Migration issues

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden had for far too long an irresponsible migration policy and a requirement-free integration policy. This has contributed to creating a large sense of exclusion in our country. Many who have come to Sweden have not become a part of our social community.

Unemployment is three times higher among foreign-born than among domestic-born, and many cannot speak sufficiently good Swedish despite several years in Sweden. Many women and girls are subjected to the despicable honor culture that has spread in our country, with terrifying violence and oppression. This is the very sad result of the irresponsible and demand-free migration and integration policy that the left side conducted in Sweden for eight years and which several of the left-wing parties now want to return to.

For us Moderates, it is obvious that the large-scale asylum migration has resulted in those who have come to Sweden not having been given sufficiently good conditions to be integrated and become a part of our society. Therefore, we are now, together with our coalition partners, implementing a paradigm shift in migration policy to the EU's minimum level in order to reduce asylum migration.

When the Social Democrats last governed Sweden, 320,000 asylum seekers came here over eight years. After three and a half years with a Moderate-led government, we now have the lowest asylum-related immigration since the measurements began in 1985. This year, the number of asylum seekers is expected to decrease further, to around 5,000 people. It is a significant difference compared to an average of 40,000 asylum seekers per year when the Social Democrats and Magdalena Andersson governed Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates want to strengthen the sense of community. It is not demand-free. For us, it is simple: In Sweden, one supports oneself, in Sweden, one speaks Swedish, and in Sweden, one accepts and complies with Swedish values. In order for people who have come here but for various reasons have not yet integrated to be able to learn Swedish, establish themselves in the labor market, and become part of our community, we need to have a strict migration policy and a minimal asylum immigration for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker! For us Moderates, it is important that the migration policy is fair. People who come to Sweden and strive and behave correctly should be given the best possible conditions to become a part of our social community. Many of those who have come to Sweden have done exactly this. They have strived and learned Swedish, established themselves in the labor market and become a part of our society. They set the alarm every morning and go to work to support themselves and their family. They make fantastic contributions to Sweden.

Men, Mr. Speaker, people who come to Sweden and commit crimes or otherwise misconduct themselves shall be deported from our country. The time when people who were suspected of murder could be rewarded with Swedish citizenship is, thank God, over. We Moderates want a fair Sweden where effort pays off and crime is punished. This autumn, we are changing the law so that crimes with stricter punishments than fines shall lead to exactly deportation. It will be the strictest crime deportation legislation in the entire Nordic region. Now, it is finished for people who come to Sweden and commit crimes.

Mr. Speaker! Shortly, the Riksdag will also vote through stricter requirements for obtaining Swedish citizenship. Soon, the time will be over when one could become a Swedish citizen without being able to speak a single word of Swedish and without knowing anything about Swedish society. On national day, June 6, requirements are introduced for knowledge in Swedish and social studies, requirements that one can support oneself, requirements that one must live a decent life, that is, not commit crimes, and requirements that one has lived in Sweden for a longer period to become a Swedish citizen.

We will also soon introduce a qualification for the welfare system. It is not reasonable that foreigners can come to Sweden and from day one have access to a smorgasbord of benefits and compensations. It must pay to make an effort and work, and therefore we are introducing a successive qualification to the social insurance in proportion to working and paying tax in Sweden. We are also introducing a benefit ceiling so that it always pays more to work than to live on benefits. There will also be a full-time activity requirement for those who receive maintenance support so that they participate in activities that bring them closer to the labor market.

The work line is a key to solving integration, and we are convinced that these measures will contribute to more people becoming part of the Swedish community.

Mr. Speaker! All of this is possible thanks to the Moderates and our coalition partners. We are, in fact, in agreement that immigration must decrease in order for us to succeed with integration.

Did you see the Left Party's April joke about cooperating with the Center Party? On the left side, the parties are so in disagreement that they even joke themselves about their so-called cooperation. And yesterday, Expressen reported that an anonymous but heavy-hitting source said: "Extremely important that Magda doesn't gather those weirdos into a team. Better to stay out for another period than to bring the right-wing extremists in the Center and the oddballs in V and MP into a government. At the very least, not for a preliminary agreement. Such a shit government must be the absolute last resort."

This may seem comical. But the laughter gets stuck in one's throat, because it is, of course, very serious. It would mean great risks for Sweden if the left side obtained power, because they do not have the ability to agree on anything other than increasing asylum migration.

The Social Democrats claim that they want a strict migration policy, but the Social Democrats and their coalition parties, or whatever one shall call parties that do not want to cooperate, would never have succeeded in implementing the reduction of asylum migration that the Moderate-led government has achieved in recent years.

The left side wants to increase asylum migration. And not only do Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet say no to every single tightening that the Moderate-led government implements, but Vänsterpartiet also wants to go back to the policy that led Sweden straight into the crisis in 2015, when over 160,000 people sought asylum in Sweden during one year.

Miljöpartiet wants, among other things, to reintroduce permanent residence permits as the main rule for those who are granted asylum, and the Centerpartiet wants, among other things, to accept six times as many quota refugees. This would make it impossible to succeed with integration and create an even greater sense of exclusion in our country. It is not fair either to those who come to Sweden or to everyone who already lives here.

Furthermore, the left side is unfit to govern and cannot get things done. Instead of solving the problems they themselves have created, the Social Democrats now want to shift the responsibility for integration onto ordinary Swedish families. Your children will be bussed to schools in other areas and used as "cushion girls" to solve the segregation problems. Instead of tackling the integration problems they themselves have created, the Social Democrats instead want to spread them to today's prosperous areas by building "million programs" in villa areas.

For us Moderates, it is clear: People deserve to be safe in their residential areas and know that children can go to school without being exposed to crime. We do not agree to the Social Democrats' forced mixing.

Mr. Speaker! The election this autumn is about whether we shall continue forward towards a fairer Sweden where effort pays off and crime is punished, or whether we shall make a sharp turn to the left that risks tearing our country apart.

The Moderates have begun to get Sweden in order in order to reduce the great exclusion in our country. We have limited asylum migration and thereby created better conditions to succeed with the integration of those who have come here and have not yet become a part of our community.

Sweden is on the right track, but we are not there yet. Let us continue to get Sweden in order for four more years!

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the proposal in the committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I react quite a bit to what the member keeps repeating: that effort should pay off. I believe everyone in this chamber agrees that effort should pay off, but I am thinking of the teenage deportations that have been debated in the last few months.

Effort is supposed to pay off, and the Moderaterna have said that they want to stop the deportations of teenagers for this group, who have made an effort, who have done everything correctly, who study or work and who have the whole family remaining here. But the problem is that they are still ongoing. The Moderaterna seem to say one thing and then do another.

The Moderates are welcome to answer what they actually think about the deportations of teenagers, as these are still ongoing despite saying that they want to stop them. Do the Moderats think it is a good idea to kick out young people, whose parents and siblings have permanent residence permits or citizenship, when they turn 18, or do the Moderats not think so?

Do the Moderates now, in hindsight, think it was a good idea to submit a proposal in the Riksdag to remove the valve for these young people so that more can be deported, only to say two years later that one is looking into introducing a valve for just these young people so that they are not deported?

One was not supposed to patch and repair the migration legislation. That time is over, the Moderaterna have said several times. But right now, one is patching and repairing again. How do the Moderaterna actually want it?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Effort should pay off. That is what we Moderates believe. That is why we ensure that it is also the case. Among other things, we ensure that it pays off better to work than not to work. We ensure that more people can come closer to the labor market. We set higher requirements so that it always pays off better to live on an income than to live on benefits. This is the basis of what effort should be about.

Tell me when the Left Party has ever gone in that direction that people should get to keep more in their wallets! The Left Party has rather put forward proposals to raise taxes.

Regarding the so-called teenage deportations, which Tony Haddou repeatedly brings up and submits proposals for, we have announced that we have commissioned an inquiry which has produced a proposal that we are now processing, and we will return with concrete legislative proposals here in the Riksdag. That is the way we are handling this issue. We have signaled this, and in the usual order regarding the legislative process, it is the government that is to submit a proposition.

During Tony Haddous' time when he supported the Social Democratic government, nothing was done about this. The Director General of the Swedish Migration Agency came to the committee a few weeks ago and spoke about how fewer young adults are being deported today than before. Also, during previous years, one has been deported if one has not had grounds to be in Sweden.

We think it is reasonable that someone who, for example, turns 18 but has not completed their upper secondary education should be able to do this and thus be part of the family unit during that period. Therefore, we are returning with a legislative proposal, and in the meantime, the Swedish Migration Agency has stated that they will not proceed with those cases that otherwise could have led to deportation decisions. These are clear messages from our side.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the answer. Exactly, teenagers are still being deported in those situations. The Moderates have had the opportunity to stop the deportation of teenagers, but they have not done so. It has been said that they are stopping them, but they are still ongoing. A pause is not enough. That is simply the situation.

It is not true that nothing has been done previously in these issues. There was a safety valve that the Moderaterna removed. I think it shows a strong inability of the Moderaterna to handle migration policy. It was known that children who have a strong attachment to Sweden and who turn 18 would be deported even though the family gets to stay in Sweden. They knew about the consequences, and yet they submitted a proposal to remove the safety valve – the last protection they had in the legislation.

Then, when there is a storm of criticism in Sweden regarding these issues and we present proposals or ask questions and so on, the Moderaterna say that they are looking at a valve that they voted away two years earlier. This, Mr. Speaker, appears amateurish to me. One votes away a valve, and then when criticism comes, they say they are looking at a valve again.

I think that once and for all we should get a clear statement from the Moderaterna that they are stopping all deportations of teenagers. But that has not been done, instead they talk about the issue being investigated. At the same time, teenagers who have done exactly what the Moderaterna said initially, namely exerted themselves, are being deported. They have done everything right and correctly, they study or work and they have the strongest connection to Sweden. Yet they are being deported at this moment.

Give us a clear message once and for all – stop the deportation of teenagers!

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes I wonder if the Left Party actually does not stand up for the principles of the rule of law, that is to say that it is Sweden's Riksdag that enacts laws but that we have independent authorities and courts that then make decisions. And if we want to change something in the legislation, we have the current legislative process to do just that.

Long before Tony Haddou and Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet and others began talking about this problem because reports about it came up in the debate, long before this, we therefore appointed an inquiry which had as part of its investigation directives to look at this issue. That inquiry has now been delivered. We have said that we will need to adjust something in this and that we will return before the summer with a legislative proposal that will address those who end up caught in the middle, those who behave correctly and those who should be able to complete, for example, their upper secondary studies. In the meantime, Migrationsverket has announced that they are not proceeding with those cases because favorable decisions are expected to be given after the legislation has been put in place here in Sweden's Riksdag. That is what we have presented. That is what applies.

It is clearly in that sense that, fundamentally, one must have grounds to be in Sweden. According to the principle of regulated immigration, it is fundamentally the case that one must have grounds to be in Sweden if one is not a Swedish citizen. This is about providing the possibility for additional residence permits for an additional period after one has turned 18 so that one is not uprooted right during the high school period. But fundamentally, one must therefore have grounds for asylum, and one must have a work permit or some other permit to be in the country.

The Left Party does not believe in this. The Left Party fundamentally believes in free immigration. That is why one now takes on these chesty tones in this issue. One disguises it as proposals to make changes, but fundamentally, one does not think that people who do not have the right to be in the country should be deported from our country.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can say this to Member Wärnick: I would rather be part of a joke about a cooperation than be part of a cooperation that is a joke.

I am glad the member brings up the irresponsible migration policy, because Ulf Kristersson was involved in implementing it and Forssell was chief of staff when it was implemented. That is the reality. And yes, we were also involved. But I believe that one can talk about facts and not come up with all sorts of nonsense here in the chamber about a non-true image of reality.

After 2016, S was involved in stopping that policy. We were also involved in parts of it, and you were involved in parts of it. But the reality is that it was during the alliance period that we conducted the migration policy that created the situation in 2015 and 2016. We should take responsibility for that instead of shifting the blame, because it is only by taking responsibility that one can actually make things better. The Moderaterna should actually do that.

Speaking of taking responsibility, I want to check this: it is important that those who behave correctly and make an effort should be able to be here and be allowed to stay. The government's wage floor does the opposite. It causes them to be deported.

Wärnick comes from Gävleborg, which the Perez family was sent away from. Why were they sent away? Yes, because of the wage floor. Both the father and the mother worked, but the father earned too little. Did he earn less than the collective agreement? No, he did not. But he earned too little for that made-up, insane wage floor that the Moderaterna have introduced. Both worked in the welfare sector. Both made an effort. What is the message from Moderaterna to that family, to their colleagues, and to the classmates who no longer have their daughter Gabriella with them – she who was born in Sweden but is now sitting in El Salvador and is not going to school because she feels like shit, to put it bluntly? Is the message "You did not try hard enough"? Is that the message from Wärnick?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We know that labor immigration has been associated with a lot of fraud and a lot of abuse. We have had major problems with exclusion in the groups that have come to Sweden to work for very low wages with very low compensation.

That is why we have introduced a wage requirement of at least 90 percent of the median wage. We think it is reasonable that we set high requirements on those who come to Sweden to work to also have a wage they can live on and support their family on. This is the announcement, and then it is clear that there are those who meet that wage floor and those who do not. It is completely natural.

Those who have come to Sweden and worked with a work permit previously have had a time-limited permit. When a renewed assessment is then made, they must meet the criteria that exist at that time. That is the reason why there are a number of people who do not meet our requirement of 90 percent.

Naturally, there will be a number of people who do not reach the Center Party's requirements for salary level either. Should those same tones be used then, that effort does not pay off and so on?

Of course, we must somewhere set the limit in Sweden for what wage level one must have to be able to support oneself, support one's family, and contribute to society when one is present here. We naturally mean that effort should pay off. Of course it is so, but we must have principles regarding immigration that are reasonable and at the right level. Therefore, we have introduced this.

Speaking of what Niels Paarup-Petersen mentions regarding the tone in the debate, the mocking part about which party one belongs to and so on: About ten years ago, we Moderates raised that we needed to move from permanent residence permits to time-limited residence permits because the permanent residence permits simply led to the wrong results. At that time, Morgan Johansson from the Social Democrats said that we simply are no longer human if we move forward with such a proposal. Such was the tone of the debate in that situation. It is worth remembering when the Social Democrats claim to stand for a strict migration policy and claim that they have always done so.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Wärnick and I do not need to speak at length about how the Social Democrats are quick to turn around. We agree on that, one could say. But in the end, it is a fact that one moved from permanent to temporary residence permits as the standard under a Social Democratic government, and it is a fact that under the Alliance it was not so. Again: Let us build on facts!

I note that the message to the Perez family is that they cheated or did not exert enough effort. That is the message from the Moderaterna. I will convey to the people in Gävleborg that it is the Moderaterna's view on this family.

Yes, with our demand, it is also people who will be deported. The difference is that we want to give the power to the parties in the labor market, as we usually do in Sweden, to achieve a correct wage formation. The Moderaterna used to be in favor of that as well.

The Moderates have given power to the Sweden Democrats. Those who believe that the Sweden Democrats are better at correct wage setting than the labor market parties can from now on vote for the Moderates. Those who think that it is the labor market parties who should handle it can vote for us. So simple we can make that question.

Let us talk about work and unemployment! In your budget, you have invested 43 times more on the return migration grant than you invested on the labor market package in the supplementary budget. If we are to talk about unemployment and that people should be in work: For 1.4 billion, we could have abolished the employer contributions for the first ten employees in all of Sweden's companies. But no, return migration grants are what is the Moderaternas new policy when we have half a million unemployed.

You have abandoned the work line in favor of the deportation line. That is what the cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna instead of with Centerpartiet has done to Moderaterna. I do not recognize you.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us nevertheless state that compared to 2022 when we took office, we have strengthened families' finances in this country. We have lowered taxes. We have lowered income taxes. We are lowering the food VAT. We have lowered the petrol and diesel taxes and removed the reduction obligation. In practice, the reforms that we have implemented during these years provide an average of 5,000 kronor more per month for an ordinary family with children.

How is the Center Party going to be able to do something similar with the Left Party, the Green Party and the Social Democrats? There is simply no chance. The Center Party is not pretending.

Regarding migration policy, we can observe that the Center Party can stand here and claim to support regulated immigration. But one must cooperate with the Left Party and the Green Party. One must cooperate with those who want to return to the legislation that prevailed in 2015, when over 160,000 asylum seekers came to Sweden in one year.

Centerpartiet wants to increase the number of quota refugees from 900 to 5,000 people. Permanent residence permits shall be reintroduced, according to parties on the left. Amnesties shall be introduced, according to Vänsterpartiet. What in this will we see if they are to try to form a government together, if they even agree to gather for such a meeting in the first place? What is it that we have to look forward to, both regarding economic policy and migration policy as well as in other areas?

It matters that one can assemble a team to make important changes. We have tightened Sweden's migration legislation for the better so that we can manage the integration. That is what I stand up for.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One of the issues we are debating today is the deportations of teenagers and on what grounds one should be able to obtain a residence permit in Sweden if one has arrived here as a child together with one's family but has reached adulthood before the Swedish Migration Agency has decided to grant a permanent residence permit.

Those who manage to become adults today lose the right to be counted as a nuclear family and to stay with their parents if the parents are Swedish citizens or have permanent residence permits here. This has led to terribly unreasonable results, not least since the valve that we in Miljöpartiet fought incredibly hard for in 2021 was removed by the Tidö parties and the Social Democrats in December 2023.

In fact, a basis was needed so that these young people could be granted residence permits. The basis "particularly compelling circumstances," which applied to adults with strong ties to Sweden, prevented many completely unreasonable deportations. When the government removed this basis, they completely ignored the consequences.

