democrats are a party that usually speaks about protecting the family. Now you are doing the opposite. You are preparing a proposal that will result in small children being kept away from their parents for several years while waiting for the parents to first learn Swedish and obtain a job and a home. Have you no shame?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that the member quotes from a text that I read often. At the same time, it is about handling a situation.

I think it is relevant that we set appropriate requirements for those who come to a new country. We can state that before 2015 we had a refugee reception that prompted the situation we now see in Sweden where we have not succeeded in integrating people. People do not enter employment and do not learn the language. Children do not learn Swedish to a sufficient extent. We can all realize that it is not possible to meet the requirements we see in society regarding education and knowledge if one does not have a language.

What we are investigating now is to set relevant requirements for family reunification. I think it is relevant that one should be able to support the family members one wants to bring here and that those requirements are set. I can state that there is a broad consensus on a requirement – then we can discuss the details, and it shall be further investigated. But I see no problems with ensuring that. Because it is actually not Sweden that has split the families. It is someone who has left their family.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! War divides families. And it is a human right to be reunited with one's parents if one is a small child. Please, set demands on people, but do not let the price be that small children who are in refugee camps in war-torn countries should not be hugged by their parents, receive a secure upbringing, and live with their family. The consequences of the Christian Democrats' finalized proposal will be that fewer children will get to live with their parents. More will risk their lives in the Mediterranean because one is afraid that the children will otherwise suffer a terrible trauma or even perish in the refugee camps in countries that are at war.

This proposal is inhumane, and it does not increase integration that children should remain in refugee camps for several years instead of coming to their parents in Sweden and starting in Swedish school early. It does not increase integration that mothers and fathers should go and worry every day that bombs will fall on the refugee camps where their children are located, when they are trying to concentrate on the SFI course. This is purely inhumane. I do not understand how the Kristdemokraterna have agreed to it.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that we have different views on how we conduct integration. I can remember—and this may be corrected by someone else if that is not the case—that those we will prioritize among quota refugees are precisely women and children who are in refugee camps. Then it can be observed that the aid naturally should be given in many different ways, in the local area and elsewhere.

But there is no self-evident right to perform a family reunification if one cannot take care of those who arrive. We must naturally see that. But I see at the same time that all proposals we will implement will be implemented according to the level set by, for example, EU law and other international requirements. I promise to ensure that we will not do any inhumane things.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The government parties seem to be very worried about what will happen after 2026. I can state that it seems to be the only thing they want to talk about. I am actually more worried about what will happen this year. I am more worried about what will happen on December 1st this year.

It is remarkable that the member says that the proposal on family reunification should be further investigated. That is not the case! There is already a draft for a referral to the Council of Legislation that is currently out for consultation, and it is to enter into force on December 1. When implementing such major changes, it is perhaps good to know where in the process one is.

I am usually happy that the Christian Democrats highlight the family. I believe that for all of us in here, regardless of what our family constellation looks like, the family has meant a lot in many stages of life in different ways. I am moving right now myself, and I would not have managed it without my family. It is the big and the small things in life where the family is always there for you.

The right to be reunited with one's family is, for me and for the Center Party, completely inviolable. The Christian Democrats could not give an answer on the issue of family reunification during the last parliamentary term. I understand why. I understand that it is truly difficult for many Christian Democrats. But now we have received a clear message: From December 1st, it will become harder for children to be reunited with their parents. It will become harder for siblings to grow up together. So my question is: Why do the Christian Democrats not stand on the side of all families?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is good that Jonny Cato is briefing me on the matters. Jonny Cato has extensive experience within the Committee on Social Insurance; I am quite new to the migration area. One can state that the referral to the Council of Legislation will naturally show if there is anything we need to adjust, but there is therefore a political consensus on carrying it out. We are prepared to do so.

Of course, family is important, but at the same time we must set requirements for family reunification. I do not think that is unreasonable. Then one can always discuss which requirements we should have, and there Jonny Cato and I may not agree. One can consider what policy Jonny Cato would pursue, and he can argue for that.

We can note that there is now, as Jonny Cato has specifically informed me about, a referral to the Council on Legislation. It will be sent out. We will see and handle it if it shows anything further that we need to adjust. But there will be new requirements. Just as before, we might not make the wave for all proposals, but in a government situation, one must try to negotiate the best proposals that can be obtained. Now we are there. The referral to the Council on Legislation will come, and it will be the proposal that will be implemented.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! There we perhaps finally got the answer as to what can happen after 2026 - that one can give and take just as you have obviously yourselves done in the government. I apologize for saying "you", Madam Speaker.

But I still don't quite understand why the Christian Democrats want children to be separated. I imagine that if you are a parent who is in Sweden and who has their child on the other side of the world in a terrible situation, it doesn't stimulate the job search. It doesn't stimulate taking out the SFI book in the evening and doing everything one can to learn the Swedish language. I believe the only thing one thinks about is their child on the other side of the globe. I am not a parent myself, but I can only try to imagine if I hadn't had my mother or father here. That is the only thing I would have thought about. I would have spent the evenings trying to find out if they were doing well.

I do not think it is consistent with Christian Democratic values that children should be split up and that siblings should not be allowed to grow up together. I can only state that there is obviously a difference between family and family, and between child and child. If it had concerned Swedish children, we would never have accepted that families should be split up. But there is a difference between people and people. For me, that is not a Christian Democratic or even a Christian value base.

I want to know – if it is indeed the case that there is a possibility for change, as the Christian Democrat opens up for – where the Christian Democrats' red line is. How many children should have to be separated from their parents? Where should the line be drawn? When is it okay for children to be reunited with their parents?

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Jonny Cato, for a burning commitment!

One might perhaps point out that it is not the Swedish state that splits families. Families are split by parents – one or more – leaving children. What one can reflect on is how to achieve good integration.

The family perspective and the child perspective should naturally be present, but I think it is relevant to set requirements for family reunification. They are in the bill. I cannot say exactly if anything should be adjusted and if so what. I will stand by that.

We can always discuss what constitutes Christian politics – I am happy to have that discussion – but now we are talking about migration policy. I try to include my Christian values in this, and I hope that Jonny Cato also values them.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is facing a paradigm shift in migration policy. The largest reorganization of migration policy in a generation has begun. The wheels of the legislative machinery have started to turn, and by the end of this mandate period, we will have a completely different regulatory framework than the one we have today.

Sweden will have moved from rules that in practice encourage as many people as possible, from wherever and for whatever reason, to move here without a thought for housing, self-sufficiency, integration potential, cultural clashes, and all other consequences.

Previous governments have built up a system that lacks all restrictions and barriers. They simultaneously built up a flora of headlessly generous grants that have enticed hundreds of thousands of people to risk their lives and move here to Sweden. Some have succeeded, others have not.

When we discuss the absurdity of previous governments' migration policy, we often focus on issues of incentives, that is, that poor people are enticed to make life-threatening journeys, and consequences, that is, that Sweden is being dismantled step by step and transformed into a mirror image of some of the world's most dysfunctional societies. But, Madam Speaker, what we often forget is that this entire mass immigration project is also fundamentally based on a single big lie, namely that people living in unstable states must make their way to Sweden on the fringes of Europe to ensure their physical safety.

According to an internal memo from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, which the newspaper Kvartal has obtained, hundreds of thousands of people fly from Sweden to places that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs advises against traveling to. The most popular destinations are apparently Iraq, Iran and Somalia, and it is obvious that it concerns people who themselves have roots in these countries and who have come to Sweden as so-called refugees.

