The National Audit Office's report on the Swedish Migration Agency's handling of citizenship cases

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall deal with the government's communication regarding the National Audit Office's report on the Swedish Migration Agency's handling of citizenship cases.

The National Audit Office's report examines the period 2018–2023 and provides a picture of how the handling of citizenship cases looked during the last years when the Social Democrats held government power. What is described in the report actually provides a sad picture of how Swedish citizenship has been devalued.

The report shows that in almost one-third of all granted citizenship applications, the applicant has not been able to verify their identity. It may appear shocking to the public that completely unknown people are receiving citizenship in Sweden, but there are possibilities to obtain an exemption from verifying one's identity when receiving citizenship. This is to be used as a safety valve in exceptional cases. On the other hand, the exemption should not become the norm, which seems to have happened when almost one-third of those who have received Swedish citizenship have not been able to verify their identity.

That so many have been granted exemptions from verifying their identity is due to the fact that Migrationsverket's employees have lacked guidance in the form of practice and internal support documents. This has been addressed by Migrationsverket updating its internal handbook for citizenship cases with more guidance for exemption assessments. This update, which took place in January 2025, was a result of the government's decision to strengthen the security perspective in citizenship cases.

Already in the regulatory letter for the 2024 budget year, the Swedish Migration Agency was tasked with taking measures to strengthen controls in cases concerning citizenship. In a government decision from January 2025, the Swedish Migration Agency also received directives to require that the person applying for Swedish citizenship appears in person for identification and to conduct an oral investigation. It may, once again, sound like something obvious that the person who is to receive Swedish citizenship should appear in person for identification and to be interviewed, but that is not how it has functioned.

The Swedish National Audit Office's report also reveals that it has been very unusual for the Swedish Migration Agency to have conducted an oral investigation or asked oral questions to the person who has applied for citizenship. It is therefore a matter of a foreigner who has applied to become a part of the Swedish community, and one has not even asked any oral questions to this foreigner. It is nothing less than a scandal.

Ordinary people who go to work every day have expected that a proper screening of the foreigners who receive citizenship is carried out, but that has not been done. In April last year, however, the Swedish Migration Agency codified, through regulations, that personal appearance is required for identity control when applying for citizenship.

Under the Socialdemokraternas government, one practically gave away as many citizenships as possible. This is not an agency problem, but it is a political legacy. Between 2020 and 2022 – the last years when the Socialdemokraterna governed Sweden – more than 258,000 citizenships were granted. That is how it would have continued if we had not received a new government over which the Sverigedemokraterna have a significant influence.

From the year when the Tidö parties gained government power, the number of granted citizenships began to decrease. During Magdalena Andersson's years as Prime Minister, approximately 89,000 foreigners received Swedish citizenship. This was a strict migration policy according to the Social Democrats. In 2025, the number of granted citizenships landed at around 38,000. The Tidö parties have more than halved the number of granted citizenships annually.

We have not even started. The knowledge requirements regarding Swedish and social studies for obtaining citizenship are not in place. Self-sufficiency for obtaining citizenship is not in place. Increased requirements for residence time are not in place. When the requirements for obtaining citizenship are raised, which will happen before the end of the mandate period, the number of granted citizenships – which was approximately 38,000 in 2025 – will once again be more than halved.

That is what a strict migration policy looks like. One cannot just talk about a strict migration policy. As long as it is not backed up by results, it is nothing more than talk. The choice stands between a government option that has more than halved the number of granted citizenships and a red-green government option that wants to more than double the number of granted citizenships.

The Government accounts in its submission for all the reforms that have been implemented and are to be implemented to make the citizenship process more legally secure. These reforms also ensure that citizenship is valued and receives the value it deserves.

The possibilities for information exchange between the Swedish Migration Agency and other authorities have increased during this government. This means that the basis for decisions on granting citizenship will be solid and complete. If there is information anywhere that disqualifies a foreigner from becoming a citizen, the Swedish Migration Agency will be able to obtain this information more easily.

The government will raise the requirements for obtaining citizenship. A longer period of residence in Sweden will be required. More stringent requirements regarding an honest way of life will also be imposed on those who wish to acquire Swedish citizenship.

A longer period of residence will also result in foreigners having more time to become part of Sweden before they become Swedish citizens with an unconditional right to reside in the country. This means that a foreigner's potential antagonistic intentions can be revealed before the person becomes a citizen.

It is important to say in this context that the Swedish Security Service already in 2017 submitted a memorandum to the then red-green government requesting that the residence period for acquiring citizenship be extended by at least two years. The reason for this was that it can take a long time to detect certain types of security-threatening activities, for example, illegal intelligence activities. The Social Democratic government was passive. The Tidö government and the Sweden Democrats will act before the end of the mandate period.

Even the citizenship test that Folkpartiet proposed in 2002 will finally, after all these years, become a reality. When Folkpartiet at that time proposed a language requirement to be granted Swedish citizenship, there were many Social Democrats who accused the then Folkparti leader Lars Leijonborg of racism. Now the Tidö parties will realize the proposal, regardless of what the Social Democrats think about it.

There will also be legislation that enables biometric data to be used to a greater extent to verify foreigners' identity and honest way of life in citizenship cases.

This is a government that has made legal certainty in citizenship matters and an upgraded citizenship a priority. The reason for this is actually simple. Becoming a Swedish citizen is about becoming part of the Swedish community. It is about being able to vote in the elections to the country's legislative assembly. It is about being able to sit in the country's legislative assembly and have influence over other Swedes' lives. It is about becoming Swedish in a formal sense.

Then one cannot have a sloppy process where one simply gives away citizenship. Requirements must be set. We must know who actually becomes citizens. We must know who the new Swedes actually are, if they are truly to be able to become a part of the Swedish community. Unfortunately, there are still parties in the Riksdag that do not understand these arguments.

Madam Speaker! Citizenship is not about a piece of paper. It is about belonging, responsibility, and loyalty to Sweden. Either we have a state that knows who it lets into the political community, or we do not.

This government has chosen order, requirements, and responsibility. That is how you build a secure Sweden and a strong national community. The time when citizenship was given away is over. Now we are restoring the value of Swedish citizenship. It is necessary for the rule of law, for security, and for Sweden.

The difference is clear. Citizenship should not be handed out – it must be earned. Truly becoming a part of Sweden is something that must be earned. I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

In this speech, Josef Fransson (SD) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In his speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour claims that thousands of people, whose identities we do not know, are supposed to have received Swedish citizenship. I want to explain what is meant by strengthening one's identity and what it says about who one is.

