Migration issues

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It feels good to be part of the Social Insurance Committee again and especially to have the opportunity to initiate this debate on the important migration issues.

I already now move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for a long time had an unsustainable migration policy. The large immigration to Sweden in combination with the deficient integration has created a great sense of exclusion in our country.

The lack of integration is reflected today in almost all areas of society. Unemployment is three times higher among foreign-born than among domestic-born, and many have deficient knowledge of Swedish despite several years of Swedish for immigrants instruction.

Add to that the crime where young guys, often second-generation immigrants, are drawn into or enter into gang conflicts with deadly violence. Shootings and explosions affect innocent people in a completely unacceptable way.

It is the terrible consequences of the irresponsible migration policy and lack of integration policy that the Social Democrats, together with their government base, failed to rectify during their eight years in power. We Moderates are determined to reverse the development.

But surely immigration has also had positive effects for Sweden. Many people who have come here have integrated into our society and contribute to Sweden's prosperity by going to school, working or running businesses and behaving properly.

Often it is the immigrants who manage to succeed who are hit hardest by the fact that certain immigrants are in Sweden for the wrong reasons. Many risk being exposed to crime and violence since many live in areas where it is unfortunately common. And it is not least immigrant girls who become victims of honor culture when such unacceptable norms and values are allowed here without it having consequences.

Sweden shall be a place to live in for those who want to do right by themselves and be a part of Swedish society.

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

For us Moderates, it is important that a yes is a yes and a no is a no. Those who are granted residence permits in Sweden shall be integrated into Swedish society, and those who are denied their asylum application shall leave the country.

We need to regain control over who is present in Sweden and address the shadow society, where people risk being harmed.

Until now, the Moderate-led government has, among other things, raised the maintenance requirement for labor migration from countries outside the EU, tightened the requirements for family migration, limited the possibility of residence permits on humanitarian grounds, and reduced the number of quota refugees that Sweden accepts from 5,000 to 900 per year.

We have also expanded the possibilities to revoke residence permits if it can be assumed that an individual will engage in state-controlled corporate espionage or activities linked to terrorism.

We have also given the border police more effective tools during internal immigration controls.

The Moderate-led government has also given the Swedish Migration Agency a number of assignments. The first return centers are now inaugurated, which will strengthen the return work. The number of revocations of residence permits more than doubled during 2023 compared to 2022. And the Swedish Migration Agency shall now provide high-skilled labor immigrants with decisions on work permits within 30 days, which is second fastest in the EU.

People from other countries have the potential to contribute to Sweden, not least by providing high-level expertise to Swedish companies, which is crucial for them to be able to compete in a global environment. It is therefore that we shift the labor immigration to focus on highly qualified labor because this is important for the Swedish business sector and Sweden's prosperity.

We also act at the EU level for common European efforts. Recently, the European Parliament voted yes to the migration pact, which our Moderate migration minister Maria Malmer Stenergard and our Moderate MEP Tomas Tobé have been driving to get in place. The migration pact involves, among other things, strengthened controls at the EU's external border, and it creates better conditions for us to implement the changes that we need to make in Swedish migration policy.

Mr. Speaker! Step by step, we Moderates, together with our coalition partners, are now implementing the paradigm shift in migration policy that the Swedish people demand and Sweden needs. And we see results from our policy. In 2023, the lowest number of asylum-related residence permits was granted in any year in the 2000s. This also includes relatives of persons who have been granted asylum. Now we see that the number continues to decrease even in 2024. It is both good and necessary.

The Moderate-led government's policy has had an effect, but more needs and will be done to reverse the development. In a couple of weeks, for example, we will debate the government's bill on amendments to the Citizenship Act, which entails stricter requirements for obtaining citizenship through application, which is absolutely necessary.

The Swedish Migration Agency is now preparing the establishment of reception centers where the entire asylum process shall be carried out. In this way, we shorten the asylum process and reduce the risk of people disappearing into the shadow society.

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

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating, among other things, the proposals within the migration area that the opposition parties have put forward. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to highlight some of them.

The Social Democrats claim to want to pursue a strict migration policy. It is then justified to ask why the Socialdemokraterna did not pursue a strict migration policy when they held government power. But when one examines the various motions of their intended government partners, it becomes somewhat clearer.

Miljöpartiet says, among other things, no to tightening the requirements to become a Swedish citizen. They do not think, for example, that it should be required that a person must be able to speak Swedish in order to become a Swedish citizen.

Centerpartiet wants to increase the number of quota refugees that Sweden receives to a level that historically has meant that Sweden has received a quarter of all quota refugees who came to all EU countries combined.

But the biggest challenge for the Social Democrats and the strict migration policy that they say they want to pursue will probably be their largest coalition partner, the Left Party. The Left Party's motion on Swedish refugee policy contains 23 pages of proposals to increase immigration to Sweden. Among other things, it states: "The Left Party does not stand behind the ambition that fewer should seek asylum in Sweden." They want to return to the migration policy that Sweden had in 2015, the year when approximately 163,000 people sought asylum in Sweden.

It is therefore these parties that the Social Democrats will have to try to conduct a strict migration policy with, should the worst happen and they win the next election. The question is not whether V, MP or C will have influence in migration policy, but which of their proposals will become a reality.

The history is clear: When it comes down to it, the Social Democrats choose power over their own policies and what is good for Sweden. We saw this, not least during the last parliamentary term, when they repeatedly bowed to their government base.

So to all of you who want to get Sweden in order, I want to give a very clear message: A Moderate-led government is required for Sweden to have a strict migration policy and to address the great exclusion that exists in our country.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Recently, I sat with Viktor Wärnick at the same table at Svenskt Näringsliv's business day. The theme was skills supply through labor from countries outside the EU, what we call labor immigration. Business owner after business owner at the table testified about how their operations would be negatively affected if the personnel from countries outside the EU that they had hired were deported, if the proposed new wage levels – levels that half of Sweden's wage earners will not reach – were to become a reality.

The egg packager from Gotland asked the question: What is the purpose of the new wage limits? At first, he received no answer, but he returned, not mockingly but genuinely confused: What is the purpose of raising the wage level to over 34,000 kronor a month so that my staff are deported? Is the purpose only to deport more? Finally, Viktor Wärnick admitted that yes, that is the purpose.

In his speech, he claims on the other hand that this would increase Sweden's prosperity. Svenskt Näringsliv has calculated that we would lose 17 billion kronor in tax revenue alone if this proposal is passed, because people who work today would be deported. Companies would shrink instead of being able to grow.

I therefore want to ask Viktor Wärnick: Does he stand by what he said to the egg packager about the purpose being to deport as many as possible? How does he view Svenskt Näringsliv's calculations, which do not at all indicate that this would contribute to increased prosperity?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! The purpose of us now making a series of tightenings in the migration area, including the part concerning labor migration, is that we need to get order in Sweden. We have not had control over the immigration that has occurred to Sweden, regardless of whether it concerns the asylum-related part or, for example, the labor migration. We know that there are major problems. There is fraud and exploitation and also a shadow society linked to this, which we must address.

It is also important, I think, which Annika Hirvonen does not mention in her speech, that we distinguish between high-skilled and low-skilled labor immigration. The high-skilled immigration is what I specifically mentioned in my speech when I spoke about the importance of us shortening the processes so that companies that need specialized labor get it to Sweden faster in order to be able to grow in a global world with tough competition.

But what we are talking about regarding labor immigration and the increases we make to wage requirements concerns primarily the low-skilled part. We have approximately 400,000 unemployed in Sweden. More of them should reasonably be able to take the jobs that are of a more low-skilled nature. We have a large exclusion in Sweden, and more need to enter the Swedish labor market. That we then bring in people from countries outside the EU's borders to do the type of work that the majority of the unemployed people could do is completely wrong, and in addition comes all the problems it entails in the form of fraud and exploitation.

My counter-questions to Annika Hirvonen are: What does Miljöpartiet think about these problems? Are there no such problems? Should there be open borders? Should we not have any control?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Viktor Wärnick may have missed my extensive motion regarding, among other things, strengthened rights for labor migrants, increased opportunities for control, and an expanded mandate when it comes to monitoring those who cheat. He has also obviously missed the points that those who cheat today will continue to try to cheat even in the new system.