The Swedish Migration Agency itself states that this has led to more teenage deportations, and I am glad that the Moderaterna finally promised to come up with a solution – but when will it arrive?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just as I indicated in a previous exchange of remarks, the matter is now being prepared at the Government Offices, and we will return to the Swedish Parliament during the spring with a proposal that it can take a position on during the current mandate period. That is the ambition, and this has also been presented previously from our side regarding this issue.

This is rooted in the fact that we have seen the problem, and an investigator has been asked to look into this. The investigator has since presented a proposal, and we see that it needs to be adjusted somewhat further before it can be submitted to the Riksdag for a final decision on new legislation.

This is nothing new. Let us, as the Director General of the Migration Agency has also done, note that today there are fewer in this group of young adults who receive deportation decisions that are also enforced than there were previously. It is naturally important to keep that in mind. One might think that this is a phenomenon that has emerged in the last few months or the last half year, but that is not the case.

We have a principle of regulated immigration in Sweden, and it says that one may stay and receive a residence permit if one has grounds to be in Sweden, but that one must leave the country if one does not have them. There has been a group that has ended up caught in the middle and who now cannot complete their upper secondary school because they are right on the border at the age of 18. They must, of course, be given the opportunity to stand on their own feet and be able to obtain their own permit, which they can indeed hardly obtain at that very point if they do not have grounds for asylum.

Therefore, we address this and return to the Swedish Parliament to change it.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It took many heartbreaking stories from young people like Jomana – who came here as a four-year-old and was deported shortly after she had ordered her graduation cap – Batis and Ayla with several others before the anger even from the Moderates' own voters and members pressured the party to admit that they had to back down and stop these unreasonable deportations.

The Prime Minister stood at a press conference and said that the deportations of teenagers would be stopped. Some who were locked up in the detention center in Märsta, where people live under worse conditions than the UN's torture committee recommends people should be held under, expected that the key in the lock would be turned and that they would be able to come home again, go to their jobs and return to a normal life together with their families. That is how it did not turn out, however, because the Prime Minister's announcement only stopped upcoming decisions on deportations.

Nothing has changed for Jomana, Ayla and the other young people whose stories turned the entire debate and made party after party change their minds, and in Iran, Darya and Donya are sitting right now at risk to their own lives. They were among the last who were sent to Iran before Israel's and USA's bombs began to fall. They have just been told no to being allowed to come back to finish the education in the nursing program that they managed to start before they were sent from here.

Will the Moderates change their minds and do something for these young people as well?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have the greatest respect for individual cases, but I believe it is important that we in the Swedish Riksdag's rostrum do not discuss the exercise of authority regarding individuals.

It is clear that we should have a discussion and a debate about the legislation and its consequences, but in the debate that has now been ongoing regarding this issue, one must actually also add something that perhaps does not always come up in the debate, namely that many of those who have now been deported upon turning 18 may have been in Sweden for a longer period as they, for the greater part of the time, most likely have been here illegally. This has Migrationsverket also pointed out.

This means that one cannot add the time that even their parents – it is absolutely not the children's fault – have chosen to stay in Sweden illegally and not follow a deportation order. They may also have applied for asylum a number of times but still have not followed the deportation order and left the country. This cannot be attributed to the fact that the legislation does not work as a whole.

In the individual cases where young adults behave correctly, make an effort, and for example want to complete upper secondary school, we have, however, announced that we will correct the legislation. While waiting for this to be presented, the Swedish Migration Agency has announced that they are not proceeding with these cases because they expect favorable decisions further ahead. This is entirely in accordance with the order we are to have in Sweden, which is a rule of law where we enact laws that are then applied by independent agencies and courts. I think that is right and reasonable.

Exactly what applies to Vänsterpartiet also applies to Miljöpartiet: Their grounds for movement are not at all solely about this group, but Miljöpartiet basically also wants free immigration. One should not need to have any actual reasons. If one has just hidden here in the country illegally for long enough, one should be allowed to take part in an amnesty.

So we cannot have that, but this is the alternative with Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister: that Miljöpartiet will demand this.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The parliamentary term is beginning to draw to a close, and a certain summary can be made of the migration policy debate. It is clear that the reforms that the Social Democrats laid the foundation for during previous parliamentary terms have largely been implemented. The reorganization of migration policy that took place under the leadership of the Social Democrats 2015–2016 has meant that the long-term trend has held steady regarding the downward pressure of applications to Sweden.

The war in Ukraine has of course entailed a large influx, but otherwise, the curve for those in need of protection has pointed steadily downwards. The strict migration policy has thus had an effect, which we think is good.

During the mandate period, the Tidö parties' policy has met reality. In this meeting, it has become apparent that the reforms promised in 2022 have not stood the test of this reality: The deportation laws have been withdrawn. Crime victims and the sick were to be deported, but that does not seem to be the case. No exceptions were to be made, but suddenly the repeat offenders are to be given a second chance. The return migration grant has been totally scrapped and costs much more than it is worth, and when the unreasonable nature of the teenage deportations became clear, even the toughest boys in the Tidö group finally softened. Reality proved to be more complex than the authors of the agreement at Tidö Castle could imagine.

For us Social Democrats, this is a receipt that our migration policy is on the right track. It must be strict. Migration must be in relation to our ability to manage the integration. Labor migration shall occur when there is a need for competence and when this need has been established by an authority in consultation with the parties in the labor market. The person who behaves, does everything right, and who has a strong connection to Sweden shall also be given a fair chance to become a part of our country. The person who, on the other hand, behaves grossly poorly, who does not wish our country well, and who does not even try to integrate, cannot also expect to stay.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the committee initiative that has been submitted to the Social Insurance Committee by Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. The initiative is, in short, about initiating a preparation regarding both ongoing and concluded cases of so-called teenage deportations. We Social Democrats believe that such a preparation can be initiated because the Prime Minister has made public pledges that teenagers shall not be deported until the valve being prepared is in place, and that the youths who are deported from the country can apply for new permits.

In order to handle these issues in a proper way, a preparatory process needs to be initiated. Therefore, we will stand behind this committee initiative. We hope that the initiative can thereby win a majority and that the Riksdag takes a clear stand to handle the issue of teenage deportations in a reasonable, correct, and objective manner.

Mr. Speaker! This balanced and limited immigration that we Social Democrats advocate for has broad popular support. The Swedish people do not want a migration policy that throws out neighbors, friends, and classmates just because they happen to come from another country or have an incorrect skin color. They want those who come here and work to do so on fair terms and without creating unemployment in Sweden. There is strong support for everyone who is here to behave themselves.

The Social Democratic line is in this way a well-balanced line between the Tidö parties' all-too repressive policy – and in fact, often purely racist rhetoric – and the liberal migration policy advocated by MP, C and V. The direction forward requires neither symbolic politics nor sharp turns, but it requires responsibility, respect for the rule of law, and a firm anchoring in reality. It is a migration policy that holds over time, that people experience as fair, and that contributes to the cohesion in our country. That is why the Social Democrats will also continue to stand up for a strict but reasonable migration policy, where order and tidiness are combined with humanity, where requirements go hand in hand with opportunities, and where Sweden takes responsibility without taking on more than we can manage. That is how we build a stronger, safer, and more cohesive Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation 31, but I naturally stand behind all our reservations.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! For every year that has passed since the Tidö parties gained government power, the Social Democrats have moved ever closer to our migration policy. Today, it is actually difficult to see any clear differences. In their reservation regarding the government's proposal on lack of integrity, which could lead to a foreigner being denied a residence permit or having their residence permit revoked, the Social Democrats state that they have not yet decided. So small the difference has become; the Social Democrats have not yet decided whether they will fully support the Tidö parties' policy within the migration area.

This is fundamentally something positive. There is broad support in the Riksdag for a strict migration policy, and many in the general public feel secure with that. But at the same time, the Social Democrats intend to cooperate with parties that want to introduce amnesty for illegal migrants and grant permanent residence permits at the first asylum decision. These are proposals that would, in practice, return Sweden to a liberal migration policy with increased risks of a new migration crisis and deepened segregation.

Therefore, my question to the member is simple: Can the Social Democrats guarantee that the strict migration policy currently being pursued will remain in place even if the red-green parties, unfortunately, were to win the election?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes!

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats will simply run over all their coalition partners. It is good to know, and it is also good for the coalition partners to know.

During Magdalena Andersson's last years as Prime Minister, approximately 89,000 Swedish citizenships were granted to foreigners. Last year, the figure was down to approximately 38,000. An important explanation is that the Swedish Migration Agency, on the government's mandate, has taken measures to strengthen security in the assessment of citizenship cases. This means more extensive controls, which naturally leads to longer and more resource-intensive processing. A concrete measure is that applicants must, to a greater extent, appear in person at the Swedish Migration Agency. At the same time, the Social Democrats propose in a committee motion that processing times should be shortened.

The Social Democrats are therefore aware that processing times have increased precisely to strengthen control and reduce the risk of the wrong people being granted Swedish citizenship, but they still want the process to go faster. What is it that should be deprioritized? Today, a person only needs to have been in Sweden for five years to be able to apply for citizenship, but the government has already decided on a bill that raises the residency requirement to eight years. Still, the Social Democrats want to speed up the process. Why this haste? Why can't foreigners wait longer to become citizens? There is a conflict of goals, and I want to know what the Social Democrats prioritize. Is it shorter processing times so that more foreigners can get citizenship, or is it the security surrounding the citizenship process, which results in the processing time becoming longer?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Fundamentally, we always decide how we are to approach political proposals when we see them on the table. The question of citizenship has been such a question where we did not know exactly what the Tidö parties would propose. From the beginning, it was nine years of residence that was on the table, and then it became eight. It becomes impossible for us to take a position on something before we have seen the proposal.

This also applies, moreover, to the proposal on lack of integrity. The investigation that was submitted has its merits, and we are always ready to look at good political proposals. But we always do so when the bill is on the table. In the autumn, we had not seen an investigation, and even then we were still forced to remain open to the question.

Let me proceed with the issue of citizenship. One must distinguish between residence periods and processing. We will accept an extended residence period. It is reasonable. We understand the issue of upholding the value of Swedish citizenship. Five investigations on citizenship have been submitted to the Riksdag, and there have been numerous occasions when it has been chosen not to extend. But we have always tried to reach a consensus on such an important issue. There are, therefore, grounds for why the residence period has not been extended.

On the other hand, we believe that Swedish administration should function well. That the agency receives criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office for too long processing times, regardless of security arrangements, we must take seriously. But then it is a resource and governance issue. Then it is not about the residence time, but it is a bureaucratic question: How do we handle the processing?

In that case, it is strange to send back money from the Migration Agency and allocate it to other expenditure items. It is a question of approximately 700 million. One could take a portion of that money for the processing. It is the management of the Migration Agency that is lacking, not that we are extending the residence time in the cases that the Sweden Democrats are talking about.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe I see and hear a certain change in tone from the Social Democrats regarding migration policy. It is as if one no longer has the strength to go all the way when it comes to what was previously referred to: a strict migration policy. Now we hear Ola Möller and the Socialdemokraterna say balanced and limited. Should we interpret this as that they are now abandoning their promises to maintain a strict migration policy?

Regarding the adaptation to the asylum activists in Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, I am wondering what the Socialdemokraterna say about the demands being made by those parties. What can one promise that one will not agree to? In several previous exchanges, we have heard Ola Möller claim that one absolutely will not agree to anything. But we do understand that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet will put forward a number of demands in the migration policy area, as these are central and important issues for those parties.

Vänsterpartiet proposes amnesties for all those who have remained illegally in Sweden and who have therefore not complied with their deportation decisions and the enforcement of these deportations. Vänsterpartiet wants to return to the legislation as it looked in 2015, which led to the crisis we had at that time with over 160,000 asylum seekers in one and the same year. Sweden stood out in a European context, which made it particularly interesting to move towards Sweden to seek asylum. And Miljöpartiet has demands to return to primarily using permanent residence permits rather than time-limited residence permits.

All this makes the pull factors to Sweden increase. It would once again put pressure on Sweden and Swedish society and reduce our opportunities to integrate all those hundreds of thousands of people who have come to Sweden but unfortunately have not yet integrated into Swedish society.

What can the Social Democrats say about this? What promises can be made to the Swedish people when one is to cooperate with these parties?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I always have to lower the tone when Viktor Wärnick has stood in the speaker's chair before me, and every time I think: Now I am lowering the tone of the debate.

I am completely convinced that Viktor Wärnick listened to the entire speech. In that case, he heard the word strict. It is therefore not true that there is now some shift or anything of the sort. In my speech, I mentioned the word strict more times than the words balanced and limited.

We have a strict migration policy now. We have a substantially good migration policy right now. But there are things that need to be corrected. What we are turning against are the unbalanced proposals coming forward, that is to say that they want to introduce reporting laws. We will have to see exactly what it will be. There will also be extremely draconian proposals, possibly regarding lack of integrity, where it is not to be defined what it is about but be quite fluid, and so on.

There are a number of proposals on the table that risk creating something other than a strict migration policy. Instead, it becomes, straight up, a stupid migration policy, which does not land in ensuring a low inflow to the country but instead harms people who are in the country. That is what we Social Democrats turn against. That is why it needs to be limited and balanced. And it must be a strict line. I am not talking about incompatible concepts but a wholeness in the policy.

Viktor Wärnick can therefore be calm in that part, just like the member from the Sweden Democrats. He also received the answer that the migration policy shall be strict.

When it comes to red lines, which I understand Viktor Wärnick is seeking, I have been clear here previously, as recently as in the last debate, that we will not return to permanent residence permits as a general rule. We will also not accept that one wants lower wage requirements than wages in accordance with collective agreements, provided that the wage requirement is discretionary. We will therefore not agree to wage dumping. These are two clear red lines that we will set against that government option, regardless of which parties are included in it.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! That we repeatedly ask these questions naturally has to do with the parties that Ola Möller and the Socialdemokraterna say they want to form a majority with after the election, should misfortune befall. It is self-evident that the voters need to know what they are getting.

In the last few days, we in the media have received reports that the Social Democrats do not intend to announce in advance which parties they want to cooperate with or what policy this could lead to. I believe that is bad. In the name of consumer information, the voters need to know what it is they are choosing. There are, of course, different tones and different weightings in the different parties. But that the Socialdemokraterna have decided to oppose telling in what way a government is to be formed and on what policy grounds that government shall rule the country, I believe is bad.

We know what it will mean if Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet are in the government. We know what happened regarding migration policy when Miljöpartiet sat in the government on the previous occasion. That result is frightening for the future.

I ask Ola Möller about the shift, whether it is the case that one moves from a strict migration policy to a balanced and limited one. I understand that Ola Möller does not agree, but we see how the Social Democrats are moving closer to the other left-wing parties in migration policy issues. Not least in the last few months, they have done so.

It surprises me that the Social Democrats are backing the proposal for a committee initiative put forward by the Left Party and the Green Party. It is anything but strict. We are to deal with it at the Social Insurance Committee's meeting tomorrow. The Left Party and the Green Party are therefore proposing that the Swedish state should retrieve non-citizens from third countries. That is what the proposal ultimately amounts to.

Do the Social Democrats stand behind this? Shall we allocate resources to repatriate people who have already had their cases reviewed here in Sweden to the country so that they can have a new review? Is that the message from the Social Democrats?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! We say that we want to form a government. We do not say that we want to form governments with party X, Y or Z. That is the clear message we are giving. We also say that we want to reach broad agreements for the country's best. I have, on a number of occasions, extended my hand here to Viktor Wärnick regarding, for example, the migration policy.

I think it is reasonable that the voters cast their votes, and then we try to find a cooperation in the Swedish Riksdag. We are not going to have a two-party system, which is what Viktor Wärnick practically advocates for.

Furthermore, his own party's Tidö agreement does not work. L and SD signed an agreement that Ebba Busch sawed off. They are also no longer in agreement on the points in it. The Sweden Democrats completely disregard the issue of profits in schools, and the Liberals claim a different position. And we saw Ebba Busch role-playing as Foreign Minister; when she started, they were not even in agreement on the foreign policy line regarding Israel and Gaza. We have also seen that the Tidö parties back down when it comes to the track-switching issue and the deportation of teenagers.

The rigid view of politics that Viktor Wärnick is trying to evoke here is not something we Social Democrats subscribe to. We believe in a representative democracy where the voters are to cast their votes, and when there is an election result, a government is formed. It is a different line. I respect that Wärnick has a different opinion, but that is our message to the voters.

When it comes to the committee initiative, it is to begin a preparation that we will set up. We do not intend to take a position on exactly how things should turn out and be resolved until the preparation is completed. We do this because the Prime Minister has stood at a press conference and been clear that a solution must come for people who have been caught in the middle. Then we want to see if it is possible to solve this issue in a reasonable and good way, balanced and limited.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is always fascinating to listen to Ola Möller speak about migration policy. The Social Democrats are always right, have always been right, will always be right and have always wanted to implement it, even when they are wrong.

Therefore, it is somewhat interesting that it is not particularly difficult to google that the Social Democrats' own investigator, Lawen Redar, just a few years ago stated that they might not have been so right. Lawen Redar said: We must be deeply self-critical. According to an internal report, the Social Democrats have failed with the immigration policy over decades. The immigration has primarily occurred because we have not dared to make the changes that have been needed. We must be deeply self-critical. We need to change the policy.