If we assume that these people are rationally thinking human beings, which I think we should do, there cannot be any general protection need against these countries. It is impossible to claim that one must leave a country due to risk to one's own life and then return and go on vacation in the same country. It is completely illogical. It is just as impossible that hundreds of thousands of so-called refugees can vacation in their home country while another group would not be able to do the same.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the so-called asylum migration is, for the most part, a well-organized fraud. It is admittedly a fraud that has received support all the way from the top from the Social Democratic-led Government Offices, but nevertheless a fraud. It becomes even more apparent in light of the invasion of Ukraine when Europe is being filled with real refugees.

Real refugees mostly stay in the immediate vicinity and try to return as soon as possible. Real refugees do not start campaigns against social services or against basic human rights or demand that we change our constitution and get rid of freedom of speech. They do not demand enormous economic benefits, and they do not try to obtain a large number of identities to be able to defraud the social security system, and so on. If anyone asks why we need this paradigm shift, it is precisely for that reason. We need to get rid of the pull factors that make Sweden particularly attractive for this type of abuse.

The proposals within the Tidö Agreement, in material terms, take a holistic approach to migration policy based on two rather simple principles. The first principle is that international asylum law and EU law shall be fully respected, and the second is that those parts of the migration policy that fall outside the mandatory parts of the international regulatory framework shall be phased out.

Sweden shall still fulfill its international obligations, but nothing more. Nothing except that. It is fair, reasonable and well-balanced. In addition to this, there are also certain issues that do not quite fit into either the Tidö Agreement or this approach, and those issues we Sverigedemokrater have as reservations in the report.

Madam Speaker! This approach also reveals to a large extent how poorly previous governments' approach has been to normalize the Swedish regulatory framework. Already in November 2015, the government announced that it would adapt the regulatory framework to the EU's minimum level, which subsequently resulted in the so-called temporary law.

The minimum level included three measures: a restriction for those with alternative protection needs to bring family immigrants, shorter residence permits, and a more restrictive humanitarian protection ground. That was it. If the previous government had been completely honest when they called this the EU's minimum level, there would not have been much room left to further address the Swedish migration policy. One simply cannot go lower than the minimum level. But honestly, they were not.

The difference between then and now is that it is not 3 things that are to be done within the framework of the Tidö Agreement, but just over 55 concrete measures. The difference between then and now is that the previous government made small cosmetic changes in order not to completely lose face before an election – it was therefore nothing other than vote-fishing – while we take responsibility for Sweden's future.

Madam Speaker! The question I have received perhaps most often since the new government took office is the one about results: When will we see results in the form of reduced volumes? The answer to that question is that it will take a couple of years. The regulatory framework that previous governments built up to attract people is extensive and partly complex, and it needs to be redone bit by bit. Just as it is easier to burn a car than to build a car, it is much easier to tear down a border than to set one up.

The Swedish constitutional model is based on a rather protracted legislative process, which is fundamentally something positive. We in Sverigedemokrater naturally stand behind that. But it also means that the type of overarching reforms that we are going to implement will take time before they can come into force. When that happens, starting during 2024 and 2025, we will see a difference. It will not happen as quickly as I and many others wish, but it will be done. This shall also be set against the opposition's alternative, which becomes clear when one reads the report.

The left-wing parties basically want to make what is in practice Europe's most generous regulatory framework even more generous. They want to grant permanent residence permits to persons who have no need for protection. They want to grant permanent residence permits to persons who have chosen to ignore deportation decisions. They want more route-switchers, which means a deregulation of the rules for labor immigration and so on.

The Social Democratic Party, which is by far the largest opposition party, has produced the fewest number of reservations - three - and these are furthermore only proposals that the government is already working on. There are thus no independent proposals or counter-proposals. The barrel rattles empty.

It is also a bit funny to read the reservation text in, for example, reservation 1 of Anders Ygeman: "Knowledge requirements should be established for permanent residence permits. The Government should therefore, without delay, draft a legislative proposal when the ongoing investigation has submitted proposals on how the requirements for language and social knowledge for permanent residence permits should be designed."

"Without delay" it says in the reservation. The investigation to review what the proposal should look like was appointed by the Social Democrats on June 23, 2022, after approximately eight years in power. Their definition of the term "expeditiously" is somewhat odd, but it also underscores once again that there is only one credible alternative in the chamber in the area of migration policy.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleagues in the coalition parties for good cooperation so far. We do not have exactly the same starting points in these issues. We have all had to compromise. We have nevertheless respected each other's opinions and have had a good exchange.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I requested the floor primarily to distance myself from the Sweden Democrats' portrayal of refugees in general as fraudsters.

Since I have requested the floor, I would like to take the opportunity to ask a question to Ludvig Aspling in connection with my previous exchange with the Moderate Party member regarding the rights of Ukrainian refugees, or rather the lack of rights, in Sweden. Is it the pursuit of a minimum level that is why the government has not given Ukrainian refugees the right to Sfi, the right to healthcare, and a compensation that is livable? The allowance is, as is known, only somewhere around 60 percent of the subsistence minimum.

Is it because of the striving to ensure that the Ukrainian refugees do not seek refuge in Sweden that you, together with the government, have given them so few rights?

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! There were two questions, and I will begin with one of them.

Annika Hirvonen distances herself from my description of refugees as fraudsters. I will nuance the whole thing a bit. Those who return to their home countries or who seek asylum and request protection from a country that people generally go on holiday to are fraudsters. There is no talk about the matter.

If one is granted asylum in a country, it works in the following way. One comes to another country and says: "Hello! My country is in crisis, and I cannot stay there for the sake of my physical safety. I risk my life if I go back, and therefore I want a residence permit here." This is what an asylum application is in practice.

If one has their asylum application granted and then immediately, the first thing one does, takes the benefits one receives in Sweden and goes home on vacation to the country that one has fled from, one is a fraud in my eyes.

Let me start by bouncing the question back to Annika Hirvonen. How would she describe such a person? It is about a person who comes to Sweden and says: "Hello! I cannot stay in my home country because the situation there is too bad." And the first thing that happens when the person receives a residence permit and some benefits is that the person chooses to go back on vacation to their home country because it is nice to meet friends and acquaintances and do the things that one otherwise does when one is on vacation.

Take into account that this is not one or two people - it is hundreds of thousands of people! The planes are running shuttle flights to these countries with people from Europe.

What would Annika Hirvonen call such a person?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I asked a concrete question concerning the lack of rights for Ukrainian refugees in Sweden, and Ludvig Aspling did not mention it with a single word.

I also received no answer from the Moderaterna earlier, other than that they have asked the UN's refugee agency what can be done to better integrate Ukrainian refugees.

I listed things from a long list of things that were no more creative than things that all other refugees who receive residence permits in Sweden receive. It is about the right to Swedish language instruction within the framework of SFI, establishment measures by participating in the establishment program, and a livelihood-sufficient compensation, that is, establishment compensation instead of the daily allowance that asylum seekers and now also persons covered by the mass flight directive receive. It is so low that it is only slightly more than half of the subsistence minimum. It is also about the right to healthcare.

Do they have so few rights that the Sverigedemokraternas ambition or the common ambition among the Tidö parties is that Ukrainian refugees should be deterred from coming to Sweden? I get no answers. The government does nothing other than what I was just taught, that is, sending questions to the UN about what could be done.