What the government's proposal means is that no one who has a salary below 34,200 kronor a month shall be able to get a job in Sweden, even if they have nothing to do with any fraud. You are therefore throwing out all the honest ones to reduce immigration, and then you say that this is supposed to reduce the fraud.

If one wants to reduce cheating, one should give trade unions the opportunity to have regional safety representatives who can carry out inspections. Believe me, it is needed!

I would still like to return to the discourse that Viktor Wärnick also took up, where he portrayed immigrants as a social problem rather than seeing the great benefit that very many immigrants provide today, not least those who come to Sweden to take jobs that our Swedish unemployed cannot take, such as the CNC operator from Georgia, who enables the company to hire ten more who do not have vocational training.

In the last few days, we have seen how an even coarser discourse about immigrants is being carried out by troll accounts administered by the Sweden Democrats. I saw that SD has now apologized to the Moderates for the rhetoric they directed towards the Moderates. Will the Moderates demand that an apology also be directed towards the immigrants who have been the subject of this appalling rhetoric?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! To connect to the part concerning labor immigration: It is quite clear that we need to do things to reduce the pressure that has been placed on Sweden. This applies regardless of whether it concerns the asylum-related part or the labor immigration.

Annika Hirvonen is arguing that we should raise the wage ceilings in the future, which is being investigated and prepared. There will also be a number of exceptions. This is being looked at to see where it might be reasonable to have a lower level. But as a main principle, we must raise the limit. It simply has not worked to have it at the low level that has applied previously. We have seen the problems and the downsides that this has brought with it. That is why we are doing this – it is to get order in Sweden.

Annika Hirvonen claims that I speak about problems. The problems I speak about are about the lack of integration. We have had too high an immigration in combination with a lack of integration. This is a complete blind spot for Miljöpartiet. They hardly care at all about the downsides it entails that we have had such a strong immigration to Sweden, but they pretend as if it is a matter of goodness versus evil.

It is about ensuring that the people who come to Sweden – those to whom we give a yes – can also be integrated into Swedish society. But we must also ensure that those to whom we give a no leave the country, something that Miljöpartiet also does not seem to want to stand up for. They would rather have amnesties or that those who have hidden for long enough should still be allowed to stay. That is not taking responsibility for regulated immigration. That is what we Moderater do, and that is what we intend to continue to do.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to listen to what is being said about norms and values. Some of us, when we leave this chamber today, will have an inbox full of hate and threats from anonymous accounts spreading disinformation about what we have said and done, how we look, what we are wearing, what background we have, or whatever it may be. To then speak of a struggle between evil and good, norms and values, I think sounds somewhat false.

(Applause)

When it comes to the matters raised in the report, there is much good happening. I think it is good that we abolish EBO. I think it is bad that we, or rather the government and the Sverigedemokraterna, open up for organized crime to run housing. I think it is good that we correct some deficiencies in the citizenship law based on investigations that the Socialdemokraterna commissioned. I think we should be able to introduce language requirements for PUT. We can well hope that something happens, as S commissioned an investigation on this.

The goal for return should have remained. Under the S government, there was a goal that it would increase by 50 percent, but it was removed. Now the current government is trying to take credit for things that the S government implemented.

I think it is good that the EU's migration pact is in place. There, I think we should not only mention the current government but also previous governments and also the former Social Democratic minister, now EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson. There are many who have made good and great contributions to take responsibility for a Europe that can handle asylum policy in a sensible way.

Then there are also bad things happening. The problems begin roughly where the Social Democratic investigations stop delivering policy to the government. I think it is appalling that we should start withdrawing favorable administrative decisions on grounds that did not exist at the time the decisions were issued, that is, retroactive legislation. I do not think we should withdraw permanent residence permits on the grounds that the government is now investigating and which are in the Tidö Agreement.

We absolutely must not have DDR laws, to quote what the current Foreign Minister Billström said a few years ago regarding reporting. The welfare system must be shielded from hunting undocumented people. We cannot have an order where that which has been mentioned as democracy's armory, that is, the libraries, is not a safe place where one can come to seek information on how to be able to live in Sweden or to borrow a toilet.

And we absolutely shall not deport addicts or those who, according to the Sweden Democrat terminology, show contempt or a lack of respect for the Swedish people, whatever that may be. We have seen how Sweden Democrats on the internet share fake accounts with Nazi content, with the party leadership's approval, where we see what they obviously think are Swedish values. And if one is to be deported for not sharing those values, it is, fortunately, also many of us here in the chamber who are in a difficult position to be deported. Obviously, we shall not have such legislation.

Migration policy, like other policies, takes time. We implemented a lot of good policy and commissioned a lot of good inquiries when we were in government. This is being delivered now, and I appreciate it. I think it is good that policy can bridge across government periods. It becomes a kind of indirect broad agreement that the migration policy needs to be corrected. I think that is positive.

But I am afraid of the development that we see in the coming years, where the rule of law, democracy, and the equal value of people will be undermined both here at home, by representatives who boast of their name, and through the war being waged online with fake accounts and disinformation that is spread on the internet in pure Russian fashion.

(Applause)

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would return briefly to what I said in my speech regarding the Social Democrats and the government base. It can be relevant for the voters out there to know how Ola Möller and his party reason.

Now, one is very careful to point out that one wants to pursue a strict migration policy. But the one who looks at the history and sees how the chamber voted during the previous mandate period and the mandate period before that – I am speaking of the period 2017-2022 – can find that the Socialdemokraterna at 20 unique voting occasions actively voted no to a stricter migration policy. It was different proposals that were put forward in this chamber that the Socialdemokraterna voted no to.

Therefore, my question is: Is a strict migration policy only important for the Social Democrats when they are in opposition and not in a government position?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Welcome to the committee, Viktor Wärnick! I appreciate that you have joined us. We have worked together in another committee before. I look forward to the committee work.

The member's knowledge of history is, however, somewhat lacking. I have had this discussion with the person who was the member's representative in the committee earlier. At that time, I was clear that there is a broad consensus in this chamber. Members of Tidögänget have also expressed this here. One can see that a large group of parties in this chamber believe that a strict migration policy is important. This was also what we expressed when we tried to reach a broad parliamentary agreement in the migration committee. We need to unite those who want to stand for a strict migration policy in the Riksdag under an umbrella to achieve long-term stability.

Historically, the Moderates and the Social Democrats have been able to reach agreements on these issues, and it has worked very well then. We now have a Moderate party that is moving towards a more far-right and right-radical stance, where irregularities that have now been revealed are accepted. They want an apology for themselves but think it is okay that it continues to be hated when it concerns other parties and groups in the country. I had hoped that the Moderates would instead stretch out their hand and say: How do we now reach a position where we can secure a strict and good migration policy moving forward? We will, of course, work for that. But we cannot accept the madness - that one should take back favorable administrative decisions or deport addicts. This is completely baroque.

I actually believe that the Moderaterna want to reach an agreement with the Social Democrats to secure a broad and long-term settlement, which we have historically been able to have between our parties. Instead of constantly jumping on us, I think you should try to find common points of contact. Then we can move Sweden forward in the issues where we know we can reach an agreement.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to acknowledge what Ola Möller said. I also look forward to the work in the committee together with him and his party colleagues and all other parties in the committee. I truly do.

I also hope that we will be able to find the broad majorities for the migration policy moving forward. The problem is only that Ola Möller and his party intend to govern on the basis of three parties that, in sharp contrast, would rather increase immigration, go back to the legislation that applied previously and introduce amnesties, regularizations and other types of quite substantial changes that would lead to Sweden receiving increased immigration. That is why I want to ask these questions to Ola Möller and to the Socialdemokraterna.

The majority of the proposals that we are now presenting, and which you say you stand behind and sometimes also vote for, have met with strong criticism from the other group: the Left, the Center, and the Green Party. How do you imagine that you will be able to conduct this strict migration policy together with V, MP, and C? It is still relevant to know. What are you willing to compromise away? What are you willing to give away to these parties in order to obtain government power?