In order for you to have verified your identity, you need to present either a valid passport from your home country or a national ID card. There are many people, not least refugees, who do not have these documents with them. According to the recommendations from the UN refugee agency, the fact that you have not managed to gather these important papers can in many cases even speak for the fact that it is actually true that you had to leave very hastily.

There are also those who have their passports with them but whose passports are not approved by Swedish authorities to verify identity. This applies to quite large groups. For example, a very large proportion of those coming from Afghanistan and having passports are not approved because those passports are not considered sufficiently difficult to forge. The same applies to very many who come from Somalia. Their passports are also not accepted for someone to be considered to have verified their identity.

But the fact that you have not verified your identity is not the same as no one knowing who you are. It could mean that you have lived most of your life in Sweden and have other types of documents that show who you are. You might even have a relative whom you can show kinship with.

The claim that we do not know who these people are simply does not hold up.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Member Hirvonen forgot a group she could have told about, namely those who come to Sweden and destroy their identity documents in order to be able to obtain a residence permit. If it were revealed who they were, perhaps they would never be granted asylum. That group is quite large.

It is important for us here in Sweden that we know who is coming here. It is important for our security. It is important so that the wrong people do not receive asylum. It is important so that war criminals from other countries do not come here and receive asylum because they do not tell who they are. This has happened. It has happened that ministers from Iraq have come here and received residence permits. We did not know who they were. This is a problem.

I speak with many here in Sweden and tell them that there is a possibility for a waiver. People can come here and do not need to tell who they are – they still get citizenship because they have probable identity. It is not called verified identity, but probable identity. They have had the same identity for several years. This can be made possible by coming to Sweden and calling oneself Ali Muhammed for several years. Under that name, one then becomes a citizen. Of course, there is a possibility for a waiver.

We want to know who people are. If the Green Party does not want to know that, it is their policy and their direction. But we would like to know who is becoming Swedish citizens.

During the years the Social Democrats had power, too many exemptions were granted. Exemptions were given here and there, and that has resulted in that we today have many citizens about whom it may emerge that they actually had hostile intentions. We do not know that. Too many exemptions have been given. This is a real problem, according to most Swedes who live in this country.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Of course, we should always do everything we can to try to find out people's true identity. But some people have never received and can never receive a passport with the strength required for one to be considered to have proven their identity in the sense of the Swedish Migration Agency. This applies, for example, to almost everyone who has come to Sweden from Somalia and Afghanistan.

But I have another question for Nima Gholam Ali Pour. It concerns the processing times for citizenship, which the Swedish National Audit Office has now audited. Earlier in the parliamentary term, the KU reprimanded a number of ministers for having stated that they wanted to influence the processing time to prevent citizenship from being granted in accordance with current legislation. KU criticized this very sharply.

When I listen to Nima Gholam Ali Pour, I get the impression that he and the Sverigedemokraterna think it is good that, in different ways, people have wanted to prevent decisions from being made with the speed that the law actually requires. Many have waited illegally long for decisions on citizenship. We are talking about a four-year wait for a decision, when it normally should be a maximum of six months. I simply wonder if I have understood this correctly and if Sverigedemokraterna think it is good that the processing times are long.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not mourn that people have to wait to receive their citizenship. It should take a long time to get a citizenship in Sweden.

One of the reforms we have is an extension of the period of residence. One must live more years in Sweden before one can obtain citizenship. It will therefore take longer. We have also introduced that one must report in person to obtain citizenship so that one can verify one's identity. That also takes longer.

When one investigates properly and ensures that the people who receive citizenship do not have antagonistic intentions towards Sweden, it takes longer. That is nothing that I am sad about.

I think it should take a long time as long as Sweden becomes safer and as long as the wrong people do not receive citizenship. That is the purpose. That is why more investigations will be conducted. Especially when the new reforms are in place, even more investigations will be conducted before anyone is given citizenship. Then it will take longer.

It is absolutely nothing that I regret. Nor do I regret that fewer people are receiving citizenship, which is also a result of the longer processing times.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates take note of the criticism presented in this report. I would, however, say that it is primarily criticism of the old era's handling of yet another migration issue. It actually makes me even more certain that our total reorganization of the migration policy in this country is completely correct.

It is a solid report that puts its finger on something that for far too long has been far too lax here in Sweden, namely the way we have distributed citizenship. We Moderates want, together with our friends in the Liberals, Christian Democrats, and Sweden Democrats, to also get order on this part of our migration policy. We want to see an end to the time when it was easier to get a Swedish citizenship than to become a member of a golf club – a time when one did not need to know a single word of Swedish and could even murder someone and still get citizenship a few weeks later, before the pistol had even had time to cool down. That time is over.

Now we will introduce a language requirement for those who want to call themselves Swedish. Now we introduce requirements that one does not murder, steal, rape or incur a lot of debts if one wants to become a Swedish citizen.

The path to a controlled migration will not always be a straight line. It will certainly often be flanked by authority activists but also by other activists, not least here in the chamber. They will do everything they can to get back the reckless migration policy that we had before our government took office. I believe, however, that with the Moderaterna at the helm, we can get this in order as well.

I am also very pleased that the Social Democrats have finally sharpened up and are now often with us on the migration issue. But the problem for the Social Democrats is that the parties they want to cooperate with are often not with us. On the contrary, I believe that both the Green Party and the Left Party will want to have a total lack of requirements for those who want to become citizens, if they get to form a government and change the policy. I believe that we will once again see a policy where neither language nor crime is to be considered to any significant extent. If the Social Democrats seriously mean that they can co-govern with those types of parties without it having enormous consequences for our country, they are wrong.

Madam Speaker! We need a re-elected Moderate government to move forward on migration issues. I believe it is our only real hope when it comes to getting these issues in order.

I believe in tougher requirements for one to be able to become a citizen, and I think it is good that we will soon also push through the possibility of taking back Swedish citizenship from those who really do not deserve to have it. This applies to both the one who has cheated their way to their citizenship and the one who commits serious crimes and poses a threat to the Swedish state and us others who live here in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Today, one can bribe or lie oneself to a citizenship without risk of any consequences whatsoever if it were to be discovered after the decision. If it is already ink on paper and the decision has been made, it does not matter if one has put money in the pocket of a caseworker or if one has lied together a story about who one is. One gets to keep their citizenship anyway. It is so naive and stupid that we almost encourage cheating in our system.