All Nordic neighboring countries are better at getting Ukrainian refugees to establish themselves in the labor market. Ukrainian refugees, just like everyone else, want to support themselves. They want meaningful employment and to become part of a community.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen asked two questions. I started with the first one. Then I tossed the question back to her and it was blank. She has no idea how she is to explain this phenomenon, because she has never thought about it. It has never even existed in her mental world that this is a gigantic fraud and that these holiday trips prove it in black and white. That was the first one.

Let me move on to the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians are in Sweden under a somewhat special system, the mass flight directive. Annika Hirvonen does not quite understand how it works.

Ukrainians do not need to seek asylum in Sweden; instead, they are granted residence permits simply by coming here. These individuals are therefore not assessed as to whether they have grounds for protection or not, even though many of them naturally do. This means that in very many cases, Ukrainians travel back and forth to Ukraine. Just a few weeks ago, I met a woman who comes from there. She has been in Sweden and worked here, but she then wanted to go back to be with her family. She planned to return to Sweden later.

We do not know exactly what needs this group has. What the government has done is not to ask the UN what we should do with the group. The government has, however, asked the UN to conduct an investigation among the people who are here to improve the knowledge base and write a report on what the people in question need, what they want to do, how long they will stay here, and so on. When the report is ready, the government will take appropriate measures which I hope will be sufficient to improve the situation.

The Migration Minister explained this during a committee meeting. I wonder if Annika Hirvonen was sitting there sleeping when the information was given. It is obvious that she did not really keep up with what is going to happen. We are therefore going to start with an investigation to review what these people need and then deliver what is reasonable and fair.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a long series of motions within the migration area. In this context, I have chosen to concentrate on two committee motions that go in a diametrically opposite direction to what the majority in this chamber consider necessary within this area. These motions would, if they were approved, lead to a very significant wave of immigration with difficult social and political consequences for the country as a whole. Both of these motions are from Vänsterpartiet, but Miljöpartiet has also stood behind many proposals in the same.

Madam Speaker! As is known, there is today in the Riksdag a large majority asserting that a restrictive migration policy is needed given the consequences of the striking imbalance that has existed for a long time between a poorly functioning integration policy and a very large immigration. This applies in particular to asylum-related immigration. In that respect, the majority in this chamber reflects an attitude that has been dominant among the general public for a very long time.

Marginalization and exclusion, parallel and shadow societies, gang and clan rule, extensive honor-based oppression, norm systems that conflict with the basic principles of a free and equal society, violence-oriented Islamism, and dangerous separatism are some known expressions of an increasingly threatening development in the country. The majority of the Riksdag considers that under these circumstances it would be completely irresponsible to push forward a policy that would lead to even greater refugee-related but also purely illegal immigration than what we have already had. But, Madam Speaker, it is precisely such a policy that the Left Party advocates and the Green Party largely supports.

Let me briefly summarize some of the proposals found in the Left Party's committee motions, so that we can all understand what it is about.

An amnesty or regularization should be introduced for those people who have lived in Sweden for a long period, regardless of previous residence status - whether legal or illegal does not matter.

The compensation for asylum seekers shall be raised to the level of the national standard for subsistence support and be indexed in the same way as this standard, i.e., with inflation. Furthermore, the right to assistance and housing shall also apply to adults without children who have had their asylum applications rejected.

The right to family reunification shall be strengthened. The 18-year rule regarding children's right to be reunited with their parents shall be abolished. The children can therefore be 45 years or 60 years old – the right still applies. The so-called last link provision shall be reintroduced.

Persons whose deportation or expulsion decisions cannot be executed for practical reasons shall be granted residence permits.

We should return to the migration regulations that applied until 2016, with permanent residence permits as the main rule.

The number of quota refugees shall again be 5,000 per year.

Unaccompanied children and young people who have been in Sweden for over a year shall be granted permanent residence permits.

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex, is to be decommissioned. You can think about the consequences of this. It does not state that it is to be replaced by anything else, but it is to be decommissioned - period.

Asylum visas shall be issued for those persons who wish to come to Sweden to seek asylum - all probably; there are no restrictions here.

The carrier liability is abolished. Very good, according to the Left Party!

The list of countries requiring a visa is being shortened in order to facilitate for potential asylum seekers to come to Sweden.

The agreement between Turkey and the EU regarding irregular migration should be terminated. It concerns the agreement that largely put an end to the migration crisis in 2015/2016. Its abolition would mean that millions of new migrants could seek their way to the European Union.

Madam Speaker! I do not think I need to make this list any longer for us to fully realize the collective effect of the policy that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet advocate. It would with all certainty lead to a large-scale wave of immigration to Sweden.

I wonder, Madam Speaker, if the representatives of the Left Party and the Green Party have considered the infinitely long queues that would form outside the Swedish embassies and consulates in many places around the world for asylum visa applications. Do they grasp the mighty signaling effect that the proposal for a regularization of all persons who, regardless of residence status, have stayed in Sweden for a certain period would entail? And if such a massive regularization is carried out, who would convince potential migrants and, not least, human smugglers that no further regularizations would occur in the future?

Has it been understood that this de facto legalizes the illegal immigration? Does the Left Party believe that a comprehensive refugee and immigration crisis could be avoided if Frontex is abolished and the agreement with Turkey is terminated? Do the Left Party and the Green Party understand that the 2015 crisis would be remembered as a light breeze in comparison to such a crisis? Have the costs for such a massive influx of new migrants been estimated? And last but not least – do these parties believe that the majority of the Swedish people who want a more restrictive refugee policy would put up with such a situation?

Madam Speaker! Today there is a clear majority in this chamber that prevents the proposals of the Left Party and the Green Party from being implemented. But that could change if these parties are given a position of power where they can condition any potential parliamentary support for a new government on all or at least many of their proposals being implemented. Everyone should think about that when they cast their votes for certain parties.

Madam Speaker! There are hundreds of millions of people in our world who would like and, on very good grounds, would like to come to us to seek protection or simply better living conditions. The United Nations estimates that over 100 million people were fleeing in 2022, a figure that unfortunately is growing continuously. Each one of these people is worthy of our care and solidarity, and the decisive question is how we act in the face of such an extensive human tragedy.

For us liberals, this is binding, but we do not believe that we help by creating a chaotic refugee crisis in our country that would have unpredictable social and, not least, political consequences. That path does not lead to a better world but to a worse Sweden for everyone.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude this speech by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! Let me be honest and say that I had prepared a reply. I had written in large letters at the top: Liberalerna. I suppose I should cross that out. Honestly: What just happened?

Seriously: Where did liberalism go? I will honestly say that I know quite a few liberals. I believe there are quite a few liberals around the country who would not have stood behind the speech we just heard. There was nothing about how we should improve integration for people. There was nothing about how we should improve the reception for people.

I went in and quickly skimmed the Liberals' website to see if they have changed everything that I asked questions about the last time we had a migration policy debate. They haven't. They write about how the right of asylum should be protected. One should have a human, compassionate migration policy. I didn't hear a single word about that.

I also read that more quota refugees are to be granted protection. I asked about that in the integration debate a few months ago. There, the issue of quota refugees was also touched upon. At that time, the Liberal party's member said that the Liberals actually wanted to receive more quota refugees than the 5,000.

I am not getting any wiser from the Liberals' policy. I am actually mostly saddened. I still had some kind of hope that the so-called bourgeois liberal government would have a liberal watchdog. But that liberal watchdog is obviously completely gone. It does not exist.