We have seen historically that the Social Democrats are willing to give away quite a lot to obtain government power. What will happen now? I understand that Ola Möller might not say it outright – that is negotiation tactics. But we know that the weight, especially the Left Party's weight, is in the completely opposite direction with increased immigration to Sweden, which would not solve our problems.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I wish that Viktor Wärnick had not used his pre-written speaking points in these replies. He wonders what we are prepared to compromise away. To talk about it for days when one makes an excuse for having been attacked oneself but accepts methods that are comparable to Russian influence operations against one's political opponents and other groups in the country is a bit stomach-turning, I must say.

The Moderates have, as far as I know, stood up for the principles of the rule of law and democracy. But now, for the sake of power, one chooses to completely let this go. One accepts continued attacks on the opposition, on LGBTQ activists, on climate activists, on women, on immigrants, and on all sorts of things. I think one should perhaps be careful there from Viktor Wärnick's side.

According to opinion polls, the government base currently consists of only two parties - the others are not even in the Riksdag. It is a bit absurd to stand and philosophize about who one should form a government with and how it should go. I think we are going to have an election result.

Naturally, the tip for everyone who wants more Social Democratic policy is to vote for the Socialdemokraterna. Then we will have an incredibly good negotiating position, where we can say what we think should remain and what should not be included in terms of what is being negotiated.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I welcome broad agreements. If we can find such, the Social Democrats will honor them. Since much of what has now been put on the table is policy for which the Social Democratic government laid the foundation, through inquiries, we do not intend to back down when it comes to a lot of those things. That also explains why we have supported this here. We see the importance of breadth in migration policy.

I do not believe that Viktor Wärnick will lie awake with worry that the government negotiations will not work for the Social Democrats. We will arrange this.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal, which entails a rejection of the 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. When looking back, one unfortunately sees that this has not been a fact for our country in recent years.

We can see that Sweden has received more asylum seekers than we have managed to integrate. Sufficient measures against the exploitation of the asylum system have been lacking, and the emergence of parallel societies has in many cases become a fact.

We therefore see a continued need to have a strict migration policy in order to address the problems that we in many ways see all around in our country. The goal for the total migration to Sweden should be at a level consistent with how it is in our Nordic neighboring countries, and it is reasonable to prioritize the most vulnerable refugees.

The starting point is that refugees and those in need of protection seek asylum in the first safe country. The right of asylum must be protected, but in order to defend openness and free movement within the EU, we must also have strengthened control of the EU's external border and, if necessary, be able to establish internal border controls.

To prevent people from being exploited, harmed, or dying in, for example, flimsy boats in the Mediterranean, the EU must, at a collective level, counter irregular migration and human smuggling and have a greater focus on helping refugees in the surrounding area. The recently decided agreement on migration, which has been negotiated and is undergoing a final process, is a step on the way to creating a better situation.

We Christian Democrats also want, in a long-term perspective, to see further steps and a further development of the EU's migration policy which means that asylum is sought in centers outside the EU, and that the reception for each country is made based on the capacity to integrate.

Mr. Speaker! The recent years have largely been characterized by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The war has driven millions into flight and caused the largest refugee crisis in Europe since the Second World War.

The Mass Flight Directive was activated, and persons fleeing from Ukraine were granted temporary protection in various countries in Europe. Of the approximately 50,000 refugees who came to Sweden, it is estimated that approximately 30,000 are here today.

The government has made efforts, including by providing support so that these persons shall have greater opportunities for instruction in the Swedish language. This means that those from Ukraine who have taken their temporary refuge to Sweden have greater opportunities for both contacts and work during the time they are in Sweden.

The economic everyday life will also be improved for the Ukrainian refugees through the recently presented Government Offices for Legal Affairs referral, which provides the possibility of population registration, which opens up for greater economic support but also for employment-promoting activities and access to healthcare. With a rapid processing in the Riksdag, this could be in effect from November.

The number of asylum seekers that Sweden can receive must be at a level that also allows us to integrate those who are already in our country and who are not yet part of our society in terms of, for example, work and other community involvement. This means that our country's migration policy needs to be changed compared to previous years. That work was initiated after the change of government that we saw in 2022.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö parties have negotiated a large number of points in the Tidö Agreement that cause the direction and content to change.

During the eight years when we had an S-government, it was difficult to see a straight line regarding migration policy. This means that we see a great need for changes.

I can state that the debate was no more important to the Social Democrats than the fact that they have already gone home and taken the weekend. It is actually somewhat remarkable. They have implemented changes, as they say, but the coalition of parties and wills that characterized this created a result that can hardly be seen as fortunate.

We must now remember Ola Möller's words, as we no longer have him in the chamber. Despite the fact that he expressed praise for everything that had been done and stated that all the good that is now being done has its foundation in the Social Democrats, there is actually internal criticism even within the Social Democrats against the policy that has been pursued until now. One may wonder who is truly right.

We can observe that the migration area needs to be organized so that we can address the problems we see in society. Today's government cooperation provides a basis for decisiveness. Sweden needs that.

Mr. Speaker! I see that this government cooperation will yield results. The result will be, as we already see today, that the number of asylum seekers to Sweden will decrease. The measures that have been implemented and that will be implemented mean that a no will mean a no. Measures against the shadow society will also be implemented. More people who have been denied will return, and persons with residence permits who do not live an honest life will risk deportation. That is how Sweden gets back on the right track.

We can also reflect on what policy will be pursued in a future alternative government option. As has been said before, it is not possible to see a whole in the underlying material that exists. I also find it difficult to see that the tightening that S advocates for and argued for both in the debate and in the exchange of remarks will become a reality with the cooperation partners they have envisioned. The compromises that a cooperation requires will likely mean that the journey towards tightening that Ola Möller painted out in his speech will become very crooked if MP, V and C are to have their demands met – demands that I see can take us back to the migration policy of 2015, including demands for amnesties and permanent residence permits. This means that we could end up on a journey that reaches a completely different final goal than the strictness in migration policy that has now been promised from S representatives.

Mr. Speaker! We Tidö parties promise to deliver. We have proposals that have been implemented, which Viktor Wärnick accounted for, and we have additional proposals that are being prepared and investigated. Many of the investigations will be completed during this year and lead to government bills during 2024 and 2025.

This means that we are creating a paradigm shift in migration policy. It is responsible and requirement-based and aims to create a long-term basis for migration policy in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We see that the migration policy needed to change direction. That is what we are doing. We are focusing on ensuring that those who truly need protection receive it and 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.

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

As previously stated, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motion proposals.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! For the record, I would still like us to note that the Social Democrat Ola Möller has not taken the weekend yet. We appreciate that we think it is good that all parties are present during the entire debate!

A problem that is increasing right now concerns the fact that young people, after they turn 18, can be separated from their families in Sweden. This concerns, for example, cases where the parents have received residence permits for asylum reasons or because they work here, while the children arrived as family migrants in their teens.

The children are then granted a time-limited residence permit for three years, and if one adds the processing time for both the first residence permit and the application to receive a permanent residence permit after three years, it means that children can be affected by being deported from the family on their 18th birthday, this being the case if they arrived in Sweden when they were 13-14 years old or older.

I want to ask Ingemar Kihlström if he sees it as a problem that children of parents who may have received asylum from Syria or other countries at war are to be separated from their parents and deported alone to the original home country when they reach student age, while the rest of the family remains in Sweden.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I will first address Ola Möller and offer a sincere apology for not seeing him. He had left his seat. Very commendable that he remains in the chamber! So we have cleared that up - thank you, Annika, for pointing that out!

We can state that regarding migration policy, the Green Party and we differ in much. We can still say that it is important to have the family united. Without having full knowledge of the specific case, I can state that based on the rules that apply today, your right to stay in Sweden is tested both by the Swedish Migration Agency and in migration courts. There is also the possibility to claim and consider special reasons. Without going into the specific question, one can state that the control activities we have conducted have confirmed that for just those individuals who have been brought up, there are no grounds to be allowed to stay.

I can say that we Christian Democrats want to keep families together. That is, among other things, why we argue for a change in the EU's asylum policy and argue that one should be able to seek asylum outside the EU, precisely to keep families together and avoid the risky journeys across the Mediterranean.