Despite that, Ola Möller stands here in the speaker's chair and says that they already during the previous mandate period laid down the lines that this government is now implementing. I can state that much of what was actually implemented during the last of the Social Democrats' eight years in government was perhaps possible to do precisely because they did not have a brake. In my world, that brake was Miljöpartiet.

It can be noted that many of the changes that were made and of the investigations that were commissioned were based on committee initiatives from the Riksdag. This happened when the Social Democrats had gotten rid of the straitjacket, the Green Party.

It is very pleasing that the Social Democrats have found the right path. But does Ola Möller want to brush aside the criticism that exists internally that one did not have the right policy? Can Ola Möller state that one perhaps did not implement everything that one wanted to implement during these eight years?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! If one has self-criticism, does it lead to one changing their policy? I believe that in particular the Christian Democrats can share that feeling, considering that the Christian Democrats 20 years ago stood here and advocated for broad amnesties. The Social Democrats stopped them that time, so it was only about undocumented people. The Christian Democrats advocated for amnesty for the whole group that was here.

I think it is positive that parties have self-criticism and engage in internal debate with high ceilings. It is clear that we should be critical of the politics that have been conducted. I can be critical of the politics that have been conducted for 30 years by the Social Democrats. The housing policy – how could one dismantle the common responsibility for it in the early 90s? The school policy – why did they not abolish the profits in the welfare sector with their school-segregating effects in the 90s? The social policy – why did they not make faster changes in the Social Services Act? We absolutely should have been much more offensive in the labor market policy, so that integration had functioned.

To look in the rearview mirror of history: During those ten months before we changed the policy, we should not have accepted the Miljöparti's demands to retain the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna's policy. We should have run over the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna in 2014 and thrown their policy onto the historical scrap heap already then, because then the situation that became reality during September and October 2015 would not have arisen.

Of course I am critical of my own party. I am critical of the Christian Democrats as well. But that doesn't mean that we couldn't have a position today that is relevant based on how reality looks. I have a bit of difficulty understanding what Ingemar Kihlström is after. Please explain that, thanks!

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In this post, Ola Möller was much more critical of his own party than he was in his main speech from the rostrum. There, it sounded as if one had always done everything right and will always do everything right.

When it comes to the policy that Ola Möller calls racist – I noticed the choice of words – and which we are now implementing during these four years, Ola Möller has in many instances pressed the "yes" button, so he is also a supporter of it. I do not think that such terms should be used in the speaker's chair.

Ola Möller can, with a straight face, say that he will implement a strict migration policy and wait until after the election. But I think it is a bit dishonest towards the voters. We note that on the left side, they do not even want to create a law. They do not want to have a sense of law. It is as if, in a football match, one did not want to play in the same direction or even play on the same pitch. How then do they intend to implement a strict migration policy in Sweden?

Ola Möller is right. We must be self-critical. We had a different line before, but we found a new line significantly earlier than the Social Democrats did. We have also ensured to implement our new policy in substantive issues. To use dirty politics and say that the Sverigedemokraterna are in power is like saying that it was the Miljöpartiet that ruled for seven years and that it then became freedom. I believe that politics needs to have a nicer entry into the debate.

I also want to ask how Ola Möller assesses the possibility of implementing this strict migration policy when the others who are supposed to be in the team do not even want to sit on the same substitute bench, but would rather sit in the stands and say who should play on the field. How has Ola Möller planned to implement the strict migration policy after the election?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have already answered the last question.

Ingemar Kihlström! I advise the member to get the platform X and follow, for example, Richard Jomshof, who among other things has been reported for incitement against a population group for his tone of voice. Had the member made an effort to listen to what I said in my speech, he would have heard that I did not say that the policy is racist, but that the rhetoric is racist.

Member of Parliament Kihlström actually needs to realize that he is cooperating with a deeply racist party that repeatedly belittles and mocks immigrants, women, hbtqi persons, climate activists, and other minorities. Leading representatives state that one cannot be Swedish if one is Sami or Jewish and tweet that my party colleagues who are in the Aktuellt studio are not Swedish.

This is racism, Ingemar Kihlström. If the member cannot accept that and understand that dynamic, I am deeply concerned about where a party that stood in this chamber 20 years ago and advocated for broad amnesties has gone. But this perhaps is not so strange. If one looks at the choice of words from the party leader and the MEP in Ingemar Kihlström's party regarding the Palestinians, one understands that racism has crept far in even within the Kristdemokraterna. Member Kihlström will not get away with it. A spade shall be called a spade, and a racist shall be called a racist.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have many issues on the table today here in the chamber. One of them concerns the view on permanent residence permits. Many refugees whom I have met describe the moment they received their permanent residence permit as the moment they could breathe a sigh of relief, end their flight, and begin to believe in and build a future here.

The UN refugee agency UNHCR recommends that countries grant permanent residence permits to people who have fled – partly, of course, because it promotes mental health and security for the refugees, and partly because it actually enables the countries they come to to have a better opportunity to integrate them.

I met Alex, who is a doctor from Ukraine. She said it clearly and poignantly: It takes me two years to become a doctor in Sweden, but I only get a one-year residence permit at a time. I haven't quite decided if I think it is worth starting this process given the risk of being deported. It might be better to take a temporary job with something else for now.

I know that the Social Democrats have said no to revoking granted permanent residence permits. But the government wants to remove the possibility of ever obtaining a permanent residence permit. Then some people risk living in Sweden for a very long time with short-term residence permits and great insecurity. What is the Social Democrats' position on that?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Hirvonen for the question.

We will have to see what the product that the government places on the Riksdag's table will look like and where we will land. It is important that people who behave correctly, strive, and want to be a part of our country have the opportunity to feel solidarity and belonging. We have for a long time proposed that one should have social studies and fulfill language requirements in order to be able to obtain permanent residence permits. It is probably an arrangement that would have been very good, given the discussion we now have about citizenship.

We believe that efforts should pay off. However, there are problems with the permanent residence permits in some cases. Individuals who perhaps do not have that entry, and even individuals who guaranteed do not have that entry, have been granted the right to be in Sweden in a way that they perhaps would not have.

From that, our starting point in our committee report is that we shall stay at the EU's minimum level, but we are no worse off than that we are discussing how to find a way forward. In order for us to be able to answer the question from the member regarding that way forward, we need to see the government's bill on the table, and we have not done that yet.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is very important with measures to give people who come to Sweden as refugees the opportunity to learn the Swedish language and enter society in the best possible way.

During our time in government together, we made many important efforts so that people could start learning Swedish from day one. We invested a lot in the municipalities so that they would have better conditions. I am convinced that more can be done there.

At the same time, there is research on this globally. From a new opinion poll from Novus, we also know that the majority of Swedes are convinced that permanent residence permits are better than temporary ones for people to be able to become part of society.

If people are to be in Sweden for very many years on short residence permits, it will affect integration negatively. We know that the government's intention is for people to then become citizens after eight years, plus a very long processing time. As it stands today, it is unfortunately several years.

Not everyone can obtain citizenship under the current regulations. This applies, for example, to those who have had their date of birth changed by Migrationsverket. They will not obtain citizenship under today's regulations.

It also concerns those who have ID documents from Somalia or Afghanistan that are not approved. For them, it takes an extremely long time to obtain citizenship.

It means that for some people, we are not even talking about eight plus two years. We might be talking about a very large part of a person's life in this incredibly insecure existence.

I want to emphasize the importance of it being possible to obtain a permanent residence permit.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! There are many parts of this that one obviously needs to look at. It concerns identification and how long people shall be here. It is now extended from eight to ten years in the new proposal. At the same time, there is the possibility to eventually obtain citizenship even for those groups, even if it takes a very long time.

There is a line between a strict migration policy and a bungled migration policy that is important. That is why we say no to withdrawing the permanent residence permits for, among other things, the groups that Member Hirvonen points out here.

We know that after five years, the possibility of being permanently resident kicks in. To review it every five years is better than if one had not had the possibility of being permanently resident.

At the same time, we must find an opportunity for those who behave correctly but who may end up in the problematic situation that the member mentions. They should also be able to be given an opportunity to be here more permanently.

Exactly how it should proceed, we need to discuss. We do not know if the government has any proposal. The Liberals, for example, have spoken about establishment valves, ladders, and all sorts of things. It is a discussion that could be had in these contexts if we are serious about work and the like being profitable.

I cannot stand here and say exactly where we will land regarding a bill that we have not seen on the table. On the other hand, I see great merits in giving people hope and opportunities to be part of a community. This must be considered in such a product.

The chairman can take a moment, as we say in Skåne. We will give an answer when the matter is to be handled in the chamber.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have implemented a combination of reforms within the migration area during the mandate period which has resulted in both asylum migration and the granting of Swedish citizenship being halved compared to how it was when the red-green parties held government power. Furthermore, several reforms are awaiting treatment in the Riksdag before the end of the mandate period which will cement the strict migration policy that the Sweden Democrats and the government have established.

At the same time, there have been initiatives during this mandate period that have not received much attention. In the state budget, 100 million kronor have been allocated annually to revoke residence permits. This has resulted in the number of revoked residence permits more than doubling from approximately 3,000 in 2022 to 6,500 in 2025.

There have been foreigners in Sweden who have not met the conditions for their residence permits but who have nevertheless retained their residence permits and thus had access to social security benefits. The Government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has ensured that the Swedish Migration Agency receives the resources it needs so that these residence permits can be revoked.

For the Tidösamarbetet, it has been important to deliver a functioning migration to the voters where those who do not have permission to stay in Sweden are deported. It is therefore the Police Authority's work with internal immigration controls that has been intensified, while the police have received expanded powers for internal immigration control.

During the mandate period, the police have been granted expanded powers to, during internal immigration control, be able to body-search a foreign national to search for a passport, seize a passport, and take the foreign national to the police station for questioning.

It will become easier to find the illegal migrants in order to send them home. We will not accept a situation where illegal migrants make Sweden their home. Illegal migrants have no place in Sweden. We are clear in that message. They shall go home.

The Sweden Democrats and the government have taken several measures to make it more difficult to be an illegal migrant in Sweden. The government decided last month on a bill that will finally prevent municipalities from paying out social assistance to illegal migrants. Soon, the Riksdag will adopt this bill, and finally, Sweden will move to a normal state where illegal migrants cannot receive social assistance.

The prescription rules for deportation decisions have also been changed during this parliamentary term. The new prescription rules for deportation decisions mean that the illegal migrant must leave the country before the prescription period for the deportation decision begins to run.

It means that as an illegal migrant, one no longer has any incentive to stay in Sweden. If one has received a deportation decision, one is a permanent illegal migrant in Sweden. One cannot apply for a residence permit again from within the country.

Before this legislative change, many illegal migrants remained in Sweden for four years, and then applied for residence permits again. During those four years, many of them worked within the illegal economy and strengthened organized crime. That ends now. If one has received a deportation decision, one must leave the country.

Even "track switching" (spårbytet) has been phased out during this parliamentary term. Track switching was a provision that enabled asylum seekers who had established themselves on the Swedish labor market to receive a time-limited work permit even if they were denied their asylum application.

What did it actually mean? If you arrived in Sweden as an asylum seeker and were strong enough to work, you could stay even if you did not have grounds for asylum. But if you could not work, perhaps because you were disabled, you could not change tracks. That was how it worked. The right of the strong prevailed.

It undermined the right of asylum. Even if you were denied your asylum application, you could still stay if you were strong enough to work. It also meant that foreigners came here from safe countries of origin and sought asylum, aware that they would be denied because they came from safe countries of origin. Their actual intention was, therefore, to get jobs in Sweden. They thus used the right of asylum to immigrate as labor, and this undermines both the right of asylum and labor immigration.

Since it is the case that a rejection of an asylum application means that the person does not have a need for protection and must therefore leave the country. It does not mean that one can stay and work – a no must mean no. Despite the pressure from certain parties in this assembly and from the media, there have been many reasons to phase out track switching.

There are certain parties in the Riksdag that really want a regulated immigration where the probability of fraud occurring is minimized. Then there are other parties that constantly open up opportunities for foreigners to cheat. You open up for fraud if you tell foreigners: "Even if you are denied your asylum application, you can stay, as long as you find an employer who can give you a salary!" There should not be shortcuts to residence permits. Either you are a refugee, and then you receive asylum in Sweden, or you are not a refugee, and then you go home.

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, we have abolished the EBO Act. We have returned to the order that prevailed before 1994, which means that as an asylum seeker, one does not receive financial support from the state if one procures own housing. As an asylum seeker, one is allocated an asylum residence, and there one may live until one is informed whether one has permission to stay in the country or if one is to be deported.

The further steps that the government and the Sweden Democrats will now take go much further than the order that prevailed before 1994. Among other things, it concerns geographical restrictions for asylum seekers, who shall stay within the county where the assigned asylum housing is located. Future reforms will ensure that the freedom of movement for asylum seekers and illegal migrants in Sweden is severely restricted.

To ensure that it becomes even more difficult for asylum seekers to obtain their own housing, the Sweden Democrats and the government will also limit asylum seekers' access to the Swedish labor market. In practice, the only legal income that asylum seekers will have is the daily allowance, which means that they will be forced to live in asylum accommodation.

Just to inform the Social Democrats, who do not seem to have realized that EBO has been abolished: EBO is abolished. Now we take the next step and restrict asylum seekers' freedom of movement. Not only should they not be able to secure their own housing; they also shall not move outside the county where their asylum housing is located. If they do, it can constitute grounds for detention.

Mr. Speaker! We have had people in this country who have been able to become Swedish citizens despite never having held a job, despite never having spoken a single word of Swedish, and despite looking down on this country's values. Now that is over. If you are to become a Swedish citizen, you shall not only adapt to society, but you shall also contribute to society.

Last month, the government decided on a historic bill to raise the requirements for citizenship. I was 20 years old when the Folkpartiet launched the proposal that one would need to take a language test to obtain Swedish citizenship. At that time, it was called racist by some parties in this assembly. Today, this is common sense, and it is this government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, that is presenting the proposal to finally give Swedish citizenship the dignity it deserves.

We will raise the residency requirement to eight years. Those who come to Sweden will have to wait longer to receive their citizenship. One needs to pass a language and social studies test and must be able to support oneself to become a part of the Swedish community. We are closing the door for foreign recipients of benefits to become a part of Sweden. Furthermore, we are tightening the requirement for an honest way of life so that it becomes almost impossible to become a Swedish citizen if one commits more serious crimes.

The person who becomes Swedish in a formal sense will value their citizenship precisely because the value of the citizenship will increase through this reform.

Mr. Speaker! It is no coincidence that it is precisely the Tidö Government that has implemented all the important migration reforms that I have accounted for. Our four parties have different opinions and different political programs, but because we have put the public interest ahead of political dogmas, we have united behind a political direction where the goal is to tackle certain problems that have long characterized Sweden.

A chaotic migration has led to a shadow society that has benefited organized crime and to an exclusion whose worst aspects are seen in the areas with high concentrations of immigrants. The low thresholds to the Swedish community have led to fragmentation and polarization. The problems that the red-green parties left behind were many, and the Tidö parties have been fully occupied with healing this country.

Sweden is no longer heading in the wrong direction. We have broken with the policy that created the problems. We do not accept a Sweden where those who lack the right to be here stay anyway. We do not accept a system where a no in practice means maybe. A no must mean no. Swedish citizenship shall also not be a formality, but it must be a guarantee that one wants to and can be a part of Sweden.

This is not about toughness, it is about restoring justice, responsibility, and respect for our country. The difference in this chamber is clear: Some parties explain the problems – we fix them. And we will continue until Sweden functions again.

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

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Gholam Ali Pour concluded by saying that the government does not only talk about the problems but also addresses them. But there is a challenge in the fact that they also create them.

For example, you have created deportations of teenagers and deportation of people who work and earn over 30,000 kronor. No one else has created that problem, but you have done it, Nima Gholam Ali Pour. It did not exist, but you created it. Why? That is our big question.

We in the Center Party support large parts of what is being done to tighten migration policy and ensure that there is order and clarity, that a no shall be a no etcetera. We support those parts. But we are skeptical of the parts that are insecure regarding the rule of law, which you cannot even explain and which the Council on Legislation says is extremely substandard legislation.

It is, in fact, no government that has received as much criticism from the Council on Legislation as this one. It is criticized for creating really poor legislation that no one, not even the government itself, can say what it means. That is what we are skeptical about, and one should be. Law is not something you should just push through on a Tuesday morning when you are a bit half-tired. It should be done properly, and one should listen to the experts who actually know what things are about. This government does not do that, and that is where we differ.

I would, however, like to ask about a very specific thing, namely the interpreters. It concerns people who were ready to sacrifice their lives to help Sweden and who today are being threatened. They are in life-threatening danger, but the government refuses to take them to Sweden. As a good nationalist, you should surely think that the one who helps Sweden – who is ready to sacrifice their life for Sweden – should receive a thank you in return? These people should surely receive the help to save themselves and their families and come to Sweden as the defense considers they should?

I apologize for addressing the member with "you", Mr. Speaker!

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the deportations of minors. They originate in legislation that was adopted before this government took office. That is the first thing I want to say.

Then I want to say that these individuals are not being deported because they are teenagers, but because they have not resided legally in Sweden long enough to be granted permanent residence permits. To be granted a permanent residence permit, one must have resided legally in Sweden for three years, and they have not done that.

In today's legislation, there is a residency requirement of five years to obtain citizenship. If they had had an anchoring in this country, for example, stayed here with a residence permit for five years and also had a permanent residence permit, they could also have become citizens. The problem is that they have not been here legally during many of the years they have stayed in Sweden.

This is not something that the Center Party puts forward. A distorted image is being presented that these individuals are being deported because they are teenagers.

