Stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates want Swedish citizenship to be something to be proud of. Becoming a citizen in Sweden through naturalisation, that is to say, acquiring Swedish citizenship after application, shall be the end of a successful integration process – a certificate of both one's own efforts and that one fully wishes to become, and is, a part of our Swedish community.

For all too long, Swedish citizenship has been characterized by a lack of requirements and low expectations. It has not mattered whether the person who came to Sweden has made an effort to learn Swedish, work, or become a part of our community.

Unlike in the vast majority of other countries in Europe, in Sweden one has been able to become a citizen without being able to speak a single word of Swedish, without knowing anything about how Swedish society works, and without having their own livelihood. It is not reasonable, and it is also not fair to all those who come to Sweden and strive to become a part of our community.

Furthermore, it has been very concerning that persons who have committed, or have been suspected of, serious crimes have been able to obtain Swedish citizenship. We all probably remember the 16-year-old boy who, in March 2022, shot and killed an innocent father of three at a gym in central Stockholm. The father paid with his life because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and had enough civil courage to confront the perpetrator. The boy, who was convicted of the murder in the District Court and subsequently received a harsher sentence in the Court of Appeal, was absurdly enough awarded Swedish citizenship during the time he was suspected of the murder.

I am convinced that I was not alone in being both outraged and shocked. That people who have committed serious crimes can be granted some of the finest things we have in Sweden, a Swedish citizenship, is neither right nor fair.

For us Moderates, it is a self-evident matter that effort should pay off and that crime should be punished. That is why it was long-awaited that the Riksdag in 2024, at the initiative of the Moderate-led government, tightened the rules for obtaining Swedish citizenship, and it is long-awaited that the government has now presented further tightenings of the requirements for obtaining Swedish citizenship.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is not a community without requirements. We Moderates are clear: in Sweden, one provides for oneself, in Sweden, one speaks Swedish, and in Sweden, one accepts and adheres to Swedish values.

We expect those who come to Sweden and want to become a part of our society to make an effort to learn Swedish and to enter the labor market and become self-sufficient. We also expect that one learns how Swedish society works and makes an effort to become a part of it.

Swedish citizenship is a symbol of participation and belonging to Sweden. It is therefore entirely reasonable that we require those who wish to become Swedish citizens to have knowledge of Swedish and of Swedish society, to be able to support themselves, to have lived in Sweden for a longer period, and to have a responsible and honest way of life.

A very important part is to tighten the screening so that no one who has committed a crime or poses a threat to Sweden is granted Swedish citizenship. These requirements should have been in place a long time ago. Now, the Moderate-led government has presented proposals for a clear upgrade of Swedish citizenship on the Riksdag's table, something that the Social Democrats failed to achieve during eight years in government.

Madam Speaker! Swedish citizenship is almost irrevocable. It is therefore of the utmost importance that citizenship is not incorrectly granted to persons who constitute, or may come to constitute, a security risk. Several of the proposals in the government's bill aim to prevent just this, and it is therefore desirable that the proposals in these parts are fully implemented as soon as possible.

In this context, it is also important to mention that the Moderate-led government is working to introduce a possibility to revoke a Swedish citizenship from persons with dual citizenship who have acquired Swedish citizenship through false information or who have committed very serious crimes.

As soon as the constitution permits this, we will ensure that it becomes a reality – a proposition that a potential S-government, however, will never be able to submit if the misfortune were to occur and Left Party and Green Party members are included in that government after the election this autumn. It is worth remembering.

Madam Speaker! I am, to say the least, concerned when I read the opposition's counter-proposal regarding our re-evaluation of Swedish citizenship.

Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet say no to both requirements for means of subsistence as well as requirements for knowledge in Swedish and social studies, a longer period of residence in Sweden, and that one has had and can be expected to have a decent and honest way of life in order to be granted Swedish citizenship.

In the Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet's Sweden, citizenship will also in the future be handed out without any requirements whatsoever. They want to continue to coddle those who have committed crimes and those who do not make an effort to become a part of Swedish society.

My simple reflection is: What would happen to the citizenship legislation if the left-wing side gained power after the autumn election? How would the issues be handled in Magdalena Andersson's government, which the Left Party and the Green Party demand to be part of?

Madam Speaker! The left's lack of requirements risks cementing subsidy dependency and exclusion. It is a way to lower expectations for those who immigrate to Sweden. It is a staggering naivety.

The left's low expectations and lack of demands are doing a disservice to so many people who have immigrated to Sweden, and it is very harmful for integration. Add to that the irresponsible migration policy that these left-wing parties want to pursue, and you have the recipe that has created 179 areas of exclusion, where the residents have weak anchoring in the labor market, high dependency on benefits, and weak school results.

This development must be broken. Therefore, the moderate-led government has reduced asylum-related immigration to the lowest level since the measurements began in 1985.

Now we are increasing the incentives for those who come to Sweden to integrate and become a part of our community. We Moderates stand on the side of hard-working people. Those who come here, exert themselves and behave correctly shall be able to become a part of our community and, at the end of a successful integration process, become a Swedish citizen. Where you are headed is more important than where you come from.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the government's bill, that is, approval of the committee's proposal for a decision. Let us now enact the law to upgrade citizenship which, symbolically important, shall come into effect on our national day on June 6!

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!

Let us enact laws – but it must be done in a legally secure manner.

In the Moderaternas Sverige, the principles of the rule of law are being threatened. Now, they want to implement a new citizenship law without transitional provisions.

Introducing a new law with stricter requirements is one thing. I understand that, and I also understand the member's argument. But to dismiss the investigator's and the Council on Legislation's proposals regarding transitional rules affects tens of thousands of people who have already adapted to the current rules.

Crimes are brought up here as an example, but the member cannot seriously mean that tens of thousands of people who have applied for citizenship today would be criminals. To scrap transitional rules based on those arguments would be a collective punishment of everyone who is in the systems today.

This is ultimately about legal certainty, justice, and predictability in Swedish legislation, something that the government does not seem to care about at all.

The Council on Legislation considers it inappropriate to implement proposals for a new citizenship law without transitional rules and has therefore advised the government against such an order. I share the Council on Legislation's assessment. It is actually remarkable that the government does not take this criticism to heart but instead dismisses transitional rules and undermines trust in the system and our democratic principles.

People must be able to rely on the rules that applied at the time they applied for citizenship. Now this is being changed with retroactive effect. This becomes retroactive in practice. A united opposition has reserved themselves and considers that the government needs to introduce transitional provisions. Why do you not introduce transitional provisions? Why does the government disregard these people?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country, and it is of course immensely pleasing that many want to become a part of Swedish society and have their own Swedish citizenship. Of course, it is pleasing, but we have for far too long distributed Swedish citizenship almost without any requirements to persons who have not been able to speak a single word of Swedish, have not known anything about Swedish society, and have not been able to support themselves.

There are major problems with the previous legislation. But Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want to maintain the status quo and not make any changes. We are doing this because we have seen all the problems linked to this far too loose legislation.

Tony Haddou mentions the rule of law. It is clear that several parts of this bill aim to prevent persons who constitute or may come to constitute a security threat or a security risk in Sweden, or who may come to commit crimes or have committed crimes, from acquiring Swedish citizenship. We do not think it is appropriate for them to receive it. Therefore, we want the new legislation to take full effect as soon as possible. It will occur on Sweden's National Day.

This is not a strange idea from a purely administrative law perspective. It is entirely natural that the rules used at the time of review regarding the rules are also those used when reviewing applications for citizenship. We think it is incredibly central that the rules come into effect as soon as possible.

Vänsterpartiet is not against this based on some kind of noble rule-of-law idea. It is about the fact that one fundamentally thinks it is a bad proposal. One wants to keep the current rules as they are.

The question back to the Left Party is: Why should we not set higher requirements for those who want to become Swedish citizens? Why should one be able to become a Swedish citizen without being able to speak a single word of Swedish, without knowing anything about Swedish society, and without even having their own livelihood? Why should it be this way? Why is this the Left Party's answer to this?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I must address that this issue with crime is being mentioned again. I still want to say that national security is already regulated. Migrationsverket and Säkerhetspolisen already have the authority to deny citizenship for persons who might pose security risks or are criminals and so on. It is already regulated today.

This is about something completely different, namely that the government wants to deny citizenship to tens of thousands of people who are already in the system. They have been deceived. They applied for citizenship during a period when certain rules applied. But after a few years – even when processing times are several years – the government is now changing the laws and introducing completely different requirements, without transitional rules.

We have seen what happens when this government enacts legislation without transitional rules. People get caught in the middle. People are deceived by new systems. It is not in accordance with our principles, that is to say the principles of the rule of law in Sweden, to legislate in that way.

There must be serious rules when enacting new laws. The government has completely ignored this, and every time there is massive criticism from your own investigators but also from the Council on Legislation, which says that you cannot legislate this way because it is against the principles of the rule of law. Now you are doing it once again, so my question remains: Why do you not introduce transitional provisions?

You are obstructing all these people who are in the system, who have waited for citizenship for several years and who applied during a period when certain rules applied. Now those rules no longer apply because the government feels like introducing other requirements and rules. These people were therefore deceived when they applied for citizenship. It is not a serious way to legislate. The government should listen to the Council on Legislation.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that Tony Haddou of the Left Party does not answer the questions of why we should not make any changes at all and why the Left Party says no to the entire government's proposal, the entire bill. Why does the Left Party think the current order is appropriate? It is about people who cannot speak a single word of Swedish, know nothing about Swedish society, have hardly any means of support to lean on, and who have been here for a relatively short time compared to other comparable countries. Why should that group be granted Swedish citizenship in the way it has been done previously and with all the problems linked to it? The Left Party does not answer this.

A central part in this is, naturally, national security. For us Moderates, it is an important part of why we want the rules to take full effect as soon as the law enters into force on National Day on June 6. Also, Säpo, a not insignificant referral body, points out that it is important that the rules enter into force as soon as possible, so that there is an opportunity to find those who constitute a security risk to Sweden. The Left Party disregards this entirely along with the rest of the opposition. They think that transitional provisions are the most important part of this, while we think that the important thing is to get the rules in place.

What Tony Haddou says about us having deceived someone and will reject a lot of applications is also not true. It is just another set of rules that must be followed for someone to receive Swedish citizenship. It is the finest thing we have, and we now want to increase its value. It should be the final step in the integration process to become a part of Swedish society. Vänsterpartiet completely ignores that. Vänsterpartiet does not respect it at all. In combination with its migration policy, one wants, by means of this, to return to the crisis situation that prevailed when there was a massive flow to Sweden. Furthermore, one wants to push for it to be easy to become a Swedish citizen. We do not want that.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with a small piece of factual information for the people listening who perhaps have not familiarized themselves with all the rules regarding citizenship. It may be worth pointing out that in order to obtain citizenship today, you must have lived a law-abiding life in Sweden. This means, for example, that they check for debts with the Enforcement Authority, among other things, and that there is a waiting period if you have committed a crime. Those rules already exist in the current situation. It is important to keep in mind that you do not simply get citizenship, regardless of whether you have committed a crime or not. That is how it sounds from the rostrum. That is not the case according to the current rules. I think it is very important to say.

If we do not start from facts, it will be very difficult to have a serious debate. Given that this is the first presentation and we are already starting to move a bit away from that direction, I think it may be worth mentioning that, for example, one cannot become a citizen if one has a prison sentence or similar. Fines one has been sentenced to must also be paid. Then a certain waiting period applies. It is important to include this, because of course criminals should not have a free pass to become Swedish citizens. Not even the Vänsterpartiet probably thinks so, even if it sometimes seems uncertain.

One of the questions that we actually agree on in the opposition concerns transitional rules. There are very many people here who have applied for citizenship under certain conditions. I have spoken with many of them. They have done everything right. They have worked. They have applied according to all the rules. They have not committed any crimes. They have not done anything wrong at all. Several governments, also the previous Alliance government – that is, the Swedish state – have said that those people are allowed to be here in Sweden and become full members of our club, or whatever one should call it. But now that is changing. It sends a signal from the Swedish state that one cannot trust us, and I do not think that is a good signal. Why should there not be transitional rules?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! What we are now doing in the committee's report, which is a confirmation of the government's proposition, is to codify the existing order and sharpen this by stating that one must have an honest and decent way of life in order to be able to become a Swedish citizen. It is a central part of upgrading Swedish citizenship. It is a fact.

This is also about the fact that one has been able to commit murder in Sweden and still become a Swedish citizen. Niels Paarup-Petersen claims that it has not been that way at all, but it has.

One only has to look at the case of the 16-year-old boy, whom I mentioned in my speech, who through a notification according to the regulations that applied at the time could become a Swedish citizen. It was this notification procedure that we changed in 2024, a procedure that we are now phasing out to the greatest extent possible. The vast majority instead need to apply and undergo the review that is linked to the application.

These are important distinctions that Niels Paarup-Petersen does not take up here, but instead, he claims somewhat perfunctorily that I have stood in the speaker's chair and spoken untruths. I have not. The fact was that the boy could become that, despite the fact that he was suspected and later convicted of a very serious crime.

It was the Moderate-led government – our four coalition parties – that ensured this was changed, with great opposition from Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. Not even on this is Niels Paarup-Petersen right when he says that Vänsterpartiet does not think so. Yes, Vänsterpartiet does not think we did the right thing by changing the notification procedure. But we did it anyway.