I cannot comment on the individual cases, but I am of the view that families should be kept together. Those who have grounds to stay in Sweden shall stay, and those who are to return shall do so – without commenting on the specific case.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This is not about a specific case, but this will be a rather common scenario. With today's regulations, children who are granted residence permits in Sweden as teenagers are, as a general rule, deported when they turn 18. This is because 18-year-olds under today's legislation no longer have the right to family reunification and the children, when they arrive, are not granted permanent residence permits.

Ingemar Kihlström referred to the fact that one can obtain a residence permit if one has special reasons. This was possible until that possibility was abolished by the government through a decision in December last year.

We introduced a basis that meant one could stay if they had particularly compelling circumstances as an adult, with a strong connection to Sweden – typically seen, for example, in the case of children who come in their teens, are reunited with their family, turn 18, and without this valve are deported.

I think it is very positive that the Christian Democrats nevertheless speak about it being important to keep the family together. I think that it also applies to children who have turned 18 and who came to Sweden at the age of 13-14.

I also think it is very positive that Ingemar Kihlström speaks about legal and safe routes for families to seek asylum. What we fear now, when it becomes harder to obtain family reunification, is that more people will take their children on the dangerous escape routes on rubber boats across the Mediterranean. That would be a catastrophe.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is like this: Our hearts beat for the families. Then we have somewhat different ways of looking at how we should handle migration policy, both in the EU and in Sweden, and that we must respect.

The migration policy that we have right now has broad support in the chamber. For that reason, it can always be evaluated, and it is I as a Christian Democrat who is prepared to do so.

I can only state that we should not have a situation where one gets into a rickety boat or a boat that does not hold air for the entire journey and tries to cross an ocean to find a better future. One should have their asylum grounds examined without having to be separated from the family. That is our opinion.

We do not have the same view on exactly what volumes we should have, but it is important to say that there must always be some kind of valve in the migration policy. Therefore, we will see and evaluate. But still, there must be a clarity regarding that we should have a migration flow into Sweden that also makes it possible to integrate people.

I will take the case with me and look into it further.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Some clarification is probably needed here from the member. At a press conference, the Christian Democrats, which the member also took up in his speech, stated that they want to renegotiate the asylum and migration pact and move the asylum process outside the EU. But seeking asylum is a human right, and the UN Refugee Convention obliges countries to enable people to seek asylum.

Now, the right of asylum is being abolished more or less through the EU's asylum and migration pact. My question to KD is why they want to take it even further and renegotiate the pact to move the asylum process outside the EU? It is unclear and deplorable. The consequences of the pact are already today that more people die in the Mediterranean or are imprisoned and tortured because the EU has signed agreements with dictatorships and despots. But the Christian Democrats want to take it even further.

In the speech, I heard that all countries should take responsibility, but now one is abdicating their responsibility. Does the Christian Democrat want to clarify this by moving the asylum process outside the EU?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The right to asylum shall exist, but it does not mean the right to decide for oneself in which country one should receive protection. We can observe that with the system we have today, many people take the risk of boarding a rickety boat and crossing the Mediterranean. I think it is a terrible situation. It is much better to keep the family together and that one can seek asylum, for example, in an asylum center in a country outside the EU where one can directly or fairly soon have it examined whether one has the right to asylum or not.

The effect of today's system is that one risks their life in the Mediterranean. If one survives, they arrive in the EU, have their asylum right examined, and perhaps find that they do not have the right to receive asylum. Then one has to choose between returning or living in a shadow society. As a Christian Democrat, I want to create a process where we remove the risk of splitting families and of losing one's life because of the dream of something better. It is better to decide on-site outside the EU.

We think today's migration pact is a very good step towards coming together to distribute the responsibility between the countries. We want to go one step further and create a situation where one receives a clear and distinct notification on whether one has a right to asylum or not and can receive it without risking one's life. I think that is showing care for one's fellow human beings.

If Tony Haddou wants to continue with today's system, does he then think it is good that the migration pact means that one still has to take the risk of crossing the Mediterranean or the English Channel to try to find a better life? Is that taking full responsibility?

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to clarify for the members here that Vänsterpartiet negotiated that there should be a quota refugee system in the asylum and migration pact. I am incredibly proud of that. Unfortunately, the countries only agreed that it should be voluntary. I sincerely hope, now that I hear that people are to be given protection so that the member does not want them to die in the Mediterranean, that Sweden takes this chance and that Kristdemokraterna perhaps pushes within the government that Sweden should accept quota refugees. They are the most vulnerable and marginalized. It is a safe and legal way into Europe and Sweden. People do not die in the Mediterranean then. The government does not want to create such a path, but if Kristdemokraterna want to push for it, I am very happy about that.

Moving the asylum process outside the EU is not legally secure and goes against asylum law. The member also probably knows that it would not work in reality. Is it in Libya that one should seek asylum? There, people are imprisoned for being refugees.

We are in a situation where blackmailing countries know that they can get more money from Europe every year if they say they are stopping refugees. They demand more money every year. It is a blackmail situation, and those who pay the highest price are people in flight. It is an unsustainable situation.

Regarding the risks in the Mediterranean that the member spoke about, the fact is that if one puts their child in a dinghy, it is because it is not safer on land. I do not know if the member has met people who have crossed the Mediterranean, but they were not safer on land. That is why they flee across the Mediterranean when the safe routes have been closed. It is the only thing left.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tony Haddou, for the commitment! We come to somewhat different conclusions in this issue.

We can observe that if one crosses the Mediterranean, one is perhaps not the weakest and the one who has the greatest need of help. One might have a strength.

It is as the member says that the one who puts their child in a boat sees no other future. I think it would be much better if we create safe asylum application centers in other countries. I cannot define which countries they should be. That is where asylum grounds should be assessed. It should be combined with a quota refugee system where every country in Europe decides how many they can integrate. Then one can prioritize the vulnerable individuals that Tony Haddou and I are passionate about helping. I believe in creating a system according to that model. I am happy to listen to proposals for another model, but I still believe that our model provides incentives to create safety for families and an order where asylum grounds are assessed and people get a clear yes or no and do not have to receive it after a risky journey that may mean that life ends.

I believe in a system where asylum is sought outside of Europe. Naturally, Europe's countries must take their responsibility, but it must be done based on what the countries themselves can integrate so that we create a sustainable integration for the future. We see the result of this in Sweden, that we have not done it. We need to do it better, and this is our proposal.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! At the end of April, just a couple of weeks ago, an all too common but nonetheless tragic incident occurred in the English Channel. After a hundred people attempted to enter the United Kingdom illegally in an inflatable boat, several of them perished, including a seven-year-old girl who had previously stayed in Sweden. She was far from the first whose life has been wasted in this morally grotesque game of cat-and-mouse that the United Kingdom and the European Union allow to continue. Last year, a new macabre record was set when over 4,000 people drowned in the Mediterranean. These are figures from IOM, the International Organization for Migration.

All too rarely, when we are faced with this type of tragedy, do we stop and ask why this is actually happening and what we can do to ensure that it does not happen again. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what I intend to dwell on for a few minutes.

What the European Union does today is hold up a wad of banknotes over the heads of the population in poor countries with the message that if you hand over your life savings to the local mafia network and then survive an illegal journey across the Mediterranean, that wad of banknotes can be yours. But what the Union also does is hold up another wad of banknotes as a reward to less scrupulous countries in the so-called southern neighborhood so that they will then hunt and stop the same migrants from coming here.

A person with a somewhat functioning moral compass would perhaps ask themselves why they are doing this in this way - it is completely insane. The answer to the question is as simple as it is tragic. It is about politics, something that I know everyone here in the chamber understands all too well.

It is the case that the Swedish Social Democratic commissioner responsible for migration issues in the EU and a large part of the left-liberal parties that govern the European Union have an at times more and at times less pronounced ambition to fill the union with as many migrants as possible, primarily from our southern neighboring region, Africa and the Middle East.