I want to ask the member: What is the liberal in the government's migration policy? What is the humane in the government's migration policy? What is the compassionate in the government's migration policy? The Liberals are standing behind it, in any case on www.liberalerna.se.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! I would very much like to know if anything of what I said is incorrect and if any of my twelve assertions regarding the policies of the Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet do not align with the motions we are discussing today. Is it not true that it would lead to a terrible crisis in Sweden that would help no one and have very serious political and social consequences that would make Sweden worse and not better?

It is not liberal to ally with parties that want such things. That is what would happen if you somehow want to form a majority and influence what happens in Sweden. What will you accept of the twelve proposals? Is it the amnesty, the abolition of Frontex, or the termination of the agreement with Turkey?

Which of the twelve proposals from Vänsterpartiet is it about? Vänsterpartiet will undoubtedly join some government coalition if you were to get a majority through them, or Miljöpartiet. What do you agree on? What is liberal about doing so?

What is liberal about exacerbating the problems we already have today in Sweden? Have you not heard about explosions and shootings, alienation, and everything else that we have talked very much about? We did that much earlier than when others woke up, Madam Speaker.

It is liberal to have a good country where there are no large conflicts. There we can help as many as we can in the places that are best suited for it and not destroy Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The applause from the Sweden Democrats here can probably summarize liberal politics very well.

The Center Party is not for an amnesty. The members know that. The Center Party wants Frontex to exist. The members know that. I also do not stand behind the proposals here in the chamber. We can leave those there.

I must ask a much simpler question. Does the member stand behind the Liberals' migration policy? That is what I actually wonder. If one reads the Liberals' migration program, it is not what the member is standing here and speaking about.

I still do not hear a single word about how we are to safeguard the right of asylum. I still do not hear a single word about that we are to receive 5,000 quota refugees, as the Liberals as a party actually think.

I hear nothing about how we are to improve the reception for those who will continue to come to Sweden. The only thing I hear is that Sweden is full, that no one shall come here and that those who are already here shall return. That is not liberal politics. That is the Sweden Democrats' migration policy.

I do not understand the genuine concern that we would not get a liberal policy if it were ever the case that the Center Party and the Left Party were to, against all odds, cooperate. We have seen the result when a so-called liberal party cooperates with the Sweden Democrats. Then it definitely does not become a liberal policy.

I am and have been concerned about the Liberals' choice of path. But now I am genuinely concerned. Have you made another turn in migration policy that I didn't know about and that has gone under the radar?

There is nothing in this that breathes humanity, humaneness, and generosity. There is nothing about standing on the side of the most vulnerable. I wonder: Does the member stand behind their own party's migration policy? That question suddenly became relevant.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Our current migration policy is in something called the Tidö Agreement. There it is stated that there shall be 900 quota refugees and not 5,000. That is what the party wants today, and it is what the party will implement today.

Then it is about what we do tomorrow. I said the same thing a few months ago, Madam Speaker, to the same member. We can discuss that when we get order in Sweden with exclusion, shootings, honor oppression, and everything that is extremely important.

It is starting to split our country in a way that is dangerous for everyone. This applies in particular to those like me and many others who have come from other countries and look different. They will certainly be affected if it gets worse.

The reactions against chaos in a society are very strong. We know that from all crises. I do not want that. It is not liberal, member, to create the conditions for such a crisis.

You can say whatever you want about the Left Party's or the Green Party's migration policy. The Social Democrats can also say that. But if you get a chance to govern, you will do it together. Then you must take responsibility.

You say that I should take responsibility. We have done that in the Tidö Agreement. You should also sign a special Tidö Agreement. I ask you about the twelve proposals. They are not just twelve but many more. They would truly lead to a complete migration crisis. What do you do with them?

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

There I heard the member speak directly to the other member and not via the Speaker. It is a general reminder that we speak via the Speaker and do not use "you" in the speaker's chair.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In his speech, the Liberal Mauricio Rojas spoke mostly about other parties' policies and not so much about his own. I still intended to give him the chance to now answer a question that is truly highly topical. It concerns the issue of preventing small children from being reunited with their parents in Sweden.

It is a proposal that the government has sent out for consultation. It would mean that if a parent who has fled war is granted asylum in Sweden and the children are in a refugee camp, those children will no longer have the right to be reunited with their mother or father in Sweden until after many years. The parent must first have learned Swedish, obtained a permanent job and a home.

This is a serious infringement of the human right to family life, and I do not understand at all why the Liberals have signed the proposal.

In recent days, we have seen and heard how various representatives have distanced themselves from or wanted to nuance the government's common line. Among other things, the Liberal representative Romina Pourmokhtari spoke out and protested against the abolition of the plastic bag tax. I wonder if the Liberals could imagine showing an equally passionate commitment to children's right to live with their parents.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! This is interesting. I read out twelve proposals. Miljöpartiet stands behind most of them - however, not the abolition of Frontex, if one is to be honest. But I believe you stand behind the rest of the proposals.

The member says nothing about that. I say that the consequences would be a major refugee crisis in Sweden, which would make Sweden worse. It would create even more conflicts, and it would not help at all regarding integration and so on. But nothing is said about that. I assume the member knows that it would become so but that she does not care about it.

Regarding the reunification of families, a few minutes ago a member here said: If I had a child somewhere that I could not hug or see, I would not be able to read, not be able to form myself and not be able to work, because it would be so terrible!

Then I don't think one understands anything about what a parent could do to reconcile with their child. One would work as many hours as possible and read as much as possible. We who have gone through this know that we can do it and much more.

It is not so much about what people would not be able to do! People can do much more than the member believes, Madam Speaker.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not doubt that people can and want to learn Swedish or get jobs – on the contrary. It is you, the Liberals, who say that children must be separated from their parents so that the parents can get a whip to learn Swedish and want to get a job and a home.

The price is that small children are deprived of their parents during the time this still takes. No matter how much one strives, it will take time to learn Swedish and to obtain a job and housing. Everyone who has stood in a housing queue knows that.

The Green Party's view is that children's right to grow up with their parents should not be used as a kind of regulator for migration policy. It is about a human right.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! I understand that the member does not care about the consequences of the collective package that Miljöpartiet stands behind. It is Vänsterpartiet that has presented the proposals.

The crisis that such a policy would cause would make the entire discussion about family reunification and much more quite irrelevant. We would face much more serious problems. We already have very serious problems, which you actually want to exacerbate.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party should take responsibility for the policy it stands behind. That policy is not good for Sweden, it is not good for the refugees, and it is not good for anyone. But the Green Party drives it and makes a big deal out of the details. But with the combined consequences of what you, the Green Party and the Left Party, propose, you will see a different country. That country is not one I want to see. That Sweden I simply do not want to have.

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by thanking the previous speaker for the fantastic account of the Left Party's policy on the migration area. It was very detailed; I could not have said it better myself.

I vote in favor of reservation 13.

Madam Speaker! The right-wing government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has moved Sweden's migration policy in a direction that has no parallel in modern times, where the Tidö agreement completely dictates the terms. The Tidö agreement is so important that the government has lost all footing in the world around it.

The government's focus on worsening migration and integration policy and asylum policy makes them incapable and unwilling to handle the economic crisis we are in. Sweden is in a crisis. Food prices are increasing, inflation is increasing, and we hear about new warnings every other week. Families with children can no longer make ends meet, and people cannot afford to buy food. Families are forced to go into debt, and the cases at the Enforcement Authority are increasing. But here stands the government and throws up its hands. It is argued that every measure would fuel inflation and that we should bite the bullet.