Now we are also changing the application procedure so that one must have knowledge of the Swedish language, knowledge of Swedish society, an income, etcetera. We are now upgrading Swedish citizenship in central areas so that it becomes adequate and fair.

My questions in return are: Why does the Centre Party not think it is important that we achieve success for this as soon as possible? Why does the Centre Party not think it is important to listen to, for example, Säpo, which has requested this?

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! As I said, today's rules, which I read out, state that one is already checked for crimes etcetera today.

I asked a question that I did not receive an answer to, but I might get it in the next round. It's going to be exciting! It read: Why can we not have transitional rules? People have indeed submitted an application with these conditions.

Again, it is obviously good that people are checked for crimes. We certainly could have landed on introducing a society test or a language test, if the government side had been interested in talking about it.

That the government time and again changes the conditions for people is challenging. A citizenship is a relationship between a citizen and a state. My view is that in the relationship between, on one hand, citizens and residents and, on the other hand, the state, the state must recruit actors who also behave properly. The state must also be someone one can trust. The individual and the person who is to become a citizen must, of course, behave and conduct themselves – or whatever different expressions other parties now have for this – but so must the state. Also, the state must be a party to trust.

When I talk to people who have a choice and can choose between different states in the world, they say that they no longer feel welcome. They see that the government time and again fails the expectations they have set for people who have come here. I truly believe that it harms Sweden. They say: Why doesn't Sweden want me anymore? This is not something I am just making up, but those who say this are people who are at the absolute top of Swedish business.

They see time and again that one threatens to withdraw all permanent residence permits and change the conditions for people's future lives. This is done just like that without taking into account the reality that people live in.

This is the reason why I ask again: Why can we not get transitional rules for those who have already submitted an application, which all other countries in Europe have?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I note once again that I do not receive an answer to the question of why one should not take into account, for example, Säpos position in the matter. It is an important part for national security in these cases so that we have the possibility to review them on a deeper level than we can with current legislation.

We believe it is central that this legislation is implemented to the full extent as soon as possible, that is, from the time the law enters into force on June 6, so that it has full effect as soon as it enters into force.

A Swedish citizenship granted today is, in practice, irrevocable. Regardless of what we find out later, it is very difficult to withdraw a Swedish citizenship. It will also be very difficult in the future, and so it shall be.

This is a matter of social cohesion that is of immense importance in a constitutional state. But since it is the final step in the integration process, in our view, and that it is practically irreversible, especially today, we want everyone who becomes a Swedish citizen from and including National Day to have been tested against the higher requirements that we set in the legislation.

We think it is completely reasonable that one should be able to speak the Swedish language before becoming a Swedish citizen. It is a debate that we have had for a long time in Sweden. It is a debate that also meant that it was claimed that one was fishing in murky waters. I remember myself that Lars Leijonborg, who raised this in the election campaign 25 years ago, was quite heavily mud-smeared by, among others, the Social Democrats.

It is important that one can do it, that one is a part of Swedish society by knowing a part of Swedish society and that one has their own livelihood. These are central parts of a Swedish citizenship. It is not about forbidding people from being in Sweden or about having a residence permit in Sweden. Becoming a Swedish citizen is the final step, and then we think it is reasonable that the rules take full effect as soon as possible.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Over 100,000 people are affected by the decision we are making today. 100,000 people are standing in line and have waited a long time for an answer. They have submitted their applications to the Swedish Migration Agency, sometimes four years ago. They have behaved well, and they have contributed. They have done everything that the Moderaterna say one should do and be rewarded for. But the processing times are scandalously long. They have grown from a balance of 90,000 to 100,000 just during the recent period.

Now the government wants to introduce a number of new rules on very short notice. For the people who have waited for four years, this will have major consequences. It is not just and reasonable in a constitutional state to change the rules retroactively. People need to be able to trust that what applies when one applies will also apply when one receives their decision, especially if one has waited for a period of four years.

Our parties have different views on exactly which rules should apply to obtain Swedish citizenship. But the fundamental principle in a rule of law that one should be able to rely on the fact that laws are not changed retroactively or in the middle of a process is something we should be able to agree on. That is what the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet have done.

The Moderates, on the other hand, go directly against the experts in the Council on Legislation and in their own investigation. Why?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen says: Our parties have different views on which rules should apply for acquiring a Swedish membership. That was perhaps the understatement of the year.

The Green Party does not want any changes at all. Furthermore, the Green Party actually does not want to remove the notification procedure. The Green Party does not want us to be able to stop those who are suspected of a serious crime or have committed a serious crime even if they are children. Not even them should we be able to stop from becoming Swedish citizens.

This is the Green Party's view on Swedish citizenship and Swedish migration policy. We can really hope that the Green Party does not get a majority together with the red-greens after the autumn election, because then we will know what awaits. Then there will be chaos in migration policy again, and there will again be chaos in the Swedish citizenship legislation.

Annika Hirvonen has a party behind her. One has now also gathered the entire opposition – S, V, C and MP – to be frank, who want to keep the door wide open for all those who have already managed to submit their application. We do not think that is what should be done. We think it is incredibly important to ensure that we now have sharpened rules.

We want to upgrade Swedish citizenship with stricter rules that ensure one must be able to speak Swedish, know some about Swedish society, and be able to support oneself. One must also have been here for a longer period.

It is a relatively fundamental principle of administrative law that the rules in force at the time of the review shall be followed. It is therefore nothing new in Swedish law; that is how it is.

That we have many in the queue who want to become Swedish citizens is obviously fantastic and a testament to how good Sweden is. But we must re-evaluate Swedish citizenship. That is not what the Miljöpartiet wants.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Instead of answering my direct question, Viktor Wärnick devoted the greater part of his speech to providing an incorrect description of the Green Party's policy and polarizing, misinterpreting, and exaggerating. In a political landscape where we are increasingly being pulled apart into a "us and them" and where things are polarized and simplified, it is not a responsible way to act as a politician in the Riksdag's speaker's chair. Let us understand each other, and let us take an interest in what we actually agree and disagree on. Let us not demonize and exaggerate.

One may have different opinions on whether it should take five or eight years of residence in Sweden to become a Swedish citizen. Neither of those is chaos. In Germany, they moved precisely from eight years to five years, while we in Sweden are now moving from five years to eight years. The Government and we disagree on what is right and what one believes is best for people who come here to become participatory and integrated.

This is not an open door today. Thorough security checks are conducted, and the rules have been tightened regarding what type of crime prevents one from becoming a Swedish citizen. In fact, Miljöpartiet, just like Moderaterna, thinks that if one is suspected of a serious crime, one should not automatically be able to obtain Swedish citizenship through application.

But my question was actually about why the government is not handling this responsibly through transitional provisions for the 100,000 people who have waited illegally long for a decision.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! This is a well-known rhetorical trick. When things get heated on the core issue, one retreats and says: Let us take responsibility for the political climate of debate. Then one does not want to take responsibility for one's own proposals and ideas. This is precisely what Annika Hirvonen is doing now.

Miljöpartiet wants transitional provisions while we believe that this should take full effect as soon as possible, partly because we believe that national security is a central issue for Sweden. We are also listening to what Säpo says regarding the presence or absence of transitional provisions. We think, as said, that it is important that these rules take effect as soon as possible after entry into force.

It is not that the 100,000 who are in the queue cannot become Swedish citizens. They simply have to meet the requirements that exist in Swedish citizenship legislation, which we are now re-evaluating. Someone who can speak the Swedish language, has knowledge of Swedish society, is self-sufficient, has not committed a crime, is not assumed to pose a security risk to Sweden, and has been here legally for eight years should be able to become a Swedish citizen. We believe that is the order that should prevail.

The Green Party does not think so. In addition to you saying that there should be transitional provisions, you say no to this. You take no account of the national security issue, which, among other things, Säpo raises. You ignore it; that is a fact. Instead, you back down and say: The dialogue is important; let us tone it down.

I think this is an important piece of consumer information for the voters ahead of the autumn election: If Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet get their demands through to join Magdalena Andersson's government, chaos awaits in the area of migration policy and in the citizenship legislation.

(Applause)

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, the starting point is that those who have moved to Sweden and are permanently resident in our country should also want to become Swedish citizens and fully participate in the Swedish community and thus also share the obligations and rights that are included in being a Swedish citizen.

Madam Speaker! I have many times reflected on my own Swedishness. As a Tornedalian, I am not alone in feeling more Swedish when I am in Finland and more Finnish when I am in Sweden. Am I not fully Swedish? Am I half? What am I? Many who have immigrated to Sweden feel the same. You are the girl from Iraq when you are in Sweden, and the girl from Sweden when you are in Iraq. It is a universal feeling shared by many people with roots in different countries and places in the world. It is easy not to feel completely like anything – or perhaps a little bit of everything.

Citizenship is an important part of the feeling of belonging to something, being Swedish, receiving Sweden's protection, and being able to call Sweden home. Citizenship is not one's entire identity, but it is an important part of one's identity. I have been a Swedish citizen from birth, and I feel pride when I travel around the world and hold my Swedish passport in my hand with the knowledge that it is one of the world's most powerful travel documents – something that also testifies to the view of Sweden as a valued country in the world.

Madam Speaker! For several decades now, the question of Swedish citizenship has been investigated in several rounds by several governments, often linked to migration, integration, and the state's view on the significance of citizenship. In 1997, a total review of the 1950 citizenship legislation was conducted, which led to the law enacted in 2001 and which even today forms the basis for our legislation. In 2013, the investigation was conducted that Gunnar Strömmer, now Minister of Justice, was responsible for. There it was established, among other things, that Swedish citizenship represents a sense of belonging to Sweden and that citizenship ceremonies shall be carried out in every municipality. In 2021, the then Social Democratic-led government appointed an investigation on language and society requirements. The purpose was to strengthen the status of citizenship and promote an inclusive society. This has been taken further by this government, among other things in the proposal we are now considering.

Madam Speaker! It is not effortless to become a Swedish citizen today, as is sometimes given the impression. One must be able to prove one's identity, have a permanent residence permit or similar residence status, have lived in Sweden for a certain number of years, normally five years, and have had and be expected to have an honest way of life.

Madam Speaker! In the bill "Stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship," the assessment is made that Swedish citizenship needs to be better protected and respected. We share that assessment but do not agree with all parts of the government's bill.

We agree that as a Swedish citizen and permanently resident in Sweden, it is reasonable that one can understand and make oneself understood at a basic level of the Swedish language and have basic knowledge of Swedish society.

If one has previously committed a crime, it should take a longer period of time before one can become a Swedish citizen, if one is even to be considered.

Furthermore, it is also reasonable to increase the residence period from five years to eight years. Since the residence period was last reviewed, not least the deteriorated security situation and the complexity of the work in detecting potential security threats have changed the need for sharper legislation and a longer residence period.

This means that we also do not stand out among our Nordic neighboring countries, which have up to nine years as the minimum period of residence to be eligible for citizenship. Against this background, it is reasonable that the Swedish rules are also tightened and harmonized with the legislation in the other Nordic countries.

Mr. Speaker, we have, as we have said, some objections. Firstly: Regarding the phasing out of the notification procedure, that is, the somewhat simpler way to apply for and be assessed for citizenship, we believe that it should be followed up carefully, especially with regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child – something that has also been pointed out by the Children's Ombudsman.

Secondly: When it comes to the subsistence requirement, it sounds like it is something new, but the truth is that requirements for subsistence are already set in the sense that one needs to have a permanent residence permit to obtain Swedish citizenship. We have no objection to this being clarified. However, we have views on how it is designed. We want, in line with what Arbetsförmedlingen states, to include, for example, unemployment benefits but also support for new entrepreneurship.

For the third: The Swedish language is a key to integration and to being able to fully share the community in Swedish social life. It is reasonable to introduce a requirement for sufficient knowledge of Swedish and of Swedish society, but when it comes to the age limit, we are hesitant about the proposal of 16 years and that it is a good limit for the knowledge requirements. Just as for the income requirements, we believe it is more reasonable that the age of majority, 18 years, constitutes the limit for the knowledge requirements.

Madam Speaker! The fourth objection concerns the fact that we have received very many emails with personal stories about the path to Swedish citizenship and, above all, how long one has waited to have their case reviewed.

The Council on Legislation considers it inappropriate to introduce the proposed regulation without transitional provisions and advises against it. In line with the views of the Council on Legislation, we question the government's rather simple dismissal of the need for transitional provisions, when even the government's own investigator recommended such.

Ultimately, it is about trust in the rule of law and that the regulation which formed the basis for an application or an appeal of a decision is not undermined by significantly changing the rules to the detriment of the individual during the processing time. It is an important administrative law principle, Madam Speaker. I therefore move for approval of reservation 2. We consider it important to introduce transitional provisions in accordance with the proposals submitted by the government's own investigator.

Madam Speaker! The entry into force occurs on June 6, on National Day. It is short notice from the government, probably to create impactful symbolism of the whole. It is approaching June 6, the day when the vast majority of municipalities not only organize National Day celebrations but also welcome new citizens at these festivities. It is also the day when we commemorate old kings and laws. For my part, I find the laws a bit more interesting.

On June 6, 1809, the Riksdag signed the form of government that laid the foundation for modern Sweden. It meant more power to the people and more democracy after a period when the monarchy could have decided practically everything itself.

