Migration issues

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates in the Committee on Social Insurance have during this parliamentary term had the ambition to visit as many of the Swedish Migration Agency's offices across the country as possible. We have also tried to meet as many different units as possible to learn about the Migration Agency's input, regarding both which legislation is working well today and which legislation we need to continue to look at and change. Not least now when we are restructuring large parts of the migration policy, it has been extremely important for us to learn what those who work with the legislation in their daily lives think is good and what is not.

During one of the visits, the employees spoke about the obvious problem with the abuse of study permits in the country. For me, this was new information, but I really took their story to heart. They told me that several Swedish universities more or less systematically help people coming from third countries, i.e., countries outside the EU, to abuse the study permit system. The reasons are that tuition fees are paid for these individuals and that they need to have foreign citizens at their university to fulfill the rules for universities according to the Bologna Process.

They told that Swedish universities have sent recruiters or agents to, among other places, Pakistan and Bangladesh who tell that the person who comes to Sweden and receives a study permit only needs to complete 15 higher education credits per academic year to continue staying in the country on a study permit. One can work as much as one wants. One's partner can work as much as he or she wants. One's child has the right to go to school. One's child has the right to have their knee operated on if it breaks. One can use all that we collectively pay for here in Sweden for the small sum of a semester fee.

They saw that this is being abused a great deal. 90 percent of those who have applied for English at a basic level at a university in Sweden do not even live in the catchment area for that university. Instead, they live in Stockholm or in Gothenburg. One can imagine that they might be working with delivering pizzas by bicycle, driving cheap taxis at night, or something else that is not the purpose of their permit.

I became so angry when I heard that Swedish universities have employed staff who help to recruit this type of person to the universities, where the purpose is not for them to learn anything but for them to come here to work without any form of working conditions.

When we talk about labor immigration, we agree on having certain regulations to protect the workers but also the Swedish internal market and the labor market. In this case, one does not need to take anything into account. One can work for whatever wage one wants as long as one pays one's term fee.

When we asked how this can continue – this was at the beginning of the mandate period – they spoke about how they have repeatedly said that this is a problem but that no one has listened. The Government has not cared at all when they have spoken about it. It has been left alone.

But now we have a government that listens, Madam Speaker. Now we have a Migration Minister who listens, both to the input from the Swedish Migration Agency and to the Swedish people. Instead of a government where 4 percent of the people set the agenda for Swedish migration policy, now over 50 percent of the Swedish people have chosen four parties that agree on a common migration policy that moves this country forward.

Now we have a government that does not think that the person who comes here as a refugee should be able to go home on vacation a few weeks after having received a residence permit. Now we have a government that thinks that the person who commits a crime should be deported and a government that thinks it is time to re-evaluate Swedish citizenship. The person who cannot speak Swedish and who neither wants nor tries to become a part of Swedish society should not have a Swedish citizenship.

We have already tightened the regulations for deportation so that more foreign nationals who commit crimes are deported. But there is, of course, more to be done. We are moving away from a system where the person who has committed, for example, a sexual offense has often not only escaped deportation but has also been able to be released from prison and become a Swedish citizen before the victim's wounds have even healed at all. It has been directly offensive. But my government is now putting a stop to this naive circus.

Madam Speaker! Many are already here and will remain. Many of them will not enter the workforce or even learn Swedish if nothing is done. I was in Filipstad a few weeks ago. It is a Moderate-led municipality in Värmland that has truly had to taste the previous naive migration policy. There, it has been observed that SFI actually does not work. People go year after year without learning Swedish. People were told about individuals who have attended for over ten years but can hardly manage to formulate a sentence.

It was decided that something else had to be done to get these people out of society. Therefore, requirements are now being set regarding social assistance; the group of people who want to receive social assistance shall also perform a counter-performance determined by the municipality.

An example was shown where a group of people were asked to help mow the grass on a municipal lawn. There was a riding lawnmower and a number of rakes. It was told that as soon as the riding lawnmower arrived, all the men, of course, raised their hands and spoke about how they were the ones who would drive it. Then the municipality spoke instead about how it was she who stood quietly at the back who would do it. In Sweden, a woman can also drive a riding lawnmower. It was told that this was quite difficult for several of the men to take in at first. But gradually it has become better, and after perhaps ten years in Sweden, they actually begin to realize that a woman can drive a lawnmower and the man can stand and rake. It is not strange.

In Filipstad, they have started to achieve integration by setting requirements on people and explaining what applies. These people have now started to learn Swedish in a way that they have not done during several years in SFI. Instead of a word standing on a board, one talks about and shows what is a shovel, a hoe, and a lawnmower. They are starting to get a vocabulary. This was described as extremely successful. One sets some requirements on people who want to take part in Sweden.

As has been said, it is possible to get something done in this country as long as one dares and wants to.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to address all of you who live in Sweden and who have come here as immigrants. Many of you make fantastic contributions to our country. Many of you go to work every day. You might work at a paper mill or a hospital, work as police officers, or do something else very positive for our country. You are at football practice with your own children and your neighbors' children. You stand up on the bus for elderly ladies, or whatever one might consider important.

We see you. We see that you are a positive part of our society, and you shall continue to be that. It is not because of you that we are changing our migration policy.

We are changing it because we have a lot of people in our society who do not want to learn our language, who do not respect our society's fundamental values, and who do not think that their daughters should be allowed to choose whether they want to wear a veil or not, or that their sons should be allowed to love whoever they want. These people should no longer expect that our society continues to turn a blind eye.

Regarding the study permits, finally, we have now tightened the regulatory framework, because we must get order in Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mats Sander (M) agreed.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! There are, of course, many appalling downsides to the member's speech and the migration policy that the Moderaterna pursue. Spontaneously, I think of a question that the Moderaterna never raise in the migration debates, namely the consequences for children of the Moderaterna's migration policy. Every week during the last few years, one has been able to read report after report about children who are born in Sweden and have lived here their entire lives but are to be deported to countries they have never been to or have any connection to.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been Swedish law for five years now. Despite this, children who have lived their entire lives in Sweden are being deported to countries that are completely unknown to them. Children who are born and raised here are deported to countries to which they have no connection, which contradicts the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It usually concerns children who are around 10 to 13 years old.

I have met many of these families and children. They have school classes that step up, as well as football coaches, neighbors and the local community. This leaves deep marks. Everyone wonders why the government attacks, undermines and violates children's rights in this way. Why should children who have lived their entire lives in Sweden be deported to countries they have no connection to or have not been in?

Today, there are sharp proposals from, for example, Vänsterpartiet, about strengthening children's rights and the best interests of the child in the asylum process to ensure that children who end up in these situations actually receive security here. My question is: Why does Moderaterna reject all of this?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! It is your fault that these children are forced to endure these situations. I also think it is appalling, of course.

The problem is that we must have a regulated immigration. That you have had children cannot be a sufficient reason for you to be allowed to stay, if you have gone underground here and lived for ten years in a shadow society. It is about parents who time and again have had their asylum applications rejected and have chosen not to follow that decision and go home. Those children end up, of course, in a very tragic situation. I really feel for them.

But the most important thing for a child is to live with their parents. If the parents must leave this country because they do not have the right to asylum, it is best that the child follows. I would not have thought it was a particularly pleasant arrangement if the parents were sent home and we kept the child in Sweden. Children should be with their parents. If the parents do not have the right to stay in Sweden, the child should follow with their parents. I think it is a sensible arrangement.

If you, when you governed this country together with the Social Democrats, had ensured that this was put in order so that people who receive a "no" also return to their home countries, we would not have this situation now. Then you would not have had to ask this question.

I naturally agree with you that it is difficult to see these stories in the media. But it cannot be a sufficient reason for you to have children, if you go underground, stay here for ten years, and refuse to follow the Swedish Migration Agency's decision. Then, as a parent, you are to be rewarded for having chosen not to follow what we as a country have communicated through the Swedish Migration Agency.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I would like to remind the members that we address each other as "the member" or by name and not with "you".)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if the member understands the issue properly, or how reality and the legislation look. It is, therefore, about parents and children who have not gone underground at all. They receive the deportation decision after approximately 13 years. The children have been born here but receive deportation decisions. No one has gone underground. They just are not allowed to stay here. That is the policy you are conducting, and it is the one I question.

This is not about people who have simply gone underground. I just said that the children play football in the local football club. They go to school. It is not about undocumented people or people who have gone underground. I think it is incomprehensibly irresponsible to respond in that way.

What is happening out there in reality is that you are robbing these children of their childhood. They have been here their whole lives. They have not hidden. They go to school here.

The big problem here is that the Aliens Act does not align with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and children's rights. One cannot turn a blind eye to this situation and shift the blame. "It is your fault," the member began the exchange with. I think it is unserious and irresponsible.

Now we have children in this situation who receive deportation decisions every week despite having lived in Sweden their entire lives – born and raised here and having all their friends here. It is neither the parents' nor the children's fault. It is you who have power over the legislation and can change this situation – ensure that we follow the Convention on the Rights of the Child and that children's rights are upheld in Sweden.

I think it is incomprehensible that one actually violates children's rights in this way and then makes a blunder by saying that they are hiding. They are not. They appear in a report every week. They go to school here in Sweden. Why are they not allowed to stay? Why should they be deported to countries they have never been in?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that one can both play football, go to school, and even receive quite extensive social assistance in several of the country's red municipalities even if one is undocumented. It is a huge problem. The people who are deported from this country are often undocumented. I actually do not understand what the member means. The most important and the absolutely most fundamental right for a child is surely to be with their parents.

I think it is obvious that people who do not have the right to be in this country should leave it. I think it is obvious that children should be with their parents. The most valuable thing for a child is always to be with their parents, regardless of which country it is. That is my absolute conviction and opinion.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates talk a lot and gladly about what will happen after next year's election. They gladly talk about the opposition in this chamber. I am not so interested in the game-theoretical. One can simply look at today's measurement, which shows that not even half of the Tidö parties remain in the chamber. I am more interested in the content of the substantive policy.

The Sweden Democrats say on the one hand that they are satisfied that they have pushed through much of their migration policy, and on the other hand that it is about a compromise. This mandate period, the compromise has meant that applications concerning seriously ill children shall no longer be assessed against the humanitarian basis. It has meant reduced opportunities for family reunification and that the number of quota refugees, some of our time's most vulnerable, has gone from 5,000 to 900. The Sweden Democrats have also pushed for a reporting law, return grants, and a quite extensive integrity check, as a first step in a Sweden Democrat dream society.

It is also clear that this is only the beginning and that many Sweden Democrats want more – they want to go further. My question is therefore very simple: Do the Moderates have any red lines in migration policy? Do the Moderates have any limit on how far they are prepared to go in migration policy to get the Sweden Democrats' support in this chamber?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! The member's question is highly hypothetical. That is something the next government negotiations will have to clarify. It is clear that our party, like all other parties, has red lines.

I am actually quite satisfied with the migration policy we have agreed upon. I think there is very much good in it. The problem is the previously conducted migration policy, which has caused that we now do not have the possibility to receive particularly many at all if we in any way are to be able to get order on the integration in this country.

It is a huge problem in all of Sweden. Sweden is burning, especially out in the suburbs, where many of the newly arrived have ended up. If the member does not see that problem, I recommend that he make a visit to any particularly vulnerable area.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I asked the Moderates, Sweden's governing party, if they have any red lines in migration policy, and the answer is that I should go and visit a vulnerable area. I have done that quite a few times.

To be honest: the Sweden Democrats are dictating the terms for this government. The Sweden Democrats are dictating the terms in the migration policy. It is clear that the Moderates, as the country's currently governing party, must be able to say if there are any red lines.

One can only guess what the Sverigedemokraternas new demands will be. Will it be that permanent residence permits should be abolished entirely? Will it be that we should have zero quota refugees? Will it be that the repatriation should increase? Or will it be that one should be deported if one has the wrong opinion at the universities or if one demonstrates for something that Richard Jomshof thinks is bad? It is this type of opinions that the Sverigedemokraternas leading representatives constantly express. There, the Moderaterna must be able to say that one is not prepared to go that far to retain power.

It is crucial for Sweden and for what kind of country we want to be. It is crucial for integration that we show that we believe in openness and inclusion. In that regard, rhetoric plays a role.

The Sweden Democrats have now been given a pinky finger by the Moderates. They will take the whole hand if the Moderates do not say: Here, but no further! Therefore, I believe that the Moderates, as the government's largest party and the party that holds the Prime Minister's post, must be able to give clear messages to the Swedish people about where the line is drawn. My question is: Are there any red lines, and if so, what are they?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! If everything that Cato is now rambling about is true, we have surely set our red lines. We have indeed agreed on a Tidö agreement. We are prepared to agree on this in an agreement, a compromise. That is where we stand. Look at the Tidö agreement! That is what we have agreed to. Jonny Cato lists various things that he says the Sverigedemokraterna want, but it is obvious that we have not agreed with them on those now. We have agreed on what is written in the Tidö agreement. That’s it!

Where we find ourselves in a government negotiation in a year and a half's time, time will have to be the deciding factor. We will not agree to anything that we do not feel comfortable implementing in a government position. That is how it is.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In a previous exchange, Tony Haddou raised the important issue of children's safety in Sweden. There are many children who are born and raised here who are deported.

A situation that will become increasingly common and that we also see now is that teenagers are being deported from their families just in time for graduation. When we have time-limited residence permits as a basis and the government has removed the valve in the Aliens Act that concerned persons who have established themselves here, the consequence is that teenagers who came as relatives to be reunited with their families in Sweden lose the right to family immigration when they turn 18. This means that Sweden will now, on an assembly line, deport one family member from each such family, namely the one who manages to turn 18 without having managed to obtain a permanent residence permit.

This type of family separation is offensive. The perception might be that one is a child until they are 18, and then one no longer has a need to live with their parents. But I believe that most who stand there with their nearly 18-year-old son or daughter and try on graduation caps would shudder at the thought that after the 18th birthday, that child would be sent back to a country that the parents have fled from – Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, or Somalia.

How does Magnus Resare view this?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I repeat: We in this country have a situation that has been caused by a naive immigration policy year after year. We are now restructuring the system.

There is nothing in our policy that overrides certain types of legislation. Among other things, one has a right to a certain amount of respect for their family formation. This can be examined by the court. Those who are adults and have no right to be here shall also be regarded as adults and of legal age. It may happen that certain persons are deported to their former home countries. It will not be a question of children who have been born and grown up here from infancy, but it may be about people who have some form of belonging to the society they come from but have been here for some years.

It is clear that we will see examples that are difficult, but we have to change our policy now. We just have to be honest about that. For far too many years, we conducted a naive migration policy.

If there is reason to review the legislation in the future because something did not turn out quite well, we can look at that. If one has grounds for protection in the country one comes from, one can apply for protection in this country oneself. But if one can return to one's home country, the basic principle in Swedish migration law is that one should do so.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In his speech, Magnus Resare said that it is not because of immigrants who behave themselves, work, and have integrated into Sweden that one changes the policy. But the change I am speaking of hits this group very hard. These are people who have come to Sweden as refugees or for other reasons and have been reunited with their family here. It will not be isolated cases, but the main rule for those who have teenagers will be that their teenagers will be deported from the rest of the family when they turn 18, even if they have behaved themselves, even if they go to school, and even if they are in the middle of their upper secondary education. We have even heard examples where people have been deported just weeks before graduation.