Instead of investments in the worst-off households, the government during 2023 has spoken about the "right type of immigration." "Right type of immigration" is not those with the greatest need for protection. Therefore, the right lowers the reception of quota refugees by 82 percent from 5,000 to 900. People with quota refugee status have been selected by UNHCR because they belong to particularly vulnerable groups and have an extra strong need to receive protection. But these people are apparently not the "right type of immigration."

These are, therefore, people with established grounds for protection and a right to residence directly in Sweden, and the resettlement program today constitutes one of the few legal routes to get to Europe and Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Government says no to improving the conditions for those with residence permits under the mass influx directive and forces people who have fled the war to live for a long period on a compensation of 71 kronor per day. Despite the fact that we see that the law, which is over 20 years old, does not function as intended, the government refuses to lift a finger on the issue.

Instead, the government will move forward with a census that no one really understands how it is to be carried out. According to the statement, it is to take place through door-knocking, but only in politically neglected areas. The subsistence requirement for labor migration will be raised to 33,000 kronor. In addition to this, the government also wants to run an "information campaign" about what a bad country Sweden is to seek asylum in.

All this is the policy that the right-wing government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has presented during 2023 - along with the fact that they are desperately clinging to their intention to investigate a reporting law for all welfare personnel in the country. It is here that they become completely out of touch with reality. With blindfolds on, they ignore all public opinion and all opposition to the proposal and all facts - away from all reason and common sense.

The opinions do not differ in any way. They are consistent and clear: A disclosure law contradicts all ethics and morals that come with the different professional groups and collides with already existing legislation that is mandatory for healthcare and care personnel.

Madam Speaker! The government is willing to turn a blind eye to the opinions of the professional groups affected in order to spread fear and anxiety among the undocumented. The undocumented are the most vulnerable in society, but being undocumented is not the same as lacking a valid passport or ID. And there is no human being who is illegal. One has rights according to law. One has a right to healthcare, and children have a right to go to school.

There is also nothing that supports that this legislation would reduce the shadow society. On the contrary, there are several reports showing that the government's proposal and similar measures would shatter trust in society and for authorities, and thus also for the decisions that are made. More would choose to go underground and stay away. The shadow society would grow, and more people would become easy victims to exploit and take advantage of.

It is a paradigm shift based on opinions, somewhat like political pseudoscience. When I, during an interpellation debate, asked the responsible minister what facts and information the government had that could support and confirm that this law will have the effect that is claimed, the minister chose to make a remark instead of addressing the subject.

Madam Speaker! To single out a specific group of people and attribute to them responsibility for everything that is wrong in society is destructive. That line runs throughout the Palace Agreement, along with the desire to scare off asylum seekers from Sweden through more restrictive policies, insecure and inadequate living conditions, low compensation, and substandard housing. This has direct negative effects; both the Red Cross and the Nordic Council have stated this after having followed the issue for several years. But the government wants someone else to take responsibility. It is nothing other than social dumping on a global level.

Current and previous governments have justified harsh legislation by saying that integration needed to be bolstered. That is what it has sounded like for a long time. When the previous government chose to make the temporary restriction law permanent, this was the main argument. But how is it then that integration has not become stronger? It has not been bolstered; on the contrary, it has been dismantled. Yes, integration is not a single, isolated part of society. It is part of the entire Swedish class society. As long as we have increasing class inequalities and a broken welfare state, we will also not succeed with integration.

The Left Party's policy is based on the fact that welfare must be strengthened at its core. Overcrowding will not decrease as long as there is a housing shortage. Educational inequalities will not decrease as long as we do not have an equal school.

But it is not through laws that turn people against each other that we will succeed in moving forward. It is by strengthening the welfare and counteracting class inequalities that we can achieve a law-abiding and functioning integration and migration policy.

The policy that the right-wing government is pursuing has consequences for the entire society. The foundation upon which a rule of law stands is built on trust and confidence between people, and society is built on trust in authorities. Actively painting a picture that migrants and people with a migration background bear responsibility for crime and other societal problems creates division and fuels racism. In the Covenant of the Palace, migration is equated with crime. Migration is not a crime, but the ambition from the right and the Sweden Democrats is to dehumanize people on the run and to normalize racism. Vänsterpartiet does not want to see such a society.

But the rhetoric against and the criminalization of asylum seekers and migrants begins far outside Sweden's borders. It begins on a beach in Libya, on the Turkish border, or in the middle of the Mediterranean.

In February, it happened once again that an overcrowded boat capsized in the Mediterranean. There were people fleeing on board. After the accident, 70 people were confirmed dead. At least 15 of them were children. Several of those who were on board are also completely missing. The number of dead is assumed to be higher.

A few weeks before this latest catastrophe, a report from Save the Children arrived stating that 8,400 people have drowned in the Mediterranean during the past four years. Even here, however, the dark figure is high. This is confirmed by IOM, which is the UN's migration organization.

A journey across the Mediterranean is made with one's life at stake. One does not put oneself and one's children in a boat unless the sea is safer than what exists on land.

Madam Speaker! In principle, almost all safe and legal routes to reach Europe are closed. The EU has for several years actively worked to close just these through Frontex, the Dublin Regulation, carrier liability, and regular pushbacks. The EU and Europe have actively dehumanized people on the run and equated migration with something illegal.

The EU's migration policy and treatment of asylum seekers have on several occasions been criticized for leading to violations of fundamental human rights. It is also where the government wants to take Sweden's asylum and migration policy: to Europe's absolute bottom. This means settling at a level that is not compatible with respect for fundamental human rights.

Madam Speaker! The coalition parties' policy is unparalleled in modern times. It is a policy that will fundamentally change Sweden. It will affect Sweden as a rule of law state, turn people against one another, and worsen trust in the authorities and the state. It is a policy that is not worthy of one of the world's richest countries and is not worthy of a democracy like Sweden.

I conclude by reiterating my support for reservation 13.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! According to a memorandum from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that the newspaper Fokus has obtained, hundreds of thousands of people have traveled from Sweden to countries that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs advises against traveling to. Very popular destinations are, for example, Iraq, Iran and Somalia. It is obviously a matter of people who have roots in these countries, who have come to Sweden and sought asylum, who have received their residence permits and who then go home on holiday.

This is a behavior that should lead to reflection.

The parliamentary leader from Vänsterpartiet said that one does not get into a boat unless the boat is safer than the country one is coming from. That may be true. It may be true. The mirror image of that argument should be that one does not go on holiday to a country that one has fled from. In that case, one has not fled from that country, but rather one is an economic migrant.

We can all sympathize with people moving to other countries to achieve a better economic situation. I do not reproach them. I do not think it is immoral in that way. However, there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever that Sweden should grant residence permits to such persons, even if the behavior is not so reprehensible.

What this is about, I would say, is an organized fraud. One comes to Sweden and says: I need to live in Sweden. I cannot live in my home country, because it is too dangerous. Then one gets a residence permit in Sweden, and the first thing one does is go on vacation to that home country that one has just moved away from. Then one has not been honest.

I would like to hear how the Left Party reasons regarding this. This is not about one or two people, but here we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people. The plan involves shuttle traffic to these countries from Europe. Are these people really refugees?