When it comes to those who helped the Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan, we have the Aliens Act that we have. We cannot constantly make exceptions for different groups. Previously, one had the Afghan amnesty, where one felt sorry for a certain group and then made exceptions from the Aliens Act. Now it is teenagers who are not to be deported, and then one wants to make exceptions for them. Then there are the noble persons who helped Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan, and so one wants to start making exceptions for them. So we cannot have that.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is incredibly interesting to hear the largest party in the government basis say that we should not make any exceptions. That is exactly what the government is doing right now. They are introducing exception after exception. They are introducing new upper secondary school legislation where the upper secondary school teachers hold the power to decide whether people should be allowed to stay or not. That is what you are doing right now. That is your answer to the teenage deportations: a new upper secondary school legislation.

I hope that Nima Gholam Ali Pour actually reads what the government says, takes it in, and realizes that this is what one is doing right now.

Yes, I think one can make an exception for those whom the defense has requested help from and whom all other countries in Europe actually help. We have helped a part of this group previously, but not everyone has been allowed to come. I think we can do it. What else will happen the next time Sweden is in a war zone and needs help from people locally? What we will say is: Thank you for standing up for Sweden and actually betraying your country! We will leave you there anyway, but please – give us support!

How does the member think this will affect Sweden's ability to secure its troops in future conflicts? I would like to have an answer to that.

Then I have a question that I would very much like to get an answer to. It concerns the upcoming legislation on contempt of court that the government intends to present.

In the current situation, there is a taxi driver in Malmö who cannot obtain a residence permit because he has received four traffic fines. Four traffic fines mean that a taxi driver in Malmö cannot get a permanent residence permit as it is considered that he may not be able to keep his profession in the future. That is the requirement today. We have reached a point where four traffic fines can prevent a residence permit for a person who works here, lives here, has a family here etcetera. He has done everything right. He has been here for ten years.

How many traffic fines should there be in the future?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I will start with the last point. A background check is conducted when one is to be granted a permanent residence permit. It is conducted by the Swedish Migration Agency, not by us here in the chamber, and has not changed since this government took office. It is the same background check that is conducted.

The Speaker says that this government has made exceptions. One of the proposals that are to stop certain deportations of younger people comes from an investigation that has been worked on for a long time. It is not an exception but a proposal that has existed in an investigation since earlier. It is absolutely not an exception that the government has come up with, as the Social Democrats did with the Afghan amnesty where they just produced a really bad proposal.

I also believe there was some question about lack of integrity. It should not be necessary to break the law in order to be denied a residence permit or have one's residence permit revoked. Sometimes it can be enough to be a foreigner in Sweden who does not follow authority decisions or behaves badly in society, so that it becomes clear that this is a person who should not be here.

We should have legislation where one simply revokes the residence permit for a person who, for example, associates with criminal gangs or with extremists. It is strange that the Center Party does not agree.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One wonders if it means that everyone who attended Jimmie Åkesson's wedding would be subject to this integrity check, given that there were gang leaders present there.

What I intended to ask Nima Gholam Ali Pour about was not that, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the situation that the interpreter Rashid and 50 other Afghan citizens, who side by side with Swedish soldiers contributed to the fight against the Taliban regime, now find themselves in.

In Aftonbladet today we can read an interview with Rashid. He says: We are fleeing for our lives. There is no safety here for us.

Since the Taliban's takeover in 2021, Sweden has, within a time window until the turn of the year, managed to get out all but 50 of those who assisted our forces on site. But just like Rashid, those who remain are on the run with their families. Many move from place to place. Rashid describes that he clearly feels how the Taliban's net is closing tighter. They simply get better and better control over the citizens in Afghanistan and, of course, view those who helped Sweden and other Western powers as traitors. This summer, a security chief was killed by the Taliban. He was shot in the street.

In December, Nima Gholam Ali Pour stated that it is the Sweden Democrats who are blocking a solution that could mean that these 50 people and their closest families could come to safety in Sweden. Why do the Sweden Democrats continue to block this?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that this shows what a terrible ideology Islamism is, when the Taliban in this way persecute women and all kinds of people in Afghanistan. It also happens in many other countries, even in Iran, where Islamism oppresses the people. This must truly be noted. I think that the Green Party does not note it as often as one should.

To answer the question itself: If one is persecuted and has evidence of it, one should seek asylum, preferably in the first safe country. That is how it usually works. The conventions concerning refugee status state that one should seek asylum in the first safe country.

I do not think that Sweden should have any exception where one starts pointing out certain refugee groups who are persecuted and then say that those refugee groups should be prioritized in some way to come to Sweden.

Regarding these Afghans, they have signed an agreement with the Armed Forces. In that agreement, it was not included that one would later be granted asylum or a residence permit in Sweden. From the agreement, it has emerged what is included for the Afghans who have helped Swedish soldiers. That is what we base it on. It is the legislation we base it on. It is not possible to start prioritizing, because different parties want to prioritize different groups, for example teenagers – and think of the Afghan amnesty, which Miljöpartiet was the main architect behind.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This is a question about people who took employment and put their lives at risk to stand side by side with Swedish women and men under the Swedish flag to contribute to the fight against the Taliban regime. If we agree that the Taliban regime is one of the most horrific regimes in the world, I do not understand the Sweden Democrats' conclusion that those people who risked their lives with the soldiers who were in Afghanistan on the Parliament's mission – Sweden's mission – should not be included in the basic principle that usually applies. That is that everyone should be included when the worst happens. No one is left behind.

Anders Brännström, who is the former Army Chief, raises another perspective – namely the security of the soldiers that Sweden sends out in the future. He says that we must be able to employ the best interpreters and collaborators. It is a matter of ensuring that Swedish soldiers – Swedish women and men – who go out to execute political decisions are given the best conditions. How are soldiers that we send out in the future to be able to look these necessary local interpreters and others who are needed to perform their missions in the eyes and say "You can trust us. We will not leave you to die"?

As long as this question is not resolved, we also cannot close this chapter. It was a terrible failure that the Taliban returned to power. No one wanted it; no one hoped for it. But we must take our moral responsibility. It is a moral failure that we do not do more.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The basis for the conclusion we have drawn, which means that one should not grant this group residence permits automatically, is that politicians cannot point out which groups, which nationalities, should be granted refugee status. If one is to make such a decision, it is made in advance, perhaps through an agreement that the Armed Forces has with that group or through legislation.

One cannot prioritize different groups in hindsight. That is what Miljöpartiet has done previously. They have singled out young Afghans and said that that group should receive some form of residence permit. They have singled out teenagers and said that deportations of all teenagers should be stopped. But legislation does not work in that way. People must be treated in an equal manner. If they have grounds for asylum, they obviously get asylum, preferably in the first safe country. They do not need to make it all the way to Sweden. They need to make it to a country where they receive the security they need.

We have not had such legislation that one automatically receives a residence permit just because one helps Swedish soldiers. We do not know what such legislation could lead to. Such legislation must be investigated. Would it mean that we give all who help Swedish soldiers a residence permit in the future if they were to end up in a situation where a regime persecutes them? It must be investigated what such legislation could mean and how many migrants we would receive because of it.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Several proposals are now coming in from the government. I can state that the Sverigedemokraterna's own members have not lived up to the requirements for honest conduct. Still, one wants to legislate around it, retroactively. Just yesterday, a politician from Sverigedemokraterna was indicted for several rapes and sexual assaults. A few months ago, the member's colleague, a member of Parliament, was caught with drugs in their blood. Or shall we look at Jimmie Åkesson's wedding, who were invited there and what gang criminal connections exist?

There is a clear pattern of lack of integrity within the Sweden Democrats. Does the member think it is appropriate to introduce laws on crime and punishment retroactively and to set requirements that one does not live up to oneself?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Legislation on lack of integrity will cover certain foreigners. Swedish citizens have an unconditional right to reside in Sweden, and the member knows that. The idea behind such legislation is that those who are foreigners and guests in Sweden shall behave themselves. It does not only mean that one should not break the law, but it also means that one should not end up in various extremist groups or start associating with criminal gangs.

This is about foreigners. When the member tries to distort things, compare Swedish citizens and foreigners and say that they should follow the same legislation and that one should deport Swedish citizens due to lack of integrity, it feels strange that the member is the Left Party's migration policy spokesperson. The member seems to have no idea that citizenship means that one has an unconditional right to stay in Sweden, while foreigners can be deported due to lack of integrity. Sweden has the authority to introduce such legislation.

Does the Left Party want foreigners in Sweden who are members of criminal gangs? Does the Left Party want foreigners in Sweden who cooperate with Isis, but who have not committed crimes? The members must answer those questions.

We do not want extremists in Sweden. I assume that the government does not want extremists in Sweden. That is why we aim to introduce such legislation. I believe that we have a mandate to introduce such legislation. The Swedish people do not want Islamist or other extremists in Sweden. We want to deport them.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member has misunderstood my question. I asked what he considers appropriate, and I brought up examples from yesterday and the last few months. Only in the recent period have Sverigedemokratiska politicians gone there for rape, for sexual assault, and for having drugs in their blood.

No, I do not want extremists in Sweden, but I just pointed out which party stands out here. That is why I am asking about the suitability.

The chairman says: If you come to Sweden, you must not commit crimes. I do not think anyone should commit crimes. That is the difference here, namely that the Sverigedemokraterna want to develop special legislation.

If one looks at the pattern of criminal acts and who is committing them, the question is very justified: Is it appropriate for the Sverigedemokraterna to produce such legislation retroactively? Just yesterday, a politician from Sverigedemokraterna was indicted for several rapes and sexual assaults. A few months ago, the member's colleague here, a member of the Riksdag, was caught with drugs in his blood. We can also talk about Jimmie Åkesson's wedding, who were invited there and what gang criminal connections exist. Then I think one wants to know how appropriate it is for Sverigedemokraterna to produce legislative proposals on lack of integrity and introduce this retroactively. There should be different legislations for different people.

This is ultimately a question of suitability, so I must ask the question again since I did not receive an answer: Does the member think it is appropriate that you put forward such a bill when you yourselves have not lived up to the requirements regarding integrity?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand the question, but it stems from pure ignorance. I think the member should be aware that Swedish citizens have more rights and freedoms than non-citizens. That is the point of becoming a citizen in Sweden: one gets more rights, and one gets access to certain employments that non-citizens do not have access to. It is a self-evident fact in all the world's countries that foreigners, i.e., non-citizens, do not have an unconditional right to stay in the country. In many countries, there are much higher requirements for foreigners to stay in the country than we have in Sweden.

Then the member says that he does not want to see extremists in Sweden. But the Left Party is against legislation on deporting foreigners due to lack of conduct. That is what the legislation is about. You have not committed a crime as a foreigner, but you have started associating with extremists. You have started supporting Hamas or Isis. Then you are deported. But what the member's party says is that one should not be deported because of this. Then the Left Party wants to see more Islamist extremists in Sweden; that cannot be denied.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! After nearly one parliamentary term with this government, we have seen the results of the Tidö parties' migration policy. It has only resulted in deep deteriorations and gross restrictions for asylum seekers. It is above all children on the run who pay the highest price. The migration policy has been characterized by legal uncertainty and constant deteriorations from the child's perspective, worsened equality, and worsened integration.

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

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

This is clearly seen in the deportation of minors that is ongoing. All parliamentary parties, even the Sweden Democrats, claim that they want to stop the deportation of minors. Despite that, young people who have established themselves in Sweden still risk being deported, and deportation decisions are still being made.

After massive criticism from the public and from the parties' own members, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna called a press conference. Before the entire Swedish people, they claimed that the deportations of teenagers would be paused until they had managed to investigate the law. But the government's pause only applies to those youths who have not yet received a decision. Everyone who has already received their judgment must still be deported, and the migration court says that they are not covered by the pause. Political theater from the government does not help all the young people who have received unreasonable, inhumane decisions regarding deportation.

The sisters Donya and Darya were studying to become nurses when they received a deportation decision as an 18th birthday present, even though the entire family was allowed to stay. Now they are stuck in war-torn Iran and have had their application to return to Sweden rejected. They must be allowed to come home again. Sweden's government must take its responsibility when it comes to identifying young people in the same situation and ensuring that they are allowed to return home to their families.

Then none of these young people with families here should be forced to leave the country when they apply for residence permits again; instead, they must be allowed to apply for them from within Sweden. As was said, it is about real people who are deeply rooted in Sweden, who study or work and have their entire lives here. It is about our children's friends, our neighbors' children, our young friends and our colleagues, who risk being deported to countries where they do not have a family and, in many cases, have not even been.

Mr. Speaker! The deportations of teenagers have occurred due to political decisions. The Tidö parties have been in such a hurry to make it harder for people to stay in Sweden that they have not cared about the consequences. The reforms have been categorical, hasty, and inhumane. It is this that has led us to where we stand today. That the Tidö parties now understand their mistake is obvious – everyone has seen it. But it is less obvious that one is willing to do what is required to put a stop to these unreasonable deportations of young people.

The government wants order and clarity in the migration policy but has instead created a great mess. It was said that it is over with patching and repairing, but it is being patched and repaired.

While the Tidö parties drag out the issue in an attempt to escape the storm of criticism, the deportations continue. Families that are being split apart cannot wait for the government to return with a safety valve. Youth who stand on the brink of having their futures shattered cannot place their hopes on the government's safety valve covering them specifically. On the contrary, the government leans on an investigation that risks leading to more teenage deportations, not fewer. Therefore, the teenage deportations must be stopped immediately. For the young people and their families, the situation is acute.

Mr. Speaker! This government's policy also comes with a high price: It is not only asylum seekers who are affected by the policy. I believe many who are listening to this debate can agree with me that Sweden is more fragile than it has been for a long time. People are left at the mercy of the elements. They are left to handle the economic crisis themselves. The welfare system is breaking down, not because it has to be so, but because the government has decided that it shall be so. The record-high mass unemployment is left completely without measures, and the government has succeeded in paralyzing and crashing the housing market.

That is also why this government repeatedly and consistently needs the scapegoat policy. It is only to be noted that the government and the Sweden Democrats, point by point, totally fail to handle serious societal problems and cannot blame anything other than immigration. We see time and again who pays the price for this.

It is not immigration that has made Sweden more fragile. It is this government's priorities and ill-considered signal politics that damage social cohesion, worsen and deepen the social and economic gaps between people, and mean that we also cannot refurbish Sweden.

With this government, we have received a record-high unemployment. Growth is low, poverty has doubled, and a record number of children are being evicted from their homes. At the same time, we have a group of billionaires and a concentration of wealth that is clearer than ever. Ordinary wage earners pay a significantly larger share of their income in tax than the richest percent. Imagine if the government set equally high requirements for the billionaires as for asylum seekers or the unemployed – that the billionaires should contribute a little more when families with children are poor or healthcare has reached its breaking point, and that we start investing and redistributing a little more in Sweden. Then perhaps the members here would have come up with "don't touch my friend".

Mr. Speaker! We cannot continue like this. We need to break this development and build a better and safer Sweden.

A government that destroys people's lives, splits families and tears society apart in the way that is currently happening cannot remain in power. It needs to be voted out after the summer. For the key to success for Sweden, it has never, ever 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.

It is possible to build a roomier and stronger Sweden by investing in society and the people in it. That is the most effective and important thing we can do, and it is this that determines how well we succeed.

I move for approval of reservation 9.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am still fascinated when I listen to the left-wing parties, especially Vänsterpartiet, and hear how they present all these proposals that go in a totally opposite direction to what the government and the Socialdemokrater say they stand behind.

The Left Party therefore does not seem to see any problems at all with high asylum immigration to Sweden. They see no problems with this linked to segregation, vulnerability, exclusion, crime, and all other concerns that Sweden has been plagued by for a very long time since we have had a very high asylum immigration. None of this is addressed by the Left Party when formulating its migration policy. I think it is remarkable and something that really needs to be announced to the voters.

Vänsterpartiet proposes in this motion report that we should introduce amnesties for those who have lived in Sweden illegally for a sufficiently long time. It concerns persons who have had their case examined by independent authorities and courts and received the ruling that they have no grounds to be in Sweden and therefore need to leave the country, but who have nevertheless remained and hidden themselves. If one hides for a sufficiently long time in Vänsterpartiets Sweden, one shall therefore be granted a residence permit.

These are the proposals that Vänsterpartiet presents here. They want to return to the 2015 legislation, which led to over 160,000 people choosing to seek asylum in Sweden specifically. They want to raise the benefits, they want to raise the compensations, and they want to increase the pull factors to Sweden. They move for rejection and vote no to all the proposals that the Moderate-led government presents.

It is a dangerous left-wing experiment that awaits Sweden if Vänsterpartiet gains influence over migration policy. I have a question for Tony Haddou: Which reforms will Vänsterpartiet demand be rolled back in order for one to let through a social democratic government after the election this autumn?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have received that question throughout this entire parliamentary term, and every time I have said the same thing: We are going to the election on the Left Party's policy. The answer simply cannot be any more interesting than that.

There was no reason for me to be called an asylum activist by the member when he brought up all the proposals, but I still want to address some points, especially this one about segregation. If one wants segregation and exclusion, this government has a very strong policy to achieve exactly this both socially and economically. You are increasing the economic gaps and have doubled poverty during the mandate period.

In all honesty, hardly any housing is being built at all, instead you have spent the parliamentary term criticizing the Social Democrats' proposals regarding that. You have never spoken about your own policy. You have completely crashed the housing market. We have an enormous housing shortage in Sweden.

That is exactly why the Moderaterna need to point out immigration: Look, there is the problem! I think it is unserious and very serious, because at the end of the day, it is all the people out there who pay the price for this, just as I said in my speech.