I think this is completely unjustifiable. It cannot be justified by any of the arguments that Magnus Resare or others in the Moderaterna have put forward. It is simply mean and totally cynical. You split families, tear family members away from everyone else and send them to the country where their parents have grounds for protection.

With the extremely high requirements we have in Sweden for people to be granted asylum, it is unfortunately quite common that a child who left their home country already in their teens is not judged to have grounds for protection. The children may not even have had time to form a political opinion, and they are not necessarily known to the regime that persecutes the parents.

This is going to be a real problem, and it is glaring. I believe that most of the Swedish people think it is completely insane to deport teenagers from families who have protection in Sweden.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Every teenager has the right to have their case examined. If one truly has grounds for protection, one should be allowed to be in this country. No one questions that. But when it concerns adults who do not have grounds for protection, there will be cases where they will have to leave this country. There will always be individual cases that are difficult, but I believe that there will be vanishingly few who are affected by what the member is now speaking about.

I believe that most deportations will concern people who have committed crimes in this country or people who do not want to be a part of this society, people who engage in being moral police in the suburbs and who do other things that do not belong in Swedish society.

What the member is raising here, I hope, is a very small problem. I do not believe it will be anything major. Most children who have parents who have refugee status themselves have refugee status. It is that simple.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Migration is, as we have heard, a multifaceted issue. There are many positive sides to migration. That people move across national borders, move to new places and countries and choose to create new lives in new places is fundamentally good. This has been shown, not least by the experience of free movement within the EU or the Nordic passport union. When new thoughts and ideas are exchanged, when people meet and encounter one another and when societies have diversity instead of uniformity, growth, prosperity and fine things such as friendship and love can flourish.

But unfortunately, there are also negative sides. That people are forced to flee from violence and persecution is terrible. It is also terrible when unscrupulous employers and human smugglers exploit people's dreams and vulnerability to enrich themselves, or when people are received in our country and we do not give them the conditions to integrate, but instead create segregation and misery.

In light of this, we Social Democrats believe that there must be order and clarity in the migration policy. Since Sweden has a large integration debt, the method for handling migration must also be strict. As the EU's new asylum and migration pact is rolled out, we see it as positive if more countries can participate and share the responsibility that Sweden and a number of other countries have taken on for a very long time. Then we can tackle the major integration challenges that our country still has without compromising on fundamental matters, such as the right to asylum.

For us Social Democrats, there are therefore no doubts that those who have the right to stay in this country shall also be given good opportunities to integrate. An even distribution of newcomers in Sweden's municipalities in accordance with the intentions of the Settlement Act is necessary. The municipalities that have taken a very large responsibility when others have shirked it should, of course, not have to bear the responsibility alone again. Therefore, it is an absolutely necessary political decision to abolish EBO.

Therefore, the processing times for all types of cases at Migrationsverket – in principle – need to be shortened further. Resources for this exist in the system, but unfortunately, they are being spent on inefficient and counterproductive measures, such as increased return grants. Instead, the resources could shorten the queues and thereby improve the conditions for rapid integration.

If one does not have the right to stay, one should receive support to leave the country as soon as possible. By abolishing EBO, better conditions are created for this.

We also want to strengthen the return work by developing our work in countries that have large groups who are to return. It is, for example, about using aid policy to deliver resources that can provide support on-site. It can involve contact persons on-site, as Norway has in some countries, and good diplomatic representation.

Since I was in Kurdistan last week, I say this: It is a bit strange that Sweden does not have a diplomatic representation in southern Kurdistan. It is something that could facilitate returns.

Furthermore, we believe that there should be concrete numerical targets for returns in the regulatory letter to Migrationsverket. There were some previously. For some reason, the Sweden Democrats and the government have removed these.

For us Social Democrats, the issue of an orderly migration policy is important – to promote migration that is beneficial and to prevent the parts of migration that are negative. This is extremely important both for the individual and for society as a whole.

Without immigration, Sweden would not function as a country. And unregulated immigration – immigration without order and structure – would be completely unsustainable and completely destructive. Managing the balance in this is our task. It is a task that I believe we Social Democrats handle best, just as it is when it comes to many other issues.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of reservation 39.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! On 1 April, an investigation report was submitted to the government with the proposal that a collective assessment of a foreigner's misconduct shall be able to serve as a basis for both refusing and revoking a residence permit that does not rest on an EU law basis. Lack of conduct can then, according to the investigation report, also be behaviors that society otherwise counters even if they are not punishable by law.

The Social Democrats have expressed a positive stance toward the investigation's proposals in the media. In the reservation from the Social Democrats being discussed today, however, the Social Democrats take a negative stance toward such proposals and argue that it is only criminal acts that should lead to residence permits not being granted or being revoked.

It can be observed that the Social Democrats have taken two opposite positions regarding the investigation report's proposals – one positive and one negative.

I believe the voters may wonder what Socialdemokraterna's actual position is. Are Socialdemokraterna prepared to support the proposals that residence permits should not be granted and that residence permits should also be revoked due to foreigners' lack of integrity? Or do Socialdemokraterna support the content of their reservation, which we are discussing today, that lack of integrity should not lead to deportation?

One can also wonder: If the Social Democrats support the proposals that a lack of integrity shall lead to deportation, why did they submit a reservation stating that they do not support the concept at all and that only criminal acts shall lead to deportation?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I think that is a good question. I understand the member's reaction. When we wrote that reservation, we did not know what the investigation would contain. And even today, things that are not criminal can also be included in the decision of whether one should be allowed to stay or not – under an honest way of life. So, there already are.

What we are turning against and are concerned about is that it is not objective criteria that should form the basis for the whole thing.

Now it is important that everyone listens. It is about what has been said in the media and how it has been communicated regarding the investigation from the Tidö parties and from some hangarounds to the Sverigedemokraterna. It is said that people shall be thrown out if they give girls on beaches crooked looks and such things. From that perspective, it is clear that we have been very worried that this would not be legally secure.

But the investigation is clear that there should be objective criteria. It concerns things such as, for example, that one has not paid a fine as a business owner or that one deliberately does not pay debts that one has caused oneself.

I think it is a good starting point to begin reasoning around the issue, but I think it is important to wait until the bill arrives before we give clear statements on what will happen here. I do not trust that the Sverigedemokraterna do not want to go in the direction that has been expressed earlier in the media and as their hangarounds say. But if one can clearly show that there are objective criteria that can be used, it is clear that we are always prepared to consider whether we might have written a bit differently in our reservation. I have no problem with that.

The concept of "vandels" itself is somewhat problematic. It was phased out from the 1989 legislation because it was not used very much. One says that a concept that was previously phased out because it was not used is to be introduced. It is clear that we are turning a bit against the use of the term.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! As the member probably knows, both the Sweden Democrats and our voters are very upset about the number of citizenships being granted at the moment. Last year, 66,000 Swedish citizenships were granted according to the liberal rules that apply today and which applied under the Social Democratic government.

The Tidö parties intend to change these rules during this mandate period. In the Sweden Democrats' committee motions, we propose a moratorium on citizenship until new legislation is in place. It is actually the only decent thing to do considering that there is a majority in the Riksdag that opposes the liberal citizenship legislation that we have today.

The Social Democrats, however, write in their reservation that larger appropriations must be invested in shortening processing times for citizenship cases. In practice, this would mean that more citizenships would be granted under today's liberal citizenship legislation. Consequently, more people who do not have an anchoring in Swedish society would become Swedish citizens.

The question is why the Social Democrats want processing times to be shortened so that more citizenships can be granted. Do the Social Democrats consider it positive that more citizenships are granted based on today's liberal rules, which mean that one does not need to be able to support oneself or speak the Swedish language?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is good that we, with the help of many resources, can carry out rapid investigations that can, in a legally secure manner and based on the rules, determine whether people should have citizenship or not. An investigation was released a few weeks ago which showed that the median processing time for citizenship was four years, if I remember correctly.

I think that is too long for many reasons. I have no problem with us tightening the legislation regarding, for example, those who have lied their way to a citizenship. I think that is sensible. I am, however, not convinced that the time before one can become a Swedish citizen should be extended. This also relates to the status of permanent residence permits, which is indeed highly uncertain now under the Tidö government, even regarding whether those who have received a favorable administrative decision shall be allowed to keep it.

I believe that one should be open and reflect. On one hand, it is about people's opportunities for a good life. Many will also, with the new rules, be able to obtain Swedish citizenship, and they should be able to benefit from that even in the current system. On the other hand, there are certainly some individuals who should not have citizenship. That trade-off is difficult, and therefore I believe in more resources precisely in order to test it in a legally secure manner and make good assessments, for example when it comes to security, which has been one of the arguments for that this should be investigated carefully.

I think it is too harsh to proceed with a moratorium. I think it is good that one reviews and listens to Säpo, but that requires resources. I think it is a more efficient use of funds to put the money on that rather than, for example, on the completely condemned return migration grant, which the Sverigedemokraterna and other Tidö parties are proceeding with today.

I believe that one still has to see that there are very many who receive citizenship today who will also receive it in the future system, and in that case, it is good to have more resources so that it becomes legally secure.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats' migration policy is well known, but after this debate, I believe some clarifications are needed regarding lack of integrity and so on.

Ola Möller gave some kind of explanation concerning objective criteria. But the question is much more serious than that, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. The government wants to severely restrict freedom of speech and deport people on completely arbitrary grounds. They want to divide people into different groups and, on unclear assessment grounds, introduce rules that imply inequality before the law.

It was therefore not so strange that the criticism did not wait long when the investigation was presented. The Social Democrats were then completely okay with the whole thing and argued that it is going in the right direction.

The former Secretary General of the Bar Association calls the entire investigation "a deplorable reading that does not belong in a democratic constitutional state." I share that assessment, not least when the government's investigators on the question of whether this restricts freedom of expression answer that one should watch one's tongue. The Social Democrats, however, seem to take this a bit with a kick, and it is deeply serious when it concerns our civil and political rights here in Sweden.

The Social Democrats answered that it is a step in the right direction. What is it that is right? And in which direction, do the Social Democrats believe?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Tony Haddou!

I believe it is on page 134 in the investigation where the investigator brings up this matter regarding statements. The investigator is very clear that no further tightenings were needed, as those statements that can be considered to violate Swedish values are already criminalized. This applies, for example, to hate speech against a group, defamation and the like.

I therefore think that the interpretation which suggests that people would be deported out of the blue because they express themselves is incorrect. In my world, it is not a problem – yes, it is a fucking problem; excuse the swearing, Madam Speaker, a huge problem – if a Russian migrant worker who is here on a work permit shouts praises to a German dictator and is deported after being convicted of hate speech. I think that is reasonable and completely okay.

However, it is not illegal to demonstrate and express one's opinions in this country if one stays within the framework of the law. In that case, one is also not deported due to lack of conduct, according to the investigation. So that is what it says. I therefore have not quite understood the interpretations that are being made.

Regarding the direction, I gave the answer in my exchange with Nima Gholam Ali Pour. But listen carefully now, once again: Based on the expressions and what has been said during the investigation from Tidögänget and, above all, the Sweden Democrats and their hangarounds, we argue that the investigation is very clear that objective criteria shall form the basis for any future deportation. But I truly reserve the right to say that we must see the bill before we agree to anything at all.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! In our rule of law, perhaps one should not be deported arbitrarily, but when Ola Möller says that he has not understood the criticism, one must remember that this is against the background of, for example, freedom of demonstration and freedom of expression. We had a Migration Minister who submitted additional directives on freedom of expression to this inquiry, linked to, for example, demonstration. It is very political, and that is what makes this deeply serious: that people are to be divided into different groups and, on unclear assessment grounds, rules are to be introduced that imply inequality before the law. It is that entire principle and structure that makes this not belong in a democratic rule of law.

I think that if one believes in democracy and the rule of law, the first reaction when such a proposal comes from the Tidöregeringen should be to throw it in the wastepaper basket. But the Socialdemokraterna think, therefore, that it is a step in the right direction, even though in practice it concerns rules that imply inequality before the law, on arbitrary grounds.

Don't the Social Democrats see that it becomes a restriction on freedom of expression when one divides the legal process between groups? Doesn't Ola Möller see that this risks becoming a major restriction on freedom of expression and thus on our civil and political rights?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! For the uninitiated listener, this sounds terrible: A minister gives supplementary directives! But it is not the supplementary directives that we are taking a position on. The supplementary directives are not the preparation. The preparation is what the investigation writes, and I have even referred to where in the investigation it states that no further tightening was needed regarding statements. It states straight out in the investigation.

I find it difficult to understand why Tony Haddou thinks that a person who has been convicted of hate speech should be allowed to stay in the country, because that is what Tony Haddou is standing and defending here. I say plainly that objective criteria in the form of judgments regarding statements can serve as a basis for whether one is allowed to stay, and they already can today. It is like nothing new. That is what the investigator says.

But Tony Haddou apparently thinks that people who behave so badly that they are convicted for their statements should be allowed to stay in this country. I find that difficult to understand. I believe fundamentally that even Tony Haddou thinks we should deport Nazis who shout in Sergels torg; otherwise, I would be very surprised by his grounds for movement.

There is a constant need from the Left Party's side to portray social democracy as somewhat more evil than we actually are. This was just another example of that. We thank you for that illustration.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today, very many people in the world live in refugee camps, as internal refugees in their own countries or in neighboring countries. Their situation is often very difficult. Now, furthermore, large donor countries such as the USA and the UK have signaled gigantic cuts to their aid. This means that the situation in the refugee camps – not least for vulnerable groups such as women, children, and persons with different disabilities – risks becoming even worse.

In this situation, the Swedish government has chosen to significantly reduce the number of so-called quota refugees, whom the Swedish Migration Agency, in dialogue with the UN refugee agency UNHCR, selects from the camps for resettlement in Sweden. The number has been reduced from 5,000 people to 900.

But the needs are growing. From the Miljöpartiet's side, we have proposed that the government should push for the EU to increase the number of quota refugees coming to Europe, because the situation is extremely difficult. Sweden, with its 900 quota refugees, is nevertheless still one of the countries that receives comparatively many. The Socialdemokraterna have not stood behind that proposal. Centerpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, however, have.

I want to ask Ola Möller why the Social Democrats do not think that the EU should work towards providing protection to at least some more of the world's most vulnerable refugees through secure, legal routes.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Purely technically, the issue of quota refugees lies with the Committee on Employment, not with us. That is actually the technical answer in this context. The reservation is in the wrong place.

I think it is commendable that one wants to work so that more people will accept quota refugees. It is absolutely something that I hope the new Asylum and Migration Pact will be able to contribute to. It implies order and clarity, a better holistic view, and a better consensus in migration policy. It is clear that it is important.

There is another dimension to this. It is the Swedish reception of quota refugees. Now that the government has reduced it very significantly – actually to below 20 percent of the previous levels – it is clear that the municipalities that are to receive quota refugees must have the resources and conditions to manage the reception and the integration. These are extremely vulnerable individuals who need special support. It is a quite extensive process.

The government has also not increased the general government grants. The municipalities are under enormous pressure. In my home municipality, Helsingborg, classes are now being merged because there are no resources to retain teachers. That is the reality we are facing.