This ambition is, however, extremely unpopular, even among their own voters, which everyone in these parties is well aware of. For this reason, they feel compelled, for purely communicative reasons, to set up some different obstacles to make the journey as difficult as possible. The most important obstacle of all is, naturally, the visa requirement, which means that people who want to travel to Europe cannot simply hop on a plane. It forces the persons in question to get here in boats, which all too often never arrive.

What a morally clear-thinking person would have done in this situation is one of two things. Either you abolish the visa requirement entirely and let anyone travel freely to the EU. This is the Green Party's solution, which would relatively quickly lead to the end of Sweden as a nation. That would be a consequence that the Green Party, I believe, is actually quite comfortable with. Or you move the asylum process to safe third countries and ensure that those who need international protection actually receive it in accordance with international law and all the rules of the art, but without a financial incentive to travel irregularly to the European Union, which is our model.

It is not only our model, Mr. Speaker, for more and more countries within the EU have awakened to reality and to the fact that the so-called Australia solution is the only way forward for the European Union. A number of member states, led by Denmark and the Czech Republic, recently drafted a letter to the Commission demanding this. Italy itself has begun to take steps in that direction, and outside the EU, the United Kingdom has already started work on a similar system. The system would, if it had not been opposed and delayed by liberals and green socialists, with very high probability have saved that seven-year-old girl's life.

In view of this, I would like to move for approval of reservation 12 in the report.

Mr. Speaker! In summary, we can state that just as in all other issues, history shows that our description of reality and our analysis of why the world develops in the direction it does has been correct. The left-wing parties' delusions and fantasies have once again proven to be just that: delusions and fantasies.

The bloody terrorist attack against Israeli civilians on October 7, which led to festival-like celebrations in Malmö, shows that many of those who come here with the alleged ambition of seeking protection are actually seeking new arenas for violence and conflict.

The so-called upbringing trips, that is, when refugees who claim to have fled for their lives then send their children back to the country they fled for their lives from so that the children can be raised there, show with all clarity that the only aspect of Sweden that many of these people are interested in is the economic benefits.

Mr. Speaker! Even perhaps the most naive politician that the Social Democratic Party has ever produced, Ylva Johansson, was ultimately forced to admit that what her party has said for decades has been a lie, namely that most people who seek to come to Europe do so for purely economic reasons. The rest of us have known this for a long time. But it was still liberating to hear it from the horse's own mouth.

Mr. Speaker! A responsible and clear-thinking government should have as its primary goal to ensure that as few people as possible seek asylum both in Sweden and in the EU. While we wait for the EU and its member states to come to their senses, we will, of course, continue to work with the system we have today.

A large part of the Sweden Democrats' proposals in this area have been addressed in a productive manner within the framework of the Tidö Agreement. It is therefore our requests in the report that are significantly fewer than they used to be in the past.

Thanks to the work we initiated last year, Sweden will this autumn and winter undergo the largest modernization and normalization of the rules on asylum and migration that has been carried out since the passport requirement was introduced in 1812.

The investigation on new rules for labor migration is currently out for consultation. It contains, for example, a proposal to abolish the so-called "track switching," which is one of the most bizarre rules we have ever had in Sweden and whose obvious purpose is to undermine regulated migration.

We will also raise the wage threshold and take large steps to develop new measures to handle the so-called labor import and abuse of several different types of work permits.

On August 1, the report on increased support for return migration will be presented, which will make it more attractive and easier for people who no longer feel at home in Sweden to return to their home countries. We have already seen such an effect of the new government's policy. A record number of people born in the regions from which people come to seek asylum are choosing to go back.

On September 30, the report on qualification for welfare will be submitted, which aims at ensuring that persons staying here with a residence permit themselves will need to contribute to the welfare before they are entitled to take part in it. This will obviously lead to fewer and fewer people choosing to come to Sweden to "seek asylum".

On September 30, the second report from the returning investigation will also be delivered. This concerns the duty of information between authorities, internal immigration controls, and increased use of biometrics. The part of the investigation that proposes changed rules regarding the prescription of deportation decisions is already out for consultation. I note that the Social Democrats, in one of their reservations, propose that the proposal should be sent out for consultation and be processed within the Government Offices. I can therefore give the pleasing news that this is already underway.

On September 30, the investigation on alternatives to residence permits for persons who pose a security threat will be delivered, which concerns making Sweden less attractive for persons who are too dangerous to be allowed to stay but who cannot be deported to their home countries. Why we have had particularly attractive conditions for such persons in the first place is a question that must be asked of previous governments.

On 1 December, the investigation on contribution ceilings will be delivered, an issue which in itself falls within another committee's area of responsibility. But it is nevertheless an extremely important measure so that fewer will choose to come here.

On 2 January 2025, the minimum level study will be delivered, which analyzes Sweden's asylum rules from a broad perspective in order to adapt them to the EU's minimum level.

On 10 January 2025, the investigation on detention will be delivered, which concerns issues regarding ankle bracelets, body searches, house searches and guards during transports to and from Migrationsverket's detention.

Last but not least, the investigation on the revocation of residence permits will be delivered on January 15, 2025, which will make it easier to revoke residence permits from persons who do not behave properly or who have received the permit on incorrect grounds.

In summary and in other words, Mr. Speaker, Sweden is heading towards a brighter future. The Left's stated ambition to create chaos and disorder and to facilitate fraud, cheating, and trafficking of both residence permits and people is being stopped. Sweden will go from being the least to being the most responsible country in the European Union. We will go from being a country that has made itself known for naivety and ignorance regarding other countries and cultures and which has served as a cautionary tale for the rest of the EU to being a country that more will want to emulate. Again: We will make Sweden good again.

(Applause)

In this speech, Clara Aranda and Nima Gholam Ali Pour (both SD) agreed.

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

TALMANNEN

Regarding the comment about the EU Commissioner, I want to say that it balanced on the edge of what personal judgments one should use about other people when debating in the chamber.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! At the end of the chamber debate on April 17, 2024, the MP for Miljöpartiet, Mats Berglund, made a moving contribution regarding the large Baltic immigration that took place 80 years ago. At that time, approximately 40,000 Baltic refugees arrived in our country, of whom around 30,000 stayed in Sweden. It was by far the largest non-Nordic immigration ever recorded in Swedish history.

Member of Parliament Berglund is the child of one of these tens of thousands of refugees who left their homeland ahead of the Soviet forces' offensive against Nazi Germany in 1944. His then four-year-old mother and two of her sisters were on the perilous journey across the Baltic Sea to Sweden. The memory of the terror regime that the Soviet Union established during the occupation of the Baltic republics in 1939-1940 was frightening enough to cause a literal mass exodus from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

In Sweden, not everyone was happy that the Balts sought to come here. For example, the Communist Party of Sweden simply wanted to deport all 30,000 Balts to Stalin's reign of terror. I do not know if the Left Party has ever apologized for what the party wanted to do with the Balts when it was called the Communist Party of Sweden, but if not, it would be high time to do so now.

Mr. Speaker! Given today's integration problems, it may be interesting to reflect for a moment on this immigration, which today is perceived as very successful from an integration perspective. In that regard, one can point out, as the historian Maija Runcis has done, that the Balts' successful integration has rendered the group invisible and that in that way we have lost an important migration policy reference point.

To begin with, it is worth reminding that at that time there was an unrefined assimilation policy that would clash with the Balts' will to maintain their own identity and preserve their cultural heritage, not least in the face of the Soviet threat to wipe out the Balts' national distinctiveness. The will to pursue a separate integration path was strongly disliked in a Sweden where ethnic-cultural homogeneity was regarded as a given.

Particularly provocative were the Balts' and in particular the largest refugee group's, the Estonians', claims to be able to have schools where their linguistic and identity-related heritage was preserved. Well known is an editorial in Dagens Nyheter from July 3, 1945, where the following can be read: The Balts who want to stay here must accept that the education of their children is organized so that assimilation is facilitated, and if the Baltic intelligentsia is dissatisfied with that, it is welcome to seek a new country.