The form of government from 1974 that Sweden has today and which replaced the Instrument of Government of 1809 was also issued on June 6. In the first chapter on the foundations of the constitutional system, there is, of course, Section 1: "All public power in Sweden derives from the people." We can keep that in our sleep, hopefully. But then follow provisions on freedom of opinion, universal and equal suffrage, respect for all people's equal value and for the individual human being's freedom and dignity, everyone's right to work, housing and education, a good environment for current and future generations, everyone's equality before the law, objectivity and impartiality, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of demonstration and freedom of religion, the right to free basic education in public school, freedom of research and the right of public access.

It is not just fine words but meaning, but it is words that shape our Sweden. It is the values that characterize our country and which make it so that we who live and live here belong to the 7 percent of people in the world who get to live in full-fledged democracies. It is sadly few for granted.

Recent measurements of the development of democracy show that it is heading in the wrong direction. The decline of democracy continues, and authoritarian forces are growing. Over 120 million people are fleeing from their homes. We must remind ourselves of this on June 6, while we will also rejoice for all those who have their citizenship confirmed and welcomed and who, once and for all, get to call Sweden their home.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Ida Karkiainen spoke very beautifully about the importance of citizenship and also about the foundations of our constitutional system in the Instrument of Government. In the Instrument of Government, Chapter 1, Section 2, fifth paragraph, it also states that the public shall work to ensure that all people can achieve participation and equality in society. Citizenship is a requirement to fully achieve participation in democracy and to have the right to vote in the parliamentary election and the right to participate and stand as a candidate.

In order to ensure that everyone who lives here and whose future is determined by the laws here in the Riksdag shall achieve equality and participation, one cannot, we in Miljöpartiet argue, set requirements for, for example, the ability to support oneself or the ability to pass different types of tests. There are admittedly some exceptions in the government's proposal, but we think they are vaguely formulated and insufficient.

The Social Democrats demand that more types of livelihood should be able to be counted in the assessment of whether someone should be granted the right to vote, become a Swedish citizen and be able to participate fully in democracy. How do the Social Democrats view the right for people who cannot achieve the ability to support themselves and who perhaps cannot even manage to get to a test situation or succeed on a test? Should they also have the right to be fully participatory and equal when they live their lives and have their future in Sweden?

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the question!

It is truly an important aspect. That is why, in the government's bill, it is described, among other things, how important it is to be able to make exceptions for people who, for example, have a disability and to make assessments based on each individual's specific situation. It is very important.

It is clear that we cannot legislate for situations concerning every individual fully and hit the mark, but exception provisions are needed. This is formulated in the government's proposition, which we are very pleased with and welcome.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! There is a group that has particular difficulty becoming citizens, both with the current rules and with the upcoming ones, namely the unaccompanied minors for whom the Swedish Migration Agency has changed the date of birth. For their situation, there is today no assessment or solution regarding how long one must have lived in Sweden to be able to become a Swedish citizen, if when one arrived in Sweden, one was given a different age and a different birthday by the Swedish Migration Agency because one was not believed when one stated when one was born.

These persons never achieve verified identity and not even probable identity, as the assessment looks today. Are the Social Democrats prepared to take measures if legislation is required to ensure that also that group of young people, who may come to live in Sweden not just for a few decades but for 70–80 years, at some point in a reasonable future will also be able to be fully participatory and equal?

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

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

I have also been approached regarding exactly this problem and have been made aware of how it can cause trouble for these people. It is clearly a group that one needs to look at. One needs to see if the authorities can do something for them, given that it is authority decisions that form the basis for the assessment.

It is clear – that is what we also say – that it is important that people who are to live permanently in Sweden and live here for the rest of their lives also have the opportunity to become Swedish citizens.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish citizenship legislation has throughout my entire life been completely absurd. In Sweden, until now, one has been able to become a citizen without being able to speak a single word of Swedish, without having worked and earned an honest krona in their entire life here, without having a basic understanding of what Sweden is and how the country functions and furthermore without having had to live here for any longer period.

The only country I have been able to find that comes close to the Swedish situation is Ireland. Ireland lacks a language test. This is because they perceive their everyday language, English, as a legacy of foreign occupation, so they do not want a test in that language. It is a special situation. All other comparable countries have this type of regulation, and this for very easily understandable reasons.

Why doesn't Sweden have this? Yes, if one goes back and looks at the investigations that have looked at these questions previously, one finds the same old tired talking points that are always brought up as soon as someone even considers imposing the slightest requirements on foreigners in Sweden. It is also precisely the same tired talking points that are put forward by, among others, Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet here today.

It is about how requirements for, for example, language skills could be unfair because different people learn languages with different levels of ease. It is about practical difficulties, such as if we did not already have a wealth of theoretical knowledge tests for all sorts of things today. But above all, it is about the famous integration, which is claimed to be harmed if one sets requirements that the person who wants to become a citizen in Sweden must also understand the country in which the person lives.

This perspective becomes very clear for those who look at the 1997 citizenship committee's report. It has a heading that says "Citizenship and the integration process." It is not a beautiful read, seen with today's eyes.

But the question that no one has wanted to ask, for some strange reason, is this: Does this actually hold true? Is this really true? Have the incredibly generous citizenship rules that we apply in Sweden really made integration work better here compared to in other countries? Hardly! There is probably no one, not even among the most die-hard left-wingers, who would argue in that direction.

If one looks at objective criteria, for example, differences in unemployment between those born in Sweden and those born abroad, which is what one usually looks at when measuring integration, one sees that Sweden is at the bottom of the EU. If one looks at differences in school results between students born in Sweden and those born abroad according to the famous PISA test, which I know we talk about sometimes, one also sees that Sweden traditionally lies at the bottom. If one looks at other factors where it might be a bit more difficult to make direct comparisons between different countries, for example, vulnerable areas, crime, and social exclusion, the picture does not directly improve.

Madam Speaker! The uniquely generous reception conditions we have in Sweden, including the citizenship legislation, are the root cause of why integration has been a complete failure in this country. It is not difficult to understand why: For a person who has difficulty competing on the labor market and who has little or no educational background, benefits as a lifestyle and self-chosen segregation become an extra attractive alternative if one still gets exactly everything one wants and needs, including citizenship, without having to exert any effort oneself.

Everyone who has personally gone through this process understands it. I believe I am the only one in the chamber in this debate who has actually moved to a completely different continent in adulthood, and I know what I am talking about. They understand it. Everyone understands it. The rules we have today have killed all drivers for immigrants to actually succeed in Sweden, and it is hard not to suspect that that was exactly the purpose from the very beginning.

Madam Speaker! What do we do then? Well, the Sweden Democrats' role in Swedish politics can be summarized by the fact that we deliver what others only talk about. The issue of citizenship has been investigated and considered by all parties participating in this debate, except for the Left Party, but no one has made a breakthrough in the matter until this mandate period. What is the reason for that? Well, it is completely obvious: It is we who make the difference.

How will the new citizenship law look then?

Yes, first and foremost, the residency requirement will be extended. In the normal case, it will be eight years that one must live in Sweden, but ten years for persons who cannot verify their identity, seven years for certain specific groups, and also a shorter period for children.

This extension has been requested by, among others, the Swedish Security Service because security threats, which we unfortunately have quite a lot of in Sweden, are something that perhaps does not manifest immediately but only after some time. In that case, it is completely reasonable that one must live in Sweden for a certain period before one can become a citizen, considering that citizenship also cannot be taken away – at least not according to today's rules.

Secondly, a requirement for knowledge in Swedish and social studies is introduced to ensure that the person applying for citizenship also actually wants to become a citizen. I would say it is completely reasonable to assume that a person who truly wants it is sufficiently interested in Sweden to be able to pass these tests quite gallantly. I personally have actually passed a practice test for the Japanese citizenship test, so it is not that difficult. I don't even live in that country. I do not think we are setting any excessively high thresholds here for the person who actually wants to become a citizen.

Thirdly, a self-sufficiency requirement is introduced in two parts. One is a benefit requirement so that those living on social assistance cannot apply for citizenship for three years. This is, therefore, retrospective. The other is an income requirement of three income base amounts, which is prospective. This is necessary because a person who does not want to behave correctly, who chooses to live on benefits, naturally should also not be allowed to become a citizen in Sweden. I see this as a complete self-evident matter.

We are also tightening the requirement for honest conduct. This applies primarily to the section concerning previous criminal records. Already today, it applies that someone who commits a crime cannot become a citizen for a certain period. This is called a period of ineligibility. If a person, for example, is sentenced to prison for one month for less serious crime, the period of ineligibility applies for 4 years. This is now increased to 7 years. In the case of slightly more serious crime, for example, if one is sentenced to prison for 6 years, the period of ineligibility will apply for 17 years after the sentence is served, i.e., 23 years all in all, instead of 16 years as it is today. It is, therefore, a fairly substantial tightening.

One must remember that this, in combination with the new rules on deportation due to crime, which we will talk about a bit further ahead, will probably mean that we will not have any more criminal foreigners becoming citizens in Sweden. It is a problem that we can now put behind us, and it feels incredibly good.

We will also phase out the notification procedure. The notification procedure is, therefore, a simplified procedure that provides a kind of presumption or right to citizenship without any actual substantive review. It is currently available until one is 21 years old, under certain conditions.

So, this is the rule that previously, until October 2025, allowed suspected or even convicted murderers to apply for citizenship, which has been a known problem in Sweden for many years. But previous governments, led by Vänsterpartiet – and the others if we are to be honest – have completely ignored it.

We patched up this loophole last year, and now we are phasing out this entire simplified notification procedure.

In summary, I would say that the rules are well-balanced. They are not too tough, but they are also not too generous. With this, we make Sweden a normal and average country compared to our neighboring area. We make Sweden good again.

Last but not least, Madam Speaker, we have transitional provisions. It is about who will be affected by the new law.

Here we have something as unique as a joint reservation from the opposition. We haven't had very many of those in the area of immigration law. I don't recall us having had any, actually. It is nice that they can talk to each other.

What it is about is a bit simplified that people who have applied for citizenship before the new rules come into force shall be assessed according to the old rules. This creates a rather absurd situation, because we have seen that the number of applications for citizenship has increased very sharply since the debate about this has become more prominent in public.

It is quite obvious that people feel there is an opportunity to slip through without doing right by others simply by submitting an application early. It is of course very important that this is carried out according to the general rule of administrative law, i.e., according to the law in force on the date of the decision.

In the reservation from the opposition, namely reservation 2 regarding the need for transitional provisions, they write: Depending on transitional provisions, it is in this case a matter of consideration for the individual's trust in the robustness of the legal order and the applicant's legitimate expectation that the regulation which formed the basis for the application or for the appeal of a decision is not undermined by the regulation being significantly changed to the detriment of the individual during the processing period.

We can begin with the argument regarding the robustness of the legal order. I must once again simply emphasize that it is the administrative law main rule in Sweden that decisions are made according to the law in force on the day the decision is issued. If any other order had been the norm or the main rule, it would have been our side that needed transitional provisions.

The opposition does not seem to quite understand this, but the reason why the opposition needs transitional provisions – that is, special rules to get what they want – is precisely because what they want is not the normal and not the usual main rule.

The second argument, regarding the applicant's legitimate expectations, I find a bit more interesting. The current order is, as said, completely absurd. It is uniquely generous in the world. It is insane from an integration perspective, and it is a real security risk.

If you live in another country that has general elections and that country applies completely absurd rules, such as Sweden does today, can you then claim that you have a legitimate expectation that those rules should not be changed? The answer is no!

Can one say, according to some kind of general principles, that one has a legitimate expectation to become a citizen of any country at all without being able to speak that country's language? The answer is no, of course not!

The rules we have today are completely crazy. There is no reason whatsoever to have a legitimate expectation that they will persist. When one listens to the debate here today, it also sounds very much like these rules would have come as a bolt from the blue and that people who have already applied suddenly wake up one morning and discover that, oh dear, now the rules are going to change. So that is naturally not the case.

That this is to be implemented is stated in the Tidö Agreement, which has been debated and is public. No one can say that one could not see this coming.

With that said, we naturally give people an honest chance. There are opportunities to pause processing, and there are opportunities to register for, for example, the Swedex test, which can be used to prove that one can speak Swedish. It is available already today, and one can go in and register directly, if one wishes.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) agreed.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the tip about the language test. One might have to sign up – you can send the link later!

Perhaps the most Swedish thing that exists of what I have experienced in this country is probably trust. If there is any area where Sweden really stands out on an international level, it is not, for example, the right to freedom of speech, because many countries have that. It is a bit colder here than in other countries, but many other countries also have cold – but we have trust. It is probably truly the absolute most Swedish thing that exists.

We saw, for example, during the pandemic what incredible value this had. We did not need to have all the insane rules that many countries in Europe had, such as that one was not allowed to walk around and that one needed corona passes etcetera – and if I understood it correctly, I believe that the Sverigedemokraterna also appreciated this. We avoided such things, because we could only ask the citizens to "hey, please behave".

This is what Swedish trust does in a society. It makes it so that the person who works for the state dares to raise their hand and say: "Hi, right now the state is doing something that is not so good." It makes it so that I dare to park my bicycle when I go out on streets and squares without it being stolen. I might not dare to do it in Stockholm and Malmö, but if I lose my wallet somewhere or if I lose my mobile phone on the train, I know that it will come back to me.

It is not many countries that have this – this basic trust. One undermines the most Swedish of all things when, from the state's side, one time and again intervenes and totally undermines the conditions for people who have come here and are to learn what Sweden is by saying: "You can no longer trust the state."