We Social Democrats think it is important that we send the signal from here that Sweden will not receive many quota refugees in a short period of time and thereby put great pressure on the municipalities regarding the reception. It is not fair towards either the quota refugees or the municipalities. There are also such perspectives.

At the beginning of the mandate period, we set fixed numbers. We thought that was right. But as time passes, those structures disappear. That is the second answer as to why we do not enter the quota refugee discussion particularly deeply right now. We mean that we need to ensure that the municipalities have resources for reception and good integration.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is a rather poor excuse to say that one thinks the entire issue should lie in another committee. Now it lies here in our report, which we are voting on today.

Three parties have stood behind that the government should work in the EU so that the EU countries together should receive more. Last year it was about a total of 15,000 people in all of Europe. The UN's refugee agency says that 2.4 million people would have needed resettlement during 2024.

The situation in the world is not heading in such a direction that we can expect the need to decrease particularly much. Regardless of how one views the situation in Helsingborg or in any other Swedish municipality, I think that the government should work at the EU level to ensure that the EU as a whole accepts more quota refugees. I really see no contradiction there.

I agree with Ola Möller that it is important to provide good conditions for Sweden's municipalities so that people receive a good integration. But it also becomes a bit offensive to say that because one has slightly too large classes in Helsingborg, a refugee family should stay in a refugee camp. That type of comparison, I think, becomes difficult in this context, because these people live in extremely vulnerable situations in refugee camps with a lack of security, safety, education, and healthcare for children, women, and persons with disabilities.

Madam Speaker! The fact is that the quota refugee system is one of the few safe and legal ways to get to Europe and seek asylum.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Here, the views of the Green Party and the Social Democrats differ quite significantly. For us, the integration perspective is extremely important. If integration is not achieved, individuals and societies will suffer. We see the consequences in Sweden of a lack of integration policy. For us, it is an extremely important starting point when we build our migration policy that integration works.

I agree with the member, and I said in my first contribution, that we can work at the EU level. I believe that within the framework of the asylum and migration pact, those discussions will be able to take place. It is absolutely true that a government needs to work more on discussing quota refugees at the European level. But it can also mean that we have to invite and say that we will accept more. If we do not have the integration capacity in place, with the great responsibility we have taken on for a long time, it is not reasonable. There, I respect if opinions differ between Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna.

Integration policy that ensures one enters society, learns the language, receives a high-quality education and does not kick the legs out from under others is important for us. We will stick to that, regardless of what we think the government should do at the EU level.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I largely agree with everything Ola Möller said, both in his speech and in the exchanges of remarks. There is, however, a small catch in this context, and that is that the three parties that the Social Democrats want to build a future government cooperation with are heading in full gear in the diametrically opposite direction.

Madam Speaker! Half of the opposition in Sweden wants to see a total return to the legislation that applied until the migrant crisis in 2015. It is, therefore, the legislation that created the situation which led to the Social Democrats having to devote an entire parliamentary term to trying to convince the Green Party of temporary legislation and other matters. And after that, in practice, five of eight parties in Sweden largely analyze that it is necessary to have order and clarity in migration policy. These are the three government parties, the Sweden Democrats, and the Social Democrats. the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Centre Party simply make a different analysis of these societal issues.

They want to return to a legislation where permanent residence permits are to be granted to almost everyone at the first decision. They have such broad exceptions for persons without grounds for asylum that it would, in practice, undermine the entire regulated immigration. They want broad amnesties but no livelihood requirements and so on.

Madam Speaker! I find it very difficult to see that Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet would lie flat in future negotiations with Socialdemokraterna on this issue. For Sweden as a nation, it is extremely important that we safeguard regulated immigration. I would like to hear how Ola Möller views this.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Fredrik Malm!

Fredrik Malm does not sit on the committee and has not followed the debates we have had earlier. The question of government cooperation, which was also posed by the Moderates' group leader Viktor Wärnick, has been asked a number of times. During the last debate we had, I likened Wärnick to a parrot, and now it seems another parrot has entered that repeats the question of who we are to sit in government with.

My direct counter-question to Fredrik Malm is: Will the Sweden Democrats sit in the government in the future? Fredrik Malm, there will be no government after the next election without the Sweden Democrats. The Sweden Democrats have clearly declared this. At least one minister has said that they are not going to at all, even though she has changed her stance many times on various issues since she became minister. Jan Jönsson here in Stockholm has also said this. Before Fredrik Malm starts asking us questions about who we are to negotiate with in a government, he must actually answer whether the Sweden Democrats will sit in the government after the election.

Additionally, a measurement came today where Fredrik Malm's party had received 2.5 percent. Now it is not the four percent threshold that the Liberals need to worry about, but now it is the municipal threshold of 2 percent and being voted out of the municipal council. In many large municipalities, the Liberals would not have even entered. Furthermore, the Christian Democrats are at 3.2 percent. One should perhaps not put so much energy into the Social Democrats' government formation process when one sits in the position one does.

I strongly oppose the description that the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats, together with the bourgeois, share a social analysis. It is a completely absurd statement. The Sweden Democrats are a nationalist, social-conservative, and fascist party, while we are a party that takes the conflict between labor and capital. To say that we would stand in the same corner and make the same analysis is a completely absurd description of Swedish politics. I do not intend to even bother answering the question, because it is absurd.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! This sounded a bit more like a May Day speech. The question remains.

We have five parties in the Swedish Riksdag that vote identically in all matters concerning migration. They want regulated immigration and that the persons who have the greatest need for protection are allowed to stay. They want order and clarity in the system and that persons who receive a rejection should leave the country. I concede that there are absolutely some differences in perspectives, but when it comes to policy and substance, we have five parties that want to see a continued regulated and quite strict migration policy for a long time to come, according to my assessment. In addition, there are three parties that make a completely different assessment.

This means that Ola Möller's party will have to sit and negotiate policy when at least two of three want it to continue to be possible to immigrate for labor to Sweden to receive wages of around 13,000 kronor. I find it difficult to see that the LO collective will agree to such policy. One will have to negotiate with two parties that want a total return to the migration legislation Sweden had before the migrant crisis in 2015. One will have to negotiate with three parties that will demand large amnesty decisions for large collective groups of persons who, in all instances, including the courts, have had their asylum applications rejected.

Madam Speaker! Even though the Social Democrats are the largest, I find it difficult to see that the others will lie down in a negotiation between four parties and not get anything through. Then one must give an answer to the voters. One cannot just say that one wants an open mandate because one is the largest party, but one must give an answer to the voters on what they can expect if the Social Democrats win the election.

I see very great risks if we begin to undermine the regulated immigration that Sweden has and will need to have for a long time to come.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Malm can be reassured. A strict migration policy will be pursued even after the next election.

It is a bit funny that a Liberal party member is speaking here about what the LO collective wants. Last time I checked, well, 1 or 2 percent of the LO collective voted for the Liberals, so Fredrik Malm hardly qualifies to be an interpreter of political ideologies and the LO collective.

Let me clarify one thing for Fredrik Malm, if he now really believes that there are five parties that think the same thing. Member Nima Gholam Ali Pour has said here in the speaker's chair that asylum seekers should know their place. The Sweden Democrats think we should have reporting laws. It is completely obvious that they have backed down on the issue of the duty of information for authorities. The Sweden Democrats have been clear that they want to tear down mosques in our country. Do the Liberals mean that they share this policy? I do not think so, because I know Fredrik Malm well and do not believe that he stands for such language and such an analysis.

The description that five parties think alike and that everything is peace and harmony and that Fredrik Malm will not have to make concessions when the Sverigedemokraterna are to sit in the same government as he is not quite true.

The reason why we in the chamber have voted the same is that in principle nine out of ten products, perhaps even more, within the migration policy that has come from the government have been built on Social Democratic investigations. It is such things as we commissioned investigations for policies that we want to implement.

Now, however, it is a matter of what happens moving forward. That is why a lack of diligence came up here. It is now that the return grant comes up. Then we will see if there is continued full agreement.

We now have an unemployment rate that has been above 10 percent. Climate policy has failed. The school system will continue to bring in a lot of profits for school corporations. Fredrik Malm should spend more of his waking time at night thinking about where the country is headed under his leadership rather than caring about social democratic government formations.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats' tactic is very clear. One should align as closely as possible with the Tidö parties when it comes to crime policy and migration policy. But the fact is that the Centre Party and the Social Democrats often think more alike in not least migration policy than it may appear. Approximately half of the times we vote as V and MP and half as the Social Democrats, even though Fredrik Malm is now making a large and dishonest attempt to lump us together with V and MP.

One issue that the Centre Party and the Social Democrats have fundamentally disagreed on is legal certainty. There was no issue during the last mandate period in which Morgan Johansson and Anders Ygeman held back so firmly as when it came to legal certainty. It is extremely concerning that the Social Democrats do not see the problems for converts, in hbtqi cases, or in the matter of public defenders.

In my opinion, the issue of public counsel is one of the most absolutely important in migration policy. Sometimes it is even completely decisive which public counsel one receives when it comes to whether one is allowed to stay or not. It is that decisive. Sometimes it is almost like a lottery. So we cannot have that in Sweden.

A lot is happening in the migration area. It is moving fast. The government is making a major reorganization. It is clear that there is a great risk that legal certainty will be impaired.

My very simple question to the Social Democrats is therefore: Are they still opposed to reviewing how legal certainty can be improved, or have they reconsidered, thought correctly, and are prepared to make improvements so that Sweden gets a more legally secure asylum and migration process than we have today?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I am open to the possibility that I am mistaken, but my recollection is that there is a proposal to strengthen the right to a public counsel. Jonny Cato nods. Then, proposals will be submitted to strengthen the right to public counsel and increase the quality. I think it would be good if that happens. There is nothing wrong with that.

I previously had an exchange of remarks with Nima Gholam Ali Pour regarding citizenship. One of our arguments for allocating more resources to the Migration Agency for processing is that it should become more legally secure, and from that perspective, the groups that Jonny Cato spoke about will also be included. I absolutely believe that educational initiatives are needed.

Statistics Sweden conducted a review where they looked at this, and they said that there are no systematic errors in legal certainty, but that there are cases where there are errors in legal certainty. So that is how the state administration functions. I believe that more resources, educational initiatives, strengthened quality, and the right to public counsel are important.

The interpretation issue is also extremely important. I am concerned about a development where one begins to restrict the right to an interpreter and also cut back on the number of hours and such things. It is clear that we must look at this. I have no answer today on how much or when and where, but I think one needs to keep an eye on the ball there.

A more coherent answer than that, the member probably cannot receive to the question. I hope that he nevertheless sees that I agree that we should have a legally secure system. He has received a number of answers regarding what I think about that.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! It is good. This is, we can state, another issue where the Social Democrats have shifted to move closer to the Tidö parties in migration policy.

The truth is that we should probably thank the Christian Democrats for the fact that the investigation has been established. One can say a lot about the Christian Democrats' migration policy, but when it comes to legal certainty, the Christian Democrats and the Centre Party stand very close to each other. It is good that the Christian Democrats managed to get something through that the Social Democrats systematically opposed in the Migration Committee both before and after.

It is still exactly the same rhetoric as before – that this is how it works in Swedish public administration and that sometimes things go wrong. I do not think that is a dignified answer. For too many people, it is a question of life or death whether they get to stay in Sweden or not.

We know that some groups are more vulnerable than others in the asylum process. LGBTQI persons are one such group where cases are often handled quite arbitrarily. Lay judges – often Sweden Democrats – may be happy to judge according to party line rather than according to what is actually right.

I have myself sat as a lay judge in the Administrative Court in such a case. At that time, it was a Social Democrat and a Moderate who said: "No, this person is not gay." They knew it. It was lucky that the judge and I were in agreement. That is what I mean: There is a great amount of arbitrariness in the legal process and the asylum process when it comes to certain cases, for example regarding LGBTQ and converts.

My question is: What do the Social Democrats want to do to improve legal certainty for these groups? Is it just the simple answer that we should wait and see what the government presents, or do you have any own concrete proposals?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I feel that I answered this at the beginning. I mentioned more resources for the processing, as well as the need for educational initiatives. Then I think the proposal to strengthen the quality regarding public assistants is good. It was good that Statskontoret carried out the review, which came quite early during this mandate period. These guidelines would have gone to our government if we had been in power.

I also think it becomes strange with the court issue. We have an additional instance that removes the uncertainty, that is, the Migration Court of Appeal. There are no lay judges there, as far as I know, but instead, there are actually judges who look at it. There is an instance to sort out the bias that possibly exists.

I also think it is hysterically funny that KD is highlighted as an example. KD is involved in dismantling the aid policy and the democracy work, which ensures that people are deported in a legally secure manner, but then when they return home, the local community has been torn apart and the opportunities for minorities and others to function have been sabotaged.

I was, as I said, in Kurdistan a few weeks ago and asked the Christians there what it means that the work for democracy in Iraq is being dismantled. It is not a positive experience. If KD has done anything positive in this part, one can calmly state that they are splitting hairs and missing the forest for the trees regarding how these people fare when they come home. It was good that we got to uncover KD's double agenda in this.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to have information thrown at you in exchanges of remarks. Ola Möller can feel secure – we will likely both remain in the chamber and ensure that decisions that can be viable for Sweden are lacking. Unfortunately, the Social Democrats did not succeed during their eight years in government in implementing the policy that Ola Möller speaks so warmly for. But that is a completely different matter. Now we return to what we are debating today, namely migration.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal, which entails the rejection of the motions.

For a sustainable future perspective and to create a situation where integration works, it is important that the migration policy applicable to a country has a long-term orientation, naturally in combination with the fact that the decisions made are legally secure.

For a number of years, primarily during the mid-2010s, Sweden received more asylum seekers than it was possible to integrate. In parallel, sufficient measures were not taken to address the exploitation of the asylum system, and in many places, parallel societies have emerged.

The Christian Democrats and the government 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 should be that we continue to have a migration that is at a level consistent with that in our Nordic neighboring countries. It is reasonable to prioritize the most vulnerable refugees.

An agreement on migration has been reached within the EU. This is good for preventing people from being exploited, harmed, or dying in, for example, flimsy boats in the Mediterranean. The EU must counter irregular migration and have a greater focus on helping refugees in the surrounding area.

We Christian Democrats think that the migration pact is good, but we want to see further steps – a migration pact 2.0 which, among other things, means that asylum is sought in centers outside the EU and that the reception for each country occurs based on the capacity to integrate.

Madam Speaker! Even at this moment, as we stand here in the chamber and debate, the terrible war that Russia has started against Ukraine is ongoing, a war within Europe's borders, again. This war, which was escalated three years ago through large-scale attacks but which de facto has been ongoing since 2014, must naturally continue to be condemned, and we must provide our support in different ways to the bravely fighting Ukrainian people.

The war has meant that millions of Ukrainians have been forced to flee. In March 2022, the mass flight directive was activated, which provides the opportunity for Ukrainians to seek protection in European countries and thus also here in Sweden.

The government has, through a number of decisions, provided greater opportunities for studies, work, access to healthcare and financial support so that those who have sought refuge in our country can have a good life here. Ukraine's cause is ours, which has been demonstrated through support both to Ukrainian refugees here in Sweden and to Ukraine as a country.