In this context, it is relevant to point out that the Estonians, without any public funding whatsoever, had already started 43 schools where over a thousand children attended during the stay in the camp in 1944-1945. After that, they started their own schools in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Helsingborg, and other Swedish cities. Furthermore, 56 supplementary schools were established around the country which, in the evenings or on weekends, gave the children what the Swedish school could not or would not give them, that is, a connection to their own history and identity. It was not until the 1950s that the Estonian schools received support from the public, albeit limited. Their role in promoting the successful schooling of the young Balts could no longer be denied.

Gradually, the Balts became a natural part of Sweden, but not because they were forced into it, but because they went their own way, not the one that others had intended for them to go. It was the same integration path, the path of diversity, that the Walloons once took in 17th and 18th-century Sweden, or for that matter, the Swedes in America. The truth is that assimilation policy, unlike assimilation as a long-term intergenerational process, has never worked. It only creates resistance.

Mr. Speaker! What were the conditions, besides the determination to build a own integration path, that made the Baltics' journey in Sweden a success story? Taking a closer look at these conditions can help us understand the problems we have experienced during the last decades, when exclusion and marginalization have become a grim reality for large parts of several newly immigrated groups.

Four conditions appear to be decisive in this context:

There was plenty of work, not least relatively simple jobs that could be performed even if one had deficient knowledge of the Swedish language. In the early 1950s, two-thirds of the Balts in Sweden were industrial workers.

One had a relatively strong educational background – the Baltic republics' education systems were among the best in the world during the interwar period.

The path towards a widespread dependency on subsidies did not exist as an alternative then, nor did the integration industry that would later be tasked with making life livable for the immigrants.

Last but not least, there was a cultural proximity that in a natural way ensured that the diversity created by the Balts did not develop in conflict with the fundamental values of Swedish society.

Mr. Speaker! The successful integration of Baltern is the path of diversity, the type of diversity that liberal-minded individuals would like to see flourish in Sweden. But it presupposes that one conducts a realistic migration and integration policy that takes into account the conditions that facilitate or hinder integration. If one does not do so, there is a great risk that a dystopian and conflict-inducing diversity will emerge.

In today's deeply divided Sweden, where parallel societies are a threatening part of reality, there is a crying need for commonality and a superior identity that unites us all as a nation, but in a country characterized by great diversity, this cannot be achieved through an assimilation policy aimed at erasing differences.

Our task is, to put it in a biblical way, to separate the wheat from the chaff. We must be uncompromising towards the diversity that threatens the cohesive foundations of a free and democratic society, but at the same time open paths of adaptation for all those who wish to embrace a different ethno-cultural identity in the way that the Balts once did.

Mr. Speaker! Let me now move on to the motions addressed in the report. It concerns a large number of motions which have resulted in 39 reservations, which clearly demonstrate the division prevailing among the opposition parties on this area as well as so many others. This is interesting in itself, as it illustrates that today there is only one unified and feasible migration policy, namely the one advocated by the parties that form the government base.

Mr. Speaker! I will now highlight the contrast that exists between the Left Party's and the Social Democrats' committee motions, which illustrates the opposition's fundamental split on migration issues. Let me begin by briefly summarizing some of the proposals found in the committee motions that the Left Party has presented.

A regularization should be introduced for those persons who have lived in Sweden for a longer period regardless of previous residency status, that is, even if they were completely illegal in our country from the beginning until the end.

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.

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

Asylum visas shall be issued for those persons who wish to come to Sweden to seek asylum.

The carrier's liability is abolished, and so on.

Mr. Speaker! Among other things, Frontex, which is the EU's border security force, is to be reformed and then decommissioned.

Mr. Speaker! I do not think I need to make this list any longer for people to understand that if this policy were implemented, we would have a migration crisis that would surpass the one we experienced in 2015-2016.

I wonder if the representatives of the Left Party have considered the infinitely long queues that would form outside the Swedish embassies and consulates around the world with people who want to apply for asylum visas.

I also wonder if the Left Party members understand the powerful signaling effect that the proposal for a regularization of all those who have been in Sweden for a certain period would entail. If such a regularization were carried out, who would then be able to convince both potential migrants and people smugglers that no more regularizations would occur in the future?

Mr. Speaker! I will now move on to briefly consider the Social Democrats' committee motion.

Do the Social Democrats want to do anything with what their conceivable coalition partners in a potential government want to do? Not at all. The Social Democrats essentially stand for the same restrictive migration policy as the government and the Sweden Democrats propose.

The Social Democrats want, for example, to abolish EBO, intensify the work on return, introduce language and social studies requirements to be able to obtain permanent residence permits, and they do not want to return at all to the legislation that was in force until 2016.

Mr. Speaker! The question one asks is: With which parties did the Social Democrats intend to govern? Neither the Left Party, the Green Party, nor the Centre Party accept their paradigm shift in migration policy. It would be good if the voters received some clarity on these not at all insignificant issues.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude my speech by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now we have heard the representatives from the government parties. It is a dystopian time they live in. Much has been said about deficient integration, which they began with. There has been talk about work and unemployment.

It is interesting that one of the government's parties, for example, brings up unemployment. It is that government that is cutting back on precisely the labor market policy. It is the same with crime. A representative for a government party also took that up. The government is cutting back on the preventive work to counteract crime.

They say they want to tackle a problem, but they do something else. That is the consistent common thread of the government.

I also heard the classic [argument] that is heard in every migration debate. We have become accustomed to people saying that a yes is a yes and a no is a no. We have heard that a few times now. That is not correct, I usually have to state, Mr. Speaker.

The parties' representatives said here in the chamber that a yes is a yes, and a no is a no, over and over again. Then the Afghan girls who had received a no suddenly received a yes. The thesis that a yes is a yes and that a no is a no does not hold. They were granted an amnesty.

Our asylum system functions in such a way that legal assessments are ongoing, and asylum cases can be reviewed. The situation at the current time is taken into account. We have a situation where people cannot be deported.

What the government is doing is to squeeze people into undocumented status year after year. The government is increasing the shadow society. People end up in undocumented status, insecurity, and uncertainty. One can, for example, look at LMA, the Act on the Reception of Asylum Seekers. We voted against the amendment when the Riksdag voted on this in the chamber.

It means that people who receive a deportation decision, even if they cannot be deported, lose their jobs, housing, studies, and their entire lives. They end up completely outside the system. They do not even get to keep their debit cards. But they remain in Sweden and live undocumented. Would it not have been better to have them inside the system than outside?

The government justifies such policy by arguing that if it is made as difficult as possible for these people, perhaps they will leave Sweden. Many are from Afghanistan. It is one of the world's most dangerous countries. They cannot be deported there.

That is what it looks like when the government pushes people into insecurity and undocumented status and places them outside the systems. The government says that it should have control over people in Sweden, and then it puts people in this situation.

It is the same now with the labor migration. The entire legislation and what the government does will create tomorrow's undocumented.

I heard representatives for some parties standing here and complaining that Vänsterpartiet wanted a larger reception. They say that it is not possible to have it. I do not know if we have become accustomed to disinformation. It is the Sverigedemokraternas thing. But perhaps representatives for the other parties can answer how it works in the rhetoric.

Speaking ill of immigrants is also pervasive in the rhetoric. They are held responsible for all of society's problems. Often, the rhetoric speaks of deficient integration and so on. Then, no investments are made, and the blame is placed on the people who come here.

Vänsterpartiet wants a larger reception, and it is said that it is not possible. We can simply state that we received 50,000 Ukrainians. Does that not disprove the thesis that we cannot receive more? It speaks for itself. It is simply a matter of stating it.

If there is a will, there is a reception. It is not about how many people one receives. The government may still hold that perception after all the debates about the Migration Committee, volume targets and so on. It is about the reception, investments and the will that one has in Sweden regarding the reception. That is what it is about.

Mr. Speaker! It sounds all the time in the debate as if we have a large reception. We do not have that in Sweden. During the recent years, we have had a strongly downward trend for asylum applications in Sweden. It is a record few who seek themselves here, Mr. Speaker.

The Swedish Migration Agency is once again lowering the forecast for the coming years. The asylum system has become repressive. The government has gotten exactly what it wanted. It is more repressive, and fewer people are coming here. It is a record low number of people coming to Sweden.