That is why we want transitional rules. It is because we, at least from the Center Party's side, want the state to be something that can be relied on, just like the individual citizen. That is why I wonder why one wants to undermine this trust. That is the fundamental question.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Niels Paarup-Petersen needs to update himself a bit, because if he loses his wallet here in Stockholm somewhere near where we are right now, he absolutely will not get it back; there is no chance.

Swedish trust has been significantly eroded during the last decades. I suspect that the member has never personally reflected on how it became this way, but perhaps it is time to take a moment to consider what may have caused this.

The Center Party was involved in causing a complete catastrophe in the migration area. It is a party that, ideologically speaking, has no problem with filling Sweden with tens of millions of asylum seekers. A former party leader answered in an interview that 40 million people would not be an unreasonable figure to fill Sweden with. The Center Party is completely boundless regarding the immigration issue.

What does that have to do with this? Well, the thing is that the Center Party's position – together with a number of other parties' – caused a shockwave of migrants about ten years ago. This led to a completely unreasonable situation, and that unreasonable situation has now spilled over from immigration law to the citizenship rules. This means that there is an enormous number of people, upwards of 100,000 people, waiting to receive Swedish citizenship.

There is a justified concern on my part that they should not be granted citizenship because they cannot speak Swedish and have never worked. They have hardly any connection here, and in many cases, we hardly know who the individuals are. We have a specific official mandate, and when we have started digging into this, we have discovered that there are a lot of people who, in their citizenship documents, that is, in their application, provide false information.

That is why these rules must be implemented without transitional provisions. The volume of cases is enormous, and there are masses of people there who should not become citizens.

Look at yourself in the mirror, Niels – this is your fault.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! How nice to always be able to blame other parties – nice anyway!

In the speech, Aspling spoke of a bolt from the blue, and it is true that this was included in the Tidö Agreement, but those who applied before the Tidö cooperation started are still in the queue – so no, citizenship investigations are not a bolt from the blue. It is like an eternal rain in the mountains. It just continues, and people stand in queue for several years. That is the reality already today.

Yes, it is a challenge that so many have come here. That we agree on. Both we and you, the Social Democrats and most other parties were involved in tightening the rules already in 2016 precisely because it wasn't working. I, who come from Malmö, know perfectly well how it looked at the border both before and after the tightening, I can say.

No other country in Europe has changed its citizenship rules without having transitional rules. How is it that bourgeois, nationalist, socialist, and liberal – whatever it may be – parties throughout Europe have the ability to create transitional rules, but just when it concerns the Sweden Democrats with their background – if we are now going to talk about old stories about parties etcetera – they cannot create transitional rules. It is quite remarkable.

If we are going to talk about what undermines trust, it is the Sweden Democrats who are doing it. I can say that I have lost my wallet in immigrant kiosks in Malmö and been called – if we are now going to have that discussion, because we know what you mean when you talk about "what it could be".

That is how reality is! I have received help from immigrants to get my car out when it has become locked in places in Malmö. I meet immigrants every single day who behave correctly.

The Speaker says that trust has been undermined, but we know from surveys in Swedish classrooms about trust – you would like to have opinion polling etcetera – that those who have come here as immigrants have equally high trust. They are a bit more industrious than the Swedes, as it turns out in these surveys, but the trust is equally high. Talk to Sanandaji, who has conducted the surveys! There have been lectures and seminars on this here in the Riksdag.

Please! Do not include every single individual who applies in a collective punishment because some do wrong. See instead to that everyone is judged based on their own merits.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was exciting to hear about Niels Paarup-Petersen's everyday life. It was about his cars and wallets and that he meets people from other countries. Fascinating! I did not perceive that there was any question in the post, but it was more of a long story about how Niels Paarup-Petersen has met immigrants who are kind. Fantastic!

This summarizes Centerpartiet's view on these issues very well. There is no deeper analysis than: "I once met a guy who came from another country. He was nice, so we can let in 40 million people from that part of the world – no problems at all!" This is not a serious way to argue, and it is not a serious way to reason. That is why Centerpartiet always lands wrong on these issues.

We will implement this as it stands, without transitional provisions, because that is what Sweden must do to have a chance to solve the crisis that Niels Paarup-Petersen's party has put Sweden in.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Those who live in Sweden – who work, study, start a family and build their future here – should have a reasonable prospect of becoming a Swedish citizen. It is an important part of people's opportunity to fully become a part of Swedish society.

The government's proposal that we are debating today goes in the opposite direction and aims rather to prevent and make it more difficult for people who have come to Sweden to obtain Swedish citizenship. The Tidö parties' ambition is to make it significantly harder to become a Swedish citizen compared to today. Taken together, their entire political project has been about keeping people out; they have clearly shown this during the mandate period.

Madam Speaker! Swedish citizenship contributes positively to the individual's integration process. Citizenship legislation should therefore promote and not hinder integration. The government's proposal is based on a policy that makes the path to Swedish citizenship longer, more uncertain, and more unequal. The changes that are proposed also risk reinforcing inequality and exclusion instead of reducing it.

Already vulnerable groups in society risk being hit particularly hard. This will hit hardest against people who experience structural barriers that the individual cannot influence, that is to say, barriers that are beyond one's control. It will also hit hardest against children, stateless persons, illiterates, people who are further from the labor market, people who have a more precarious and insecure economy, as well as people from countries with deficient population registration.

Stricter requirements for citizenship do not increase the incentives for integration, but rather contribute to exclusion if a growing group of people remains in the country for a long period without the basic rights of citizenship.

One must also see the fact that the government is making it much harder to become a Swedish citizen against the background that the same government wants to remove permanent residence permits. A permanent residence permit is a promise that one is allowed to stay, that one is secure and that one is allowed to build one's life and one's future here. Parallel to the government making it harder for people to become citizens, it also wants to remove even permanent residence permits. For groups such as the elderly or the sick and for those who are far from the labor market, it is not as easy to live up to tests and requirements.

Furthermore, the government's proposal is in many respects questionable from a rule of law perspective, and it can be questioned whether it is in some parts compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the principle of the best interests of the child. A phasing out of the reporting procedure risks reinforcing exclusion and creating further obstacles to integration. Furthermore, the government wants to extend the residency requirement from five to eight years, which impairs integration, risks increasing exclusion, and reduces participation in the democratic process.

All potential proposals regarding stricter conditions for obtaining citizenship need to be well-founded, as citizenship is of great importance for individuals and their integration into Sweden. Here, the government is not delivering. The conditions for obtaining citizenship need to be designed in a legally secure manner that prevents arbitrary decisions.

The requirement of a decent and honest way of life is vaguely formulated and can open up for arbitrariness regarding how citizenship is obtained. It is particularly serious that even children who have turned 15 are to be included. The Government here completely departs from the Convention on the Rights of the Child's requirement that children have special rights and shall be treated as children in the assessments.

The government also proposes that a subsistence requirement should be introduced. A subsistence requirement of the kind that the government wants will hit particularly hard those who have difficulty establishing themselves in the open labor market and therefore entails a risk of exclusion effects. This is thus happening when we have a government that has created even more unemployed and which has not taken any labor market policy measures.

We also do not consider a requirement for sufficient knowledge of Swedish and of Swedish society to be reasonable. I mean: the Minister for Education, as well as the party leader for the Liberals, could not even list Sweden's constitutional laws. Legislators fail tests that they require others to pass. It becomes unequal and creates further exclusion effects. I think one should reflect a bit on that.

Madam Speaker! Because one does not care particularly much about well-established principles for legal certainty, the proposal affects tens of thousands – up to hundreds of thousands – of people who are denied citizenship. The Government and SD want to introduce this law without transitional provisions. The Council on Legislation considers it inappropriate to implement the proposals without transitional rules and has therefore advised the Government against doing so.

I share the Council on Legislation's assessment. It is remarkable that the government does not take this criticism to heart but dismisses the need for such rules without having conducted any analysis. That hundreds of thousands are affected has major consequences. An order without transitional rules undermines trust in the system. Such an order also risks prolonging the already unacceptably long processing times for citizenship.

Introducing a new law with stricter requirements is one thing, but to dismiss the Council on Legislation's or the investigator's proposals regarding transitional rules affects people who have already adapted to the current rules. This is about legal certainty, fairness, and predictability in Swedish legislation, which the government has made very clear – not least in the exchanges of remarks here – that they do not care particularly much about. You dismiss this, and it undermines trust in our systems and democratic principles.

People must be able to trust that the rules applicable at the time of their application are not changed with retroactive effect. This becomes, in a way, retroactive legislation – that is the effect it has – and it affects hundreds of thousands of people. At exactly that point, a united opposition has reserved itself, as we consider that the government needs to introduce transitional provisions.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! That the Left Party once again says no to the proposals for changes we are making in the area of immigration law, in this case the citizenship legislation, is not particularly surprising. But I would still like to ask the same question to Tony Haddou that I tried to get an answer to in our previous exchange of remarks but which he did not answer then.

The question is: Why does the Left Party think it is reasonable that one should be able to become a Swedish citizen without being able to speak a single word of Swedish, without knowing anything about Swedish society, and without actually being able to support oneself? Why should one be able to become a Swedish citizen without being able to do these basic things? In the rest of the Western world, it is completely normal that requirements are set that people can do this in order to become citizens of a nation.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I immediately thought of what we have previously heard, for example from Ludvig Aspling, who represents Sverigedemokraterna, which is one of the Moderaternas coalition parties, about people choosing to live on benefits. We have also heard this from Moderaternas and others, and it says very much about this government's view of people.

We do not share that view. We believe that citizenship contributes positively to people's integration process. We would like to welcome people and see the best in them.

In addition to engaging in collective punishment, this government wants to divide people into an A-team and a B-team. Some people will have a very difficult time obtaining citizenship, and others will find it easier to get it.

We oppose that inequality. We believe that everyone should be given a reasonable and honest chance to become a citizen in Sweden. We do not accept the obstacles that the government sets up. They reinforce inequality and hinder the integration process.

If we are to be completely honest, I believe that many people do not feel particularly welcome by this government. For four years, a very racist rhetoric has been used, scapegoating politics has been practiced, and immigrants have been pointed to as a problem.

We do not share that view. We see the good in people and speak well of them. We want to welcome them and see the integration process as a part of citizenship. This government does not.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I am appalled by Tony Haddous's rhetoric. He claims that the government's policy and rhetoric is racist. This is how the Left Party acts in all posts when it comes down to the wire – then one claims that the opponents are racists. I think it is loathsome of the Left Party to act in that way.

The question I asked Tony Haddou and Vänsterpartiet was: Why should one be able to become a Swedish citizen without being able to speak a single word of Swedish and without knowing anything about our society? Tony Haddou did not answer this. He turned the whole thing into some kind of class struggle debate about how not everyone can become a Swedish citizen if we set requirements that one must be able to support oneself.

We think it is reasonable that one supports oneself before becoming a Swedish citizen. We think it is reasonable to set requirements for a decent livelihood. We think it is reasonable that one can the Swedish language and knows something about Swedish society before becoming a Swedish citizen.

Tony Haddou did not want to answer why Vänsterpartiet thinks it is reasonable that one should not have to know any of this or why the Swedish state should continue to almost blindly distribute citizenship to people who have not integrated into Swedish society.

Our idea is that Swedish citizenship is the finest thing the Swedish state can grant to a person and that it is the end of a successful integration process. One has then made an effort and shown that one wants to become a part of Swedish society. It should pay off to make an effort, but crime must also be punished. That is why we think it is very important, just as Säpo points out, that those who are security risks should not be able to become Swedish citizens. This, however, is rejected by Vänsterpartiet.

Madam Speaker! I am now giving Tony Haddou one last chance to answer why he thinks that one should be able to live in Sweden as a Swedish citizen without being able to make oneself understood and without at all understanding or being able to know anything about Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I absolutely think that people should learn Swedish; I believe everyone thinks that. However, I do not stand behind what the government is doing when, based on this, they want to create an A-team and a B-team and make it harder for people to become part of society. That is where we differ completely.

My question back is: Why does this government want to keep people out by making it harder for them to become part of society? All political proposals from this government are about requirements. When people are struggling, it is said that they choose to live on benefits and so on.

Vänsterpartiet does not share that view. Here our parties differ very much.

I would say that the task of politics is to create the conditions for people to become a part of society. This government has totally failed to do that. Nor have they wanted or had any ambitions to do so. Sweden has, for example, received 100,000 more unemployed. We are told that they choose to live on benefits.

We do not use that rhetoric about people. It is spoken of learning Swedish and creating jobs. I think that politics should create conditions for people to enter and become a part of society in every way and conditions for a good integration journey, but this government does not do that.

I raised the point that the government wants to remove permanent residence permits. Should people feel insecure in Sweden year after year and then find it even more difficult to become Swedish citizens?

I previously spoke about inequality. We know that it will hit certain groups the hardest. We do not leave them to their fate, but this government does. We do not have the view of humanity that you have, Viktor Wärnick.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! In reservation 1, Vänsterpartiet writes that the proposals now being presented regarding requirements for self-sufficiency and language skills for citizenship will harm the renowned integration. It states as follows: "Swedish citizenship contributes positively to the individual's integration process."

I wonder if Tony Haddou has ever reflected on whether this really holds true. Is citizenship without needing to work and without being able to speak Swedish very well really for integration? The simplest way to investigate this is, of course, to look at the time period when language skills and self-sufficiency were prerequisites for a person to be able to become a Swedish citizen. It was not that long ago, after all.