Madam Speaker! The migration policy that has been pursued during previous periods has not been at the level of what is long-term sustainable for our country. One of the important tasks that our government has now as it leads our country is therefore to change the policy, and many measures have already become a reality since the change of government in 2022.

This has clearly been manifested through the Tidö Agreement, which the government base has negotiated and which contains a large number of points that mean the direction and content of migration policy is changing. Eight years with an S-government, with the conflicting and resistant supporting parties Vänstern, Miljöpartiet, and to some extent Centern, meant that the austerity that Sweden needed was not carried out. It is what this government must now handle.

The Social Democrats say that they have implemented changes and initiated investigations. While this is correct in some parts, the combination of different policy directions that characterized the S-marked years of government meant that they were by no means implementing sufficient measures to meet the challenge. They instead created a result and a problem that even the Social Democrats can hardly be satisfied with, despite that they, as usual, a bit unscrupulously shake off the responsibility for what they have achieved. We are now left with a situation that will take time to rectify.

The migration area needs to be managed in a goal-oriented direction of tightening in order for us to address the problems we see in our society. Unlike previous governments, today's government cooperation provides a basis for decisiveness that is now being translated into practical action. Sweden needs and deserves this.

Mr. Speaker! The cooperation has begun to yield results. The number of asylum seekers to Sweden has decreased significantly, and processing times have been shortened. Through clear changes in the legislation, it is emphasized that a no will mean a no, and long-requested measures that counteract the shadow society are now being implemented continuously. More people who have received a rejection are returning. Labor immigration to low-skilled jobs has been limited. Instead, the main focus is to attract high-skilled and company-demanded competence to Sweden. Faster handling is also a fact. That is how Sweden gets back on the right track. But naturally, more remains to be implemented and followed up.

As Jonny Cato profitably mentioned, we Christian Democrats have for a long time argued that legal certainty should be improved, especially for converts. According to reports, they have in many cases had an uncertain and in many cases varying opportunity to have their asylum grounds correctly and reliably assessed. The Tidö Agreement states that the situation shall be analyzed. As mentioned in previous exchanges of remarks, Statskontoret has presented a report showing differences in the assessment.

This issue was made invisible by the previous government, but I can state that with this government, the Tidö Agreement and now also the regulatory letters to Migrationsverket provide clear directives that legal certainty shall be improved. We Christian Democrats will continue to follow the issue of legal certainty for converts and LGBTQ+ persons. Further measures may be required, so we must analyze and return.

Mr. Speaker! What is the opposition's common direction? I can state that this debate does not differ from how it has sounded in the chamber during the majority of the debates during this mandate period.

The government is implementing necessary course changes for the migration policy so that migration remains at a sustainable level for Sweden. A majority of the changes receive the wholehearted support, at least at the button press, of the Social Democrats in this chamber. One can even sense that the Social Democrats are somewhat pleased that the policy is being taken in this stricter direction, as it was not possible for natural and political reasons during previous terms. It has actually also been underscored internally within the Social Democrats through Lawen Redar's analysis, where she, as an investigator, said that the Social Democrats did not conduct a sufficiently strict migration policy. She even said that the Social Democrats' migration policy has failed.

What does the future look like then? This report and actually even the exchanges of remarks show that the opposition does not have a united line. Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet and to some extent C wants to have a return to a migration policy involving lower requirements in different ways, which will mean greater migration to our country, while the Socialdemokraterna, as we have seen in many decisions and also in their own argumentation, follow the government's stricter line.

One can wonder what it will be like if there is a change of government in 2026, which I naturally do not hope for. That the strict line that the Social Democrats advocate after self-critical internal analysis would become a reality is probably a utopian and unrealistic pipe dream. Reality will unfortunately likely be a return to what we saw during the previous government, that is to say, a significantly more open and less demanding migration policy.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Tidö parties promised to deliver, and it is happening now. Investigations have been presented and will continue to be presented. There will also be a large number of government bills during this and next year. We Christian Democrats, together with the government, will continue to work for a responsible, legally secure, and humane migration policy where people whom we receive are given good conditions for integration into our society.

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

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! There is a bit of a row here.

I can begin with this that the Christian Democrats welcomed more measures when it comes to reviewing the legal certainty for converts and hbtqi persons. I welcome that very much, and I hope that the government does much more in that area.

Then the member said that one prioritizes the most vulnerable refugees. Is it by cutting the quota refugee system, which is for the most vulnerable?

My question concerns integration, which the government links most of the migration policy to. Integration is to be improved through the work line, the government wrote in its latest budget. But the problem right now is that the leisure line seems to prevail at the Ministry of Employment. The government is leaving mass unemployment completely without measures.

A prerequisite for the work line to function must surely be work itself? The starting point must surely be that jobs are created or that jobs exist? It is not entirely simple to reconcile the government's integration policy with the ways in which one wants to improve integration given the mass unemployment we have, which is left without measures, or with the fact that one spends billions on proposals such as return grants, which lead to worsened long-term integration. Furthermore, they want to abolish permanent residence permits, which forces people into deeper uncertainty and insecurity and worsens integration even further.

In what way does integration improve by letting unemployment stand without measures, and in what way does integration improve by putting forward proposals that will, with all probability, worsen integration?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Tony Haddou, for the encouraging words! I can promise the members that we will continue to keep an eye on legal certainty.

As was said earlier, we highlighted this issue already during the previous parliamentary term. We have seen that it has been uncertain and that the assessments have been different.

Statistics Sweden submitted its report, and as I mentioned in my speech, the Swedish Migration Agency now has clear points in its regulatory letter regarding improving this. If the situation persists, further measures may be required. We are open to that, so there we are in agreement.

Regarding the quota refugees, it is entirely correct that we have gone down from a very high level. We had a very large part of Europe's share of quota refugees when we received 5,000. With the number 900, which Annika Hirvonen mentioned in an exchange of remarks, we are still among the highest receptions that exist. Naturally, we also need to work at the European level so that we can receive in Europe.

Then to the final question regarding the work line. If one just tuned in to the broadcasts from the Riksdag, one might think that we belong to the Committee on the Labour Market.

We argue that migration should be at a level where we can manage to integrate those who come to Sweden. When discussing migration, we can observe that the migration volume has historically been too large to make it possible to integrate everyone during mandate periods with Social Democratic governments. Now we must adapt the migration flow to make it possible to integrate those who come.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. The biggest problem that remains is that this government is making it difficult for people who come to Sweden to become part of society. I raised two rather sharp proposals that the government has put forward. The other day was the proposal to abolish permanent residence permits – something we know for certain worsens integration in Sweden. Then they also propose a return grant that the own investigator has cut off at the heels – the investigator has said that it will worsen integration.

If one understands what integration is, namely that people who come to Sweden from other countries approach the majority population in terms of, for example, income, work, and housing situation, one sees that the government has a consistently strong policy to increase what we call segregation and decrease what we call integration. It is clear that we have a government that, with the proposals being put forward, makes segregation worse and integration less possible.

In addition to these proposals, another problem that worsens integration is that the Sweden Democrats clearly and distinctly do not want integration. They talk about volumes and say that we can invest in integration if fewer people come. I do not think it is that easy for the listener to understand this when the largest party in this basis – which dictates the terms for this government in migration and integration policy – says clearly and distinctly that they do not want any integration. Even if they do not say it, one can see it very clearly in the proposals: a return migration grant that implies that people should not feel wanted or welcome here in Sweden.

What is it that actually applies? In what way does integration become better with these proposals?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the Swede passing by here on Drottninggatan is reflecting on the situation in Sweden. We can see a sense of unease, explosions and shootings, exclusion, and a parallel society. One can state that we previously had a model in Sweden where a very large number of people have been given the opportunity to be in our country. The governments that Member Tony Haddou has actually been part of and given at least some active support to have not succeeded in integrating these.

It can be noted that we have received too large a volume in relation to the integration capacity we have. It is indeed very many who, despite Tony Haddous' good intentions, have not entered Swedish society.

As mentioned here, a majority in Sweden's Riksdag can state that in order to solve integration, we must settle on a migration policy level that corresponds to our neighboring countries. We also need to see what measures we can take for those who, despite many years in Sweden, do not feel at home and who are not integrated. They may see that the possibility of returning can provide an alternative to obtain a good life for themselves and their family.

We will continue to act so that those who come here will, of course, share the values that apply to Sweden. They shall learn a language, and they shall have the opportunity for a job. With the migration policy changes we are now implementing, the opportunities to achieve this are significantly greater than they were during the eight years before our government's period.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In his speech, Ingemar Kihlström highlighted the migration pact and claimed that it will contribute to fewer people risking their lives in the Mediterranean. I fear that Ingemar Kihlström is mistaken in that analysis. The fact is that the only thing in the migration pact that at all concerns providing people with alternatives to risking their lives in the hands of refugee smugglers during their flight from oppression to Europe is the issue of an increased number of quota refugees. And there, the wording is voluntary. The countries can do as they wish.

If we look at how the EU countries have acted, we note that last year they promised to accept 15,000, while the UN refugee agency points out that 2.4 million are in need. It is thus 15,000 in the entire EU.

Today we will take a position on the proposal that the government should push in the EU to increase the number of quota refugees so that more shall have safe and legal routes to flee. The Christian Democrats vote no to that proposal. They also vote no to the proposal to create other legal routes for people on the run.

Higher walls are being built around Europe, and the remaining paths then fall into the hands of human smugglers. How do the Christian Democrats reconcile this?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

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

I think it is good that there is an agreement and that Europe's countries agree on how to handle an issue. The basis must still be that one starts and reaches an agreement. We can see that we must have an organized system to counter the chance of taking a ride in a chartered boat or something else. We must say that this applies. Here we have Europe's borders. Here we have the conditions for obtaining asylum.

That is exactly how we do it in Sweden. In this chamber, one sets a level. These are the reasons for being allowed to come to Sweden. One has their case examined. I think that is good. Then one can always discuss the details. We know that countries in Europe have received very few refugees or perhaps none at all. Other countries have borne a very large responsibility when there have been large flows of refugees. So we naturally cannot have that. I want to choose to see it as that we take a first step to balance this by having an agreement to base it on.

We Christian Democrats believe that this can be further developed and perhaps seek asylum in centers outside of Europe. I know that the Green Party thinks differently on other issues. Naturally, the reception for each country should be done based on the capacity that exists to integrate.

But just as we are now discussing what we are able to integrate in Sweden, the EU needs to discuss it at the EU level. Now, in this debate, we are primarily talking about Sweden's policy. We can note that Member Hirvonen and I have slightly different views here, apart from the discussion on legal certainty. I believe, however, that we can agree that one needs to be able to integrate those whom one chooses to give the opportunity to seek asylum or in some other way come to Sweden.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ingemar Kihlström did not answer my question regarding in what way he believes the migration pact will lead to fewer people risking their lives in the Mediterranean. That was nevertheless what Ingemar Kihlström said about the migration pact.

I am making a completely different analysis. People will continue to risk their lives in the hands of refugee smugglers as long as they do not have other alternatives. The Christian Democrats say they are in favor of solutions where one should be able to seek asylum outside the EU through some form of legal routes in different ways. Today, however, the Christian Democrats will vote no to all proposals to create more safe and legal routes to Europe. That is actually what we will be voting on today. This report concerns Sweden's policy both in Sweden and in the EU regarding refugees. That is known if one has read it.

Mr. Speaker! In his speech, Ingemar Kihlström also spoke about the importance of legal certainty in the asylum process, not least for LGBTQI persons and converts. We know that legal certainty has truly been lacking for many people in these groups. There are several cases that have gone to the UN and where Sweden has been condemned by the UN Committee Against Torture for having deported Christian converts to the Taliban's Afghanistan. That is how bad it looks in Sweden today.

The government's answer regarding this is an investigation that proposes that these asylum seekers should not even have the right to a public counsel while they are under investigation by Migrationsverket. This will totally undermine the legal certainty for all refugees, especially those who have great challenges and are vulnerable.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that we see a reduced flow of asylum seekers now that we have organized the migration policy in Sweden so that it is clear what the conditions are.

We can simultaneously see – it is completely correct – that there is still a flow of refugees in Europe seeking a new and better life within the EU. We need to work together in the EU to counter the fact that refugee smugglers and others profit from it, but at the same time give those who truly have grounds for asylum the opportunity to come to the EU. It shall be distributed fairly.

Regarding legal certainty, I can finally state that the government that the Green Party sat in for seven years did not in any way succeed in moving the issue forward when it comes to the legal certainty for hbtqi-persons and converts. We can state that the Christian Democrats and other parties in the chamber argued for and motioned for measures. When the Tidö Agreement was written, there were clear provisions that this would be followed up. A report from the National Audit Office was presented, and now there are clear directives in the regulatory letter. We have moved the issue forward.

The commitment between both of us is equal. Unfortunately, the decisiveness was not the same during the seven years that Miljöpartiet sat in the government. We need to ensure that the rules exist but that they are legally sound, so that we have a long-term and legally secure migration policy in our country.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has pursued the most restrictive migration policy in the last 40 years, both in words and in actions. There has been a clear direction to make it difficult for illegal migrants to stay in Sweden so that more will return in accordance with their deportation decisions.

In that area, a very important reform was recently implemented: From April 1, the prescription period for deportation decisions was changed to five years, and that period begins to run from the day the foreigner leaves Sweden in accordance with their deportation decision. This means that the illegal migrants who remain in Sweden will be permanent illegal migrants without any possibility of obtaining a residence permit.

The track change has also been abolished. An asylum seeker who has been denied their application for a residence permit can no longer change tracks and apply to stay in Sweden to work.

It is obvious that this government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has done much to remove the incentives that hindered an effective return operation. Since this government came to power, the number of executed deportations has increased sharply, from approximately 9,100 in 2022 to around 12,500 in 2024. Naturally, the number of executed deportations will increase even more when the incentives to stay after a rejection of an application for a residence permit decrease.

At the same time, asylum migration has decreased to record-low levels while a migration crisis is ongoing in Europe. Politicians across Europe want to learn from Sweden's migration reforms to see how we have succeeded where many other countries have failed. This is what a regulated migration policy looks like. Sweden has taken back control of the migration policy. Then there are areas where much remains to be done, but in those areas, reforms have been initiated. Legislation will be introduced before the end of the parliamentary term.

We have today a catastrophic legislation on citizenship. Every year, tens of thousands of people who cannot support themselves and do not know the Swedish language become citizens in Sweden. This is a legacy from the time when far too many of our politicians believed that a liberal migration policy benefited Sweden. Now we know that a liberal migration policy has catastrophic consequences for Sweden.

Sweden is an exceptional country with an exceptional culture, and there will be few foreigners who can truly adapt to Swedish society to the extent that they should become citizens. The Government and the Sweden Democrats are now working to establish a citizenship law that requires not only self-sufficiency and a higher degree of honest way of life from the applicant but also knowledge of Swedish society and the language. This legislation will be in place before the end of the parliamentary term.

Already today, the Swedish Migration Agency has a mandate from the government to strengthen identity controls in the processing of citizenship. There is a need for this; a report from the National Audit Office, where the period 2018–2023 was audited, showed that the applicant in almost one-third of the cases where a citizenship application was granted had not been able to verify their identity.