The government has justified this policy of not providing protection in Sweden by stating that we must first solve the integration problems and take care of those we call our own. This has been heard throughout several debates here in the Riksdag.

Promises were made for improvements in schools, healthcare, and the rest of the welfare system. As usual, people who come here were pitted against the rest of society. But it turns out very clearly that the government is worsening the situation both for those who come to Sweden and for society as a whole.

When it comes to welfare, labor market policy, household finances, and the housing situation, the government is worsening integration. They have retreated and are implementing system-threatening cuts in our common welfare.

Mr. Speaker! Was it not the case that we would be flooded with welfare and jobs if fewer came here? Now the government has choked several parts of the asylum system. A record few are seeking to come to Sweden. Where is the better welfare? Where is the upgraded healthcare? Where are the jobs? Where are the investments? What is it that is happening?

We have the most passive government of all time. No investments are being made. We have a housing crisis. What do you do then? You lay down on the ground and withdraw investment support. Then you blame the immigrants for the fact that there are no houses. It is that rhetoric I oppose, and it is that policy the government pursues.

When politics retreats as much as it has under this government, it only leads to deterioration. That is what people out there are facing. The household crisis is constantly worsening. Welfare is mismanaged every day. Labor market policy is absent. It does not even exist with this government. Nothing indicates that this government wants to build Sweden stronger, safer, or better. During the years they have sat in power, they have only pointed at immigration and said: There is the problem!

Mr. Speaker! We are now heading towards an EU election, and I think the asylum and migration pact has clearly shown the differences between the left and the right ahead of the election. We roll up our sleeves and do the work. When the right here in this house wants to close the borders, increase brutality, and abolish the right to asylum, we in the left open legal and safe escape routes to save lives and ensure that we have a safe and humanitarian reception. We do not flee our political responsibility, and we do not hide behind racist rhetoric.

There is a glimmer of light, I want to say, in the otherwise hostile-to-humanity asylum and migration pact, and that is the European quota refugee system which was adopted with a broad majority. I am very proud that Vänsterpartiet succeeded in negotiating and pushing through the only legislative proposal that actually opens up a path for people seeking protection. I hope that the Swedish government, other member states, and you who are sitting here now take the chance to welcome some of the world's most vulnerable refugees through this program. The more quota refugees we can accept, the fewer people will be forced to hire human smugglers and make life-threatening journeys to Europe. With your right-wing politics, the violence and abuses against people on the run will increase, and even more will die in the Mediterranean.

We do not abandon the ambitions that the EU should take a common responsibility for the reception of people on the move. We do not intend to worsen today's already serious situation. Lives can be saved if there is a political will. We know that we can do much better. No human being should have to die on the way to Europe.

I move for approval of reservation 22.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 31.

Migration and integration are linked. But they are also two completely different issues. Yesterday, we debated integration in this chamber – or honestly, it was only migration we discussed, at least if one listened to the four government parties. We discussed how more people should learn the Swedish language, get their first job, and become a part of the common Sweden. We discussed what rights and opportunities one should have and what obligations and requirements we as a society should place on newcomers. Today, we are debating who has the right to become a part of the common Sweden and who does not.

For the Centre Party, the right of asylum is the foundation of migration policy. Those who come to Sweden shall have their grounds for asylum examined. Those who have grounds for protection shall be allowed to stay and receive the best possible integration with a focus on jobs and language skills. Those who do not have grounds for protection shall leave the country as soon as possible.

There are differences in the Swedish Riksdag regarding how the migration legislation should look. But I want to assert that the major difference lies in how we view refugees.

There are parties in Sweden's Riksdag and in the government base that believe that the majority of refugees come here with evil intentions and want ill for Sweden, even want to destroy our beloved country. I, on the other hand, genuinely believe that people who come here fleeing war and oppression want well, that they want to learn Swedish, that they want to enter and become a part of our common society. Many, however, do not get the conditions and opportunities required to succeed.

Those who know what people flee from and what people risk during flight also know that safety is the only thing they seek - safety for themselves, for their family and not least for their children. Our perspective as a society, fellow citizens and politicians toward people who have fled war and oppression affects the possibilities for good migration and successful integration. Our way of talking about immigrants also affects the possibilities for successful integration.

We live in a very restless time. We live in a very difficult time. Men, women and children are murdered because they were born in the wrong place or have their heads cut off with a shovel because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Women and young girls are raped. One is murdered or tortured because one believes in the wrong god, wears the wrong clothes, fell in love with the wrong person or has the wrong sexual orientation - or because one stands in the way of power-hungry dictators like Vladimir Putin.

This is what people are fleeing from. The largest party in the government base never speaks about what people are fleeing from. They only speak about the failed integration that, according to SD, all parties have failed at. Now, however, it is the Sweden Democrats who have the responsibility for Sweden's migration and integration policy.

The government's press conferences on how Sweden can become a more closed country with significantly reduced integration have succeeded one another. The Centre Party has from day one strongly distanced itself from and fought against these many times very bad and sometimes downright insane proposals. It has been about reporting laws, about an incredibly high wage floor for labor migration and about abolished or at least worsened family migration - I must say it was very remarkable to hear the Christian Democrats stand and talk about keeping families on the run together when one makes it harder for family migration. It has been about new humanitarian grounds, which make it harder for seriously ill children to stay in Sweden.

A few good things are also being done in the migration area. It is good that one is reviewing how a no can be a no and that more people who have received a rejection should return. I also really look forward to the inquiry into qualification into the welfare system. It is a genuinely difficult question that I hope can be brought to a conclusion and which we, within the framework of the parliamentary Migration Committee, where we were six parties that negotiated, also came very far with. I also hope that the basis that the Moderaterna produced that time serves as the foundation for this inquiry, which I hope can become a reality.

I would also like to say something about Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is not only an attack against Ukraine but also an attack against our Western democracy, our principles, and our states' sovereignty. It is an attack against our common, free, liberal society where one can be whoever they want, love whoever they want, and other things that we see as fundamental values.

I will not mince words in saying that I think the government has been slow in handling the improved conditions for Ukrainian refugees. It is said that one should be fast, but I can state that one has been much faster in other matters when it has concerned important changes for the Sverigedemokraterna.

I do not think this is going fast enough. I do not think it will be good enough. The Center Party has, for example, proposed that Ukrainian refugees who are here under the mass flight directive should be exempted from the requirement for a work permit. They would thus not have to go back to Ukraine but should be able to change tracks here in Sweden and instead become labor migrants. In that case, they would receive more rights than what is proposed in the Tidö Agreement. They could also receive it much faster.

Mr. Speaker! There is much to say. I have prepared much more. But honestly, we had a migration policy debate yesterday. I do not feel that I need to bring up the same arguments twice. I do not need to bring up the same arguments that I took up yesterday, when we were to discuss integration. But I can state that if one does not have any integration policy, one also has to talk about migration in the integration debate.

I hope that next year we can have a migration debate and an integration debate.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A long time ago, certain parties in the Swedish political migration debate spoke a great deal about wanting to reduce immigration in order to, as they said, help more on-site. Now those parties are in power, and the assistance is decreasing.

The rhetoric from the Tidö parties instead focuses more on reducing immigration to achieve better integration. But the measures to strengthen the school, improve SFI teaching, and strengthen adult education, which often reach those who do not manage the regular adult education, are conspicuously absent. On the contrary, we now see large cuts all over Sweden. Housing construction has almost come to a standstill. And now the rhetoric instead focuses on the fact that all problems, including the housing market, are the fault of the immigrants.

Recently, we debated the issue of corruption here in the chamber of the Riksdag. Sweden has dropped in Transparency International's corruption index. One reason we lost some points was that parties, including the Sweden Democrats, cheated with their party financing. When I confronted SD, who accused the immigrants of being the root cause of Sweden getting a worse result and simply becoming more corrupt, the Sweden Democrats' intent nevertheless emerged somewhere. They said that their goal is a homogeneous Swedish population.

Earlier in today's debate, I also think we heard an example of the far-right doctrine, perhaps closer to a kind of conspiracy theory, that certain parties have the ambition to replace the population in Sweden, the EU, and other Western countries. It is a conspiracy theory that has been expressed in various ways and has also been spread through posts on the Sweden Democrats' anonymous troll accounts.