This government is not interested in building housing for ordinary people or in creating jobs. We have 100,000 more unemployed under this government.

One points at Vänsterpartiet and says that one is afraid of our migration policy, which is more about safety for people who come here instead of them being insecure, afraid, and so on. We do not want such a society.

Then I think that one should be allowed to conclude their flight in Sweden. One cannot live temporarily for 10 or 20 years and constantly have to apply for a renewed residence permit. I think we should keep the system with permanent residence permits, and one should be allowed to get it earlier. That can be the main rule. It strengthens integration.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates, therefore, want to reduce segregation. We want to reduce exclusion. We want to reduce the shadow society. Therefore, we must have a minimal asylum migration for the foreseeable future, when for many years we have had such a large immigration to Sweden, partly based on the Left Party's idea of the migration policy we should have. That is why I am raising this.

There is, like, no ceiling for Vänsterpartiet regarding immigration. There is no direction that says there is anywhere a limit to what Sweden can manage when it comes to integrating all those who seek out Sweden specifically.

It was thus the case that Sweden, for a long period, before we changed and introduced this paradigm shift from the Moderate-led government's side, stood out in Europe as a country that people specifically sought out. This meant that the pressure on Sweden was particularly high. This has led to all the problems that we have seen. It is this that we are now reforming in order to rectify.

Vänsterpartiet demands to be included in a left-wing government after the election this autumn, if the worst should happen, and Vänsterpartiet thus has all these proposals. We just heard clearly and distinctly from Tony Haddou that he thinks that if one has come to the country and hidden here long enough – despite not having grounds for protection and despite authorities and courts having said that one should return home to one's home country and that one has nothing to do here – one should be granted a residence permit in Vänsterpartiet's Sweden.

All the proposals that the Moderate-led government has put forward, the reforms we have made and the paradigm shift we have now initiated, the Left Party has consistently voted no to. Therefore, the question is relevant, and it is relevant for all left-wing parties – all opposition parties in Sweden's Riksdag: Will it be demanded that all of this be rolled back in order to let a new government through?

The Social Democrats claim that they pursue a strict migration policy and that they stand up for this and so on, but one has friends who think something completely different. Therefore, the question remains for Vänsterpartiet: Will you demand that everything be rolled back in order to let Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister after the election this autumn?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I can say that that question receives exactly the same answer as before. It does not change. It has not changed in any debate here.

The government speaks about wanting to reduce segregation and exclusion by reducing immigration. So, it will then become better. But we have, during this mandate period, reduced immigration to Sweden. Please tell me what has become better!

What is it that has improved? You have crashed the housing construction for ordinary people in Sweden. There are 100,000 more unemployed, and the benefits have been lowered. A record number of children are being evicted in Sweden. People have been left to the mercy of the elements. Sweden is more fragile than ever before.

The only ones this government has cared about are the billionaires, no one else. That is exactly how it has been. It is not the families with children or any other groups. People are going unemployed. Poverty has doubled under this government.

Here, people talk about wanting to reduce exclusion. That is actually not true. Instead, a very strong policy is being pursued to actually increase exclusion in Sweden. It has led to social and economic divides. It is in the Moderaternas entire policy to increase economic divides. It does not get better by you reducing immigration or setting higher requirements.

We have tried to reduce immigration. It has resulted in more unemployed people in Sweden. What does the government do then? Well, they lower their benefits. The government probably needs to change tactics or something. Whether we have more or fewer immigrants, we have received increased economic and social gaps with this government. The government does not care about ordinary people. The government cares about the billionaires.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet proposes that 2,700 illegal migrants should be granted amnesty in Sweden. Vänsterpartiet has calculated that this would cost 130 million kronor every year. But this is only a first step. Vänsterpartiet also wants that foreigners who have lived in Sweden for a longer period should be granted residence permits regardless of whether they have had permission to be here or not.

With all respect for that position, I must nevertheless ask the member from Vänsterpartiet if the member does not see the problems with such a proposal.

It is obvious that an order where everyone who comes to Sweden from another country eventually receives a residence permit will lead to mass immigration. Sweden is a welfare state. Sweden is a wealthy country with many opportunities. Many people want to come to Sweden, but there are more than 8 billion people in the world. Not everyone can come to Sweden. More than 42 million people are fleeing and have left their home countries. It is enough that 1 percent of them seek out Sweden for the systems to be subjected to very large pressures.

Against that background, it appears irresponsible to introduce an order where persons can in practice obtain residence permits after a certain period regardless of whether they previously had the right to stay here or not. It is obvious to anyone that it leads to a chaotic situation.

Then I must ask the member: Why does the Left Party want to pursue a migration policy that obviously leads to an unsustainable situation where those who live here, but also those who come here, will suffer?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member says that the Left Party's policy would lead to an unsustainable situation, but I think the member is simply giving a picture that does not match reality.

Over the last ten years, we have brought 400,000 foreign-born people into the Swedish labor market. We have shortened the time it takes for newcomers to enter the Swedish labor market from seven to three years. Then there are the 35,000 unaccompanied refugee children who have arrived in the last ten years. Eight out of ten have jobs – that is more than twice as many compared to Swedish-born youths of the same age. Most often, they work in welfare and care.

This is what the member calls an unsustainable situation. I think that these people deserve respect. I actually think that all people in Sweden deserve respect from politicians.

What I consistently hear from the Sweden Democrats in these debates is that they don't give a damn about these people. It only has to do with one thing: where people come from.

We heard earlier in the debate that the Moderaterna said that if you do things correctly and properly and make a little effort, you should be allowed to stay and so on. But then you stay in this hatred, which we hear from the Sverigedemokraterna in every debate. It is about how much they loathe people who have come to Sweden, and they paint them as this and that.

But that is not how reality looks. Now I gave some examples of how well it is going for people who come to Sweden. It has gone well for Nima, for example. It is going well for people who come to Sweden, and I think that they should be treated equally and have rights.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not care where people come from. What is important is whether they have permission to be in Sweden or if they are illegal migrants, who should be deported from this country. I believe that quite a few agree with me.

So here we have a party that wants to grant residence permits for illegal migrants who do not have the right to stay here. One starts with an amnesty for 2,700 people – that is how the Left Party describes it themselves. At the same time, one pursues the line that the person who has been in Sweden for long enough should, in practice, be allowed to stay regardless of whether the person had the right to be here or not.

This is a migration policy that leads us back to the migration crisis of 2015 and further to even darker places, where Sweden will once again become the world's social welfare office. It is the Left Party's goal, and it is a goal that harms Sweden.

The signal from Vänsterpartiet is crystal clear: Come to Sweden and stay long enough! Then it will work out. You may stay even if your stay was illegal from the beginning.

Mr. Speaker! It is not serious. Either one understands the consequences of this, and then it is irresponsible, or one does not understand them, and then it is even more concerning.

If one has a migration policy where even illegal migrants are granted residence permits after a longer stay in Sweden, it is no longer a regulated immigration. It is then a form of free immigration, and it worries me that there are several parties within the red-green alternative that advocate for free immigration to Sweden.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe that any human being is illegal. If, for example, a woman in Sweden, who is from Afghanistan or Iran, has been denied, I believe that she should be allowed to stay. We cannot have a system where we send people to their deaths.

I understand that the Sweden Democrats want to do everything to send people away. They are happy to talk about how bad regimes are. They are regimes that people flee from. But they want to send them back as soon as possible.

I do not share that view or those opinions. I do not see people primarily as illegal, as the Sweden Democrats do.

There is a serious investigation into the entire issue that is being raised. It concerns what happens to people who are in Sweden and who cannot be deported, for example. There is a serious knowledge base when it comes to these issues. Political proposals have been submitted. I am thinking of people who are in Sweden year after year and who cannot be deported to these countries. They have established themselves here. They work or study and have their entire connection here. They have family and children in Sweden. In that case, I think that one should follow this investigation's proposal – that they should then be given the opportunity to obtain a residence permit.

It is not more difficult than that. But this is not what the Sweden Democrats want. In their entire case, their entire policy, and their entire DNA, they have that people from other countries should leave from here and that people are illegal. I do not share that view of humanity. I do not share those opinions, and I do not share that which the member here expresses.

I think we should create safety and dignity in Sweden. People should not be afraid. It is about the policy that the Sverigedemokraterna are putting forward. I think it is appalling.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin this debate by moving for approval of the committee's majority proposal, which entails the rejection of all the motion requests contained in the report on migration.

As stated earlier in this debate, we are now in a position where we can begin to summarize this mandate period. When it comes to migration policy, it is clear that Sweden has undergone a change of course, a change of course that was necessary and which was also demanded by the Swedish people in the 2022 election. Through their support for the parties that now make up the government, they showed which path was to be chosen.

For the Christian Democrats, migration policy has never been a matter of quick fixes or temporary solutions. It must be about long-term perspective, responsibility and legal certainty, and about a policy that holds over time and that safeguards both human dignity and the sense of community.

When we look back at the policies of previous parliamentary terms, we can state that this unfortunately has not been a fact for our country. For a number of years, perhaps primarily during the mid-2010s, Sweden received more asylum seekers than it was possible to integrate, for example regarding language and work.

Eight years with an S government, with the fickle and in many cases restrictive support parties Vänstern, Miljöpartiet, and Centern, unfortunately did not mean the necessary austerity that Sweden needed. It is this that the current government has been forced to handle and act from.

The result of the previous parliamentary term was a policy that was neither sufficiently consistent nor sufficiently responsible. Today we live with the consequences: an exclusion that has grown, a shadow society that has taken hold, and an integration debt that it will take time to work off.

It is against that background that the Christian Democrats see the need for a continued strict and responsible migration policy. The starting point is that refugees and alternatively those in need of protection shall seek protection in the first safe country. The right of asylum must be protected, but in order to defend openness and to ensure free movement within the EU, we must have strengthened control of the EU's external border and, if necessary, also be able to establish internal border controls. The agreement on migration within the EU is a step on the way to creating a better situation.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as we discuss migration policy, a war is still ongoing in Europe. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has created the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II. Millions of people have been forced to leave their homes. Through the activation of the mass flight directive, these people have been able to receive rapid and temporary protection in the EU, including here in Sweden.

The government has taken important steps to improve the conditions for those who have come here: opportunities for work, studies, healthcare, and financial support. It is also positive that the government is now working on solutions for the period after the mass flight directive expires. The possibility to switch to labor migration or studies is important, as is considering reasonable solutions for those who have established themselves in Sweden and who otherwise risk falling between regulatory frameworks.

Ukraine's war is ours, now and in the future.

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned earlier, 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. Since the change of government in 2022, a number of reforms have been implemented, and the results are now becoming clear. The number of asylum seekers has decreased significantly. Processing times have been shortened. More people who have received a rejection are returning. The message is now even clearer: A no is a no.

Measures to combat the shadow society are being implemented step by step. We also see that persons with residence permits who commit crimes or do not live honestly are at a greater risk of being deported. This is a necessary realignment, both for Sweden and for those of us who live here. It is how Sweden gets back on the right track. But naturally, more remains to be implemented and followed up.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, we must have the ability to adjust and improve. The issue of the so-called teenage deportations is an example where changes are needed. By reviewing the rules for family immigration, we can create a more reasonable and legally secure order.

We are also reviewing the possibility of applying for work permits from Sweden in certain cases, and we ensure through changes that recruitment can take place for shortage occupations so that municipalities, regions and companies can continue to obtain the competence that is needed.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats have long campaigned for increased legal certainty for converts, and the government has acted, among other things, through assignments to the National Audit Office regarding the investigation of the situation and clear requirements in the Swedish Migration Agency's regulatory letter. It can be stated that the situation and legal certainty for converts were something that the S-government chose to ignore during its last two terms.

Here in KD, we want to do more and therefore monitor the issue continuously to see what additional measures are needed to ensure legal certainty for converts. As my party leader recently expressed in an interview, we would like to see a convert coordinator within the Swedish Migration Agency similar to the one that exists today for hbtqi cases.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, to the recurring question: What is the opposition's common direction?

I can state that this debate does not differ from how it usually looks during this mandate period. The government is implementing a necessary course correction for migration policy to achieve a sustainable level for Sweden, and in the majority of cases, the changes regarding migration have explicit support from the Socialdemokraterna in this chamber. One could even imagine that there is a sense of gratitude that the policy is being taken in the stricter direction which, for natural political reasons, was not possible during the previous mandate period, and if one is to interpret the parties' current positions, it will probably not be possible either in a future red-green chaos government.

It is telling that the Social Democrats do not want to point out what a future government base should look like, while the other parties compete to set red lines both for support and for which parties should be included in the government. In the area of migration, it is extra clear why they do not want to join forces: There is no common line, and one can only guess that the demands for a return to the migration policy of former times will echo both across the squares in the election campaign and in the negotiation rooms from the three bickering presumed supporting parties V, C and MP. These parties want, in different ways, a return to a migration policy that involves lower requirements and greater migration, while the Social Democrats in many decisions and also in their own argumentation follow the government's stricter direction.

One continues to wonder – without receiving any sensible answer from the left flank – what the direction will be and what red lines will become reality if, against all odds and to my own horror, there were a change of government in 2026. That it will be the strict line that the Social Democrats are now advocating, partly following their own critical internal analysis, is unfortunately probably a utopian and unrealistic pipe dream. Reality will unfortunately more 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, which will affect our society again.

Fortunately, there is a better alternative. The Tidö parties have shown that cooperation works. We have taken responsibility in a difficult situation, and we are delivering results. We, the Tidö parties, have promised to deliver, and it is happening now. Many changes have already been decided, and an additional number of propositions will come during 2026.

The Christian Democrats saw early on that the migration policy needed to change direction, and we now want, together with the other Tidö parties, to create the order and clarity in the migration policy that is required to manage the integration of those who are already in our country.

We Christian Democrats stand for a migration policy that is strict, responsible, legally secure, and humane. We safeguard the right of asylum, but we also safeguard the sense of community. We set requirements, but we also provide opportunities.

Those who come to Sweden and behave correctly, learn the language, work, and become a part of our society should also be able to stay and become citizens. At the same time, those who are denied [entry/residency] shall leave the country.

That is how we create justice. That is how we build trust. That is how we lay the foundation for a strong Sweden.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and against all motion proposals.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, I and Tony Haddou from the Left Party presented a proposal for a committee initiative to truly stop the deportations of teenagers – all of them, not just some.

It was very welcome that the Christian Democrats and other government parties turned in the issue of teenage deportations and established that this is wrong. It is wrong to send out youths who turn 18 from Sweden, from their families. We are talking about youths who are children of parents with permanent residence permits but actually also children of Swedish citizens.

For the Green Party, it is terribly distressing to see that precisely those young people who shared their difficult life stories and made all of Sweden react and say "No thanks, not in my name" are not covered by the stop. For all those who have already received a decision from the Migration Agency, nothing has changed. Since the press conference where the Prime Minister said that people would be allowed to stay and be given the opportunity to apply for a residence permit again, more planes have left Sweden with teenagers who have had to interrupt their upper secondary studies and leave their jobs, friends, and families.

Our committee's initiative is about changing the law so that they too can apply for a new permit from Sweden and that those who have been forced out shall be given the opportunity to return. Do the Christian Democrats support that?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the committee initiatives have been pouring in recently – this despite the fact that the government had the "teenager deportations," as they are called, on the agenda already in the investigation phase.

Already in the SOU on stricter requirements for family immigration that came in 2025, there were proposals regarding how to handle the situation that has actually not arisen just now. It began to arise as early as 2015–2016, with additional decisions during the previous government's time and a supplementary decision here in the chamber during this government's time – which was passed with a large majority, let us emphasize.

The investigation was conducted in line with creating a situation where young people undergoing an education shall have an opportunity to continue to belong to their family if one has a clear dependency relationship to it.

Just as has been said in previous exchanges, we have work in progress. A proposal will come during the spring or early summer. I do not sit in the Government Offices, so I cannot give any timetable for an exact date. But the proposal will mean that the situation can be managed.

The Director General of the Migration Agency has said: If we get a clear direction, we will put the decisions that could potentially be changed by the law, which appears to have broad support, on hold.

My answer is that the Christian Democrats support the change, and we will, of course, ensure that it happens.

The committee initiative is about also fetching people who have previously had their decisions enforced. Does Annika Hirvonen really think we should fetch persons in other countries? And which decisions should it apply to? How far back in time should one go? Should it also apply to the Green Party's period in government?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Migration Minister Johan Forssell has been clear here in the chamber of the Riksdag and said that he does not plan to do anything for those youths who have already received their deportation decisions. The law will only apply to stop future teenage deportations.

All the young people we have read about now – whose stories were the starting point for the enormous mobilization that finally forced the Christian Democrats and other parties to change their minds regarding the deportations of teenagers – risk being deported. Just as for the two sisters, Darya and Donya, whom we have been able to read about, there is a risk that they will not even be granted permission to return to Sweden.

As it is today, those who have many strong reasons to want to come here have a worse chance of having an application for a study residence permit or a residence permit for work approved. The Migration Agency and the courts have said no to Darya and Donya. They are not allowed to return to the nursing education that they started in Sweden just because this is not the primary reason. It is suspected that they also want to come home to mom and dad, to their siblings, to friends, and to their lives in Mölndal.

This is a terrible mistake. Surely even the Christian Democrats must realize this? The young people who have been affected by these unjust and inhumane teenage deportations must be given the opportunity to return to Sweden.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that Member Hirvonen chose to ignore the questions I asked regarding the committee initiative while simultaneously demanding an answer on how we as Christian Democrats would take a stand on it.