While this was ongoing, the Social Democrats and their coalition partners did not act. One might wonder why. But this government acts quickly and refuses to be passive when completely unknown people receive Swedish citizenship. We can never accept such a thing. Being a Swedish citizen is a privilege for some, not a right for everyone.

It is also important to remember that the alternative to this government wants something completely different. We have two parties in this chamber, Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, who want amnesty for illegal migrants. Both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet support a proposal to grant residence permits to illegal migrants who have lived in Sweden for a longer period. They call this regularization.

This would mean that illegal migrants who should have left Sweden a long time ago would be rewarded with a residence permit. It would also mean that more people will come to Sweden and stay here illegally in the hope that they too will be granted a residence permit despite not having followed the rules.

Both Miljöpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Vänsterpartiet write quite openly in their reservations that they want Sweden to receive more asylum seekers. It is not enough with those whom Sweden has received, even more must come. Sweden shall take an even greater responsibility for the world's migrants. It is these parties that the Socialdemokrater want to cooperate with to form a government. So that is what the alternative looks like.

One of the first things the government did together with the Sweden Democrats was to reduce the number of quota refugees coming to Sweden from 5,000 to 900. Furthermore, integration criteria have been introduced for those who come here.

Centerpartiet, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet write in a joint reservation that the government shall be driving that the EU should receive more quota refugees and that a strategy shall be developed to encourage and strengthen the incentives for EU countries to receive quota refugees. They write this while European societies are being destabilized by migration. They want to receive even more. The Socialdemokraterna have made the assessment that it is these parties that shall become their government basis.

The Sweden Democrats are part of the Tidö cooperation, and as I previously mentioned, much is carried out within this cooperation. From the Sweden Democrats' side, however, we continue to push our own proposals through our committee motions, which we naturally hope we can convince the government to pursue.

Both the government and the Sweden Democrats have clarified that it is very problematic when foreigners with protection needs travel back to the country they say they fled from. Such a journey constitutes grounds to revoke protection and deport the foreigner. The Sweden Democrats want to see an obligation to report for these foreigners when they travel to their home country. In that way, asylum fraud can be more easily detected.

The Sweden Democrats have also, together with the government, taken measures to counter such asylum fraud. Among other things, the revocation activities within the Swedish Migration Agency have been strengthened with 100 million SEK starting this year so that more residence permits shall be revoked when there is no basis for the residence permit. Part of the revocation units' activities is precisely to try to detect when a refugee or alternatively a person in need of protection returns to the country he or she says to have fled from.

The Government has given a government mandate to the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Police Authority to develop common routines and forms of cooperation to counter asylum fraud where foreigners who have been granted refugee status or alternative protection status return to the country they claim to have fled from. Furthermore, the cooperation between the Swedish Migration Agency and Swedish embassies and representations abroad shall be improved to counter asylum fraud, according to the directive in the government mandate. This mandate shall be reported to the Government on July 1.

Despite the measures that the government and the Sweden Democrats have jointly taken to counter such asylum fraud, we in the Sweden Democrats argue that a reporting obligation is needed. Other EU countries have such a reporting obligation for refugees who travel back to their home country. It is outrageous to the public when someone is granted asylum in Sweden and then vacations in the country they claim to have fled from. We must put a stop to this.

There are two alternatives in migration policy today. One alternative consists of parties that saw all the dreadful consequences of mass migration and have come to the Swedish people with a series of measures so that Sweden can have a functioning and sustainable immigration that serves Sweden's interests. The other alternative consists of parties that have learned nothing from the migration crisis in 2015. These parties want to once again make Sweden a magnet for the world's migrants. Despite the fact that the majority of gang criminals today consist of migrants, these parties have not had enough, but rather they want even more migrants. These parties have no understanding that there is a limit to how many foreigners Sweden can receive. That limit has been exceeded by a long way.

The Tidö parties see and understand the consequences of a liberal migration policy. We dare to take the decisions that are needed, despite the harsh criticism from various opinion leaders and left-wing politicians who live far away from Sweden's areas with high concentrations of immigrants. We do not hesitate. We do not doubt. The Tidö parties have a common direction and vision for how Sweden's migration policy should look. Such a migration policy shall promote Swedish interests and the Swedish people, in contrast to a migration policy that makes Sweden the world's shelter.

It is true that these reforms take a long time to launch, but the Tidö Agreement will be launched. This means a lot for Sweden. In order to be able to restore safety and community, Sweden needs to re-establish a restrictive migration policy. We will be able to do that during this mandate period.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Those who were up early this morning could hear on Ekot that the government and the Sweden Democrats are going against their own investigation and want to increase the return migration grant. They want to spend 2.4 billion on giving 350,000 SEK per person in some kind of return migration grant, which the government's own investigator cut down to size and called meaningless, counterproductive, and a pure waste of money.

So this is the prioritization the Sweden Democrats make in an economic crisis with mass unemployment, when households and families with children cannot bear higher living costs, when the welfare system is on starvation rations and when the construction sector crashes. Last time I asked the Sweden Democrats about this insane prioritization, I received no answer, but now perhaps I can get an answer as to why the Sweden Democrats are burning 2.4 billion kronor on something that the investigator says is meaningless and counterproductive. Would it not have been better to use this money to facilitate things for households, increase the child allowance so that families with children can manage, refurbish the welfare, healthcare or the school, or perhaps do something about the mass unemployment that is spiraling out of control?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by saying that the return grant has nothing to do with unemployment. It is a bit dishonest to bring up the economy and unemployment when we are talking about the return grant.

The purpose of the return grant is that those people who, after several years, have not entered Swedish society and have no intention of entering Swedish society shall be given the opportunity to return to their home country. As I said in my speech, Sweden is an exceptional country with an exceptional culture. It is not self-evident that everyone wants to become a part of Sweden, but there will be people who come here and regret it. Then they shall receive the support they need to travel back.

What we do not want are the parallel societies we have today, where people live who absolutely do not want to become a part of this country. What they are doing is establishing parallel societies where there are people who do not enter into society because they live a completely different life and have completely different values. We need a tool to facilitate for them to go home. That is what this is about. It is a consequence of a catastrophic migration policy. They opened the gates, let anyone come to Sweden and gave them residence permits. Now they have residence permits and need a way back. They need some kind of incentive to actually leave Sweden and go to a country where they can live in accordance with their values.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is strange to begin by saying that one should not involve economics in this. The government and the Sweden Democrats are therefore burning 2.4 billion on something that their investigators say is meaningless and counterproductive. It is completely incomprehensible.

Do the Sweden Democrats have any grasp of the budget or on what is happening out there? Poverty is increasing. People are having difficulty getting through everyday life. Everything has become more expensive. The politics the Sweden Democrats pursue, with the counterproductive and meaningless proposal I raised, is obviously very expensive.

I must state that the Sweden Democrats are making incomprehensible priorities. They are burning this money and leaving households, welfare, healthcare, and the unemployed for dead. I hear the member sighing. I believe that the Sweden Democrats think this question is a bit awkward.

The Sweden Democrats reason as follows: We just want them to go home, no matter what it costs. People who have difficulty managing everyday life – people who live in the reality out there and who see what is happening with society and that Sweden is becoming more fragile with this government – see that the Sweden Democrats are so irresponsible that they are burning billions of tax funds on some kind of return migration subsidy. Their own investigator says – in black and white – that this is meaningless and counterproductive. They are completely blinded.

I still think that the Sweden Democrats should take some responsibility and say why they are burning these billions when people are having a tough time out there. This is also an economic issue.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I am sighing. I do so because I get frustrated when the member raises the issue without having read the investigation. The member says that we are burning money. But in the investigation report, it states that in the long term, one will come out plus with the return subsidy when these people leave the country. After 15 years, Sweden is 200 million plus. It is stated in the investigation report.

This is something positive for these people, who today do not feel like a part of Sweden. They do not want to be a part of Sweden, but they cannot go back to their home country. This is also a plus for the Swedish economy, because one gets rid of people who will receive benefits for their entire lives. In the investigation report, it states that after 15 years, Sweden will begin to make 200 million plus through this proposal.

I do not really know what Member Haddou actually wants. Should these people live in Sweden even though they do not know the language, even though they do not have our values, and even though they never want to become a part of the country? Should they continue to live here? Or should they receive support to go back to a country where their values are shared by the public, so that they feel at home, Member Haddou?

They are to go home, and this grant shall help them. It is not the case that all people who immigrate to Sweden belong here. Some of them must go home.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Go home! That is what the government's largest party says to people who want nothing more than to come in and become a part of the common Sweden, learn the Swedish language, get up in the morning, work and contribute.

There is absolutely a small part that does not do enough. But I believe well of people. I believe that the majority of those who have fled for their lives and come to Sweden want well and want to enter and become a part of the common Sweden. Let me be clear: Sweden is their home regardless of what the Sverigedemokraterna think, believe, and want. But the view of humanity becomes very clear here.

As I have pointed out earlier today, this is only a first step. The Sweden Democrats have shown it, just like their sister parties around Europe: If you give them your little finger, they often take the whole hand. This is only the start of a Sweden Democrat dream society.

One starts by going down from 5,000 to 900 quota refugees. How many will Nima demand in the government negotiations that we should go down to after the next election? Is it zero? And what new demands will be made regarding misconduct, about informing, and about return?

The Sweden Democrats are not satisfied here, they want so much more. It is as the member says: They want them to return to what they fled from. That requires a completely different policy than the one the government is pursuing today. My question is: What demands will the Sweden Democrats set in an upcoming government negotiation?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Of course the Sweden Democrats are not satisfied, because the Tidö Agreement is a compromise where the Christian Democrats, the Liberals, and the Moderates have had quite a lot pushed through. Of course we will continue to state our demands, but we will not get everything through because we do not have our own majority. It is that simple.

The return grant is voluntary. It is therefore absolutely not about people who have actually fled. If they feel insecure and threatened in their home country, they will probably not return voluntarily.

I must ask a question to Member Cato. If we here in Sweden have an Islamist who does not thrive here but wants to go to an Islamist country and live according to those values – does Member Cato want him to stay as well? Is he also welcome in Sweden, according to Member Cato? There are people who do not thrive here. Not everyone shares Member Cato's values. Not everyone thinks that one should be so tolerant towards homosexuals. There are many Islamists in Sweden who do not want one to be tolerant towards homosexuals. Does Member Cato want to welcome them as well?

There are people who do not belong in Sweden. They should go home. We are developing a tool so that these people can actually go home. Today, it may be difficult for them to establish themselves in their home country, but we are making it easier for them. We do not want people in this country who, for example, look down on women or do not like democracy. They may not want to live in a democracy. Let them go home! That is what we say. If Member Cato wants to welcome these people, he can do so and try to go to the voters with that message.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! If we were to deport everyone who had intolerant views on homosexuals, the Sweden Democrats would not have so many members in this chamber. And speaking of views on women: If one has a poor view of women in the Sweden Democrats, what do you become? Well, then you become a Member of the European Parliament.

Honestly: I am the first to say that those who do not want to be in Sweden are very welcome to return home. I have no problem with that. Sweden, however, has a gigantic problem with exclusion. Several hundred thousand people are in a state of exclusion. The group does nothing for the Sweden Democrats. Nothing is done to invest in more people learning the Swedish language. Nothing is done so that more young boys and girls can see their parents get up and go to work in the morning. The only thing that is done for that group is to say: You are not Swedes, and you are the problem for everything. You are the problem for the railway, you are the problem for the crime, you are the problem for the healthcare, you are the problem for the school – you are the problem.

I agree that too high a level of migration in combination with poor integration can have serious consequences. We have seen that. What a serious party does then is go home, sit in their chamber, and reflect on how integration policy can be improved. But I have not once in my political life heard a Sverigedemokrat say anything about how Sfi can become better. I have not once heard a Sverigedemokrat mention how more young boys and girls with an immigrant background should see their parents get up in the morning, work, contribute, and pay tax.

It is here that the Sweden Democrats and the Centre Party differ. We want to invest in all these hundreds of thousands of people, who will be a part of Sweden regardless of whether Nima wants it or not.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly, I want to say that it is not about deportation. This is a return grant. It is voluntary. One chooses for oneself whether to accept it and go back.

Secondly: This is a tool for people to travel to their home country, but the government is conducting the most ambitious integration policy Sweden has ever had. We have developed a new integration goal. There it actually states for the first time that an immigrant shall become a part of Swedish society. So it has not stood there previously.

With this integration goal as a starting point, work is now being done to see who are in social exclusion. SCB has received a government mandate to look at who are in social exclusion. That has not really been looked at before. These people have lived in these areas, and the Center Party, the Social Democrats, and the other opposition parties have ignored them.

Those who cannot be saved, those who do not want to be a part of this society, shall have the opportunity to go home, and they shall receive support for that.

We naturally have an integration policy. People can attend SFI in Sweden, go to school and get a job here in Sweden. They have plenty of opportunities in this country.

Immigrants should take on greater responsibility. It is not only society that should give things to people who come to this country.

Sweden is a country with fantastic opportunities. Now we also have a more ambitious integration policy. Then immigrants must take on the responsibility to enter society.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! During the 20 years that Swedish soldiers fought against the Taliban in Afghanistan, many people were employed who worked locally. It was Afghans who worked as interpreters and guards as well as other local employees.

In two instances, those individuals were brought from Afghanistan to Sweden because their safety was at risk. The first time this occurred was a little over ten years ago. More were also evacuated when Sweden withdrew all presence in Afghanistan in connection with the Taliban taking power.

Approximately 50 interpreters remained in Afghanistan. They were reported in the same way as others. But for different reasons, Sweden did not manage to get them out. They are now still there. Several live in fear of the Taliban, because they fought side by side with Swedish soldiers against the very same Taliban.

I am in contact with some of those individuals and other people who help them. They are families moving from village to village and children who cannot go to school. People are hiding and cannot support themselves.

I have spoken with Defense Minister Pål Jonson, who says that he is working on the issue so that a solution can be found. But so far, we see no results.

My question to the Sweden Democrats is how the Sweden Democrats view these individuals' possibility of resettling in Sweden. It is about Sweden doing in the same way as the USA, the UK and other countries continue to do when it comes to those who worked for their soldiers.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I see no possibilities for them to now receive any permit to come to Sweden. It is a group that deserves to be granted a permit to come to Sweden.

If Miljöpartiet has pursued a policy to grant amnesty to Afghans, despite them being rejected when they arrived in Sweden, there is no room to bring in more.

We have had an all too liberal migration policy. Now we have to pay for it by not being able to bring here people who have fought for Sweden and helped our soldiers abroad. Now it is more difficult to do that.

The Green Party wanted an amnesty for Afghans who had had their appeal heard in Sweden. Their cases had been reviewed in Sweden. They could have appealed. But after their appeal and review, the Green Party still wanted an amnesty for that specific group.

If the Green Party also wants to grant amnesty to all illegal migrants, as stated in your reservation, it will be difficult to bring here those groups who need to come here because their lives are in danger.

Real refugees will have difficulty coming to Sweden if one is to grant permission to everyone. There are illegal migrants, and then Miljöpartiet thinks that they should also be granted residence permits. One should hand out asylum visas and all sorts of things.