I do not understand how the Social Democrats could fail to do anything about this when they were in power for eight years. It was eight years when we saw Swedish citizens travel to the Middle East and commit some of the most horrific acts that our generation has witnessed. People who, with blood on their hands, traveled to rape, murder, and terrorize in the name of Islam still managed to keep their Swedish citizenship and continue to call themselves Swedes. In my world, they are not Swedes, and they should never again be allowed to call themselves Swedes.

Even though some parties here in the chamber think that everyone who has set foot in this country and received a residence permit has the right to call themselves Swedes, I do not agree with that: If you have lived here for only a few years, hardly speak any Swedish at all, and furthermore, are sent back to a terror sect to help them rape, murder, and enslave people – then you are not Swedish. You will never ever be that in my eyes, even if you managed to pick up a Swedish passport, perhaps with the help of a tax-funded interpreter. You shall be deprived of your citizenship, period!

Madam Speaker! The era of the soft migration policy is over. The era of the requirement-free migration policy is over. The time has come, and the Moderates are now governing the country. There will be order in matters of state. We are not finished, but we are well on our way.

We Moderates are now proposing a number of new requirements in order to be able to become a Swedish citizen. One must have lived here in Sweden for at least eight years instead of five, as it is now. One must have their own livelihood and not live on benefits, as it is now. One must pass tests in both the Swedish language and about our society, and one must not live in a parallel society.

We are also tightening the requirements for an honest way of life: If you commit a crime, you shall be removed from the country, and you shall not become a citizen, as it is today. I would like to repeat the last point: If you are here and commit a crime, you will not become Swedish. You must be very clear that you will be deported. This is a central part of our new migration policy, especially for those who dream of becoming citizens.

We are taking action on the deportations. The dreadful time when a rapist was not deported because the rape did not last long enough is over. It is dawn for a new and better Sweden – a Sweden where we actually think there is a "we" and a "them": a we for all of us who are citizens regardless of background and a them for all those who are not. It is a Sweden where citizens are allowed to have a special status because we are precisely citizens.

I do not think this is strange at all. We citizens own this country, and everyone who is a guest in the country must behave. At the same time, they should know one thing: If you are here as a guest, behave yourself and pay your taxes, learn Swedish and show that you want to be a part of us – then we Moderates will always stand up for you and invite you into our community. Then you will be one of us, that is, the "us". The day you become a part of it, you will also be able to participate and set demands on the others who have just arrived here.

You should know that we are not making these changes in the legislation because of any prejudiced view on either skin color or origin. We are making the changes so that everyone who lives here shall have a good and secure life. It is about those who live here having a small risk of being subjected to crimes or harassment and having as great a chance as possible to make the best of their lives.

If one is on board with this, one understands our transition and our rebuilding of the migration system. Then one also understands why what we are doing is necessary and long-awaited by so many Swedes.

With those words, I move for approval of the committee's proposal. I feel confident that both the Swedish Migration Agency and our government will take on board and address what is pointed out in the report.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by agreeing with part of what Magnus Resare said. It is good that some of the requirements are being strengthened, not least when it comes to fraud. It has been easy to get away with fraud and still retain one's citizenship. It is clear that it must end.

At the same time, it sounds a bit like the member is shifting the blame to other parties. These regulations were introduced overall during the Alliance period, and the same problems existed then as in recent years. Our area is social insurance. Who was the Minister for Social Insurance during the Alliance period? It was Ulf Kristersson, wasn't it?

One should not just shrug it off. One must also take some personal responsibility for how things have looked and how they look. That is what I think we as politicians should do. If we have done something that has not been good enough, we must take responsibility for that as well. It is a good principle, I think.

Then we agree that rapists etcetera shall be out. But we also consider that care assistants shall be able to remain, for example.

There was still something connected to Magnus Resares' speech. If one behaves, contributes and works, one is welcome in our community. But right now, the government is throwing out people who work, contribute, behave and have followed all the rules. It is not welcoming people into our community – when they do everything right.

I would like to hear Magnus Resare tell a bit more about that part. Why does one think this is the most reasonable way to meet these people, who have truly made an enormous effort? They have learned the language and completed an education in a country where they could not speak the language five or six years earlier, or perhaps ten years earlier. They have made that entire journey. They have done everything. The children are in school. They work. Yet, they are to be deported. How does that align with the idea that if you behave and contribute, you are allowed to stay and are welcome in our community? This is what I wonder about a bit.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I will try to manage to answer in two minutes.

As for our duty, it was not we who were in power during the eight years before this government took office. During those eight years, something happened that we have never seen before in this country. We saw hundreds of thousands of people come to this country, but we also unfortunately saw a number of people go back to their old home countries and commit horrific crimes. They raped, enslaved, and murdered children, women, innocent men, and everyone imaginable. It was horrific.

Then one did not stand as a governing party if one could take back someone's citizenship. They could, for example, go and say: I am indeed Swedish and have a Swedish passport which can be good sometimes, but I am also a supporter of this terror sect. That is where I have my home.

It would have been better to just take their citizenship? We should have started with this a long time ago. Our government started with it immediately when it took power on the other side of the water here.

Then it concerns healthcare assistants. We have changed the way one applies for jobs in Sweden. One must apply from one's home country. We are abolishing the rules on switching tracks. I can elaborate on that a bit more in the next turn of the floor, I hope. I have 45 seconds now. I will try to do it quickly.

Switching tracks was fundamentally a sensible idea. It was something we could use when we had processing times of several years at the Migration Agency and people started working while waiting for a decision. Then we saw that it was being abused. We also had a National Audit Office report a couple of years ago where it highlighted exactly how this with switching tracks was abused. We decided to abolish that regulatory framework. Many, in fact, came here and burdened the asylum system. It is a system that is for the absolute weakest in the whole world – not in our society but in the whole world – who come and ask for protection from the Swedish state. They had to wait because a lot of people came from Uzbekistan and other parts of the world where protection is not needed. They came because they saw that it went faster to get a work permit by doing a track switch. We were therefore forced to abolish that regulatory framework, and that is where we stand now.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I have all respect for an excellent attempt to answer all questions. That is what I thought the member did.

Yes, we can talk about those who are not here, that they should apply from their home country etcetera. But there are a lot of people who are here. The big challenge is that we kick out people who have done everything right. I know that both the Moderaterna and other government parties say that when these people have been kicked out or deported, they can go to their home country and apply again.