The question is quite simple: In what way does Tony Haddou think integration worked worse at the time when we had these requirements than it does today?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! One must look at the overall picture. I also believe that we need to be honest here. The member does not want people who come to Sweden to become part of society; I think we should be honest about that. The member has proposed that they should return – he does not want them here. I have heard it in every debate we have had. I do not believe the member is particularly interested in more people becoming citizens. In the debates, one usually hears that they should be sent home. I think we should be honest that this lies in the Sverigedemokraternas DNA.

I move on to the integration process. We speak well of people, Ludvig. I think that is very important. We also see the good examples. In a debate some weeks ago, I pointed out that 400,000 foreign-born people have entered the Swedish labor market and that the time for establishment on the labor market has been shortened from seven to three years. Eight out of ten unaccompanied minors have entered the labor market.

We speak well of people and believe the best of them. If politics creates the conditions for them to learn Swedish, enter the labor market and so on, I believe we will get the best of society. Then people feel included and as a part of the community.

I believe it is important that people are allowed to become citizens. We see no problems with that. We do not want to set up more obstacles for people to be able to become Swedish citizens. We think that they should be allowed to be a part of society. We all together constitute society. Many of those who have become citizens uphold society, and we speak well of them.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I asked what has improved with integration since these requirements were removed. Tony Haddou has absolutely no idea – I don't even think he knows that these requirements have existed in Sweden.

For the sake of information, I can say that the language requirement was introduced with the 1924 Citizenship Act and applied until the beginning of the 1980s. It was phased out due to the view on integration that Tony Haddou expresses. A requirement for self-sufficiency was also introduced with the 1924 Citizenship Act, and it applied until the year 2000. Both of these regulatory frameworks underwent certain changes over the years, but the principle was still there.

A slightly interesting detail is that Tony Haddous's own party, which had a different name at the time, voted for this regulation. They thought this was good. Vänsterpartiet also stood behind these rules anyway until they were phased out at the end of the 1900s.

But let us return to the matter! The language requirement was thus phased out in 1980 and the income requirement in 2000. Approximately at this point in time, something happened with the famous integration. Most people think it has become worse. Most objective ways to measure integration also testify that it has become worse. Tony Haddou's hypothesis that these requirements hinder integration has a steep uphill climb. It takes quite a lot for him to convince any thinking human being that what he says is true. For example, he could not mention a single factor that would speak in favor of integration having improved because the requirements were removed. But we will try again. Tony Haddou! What is it that you think has improved with integration since the 90s?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The member did not listen to the answer. I said that one has to look at the big picture when it comes to legislative proposals and so on. But the member did not want to do that, but instead went straight into a classic "over-the-top" style. I think it is a poor meeting etiquette that this member displays every time we debate here in the chamber.

An example of something that has been bad for integration, to look at the big picture, which I return to, is temporary residence permits. I believe that has been bad, for example for integration. I believe it would have been better if people could feel more secure and safer here.

But what the member does not want to address at all are the complications and obstacles that arise through the policy he himself stands for. That was what I was touching upon throughout my entire speech. You make it difficult for people who come to Sweden to become a part of Swedish society.

To put it thoroughly: the Sweden Democrats do not want integration. It therefore follows quite naturally that the Sweden Democrats make it much harder for people to obtain Swedish citizenship. They do not want transitional provisions, which affects 100,000 people in the system. They are carrying out collective punishment and talking about criminals.

It is precisely that view of humanity that we do not share with you, Ludvig Aspling. We believe the best of people and speak well of people. We do not want to see more obstacles that hinder integration. We see citizenship as positive in the integration process. The Sweden Democrats do not, and that is where we differ very much.

The proposal we are now debating will hit hardest against children, stateless persons, illiterates, persons who are far from the labor market, persons who have insecure finances and persons from countries with deficient population registration. The Sweden Democrats will not take any responsibility for this at all. Instead, they will blame people for poor integration even though it is they themselves who have set up the obstacles.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the proposal in the report in accordance with the committee's majority decision and rejection of all motions and reservations in the report.

We are approaching the end of the parliamentary term. Regarding migration policy, the last election showed that the voters wanted to see a change compared to the lost years under an S-led government. They wanted a change of course, which is necessary for our country. We Christian Democrats, together with other Tidö colleagues, received the confidence of the voters to ensure that Sweden tackles the issue in a way that has not occurred during previous parliamentary terms.

For us Christian Democrats, migration policy must be about long-term perspective, responsibility, and the rule of law. It must be a policy that holds over time and that safeguards both human dignity and the sense of community. The policy that was previously pursued did not take care of the problems that arose. 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 we Christian Democrats see the need for a continued strict and responsible migration policy that is long-term sustainable and comparable with our Nordic neighbors.

Madam Speaker! An important piece of the puzzle in the responsible migration and integration policy is the conditions for obtaining Swedish citizenship. Citizenship implies participation in a larger community with obligations and rights towards others. It occupies a central position in a modern society. It represents formal membership in and solidarity with Sweden and has great significance both legally and symbolically. For example, only Swedish citizens may vote in parliamentary elections and hold certain occupations.

To be a Swedish citizen means to be a participant in the collective project of building a strong Sweden. People who come to Sweden and want to contribute with their competence, their knowledge, and their drive should, of course, be able to become citizens. But it must not happen without requirements. Therefore, we are now tightening the requirements from the previous very low requirements. In this way, we strengthen our social cohesion, which rests on our shared Swedish values.

The great value and significance of citizenship is not, however, fully reflected in the requirements set today. Sweden stands out among comparable countries regarding a number of issues linked to citizenship. Today, we set lower requirements on the individual's self-sufficiency and conduct, and on the time that must have passed for a person to reach formal membership in their new homeland.

This order also has consequences. Throughout time, we have seen examples where people have become citizens despite misbehaving or even committing crimes. Besides being offensive to a broad public, it also risks eroding the value of citizenship in the long run. However, if correctly implemented, the requirements to become a Swedish citizen can become a positive force and contribute to people from other countries being integrated and becoming part of Swedish society. The expectations set reflect what we as a society want new members of the community to be able to become: an active and contributing part of Swedish society who masters the Swedish language, has knowledge of Sweden's society and culture, lives honestly, and is self-sufficient.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats and the other Tidö parties have therefore agreed on the content of the bill that we are now debating, with proposals that tighten the requirements for acquiring Swedish citizenship. The purpose is, as stated, to strengthen the status of citizenship and increase the individual's opportunity to actively participate in society.

Through the new regulation, the rules regarding the acquisition of Swedish citizenship are tightened. The requirements for residence are tightened. Higher requirements are placed on the lifestyle of the person who wishes to acquire Swedish citizenship. A subsistence requirement is introduced. A requirement for sufficient knowledge of Swedish and of Swedish society is introduced. A possibility is also introduced for children to independently acquire Swedish citizenship after application. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on June 6 this year.

Madam Speaker! Through the reorganization we are making, the essentially unconditional prerequisites for obtaining Swedish citizenship are replaced by clear and relevant requirements. Being able to support oneself is of great importance for the conditions for being a part of Swedish society. Through language, one can enter society but also take advantage of one's rights and understand one's obligations. Persons who commit crimes should not easily be able to become Swedish citizens and thereby be protected from being deported because of their crimes. Extension of the residence time is a change that the Swedish Security Service has requested to obtain better conditions for detecting persons who pose a threat.

Swedish citizenship should mean much more than it does today. It is both reasonable and fair that those who wish to become Swedish citizens are expected to be able to speak Swedish, be able to support themselves, have basic knowledge about our country, and live responsibly and honestly. The change constitutes an important part of the work to re-evaluate Swedish citizenship and build the Swedish sense of community.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to say a few words about the opposition. I can state that this debate does not differ much from previous ones, even though there are some common reservations in this report. The migration policy that we have previously handled in the chamber to get the situation in Sweden in order has, in principle, received approval from the Social Democrats. But other opposition parties have, to varying degrees, opposed it or expressed reservations. In many cases, they have also demanded a rejection of our proposals. As I have said in previous debates, despite the commitments made by the Social Democrats, one may wonder what the line will be after a possible election victory.

We saw most recently yesterday that one cannot even gather in a spring budget. The Social Democrats do not want to point out a future government base, and I can understand that with all the red lines that have been drawn regarding who should be included and what can be decided.

Even when it comes to citizenship, there are dividing lines. We have even heard in exchanges of remarks that the opposition parties do not think alike. What the requirements will become, we can only speculate about.

The strict line that the Social Democrats are now advocating for after their reversal in political direction is unfortunately a utopian and unrealistic pipe dream. The demands being made will certainly put a stop to that direction.

Fortunately, there is a better alternative. We Tidö parties have shown that cooperation works. We discuss, we deliberate, and we take responsibility. We have done so in a difficult situation, and we deliver results. I promise that we will continue to do so.

Madam Speaker! It is more than just symbolic that the new requirements come into force on Sweden's National Day. The new Swedish citizenship is about strengthening both the individual's integration and the Swedish sense of community.

By more people being able to speak Swedish, being self-sufficient and meeting the requirements for good conduct, Sweden will become a stronger country. It is on our national day that we celebrate what we love about Sweden. It is all the fantastic opportunities and rights that come with a Swedish citizenship.

That is how we create justice. That is how we build community. That is how we lay the foundation for a strong Sweden. As I have previously stated, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Long-term perspective and legal certainty, that was what Ingemar Kihlström said he wanted migration policy to be characterized by. Abrupt shifts where the rules are changed in the middle of the match are hardly either long-term or legally certain.

Over 100,000 people are waiting for decisions on citizenship. Most have waited illegally long. Some have waited for more than four years. They submitted their applications before the Tidö Agreement was written. Already then, they fulfilled the requirements of having lived here with a residence permit for five years.

My inbox is overflowing with stories from those people. They have submitted their passports. They find it difficult to make it work practically with their work if they have to travel. The insecurity and uncertainty grow when one hears proposal after proposal that, in hindsight, change the rules of the game. The next step, if you on Tidösidan win the election again, will surely be to revoke the permanent residence permits.

The Council on Legislation is those who are to review all legislation. They are perhaps our most experienced judges. They have said that it is inappropriate that the rules now being presented should also apply to the 100,000 people who have waited a long time for a decision.

I do not understand how Ingemar Kihlström can think that it is long-term and legally secure to act in that way.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can state that the view on long-term perspective is divided between myself and Member Hirvonen. We have a situation where we have seen the problems and seen that something needs to be done. We have commissioned a number of inquiries, and we ensure that we deliver.

We are delivering answers to the Swedish people on the problems that one saw that the previous governments – in many cases the MP and S government, and during the last year the S government – failed to solve.

We can observe that we have had a flow of asylum seekers – a flow of people that the Swedish Migration Agency is to handle. This has meant both a great strain on Swedish society and a great strain on the Swedish Migration Agency's ability to handle various cases.

That is why we have a situation with a number of cases regarding citizenship that have not reached a conclusion. In many respects, I can assume that it has to do with the large volume of cases that exists.

We in the government are listening to the authorities, including Security Policy, who say: We need to change now. We need to create conditions for completely reasonable requirements.

I would think and speculate that many of those standing in that line today also understand the necessity of making relevant demands. They can also, in many cases, fulfill those demands already today.

If one has lived in Sweden for a long time, there are good conditions for one to have both language skills and knowledge of social studies. One has also lived honorably and in other ways so that one is not negatively affected by us tightening the requirements to meet the demand for security that exists from authorities.

That is the reason why we want to carry it out as soon as possible.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that they are affected. It is 100,000 people who have already waited far too long. Their waiting times will skyrocket.

I received an email from a man whose wife had a stroke. She is now on the road to recovery, but he says that she will never be able to complete the exams.

In this context, I also want to highlight another aspect of citizenship. With the changes, we will actually be going back to a time that Sweden left long ago.

Once upon a time, your right to vote depended on how wealthy you were, on your economic capacity. Someone who is unemployed will not get access to democracy and to equality and participation. We in Miljöpartiet believe that society should invest more in that more people should learn Swedish and that more people should come into work.

It is about punishing those who do not succeed with a future in exclusion. People should live the rest of their lives in a country where they are not allowed to participate in decision-making. I would still say that weakens democracy.

In Sweden today, you have the right to vote regardless of whether you are smart and good at tests or not, and regardless of whether you can work or have a disability. With the new rules, many will end up permanently or at least long-term excluded.

There is a group for whom there is currently no path to citizenship. It is those who have had their age changed by Migrationsverket. Do the Christian Democrats want those who are unaccompanied to also be able to become Swedish citizens?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that the Christian Democrats, compared to the Green Party, have different views on opportunities to set demands and the like.

The lack of demands that has existed may have been the brake for a Social Democratic government. We saw what happened during the last year of freedom. There were so many investigations that were initiated in the legal area and in the migration area during the last year of the mandate period. One can wonder what the catch was.

Then it is not correct. If you are here in Sweden with a residence permit, you have the right to vote. You are allowed to vote in municipal and regional elections. This is about voting in the parliamentary election.

It is highly relevant that we set requirements that correspond to those that exist in all European countries, in principle, also for those who wish to become citizens in our country.

We create a drive to learn the language and learn something about society. It is about getting out of a situation where one might get stuck in a dependency on benefits. It is about finding a job that can lead further. Naturally, there are opportunities for exceptions if one, for various reasons, cannot take a test in a certain way.