How are real refugees then supposed to get to Sweden? How will they be able to get residence permits here if we have already received far too many? I would say that it is the Green Party's fault that we cannot take in that group.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It was interesting that the Sweden Democrats think it is the Green Party's fault that the Sweden Democrats do not want to bring in refugees.

I thought that the Sweden Democrats did not want to take in refugees long before the party even began to exist, and that somewhere where the neo-Nazis formed the Sweden Democrats, it had already been decided that one did not want to take in refugees. But what do I know about how the Sweden Democrats decide their policy.

For my part, I think that one must take responsibility for these people. In this case, we are talking about 50 individuals and their families. They have fought side by side with Swedish soldiers under the Swedish flag in Afghanistan against the Taliban, and they have now remained there since Sweden left the country.

One does not leave anyone behind in that way. These are people who were completely central for our soldiers to be able to perform their jobs and be safe. These are people who, for example, worked as interpreters and who could speak English and Dari. They ensured that the Swedish soldiers could understand and make themselves understood on site.

For me, it is completely incomprehensible that the Swedish government has not acted. Pål Jonson and other ministers have said that they want to, but nothing happens. One thought that strikes me is whether it is precisely because the government's coalition party Sverigedemokraterna, which is even larger than Moderaterna, is blocking this issue.

Now we hear that Nima Gholam Ali Pour does not want these interpreters to be able to come out in practice. The question is whether it is SD that is blocking.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, what does Member Hirvonen know?

Sweden still receives refugees today, just as we have always done. There are conventions that Sweden has signed to take in refugees, examine their cases and see if they have the right to protection status and so on. It has not ceased. It is nothing that we want to put an end to. That is not how it works. We want to take in as many as Sweden can manage. That is what it is about.

The problem is that the Green Party wants to take down the group that has helped Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan. But the Green Party also wants to take down everyone else. That is when it becomes a problem.

One cannot first say that a certain group should come here. These are people who have helped Swedish soldiers and who perhaps deserve to come here. But then you want to take in everyone else and also grant residence permits to everyone who is here illegally in Sweden. How does that add up? How is that supposed to work? When it doesn't work, we end up in situations like these where we have to tell a group that has done the Swedish state a great service: You cannot come because we have accepted too many.

The Green Party wants everyone in the world to come to Sweden, literally everyone in the world. This even applies to those who have had their application for a residence permit here in Sweden rejected. Even they should come here. How is that going to work? It is not possible. Then it will be what it will be.

Now we are trying to clean up after you so that we can have a regulated migration policy where we bring in such people who have actually helped the Swedish state. But not just now. Just now we have not finished cleaning up.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

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

I am stepping in and replacing my colleague Patrik Karlson in this debate. He has just become a father again, and that is awesome! So, you will have to put up with me in the debate today.

Let me begin like this, Mr. Speaker: Sweden needs immigration. We need a continuous influx of people, because we have a business sector that needs a supply of skills, right now especially of highly qualified labor. Sweden must also participate and take responsibility as a decent, democratic and prosperous country to, together with others, help people who are fleeing and provide protection to people.

We need to do it in a scope that our society can manage when it comes to housing, opportunities for integration, social services, school, and so on. This is a whole. We cannot have as a goal to in any way maximize immigration to Sweden, and we also cannot have as a goal to minimize it. We need to have both a regularized immigration of labor and stand ready for people in distress. But we must do this in a scope that our society can absorb and manage and that our systems have the capacity to meet.

I was responsible for migration issues in my party, Liberalerna, during the years 2015–2021. It was the most turbulent time in Swedish history when it comes to migration. It began with the refugee crisis, and it ended with Sweden receiving a new Aliens Act.

What happened after 2015, Mr. Speaker, was that Sweden pulled the emergency brake. We first received a temporary asylum legislation, which the Stefan Löfven government pushed through. After that, it became permanent in practice with the new Aliens Act in the summer of 2021, and with the Tidö Agreement, further steps have been taken to make the migration policy even stricter.

Mr. Speaker! My and also my party's perception is that these changes, whether one wants it or not, are absolutely necessary for Sweden as a nation to be able to manage the integration debt that our country has. This concerns above all the debt towards the hundreds of thousands of people whom we have given the right to stay in Sweden but who have been relegated to areas that today have very extensive crime and very large social challenges. These are people who hardly have an opportunity to enter the labor market and people who work for very low wages.

We have received a new form of class society in Sweden which is also largely culturally and ethnically defined, with very extensive poverty in hundreds of residential areas in Sweden and so on. We simply cannot continue with this societal development. It tears apart the trust between groups in society and the trust towards authorities, towards the public Sweden and so on.

It means that we will need strict legislation for migration for a long time to come; that is at least my conclusion. However, it must, Mr. Speaker, be a fair legislation and a legally secure legislation. That means that those persons who meet the requirements and the criteria that the Aliens Act sets up and who receive approval either from the Swedish Migration Agency or in a later stage in court shall be able to stay in Sweden. But we do not have the capacity to arrange for broad valves for groups who receive a rejection in all instances.

We must, from the Swedish side, manage to prioritize. It is very easy to prioritize an approval. But it has historically been quite difficult for Swedish politicians to maintain the regulated immigration also when it concerns that people who receive a rejection must be prepared to leave Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to needing strict and fair migration legislation, we need legislation where Sweden does not deviate significantly from the countries around us. We cannot do that, because we are part of the Schengen Area and the European Union. We have obligations towards common regulatory frameworks, and we should act for further harmonized regulatory frameworks at the European level where we have a shared responsibility.

The legislation that led up to the large migrant crisis in the autumn of 2015 was legislation that Sweden, through a series of decisions in the Swedish Riksdag over a very long period and in relatively broad political consensus, had agreed to introduce. It meant that Sweden deviated very significantly from the countries around us. We had permanent residence permits when the other countries had temporary residence permits. We had an almost total absence of livelihood requirements for family immigration. We also had very generous regulations for family reunification, which the countries around us did not have.

It was this that led to what happened in the autumn of 2015, when the common regulatory frameworks and the Dublin Regulation failed. People sought their way along previously trodden paths with Germany or Sweden as the main final destination. We got a situation in Sweden that eventually became completely unmanageable.

Mr. Speaker! Another thing that I think is important to emphasize is that those who are hit hardest by the migration policy and integration policy that Sweden has pursued and the consequences it has had are the people who have immigrated to Sweden. It is these people who are hit hardest by these consequences. This is partly because they, in many cases, live in areas that are vulnerable, and partly because they have a worse socioeconomic situation than the majority population.

It is also about what we see in Sweden and also in many other countries: If one pursues a migration policy and an integration policy that is not in step with some kind of broader public perception, one gets a backlash in the form of discrimination, in the form of increased xenophobia and so on. It is therefore in order to keep Sweden together that we need to get this in order.

Let me take an example, Mr. Speaker, of the situation we have, especially in many vulnerable areas. So far this year – and we are now in April – we have had 52 shootings in Sweden and 21 killed. It has been 58 hours since the last shooting. Since January 1, 2018, 370 people in our country have been murdered in firearm violence within the framework of the gang wars in Sweden. If we compare the figures with the situation in Finland, Norway or Denmark, we will see a horrific difference.

These parts are not just about immigration. It is also about the possibility of smuggling in weapons. It is about drugs. It is about many different things. There are surely many socioeconomic dimensions in this, and I am not saying that it should only be a question of migration. But integration policy and migration policy belong together.

We have in Sweden had the perception that only when a person receives a salary in their paycheck are they integrated. But today we see significantly greater challenges in the form of honor-related issues in many areas and in the form of a dominance behavior from people who have not become integrated. We see an increased antisemitism. We see an increased class society and an increased shadow society in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! In the extension, this undermines and threatens the liberal and progressive values that I and my party have stood for for a hundred years. We liberals cannot say that we are a feminist party if we at the same time tolerate that in certain residential areas it is clans that rule and set up checkpoints for who is allowed to pass in and out of the area. Then one cannot as a liberal say that one stands up for liberal progressive values in all of Sweden.

We must reclaim law and order and reasonableness in Swedish society in a way that ensures our law enforcement authorities have the capacity to maintain order. We must ensure that social services do not completely go to their knees and yield in many areas in Sweden.

We in this chamber have a responsibility towards all people who live in Sweden. Our responsibility does not only concern those people who live well-ordered and good lives and who have an education and are in the labor market. We have a responsibility for all inhabitants in Sweden.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: This government is doing quite a lot in the migration area. I also perceive that there is a majority in the chamber for Sweden to pursue a regulated and orderly migration policy and that this is necessary for our country for a long time to come. I truly hope that we have the strength to maintain that course. The development we see in many areas in Sweden today, we must manage to reverse, and we will need to do it together.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with Fredrik Malm in several parts – that integration and migration are linked and that it is important to combat crime and oppression regardless of where they occur. But what is happening now in migration policy is not that the measures contributing to integration are being significantly strengthened. On the contrary, measures are being implemented that worsen immigrants' opportunities to integrate. It is being made harder to be reunited with one's family, which leads to children arriving later, at a higher age, to the Swedish school. Then it becomes harder to succeed in school. It also causes the parents' integration to become worse. Single people integrate more slowly than families.

This was one example. Another is the phasing out of permanent residence permits. We know that it is when people feel security – here I can stay for a long time – that they take root.

If this did not testify, at least the Ukrainian doctor I met at the Red Cross food distribution a while ago. She said: It takes two years to be validated so that one can work as a doctor in Sweden. I can only be here for one year at a time.

Mr. Speaker! One could also have imagined that Fredrik Malm had invested heavily in other measures that contribute to integration. In the spring budget, we see instead a major investment so that wealthy people can renovate their kitchens through a generous rot deduction. I cannot reconcile words and deeds.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Words and deeds go hand in hand, especially when it comes to the renovation deduction, I think. It is about the fact that we need to get the Swedish economy moving. The renovation deduction, as well as the rut deduction and some other deductions, have demonstrably a fairly good effect on employment in Sweden.

But let me return to the issues of migration and integration, Mr. Speaker. If one moves to Sweden, is allowed to stay in Sweden, and then wants to take responsibility for perhaps three or four additional family members, is it not reasonable that one has an arranged housing situation? If one lives in fourth-hand housing in a one-room apartment together with four others in a very worn-down area, is it reasonable that one, without any requirements whatsoever from the Swedish society's side, should be able to receive an additional four family members and be expected to take responsibility for their integration or establishment in Sweden?

I do not think so. I think it is reasonable that we set requirements that one has a settled housing situation and an income if one is also to take responsibility for several other people.

There is, of course, an exception of three months for convention refugees. This is established in international conventions, and Sweden follows them, of course. Otherwise, however, it is reasonable that one has established themselves if one is to take responsibility for several others.

The alternative to this is that we get even more exclusion, even more segregation, even more shadow society, and an even more difficult situation, especially for those children who are to be integrated into Sweden and live under very difficult social circumstances.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, I believe that society should ensure that families with children have sufficiently large homes, even if they are refugees and regardless of whether one is so traumatized that one can work from day one or not.

But what do these rules lead to? I take an example: Alam from Eritrea. She had a son whom she did not dare to take on the dangerous flight from her home country. She was afraid that he, and she, risked being killed by those who persecuted her, so he stayed behind with relatives.

She came to Sweden, received asylum, and lived in a one-room apartment. The Migration Agency said: No, your son may not come to you, because you live in a one-room apartment. Time passed. Her son did not understand why he was not allowed to come and live with his mother, who lived in a nice apartment compared to how he lived with relatives. He asked her: Do you not love me? She questioned whether, with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been better to have taken him on the life-threatening flight.

These types of situations become a reality with the requirements that the Liberals have set in the law.

From the Green Party's side, we believe that a child's right to be reunited with their parents is incredibly central. Knowledge also shows that children who are able to come to Sweden at an early age and start school already in primary school have much better chances of completing primary school and moving on to upper secondary school. The Liberals seem to completely ignore this when they say that the parents must first stand in a housing queue for several years and then find a permanent job.

All of this goes faster when one is secure together with one's family.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It becomes very difficult for me in this debate to comment on individual cases – it is described what person A has said to person B, and so on. There are very many heartbreaking cases when it comes to refugee status. Refugee status has characterized humanity for tens of thousands of years, certainly even longer than that. All of Europe, and also the Middle East, is a patchwork of ethnic groups and people who have been forced to flee from all the trampling of boots and all the bloody tragedies that the world has suffered.

The Eritrean regime is totalitarian and fearsome. I have tabled a motion for 15 consecutive years here in the Riksdag, without any other party or any other members having been particularly interested in criminalizing the tax collection that the Eritrean regime conducts against Eritreans in Sweden.

But one also has to ask the question: If Sweden as a nation, our country, is to manage both our situation and the integration of people who come to Sweden, is the starting point necessarily that Sweden should be the destination for so many people? There are other countries in the world where one can live safely. There are other countries in the world where one can also be reunited with family. Just because a family member sets foot in Sweden, it is not given that the family reunification must be carried out specifically in Sweden.

We must ensure that we have a reasonable migration policy that means we respect the right to asylum. We shall have legally secure processes. One has the right to appeal in court. When one meets the criteria set out in the Aliens Act to stay in Sweden, one is also allowed to do so. But we will have many situations where persons do not meet those requirements and are then forced to return.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! This debate could have been about making Sweden a better place for the children and families seeking protection here. It could have been about a girl or boy who, after many years of waiting, finally gets to be reunited with their parents. It could have been about how we best ensure that children get to end their flight in Sweden in safety and with their families, and about children getting more rights and opportunities in Sweden instead of fewer.

The debate could have been about how children are listened to better during the asylum process and how children are best supported in processing their traumas after the horrors of war or a childhood spent in flight. It also could have been about who is building Sweden 2025, who you meet in healthcare, who you meet when you drop the children off at preschool, when you take the bus to work, in the local grocery store, or who is there for you in your later years, about who are the front-line workers in Sweden. The debate could have been about sticking together, about looking out for one another. But it does not, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that.

We have debated for hours, but from the government's side, there is a strange silence regarding which people are upholding the Swedish welfare – despite the fact that almost every other nursing assistant is born abroad and despite the fact that almost every other healthcare assistant is born abroad. It is they who uphold Sweden, and they deserve respect.

The tone from the government – the right-wing nationalist policy – is not only irresponsible but also deeply indecent. There are several parties here in the chamber that continue to compete over who can treat people on the run the worst.

We have seen the results of such policy. They have only entailed deep deteriorations and gross restrictions for asylum seekers, and it is above all children on the run who have paid the highest price. Migration policy has been characterized by legal uncertainty and constant deteriorations from the child's perspective, worsened equality, worsened integration, and deteriorations regarding the health of newcomers. Is it worth it, one might ask.

Instead of a government that has a well-thought-out, legally secure and and solidary migration policy that takes its starting point in the right to asylum and the spirit of international conventions, we have a government that has no ambitions whatsoever to create a safe and secure reception. On the contrary, there are only deteriorations and restrictions, more insecurity and more uncertainty. Is it worth it, one might ask.