It can be a bit difficult to travel to some countries at all, but you can also be refused when you apply again. I think the government can still be honest about that. Half of Västra Götaland's bus drivers, for example, are probably foreign-born. Some of them will be deported. It is the same thing in Skåne, where I come from. They do not earn enough money to come back. Care assistants do not earn enough. 10 percent of Sweden's nursing assistants earn more than the wage floor that the government is introducing and for which proposals have been placed on the Riksdag's table. These people, therefore, will not be allowed to come back. They are not welcome in the community. It is still the government's policy. I think that is something one can stand by.

Today we are actually discussing a matter concerning the Swedish Migration Agency. The Swedish Migration Agency has just stated that the government's policy, if implemented as it is defined in the Tidö Agreement and in the latest investigation linked to permanent residence permits versus temporary residence permits, will cost an extra 6 billion kronor and burden the Swedish Migration Agency with 187,000 new cases, of which a very large part is investigation-intensive, which takes a lot of time.

How do the Moderates view the conditions for living up to what the National Audit Office says regarding having faster processing times, better management, etc.? One can at the same time look at the other part – that one is to give the Swedish Migration Agency an enormous amount of extra work and difficult cases.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Our basic position is, as stated, that one should seek a residence permit from one's home country. If one cannot return to one's home country for some reason, one should apply for asylum again.

As I said: A major problem is that many of the people who are here as asylum seekers are here as a direct consequence of having abused a regulatory framework. They have found a loophole in a system that is intended to protect the most vulnerable. In fact, it is vanishingly few healthcare assistants or bus drivers who will need to leave the country. And if you belong to them—and they are shortage occupations—I truly hope that you can come back and work in a proper way. But it is clear that we saw an abuse of this system.

How else are we to handle this? Should we reward the people who have come here because they want to work, perhaps in the restaurant industry, and who have applied through the asylum system instead of doing it in a proper way? Most of those who now are not getting extended residence permits due to track switching are people who have come here in recent years and who have made conscious choices. It is not the few we read about in the media. I can also think it is sad when one sees someone who has been here for seven or eight years, who perhaps made a track switch in 2018 and who remains. But we had to overhaul this system because of an obvious abuse.

If one is to apply for a work permit, one should apply for a work permit, and if one is to apply for asylum, one should actually do so because one needs asylum and not because one wants to burden a system and then jump the queue. That is my opinion.

Then I believe the member was on a question that has just come from an investigator. Let us digest that and return to that question. You will surely get an answer well before the election, just as I hope all other members will provide a statement before the election. But this is so fresh that I cannot comment on it today.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! This morning I read a column by Ann Heberlein. It is about us and them, something that Magnus Resare spoke about in his speech. She writes in this column about Carl-Oskar Bohlins speech on dividing people into us and them. It says as follows:

"Bohlins rhetoric gives me the chills. There are, in fact, very good reasons to avoid the division of people into two groups, belonging (us) and non-belonging (them) that our Minister for Civil Defence proposes. The division into two groups is a first, decisive step in the dehumanization that leads to individuals belonging to the designated group successively losing their rights, to finally be deprived of their value as human beings. The idea of 'us and them' is the most important moral and societal prerequisite for institutionalized killing, as the social psychologist Harald Welzer writes in 'Perpetrators: How completely ordinary people become mass murderers' (2007)."

I think it is serious that we are now hearing this rhetoric. We – in this case, it is Swedish citizens. They – it is the refugee who has just arrived and the job seeker who has just taken a job at Ericsson and who traveled to Sweden with their family from another country. It is they who should behave.

In my Sweden, we – everyone – shall behave ourselves.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! That is also the case in my Sweden. That is why we are restructuring the country's policy in so many areas, not least regarding crime and punishment.

I think it is a self-evident matter that we can divide into us and them. In the same way that a tourist does not have the right to the same things in our society as someone with a residence permit, a citizenship and a citizen must always be valued higher than all other people who are located on Sweden's surface. I do not think it is strange at all.

If you are here as an asylum seeker or as a labor migrant or whatever it is you are, you can strive to one day become a citizen, and you will be able to become one. As I said in my speech: In the Moderates' Sweden, we see that all people who pay tax, behave correctly and do not commit crimes have the right to become a part of this. I do not think that is strange at all. Then we must have a "we" that are citizens. Regardless of whether one has their roots in Norway, in Kil in Värmland or in Kazakhstan, one is "we" if one is a citizen and "them" if one is not yet.

Then the one who has a residence permit can have more rights than the one who is here for a weekend to go to a museum. If I am here as a tourist from the USA, I will not have the same right to healthcare as we who are standing in this room have, or for that matter, the refugee who received their residence permit two weeks ago. To divide into "us" and "them" in Sweden, we do that all the time.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that one has different access to, for example, healthcare depending on whether one is a tourist or not. But all people have the same value, and this common starting point has formed the basis for human rights, which are increasingly being questioned, especially for people on the run. Children fleeing to Sweden will have to wait longer to live with their family members. If you are a child who has been left behind in the refugee camp, yes, then the mother who has moved to Sweden must not only struggle to get a contract for a sufficiently large apartment but also find a steady job. It becomes many years where one has to raise, soothe, and comfort via video calls on a link.

Depriving people of rights is something that this government has done at a furious pace. In the previous exchange, Niels Paarup-Petersen creditably raised all those who are currently being deported. It is not about some technicality so that they can simply reapply for their jobs and come back, and then everything is as before. No, no – these are people who have to wind down their companies and sell their houses and who fear for their lives when they are to return to places like Iran or Afghanistan.

We are not discussing today all the issues that have been in focus here, but we are discussing how long the Swedish Migration Agency has put people's applications for citizenship on hold. It is illegally long. I wonder if Magnus Resare agrees with Nima Gholam Ali Pour that it is not a problem.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I will start from the end: I believe that Swedish authority exercise should always be efficient and legally secure. What also appears from the report is that we have a problem with the right that was granted a number of years ago, which means that if more than six months have passed, one can apply for an immediate decision. This means that many of those mentioned in the previous exchange of remarks who have been in the queue for three or four years have had to wait unreasonably long in the queue, because people who applied for citizenship significantly later are aware of that legislation and request to have their case examined directly and therefore go first.

My perception is that Swedish authority exercise should always be efficient and legally secure, and that was why I both began and concluded my speech by stating that we Moderates take the criticism in the report to heart. We will, of course, do everything we can to get it in order. It is not the intention for authority work to be inefficient.