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Madam Speaker! One is a refugee when one has grounds for protection. I cannot confirm the figures that the member presents. It is nothing that I have been made aware of. We in Vänsterpartiet consider, however, that if one comes to Sweden as an asylum seeker and has grounds for protection, one is a refugee.

Then we know how the Tidö Agreement works. Just as the member says, the Tidö Agreement is very much about civil servant responsibility, but regarding the issue the member raises, in the Tidö Agreement, one wants to move precisely the responsibility for which areas are safe to travel to.

It is a point in the Tidö Agreement that wants to move from the Swedish Migration Agency to the Government Offices, where they should be able to assess which areas in different countries it is safe and secure to be deported to.

I would like to turn the question around a bit. We have already received a summary of the Left Party's policy here today.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe the member from Vänsterpartiet is confusing two different things. There is a list of safe countries, and people from such countries are then allowed to undergo an expedited procedure when they come to Sweden. But that is something completely different.

Now we are talking about people who come and seek asylum, receive a residence permit, and then go on holiday to their home country. It is that situation we are talking about.

The Member of Parliament from Vänsterpartiet says that she cannot confirm the information. But that is not what I am demanding. I am only saying that we are taking a hypothetical case. We say that a person comes to Sweden, seeks asylum, receives a residence permit, and then goes on holiday to their home country – that country against which the person has sought asylum and claims to have grounds for protection in relation to. I can promise the Member of Parliament from Vänsterpartiet that there are thousands of such people. Denmark has worked actively with this over a longer period. There, they have found as many as you can imagine. We will also find them. Be so sure of that!

I wonder how the Left Party (V) reasons regarding these cases. Suppose a person comes to Sweden and says: It is too dangerous to stay in my home country; I am afraid for my life! Then the person is granted a residence permit, and the first thing the person does is go on vacation to their home country – the same country that the person claims they cannot stay in. Is such a person a real refugee? We can look at it as a completely hypothetical case. Is this a real refugee – yes or no? It is a simple question.

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Madam Speaker! If one has come to Sweden, sought asylum, had their case examined, and been granted a residence permit on the grounds of protection, then this is what one has. Then one has a residence permit in Sweden. Then one has gone through the migration process, and the authorities have established that one has grounds for protection and a right to a residence permit in Sweden.

The asylum process is tested in several stages. If one has been granted a residence permit in Sweden, one has gone through an asylum process. Also, the members of parliament must presumably trust that the authority makes a correct assessment?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Frida Tånghag, for the speech! I would like to ask, not about the twelve different proposals that I highlighted but about four, in order to keep up.

Firstly: You state in the committee motion that you want to phase out Frontex. In that case, I would like to know if you have considered the consequences of that. Have you conducted an analysis: What would happen without Frontex? Would something else emerge, or should it just disappear?

Secondly, it says in the motion regarding asylum visas for all persons who wish to seek asylum in Sweden. You do not limit it in any way. Has the Left Party considered how many it could become? How will it be examined so that it doesn't become 100,000 who come here? How does this actually work? It is an incredibly confusing proposal.

For the third point, you want to terminate the agreement with Turkey. In that case, I wonder if you have considered the consequences of this. There are approximately 4 million people that Turkey could then help to migrate towards Europe.

Finally, I wonder about this with the amnesty. Regardless of previous residence status, one would receive permanent residence permit in Sweden. Do you really mean that anyone, legally or illegally, would get to stay if the person has been hidden in Sweden for a long time?

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Madam Speaker! I raise both Turkey and Frontex at the same time. We are against there being an agreement with Turkey to act as a border guard for Europe. On April 7, a report was released stating that the number of regular pushbacks is increasing. This bears witness to violations and harassment.

What is happening at Turkey's border is incompatible with any form of human dignity. Refugees who try to cross the border to reach Europe are being shot. Today, there are no legal routes to Europe. The only legal route that exists is to come as a quota refugee. It is essentially the only legal way to reach Europe and Sweden.

In all this, Frontex is a contributing factor. Frontex is receiving more and more powers. More and more agreements are being signed - with Libya's coast guard, for example.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! One can very well discuss Frontex's powers and many other things. But this is more radical than that. One wants to dismantle Frontex, and one has nothing else to put in its place. I wonder: Is this in earnest? Is this how one conducts politics? Has one thought about the consequences of this?

The agreement with Turkey - if you remove it, it is approximately 4 million people who would be affected. Has anyone thought about what this means for the entire European migration policy and for Sweden?

So, everyone who wants to should be allowed to apply for an asylum visa. Should the Left Party have any specific criteria for this? Should it be limited or screened in some way? Or is this just talk and rhetoric that is actually very hollow?

Last but not least, we have this with regularization regardless of previous residence status. Has it been considered that this signal everywhere would be perceived as that it is now time to travel to Sweden and stay for a certain period there, and then one is regularized regardless of how one manages to stay in Sweden and regardless of residence status? Have they thought about human smugglers? It would be a feast for them! How would it affect travel across the Mediterranean – would it decrease if one has such a proposal? I really wonder about that. I do not think it is serious.

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

Frida Tånghag (V)

Madam Speaker! Just this with asylum visas is something we want to investigate. There are today practically no legal routes to Europe. That is why people get into boats in the Mediterranean. It is 8,400 people who have drowned in the Mediterranean over the last four years, and the underreporting is as large as it can be. That is established.

I do not think that anyone decides to cross the Mediterranean as a holiday trip. It is about people fleeing for their lives. It is clear that legal and safe routes were needed to come to Europe and also to be able to reach Sweden. There, asylum visas are something that one should resort to. We have no legal routes to Europe. That is why people sacrifice their lives as it looks today.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve reservation 5.

From an agreement on care for undocumented people, from a large reception of people in flight, and from openness, tolerance, and humanity to closedness and intolerance. From open hearts to a constant competition over who has the most restrictive migration policy and, above all, who can appear the coldest and toughest. The migration policy debates usually look quite similar here in the chamber, so when I sat and reflected on my speech, I thought about the bigger picture and constantly returned to one and the same question: How did we end up here?

Yes, how did we actually end up here? Let us begin by taking a small look back. I want to start by saying that I am proud that Sweden has been a country that has stood for openness, generosity and tolerance and that we have seen differences as a strength and something that enriches. I am proud to live in a country that has taken responsibility and that has helped some of the most vulnerable people.

The years 2015 and 2016 can be seen as decisive years in the contemporary history of migration policy. Many received help in Sweden, while far too many who were denied their application for protection chose to stay here in any case.

It can only be stated that Sweden at that time did not have a migration policy that could handle the high pressure that arose regarding seeking asylum in just Sweden. The migration policy was quickly overhauled, and the hastily drafted temporary laws, with patching and mending, became just as bad as the Center Party said from the very beginning. Instead, a new, long-term migration policy was needed.

In 2021, Sweden received a new migration policy. It still applies today. In the Center Party's world, it was far from perfect, but it was good enough for us to stand behind it. There is the answer to the question that has been asked repeatedly here today: whether we can reach an agreement. Yes, we did in 2021.

The policy truly combined humanity and humanism with order and tidiness. It was a broad humanitarian basis. Children were given the opportunity to be reunited with their parents while we moved closer to other EU countries' migration policies and moved from permanent to temporary residence permits as a rule.

As a member of the Centre Party, however, I missed proposals on return, and I missed proposals on increased legal certainty. I also missed proposals on how we should lower the costs of migration with qualification into the welfare system.