I think it is to give a false impression to say that the Christian Democrats woke up because of the protests. We can state that the investigation had its proposal already in 2025. During the seven years that the Green Party sat in the government, no proposals were also submitted regarding family ties when one turns 18, and deportations took place de facto even during that time.

It is easy to catch a headline in a newspaper and turn it into politics. At the same time, law and order is about us having clear systems for what opportunities one should have to stay. A yes should be a yes, and a no should be a no.

Just as has been said in previous exchanges, we shall not discuss individual cases. But we can state in general terms that we both know that Migrationsverket prioritizes those youths and children who are approaching the age of 18 to receive this treatment.

At the same time, we know that many come to Sweden late in their upbringing. As has been said before, there are also parents who choose to ignore that a no is a no and continue to remain in Sweden together with their children.

This government acts. This government appoints inquiries, and this government ensures that adjustments are made when legislation is written in a way that affects individuals. This will happen during this spring and summer. I commit to that. We see those who have been affected, and we commit to making a change.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Member Kihlström from Kristdemokraterna spoke a lot about responsibility. That is fine. I would therefore like to ask a bit about what responsibility Kristdemokraterna takes now. Do you take responsibility for the fact that you deported the Christian Jomana because you removed the wording about particularly compassionate circumstances? You removed it, and therefore she is deported and will come to a country where she will not be particularly safe. Do Kristdemokraterna take responsibility for the fact that the doctor in Västra Götaland from Skaraborg, Mohamed, will be deported because you have now asked Migrationsverket to be much tougher?

Mohamed, who has therefore completed the entire education and become a doctor, is being expelled because he has changed professions. He has gone from being on his way to becoming a doctor to being a doctor, and therefore he is being deported. He is not allowed to stay. He cannot apply for a residence permit from Sweden; instead, he is to be deported. Mohamed is, therefore, a doctor. How will Västra Götaland, which Kihlström comes from, become better by losing a doctor? How does the member intend to take responsibility for the fact that it is the Christian Democrats' policy that leads to this? How do the Christian Democrats intend to take responsibility for this policy?

It is a policy that the Salvation Army described so in yesterday's Expressen regarding the deportations: We see many who have converted, and we share life and the Christian faith in everyday life and celebration. But their faith is questioned, and the immense pain this creates wounds not only them but all of us in the congregation.

This government has done nothing for the converts. The Christian Democrats have talked, but what they have delivered and continue to deliver is the deportation of converts – nothing else. Do the Christian Democrats intend to take some responsibility, or are they just empty words in the rostrum?

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that Niels Paarup-Petersen is more occupied with X than listening to my speech.

Yes, the Christian Democrats take responsibility. We take significantly more responsibility than the Center Party did during the last parliamentary term, when they were an active supporter of an S-government that completely ignored the converts' situation. Under the S-government with the support of the Center Party, no measures were taken at all. It would be pleasant if Niels Paarup-Petersen took some responsibility for what did not happen during the last parliamentary term.

During this mandate period, we included in the Tidö Agreement that the legal certainty situation for converters should be evaluated, among other things. A mandate was given to the National Audit Office, which conducted an investigation that showed deficiencies. In the regulatory letters, there were clear directives that the Swedish Migration Agency should increase legal certainty for converters, something that was completely lacking during the Social Democrats' mandate period.

It has become better, but it is not good enough. As I said, we would like to see that there was also a conversion coordinator within the Swedish Migration Agency, just as there is for LGBTQI matters.

We take responsibility. We ensure that something happens. The question should instead be directed back to Niels Paarup-Petersen, given the high level of support he has in the debate: Why did C not ensure that something happened during the previous four years regarding converters, if one now sees that the problems were so large?

It is naturally so, as I have said before, that we cannot comment on individual cases. But I can state that the situation, even if it is not good enough, has become significantly better for converts under this government.

We see to it that we take responsibility, and we see to it that something happens. I believe, unfortunately, that Niels Paarup-Petersen will have difficulty getting that to happen with his intended partners.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is not the first time I have heard someone from Tidö say that it would be difficult to do more for migrants with a possible different cooperation. It was something else than what we heard just before.

Centerpartiet also raises the converts. I also do not think enough has been done, so there we agree.

In the speaker's chair, there was also talk about these exceptions for labor immigration. When will they arrive? There are less than two months left, and there are companies out there that are going to hire. They know nothing about what is happening. Everyone who has had a company knows that a company's horizon is not two months but several years. The companies do not know what will happen. We know that perhaps there will be an exception for healthcare, but otherwise we know nothing. When will these exceptions arrive so that Sweden's companies can start planning? Should they lay off their staff or not? Should they hire new staff or not? It is quite substantial.

Kihlström said very correctly that a yes must be a yes. Why then does the government potentially want to remove all permanent residence permits? It is probably because a yes is to become a no. That is what it is about. People have received a yes, and then the government comes and says: No, you are not to have it anyway! People have been told: Yes, you can come here and work for this salary. A bit later, they come and say: No, you cannot! A few years later, they come again and say: No, now you are to have even more!

The conditions are changed time and again for people who are just here and contributing and who do everything right. It is not a policy where a yes is a yes. It creates uncertainty and insecurity and makes the everyday lives of those who are here and contributing to Sweden more uncertain. It does not help Sweden.

I would appreciate receiving answers to these questions.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I shall try to answer the member as well as I can.

I cannot say exactly when the exceptions for labor migration will be presented because I, as the previous speaker said, do not sit in the Government Offices. But we have a change regarding a wage floor of 90 percent that will apply from June 1. In connection with that, we have also said that the focus will be on health and social care, where we know the needs are great. But I cannot say exactly which professions it concerns. We have received proposals from Arbetsförmedlingen and Migrationsverket, who are working on this. Niels Paarup-Petersen can be reassured. When a change occurs, there will be a clear directive regarding the changes and any exceptions from the wage floor.

When it comes to permanent residence permits, the investigation is being supplemented. It is not the case that we throw people out of the country just because these disappear. The direction is that it shall lead to one obtaining Swedish citizenship. Therefore, we shall create the necessary uniformity. It is the case that a citizenship opens up opportunities, but also opportunities to set requirements. The direction is that a yes shall be a yes and a no shall be a no. Unfortunately, during previous parliamentary periods, we have seen that a no has not always been perceived as a no. Therefore, we are left with the problems we have.

We take responsibility for the whole and ensure that the migration policy hangs together.

We certainly will not agree, but we will both have a good intention to do the best we can.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I received no answer from the Moderates on the questions about segregation and what we were discussing. The Kristdemokraterna member began their speech by talking about segregation and integration but linked it to immigration and that we should therefore have reduced immigration and all those parts.

Now, the government to which the member's party belongs has reduced immigration to Sweden, but the investments are missing. On the contrary, we have received investments that harm integration in Sweden.

You have reduced immigration, Ingemar Kihlström. Then the question is: What is it that has improved when it comes to these issues?

This government has crashed housing construction for ordinary people. Sweden has had 100,000 more unemployed people under this government, and then they take the opportunity to lower the benefits. Poverty has doubled over the last few years, and a record number of children are being evicted. People have been left at the mercy of the elements, and Sweden is more fragile than it has been in a long time. What is it that has become better?

One has not directly reduced the social or economic gaps. On the contrary, proposals have been put forward that damage integration and increase the gaps in Sweden. People have been left behind. What is it that becomes better by the government being able to boast that a record-low number of people are coming to Sweden?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We can observe that Member Haddou and I have different views of the problems in Sweden. We can also observe that Sweden, primarily during the mid-2010s, had a very large migrant flow into Sweden. It was far too large for Sweden to be able to handle in terms of language, integration, and social cohesion. Member Haddou does not see this in his "language ball" [spåkula]. Instead, he sees all problems as non-problems.

We can observe that unemployment is much higher among those born outside the EU and the Nordic countries than among Swedish residents. Furthermore, we can observe that it takes somewhere between 10 and 20 years before 50 percent of those who have come to Sweden are self-sufficient. It is therefore still a large proportion of those who come to our country who are on benefits.

We are changing the focus. We provide motivation so that instead of receiving grants, people should seek out the labor market. It also has an integrating effect. One comes to a job, gains a linguistic community, and comes out. The children see their parents going to work.

One can talk about housing construction and unemployment, but this debate is about migration. We in the Tidösamarbetet believe that the solution to the integration problems that were created during the 2010s is to have minimal migration right now in order to take care of those who are here, put them to work, and integrate them.

I know that the Left Party's perception of reality is different, and I can respect that one has a different view. But for us, it is obvious to ensure that we create motivation. Those who come here should be those who truly need to seek protection.

We have begun the work, but much remains. There is much more to do.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Member expresses that immigration should be minimal. But where are the investments? There is talk of withdrawing grants and so on so that more people will enter employment, but we have had 100,000 more unemployed under this government. One is not directly investing for jobs. One is creating higher unemployment, and it is primarily the people who stand furthest away from the labor market who pay the price for it.

I do not think that one should blame it on immigration or on the fact that we have had a large reception and all those parts. One makes investments and initiatives so that people will get into work. It is those initiatives and investments that are totally missing with this government. That makes all of Sweden poorer, and then we get the problems that I raised.

It is not so strange that the government does not want to talk about these issues. Very many of the problems are caused by the government itself and have arisen during this government's time in power, when investments and initiatives have been missing. When there has been an opportunity to create jobs, billions have instead been spent on a return migration grant that harms integration. I think it is unserious and irresponsible to pursue such a policy. I think that investments should be made so that people can get into work.

If we are to talk about segregation, the government has a very strong policy for segregation and a very weak policy for what is called integration, i.e., that people who come to Sweden should approach the majority population when it comes to economy, housing, etc. But during this mandate period, the government has pursued a policy for increased economic and social gaps.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Two weeks ago, an impartial investigation from SCB was released showing that child poverty in Sweden is at its lowest in ten years. Nevertheless, Member Haddou stands and says that the government is doing nothing for the very poorest. I can state that we certainly are. A typical family with children now has 5,000 kronor more per month, many families with children and others have been given the opportunity to refuel at a reasonable price, and electricity can now flow freely through the lines without the bill becoming too high.

The Left Party's simple answer is that the billionaires and high-income earners should be taxed more. But those who have a high income already pay a huge amount in tax. The Left does not want to talk about that but only says that the tax burden should increase. I think it is good that we stimulate so that people can earn money and keep more money in their pockets. The Government has a completely different perspective than the Left Party on this regarding the economy.

And once again: Facts show that child poverty is at its lowest in ten years.

Member of Parliament Haddou chooses not to discuss migration in this exchange, but the Left Party and the Green Party want to return to the situation Sweden had in 2014. It is also said that one will not join a government with the Center Party. We can state that in a red-green chaos government, they do not even want to sit in the same room and discuss how they want to govern. Good heavens! I hope that the Tidö parties get a new government period.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservations 3 and 9.

Mr. Speaker! A no is a no. That is something we and the government completely agree on. It cannot be otherwise. If we are to have regulated immigration, those who do not have the right to stay must also leave the country, and the immigrant who commits crimes or cheats shall, of course, also be deported. This is obvious. The same applies to extremism, honor-based oppression, etcetera.

But a yes must also be a yes. We cannot have a state that first gives a yes and then takes it back, as the government does when it wants to revoke permanent residence permits from people who have already received them. One also cannot repeatedly change the conditions for those who are here and working.

There must also be reasonable paths to a yes, because we see that most immigrants contribute positively, strengthen the Swedish economy, and behave correctly. These people should be welcomed. Here we differ sharply from the theoretically Moderate-led government, which has traded the work line for the deportation line. Or as SD proudly says: The era of deportations has begun.

And that is how it is. Deportations are the government's collective migration policy.

But who is it then who are being deported because of Tidö's policy? Yes, it is Donya and Darya who are being deported to Iran. They are sisters who have gone to school here and are now forbidden from coming back to finish their studies to become nurses because they have too strong ties to Sweden and want to live here. Sweden is therefore saying no to two nurses. How does this make Sweden better? And while we have stood here and talked, decisions have been made that Nardine shall be deported. The deportations of teenagers were supposed to be stopped, but they continue.

Who is it more? Yes, it is Mohamed who works as a doctor at the Mösseberg health center in Falköping. He and his family are to be deported. He completed his medical studies here but is now to be deported because the Swedish Migration Agency thinks he has changed professions, and the Migration Agency is, according to the government, more inclined to convict than to set free. Despite the fact that, according to the standard for Swedish occupational classification, he has not changed professions because his previous and current profession have the same classification, he is to be deported, because the government wants to deport as many as possible. How does this make Sweden better?

It is also the Perez family from Gävleborg. The daughter Gabriella has never lived anywhere else than in Sweden but had to wave goodbye to all her friends in Forsbacka, hug her crying grandmother, and say goodbye at the airport. Why? Well, because her father earned too little. Did he earn less than the collective agreement? No, but less than the absurd wage floor. Now the welfare system is missing two employees, and a school class is missing its friend. How does this make Sweden better?

This is how it looks right now.

It is clear that the government is not conservative. People who work and do everything right are being deported. Teenagers who are studying are being deported just because they have turned 18. You are creating retroactive legislation, which even the model Denmark does not do – or even Hungary. It is only Sweden. Why?

The government presents legislative proposals after legislative proposals of such a low level that the Council on Legislation has had to instruct the government on what the words in the legislation mean. They do not have a grasp of the most basic elements of legislation. Never before has a government received such powerful criticism from the Council on Legislation. It is so substandard and so far from the respect for the law that has always been the hallmark of the bourgeoisie, at least until now. Gunnar Strömmer has gone from creating Centrum för rättvisa to making the Ministry of Justice a center for legal rot. It is sad.

All this leads to a reality that neither the old Moderates nor the New Moderates, whom I collaborated with in the past, would have accepted, but which today's cowed Moderates accept, namely the reality of fear. It is now spreading among all who come here, and they have to live with the feeling of never feeling safe.

Mr. Speaker! I recently spoke with a father who does not dare to drive his children to handball anymore, because what if he were to drive too fast and get a fine. Then perhaps he would be deported. It might seem ridiculous, but no, it could happen. I spoke with a taxi driver in Malmö, who Nima Gholam Ali Pour comes from. The taxi driver cannot get a residence permit because he has received four traffic fines. Even though he has neither lost his job nor his driver's license, the Swedish Migration Agency argues that he might do so at some point in the future – and now they are supposed to be tough and hard. Because of four traffic fines, he gets no residence permit. And now the government wants to introduce a requirement for a clean record. How will it be in the future? Is it enough with two traffic fines? We do not know.

The son of a top executive in one of Sweden's largest companies was deported as a teenager, and now the executive himself is affected by the fact that no transitional rules for citizenship are being introduced. He now feels that Sweden no longer wants him here and that he is not appreciated. Other countries in Europe or, for example, Canada offer better conditions for a secure future for him and his family, because what comes next in Sweden from a government that takes back the state's promises? How does it make Sweden better that he chooses another country than Sweden? How does it secure Swedish growth? It does not.

The neighbors see several police cars come and pick up Dmitriy and Elena, who have lived legally in Sweden for 22 years, work here, and have their son here. They are so nice, say the neighbors, and have jobs and behave according to all criteria. If I didn't have high blood pressure before, I have it now, says one neighbor. It feels terrible; I'm just shaking, says another neighbor. This is the neighbors' experience of Tidö's policy – and Elena is in the psychiatric emergency room. This is the reality of the government's policy.

But the Tidö government is satisfied, because no further consideration shall be taken regarding ties. That Elena has a twenty-year-old son here does not count. The government does not want ties to be a reason to be allowed to stay. They want it to be this way.

The Tidö government's migration policy has created problems on top of problems that have taken focus away from the real problems in the migration area. One has gone from deporting those who commit crimes to deporting those who contribute, and from deporting those who do not have the right to stay to deporting those who should be allowed to stay, for example because they have grown up here. This is what has happened with the Tidö government's policy.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a migration and integration policy that focuses on what actually matters: that people learn the language, that more people get into work, that companies can grow, and that those who do the right thing also receive fair treatment. That is what we need in the area of migration.

For the Tidö government, however, it is no longer about what is good for Sweden, but about what is good for SD's need to punish ordinary people who are born somewhere else. That is where we are right now. That is why we repeatedly get stuck in discussions about absurd decisions that should have been corrected a long time ago.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party wants to deport criminals. The Centre Party wants to deport those who have no right to stay. The Centre Party wants a reasonable and consistent migration legislation. That is nothing strange. But the Centre Party also wants to welcome those who contribute to Sweden. The Centre Party wants to ensure that those who have their roots and upbringing in Sweden shall be welcome to stay in Sweden. And the Centre Party wants a just and wise migration legislation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Centre Party wants a new government.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party wants Sweden to receive at least 5,000 quota refugees per year. This means a fivefold increase in the number of quota refugees compared to today. Today, Sweden receives only 900 quota refugees, which is the level that other Nordic countries are at.

What is important to know about quota refugees is that they are vulnerable people who often require a lot of support to establish themselves in society. There are still quota refugees who come to Sweden who are illiterate. In those cases, it is obvious that the path to the labor market is long, and precisely because the integration process for quota refugees is so long, we only accept 900 individuals. It is not in Sweden's interest to accept more quota refugees. It would, among other things, worsen the exclusion that already exists in Sweden's areas with high concentrations of immigrants.

The member of the Center Party is obviously aware of the integration problems we have in Sweden and the cultural exclusion that exists in areas with high concentrations of immigrants. It is then strange that the member proposes that the number of quota refugees should be quintupled.