Regarding what you were touching upon concerning the subsistence requirements for people coming to this country, was it also like that previously? We have only removed the three-month rule that existed previously. Even a number of years ago, under Hirvonen's government, those who had not been able to reunite with their family immediately after arriving here were required to meet those criteria. This is, therefore, not something new. We have only changed the framework for it a little bit.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I humbly remind the House that all speak through the Speaker, which is why "you" and "you" (singular) do not usually occur.)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating citizenship matters. Citizenship is not an administrative conclusion to a migration process but a significant step toward entry into the Swedish community. It entails rights but also obligations. It entails participation, responsibility, and a mutual commitment between the individual and society.

That is why the Christian Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, want to re-evaluate Swedish citizenship. Becoming a Swedish citizen must mean something. It is reasonable and necessary to set clearer requirements regarding knowledge of the Swedish language, knowledge of Swedish society, longer residence time, self-sufficiency, and an honest way of life. But, Madam Speaker, higher requirements also place higher demands on the state. In light of this direction, it is absolutely crucial that the process for granting citizenship functions in a legally secure, efficient, and correct manner.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the Riksrevisionen's report shows that the process has not functioned well historically. We are debating Riksrevisionen's audit of how Migrationsverket handles citizenship cases. It is, as can be noted, not a cheerful read. The audit concerns the period 2018–2023 and focuses on whether Migrationsverket has worked effectively to ensure correct decisions were made without unnecessary delays. It covers goal achievement, resource efficiency, as well as the conditions that the government has provided the agency, including what concerns information exchange with other agencies and the consequences of the possibilities to request a ruling according to the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Swedish National Audit Office's overall assessment is clear: The handling of citizenship cases is not efficient during this period. There are deficiencies regarding ensuring correct decisions, a risk of inconsistent assessments, and processing times that in many cases are unreasonably long. Furthermore, it is noted that the legal conditions for obtaining information from other authorities have been insufficient and that the government has not taken sufficient measures in light of the negative consequences of requests for decisions.

It is a serious situation that is described, which rightly leads to several recommendations both to the Swedish Migration Agency and to the government.

Madam Speaker! It is therefore important to state that we today, as we stand in this chamber, have a different government than the S-government that actually bears the responsibility for the majority of the period under review. Even before the National Audit Office's report was presented, the current government had initiated assignments and measures to strengthen the quality and legal certainty in citizenship cases, something that can be stated that the previous Social Democratic government clearly failed at during its eight years in power.

During 2024 and 2025, the Government gave the Swedish Migration Agency several assignments to strengthen the agency's conditions to make correct decisions. This involves strengthening the control in citizenship cases, regarding identity checks, and regarding countering identity misuse together with other agencies. The Government is also working to increase efficiency through, for example, digitalization and improved information exchange, both internally and between the agencies.

Furthermore, the legal possibilities for information exchange, both nationally and internationally, have been strengthened through legislative changes. Requirements for personal appearance when applying for citizenship have been introduced, and several investigations have been commissioned to ensure correct decisions, including through stricter requirements on residence time, honest conduct, as well as expanded possibilities to store, process, and share biometric data.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the long processing times, the Swedish Migration Agency has taken several measures to streamline the process. This includes, among other things, allocating resources to handle older cases, processing cases in chronological order, and reviewing the possibilities to simplify and streamline the processing of cases regarding requests for a decision.

Madam Speaker! One cannot overemphasize the importance of decisions in citizenship matters being correct and made within a reasonable timeframe. For the individual, it is about security, trust, and legal certainty. For society, it is about safeguarding the value of citizenship.

We Christian Democrats therefore view the government's already taken and upcoming measures, which involve new legislation, reinforced governance, and increased efficiency, positively. This is unfortunately another area where big words from the Social Democrats did not turn into practical action during eight years in power. Now, however, Sweden has a new government cooperation that actually both sees the problems and addresses them. It is crucial that this direction remains, so that we do not end up in a red-green chaos and a political non-action again after the next election.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the Swedish Migration Agency's handling of citizenship cases.

In addition to the mandate I have as a member of Parliament, I have also been given the privilege of sitting on the Migrationsverket's oversight council. The oversight council meets approximately four times a year. We meet with the Director General to be able to take part in how Migrationsverket works with different issues. One of the issues that we have really followed closely is precisely the incredibly long processing times in citizenship cases. Some people submitted their application before the last election, i.e., four years ago, and have still not received a decision.

Those who listened when the Sverigedemokraterna representative spoke earlier might have gotten the impression that the Swedish Migration Agency has sat for four years and pondered and wondered about the person's identity and performed various checks. But the fact is that the waiting times are due to the cases lying in a backlog. In the work of granting citizenship, they have had an all too small staff and have not worked sufficiently efficiently. This has led to the processing times continuing to be very long. As has been mentioned in the debate, there are now many who, after the six months that one should have to wait at most for a decision, request to receive a decision in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. The consequence then is that the person who does not make such a request remains at the bottom of the pile.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party's response to this has been to add more money to the Swedish Migration Agency in every budget so that they can recruit more case officers, so that more cases can be handled with maintained legal certainty. That is the only way to address this problem. The Swedish Migration Agency has now made a reinforcement, but unfortunately, it is far too small and will not solve the problems. It is good with the recommendations that have come from the Swedish National Audit Office on how one can work better with target management, how one can cooperate between departments to exchange experiences etcetera. But fundamentally, the problem remains: Sufficient resources have not been added and it has not been prioritized to hire enough people to be able to process these cases in a reasonable time.

Waiting for one's citizenship for several years entails a number of consequences for people beyond the uncertainty. I have been contacted by people who have submitted their passports to Migrationsverket and must collect the passport there every time they are going on a business trip abroad, to then send it back to the authority again without knowing how it will go. It is also the case that the uncertainty itself affects people.

Fundamentally, Sweden is not a developing country. We are actually a country that is capable of managing such a bureaucratic effort. Citizenship is not just some kind of reward. Citizenship is also the ticket into democracy. It is only Swedish citizens who have the right to vote in the parliamentary election.

It is important that these cases are handled carefully and that a proper assessment is made before anyone is granted citizenship. But it should not be unnecessarily delayed because the cases are piling up and too few people are handling them.

Madam Speaker! This government has not made an effort to shorten processing times. On the contrary, it has made an effort to prolong processing times. This has been done with the stated purpose that those who are now waiting for their citizenship, who may have applied for it one, two, three, or four years ago, should not receive a decision according to the laws that apply in Sweden today. The Tidö parties want to change the laws – we have heard about that in this debate. But when a person receives their decision, it should be based on the laws that apply today.