I had hoped that in 2021 we would reach a broad migration policy agreement, but unfortunately, the Moderaterna refused to abandon their absolute demand for a volume target for migration. Now I can state that the volume target has completely disappeared. I have not heard a single Moderate speak about it since the election.

It is time to state that a broad agreement was never an option for the Moderates, not because it would have been bad in substance, but because for party-strategic reasons it would have become harder to approach the Sverigedemokraterna and in that way take power in last year's election. Tactics took precedence over substance. Tactics took precedence over people.

The Tidö parties were clear before the election that they would tear up Sweden's new migration policy in the event of an election victory. A paradigm shift would occur, but if I am to be truly honest, I believed in my naivety that the shift occurred in 2015-2016 and that it was partially permanentized in 2021.

The government claims that what we are now seeing from the Tidö parties' side is a paradigm shift. I have to agree that it is a paradigm shift, but it is far from a policy-based paradigm shift. It is primarily a shift in the view of people, in the view of some of our time's most vulnerable. It is a shift from an open, generous and tolerant Sweden to a closed, cold and intolerant Sweden.

Sweden is and has long been a proud recipient of quota refugees. Now we are going to, or have already gone, from 5,000 to 900 per year. Furthermore, we are going to depart from the principles of the entire system and help those who have the greatest integration capacity instead of helping the most vulnerable, which is the whole point of the system.

We are going to get a completely new legal precedent where positive agency decisions can be revoked. People who have been here, who are established and who have integrated into and become a part of Swedish society will suddenly be able to lose their permanent residence permits.

Let me quote the Tidö Agreement: "to limit asylum seekers' rights as far as it is legally possible." I could unfortunately have stood here all evening and read out proposal after proposal where the Tidö parties take step by step towards a new Sweden, towards a new view of humanity.

How did we end up here? It is only to be honest and say that Sweden has had an all-too poor integration policy. All parties in Sweden bear responsibility for this, including my own. That Sweden and people seeking asylum here deserve a better integration, I believe we can all agree on.

But we do not solve Sweden's poor integration by moving from 5,000 to 900 quota refugees or by giving refugees as few rights as possible; rather, it is solved through concrete integration solutions.

The Tidö Agreement is a copy of the Sweden Democrats' migration and integration policy. This can be seen by the fact that the migration chapter in the agreement contains simplified, populist, and cold migration solutions, while the integration chapter contains only one thing: blank spaces. It is completely empty.

I have, in both the integration debates and the migration debates for several years, tried to get answers to the question of what the Sweden Democrats' integration policy is. I have searched and searched and asked and asked, and I can only conclude one thing: They have no integration policy.

Migration and integration are linked. But migration is not integration, and integration is not migration. I can state that the Tidö parties claim to have plenty of integration in their agreement, but it is nothing but pure and simple migration.

The government thinks many things about migration - one has to say that. Simplified, one can say that they think people are a great burden, that people should not come here and that people who are already here should leave the country. The serious thing would be investments in integration, doing everything one can to break social exclusion. But there it echoes empty, and it is perhaps not so strange when one bases their entire government statement on the Sverigedemokraternas party program.

At the same time, I am genuinely worried about where we are headed, because in the government, they are competing with each other over who can be the toughest. And they often mix up all possible types of immigration. It is not just immigration, but it is labor immigration, asylum immigration, resettlement, student visas, and so on.

I can only ask the question: What is the next step? Will it become more difficult for foreign students to study in Sweden? I hope not, but right now I do not dare to believe anything. I am genuinely worried.

I have today tried to frame the migration policy of recent years in some kind of larger context. I think it is appropriate that we are now about to make decisions on a completely new migration policy for Sweden. In that case, one cannot omit an important conclusion.

Many parties in this chamber, not least the government parties, have in recent years moved closer to the Sverigedemokraterna. What happens then? Well, then the Sverigedemokraterna become a bit more extreme. And what happens then? Well, then the Moderaterna follow. It is a genuinely dangerous development. I began by asking how it could have become like this, but I want to conclude by asking: Where are we headed? We are partly here for party-strategic reasons. That is why certain parties have moved closer to the Sverigedemokraterna. And that journey continues.

Then the answer to where we are headed is very simple. We are headed towards an even more closed, intolerant and cold Sweden.

But there is another way, a way where one can combine regulated immigration with a great generosity towards people in our world.

I personally think that diversity is something beautiful and that it enriches us. I am convinced that openness is fundamentally always better than closedness. I believe that humanity is something we can achieve if we are prepared and if we have an integration worthy of the name. But I am afraid that we are heading towards a more closed, intolerant, and cold Sweden.

It is up to the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and not least the 16 liberaler who sit in this chamber to disprove me.

I was less worried when I entered the chamber today than I am after, not least, the Liberals' speech. Now it is up to proof.

I can only state that the probationary period is over and that it is time to deliver. I hope that you deliver in many areas, but perhaps not just on this.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! When we wrote our party program more than ten years ago, we wrote, among other things, that we have a vision of a world where everyone can move but no one is forced to move.

We have probably never been further from this vision than we are today. There are more people fleeing than ever before. War, climate change, and more and more authoritarian regimes are serious threats that increase the number of people who are fleeing in the world. Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine has driven millions of people to flee. And most refugees in Ukraine, just as in the rest of the world, are fleeing within their own country and in neighboring countries.

The most important thing that Sweden's government and other governments should do to avoid people being driven into flight is to drastically reduce climate emissions now and to provide the world's poor countries with resources for climate adaptation so that the most vulnerable can cope with the disasters that the climate changes will already entail. And we must do everything we can for a more peaceful world.

Sweden's nationalist and conservative government is now instead being directed entirely by SD's opposite agenda. It is a slaughter of aid and a very effective policy to increase climate emissions. At the same time, the overriding goal is to minimize refugees' human rights as much as the EU allows.

We can read that by making life as hellish as possible for the refugees who are already here, one wants to scare others away from wanting to come here, by making Sweden a worse country for more people. It is cynical.

What is it that one does then? Among other things, it says at the very top and first in order that children should be separated from their parents. It is such a method one wants to use to send signals. It is a signal policy that will deny small children the opportunity to grow up with their mothers and fathers. This is not what the Swedish people want. A clear majority thinks it is the wrong path to take. But the Tidö Agreement stipulates this.

The proposal has been on consultation. The same proposal also contains rules that will cause, for example, more severely ill children who cannot receive care in their home country, and others who are severely vulnerable, to risk deportation.

We have a situation in Sweden today which means that the only chance for a child who has come here through family reunification and then becomes an adult in Sweden before it has managed to obtain a permanent residence permit not to be deported is the humanitarian ground.

We now risk seeing more 18-year-olds who have graduated in Sweden forced back to their home country, while the rest of the family gets to stay in Sweden. These are absurd consequences, and it is not humane. But the government no longer cares about that. The most important and overriding goal is that no one should want to move to Sweden.

One speaks of their opposition to people being forced to risk their lives in rubber boats in the Mediterranean. Then, one slaughters the safe and legal way to come as a refugee by cutting the quota refugee system – from 5,000 to 900 per year. By being a worse role model, it is believed that others will want to do more. It has never been proven, Madam Speaker, that it works.

We see proposals to make Sweden a reporting society, where the hunt for the undocumented shall legitimize compromising on children's right to schooling and people's right to healthcare.

The same hunt for people will lead to more racial profiling from the police. It is even encouraged in the Tidö Agreement.