This government's policy also comes with a high price, namely that it is not only asylum seekers who are affected by the policy. I believe that many who are listening to the debate can agree with me that Sweden is much more fragile than it has been in a long time. People are left to fend for themselves. They have to handle the economic crisis on their own. The welfare system is breaking down, not because it has to be that way, but because the government has decided that it shall be that way. The record-high mass unemployment is left completely without measures, and the government has succeeded in paralyzing and crashing the housing market. It is also why this government repeatedly and consistently needs the scapegoat policy. It can only be stated that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have, point by point, totally failed to handle serious societal problems and can do nothing else than blame the immigration.

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

Believe me! It is not any immigration that has made Sweden more fragile. It is this government's priorities and ill-considered signal politics that damage the cohesion in society, which worsens and deepens the social and economic gaps between people and which makes it so that we cannot refurbish Sweden. If there is a healthcare crisis, perhaps the government should listen to the profession, to the unions and to the welfare workers about what is needed. Instead, for nearly three years, they have worked on introducing reporting laws and stood passive in the face of real problems. Is that really decently prioritized?

Instead of acting against, or even commenting on, the record-high unemployment, the alarming forecasts for the welfare system, or the ever-increasing living costs and food prices, the government has chosen to spend billions on tax cuts for the very richest, only to return at a press conference to discuss a lack of integrity or something just as meaningless and counterproductive as immigration subsidies, which cost billions and which the government's own investigator completely tore to pieces.

Mr. Speaker! So that is how it is when the Sweden Democrats negotiate the budget. Then ordinary people must stand back and be forced to bear the economic crisis themselves. Welfare shall take a backseat in favor of ill-considered billion-dollar payouts that the government throws into the sea. It is a recurring scapegoat policy from a government that flees from responsibility for the real problems that exist out there.

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

Previous generations received better education and better jobs while our numbers increased. That was possible thanks to long-term profitable investments. It is possible to have an organized reception where we hold the right to asylum high. It is possible to build a more reasonable and stronger Sweden by investing in society and the people in it. That is the most effective and important thing we can do. Then we need people to invest and work for a dignified reception. I am convinced that people succeed better with better conditions. It is how we invest in society and in the people that determines how well we succeed – never the government's scapegoat policy. The entire society has lost out because of it.

Mr. Speaker! With this said, I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I see many positive things that have come from migration. I see doctors, nursing assistants, police officers, firefighters, self-employed people, car mechanics, researchers – you name it. But I also see problems that have come with migration, not least because we have not had an integration policy in the country at the same time as there has been an all too high migration.

I see the gang shootings in the suburbs, and I see moral police who are allowed to continue to plague the living environment for their former and current countrymen.

I can see both the good and the bad with immigration. Can Tony Haddou see the negative consequences of the immigration policy of recent years in this country?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I once heard a wise saying: Shit-boots are evenly distributed across the world.

The Moderates talk about immigration and want to make it sound as if it is both good and bad. I have never heard the Moderates talk about the target groups until now. They have not been interesting, it has only been blaming, blaming, and blaming.

I absolutely see that there are problems. Of course! But I would absolutely not do as the government does, instead I would do the job that is required. It is simply a matter of investing in people and in society. It is not more difficult than that. It is such an incredibly clear class issue; it could not be clearer.

We have a Sweden that is being torn apart, Magnus Resare. There are people whom you have given tax subsidies to, whom you have thrown all the budget money at, and for whom you have given tax cuts of several billion. At the same time, you have let other people be left behind. You have left them to the mercy of the waves. Then you come back here to the chamber of the Riksdag and blame immigrants. I think it is indecent.

We had a good integration policy before the temporary law. This government and the previous government made decisions that have led to people living in temporariness, in uncertainty and in insecurity.

I think permanent residence permits are a better arrangement. Then people can come to Sweden and be told that they are allowed to stay here. They can, directly from day one, come in and learn Swedish or get jobs and so on. This government has deprived them of that. I think that is very bad.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are, as said, truly in agreement that there is positive immigration, that there are people who have come here for completely right reasons. But can we also be in agreement, which I nevertheless perceive that the member also means, that there are people who do not come into this society?

I also believe that there are a lot of people who do not want to be a part of this society. They do not think that our Western values are something to have. They do not think that homosexuality is something one should accept. They do not think that girls' right to dress as they want is something one should accept.

Does the member really think that those kinds of people should remain in this country?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now the member is in on the classics: who should be a part of the country and who should not be, and so on. I think there are values that are bad, and I think one should have good ethics and morals. But I do not usually lecture people when it comes to that.

On the other hand, I do not see what this government is doing as so racist. They point directly at immigrants and say that they have a bad view of people. It is a deeply racist view that is rooted in this government, just as their blindness is. I do not know of any example where this government has been quick to react if someone with a fully Swedish background has said, for example, something LGBTQ-hostile, but they constantly want to point at immigrants. That is what is racist. I do not agree with that.

I believe in human rights, and I believe in an equal yardstick. I do not differentiate between people in that way. It is not about that people who come here with other values do not want to stay here. It is about that the entire society needs to be refurbished and that we should not have such skewed values.

The worst valuations that exist in Sweden come politically from the Sweden Democrats, who make distinctions between people. They are the ones you in the Moderates cooperate with. That is the serious problem we have in Sweden, and it creates divides between people. It is serious.

I do not want to downplay anything, regardless of who it comes from, what people express, and so on. I think everything is serious. But this government consistently points at immigration and says: "There is a mistake. Therefore, we should not have immigration. There, we throw in ten reforms." People are not stupid. They see what lies behind it, and it is deeply racist. I do not share that image.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces a decisive crossroads. It is a crossroads that concerns more than policy, more than legislation and more than headlines. It is about who we are as a country, as a society and as human beings. It is about how we treat people.

Shall Sweden be a country that turns away when others need us, or a country that stands up for justice, humanity, and responsibility? Shall we build walls, or shall we build opportunities? Shall we see people as a problem, or shall we invest in people?

I know where the Center Party stands. We stand for a migration policy that is both open and orderly, which is based on humanism but also on a clear personal responsibility, which rests on values but stands firmly in reality. We do not believe that the solution is to shut people out. We believe in people and in ensuring that everyone becomes part of the common Sweden from day one.

Behind every person who flees, there is a unique personal story, a story of courage, of loss, and of hope. It is a mother carrying her child across a sea. It is a daughter who has lost her father in a war he never asked for. It is a young man who has left everything behind in hope of safety, freedom, and a future.

The right of asylum is not just a paragraph in a law book. It is a principle, a human right, and a fundamental pillar in our democratic world. It is our duty to defend it. But right now, we see another path, a simple path, a dangerous path. We see how the government, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, step by step is tearing down what has been built up. The government has severely restricted the possibilities for family reunification, removed the possibility, even for children, to stay in Sweden for humanitarian reasons, and significantly reduced the reception of quota refugees – some of the most vulnerable of our time.

The Tidö parties have made it a political goal that people should feel unwelcome in Sweden. It may sound harsh, but it is a different Sweden. It is a Sweden where people are distinguished based on who they are and where they come from. It is a policy that reduces people to numbers and which creates insecurity, division, and mistrust. It is a policy that says fewer should be allowed a future here.

We heard the Sweden Democrats say just an hour ago: Go home! Instead, we say: Welcome to your new homeland! We say that it must stop being a struggle to constantly lower the numbers, regardless of how indecent the proposals are. It must instead be about how – how we receive, how we integrate, and how we build a society where people are allowed to contribute and feel a sense of belonging, where everyone can become a part of the common Sweden.

Even though the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats try to attach different epithets to the Centre Party when it comes to free immigration and open borders, we see the reality. We do not turn a blind eye to the problems. We know that large-scale migration without functioning integration creates great challenges. We know that people who are left outside of society, who are not allowed to learn the language, are not allowed to work and are not given any path into the common Sweden, risk becoming stuck in exclusion, in unemployment and in hopelessness. And we know that this, in turn, can create a breeding ground for social unrest, segregation and crime. Therefore, we say that migration and integration must always go hand in hand.

It is not generosity to receive people without giving them a chance. It is not justice to offer protection and then let people get stuck in passivity. We want integration to begin immediately, from day one. Therefore, we say yes to reintroducing humanitarian grounds for protection, so that we do not lose our heart. We say yes to the right to family reunification, so that no one has to start over in solitude. We say yes to increasing the number of quota refugees, to help our most vulnerable.

But we also say yes to tough requirements, because requirements mean caring. We say yes to that it must always and without exception pay to move from benefits to work, because self-sufficiency is the key to freedom. We say yes to new start years, because we must invest in people. We say yes to lowered employer contributions, because more young boys and girls need to see their parents get up in the morning to go to work.

While the Tidö parties focus on numbers, we want more people to succeed. While the Tidö parties speak in figures, we speak about people. While the Tidö parties create insecurity, we build faith in the future.

This is not just about political decisions. It is about what view of humanity we carry with us to future generations. Do we believe that people are a problem, or do we believe that people are an opportunity? Do we believe that Sweden loses from diversity or that we grow from it? Do we believe that we are stronger together or each individually?

Centerpartiet has chosen to go its own way. It is not the easiest or the most populist path, but it is the right path. We believe that Sweden is strong enough to stand up for its values even when there are challenges. We believe that a society that gives people a chance gets so much more back. We believe that security, freedom and responsibility go together. So let us not duck from reality, but let us also not give up our humanity.

Let us say no to fear and short-term solutions and yes to faith in the future, humanity and community. We do not build Sweden stronger by shutting people out. We build Sweden stronger by letting more people be involved in building.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party wants continued migration. It is no problem, because they want integration policy and to integrate all these people. But then I must ask, Jonny Cato: What integration measures do we have in place today?

Absolutely, we are working on integration policy and are now moving forward with ideas to integrate people, but the measures are not in place today. The systems are not there. That is why we say that we must stop migration to this country and get the large integration debt we have in order. It is about hundreds of thousands of people who are not yet integrated in this country. Only after that can we possibly begin to discuss whether we should have an increase in migration again, but not before that.

The Speaker stands here and says: We can have continued migration, because we want to integrate people. There is surely not one person in this chamber who does not want to integrate people. It does not matter who it concerns; everyone from the Left to the Sweden Democrats says that they want to see increased integration and that they want to help those people who they find should remain here in society.

The member says that we can continue and just keep going as we are doing. What systems and integration measures are in place today that can maintain the high migration we have previously had? They don't exist, Jonny. But if there is anything in place today that can both help us resolve the integration debt we have and also ensure that we can maintain a high migration, then the member can tell me about that.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I shall begin by moving for approval of reservation number 3.

Sometimes it sounds like the Moderaterna say that the Centerpartiet wants open borders and large-scale immigration. The fact is that we think a good deal of the current migration policy is good – for example, we have temporary residence permits as the rule. But I think it is bad that seriously ill children cannot have their cases reviewed and be allowed to stay in Sweden. I think it is bad that children cannot be reunited with their parents through family reunification. I think we should be able to accept a few more quota refugees – it is not about hundreds of thousands of more people.

But the fact is that this is not Sweden's big problem. The big problem is that this government is not doing a damn thing for integration. I also sit on the Committee on Employment, which is responsible for integration policy. The Liberals, who are responsible for the department, have not delivered a single bill in the area of integration during this parliamentary term. This is not made up; it is a fact. Not a single proposal has been submitted.

There is so much that could be done. One could reform Sfi fundamentally. One could make it simpler and cheaper to hire so that more people – children and young people, boys and girls – get to see their parents get up in the morning and go to work. There is so much that could be done to get a functioning integration policy in place.

The biggest investment this government is making on integration is a return grant of 350,000 kronor, which will be very expensive and lead to very few returning. It is not an integration policy – it is a return policy.

So, one should not stand here and demand answers about integration from me when one oneself has nothing at all. Come on – you can do better!

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is a completely reasonable question to ask the member when he stands in the rostrum and speaks about that we can have continued migration to this country. It doesn't matter, he says, because we are going to implement integration measures. Then he cannot answer what they are.

As I said in my speech a little earlier today, I was in Filipstad, where you are involved and governing together with us and the Sverigedemokraterna. There, people are working on getting out those who have attended SFI year after year and have not learned a single word of Swedish. Many of them are illiterate or have not attended school for a year. They have great difficulty absorbing studies in a classroom. On the other hand, employees at the municipality say that these people learn the language quite quickly when you take them out and they get to work. It gives them value that they get to go out and do real jobs. As the member is aware, children see their parents go to work instead of going and studying SFI without being able to absorb anything at all.

I believe we have a long way to go when it comes to integration measures in this country. That is why we begin by stopping migration so that we can start getting the integration in order. It will take tens of years to pay off the integration debt we previously built up over a decade. But we are on the right track, and I truly look forward to a Sweden that holds together, where all people pull their weight and do good. Right now, we have hundreds of thousands of people who do not do that. Some of them perhaps should not remain in this country, and some of them perhaps do not want anything more than to become a part of this country. Let us continue to work on that.

But the member cannot think it is strange that I ask a question about which integration measures he intends when he says that we can maintain migration as it is, because we are going to implement integration measures, unlike others.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! Tax exempt companies for the first ten employees for a period of two years. Reform SFI into job-Swedish with a focus on close contact with the business sector so that people can learn the Swedish they need for their specific work. We want to ensure that newcomers, after one year of parental leave, shall have a requirement to attend SFI in order to be able to continue their parental leave. We want to see a new start year for all those Swedes who have fallen behind, which means investing in people with both education and measures so that they can enter employment. We want to lower the costs of employment.

This was, Mr. Speaker, 40 seconds of integration measures – more than all the Tidö parties combined have delivered on the area of integration during this debate. So substandard is the government's integration policy. And that, Mr. Speaker, is actually embarrassing.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It has been a long debate. We have spoken about a long series of issues concerning people on the move. We have been able to listen to representatives for the Tidö parties who have blamed their own reluctance to make good decisions on us. We have heard claims that Sweden has had no integration policy and other exaggerations or outright inaccuracies.

From the Green Party's side, we think that even if one does not agree with each other, one should stick to the issue and the truth, and not misinterpret each other as much as possible. It was claimed, among other things, that we want everyone to move to Sweden – we do not want that.

Mr. Speaker! We want a humane and legally secure refugee policy. We want to stand up for the right to asylum. We want to ensure that the Convention on the Rights of the Child takes effect in immigration cases.

We want people who have received jobs in Sweden to be able to stay here – not be forced back to their countries of origin and have to re-apply for their jobs from the Taliban's Afghanistan. We want families to be able to live together, not split up. And we want the EU to create safe and legal routes so that people fleeing do not have the only alternative of risking their lives in the hands of human smugglers on flimsy boats across the Mediterranean.

Mr. Speaker! What the government does with the migration policy when one says that one wants it to be at a minimum level is to say that the people who flee to Sweden should have as few human rights as is possible – they should have as little of human rights as the rest of the world is prepared to accept from Sweden.

Even when aiming for the minimum level, we can see how Sweden is judged by the UN's torture committee because Sweden expels Christians to the Taliban's Afghanistan.

The situation for human rights is being challenged all around the world. We see how the rights of LGBTQI persons and women's access to abortions are being restricted in many different countries. In Sweden, it is primarily the rights of refugees that are threatened. For particularly vulnerable groups, for example children, the situation is very problematic.