According to the constitution, cases must be handled efficiently, and the government may not dictate how an agency acts in an individual case. When the government made these statements, I and a colleague reported several ministers to the Committee on the Constitution, which also directed serious criticism at these ministers' actions.

I can note that we in the chamber today have heard, on one hand, the Sweden Democrats, who think it is good that people wait illegally long for decisions, and on the other hand, the Moderates, who argue that it is a problem when authorities have illegally long processing times and inefficient decision-making processes.

We in Miljöpartiet think it is important that the Swedish Migration Agency receives the resources needed so that people do not remain for year after year awaiting a decision. It is very possible that the sitting government wants to change the laws for the future, but it is never okay to try to delay decisions so that those who should receive their decisions according to currently applicable law do not receive them.

Madam Speaker! In this debate, we have also heard of a desire to divide those of us who live in this country into us and them. I also want to powerfully distance myself from that type of rhetoric from this rostrum. I believe it is harmful. I believe it does something to a young person to grow up with the label "them" and be seen as someone else, someone who does not belong, simply because he or she has not yet become a Swedish citizen.

I think we should have a common ambition: that those who come to our country should be able to become citizens and participate fully in democracy. I think that from day one we should see every human being as part of the "we" who shall build this country into a better country. Even those who have not yet received their Swedish citizenship shall be treated with respect and human dignity. We shall not cast out those people who have already made Sweden their home – those who work and pay tax, those with children who go to school, those who have started companies here, those who have bought houses and built their lives. They have built Sweden and the places they live in stronger.

No, we are against this government's divisive policy, its us-and-them policy. I look forward to seeing a different rhetoric from Sweden's most senior civil servants and ministers after the election on September 13 this year – a rhetoric that is about all of us, a community, a we.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates will, as said, always want to see that those who do right become a part of the "we". That is not what this is about. Those who do not do right shall not become a part of the "we".

It is impossible to mistake Member Hirvonen's genuine commitment to migration issues. I do not vote for Miljöpartiet and do not always share Annika's view on these issues. But if I had voted for Miljöpartiet, I would certainly have seen Member Hirvonen as a potential migration minister candidate. Now the Member does not need to review herself; that is what I will request of her. The Member also does not need to fully account for any government negotiations that may already be taking place – who knows. But I still want to ask the Member a question. If a government were to be formed after the next election, is the migration minister portfolio something that Miljöpartiet would gladly want?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is true that I am very engaged in these issues. This is truly important. It is about real people's lives.

In our previous exchange, a question was posed that I did not have the opportunity to answer. Magnus Resare concluded by talking about how the government has actually not changed the rules at all for who is allowed to be reunited as a family. They have only changed things slightly in the frameworks and removed a small three-month limit. But the three-month limit is the difference between whether a child for several years will get to grow up with their mother on a screen or if a mother will get to hold her daughter. It is the difference for the vast majority of families.

We in Miljöpartiet believe that the human right for a small child to grow up with their parents is absolute. A parent should not have to worry about how the children are doing in the refugee camp in Jordan while trying to learn Swedish grammar and seeking work. The children should be allowed to come to Sweden as soon as the parents have been granted residence permits. Parents should not be placed in the dilemma that currently exists when they, for example, flee across the Mediterranean.

I know mothers who say they regret not taking their children on the life-threatening flight. If they had known it would take eight years before they could hug their child again, they might have preferred to risk their lives together. And it is not a technicality; it is something to engage with and something to care about. It is about people's lives for real.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Say that then, Hirvonen, to the mother who, only after four or five months in Sweden, got hold of her family and could not be reunited! She also came to a Sweden where there were no integration tools whatsoever. As a parent, one could not create the possibility of getting a home and a job to be able to support one's family. It was they who were affected by your policy.

We are now coming with good integration measures. We have reduced migration so that the people who are here can take charge of their lives and secure a proper home and a real job in order to be able to provide for those around them.

It is true that some managed to get hold of their family and get them here within three months. But it is also true that a good many did not succeed with that. It happened when you governed together with the Social Democrats.

I do not see that it is much worse today than it was when you were in power. On the contrary, it is much better, because we will ensure that these people get jobs, apartments, houses, or whatever it is, so that they can bring their families here. We make life better for all people in this country, regardless of whether one came here two weeks ago or has lived here their whole life.

I am asking again the question that I unfortunately did not receive an answer to. I tried to answer the member's questions as well as I could without asking counter-questions or making arguments about anything other than what I was asked about. But I am once again posing my question to the member: Is the Migration Minister portfolio something that Miljöpartiet very much wants at a government negotiation?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! A brief answer to that question, Madam Speaker, is that it is not I who decide which ministerial portfolios the Green Party will prioritize in such a negotiation. That is done by those who are a bit higher in rank.

I want to stop at the reasoning that there is no difference now. Even before, there were people who could not apply to be reunited with their family within three months, and therefore there would be no difference that everyone is now deprived of the possibility to be reunited with their families as soon as possible. But it is a huge difference.

For me as an environmentalist, the reasonable conclusion of that some people, due to the three-month rule, need to wait a very long time to embrace their children again, is that we should ensure that everyone, regardless of how long it takes to locate family members, has the right to be immediately reunited with their children, their mother, or their spouse. It is better for integration.

Families are integrated faster than single adults. If a child is allowed to come to Sweden when they are seven years old, it is easier to manage the Swedish school than if they have to wait two, three or four years until mom or dad gets a steady job and an apartment and comes to Sweden when the child is eleven. It is therefore good for integration that the family is kept together.

This does not stand in the way of investments in jobs or housing. One can do both. It is that penny that would need to drop with the Moderaterna, who nevertheless talk about wanting integration. This policy, which splits families, worsens integration.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I would like to thank the Swedish National Audit Office for a solid and good audit. That the Swedish National Audit Office has chosen to review the issue of the processing of citizenship cases is welcome and good. The recommendations are also reasonable and well-balanced.

The Swedish National Audit Office's review of citizenship cases shows that the processing has been inefficient, this based on a combination of factors. It has partly been about the agency's internal governance, partly about the new Administrative Procedure Act which entered into force in 2018, and partly about savings and volatility in resources. Ultimately, it is a political responsibility; that is it absolutely.