Madam Speaker! More racism is not a recipe for integration. And it is very little of this migration policy – if anything – that has any positive impact on integration at all. The knowledge that exists regarding what makes refugees who receive protection in a new country integrate well is totally ignored. Security is a central factor. When people know that they can stay in a country, that they can breathe a sigh of relief permanently, then they become receptive, for example, to trauma treatment for torture injuries. It increases the chance that people have great motivation to learn a new language, not least if the language is spoken by quite few people in the world, and in other ways take measures to integrate. It is good for integration that one is here with one's family.

But, Madam Speaker, the talk about wanting good integration is actually just new language. The Tidö Agreement contains no integration policy. It contains policy for more people to leave Sweden or not want to move here and for it to become harder for people to get protection here.

They want to make refugees poor, especially families with children. I actually do not understand how, for example, a newly delivered mother is supposed to qualify for parental insurance. I also do not understand how they have imagined that a person covered by the criteria for personal assistance should be able to qualify for such assistance through work, especially not before they have received assistance. Children and people with disabilities are specifically highlighted in the Tidö Agreement as groups that are to become poorer and more vulnerable.

The Tidö Agreement creates an A-team and a B-team regarding rights, and it will become increasingly difficult for people to enter the A-team, where one has all rights. It creates a Sweden where not all people have the same value anymore and where children in classrooms have diametrically different prerequisites, based on whether their parents came here as refugees or not. And it creates a reporting society with suspicion as the basis for the state's relationship to the citizens. And when that suspicion is directed from the state toward people, it will soon become mutual, and it will destroy the high trust we have in Sweden. This is not a Sweden that we in Miljöpartiet want to see.

Mr. Speaker! Abolishing the right to an interpreter in healthcare or when contacting authorities does not contribute to increased integration.

I naturally support all of the Miljöpartiet's reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 4.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I did not actually intend to request the floor, but Member Hirvonen spoke about how children will have different prerequisites. I grew up in Rosengård and Lindängen, and I live in Nydala. Children have long had different prerequisites in Sweden due to mass immigration. Areas of exclusion have been created with the worst schools, and there, the children have completely different prerequisites compared to in other areas where there is a larger proportion with an ethnically Swedish background. That is how it has been for a long time. That one then says that this is caused by the Tidö Agreement is remarkable.

This was how it was when I grew up, and over time I understood that it was because Sweden had had an immigration policy that one could not manage. Now we are going to transition this so that the children who grow up will do so in a society where it is possible to integrate, become a part of society and go to schools where one actually has opportunities. That is not the case today, and it has not been for a long time.

That Member of Parliament Hirvonen says that our policy will create the society that the Social Democrats have created with their exclusion policy shocks me.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Certainly, people and children have had different circumstances at all times based on a multitude of different circumstances. But here we are talking about fundamental rights. It is about, for example, the right to be fed and to have provision even if one's parents are poor. It is about the right to go to school at all without having to fear that it risks the entire family's security.

This agreement contains no proposals for powerful measures against school segregation or housing segregation. It contains no measures to build away overcrowding. It contains measures to deny people rights, to take back rights that people once received according to Swedish law, and to give healthcare staff an obligation to report their patients and teachers an obligation to report children who come to school, if they are born in Sweden but lack a residence permit.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement increases the difference between human and human in Sweden.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Member Hirvonen speaks about certain rights. The right that has been missing is the right to the Swedish language. That right gives other rights, such as the right to a job. That is what migrants have lacked in this country. People have come here, ended up in exclusion, and become voting livestock for parties such as the Socialdemokraterna. That is what has happened and a description of the reality that many recognize.

Member of the Board Hirvonen speaks about school segregation. School segregation is due to housing segregation. And housing segregation exists because we accept so many immigrants that we have to place them in certain areas. They can only live in certain areas because they cannot afford to live in the more affluent areas. This is the reason for the school segregation. That is why Rosengård's schools have more than 90 percent students with a foreign background. It is due to mass immigration and nothing else.

These people in these areas have lacked certain rights for decades. The right to become a part of society has not come naturally to them, because they grow up in a society where no one speaks Swedish. They go to schools that teachers flee from - no certified teachers want to work there. Their principals are replaced all the time, because they live in exclusion.

It is the right to become a part of society that they need, and it is this that our policy will create, Member of Parliament Hirvonen.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe that fewer teachers will choose to opt out of working in certain schools because they are required to engage in informing. It is, however, possible to reverse the pedagogical segregation that Nima Gholam Ali Pour speaks of. One only has to look at what is now happening in the schools in Järva in Stockholm. There, they have truly succeeded in getting experienced, skilled principals there, who recruit qualified, experienced, capable teachers. In that way, one can ensure a good school for the children who attend there.

It is not a law of nature that we in Sweden should have one of the world's most segregated capitals. We politicians have the power to influence how we plan, how we build, and what we build. The government abolished the support for building more rental apartments that people can afford. It was important to counteract the enormous overcrowding that we see in certain areas today. There is a shortage of housing that people with lower incomes can afford to demand.

There is so much policy that we could implement to reduce segregation and to increase, for example, Swedish language learning among people who have come to Sweden as refugees or to work here, but that is not what the Tidö Agreement is about. More people will not learn Swedish because the government withdraws permanent residence permits from people. That causality does not exist.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have submitted committee motions regarding the areas of asylum policy, family migration, citizenship, and illegal migration that go further than the proposals in the Tidö Agreement. This is because the Tidö Agreement is only a beginning of the change that Sweden needs when it comes to migration policy.

It is still the case that asylum seekers come to Sweden from countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. None of these countries border Sweden or are even in the surrounding area. This means in practice that these asylum seekers pass through several safe countries before they arrive in Sweden.

The Sweden Democrats argue that people fleeing should seek asylum in the first safe country. The right to asylum applies, but the right to asylum does not mean that one is entitled to choose which country shall meet one's protection needs. Economic migration must not be confused with people who are persecuted and who, in desperation, seek a sanctuary and distance from perpetrators of violence. There must be a difference.

The person who is a refugee does not tour through European countries but stays in the first safe country that can meet the refugee's protection needs. This means that we in Sweden, in the normal case, should only accept asylum seekers from our neighboring countries or countries in our immediate vicinity. Such an asylum policy also results in that integration problems are countered, as it is easier for migrants from countries in the vicinity to integrate into Sweden, just as it is easier for Syrians to integrate into Jordan. Asylum seekers from safe countries simply shall not be admitted into Sweden, because they have no protection needs when they are in safe countries.

To guarantee that economic migrants do not reach Sweden, it is important that the entire asylum process takes place outside the EU. The asylum process can be located in a third country outside the EU, and if the migrant were to have a need for protection, he or she would be granted a residence permit in this third country. The right to asylum does not always have to mean that one has the right to asylum in Sweden. The right to asylum shall mean exactly the right to asylum, even if one were to receive asylum in a country outside the EU.

Sweden has received far too many people from countries that have completely different values. The result is areas of exclusion, riots, conflicts, and a questioning of Sweden's national identity.

One is not a worse human being if one stops, looks at the problems in the country and says stop. Now we must build up Sweden before we can receive more people whose stay in Sweden will both be resource-intensive and lead to conflicts and radical societal changes.

We live in a time when freedom of speech in Sweden is being questioned due to immigration from Muslim countries. It is time to dare to say stop before other important values also begin to be questioned.

I move for approval of the Sverigedemokraternas reservation 2.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 April.)

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