If we today have immigrants in the country who have not quite integrated into society and who need support to be integrated into society, is it then sensible to quintuple the number of quota refugees, who are precisely the group that has difficulty integrating?

Why does the member believe that Sweden should receive significantly more quota refugees than our Nordic neighboring countries? Is it not precisely that policy that has created the integration problems that Sweden has today?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate that the Sverigedemokraterna member is better at counting than the minister, who usually says sixfold even though it is rather a fivefold increase.

Does Centerpartiet want to receive 5,000 quota refugees? Yes, that is where we are headed. It is our view because it concerns the most vulnerable. We are talking about that there should be state paths, and it is for quota refugees that that path exists. The Christian Democrats stood right here and said that one should help the most vulnerable. Quota refugees are the most vulnerable. The Christian Democrats want that too, and the Liberals went to the election on 5,000 quota refugees. They do not stand by their policy, but I do.

M said that, for example, women and hbtqi-persons should be prioritized when quota refugees are picked up from refugee camps etcetera, but instead they are being reduced and refugees from all other groups are being taken. That is the reality – that is what has happened.

We stand by our policy. Everyone else backs down and does the opposite of what they have promised the voters. Yes, I think we can accept 5,000 quota refugees, even if we cannot do it tomorrow. It is based on something that might be a bit foreign to Nima Gholam Ali Pour. There are three words that can make one better understand why we think so: conscience, care, and empathy. They are difficult words for some, I have learned.

We are part of a whole world. If we want the refugee camps to one day become something other than eternal strongholds for people who can never leave from there, we must sometimes accept some. We have said 5,000. I believe that Sweden, which has around 11 million inhabitants and is one of the world's richest countries, can accept some people who are having a hard time. I believe most can agree that it is possible.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to correct one thing that the member presented in his speech. Hbtqi persons and women are prioritized in Sweden's current strategy for bringing in quota refugees.

There are many vulnerable people in the world. More than 40 million refugees have left their country. If we were to take in all these people or 1 percent of them, it would completely destroy Swedish society. Quintupling the number of quota refugees would worsen the integration problems we have today.

At the same time, we have many vulnerable people in Sweden. When the member speaks about empathy, I think of the vulnerable people who are in Sweden and who also need support. We must also see who the support should go to. Should it go to the quota refugees who come to Sweden, or should it go to those who already live in Sweden and who find themselves in exclusion? It can be both ethnic Swedes and immigrants.

We have major integration problems that we have not solved. I mean that it is only when we have ensured that we reduce the social problems that exist in Rosengård and other areas with high concentrations of immigrants that we should consider increasing the number of quota refugees. But the member wants to do it already today. Then one wonders: Does the member see the integration problems? Does the member see the ethnic Swedes who have problems and who need support from society? The member does not seem to do so, if he already today wants to quintuple the number of quota refugees.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! If 5,000 is the whole world, then 900 must also be it. We have not said that we are going to bring in the whole world or 5 percent or anything else, but it is about 5,000.

The Member of Parliament says that women and hbtqi persons are being prioritized. That is not true. Both groups have decreased in proportion and in number. I know what is written on paper, but because of the restrictions on who is allowed to come – now I can't remember what that part is called, I must admit – it is guys who are coming in much greater proportions. It is never hbtqi persons, or I believe it was three people last year, if I remember correctly. In recent years, it has been four or five. That is the reality. One can write whatever one wants on paper, but if one simultaneously changes the regulations so that it only becomes guys, then that is what happens. The Member of Parliament can check the statistics themselves.

Yes, I want to help those who are in Sweden. We do that by them getting jobs. But what is the government doing? They are investing nothing in the jobs. They are increasing unemployment. The package of investments in the labor market in the autumn budget is 43 times smaller than the investment in repatriation. It is nothing. It does not give more people work.

They are cutting back on education time and again. We are now, under the Tidö government, breaking records in the number of students who do not pass school. Of all Swedish parliamentary terms, it is during this term that there are the most children who do not pass school in Sweden. That does not help integration. It does not make more people come out. That is what the Tidö government's policy is and the consequences of it.

The Sweden Democrats believe that 5,000 makes a difference. I understand that. Fine, then you should also remove the 900, if it is so dangerous. We will see if KD agrees to that. They have agreed to the other parts. The Sweden Democrats usually get what they want with this government.

You in the Sweden Democrats previously said that you would help on-site, Nima Gholam Ali Pour. You are not doing that either. You are helping no one. They are not allowed to come here, and you are not helping on-site. Even there, you lied to the Swedish population in the election. You should stop doing that.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Dear chamber, listeners, members! Sweden needs immigration. Our country is dependent on people coming here to work, contribute and strengthen our skills supply, not least within those parts of the business sector where the need for qualified labor is great.

Sweden also, as a democratic and responsible country, has an obligation to, together with other countries, provide protection for people fleeing war, persecution, and oppression.

At the same time, migration policy must be designed with regard to our country's actual conditions. There must be housing, the school must function, the social services must be able to fulfill their mission, and there must be an opportunity to create good conditions for establishment. Therefore, a responsible and regulated immigration is needed so that Sweden can both receive labor and provide protection to people in need, but do so in a scope that our society can manage to bear.

It is also how we safeguard trust in migration policy over time, because what makes this issue so serious is that the price of a failed migration policy is not borne by those who have the largest margins. It is borne by people living in vulnerable areas, by women and girls who are restricted by honor norms, by children growing up in segregation, and by people who themselves have immigrated to Sweden but who have been left behind in an exclusion that should never have been accepted. When migration and integration are not kept together, it is not the most privileged who pay the price. It is the people who already live closest to the problems.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for some time borne great consequences of a migration policy that was not sufficiently sustainable. Therefore, the government is now carrying out a reorganization in the area, and the results are already visible. The number of asylum seekers during 2025 amounted to just under 7,000, which is the lowest level in nearly three decades. That development is important, not because low numbers are an end in themselves, but because a society must manage both reception and integration to be able to remain open over time.

A long-term sustainable migration policy also requires that those who have received a rejection leave the country. Therefore, the government has now tightened the rules on the prescription of removal decisions. The old order made it possible to stay hidden and in practice wait out the system. That order was not reasonable. The new direction is clear: decisions shall apply, return shall function, and the migration policy shall be sustainable.

Mr. Speaker! In the same way, the government is working towards a more organized reception. The arrangement with own housing for asylum seekers has been phased out in its previous form. The starting point is now that asylum seekers shall live in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations so that the reception will become more structured and better for both the individual and society.

We have also presented a new reception law in order to improve the conditions for an organized reception, a more efficient return process, and a reduced exclusion.

Mr. Speaker! Requirements are not the opposite of integration. I would like to argue that requirements are the path into integration. Language opens doors. With education and work, independence is created. Knowledge of Swedish society makes it possible to participate fully in our democracy. Respect for laws and basic norms is not much to ask. It is the very foundation for a free society to function.

That is why the government has now presented proposals for stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship, which we will debate more extensively here in the chamber in about two weeks. The requirement for residence time in Sweden is proposed to be raised from five to eight years. Requirements for self-sufficiency and requirements for sufficient knowledge of Swedish and of Swedish society are introduced. It is right and important, because a Swedish citizenship should not be a formality that follows automatically just because time passes. It should be an expression of belonging, responsibility, and a will to fully become a part of Sweden. Citizenship should not be the starting point for integration. It should be a confirmation that the integration has borne fruit. It is an important marking. It strengthens the Swedish community and the significance of citizenship.

Mr. Speaker! Migration policy is not decided only in Sweden. It must also be managed in a European context. The EU's Migration and Asylum Pact entered into force nearly two years ago and will begin to be fully applied this summer. The regulatory framework is based on safer external borders, faster and more efficient procedures, solidarity and responsibility-sharing between member states, as well as deepened cooperation with countries outside the EU. The Government is therefore working to adapt Swedish law to the European regulatory framework. The right of asylum can only be defended in a system that actually works, and Sweden needs to be an active and constructive part of the ongoing work at the EU level.

At the same time, Sweden must continue to be a country that is open to knowledge, talent, and work. We have worked to improve the rules for researchers and doctoral students and to make Sweden more attractive for qualified labor. That direction is important, and we need to continue with that work.

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

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! A few weeks ago, I saw the Liberal Party leader on TV4, where she expressed herself as follows: We have stopped the deportations of teenagers.

The problem is that it is not correct. Deportations of teenagers are still ongoing. We have young people in Sweden who have the strongest ties here and their entire family here. The parents have permanent residence permits or citizenship, which the rest of the family usually also has. But the one who turns 18 receives a deportation decision instead as an 18th birthday present.

The leader of the Liberals says that the teenage deportations have been stopped. That is not true, because young people are sitting at home with deportation decisions and can be deported at any time. There are also those who are in detention awaiting deportation. Those deportations have not been stopped either.

I want to ask the Liberals what they want in the issue of the teenage deportations. It is said that they have stopped the teenage deportations. It appears to be somewhat of a lie – that is not the case when they are still ongoing.

Tomorrow we give the Liberals another chance to truly stop the teenage deportations. You stand on TV4 and say that you have stopped the teenage deportations. Tomorrow, you get the opportunity in the committee, where we have submitted a committee initiative that young people should not have to leave the country if they have received a deportation decision. Just as the government wants with the "track-switchers" (spårbytarna), they should be able to apply for residence permits again from within Sweden. How do the Liberals intend to do that? If you say that you want to stop the deportations, then I assume you want to do so. Tomorrow is that chance.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Tony Haddou for the question! This question has been discussed very intensively in recent weeks, and I can think that it also raises other questions.

We should probably all take a step back and look at ourselves in the mirror. We who are in this chamber may not have been there in 2016 and voted for the changes to the Aliens Act that were made then, but I have looked back at this. Not because I am some Sherlock Holmes, but I have tried to do some investigation.

The Swedish Migration Agency already pointed out that this is a problem that will arise if these legislative changes are implemented. I have not been able to find a single reservation or a statement, or even that anyone mentioned anything here in the rostrum, about that this problem will arise and that it is wrong.

What the Swedish Migration Agency pointed out has subsequently become a reality, and it has continued for several years – until this government caught on to the issue and decided that we must do something about it. Thus, that question was included in the investigation commissioned in the summer of 2024. It is now being prepared at full speed and will be presented by the Minister for Migration at any moment.

What we want to do is to truly change this legislation and stop this absurdity, as I think it is, in the Aliens Act. In my world, it would need to be more adapted to how family circumstances look, for example, when one is a labor migrant versus if one has a permanent residence permit. That is what this government is now looking at, and that is what this government will deliver.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! That was a very neat revision of history. We have had statements and reservations regarding these issues.

In 2016, we had much to say about the fact that it would lead to family separation. We also said that when the government at that time, together with the Liberals, proposed that the valve should be removed, i.e., the last protection. We stood here in the rostrum during a four-hour debate and warned that exactly this would come to happen. It is, therefore, straight-up historical revisionism. It is also because of such statements from us that members here call us asylum activists and so on – because we think that they should be allowed to stay.

It is said that one wants to stop the deportation of teenagers and one stands on TV4 and says that one has stopped the deportation of teenagers, but yet these young people are being deported. They cannot just sit and wait for the government to come up with a bill based on an investigation that risks worsening the situation for the teenagers.

The bill that the government is presenting concerns stricter requirements for family immigration – stricter requirements. There shall be a small valve, but the investigation also says quite clearly that this might not help them. Are the young people who are in these situations, then, to sit and wait for a valve that might not reach them?

One also has to include a bit of probability. Two years ago, the government voted away the last safety valve that provided a protection for these young people. Then there was a storm of criticism, and then one is supposed to come back and introduce a safety valve to protect the young. However, they do not want to go all the way there.

The Liberals say that they want to stop the deportation of teenagers, and I think they should take the chance to vote on the committee initiative from Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet tomorrow so that these young people are not deported but instead get to stay while waiting for the government to produce the bill that we will vote on in the Riksdag. Make sure to vote for the proposal!

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tony Haddou, for the follow-up question!

We can only observe that the measure removed in 2023 was much broader than just concerning the deportation of teenagers. It is also about our view that the patchwork that the Aliens Act has previously consisted of needs to be removed. We need to obtain a more sustainable, long-term, and easy-to-understand Aliens Act than what has been the case for many years in Sweden.

It was also clear that the Swedish Migration Agency and asylum activists – we can call them that, meaning not the members themselves but organizations that work with these issues on the side – noticed that the valve caused some in this target group to actually get to stay. However, it was far from everyone. It was not the case that the valve ensured that one hundred percent of those who were no longer considered to belong to the nuclear family actually got to stay, instead they were deported anyway.

My and the government's conviction is that the legislation we will soon present will be more legally secure. It will also be significantly faster to achieve it than if we were to vote tomorrow for a committee initiative that would take a long detour to tell the government to prepare a proposal that we are already working on.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I must say that it is very distressing that the government, in discussion after discussion about these teenage deportations, seems to want to play away their responsibility. They do not want to admit that the decisions they themselves have made have led to family-splitting teenage deportations – even though the Swedish Migration Agency, in the very decision where they pause new deportation decisions, highlights that the abolished basis for particularly lenient circumstances for adults with strong ties to Sweden has led to more people being affected by teenage deportations.

With bold courage, the Liberals, Christian Democrats and the other Tidö parties voted yes to the legislative change. It was not important what the consequences would be. It was not important that this would tear Ayla, Jomana, Batis and Nardine from their families and actually also from their future and their dreams.

In these questions, much can be discussed about what yes and no should mean in the migration process, but for a girl, this no meant a deportation as a teenager to a country where young women alone cannot manage. The family has therefore now found a man, whom she has never met, whom she is to marry.

These are lives that are being affected by this policy. The government has said that they will fix a little – but not everything.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I did not perceive any concrete question, but rather it was more of a reasoning on the same theme that Member Tony Haddou was touching upon.

We can once again state that this is a problem that has existed for a long time. There has been a more general outlet that has caused some, but not all, in this target group to have been able to stay in Sweden.

I and my party think it is obvious that there needs to be a change and that those who are in upper secondary school should have the opportunity to complete their studies. The other parties in this chamber also think so. All of them have stood behind the proposal.

Such a proposal is currently being processed at the Government Offices and will be presented in the near future, and then we will resolve the issues for this target group.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This is not what Migration Minister Johan Forssell is saying. Johan Forssell is only saying that he will solve the problem regarding upcoming cases. For those we have already read about and who have received their rejection decisions, he says he will not do anything for them either.

I want to ask Patrik Karlson if it is for him personally and for his party as well obvious that the deportations of the youths who have already received their deportation decisions – Ayla, Jomana, Batis and several others – should be stopped and that they should also be allowed to stay in Sweden and apply for residence permits from here.

Is it also a matter of course that the young people who have already been put on planes out of Sweden should be able to apply for and be granted permission to come home again? With today's legislation, it can in fact even be more difficult for those deported as teenagers to come home again than it is for a person who has never lived in Sweden to obtain a residence permit to work or study.

Just look at Darya and Donya. They were deported to Iran last autumn. They were among the last who were sent there before Sweden stopped deportations to Iran, and they have applied for permission to come here and work. They have also applied for permission to return to the nursing program, and they have been denied.

Why is that? They have their mother, father, siblings, their education, and their friends here. Yes, because the court says that studies in the nursing program are not their primary reason for wanting to come to Sweden. The fact that one is desperate and wants to go home to mother and father, home to their life, and home to their country, therefore speaks against one being allowed to come back.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

One can appeal a decision regarding deportation and removal from the country. I do not interfere in the way the authorities carry out their work. I cannot account for the exact reasons why person A, B, or C have their applications rejected. It is obvious that they do not meet the requirements set for various residence permits to stay in this country.

We must have a regulated immigration and an order where we maintain some form of rules for who has the right to stay here and who does not. Otherwise, we have in practice – as several others have mentioned here during their own posts – a free and open immigration to this country. That order we do not want, in any case.

We are now working on a solution so that young adults can complete their upper secondary studies. Then they shall be better tested on their own when they apply for new residence permits.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I must apologize to the Liberal Party with a capital L because I will be standing here with my mobile phone in the classroom.

I shall read out our follow-up motion to the proposal on particularly distressing circumstances 2023. It was claimed that no one mentioned this.

The Center Party also stood behind the regulation introduced in 2021 which means that adults who have a special connection to Sweden can be granted residence permits if there are particularly compelling reasons. This legislation gives very vulnerable children, for example sick children, or – listen carefully – children who are born and raised in Sweden a greater opportunity to stay.

This was mentioned in the debate in the chamber, not only by us but by several other parties. That is the reality. Do not come and claim anything else!

The second part concerns that L voted against this. The Liberals thought that these people should be out. We said: This will become teenage deportations! The Liberals said: Great! Get them out!

That is what you did. Don't come and say anything else. It is not reasonable.

A reasonable question has emerged from previous speakers. Now, many of these young people are deported. In the current situation, they are not allowed to return because they have ties to Sweden. The possibility for them to stay based on ties was removed. Now, one wants to retain the possibility of avoiding taking them back based on ties. The Liberals' policy right now is that ties shall be punished. That is what has been voted for. It is important that it is clear to the Member of Parliament that these young people are not allowed to return to Sweden because they generally have a desire to live in Sweden because they have family here.

Would the Liberals like to have a different policy in this area?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Niels Paarup-Petersen for the question.

I will also apologize. When I commented on my limited detective work, it concerned the legislative change that occurred in 2016, not 2023. I can admit that I did not express myself so precisely.