The government has made it harder for seriously ill children who need care to stay in Sweden. It has also been made harder, or in some cases completely impossible, for many children born in Sweden without residence permits to later obtain residence permits here. It is children like the Mayflower flower seller Murhaf Hamid, whom all of Sweden became familiar with a few years ago when he set a record for money collected for Majblomman. He was born in Sweden and was twelve years old. His entire life he had lived in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations, from Kiruna in northern Sweden to Skåne in southern Sweden. It had never been possible for his family to travel back to his parents' home country. When he was twelve years old, they still had not received residence permits.

With the government's policy, one wants to make it impossible to make reasonable, humane decisions that respect children's own rights. It is about giving children who are born and raised here residence permits and security in Sweden. We also see how it hits very unreasonably when it concerns children who have been taken into compulsory care.

We have recently seen many cases in the news concerning children whom social services and Swedish authorities have said need to be protected from their parents. But the Swedish Migration Agency is deporting them and allowing them to travel back to their home country with the same parents whom social services took them from.

If children's rights are to be fully realized in the migration process, they must be assessed independently and in the first instance. That is not what happens today. Very often, it is instead as we heard in some of the reasoning from the representatives of the Tidö parties – that one only assesses the parent and puts the child's rights in second place.

Mr. Speaker! The Green Party made the Convention on the Rights of the Child Swedish law. The next step is to ensure that children can complain to the UN when their rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child are not followed. We must also ensure that the Convention on the Rights of the Child and children's rights do not take a back seat in relation to, for example, the Aliens Act.

Children also have the right to grow up with their parents. If a parent comes to Sweden as a refugee and is granted asylum here, under today's regulations, it can take many years before the children, if they remain in a refugee camp, are allowed to come to their mother or father in Sweden. First, the parent must stand in a housing queue, obtain a sufficiently large apartment, and additionally get a job – in practice, a job with permanent employment. This, we know, can take a long time, not least in certain parts of Sweden where there is a housing shortage.

As the years go by, the children get older. They have to start in Swedish school much later, and above all, the parents must live with a constant worry for the children's safety. We have read about parents who have tried to explain to their children why they are not allowed to come to their mother's one-room apartment in Sweden. The Migration Agency thought the apartment was too small or that it was too far from work. The child asks their mother: Don't you love me? The child cannot grasp that that question weighs more heavily than the child getting to live with their mother.

There is much that is unreasonable in the so-called strict migration policy and which does not have support among the Swedish people. Most Swedes think that severely ill children should be allowed to stay in Sweden and that small children should be allowed to be reunited with their parents. It is also what is best for the families', both the parents' and the children's, opportunities to integrate in Sweden.

There has been a lot of talk about integration in this debate. Migration policy is linked to integration. Several proposals in the migration policy that the Tidö parties and the Social Democrats put forward make it more difficult for people to integrate once they have moved and received protection in Sweden. All international experience shows that people integrate faster and better when they receive permanent security in the new country. This applies to all countries that people flee to.

When you know that you can stay in Sweden for a long time, you can settle down. Then you can focus on learning Swedish grammar and building a solid foundation here.

Mr. Speaker! Many have done just this. Many have established themselves here. Many have secured work and become a part of Swedish society. They did everything that the Prime Minister said they would need to do to stay here, and yet they now face the risk of being deported. Not even those who met all the requirements that the Tidö parties said they should – learn Swedish, get a job, behave, and become a part of society – can feel secure.

Recently, the government pulled the rug out from under all those who had received residence permits through path switching just because they had secured a job. They find it difficult to understand how this connects: What is this supposed to be good for? Who wins from Sweden throwing out people who have done nothing but work and behave themselves? Several of them also work in shortage occupations and within elderly care, where we know the staffing needs are huge, not least in northern Sweden. The government's migration policy has so far led to that over 50 employees in Umeå's elderly care alone have lost the opportunity to stay here.

Mr. Speaker! Migration policy needs to become reasonable again. It needs to become humane, and children's rights must be respected.

I naturally stand behind all of the Miljöpartiet's reservations, but to save time, I move for approval of only reservations 10 and 32.

(Applause)

In this speech, Katarina Luhr (MP) agreed.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! Annika Hirvonen is happy to take up individual cases here in the speaker's chair, so I also thought of drawing an example.

A twelve-year-old girl had been at her life's first football practice. She took the bus alone for the first time, home from the practice. When she got off at her stop, a 24-year-old man also got off. He had been in Sweden for a few years. He was not a citizen here but was a citizen in some completely different part of the world. When the bus rolled away, the man wrestled the girl down, raped her, and destroyed her life.

Does the member, like myself, think that this should lead to one being deported and never again setting foot in our country?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! What Magnus Resare describes is probably both my and many other parents' greatest fear. I also let my children ride the bus by themselves for the first time quite recently. It is that type of fear that one tries to manage.

I think it is completely unacceptable that such things should be able to happen. Persons who commit serious crimes should be able to be deported from Sweden, and rape is such a serious crime.

We recently had a debate – I and the Minister for Migration – where we spoke about a lack of integrity and about how one should also be deported for things that are not crimes. I said, among other things, that I believe there are several situations, at least individual cases, where assessments have been made that I do not agree with. So, for example, it is when a father who has been convicted of serious crimes against his own child or the child's mother is not deported precisely because he has children in Sweden. It becomes a bit skewed.

Then there are certain absolute prohibitions – deportation to death – which apply to all countries, regardless of how hideous deeds one has committed.

I do not know what happened in that specific case that Magnus Resare described, but he is welcome to tell more.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I share the opinion, even though I do not have children myself. This is perhaps truly many parents' greatest fear. Unfortunately, it is also some parents' reality.

I think it is liberating and pleasant to hear the member stand behind the type of policy that we will now want to present in the migration area. Those who commit this type of crime should actually be deported from the country. It should be a requirement for prosecutors to demand deportation. Then, of course, there may be obstacles to enforcement. That is something completely different. One can still sentence someone to deportation, as the situation in the person's former home country may change.

I think it is wonderful to hear that there is a consensus on the issue. I expect no reservations in this area on the day the bill is presented.

Thank you very much for a good debate!

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I think there are things that we agree on and that there are quite often exaggerations about everything we want to misinterpret in each other, so I appreciate the closing remark.

I hope that the upcoming discussions will be characterized by such honesty regarding what we ourselves think, but also about what others think.

I also hope that more people read up on the Miljöpartiets proposal. It is a very good proposal for a more humane and legally secure refugee policy.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I went through the report and looked a bit at the Green Party's reservations. A summary of this is that the Green Party completely wants to tear up the Aliens Act and the migration legislation that Sweden now has. They want to return to the Aliens Act that we had before the migrant crisis in 2015.

It means that one wants permanent residence permits for everyone, except possibly students and those who work and are labor migrants. One wants family immigration without any requirements that the persons can support themselves or have an arranged housing situation in order to be able to bring the rest of the family here. Additionally, one wants to remove the 18-year age limit, so that persons who are of legal age are also covered by the family immigration.

Furthermore, they want amnesties for large groups of people who, in all instances, including the courts, have had their asylum applications rejected. They want very broad valves for people who have been rejected and who in various ways remain in Sweden without having the right to do so.

Furthermore, they want to continue providing daily compensation to adults without children who have been denied, despite the fact that they are to leave Sweden. They also want a regularization. Persons who live here without the right to stay in Sweden should automatically be able to receive a residence permit after a certain period.

I believe we must be aware of the sum of this policy, Madam Speaker. If it were to be implemented in Sweden, Sweden would no longer have regulated immigration. Then, Sweden would in practice introduce free immigration. It would have enormous consequences for the inflow to our country and especially to the areas that are vulnerable, where people end up.

My question to Annika Hirvonen is: Has Miljöpartiet anchored this policy with people who live in Järvafältet, in the north-eastern suburbs of Gothenburg, in Rosengård, at Tjärna Ängar, in Skäggetorp or in Vivalla? Has the policy been anchored in these areas? That is where a large group of people will end up if this is implemented in Sweden.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not agree with Fredrik Malm's interpretation: that this would mean free immigration. That is not correct.

Yes, Miljöpartiet has members in all these areas who stand behind this policy. But just like in all other residential areas, people with different views live there. That is also true in suburbs with a high concentration of immigrants. I do not think we should generalize in the way Fredrik Malm now wants to do.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! No, we are not going to generalize. But if one looks at the situation in the country and at housing costs and other things, it is a somewhat logical conclusion that a person who comes to Sweden, is denied an asylum application and then is allowed to stay in Sweden, perhaps does not buy a condominium in a well-to-do area a stone's throw from this house. They end up in those areas where one can find somewhere to live in various ways.

I am thinking about the influx to Sweden that we would get if this policy were implemented. In practice, it would be almost impossible to deport a person. If one goes underground, one will automatically be allowed to stay. If one is denied and belongs to a certain group, one receives an amnesty. If one is denied and then finds a job on a construction site for a very low wage, one is allowed to stay, because then one changes status, and so on.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps not de jure, but de facto, Sweden would then introduce a migration policy that means we no longer have a regulated immigration. It means that a yes is a yes and that a no, sooner or later, also becomes a yes. It becomes a yes for everyone, but some might possibly have to wait a little longer.

Then the question arises: Is there a popular anchoring when it comes to this? Is there an acceptance in those areas in Sweden where we today see a rather harsh class society, quite large challenges, and quite large problems?

We have had 370 murders within organized crime in Sweden since January 1, 2018, using firearms alone. This year, 25 people have been murdered in Sweden. We see a skyrocketing crime that is also eating its way into the publicly funded body of society.

We have enormous challenges when it comes to breaking segregation, and in that situation, the Green Party's answer is that Sweden should largely abandon regulated immigration. I believe that would have very large negative consequences for Sweden.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am happy to discuss the Green Party's policy, and that is not what Fredrik Malm is claiming now.

It is not true that everyone who hides after having received a no would get a yes with the Green Party's policy. What is true is that if a child is born in Sweden and raised here, it is reasonable that they actually get to stay sooner or later.

We have a lot of situations where people are told no, but where the deportation cannot be executed. The Swedish Migration Agency can therefore not send them back, even by force. These people might not be able to get a passport, their home countries might not want them back, or there are other circumstances that make it practically impossible. Then children should not be forced to live an entire life in limbo. Somewhere, one must actually set a limit of reasonableness for how long people's lives should be put on pause. We must face reality.

Just a few years ago, over a thousand people who had received a no received a yes because things changed. The simplified description that a no should always be a no and a yes always a yes does not quite match how it looks in reality. There are several investigations that have shown this, including the investigation on practical implementation obstacles which has very reasonable proposals to solve a number of unreasonable situations that people end up in.

If one wants to counter the crime that has spread, one must actually seriously ask the question of whether it is reasonable that people who have been denied [residence] but where deportation could not be carried out should be left without income and be dependent on either charity or criminal gangs.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! From the Green Party's reservations, it can be read that more legal and safe routes are needed for people on the run to seek asylum. At the same time, the Green Party wants to make it easier for foreigners to obtain asylum. There should also be more grounds for asylum. One can therefore conclude that the Green Party wants more foreigners to be granted asylum in Sweden.

Last year, approximately 3,900 foreigners were granted asylum in Sweden. Even though it is a low figure in purely historical terms, which shows that the government is keeping its promise, it is still 3,900 people who will be supported by the public for some years. Given the problems we have regarding parallel societies and cultural exclusion, 3,900 foreigners receiving asylum is still an all too high figure.

Given that Miljöpartiet wants more foreigners to be granted asylum in Sweden, I therefore wonder if there is a lower limit for Miljöpartiet. Is there a ceiling for how many Sweden can actually receive? There must be a lower limit, because it cannot be that Miljöpartiet wants to receive as many as they want. That would be insane.

Where is this outer limit or this ceiling regarding how many can be granted asylum in Sweden if Miljöpartiet were to decide?

Then I also wonder if Miljöpartiet has conducted a consequence analysis of its proposals regarding more foreigners being granted asylum in Sweden. Does Miljöpartiet even know how much it would cost society?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Our vision is that no people should be forced to flee. How many people flee and how many of them come to Sweden depends on very many different factors.

The Sweden Democrats' approach is to treat refugees who come to Sweden as poorly as possible and give them as few rights as possible so that they do not choose to come here. The Green Party, instead, wants to strengthen children's rights and ensure that people are given good opportunities to integrate.

There we also have many factors we can work with that will affect how many who can actually come to Sweden and become a part of our society. When we had what was called the refugee crisis in 2015, we came up with a long series of proposals to strengthen Sweden's ability to receive people fleeing and ensure that they could establish themselves in Sweden.

It is our answer to the fact that we have a world where people need protection. Our vision is also that people who flee should not have to hire human smugglers who take them across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. We know that around every document fiftieth refugee is drowned or missing.

That is why alternatives were needed that are safe and legal. The right of asylum works in such a way that you have the right to seek asylum but not the right to be granted asylum. All people therefore always have a right to seek asylum, and those who have grounds for protection have the right to stay.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! If one looks at the Green Party's reservation, it seems that everyone has a right to asylum.

Miljöpartiet has supported a reservation in the committee report where they advocate for regularization. This means that illegal migrants who have lived in Sweden for a longer period shall be granted some form of permit to remain in the country. Foreigners who have received a rejection decision after the Swedish Migration Agency has conducted its investigations and who have been given an opportunity to appeal the Migration Agency's decision shall nevertheless remain in Sweden.

We do not have exact figures on how many illegal migrants there are in Sweden, but it could be up to 100,000. Many of them have been in Sweden for a long time due to the Socialdemokraternas and Miljöpartiets policies, which encouraged these people to stay in Sweden despite lacking permits.

Has Miljöpartiet conducted a consequence analysis of how many illegal migrants would be granted permission to stay in Sweden if Miljöpartiet were to implement its proposal? It could be up to 100,000. Would they all get access to the Swedish welfare system?

I must also ask the member what signals it sends to the rest of the world if Sweden grants some form of amnesty to illegal migrants. What signals does it send to the rest of the world if a no does not mean a no in Sweden? Does the member not think that we would return to the situation that Sweden was in in 2015 when migrants slept on the street outside the Swedish Migration Agency's office in Malmö because there was a lack of sleeping places? Has the member understood what it could mean if illegal migrants actually receive an amnesty?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Migration issues

Madam Speaker! Somewhere there must be a limit of ultimate decency for how long people should be forced to live in a shadow society without rights. These are people who have been in Sweden perhaps their entire lives or a very large part of their lives and who cannot return to their home countries, even though Migrationsverket initially intended that they should be able to. I think that even the Sverigedemokraterna will one day come to realize this. It has happened, for example, in Australia, which introduced some of the strictest migration laws. One realizes sometimes that the world is more complicated than one would like to believe, that everything is not black or white, that a no does not always mean that it is practically possible to travel back to the home country. I know many who live in that situation. It is because it is practically impossible to return. They live in limbo. I have met families who have lived their entire lives here, never hidden from Migrationsverket or kept away, but who have not been able to return. Murhaf Hamid, the well-known Mayflower seller, was, as mentioned, a child in such a family.

Migration issues

Somewhere one must be able to state that enough is enough, that it is time for children and also their parents to be able to start a normal life, work and support themselves. The children shall have the right to continue their studies and be able to go with their friends on a class trip to Åland or wherever they have collected money to go. That which is obvious for all of us else.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 10.)

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