I think it is highly relevant that we as a country look to our security but also create a drive to become a full-fledged part of our country, with the opportunities and the responsibility that it entails to become a Swedish citizen.

For us, it is obvious. We see the need for it. I regret that Miljöpartiet is still living in the middle of the 2010s, when the situation we have today was created.

We all want people well, but not setting requirements is not creating a situation that leads away from benefit dependency. Therefore, we are changing this now.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservations 8 and 2.

Sometimes a proposal comes that is not just about a question of substance but about something more. It is about what kind of society we want and what direction we should take as a country. We have had a few of these over the years. I am thinking, of course, of the major constitutional changes and the Nato question, but also of some that perhaps have not been so large in themselves but which have nevertheless pointed out a direction. I think that is where we are today, Madam Speaker. The question, in fact, is about who should become a citizen in our country and under what conditions.

What should the Swedish community consist of? What must one live up to in order to be able to call oneself Swedish, for real, with citizenship and everything? I think it is reasonable that one actually becomes part of the community by contributing according to one's ability and by showing that one is here to make Sweden better and stronger. It is about making a contribution or learning the language etcetera. That is excellent, and there we agree on everything essential.

Then we have the question of what we as a nation want to say to those who want to become a part of Sweden. There we are not quite in agreement with the government. From the government's side, it is said today: You who want to become a part of the country cannot trust us, the state. We change the conditions for you, without transitional rules, time and again.

This is actually a new direction for Sweden. That the individual should contribute and do their part is a matter of course. But we from the Center Party's side also think that the state should do its part and be credible. That is what all other European countries think too. Not a single European country has changed the rules for citizenship without transitional rules. It is only the Tidö parties' Sweden that is doing it.

You put things in front of people's eyes and say: Come here, contribute, work and be here! Apply! You can become a citizen after five years.

It is this that the state offers to individuals who come here and contribute, behave, and conduct themselves properly. Then the state takes back the promise. Then one betrays the very ideal that one wants others to live up to. One tells everyone else that they should behave correctly. But then one must do it oneself as well. Here, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna actually betray the foundation for the Sweden I would like to see. I want to see a Sweden where we have a reciprocity and where the state is not just a large, black colossus that one cannot relate to.

The state shall respect the citizens and the inhabitants of the country. That is the foundation of the state. It is classic liberal and bourgeois policy, but the government is betraying that direction. They are moving away from it. The parties that I have previously been able to call bourgeois are becoming increasingly collectivist and view the citizen as a function of the state – or the nation, if we are to speak in Sverigedemokratiska terms.

We see in area after area that people have been told that they can come here and work.

– You can stay if you earn in accordance with Swedish wages, said the Swedish state.

Then the government throws them out anyway, because they make up completely new requirements.

– We know that you have been denied your asylum application, but if you transition to working in Sweden, you can still be allowed to stay, the Swedish state said.

Then the government throws them out anyway, because one removes a regulatory framework without having transitional rules.

– We see that you have gone to school here, that you have grown up here and that your family is here, so we want to invite you into the community, he said.

Then the government throws them out anyway because they turn 18.

This type of changes has totally changed the conditions for people who have come to Sweden, who many times have grown up here and who may have queued for citizenship for over five years. It can take so long.

I have spoken with people who have waited for an answer on their application for four or five years. They have identified themselves and everything – they have submitted their passport – but the processing time is incredibly long. Then the government says: Unfortunately, we are setting new requirements and extending the process, because we have taken a long time to handle your application.

This is not a reasonable way to handle these types of questions, Madam Speaker. It is actually moving away from the Sweden that we in the Riksdag ourselves say we want to offer: a serious, long-term, and credible Sweden.

I want to be clear that crimes should of course prevent or at least delay citizenship. It is reasonable to set requirements that one contributes, behaves, and of course does not commit crimes. Therefore, we support the new regulations. It is also a necessary direction. It is possible to combine requirements for new citizens with respect for the individual and a state that can be trusted, but the government has chosen to opt out of that. It will cost Sweden.

We want people to come here to Sweden, Madam Speaker. Sometimes it feels a bit as if one is left alone in that position in the current situation. But fundamentally, it is a self-evident bourgeois and liberal view that it is good for people to come here. Sometimes it feels as if we are the only bourgeois party at all, but that is another matter.

People should actually be welcome here. They should be welcome to contribute, they should be welcome to work and they should be able to do more for Sweden. It is obvious that they should be allowed to come here and build Sweden. We are dependent on people from the rest of the world coming here. We cannot manage on our own – we cannot be clear enough about that. We are going to need more people. Companies need people, and the welfare system needs people. Sweden needs more people.

One does not become richer or better as a country by excluding people. One becomes richer by attracting people. That is how it has been throughout all of human history. Those who win are those whom people move to, not those whom people move away from. The government has ensured that Sweden is increasingly becoming a country that people want to move away from instead of move to.

It obviously does not mean that everyone should come here or that everyone should become a citizen – absolutely not. We need to have a controlled migration and keep track of who comes here. Everyone agrees on that. One must not commit crimes, and one must contribute. All these parts are self-evident, but it is clearly fundamentally good that people come here.

It is a necessity to get people here who are ready to contribute and strengthen Sweden. The companies, the municipalities, and the Center Party know it. I also believe that the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats know it. But in the current situation, the trust of those who can choose is being undermined. Those who can choose Germany, the Netherlands, or Canada will choose to opt out of Sweden, because they can no longer trust the Swedish state. Talk to those who have the opportunity to choose! They are opting out of Sweden now.

The Center Party, which wants people to come here, therefore says: You who contribute, who have paid your taxes so that our welfare state has become richer and who have done your part should also be able to become a citizen faster. If you have paid 500,000 kronor in tax, you have contributed. Then you can be allowed to apply already after five years, even with the new rules. You must, of course, live up to the same requirements as everyone else, but we want to show that you who are involved in building Sweden should also feel that you are welcome in Sweden.

It is a perspective that has been completely lost with this government, unfortunately. What happened to the Sweden that saw the individual? What happened to the conservatism that saw the individual? What happened to the Moderaterna who saw the people before the system? What happened to the Liberalerna who stood up for liberalism's fundamental foundation that every individual is seen as an individual? What happened?

Our bourgeois parties fought to strengthen individuals both in the 70s under Fälldin and in the 2000s under Reinfeldt. It was the fight against the wage-earner funds and the fight for freedom of choice. It was the fight for the individual's responsibility for their own life but also for the individual's rights. My former alliance colleagues have forgotten one part of that fight. Now it is only about the state and the individual's responsibility towards it. The state's responsibility to live up to its promises has disappeared.

The government is withdrawing permanent residence permits for those who have already received them. It is part of Tidö. The government is changing the conditions for those who have crossed half the globe with a promise of a job, a future, and a salary, just like that. Now they are doing it with citizenship as well; they are changing the conditions.

Madam Speaker! With the government's policy, people's place in Swedish society is not determined by what they have done or what they contribute, but by how quickly they received a decision. It is not determined by when they applied, but by how fast the processing was, that is, when an official happened to receive the case number. When that type of coincidence determines the outcome, trust in the rule of law and the state itself is undermined. Laws must be stable, predictable, and just – otherwise, we lose trust in the state. That is what is happening. This is much, much larger than the individual small question here.

Madam Speaker! The most Swedish of values is trust. Trust is also the most valuable thing we have in this beautiful country. The government's repeated undermining of people's trust in the state is not only bad for Sweden – it is actually un-Swedish.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! In 2002, the Liberals' then party leader Lars Leijonborg launched an idea: He spoke about language requirements for citizenship.

The reactions there and then were fierce. He was accused of fishing in murky waters, of being exclusionary, and of being xenophobic. But what was described as controversial at the time now appears obvious to the vast majority, for today, 24 years later, we are finally implementing this reform. Lars was right.

Madam Speaker! What we are debating and making decisions on today is not only a technical adjustment of the citizenship law but also the beginning of an era in which Swedish citizenship is re-evaluated. For far too long, Sweden has stood out by setting remarkably low requirements for citizenship. In practice, one has been able to become a Swedish citizen without being able to speak Swedish, without having basic knowledge of how our society functions, and without being able to support oneself.

This is not about safeguarding Swedish citizenship, but about diluting it. Citizenship is not just any kind of stamp. It is not a receipt for having stood in a waiting room for a certain number of years, nor is it a serial number in some register.

Citizenship is actually the formal expression of belonging to our country. It is access to the full democratic community. It is the right to vote in this chamber, and it also provides an opportunity to run to become a part of it. It is rights but also responsibility. It is freedom but also duty.

Madam Speaker! Therefore, Swedish citizenship will in the future be taken more seriously than is the case today. Citizenship is so much more than just a passport; it is a receipt both for one's own efforts and for that one fully wishes to become and is a part of our Swedish community.

This means, among other things, that we are now setting requirements for knowledge of the Swedish language. This is reasonable, Madam Speaker, because the language is the key to one's own freedom. The person who can speak Swedish can speak with their child's teacher, understand a decision from, for example, Försäkringskassan, read an information leaflet, converse with their neighbors, take part in news, assert their rights in contact with authorities, and make themselves understood at work, in contacts with healthcare, and generally in everyday life.

Those who cannot speak the language also risk falling into a position of dependency on others, which can mean a significant loss of one's independence and personal freedom.

Those who wish to become a full part of Swedish democracy must also be able to understand the society in which he or she becomes a citizen. Therefore, we also introduce requirements for basic knowledge of society. We do not do it so that someone can recite trivia, understand every word on the university entrance exam, or be able to go here with us on some elitist tip-walk about Swedish political history, but because citizenship requires something much more fundamental. It requires knowledge of the country one finds oneself in, of one's rights and obligations, of laws, and of the rules of the game of democracy.

Madam Speaker! We are tightening the requirements for residency in Sweden. Citizenship should not be a hasty first step, but as a rule of thumb, it should be the crowning achievement after a period of establishment, effort, and growing sense of belonging. Time matters. Integration is not a button you just press; we know that. It requires presence, participation, and anchoring.

At the same time, the extended stay puts Sweden in line with our Nordic neighbors, and it gives our security authorities the time they need to conduct proper checks.

We also strengthen the requirement for an honest and decent way of life. It is a self-evident principle that those who wish to become citizens in Sweden must also respect our country's laws. Those who commit crimes, live dishonestly, or abuse society's trust should not be welcomed into the full civic community without reservation.

The government also puts forward requirements for self-sufficiency corresponding to approximately 20,000 kronor per month. It is an important reform, because the liberal idea of citizenship is not about passive allocation but about participation. Those who can work shall also support themselves. To stand on one's own feet is not just a matter of economics, but it is a matter of respect for the value of work and for the welfare and the society we all build together.

Madam Speaker! There are some voices who say that this is exclusionary. Let me turn that argument around. What is more exclusionary – to set clear requirements that help people succeed or to let them get stuck in exclusion without language, without work and without real participation in our society?

The Liberals are of the opinion that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. There is no real freedom without the ability to use it. That ability comes from language, from work, and from an understanding of the society one lives in.

When we set requirements for sufficient knowledge of Swedish, we simultaneously give people a key to be able to open the closed door. It is the door that leads to the labor market, to friendships, to participation and to being able to grow as an individual. Citizenship is about rights but also about obligations. It is about being seen as a part of society and being that for real.

It is precisely this that our proposals shall contribute to. Citizenship shall be the crowning achievement after a successful integration, and not its starting point.

Madam Speaker! When these proposals are implemented, Swedish citizenship will have regained its dignity. It will be something one earns and does not just receive. It will be something one works for and does not wait for.

When someone stands there with their Swedish passport in hand, after eight years of residence, with the Swedish language as a tool, with self-sufficiency as a foundation, and with knowledge of their new country, that person will carry the Swedish citizenship with extra great pride. Then the passport will not only show where one can travel, but who one has become. It is not a day too early.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Patrik Karlson said in his speech that Swedish citizenship is the ticket into democracy, to be able to vote in the parliamentary election and to be able to participate as a candidate.

I wonder: Why do the Liberals think that the unemployed should not be given that right? Why should the unemployed not have the same right to vote as others?

It is of course possible to discuss how long one should have lived in a country before being allowed to become a citizen, but precisely this requirement of having a certain salary in order to participate in democracy is something we in Sweden have moved away from – on good grounds.

Democracy and the right to vote should not only be for the rich, not only for those who own property and not only for those who have the ability to support themselves. At least we in Miljöpartiet consider that a self-evident matter. We believe that much better efforts can be made to help people who are unemployed to get jobs than to say: No, you are not allowed to participate in democracy!

For myself and for many others who are born as Swedish citizens and who have never done anything at all to earn it, it seems a bit strange to say that one should not be proud of one's citizenship until one has done something to earn it.

The Liberals' proposal is based on the idea that citizenship is something one earns through achievement and that one can be punished regarding citizenship if one makes a mistake. We in Miljöpartiet see this differently. For us, the basis is that all people who live and reside in a society and are affected by the laws enacted there should be able to have the opportunity to influence these laws, regardless of whether one can work or not.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

First and foremost: One has the right to vote in municipal and regional elections even if one is not a Swedish citizen. And it is absolutely not only rich people who are Swedish citizens. It is de facto a truth, and I believe that the member also agrees with that.