Internal governance has failed on a number of points. Internal production targets have led to errors. New public management often has that effect. A lack of support and uniformity has led to uncertainty and inaccuracies. This is not the first time the agency has received criticism for this. The conditions have been uncertain purely financially. The low adjustment in the middle of the cost crisis in 2024 did not make matters better, just as the low projected adjustments at this point in time did not either. The Swedish Migration Agency received criticism for this also in 2024 and 2025, among others from the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice.

Generally speaking, it can be said that the authority has undergone enormous changes during the last ten years. The migration crisis, the pandemic, Russia's further invasion of Ukraine, an enormous workload in the form of the introduction of the migration pact and new laws on a rolling basis simply create an incredibly tough situation over a very long period. To govern in such a changing world is, of course, not easy, Madam Speaker.

Through the introduction of the new Administrative Procedure Act, a strange situation was created where the management model clashed with the intentions of the law. That a large number of cases therefore remained pending, despite the fact that they could be decided quite quickly, is problematic.

For the individual, it is of course taxing to have to live in the uncertainty that it entails not having one's case decided. That the state can process cases expeditiously and in a legally secure manner is fundamental in a constitutional state. Regardless of whether it results in an approval or a rejection, a decision is always better than no decision. But it is also important that it is correct, not least when it concerns a decision as important as citizenship. It must be thorough processing, and in that case, it must also be allowed to take time.

That the Swedish Migration Agency has been uncertain about its funding during a period with an enormous number of investigations, with new laws and when the asylum and migration pact is also to be introduced, has created an unmanageable situation for the agency. The forecasts of significantly reduced appropriations to the agency just a few years ahead have also not created the conditions to steer effectively towards shorter queues. In combination with increased workloads for the processing of citizenship cases, it has led to that relatively uncomplicated cases have ended up far back in the queue. Individuals have simply ended up caught in the middle. This problematic situation has caused people to have to pause their lives while waiting for a decision.

Madam Speaker! I support the Social Democrats' special statement. Otherwise, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Madam Speaker! I conclude by once again thanking the Swedish National Audit Office for their review and submission.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats point out in a separate statement that they, like the Green Party, consider that the processing of citizenship cases is proceeding too slowly.

The report being discussed today shows that the processing actually should have been more thorough so that one could find out which foreigners are actually receiving citizenship in Sweden. Since almost one-third of the granted citizenship applications have concerned persons who have not been able to prove their identity, the citizenship process has gone too fast. Not enough controls have been carried out, and one has not found out whom one is granting citizenship to. This occurred when the Socialdemokraterna were in government.

The question is why the Social Democratic member is in such a hurry to grant citizenship to foreigners. Is it not more important that we know who actually becomes a citizen instead of rushing the citizenship process? Is it not better that it takes its time to become a Swedish citizen instead of those who become Swedish citizens too quickly neither harbor loyalty towards Sweden nor feel like a part of a Swedish community?

Becoming a Swedish citizen entails an unconditional right to reside in Sweden. Does the member not believe that the citizenship process should take longer instead of politicians working to accelerate this process, as the Social Democrats do through their special statement?

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Nima Gholam Ali Pour for his question.

I do not know if the member listened to my speech, but I said that it is important that these matters are handled carefully and that it must be allowed to take time. These are difficult and complex matters, and we must have all respect for that.

Madam Speaker! It is precisely the long processing times at the Swedish Migration Agency that we are debating now. It is not the case that a Social Democratic-led government has sped up these cases; rather, the review shows that it has instead gone a bit too slowly, which has consequences for individuals.

Of course, the processing must be thorough. There must be order and clarity in the migration process and in citizenship matters. It must be allowed to take time and be properly reviewed. Therefore, Migrationsverket needs to be reinforced with more case officers so that the process can be shortened where it is unnecessarily long. People in a citizenship process should not have to wait too long for the important decision, as it is a difficult situation for the individual.

We are willing to look at this issue, and we are also willing to give Migrationsverket the resources one needs moving forward to be able to handle these processes in a good, efficient and legally secure manner.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats were very efficient when it came to distributing Swedish citizenship. That must not be forgotten. I therefore understand why the member from the Social Democrats considers it to be going too slowly now. During Magdalena Andersson's last years as Prime Minister, approximately 89,000 foreigners received Swedish citizenship. In 2025, the number of granted citizenships landed at around 38,000. The Tidö parties have thus more than halved the number of granted citizenships, and when the raised requirements for citizenship are in place, there will be yet another halving.

What is the Social Democrats' answer to this? Yes, they want the citizenship process to go faster so that more foreigners can obtain citizenship, which is exactly what the Green Party wants. It is the same policy that the Social Democrats pursued earlier but with a new language.

But we must not go back to a policy where citizenship was handed out to the right and left without any requirements being set at all and without any checks being performed. It is precisely that policy that has led us here – a policy where tempo was prioritized over control and where volume took precedence over responsibility.

That time is over. This government and the Sweden Democrats will not return to an order where citizenship is distributed quickly, carelessly and without requirements. Citizenship shall not be handed out; it must be earned.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! The rhetoric is deplorable when we debate this important issue.

Nima Gholam Ali Pour is therefore accusing the social democratically led government of processing things too quickly, while the debate is about the processing having gone too slowly. It becomes a tricky meta-discussion.

How long does Nima Gholam Ali Pour consider it reasonable to wait for one's citizenship case to be decided by the Swedish Migration Agency? Is it reasonable to have to wait for four years? Or are there advantages to having an efficient and legally secure processing that takes significantly less time?

Let me emphasize again that a legally secure process is important. It is important that the processing does not go too fast, but it is also important that it does not go too slowly. I am completely convinced that the case officers at Migrationsverket do everything they can to make this process function as effectively and legally securely as possible.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I welcome the members to the migration policy debate. It has been a long time since we had Social Democratic representatives in it, and even longer since we had a committee member from the Social Democrats in it. The last time was in November, a little more than two years ago. It is therefore pleasing that the Social Democrats are beginning to participate in a debate that we other parties consider extremely important, namely the one on migration policy.

I saw the other day that Vänsterpartiet has created a group that is to engage in government negotiations for a possible change of power after the election. I hope that won't happen, but the voters have the last word. I understand from what was communicated then that they do not intend to participate in a government they are not allowed to sit in. It seems that the old doormat has gone and become a doorman for the Socialdemokraterna.

My question therefore reminds me of the one I asked Annika Hirvonen – but now with a Social Democratic perspective: Can the member rule out that an Environment Party member or a Left Party member becomes Minister for Migration in the event of a change of government?