That type of rhetoric risks eroding trust in the party system and democracy, but it also fuels hatred and suspicion specifically towards immigrants. Immigrants today constitute a very large part of Sweden's population. Through that rhetoric, 2 million people are being vilified. It is shameful. It also does something to people when they are accused of being the root of all possible societal problems.

Earlier in the debate, I asked the Moderate Party's Member of Parliament if he and his party intended to take the same stance and in the same way demand apologies and that hateful posts against, for example, immigrants be deleted as has now been done regarding the representatives of the party itself and the government parties. I did not receive a single word in response, not a single word of condemnation of the hate propaganda that is spread specifically against immigrants as a group.

We can certainly have different opinions on how Sweden's migration policy should be designed. But I believe that increasing support for the Sweden Democrats' migration policy through anonymous troll factories rather constitutes a threat to the trust in the party system and, ultimately, democracy.

I believe that many would still react if they actually had knowledge of the consequences for individuals of the politics that the Tidö parties pursue. We can see this, for example, when it concerns the enormous popular protests against the plans to deport nine-year-old Lisa from her safe family home to a children's home in Albania.

Individual cases do not land as they do by chance. Most often, it is due to legislation and how it is subsequently applied by the Swedish Migration Agency and the courts. Is it a legally secure application or not? And, of course, fundamentally, what does the law say?

It matters whether children in a vulnerable situation can obtain a residence permit for humanitarian reasons when they are particularly vulnerable compared to the higher requirement, extremely vulnerable. With the new higher requirement that the Tidö parties have set, more children will end up in unreasonable situations. These are situations that I am convinced a majority of the Swedish population would actually react against.

The same applies to young people who turn 18 and who have come to Sweden, perhaps just from refugee camps, as family-related immigrants of their parents, but who manage to become adults before they receive a permanent residence permit. We will see more and more such cases in the future where families are split apart.

Then, of course, we have family reunification. The risk is that more choose to take the children on dangerous escape routes, for example in rubber boats to travel across the Mediterranean. The wait to be reunited through family reunification, once a parent has been granted asylum, becomes many years longer with the Tidö parties' requirements for housing and a permanent job in order to be reunited with their children.

The biggest problem, which many have been involved in wanting to solve, faces those refugees who cannot reach Europe in a safe way. The Ukrainian refugees had freedom of movement and could travel in without risking their lives in the hands of ruthless human smugglers, without getting into life-threatening rubber boats to travel across a sea. We need more safe and legal routes to Europe for those who need to seek asylum.

Mr. Speaker! Another example of the rhetoric that integration would improve with the government's migration policy concerns the labor migration. Labor migrants are people who have come to Sweden because they have already received a job here. They have, therefore, worked and paid tax from the first day in Sweden. The government also wants to make that group deportable to a large extent.

Entrepreneurs are reaching out and are worried about how it will go for their companies - which are struggling to find labor in Sweden with the right skills - when their employees risk being deported. Svenskt Näringsliv is writing reports on how much poorer Sweden will become if that policy goes through. There is nothing in this that is about improving integration. The goal is to deport as many as possible.

It is clear that the Sweden Democrats have been allowed to lead the government's agenda in these issues. In light of the review that Kalla fakta has conducted, it is also extremely clear what agenda one has. Among the posts that have been shared, there are also fascist posts and praises of Nazis.

I move for approval of reservation 10.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In my opening remarks in the debate, I pointed out that there are a number of parties that have the stated ambition to fill Europe with as many migrants as possible, especially from Africa and the Middle East. One of those parties is obviously Miljöpartiet.

In the speech Annika Hirvonen just gave, she claimed that it is a conspiracy theory, that it is not true and that it is something that "the far-right" have made up.

I thought that we should look a little bit, Mr. Speaker, in the report and see if there can be any basis for the claim in Annika Hirvonen's own reservations. Let us look at reservation number 4 of Annika Hirvonen, Migration and asylum policy, and let us look at the second paragraph.

"Today, there are virtually no legal ways to travel to Europe and seek asylum. Sweden should therefore introduce a system with humanitarian visas, so that people can travel here in a legal and safe way and seek asylum. An investigation should be commissioned to provide proposals for a long-term sustainable system that enables safe and legal ways to seek asylum."

An opportunity for a visa to seek asylum means, in practice, that the visa requirement is lifted. There will no longer be requirements for a visa because anyone can obtain that type of visa. The only thing one needs to say when going to the Swedish embassy is that one intends to seek asylum. It means that anyone in the entire world has the opportunity to hop on a plane and fly to Sweden.

I wonder if Annika Hirvonen has conducted any impact assessment of what the proposal would entail. The first and rather obvious question is how many people she thinks would take up the offer.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has a stated ambition that neither Sweden nor any other European country shall deport people to their deaths. We shall stand up for the right to asylum. We have a stated ambition to find safe and legal routes for people who need asylum, so that they are not forced to risk their lives in the Mediterranean.

This is not the same thing as what Ludvig Aspling, or for that matter the troll posts that have now been revealed to be driven by the Sverigedemokraterna, implies. For example, Magdalena Andersson is explicitly portrayed as saying that she wants to destroy Sweden. That type of rhetoric and that type of methods of portraying one's political opponents are unacceptable and should not be permitted. This should be something that every elected official, everyone involved in Swedish politics, powerfully and clearly distances themselves from.

There is an idea that the new migration pact, where it will become harder to obtain a legally secure asylum review and where more people will be locked up in some kind of large outdoor prisons similar to the refugee camps that exist today in, among other places, Greece, will lead to people no longer risking their lives in the Mediterranean.

One in fifty people who have made the journey across the Mediterranean in that manner is either drowned or missing. One in 50. And those are the ones for whom there is documentation. The risk is enormous. To then believe that that type of measures would stop people from risking their lives in the Mediterranean, that is naive. Secure alternatives are needed.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am therefore reading verbatim from the Green Party's own reservation in the report, and Annika Hirvonen responds by saying that it is an unacceptable way to portray other parties.

If I had been forced to stand for that policy, I might have felt the same way because what is written here is completely insane. To abolish the citizenship requirement would mean the end of Sweden as a nation, and it would happen quickly.

I note that the Green Party has not given a single thought to what the consequences would be. But despite not having given a single thought to this, one is completely certain that my assertion that the Green Party is trying to fill Sweden with as many migrants as possible is a "right-wing extremist myth."

I can try to formulate the question in another way. Annika Hirvonen! If one were to formulate a proposal that would maximize migration to Sweden - let us say that the purpose is to maximize migration to Sweden - which proposal would better serve that purpose than the proposal that Miljöpartiet puts forward in reservation 4, that is, to completely abolish the visa requirement for all people in the entire world?

We could send money to the embassies to pay for people's plane tickets. That is perhaps something that Miljöpartiet has intended to be included in the package. But I will leave that unsaid, and it does not appear in the text. Can Annika Hirvonen at all imagine a proposal that would be more effective for maximizing migration to Sweden than lifting the visa requirement in the way you propose in reservation number 4?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now we have once again a contextually absurd but still clear example of how the Sweden Democrats actively misinterpret their political opponents. Despite the fact that Ludvig Aspling just moments ago read aloud from our proposal to investigate humanitarian visas so that people can apply for asylum, he has now managed to make it seem as if the visa requirement is to be removed. A humanitarian visa is a visa that one needs in order to be able to apply for asylum.

What can I say? This is in context, against the background of what we in Kalla fakta have seen the Sweden Democrats spread with the help of troll accounts, particularly innocent ones. But I cannot help but return to the systematic way in which the Sweden Democrats want to distort and warp the image of immigrants, political opponents, and coalition partners. The latter, apparently, they have apologized for, and those posts have been deleted.

I still wonder if anyone in the chamber from the government parties will set corresponding demands when it comes to hateful content that portrays immigrants in a terrible way, or for that matter, distorts political opponents and literally puts words in their mouths that they have never said. This way of distorting the political conversation is to damage trust in the party system and democracy. Fundamentally, it is dangerous.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 May.)

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