Our view is that it must be a question of a little more than having a connection to the country. There must be reasons, for various reasons, for one to be allowed to be here. It can be work or studies, that one is persecuted or that one is in a war-torn area. You then have the right to seek refuge in Sweden and be assessed based on the legislation that exists through the responsible authority. If the authority then concludes that the person does not have reasons to be here, a no is a no. It is obviously not so for everyone, but that is in any case our view.

With this said, I hope that the legislation that is now on its way will resolve the situation, so that we can avoid these discussions in the chamber in the future. We will have to wait a little longer for that, however.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! The problem was fundamentally that more attention was paid to the deportation activists than to the asylum activists at this time. But sometimes one must listen to those who have the best overview. That is what should have been done.

The committee members say that one should have more than just one connection. Yes – but that is not the problem. Let me again emphasize what is the problem, namely that these young people have a connection. They have the opportunity to study. They have paid for the place. Everything is in place. They get into the nursing program – as in the case of Donya and Darya, who are now in Iran. They get a no, but not because they do not have reasons to stay in Sweden, but rather because they have too strong reasons to want to be in Sweden. Because they have family here, they get a no. Had they not had family here, they could have received a yes. Now they have family here, and therefore they get a no.

It raises the question: Would the Liberals want different legislation? It is not about whether the Swedish Migration Agency should follow the legislation. Of course they should. But it is a flawed, insane piece of legislation that means teenagers raised in the country have been deported. When they then apply for permission to return to a job or an education, they are denied – because they have been here previously.

It cannot be reasonable. There is nothing liberal about it. There is nothing sensible, conservative, or socialist about it. There is no ideological basis, other than the Sweden Democrats', that would mean it is reasonable. Why should it be so?

Would the Liberals like to have different legislation where this regarding having ties to Sweden does not penalize one when seeking to come here for studies or work?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Niels Paarup-Petersen for the follow-up question.

An adult human being should fundamentally be judged based on their own situation. That is the whole point. The individuals the member brought up – I do not have 100 percent insight into the individual cases – are 24 and 20 years old. It is completely reasonable that their reasons for being in the country are assessed on an individual level.

I am not at all unfamiliar with the fact that different legislations are reviewed and twisted and turned so that things can be improved regarding family conditions concerning parents and children. But I say again that an adult human being should be judged on an individual level.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by reading out from the chamber's debate in November 2023 when the humanitarian protection ground for adults was abolished.

"We have also in the replies spoken quite a bit about restrictions in the humanitarian protection ground. It concerns restrictions for severely ill children, children who have been taken into care by Swedish authorities because their parents have subjected them to violence, and children who have lived in Sweden up until their teens and are born here but for various reasons have still not been able to obtain the security that a residence permit entails."

Much has already been said about this, so I thought I would say a few words about something that has not been spoken about today, namely the humanitarian protection ground for adults, which is also being removed now. When time-limited residence permits became the main rule, we could suddenly end up in situations where families were split up. We saw how 18-year-olds who were celebrating having just graduated at the same time received the notice that they now must leave Sweden because they have become adults.

The humanitarian protection ground, particularly compelling circumstances for persons who have developed a strong connection to Sweden, applies to these youths, among others. Family members who have had the right to be in Sweden because, for example, their parents have been granted asylum can lose that right if they become adults before they are granted permanent residence permits. I wonder if there is actually anyone in this chamber who thinks this is so incredibly smart.

These words were my own in the debate where we debated the legislative change in 2023. Patrik Karlson in Liberalerna has not even bothered to check up on what happened and what was said then. One does not want to take responsibility for the consequences that the Tidö parties' legislative changes lead to – not when it's blowing, not when public opinion speaks out. Then one pretends that it just happened on its own, as if it is the authorities' decisions, individual cases and nothing one can comment on – no one said anything; we didn't know. But one did know.

The results in the individual cases are fundamentally based on what the legislation looks like. One has a responsibility as a Member of Parliament to change the legislation when it is needed. And before one changes it, one has a responsibility to understand the consequences, the consequences that are pointed out. It is not possible to hide.

The Tidö parties have a heavy responsibility for the fact that these teenage deportations have even become a reality. And now that they have finally changed their minds, after strong pressure not only from citizens in general but also from politicians in their own parties, they are not doing so fully. They are only changing their minds for future cases. All the young people who have told about their fates and who have already appealed are not affected by the government's decision. The courts have already ruled based on the legislation that the Tidö parties chose, including on that day in 2023.

Nadine is one of them. I met her at the demonstration in Stockholm for a humane refugee policy. Thousands of people went out to say: Stop! Not in my name! Not like this! She had a few days left before she was forced to leave her family behind alone to travel to Iraq and face terrible insecurity at a time when bombs are falling in the Middle East. As a young woman alone, she is to travel away from her dreams and away from her future, her family, and her friends. She stood on stage together with many others in the same situation.

Jomana, 18 years old, we met here in the Riksdag. She had just ordered her graduation cap when the letter from the Migration Agency arrived. The parents receive permanent residence permits. Little brother is now a Swedish citizen. She is to leave Sweden alone, as a 18-year-old Christian, for the Egypt that the family once judged was too dangerous to continue life in. She dreams of becoming a social worker and making Sweden stronger and children safer. Those dreams are effectively shattered by a deportation decision shortly before graduation.

Madam Speaker! This is cynical and inhumane. But it is only one of many decisions planned by the Tidöregeringen. It is one of many legislative changes in the pursuit of the minimum level, of as few human rights as possible for immigrants. This will lead to unreasonable deportations.

The government did indeed back down on the 4,700 track-switchers, whom they made deportable by a parliamentary decision. But in just two months, 10,000 working immigrants will be made deportable when new rules come into force for wage requirements for labor migrants. People who earn 33,000 kronor and support themselves, pay tax and contribute to the welfare, should be sent out.

This summer, the government is planning yet another family-splitting law. It may be worse than anything we have seen so far. In that case, it is not about teenagers and young adults. If that law passes according to the investigation's proposal, a mother who is forced to stop working due to illness may also have to choose to exclude one of her children. If one becomes unemployed at the wrong time, when the children's residence permits are to be reviewed, it can lead to the children being sent away from here.

Madam Speaker! We have opposed setting requirements regarding income and housing at the initial decision on family immigration when children are to come to Sweden, for example from a refugee camp. But this takes it a step further. After two years, when the residence permit is to be reviewed again, these requirements must once again be met. If one then has an apartment with one bedroom and happens to have twins, the older brother must leave Sweden.

I do not believe that any of those who have protested against the deportations of teenagers can stand behind this family separation law. I hope that the experience of those protests in all parties leads to the government putting these proposals in the wastebasket. But in the pursuit of the minimum level, nothing is sacred – not children's rights, nor the respect for the family as a unit.

Madam Speaker! Today we are going to vote on many issues. Another issue concerns a moral failure where Sweden stands out compared to our allies. I am speaking about our handling of the people who helped the Swedish soldiers who, on our mission, the Riksdag's mission, fought the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In two rounds, Sweden has made decisions that have made it possible for many of those who later ended up in life-threatening danger when the Taliban came to power to come to Sweden and find safety here. But 50 people who worked for us remain. They are now living in terror. Families move around, from province to province. Colleagues, Swedish veterans, collect money so that they can manage the upkeep, the most necessary, when the parents have to hide and cannot provide for the families. Children miss out on school years.

Last summer, a security chief who worked for Sweden was shot to death by the Taliban. He was shot in the head in the open street. The situation for these people is acute. Last night, I received a message with pictures from one of them. There, the grandchildren are holding up papers where it says: Sweden please help us.

These people risked their lives for Sweden. And no one is left behind. They need, just like interpreters and guards who have worked for USA, Germany, Canada and other allies, to be given a chance to come here. There are reports in the media that the government, with responsible minister Pål Jonson, has also prepared a proposal to do what we can to help these people get protection in Sweden, but the Sverigedemokraterna are blocking it.

Today we have it in black and white. In addition to the government parties, the entire opposition also stands united.

This moral failure must come to an end. Sweden must take its responsibility. These people risked everything in the fight against the Taliban under the Swedish flag, and we have a moral responsibility for them.

But it is not just a migration issue and a moral issue. It is also a security issue. The next time Sweden sends soldiers abroad on a parliamentary mission, they will be dependent on interpreters and other local staff, just as in Afghanistan. They must be able to look these colleagues in the eye and say: We have your back – you can trust us. They must be able to recruit the best collaborators. As long as we have not solved this issue, it will not be possible.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move for the approval of the joint reservation from the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Centre Party and the Green Party – number 6.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! In the report we are now debating, with proposals from the general motion period on migration issues, there is a smorgasbord of proposals, primarily from Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, with various ideas that would place Sweden into a new left-wing experiment.

One of the proposals found in the report is reservation number 2, which both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet support. There, it is written, among other things: ”A clearer regulation in the legislation was needed for those who have lived in Sweden for a long time without a permit. … Furthermore, the possibility should be investigated to introduce some form of regularization for those who have lived in Sweden for a longer period regardless of previous residence status.”

In other words, this is a general amnesty for all those who have hidden themselves long enough in Sweden. One is thus to be rewarded with a residence permit if one has stayed illegally in Sweden for long enough. What signal does this send? Yes, the signal is: Come here and hide here long enough, and you will be rewarded with a residence permit! The principles for regulated immigration are completely set aside if we were to introduce this. This is just one of the absurdities that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have put forward in this report.

The question is what this will mean in the event of a change of government this autumn. If the worst should happen and the left-wing side gets a majority – God forbid – after the election in autumn, will this then be a requirement from Miljöpartiet to let Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister? Are we to have a general amnesty in migration policy?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In addition to what Viktor Wärnick read out, this is also included in the reservation: ”Among other things, a long-term sustainable solution was needed for those covered by the so-called high school rules, but also for others who have been affected by long waits, uncertainty, and legally insecure asylum processes. Alone arriving children and young people who have been in Sweden for over a year should therefore be granted permanent residence permits.” Then comes this about investigating some form of regularization for those who have lived in Sweden for a long time.

There have been incredibly long processing times as well as legally secure age assessments and other legal certainty deficiencies at the Swedish Migration Agency. Problems with practical enforcement obstacles have caused people – even people who have not been granted asylum, but not only them – to remain in Sweden for a very long time. All of us who know how it has looked realize that it is not sustainable.

Take for example Murhaf Hamid – the one who became so well-known for selling daisies for several million. He was born here in Sweden and has lived in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations from Kiruna in the north to Malmö in the south. He has moved around between five different locations and never hidden. The family has been with the Migration Agency the whole time. But it has practically not been possible to send the family from here.

At some point, people must be able to settle down, especially children. We need to look at a solution.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to correct Annika Hirvonen regarding this matter of legal uncertainty. I want to assert that we in Sweden have some of the most legally secure asylum processes in the world. Ultimately, we have independent courts and independent authorities that make decisions. It is the principles of the rule of law and the principle of regulated immigration that govern Swedish migration policy.

A rejection does not mean a lack of legal certainty. But that is how one can interpret the Green Party's position – that the one who is not granted the right to stay in Sweden has been subjected to a legally uncertain review. That is not the case. If one does not have grounds to stay in Sweden, if one does not have grounds for protection, one must return home. One should not be rewarded with a residence permit because one has hidden for long enough here in the country, which is, however, the conclusion of what the Green Party and the Left Party propose, among other things in this reservation.

That is also why I repeatedly ask questions to the opposition. I also ask questions to the Social Democrats, the leading party in the constellation that wants to form a government after the election. But I never get any answers as to whether these will be sharp proposals from a new left-wing government after the election. I think the voters should listen carefully to this.

Once again, I want to ask the Green Party: Will this be a mandatory requirement from the Green Party's side in order to let Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister? Will you demand a general amnesty for all those who have hidden for long enough in Sweden? Will you demand that the entire paradigm shift that we are now implementing in migration policy, which is completely necessary for us to even manage the integration problems we have in the country, be rolled back? Will the Green Party demand this in order to let Magdalena Andersson through as the new Prime Minister if misfortune were to occur at the election this autumn?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Formally, we have an incredibly legally secure asylum system. First, an assessment is made by the Swedish Migration Agency. Then, one can appeal to a migration court. Ultimately, the Migration Court of Appeal can take up certain landmark cases.

In this rule-of-law system, we have however seen completely legally insecure medical age assessments that have had catastrophic consequences. The age of young people has been increased on very loose grounds, which has deprived them of children's rights.

Furthermore, we can see in the decisions where Sweden has been condemned by the UN Torture Committee and in the European Court of Human Rights that even in what Viktor Wärnick calls the world's most legally secure asylum system, decisions are reached that are completely unacceptable and incorrect. Take, for example, the case for which Sweden was condemned in the UN Torture Committee – an Afghan Christian convert who had a tattoo with a cross and the name Jesus on his neck was deported in this system to the Taliban's Afghanistan. The UN said no.

We have several similar cases. A few weeks ago, Sweden was ruled against in the European Court of Human Rights regarding the deportation of a young person who had lived in Sweden for a long time and has origins in Afghanistan. They highlight that for someone who has become westernized and adopted Swedish values, it is, in combination with many other circumstances, life-threatening to return to the Taliban's Afghanistan.

There are, therefore, major deficiencies. What we propose in this reservation is a simple investigation into some form of regularization for those who have lived in Sweden for a long time.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet proposes that the principle of first country of asylum should be abolished or significantly weakened. The principle of first country of asylum means that the person seeking asylum shall have their application examined in the first safe country they arrive in and not choose their destination themselves.

It is a reasonable order. The one who is in need of protection seeks protection in the first safe country. If one then travels further, the question arises as to what is actually the driving force – the need for protection or other motives.

If someone leaves Syria for Turkey and finds protection there, it becomes strange if one then continues further, because one has already found protection. There is no reason to move irregularly between countries when one is not being persecuted.

Despite this, the Green Party wants to abolish the principle of country of origin. In its proposal, the Green Party argues that the principle of country of origin should be replaced by what is called mandatory joint reception of asylum seekers. Sweden shall be forced to accept asylum seekers who have arrived in other EU countries and already received protection. That is what the Green Party proposes.

In 2025, more than 600,000 people applied for asylum in the EU. That is quite a lot of people. Then the question arises: How many asylum seekers would Sweden be forced to accept if Miljöpartiet were in charge and this mandatory solidarity reception of asylum seekers took place?

It would be much more than today. But has Miljöpartiet conducted any kind of impact assessment of how Sweden would be affected if the principle of proportionality were abolished and Sweden were forced to accept a larger share of the asylum seekers who come to the EU?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! This proposal is about looking at what has worked really well when it comes to how Europe has received the Ukrainians.

The Ukrainians are covered by the mass flight directive. The principle of proportionality is not included there. If it had been included, we might have had more than four million Ukrainians who would have needed to be accommodated in Poland alone. It would have become an incredibly difficult situation for Polish society to receive several million people in just a few weeks.

What the mass flight directive instead enabled was that those who came from Ukraine could settle in other EU countries. Often, they then chose to go to a country where they already had family, where they might have already worked previously, or where they had other friends and acquaintances.

It has led to the integration of the Ukrainians becoming much better. They have more contacts and it is easier to get a job and to enter society and support themselves.

I do not mean that it is exactly how it should look for everyone else, but I mean that we are on to something. It is a matter of looking at that aspect to a greater extent. If a person arrives in Greece but perhaps has previously studied or has friends and relatives in Ireland, perhaps the best thing both for that person and for the EU is that they can establish themselves there.

Solidarity in reception was something that all Swedish parties shouted loudly for after 2015, when it was Sweden that had an incredibly high reception and it was difficult, for example, to find good housing in a short time for everyone.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet does not answer the central question: How many asylum seekers shall Sweden receive? For that is precisely what this is about.

If one abolishes the principle of first country of asylum and introduces a mandatory reception of asylum seekers, the responsibility is moved from the first country of arrival to countries like Sweden. Then it is not enough to speak of solidarity, but then one must begin to speak about volumes.

We are talking about over 600,000 asylum applications in the EU in a year. Should Sweden receive 5 percent, 10 percent, or more? That would be quite a lot of asylum seekers that Sweden would then have to receive.

This is no small adjustment of the system. It is a fundamental reorganization of the entire migration policy. Then one should have a slight idea of how it affects Sweden. Still, Miljöpartiet stands here without being able to report what consequences it will have.

How is the reception capacity affected? How are the costs affected? How will the social functions be affected? Will we go through another migration crisis? Will we have adult men attending school with small children? Will women be harassed by migrants at public baths? For all that happened in 2015. We saw that.

Madam Speaker! It is not enough to describe an ambition. One must also take responsibility for the consequences. I ask the question again: How many asylum seekers does the Green Party consider Sweden should receive in such a system, and is one prepared to stand for that consequence?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is, of course, appalling that people are harassed at swimming baths. But it is a gross generalization to use against refugees in general or immigrants in general. I want to begin by marking against that.

The proposal is formulated as follows: The Government should return to the Riksdag with a proposal on how it will work for this within the EU. I imagine that this is not something that can be introduced easily without conducting extensive analyses and having such discussions. What is reasonable for a country like Greece or Poland? What is reasonable for a country like Sweden?

I am completely convinced that if the EU cooperates and distributes the responsibility in a wise way, the result will be better for all countries. But it will also be better for those who receive asylum and get to stay in Europe if they can come to a country where they already have contacts. They know people, and they may have previously worked or studied there. We know that they will then reach self-sufficiency faster and be better integrated.

Just blindly having a principle that says you should establish yourself in the first country in Europe that you arrive in might, after all, not be the smartest way to ensure good integration. The experiences from the reception of Ukrainians show that.

I mean, in short and good: Let us look at it, see if we can learn something and develop the reception of refugees so that we get a better integration in all EU countries.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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