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! I love that the Moderates want to talk about Social Democratic government formation. It confirms that the Social Democrats are the party that the world revolves around in the Moderate world.

I believe that Magnus Resare, just like I, knows that we think the Swedish people should go to the polls and have their say before a government is formed. We have had experiences during Swedish political history that have shown that it is not so successful to state exactly how one intends to cooperate with other parties before an election. It is not to respect the outcome of the voters' voices in the general elections.

We had a very protracted government formation in 2018; it took 134 days. It was a result of a bloc politics that locked parties into different positions and which then made it difficult to break away from the bloc politics and the collaborations. I do not believe this is good for Swedish politics.

I believe that Swedish politics needs more cooperation across the block boundaries, I believe that Swedish politics needs more agreements across party lines and I believe that Swedish politics needs fewer games regarding the formation of the government.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! It may appear as if we Moderates have a hang-up regarding how the Social Democrats intend to form a government, but in all seriousness, it is actually about us representing the Swedish people.

I also genuinely believe that the Swedish people want to know roughly what the lines of thinking are if they are now to cast their vote for the Social Democrats. Is the Social Democrats a party that is prepared to give away the migration minister portfolio to the Green Party or the Left Party? All I asked for was an answer on whether we can rule out that such will be the case. I can say this: I rule out that the Left Party gets a migration minister portfolio in a Moderate-led government after the next election. It is a promise to the voters. I might have to eat it, but I find it hard to believe. That is why I asked the question.

I share the member's view. It is clear that we should join forces more and pursue politics together. We do that all the time in migration issues. You Social Democrats are with us on every issue. You have hardly voted no to anything we have presented during the three years that have passed, and as far as I know, you have not intended to say no to much else that is coming either. That is very good.

The problem is only that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet consistently vote against what we do to get the migration policy in order in this country. Therefore, I think, even though we might be a bit persistent and even though Ola Möller from the member's party previously described us as parrots and all that, that it is a serious issue and important voter information. Can one imagine giving away the migration minister portfolio to parties that want to return to 2015's migration policy?

I understand that a government must be united on an issue, but the voters should find out what the situation is and whether the responsible minister has the basic stance that we should go back to how it was in 2015. We have, across party lines in the Swedish Riksdag, done what we could to never return to that.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that Magnus Resare mentions 2015, for it was that year we jointly – broadly across party lines in the Swedish Riksdag – changed the migration policy. In the reports from Delmi, that is the Delegation for Migration Studies, which is the government's special agency, it is stated that this, together with the Tidö government's policy, has been the two major shifts in Swedish migration policy.

In 2015, a major shift was therefore carried out. It was done by several parties because it was realized that the consequences of the then-current alliance government's policy were not working given the situation and the migration crisis we faced.

I believe there is a realism in migration policy that is significant among today's parties. I also believe there is a great insight that we have difficult integration problems in Sweden that we need to solve. In that case, we also need to have an active integration policy that includes people getting a job. We have 500,000 unemployed in Sweden today, but there is a lack of initiatives in the labor market policy. It will not improve integration.

I hope, Madam Speaker, that we will have the opportunity to have many migration policy debates here in the chamber ahead. I truly look forward to that.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It will be exciting to see if I receive any questions regarding the formation of the government here. I can take those, even though the report was not about that.

We are dealing with the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the Swedish Migration Agency's handling of citizenship cases up to 2023. As has been mentioned several times here tonight, people have stood in queues for several years and are still doing so. There are problems with legal certainty. There is too little control. All these three parts are a problem. I think we should take this with us and try to do something about it. We can state that the government responded to this problem with demands for layoffs at the Swedish Migration Agency in 2024 and also savings moving forward. That likely did not make it better; instead, the processing times were extended.

Now we stand in a situation where this lies behind us, but what happens in the future? It appears from the Tidö Agreement that permanent residence permits shall be converted into temporary residence permits. This has been investigated and, according to the Swedish Migration Agency, is expected to cost 6 billion kronor and create 187,000 new individual cases, the largest part of which is to be investigated. It is not expected to shorten processing times or create better management of citizen cases. It will not do that – I believe we can say that anyway.

The funny thing about this is that the purpose, according to the Liberals and the Moderates, is that more people should become citizens. That is what Forssell says. I understand that there are those sitting here laughing a little, among others Nima Gholam Ali Pour. If one listened to the Sweden Democrats' representative earlier here in the debate, one heard that he doesn't exactly think that more people should become citizens.

It is still somewhat interesting that the Minister, the Liberals, and representatives here in the chamber say that more people will become citizens with this policy. The Sweden Democrats say that everyone should leave, that no one should become a citizen, and that it is good that nothing happens and that the processing times are long so that people do not become citizens.

It is something that doesn't quite hold up here. It would have been interesting to hear from, for example, the Kristdemokraterna, who demanded legal certainty, how this affects legal certainty. How is it affected by all this ignorance about what is going to happen in the 187,000 new cases? The Tidö Agreement exists, so we expect that the investigation will become policy. But it could also happen that it doesn't.

Then, for example, the Courts Administration has said that it is probably not possible to do within the framework of the law, but one never knows. It is not the case that, at the current moment, it is really possible to predict everything that the Tidö Agreement will lead to.

What would happen to these people – nursing assistants, bus drivers, assistant nurses, etcetera? Of the assistant nurses in Sweden, 90 percent earn less than the wage floor in the proposal that is currently on the Riksdag's table. That is the reality. All labor migrants who live and work here at the moment – they are not new – will be sent out.

How else should one handle it, asked Magnus Resare from Moderaterna. Yes, there should have been a transition period for the track change, one should not have raised the level to 90 percent of the median wage and one should have had wages in accordance with collective agreements instead. Then it would have been solved. Svenskt Näringsliv agrees. We hear time and again from the rostrum that those who behave, contribute and follow the rules are welcome – those who do right by themselves, in the words of Magnus Resare.

Now I will move on to Omni and case number five, I believe it is, about Jomana who is to be deported to Egypt without her mother and father who live and work here. The little brother has citizenship, but she is to be deported. She is 18 years old and has received it as a birthday present from the Tidöregeringen. That is the policy being pursued right now.

People talk about the rule of law and that those who behave are welcome, but this is how reality looks. What is talked about in the speaker's chair does not match reality. The policy being implemented leads to this. It is SD's policy. That is the reality, and I think the citizens have the right to know the true story.

(Applause)

In this speech, Annika Hirvonen (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 28 January.)

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