The member tries to make this some kind of issue about closed doors, but what I am talking about is how we can truly open the doors. For me, Swedish citizenship is not just any document. The reasoning the member presents in this exchange leads to that everyone who crosses Sweden's borders should be given the opportunity to vote in the parliamentary election as soon as they have received some form of residence permit.

I do not agree with that at all. For me, Swedish citizenship is worth so much more than that. It is not just a receipt that one has lived in the country for a certain number of years. It should be a receipt that one has stepped into the full democratic community we have. It concerns, among other things, the right to vote in this chamber, which the member now wants to extend to more than Swedish citizens. I do not agree with that attitude at all.

What is actually most inclusive? If one is to vote in or run in an election to this chamber, one should be able to understand the Swedish language in order to be able to take in information and make conscious and, based on one's own values and opinions, correct choices. I still stand by the position that one must be a Swedish citizen to be able to run in the parliamentary election and vote in it.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Instead of answering why the Liberals believe that unemployed people should not be able to become Swedish citizens and should not be able to vote, Patrik Karlson simply finds opinions from the Green Party and says that he is against them.

Miljöpartiet does not think that everyone who steps onto Swedish soil and receives a residence permit automatically should have the right to vote, or that anyone other than Swedish citizens should be able to vote in Swedish parliamentary elections. It is an unserious way to conduct the discussion. Answer the question instead! Why do the Liberals want people who are unemployed to be excluded from participating in democracy? That distinction is made with these subsistence requirements. That distinction has been chosen by the Liberals.

We had a time in Sweden when only the rich, those who owned real estate and land, were allowed to vote. The Liberals fought against that. One wanted universal and equal suffrage. Now, a policy is being pursued where the right to vote again becomes dependent on what economic status you have. Why do the Liberals think it is right and proper that the right to vote should depend on whether you have received a job or lost your job?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! The member stands in the exchange and accuses me of misinterpreting the Green Party's policy and then does the same with our policy. We are not arguing that unemployed people should not be able to vote in Swedish parliamentary elections. It is well clear that everyone who is a Swedish citizen should be able to do so.

What we are saying, however, is that we are now setting requirements to become a Swedish citizen, and that includes, among other things, that one must be able to earn approximately 20,000 kronor a month. That is really not a high salary. There are also exceptions where personal cases are taken into account. If you cannot work, you can still become a Swedish citizen. But if you can work, you shall educate yourself, learn the Swedish language, and be in a job. I still think that is a very low level to be able to enter the large Swedish community and thereby also get the right to participate in the Swedish parliamentary election and also stand as a candidate in it.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals have 16 members in this chamber, and of them, 8 are excused in today's vote. Half of the Liberals' members will therefore not be voting on the citizenship law today, so I wonder a bit how strong a foothold the law has among the Liberals.

But that was not what I reacted to above all else. I reacted to the fact that the member stands here and says that there are voices saying that this would be exclusionary. One of these voices is the government's own investigator, who notes that there are groups that will be excluded and will find it very difficult to meet the new requirements. I do not know if it is that voice the member is referring to.

The investigator notes, for example, that older, single parents and persons with low or no educational background are groups that are particularly disadvantaged by raised thresholds for acquiring citizenship. There are also arguments regarding vulnerable and marginalized groups that will have a very difficult time.

When it comes to these votes, it is not only the opposition that has had opinions on this, for example, regarding what the Miljöpartiet raised in the previous exchange of remarks about unemployed people who will not be able to fully participate in democratic Sweden. The investigator also says that many will be disadvantaged by this.

I would like to know why the Liberals are preventing and making it difficult for people who come to Sweden to obtain Swedish citizenship and are excluding a large part of them. I actually do not understand it. We know that certain groups will find it very difficult to become Swedish citizens. It is not directly the case that there is a carrot – if we set higher requirements, you will get citizenship – but for many groups it will become very difficult. For some groups it will become impossible due to deficient population registration in the home country.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question from Member Tony Haddou.

Again: Swedish citizenship is not just any document. It should not just be a receipt that one has lived in the country for a certain number of years. We are now raising the requirements from requirements that hardly existed, and it is being portrayed here as a gigantic obstacle for an extremely large group. I do not agree with that.

It is clear that there are those who, for various individual reasons, have difficulty meeting the requirements. In cases where it is justified by reasons beyond one's own control, there are exemption rules, but for the group that can learn the language by taking a few courses or can work by taking the jobs that are available, I think the threshold to becoming a Swedish citizen is still extremely low.

When we Liberals say that citizenship should be earned, we are not saying that people's value shall in any way be tested. Citizenship is, however, a formal membership in this country, and I believe that such a membership should be able to be surrounded by reasonable requirements such as self-sufficiency, language, social requirements, and an honest and orderly way of life.

Then we return to the question of what is actually most inclusive. Is it to tell people that the country's language or their own livelihood does not matter and that they do not need to care about knowing what this country stands for, and then let them end up in exclusion – outside the labor market, outside the conversation, and outside the power over their own lives? We have already seen what that has led to. It has not led to anything good.

This is a necessary and good reform that we will now implement.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! What is happening here is that the government is reinforcing and aggravating the situation. They are simply creating an A-team and a B-team. I think the government should have listened to its own investigator, who points out the groups I was referring to: the elderly, single parents, and persons with low or no educational background. Women in general are also pointed out, which makes this a gender equality issue. This affects gender equality negatively.

The question is actually: What is the government doing for these groups? The Member of Parliament says that if you are far from the labor market, you should get a job and so on. We have received 100,000 more unemployed under this government. We are getting more unemployed. The government is worsening the situation and placing people further away from the labor market and thus also further away from the opportunity to acquire a citizenship and be fully involved in society and democracy.

We also have a situation where there are structural obstacles that are impossible for people to influence and which the government is not doing anything about at all. There are no exceptions. What the member says is not true. There are no exceptions if, for example, the population registration in the home country is deficient.

The government is doing nothing for those groups who will not be able to acquire citizenship. They will likely live their entire lives in Sweden without being able to fully become citizens. Here, the government does exactly nothing, but what happens with this legislation is that it becomes a longer, more insecure, and more unequal path to citizenship. You are preventing and making it more difficult for people who come to Sweden to obtain Swedish citizenship. That is the whole problem, and this is what the investigator tried to point out in the investigation. But the Liberals have completely ignored that.

I raised these examples, but there are even more examples where the investigator themselves states that these groups will have it difficult. In those cases, the Liberals have delivered nothing at all.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Let us first state that when it comes to almost all investigations, one does not always fully follow what the investigator proposes or thinks. There are a number of different interests to weigh together for us politicians when we are to compile a bill for new legislation.

This is not about telling people that they are not good enough, but it is about saying that citizenship is worth more than what is the case today. Solidarity and participation in our society do not arise by us turning a blind eye to the differences in circumstances, but it arises when people are given the opportunity to participate fully.

A person who cannot speak Swedish, who does not understand their rights and obligations and who is dependent on others to interpret authority decisions and contacts with school and care, is not free in the same way as others to stand on their own feet. It may be difficult to talk about this, but it is true. We see how it works in many places and corners of the country today. I do not think it is bad, but I see it rather as showing confidence that people can more than what we expect of them today.

We choose to move forward with these requirements, and we thereby upgrade Swedish citizenship. Ultimately, it will contribute extremely much good for this country.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating which rules should apply to becoming a Swedish citizen. Our parties have different views. And we may differ slightly on how many years one should have lived in Sweden to become a Swedish citizen, or what other requirements should apply. But on one fundamental point, we differ in a somewhat more fundamental way, namely whether we see citizenship as a punishment or a reward, or whether we see it as the basis for democratic participation in a society. Is citizenship something that one should fundamentally earn, or is it something that one fundamentally shares with those who share a country and a future together?

We in Miljöpartiet stand on the latter side. We consider that citizenship is the ticket to fully participate in democracy, to influence the laws and regulations that apply in this country, and fundamentally it should be something that we who share a future in this place shall have. That starting point does not prevent us from also considering it legitimate that one should have lived here for a certain number of years, that one should fulfill basic requirements of not being, for example, a security threat, not having committed serious crimes, in order to obtain a Swedish citizenship.

We think, however, that it is wrong to set requirements of having succeeded in getting a job or having avoided losing one in order to become a Swedish citizen. Of course, society should work actively so that every person can support themselves. Of course, society should work actively so that every person learns the Swedish language. But should we punish the one who loses their job, so that they cannot become a citizen, so that they cannot participate in democracy? No, that is what we in Miljöpartiet do not agree with.

Many countries have language tests to become citizens. When we have discussed whether we think language tests are a good idea for Sweden, we have primarily asked ourselves whether we believe the introduction of language tests will lead to more people becoming better at Swedish compared to if the money it costs to have a language test had been invested elsewhere. We have landed on the belief that more people will become better at Swedish if we take those funds and invest in better SFI, that there will be more money for the study associations and the folk high schools that work to ensure that everyone who moves to Sweden learns the Swedish language. Therefore, we do not think language tests are a good idea.

We also share the concern that many referral bodies have expressed that vulnerable groups, persons with low cognitive ability or advanced age, will be disadvantaged by different types of tests. We are aware that some find it easier to pass a test than others. Some freeze; some cannot handle that situation. Should that mean that one does not deserve to become a Swedish citizen? We also think that the exceptions that exist are too vague. We are concerned that the knowledge tests will disadvantage persons with different types of disabilities.

The Liberals said in the exchange of remarks that persons who are not free to stand on their own feet should not be granted the right to vote. In 1989, Sweden decided that even the person who, so to speak, is not free to stand on their own feet, the person who has not become of age, the person who, despite being an adult, needs a person to make important decisions, that even that human being should be involved in democracy and have the fundamental right to vote in a parliamentary election.

It was then and there that democracy truly became for everyone, regardless of functional ability. Before that, there were requirements of property for the right to vote, and the right to vote was also reserved exclusively for men.

In line with the fact that Sweden has become a country that many people move to, there is a risk that extensive and high requirements will lead to many people who live in Sweden, who have their future in Sweden, being excluded from the democratic decisions that affect them and the country they live in. Even if we may have different opinions on exactly how many years one must have lived here to gain access to the right to vote, I think most would still acknowledge that it is a problem if many who live in Sweden do not have the opportunity to influence democratically.

Other countries have chosen to go in other directions. Germany has recently decided to lower the residency requirement, so that one only needs to have lived in Germany for five years instead of eight years. They are doing this, among other reasons, so that Germany becomes more attractive for all the talents they need to continue to be a competitive country. Germany has, just like Sweden, a challenge with an aging population and that fewer people are to support more and more people.

Since the government presented the proposal to move from five to eight years, we have also heard people saying that they would probably rather move to Germany with their talents. One sees that one has better future prospects there, a better chance of becoming fully involved and fully belonging to the country one chooses to live in in the future.

Madam Speaker! We in the Green Party believe that Sweden should do as Germany does and stick to five years. But something that we think is more important than exactly which rules one lands on is in what way people can trust the rules that we in the Riksdag have decided. What, more than anything else, creates a sense of insecurity for people who have moved to Sweden or are considering moving here is that the government more and more often changes the rules in the middle of the game.

People have received a promise, a permanent residence permit, and have felt: Now I can settle down and be safe here. But they are doubting now. They are worried about their future, because the government is working on proposals to remove the permanent status, which the state once granted.

The track switchers were hit hard when the government, from one day to the next, snatched away the possibility for 4,700 working immigrants to continue their lives here. Thank goodness the government changed its mind at a press conference recently and has now promised that the track switchers shall be able to continue staying in Sweden and work at their workplaces without first having to go back to Iran, Afghanistan, or Somalia to seek their own jobs again from there.

When it comes to citizenship, we see however once again that the government chooses to go against the lawyers' assessments and recommendations regarding what should apply in a rule of law. More than 100,000 people have applied for citizenship, sometimes several years ago, and are still waiting for a decision. Instead of letting the law stay and saying that those people who have already applied according to the current rules shall be assessed according to the rules that applied when they applied, the government wants to rush these rules through, and they shall apply to everyone.

The Council on Legislation said no to it. The investigator said no. And today we have gathered the entire opposition behind the fact that there should be reasonable transitional rules, so that those who have applied shall be assessed according to the rules that applied when they applied.

Madam Speaker! Therefore, I move today for approval of joint reservation 2, regarding the need for transitional provisions.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! In reservation 1, Miljöpartiet writes: ”A phasing out of the notification procedure risks reinforcing exclusion and creating obstacles for integration, and the proposal cannot be considered compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Also, the proposal that children should be able to independently acquire Swedish citizenship after application, whereby requirements are set for, among other things, verified identity and residence, contravenes the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

Annika Hirvonen is therefore arguing de jure, which is completely legitimate if it is the case that one actually has some source to base the claim on. I wonder if Annika Hirvonen really has that here.

Which article in the Convention on the Rights of the Child does Annika Hirvonen claim stipulates that a signatory state may not require a twelve-year-old who is applying for citizenship on their own initiative to also be able to prove their identity or that they have a residence in Sweden? If she concludes that it comes from a statement from the CRC, i.e., the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child – the CRC writes legally non-binding interpretive guidance, one could say, on how the Convention on the Rights of the Child should be interpreted – I wonder which statement it would be in that case.

I have investigated this. I cannot find anything that supports Annika Hirvonen's claim. I believe she has made it all up. But I am completely willing to be proven wrong. I am, therefore, very interested.

Which article in the Convention on the Rights of the Child is it that stipulates what Annika Hirvonen claims? I wonder alternatively which statement from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child it is that supports the claim.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We lean on the referral bodies that say that these rules weaken children's rights and conflict with what is the best interests of the child.

It is a fundamental human right to have a citizenship. In Sweden, there are today children who lack that fundamental right. We have stateless children who, therefore, have no affiliation. I have personally met many of them, and I am struck by the simple wish they express. Ten-year-old children say: I just want a personal identity number. When I was ten years old, I didn't even know what a personal identity number was. But these children know that it means everything.

We in Miljöpartiet do not think that children's rights should be worsened, but that is what the government is doing with this proposal. We think instead that children's rights should be strengthened.

Regarding the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, we think it would be appropriate that Sweden, which pushed for the establishment of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, also ratifies the third optional protocol, so that the Committee on the Rights of the Child can actually examine whether Sweden violates individual children's rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Here in the Riksdag, we often find ourselves in a situation where we discuss whether something is in conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child or not. But it will never be able to be tested until we ratify the third optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I would welcome it if the Sweden Democrats also stood behind this.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen says that we end up in a situation where we discuss what is and is not in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Yes, we are in such a situation right now, Annika Hirvonen.

I asked a very simple question: Where in the Convention on the Rights of the Child does Miljöpartiet find support for this claim? Annika Hirvonen has no idea. I doubt she has even seen the front cover of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

For the sake of clarification: The question of citizenship is regulated in Article 7. In point 1, it states: "The child shall be registered immediately after birth and from birth have the right to a name, the right to acquire a citizenship" – thus not necessarily citizenship in the country in which one is born, but a citizenship – "and, as far as possible, the right to know who its parents are and to receive their care." This is what we allow in Sweden.

In point 2, it states that the States Parties shall ensure that its rights are implemented in accordance with their national legislation and their obligations under other relevant international instruments in this area, especially when the child would otherwise be stateless. It is not stateless persons we are talking about now, because when it comes to that group, the notification procedure remains.

I want to stay at those words: carried out in accordance with their national legislation – that is how it stands in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Those words mean that when one carries out the provision that the Convention recommends, one does so in accordance with Sweden's national legislation. We in Sweden therefore have full right to design the process for these rights entirely ourselves. That is what those words mean. It also means that Sweden, as long as the opposite is not even asserted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, any international court, any Swedish court, or any other source of law, has full right to design the process as we wish, for example by setting requirements for verified identity.

But I return to the question, which Annika Hirvonen did not quite manage to answer. What is the source of law here? Where does this come from? I believe that she has made it up.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I wish that the Sweden Democrats also cared about reading the referral responses that organizations and authorities strive to write so that we in the Riksdag receive a good basis for making wise decisions. This decision, which will be made today, will worsen children's rights. I believe we agree on that.

Then I truly think that it would be appropriate for Sweden to finally accede to the third additional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child so that we do not need to get stuck in speculations about what the Committee on the Rights of the Child thinks about Sweden's legislation in one respect or another. If we accede to the protocol, individual children will also be able to complain to the UN if it is considered that the right to citizenship or other rights are not fulfilled according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I think this would have been appropriate in the country of Sweden, which was involved in pushing through the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We in Miljöpartiet fought hard and also got the Convention on the Rights of the Child passed as Swedish law. It needs to have an impact; it does not fully have it today. In the area of migration law, we instead see how children's rights are weakened point by point. It contradicts the Convention on the Rights of the Child – against the best interests of the child, which is the fundamental starting point.

We in Miljöpartiet believe, unlike the Sverigedemokraterna, that this is a major problem. Therefore, we have a different opinion on several parts of the proposal that we are to vote on today.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin with a story that should have characterized our debate today but does not.

It was in the mid-1990s, when I took responsibility for insurance issues within the trade union movement, that I began to see Sweden in a different way – not through figures and reports but through the people who carried the industry on their shoulders. They came from all over the world: from the former Yugoslavia, Italy, Turkey, Greece, Finland, Iraq and Palestine. Many had arrived with a suitcase, a contract and a silent agreement: to work. Often they started on the same day they arrived.

No one asked about the language. No one demanded knowledge of the society or the traditions. Safety regulations were sometimes conveyed via an interpreter, sometimes through a colleague's hand gestures and glances. Sweden needed hands – the rest had to wait.

Dragan was one of them. He came from Macedonia and moved through the factory corridors as a natural part of the building – always there, always at work. We saw each other almost every day. He would stop, smile broadly and say his words, as if they were enough for everything: ”hej, hej, bra, bra, god jul, glad påsk”. That was all he could do. Still, there was something steadfast in it, as if the language was not a deficiency but something he never needed to make his own.

To the Christmas celebrations, he came with his grandchildren. They were shy at first and hid behind his legs but were soon drawn into the laughter. Dragan stood in the middle of the circle around the tree and jumped to "Små grodorna" with a serious concentration that made it all even more touching. He followed the rhythm, not the words. But he was there, fully.

Madam Speaker! The years passed. Machines were replaced, people quit, new ones came – but Dragan remained.

Since a day, it was his turn to go. I called him to my office. The pension papers were neatly laid out: ATP, general pension, premium pension, agreement pension. They were systems built of words, numbers, and rules – everything that requires a language. He sat down opposite me with the same smile and the same calm. I began to explain. Soon it became clear: His Swedish had not changed. ”Hej, hej” and ”bra, bra” still carried his entire world.

So I did the only thing possible. I simplified, drew, pointed, and counted on my fingers. Time became concrete, and money became circles and arrows. He followed with his eyes and nodded slowly. Sometimes he smiled as if he had already understood more than I thought. Finally, he leaned back. "Good, good," he said. And I knew that was enough.

For over forty years, he had gone to the factory morning after morning, the same way, the same time. He never complained and never missed a day. Work was something one did, not something one talked about.

Dragan came here with one of the buses that the industries sent out and which came back filled with people who were needed but rarely seen. The days followed one another in a steady flow, where time was measured in shifts and breaks and there was rarely room for anything other than work. Here he did not only build his life but also Sweden's welfare and future. The years passed, but the language always remained a bit away from him. Still, he understood what mattered most: the work, the community, and the rhythm of a life that continued, day after day.

I still see him sometimes, outside the Macedonian church in Malmö. Time has made him slower but not less present. He spots me, lights up and raises his hand: ”hello, hello, good, good”. In those few words, everything is contained – the recognition, the warmth, an entire life that does not need to be spoken aloud.

Madam Speaker! This is a true story, even if the name has been changed. I am telling it to remind us of something that risks being lost – of breaking down.

All too often, our debaters start from simplified and dangerous assumptions, such as that fewer immigrants would automatically make Sweden better or safer. That picture is not true. It has emerged from a one-sided narrative that has been left unchallenged for all too long.

During my nearly 44 years in Sweden, I have never seen such an increase in ignorance and prejudice as now. At the same time, the integration policy has fallen short and the social and economic gaps have deepened. The result is a colder, more divided Sweden, poorer in humanity.

Still, there is something enduring. We are still proud of Sweden – a country characterized by openness, curiosity and respect, which rose out of poverty and built a welfare state that inspired the world. But none of this is self-evident.

Now we face crossroads that risk changing this fundamentally. It is not just about values; it is also about the principles of the rule of law.

Rule of law and predictability are central to every constitutional state. The rules of the game should not be changed during an ongoing process. When requirements are introduced retroactively, an uncertainty is created that undermines both the security of individuals and Sweden's reputation.

Madam Speaker! The principle of legality is one of the rule of law's most fundamental principles. It protects people from arbitrariness and ensures that the state exercises its power on stable and predictable grounds. When it is eroded, it is not only the legal system that is disturbed, but also the trust in democracy.

People who have built their lives in Sweden – worked, studied, formed a family – risk having their legal status questioned retroactively. It is not just a legal problem. It has concrete consequences for Sweden's future.

Today, other countries are competing to attract talent, investments, and expertise, while Sweden gets stuck in a debate that all too often is characterized by symbolic politics. Figures from Statistics Sweden show that around 40 percent of foreign researchers and doctoral students leave Sweden within three years after graduation due to complicated regulations. Companies testify to a growing shortage of engineers, researchers, and specialists – skills that are crucial for Sweden to be able to grow and compete internationally.

Madam Speaker! Safeguarding the principles of the rule of law is therefore not just about law. It is about what kind of society we want to be.

The rule of law is not tested when everything is easy, but when it is difficult. That is when leadership is required – not to stretch the principles, but to stand firm by them, for in the long run, it is precisely these principles that determine a country's strength, credibility, and future.

In today's Sweden, Dragan would likely never have received the same chance. And when doors close, it is not only people who lose opportunities; Sweden does too. We lose competence, drive, and faith in the future. The question is: How many such stories can we afford to lose?

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! What is perhaps most absurd about the regulation of citizenship that we have today is that we allow non-Swedish-speaking persons to participate in general elections. Such persons can, after all, become citizens.

This is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, it is a matter of principle. Democracy means rule by the people. To be able to belong to a people, one must speak that people's language. It is a complete self-evident truth. I find it difficult to imagine that Jamal El-Haj would claim that a person who is not Arabic-speaking could belong to the Arabic people, for example. It is a perfectly reasonable perception in my world.

But there is also another aspect of this which is an even greater problem, and it has to do with how it affects the composition of parties. A person who is not Swedish-speaking and cannot read cannot make an informed choice in a Swedish general election. It is a person who cannot make their voice heard in a reasonable way, because they simply cannot take in all the available information about the election that one must be able to take in to understand what is happening in Sweden.

This is something that is quite well-known within development theory. In less developed countries, if we use that expression, it is quite common for political parties to be based on clans or ethnicities. Their political message is not "we want to make the economy grow" or "we want to change the taxes" but rather "we want group A to pay money to group B" or "we will take resources from group A and give to group B." That is where you end up when you have a society that is divided in that way.

Assuming that Jamal El-Haj intends to vote against the proposal, which I perceive that he will do, I would like to know: What advantages does Jamal El-Haj see in non-Swedish-speaking persons being able to participate in Swedish elections, and does this have anything to do with his own political project?

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! I have never claimed that language is not important. Throughout my work in the union and in politics, I have urged people to read Swedish. Swedish is a key to entering society.

In my narrative, I have told about how when Sweden needed people and when Sweden needed hands, buses were sent to Macedonia, Turkey and other countries and fetched labor to work in Sweden. It is these people who have built the welfare that I and the member live in. It is this I am referring to.

I have never said that the language was not needed. It was needed. But Dragan – his name is actually something else – managed longer in Sweden. He has had four children and approximately nine grandchildren, and all are good Swedish citizens. He has had a family that is active in society. Some of them are politicians today. Many have studied and served us well in Swedish society.

I tried to tell about this, because sometimes people speak of immigrants as a burden who do not work and who should be sent home, according to the Sweden Democrats. Therefore, this story is important. Many in the generation that sits here today do not know about the ships that were sent out and fetched labor to build Sweden's welfare. I believe that many of their grandchildren sit here in the chamber today.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not doubt that Jamal El-Haj's friend Dragan is a pleasant person. But I do not feel that it is really relevant for this debate. My question concerns something else entirely, namely participation in Swedish elections for persons who cannot speak Swedish. This is something that is unique to Sweden. There is no comparable country that allows persons who do not understand the language to become citizens.

All other countries that can be compared with in our immediate vicinity have such a rule. And it relies very much on the reasoning that in order to be able to have a functioning democracy, everyone must be able to access the same information material. The information material must then, naturally, be disseminated in the country's native language. The native language in Sweden is, of course, Swedish.

If one starts to tamper with that principle, one exposes the country to a great deal of risk. The emergence of ethnically defined parties is a poison for democracy. It is well known, as I said in my opening remarks, that it is precisely ethnically defined parties that are the factor that makes it very difficult for democracy to gain a foothold in certain countries, not least in Africa.

There is every reason to assume that ethnically defined parties will become a huge problem even here in Sweden if they gain a foothold here. The way they can gain a foothold here is primarily if we allow people who do not understand Swedish to vote in general elections. Such people are easy to manipulate by religious leaders, or clan leaders, traditional authorities, or whatever one wants to call it.

Therefore, I ask the question again: What advantage does Jamal El-Haj see in allowing persons who cannot speak Swedish to nevertheless vote in elections to the Swedish Riksdag?

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! I believe the member is well aware of what I mean. He does not want to understand my story. I also do not believe the member listened to what I said about Swedish being the key to Swedish society. I said that earlier.

There are many in the opposition who argue that it is the Sverigedemokraterna who are exploiting the Moderaterna to get through, among other things, this matter, but I believe they are wrong. I believe it is the Moderaterna who are exploiting the Sverigedemokraterna. The Moderaterna are trying to drive the Sverigedemokraterna away from their key issues and move further to the right. The Moderaterna's syndrome is wanting to go back to the old Sweden. It is about the Ståndsriksdagen, which consisted of the groups of nobility, clergy, burghers, and peasants. It was the old system that we had in Sweden.

When one wants to prevent citizenship and wants it to be very difficult to obtain a citizenship, one truly chooses to go back to the dream society that we had. It is therefore actually the Moderaterna – this is to you in the opposition – who are exploiting the Sverigedemokraterna. We have seen this when it comes to unemployment, for example, where you have backed down on your issues. It is also about many other issues.

The question is: Why do you think the Moderaterna are cooperating with you and want you in the government without wanting to bring you into their old way of thinking in order to bring Sweden back to old times?

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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