Stricter and clearer requirements for integrity for residence permits

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates are convinced that Sweden should be a country built on order and decency. Our country rests on the fact that people respect our laws, follow our rules, and share the values that hold our community together. It is this order that allows us to have a functioning welfare society, where people can trust one another and the public sector. It is this order that we must safeguard and strengthen.

The report we are debating today concerns something very fundamental, namely what it means to be a part of Sweden. It is about what requirements we set for those who wish to stay here with a residence permit. It is also about the fact that we must be prepared to say loudly and clearly what we expect from those who come to our country.

Mr. Speaker! For many years, Sweden has had an all-too lax attitude regarding granted residence permits. We have allowed a number of people to permanently settle here without them following Swedish laws, without them respecting our values, and without them making any attempt to become a part of our community. It is not reasonable, and it is definitely not fair to all those who come here, follow the rules, and strive to become a part of Sweden.

The Moderate-led government now proposes that we tighten the requirements for conduct for residence permits. It is right, it is necessary, and it is about time.

The proposal means that we make it possible for the Swedish Migration Agency to revoke residence permits for those who pose a threat to public order or security, who have been convicted of crimes, or who in other respects have failed in their conduct. It means that we are saying that it is not enough to just follow the law – we also expect that one respects the values that Sweden is built on.

From the left opposition, they complain, hardly surprisingly. They say that this is too vague. They say that the concept of misconduct is unclear and old-fashioned. They say that it creates uncertainty. This is not true, Mr. Speaker. The left opposition's objections are ultimately about rhetoric.

Firstly: The concept of misconduct is not new. It is already used today in other parts of, for example, the Aliens Act. It is a well-established concept within immigration law that courts and authorities already work with. To say that it is vague is to say that we already have a vague system today, and that is not true.

Secondly: In the bill, the Government has clarified what is meant by lack of integrity. It has been made clear that it is not about norm-breaking behaviors as such. It is not about begging, prostitution, or harmful use of alcohol or drugs, but it is about behaviors that have negative consequences for others or for the public. It concerns, for example, compliance with regulations, dishonest livelihood, and unpaid debts. It concerns crimes and posing a threat to safety and order.

It is reasonable that one has good conduct when being a guest in Sweden, and we are now ensuring that requirements are set by law. It is both right and just.

Mr. Speaker! We propose that the assessment of whether a residence permit should be revoked must always be made based on a holistic assessment. One must weigh in how long the person has been in Sweden and how well established the person is. One must also weigh in whether the person has children here and how far back in time the offense occurred. One must also weigh in how serious the offense is. It is always a question of a proportionate assessment. It is an individual assessment that can be appealed to court by the person who does not agree. This is a legally secure procedure.

Mr. Speaker! We cannot accept that people who commit crimes or pose a threat to safety and order should be able to stay in Sweden just because they have been here for a long time or because they have children here. It would be unfair both to the one who is exposed – to the crime victim – and to Sweden as a whole, because this is also about safety for Sweden and for Swedish citizens.

We know that there are people who come to Sweden with dishonest intentions. We know that there are people who commit crimes here. We know that there are people who pose a threat to our security. We also know that there are people who do not respect our values or our laws. For these people, there can be no place in Sweden; it is a self-evident fact. That is why we need tools to be able to remove them from the country. The integrity rules that we Moderates and our coalition parties propose are such a tool.

Mr. Speaker! I am not surprised that the left side opposes this proposal – it is completely in line with their politics. They want an unrestricted immigration. They want an unrestricted integration. They want people to be able to stay here without following the rules, without respecting our values and without making any attempt to become a part of our community.

Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet say, not surprisingly, no to the Moderate-led government's proposition on stricter requirements for integrity. Status quo shall apply. Foreign citizens shall continue to be able to abuse Swedish hospitality. It is cowardly, weak, and indifferent, but it is not surprising for those who have followed the Swedish migration debate over the last decades.

The Social Democrats and the Centre Party have a number of objections of a technical nature. They want increased specifications and a more delimited regulatory framework. Fewer people should be covered by the increased requirements, quite simply. It is an irresponsible stance.

One can therefore ask the question: What kind of Sweden is it that the left-wing opposition collectively wants to build if the misfortune is present in the election this autumn? Do they want a Sweden where order and decency play no role? Do they want a Sweden where people can commit crimes and still stay? Do they want a Sweden where our values are not respected?

I believe that most Swedes want a Sweden where order and decency prevail, where laws are followed, where values are respected, and where foreign citizens who do not respect this can be removed from our country. It is that Sweden that we Moderates want to build. It is also that Sweden that this proposal, in combination with everything else we do within migration policy and criminal justice policy, is a part of building.

Mr. Speaker! This proposal is not the beginning of any new line that we Moderates are now putting forward, but it is a continuation of the consistent work that the blue and yellow team has already begun. We have already tightened the requirements for citizenship. We have already introduced language requirements, social studies tests, and self-sufficiency requirements. We have laid the foundation for Sweden to be able to revoke citizenship from those who have been convicted of system-threatening crime. Tomorrow, the Riksdag shall, in addition to this proposal, adopt the toughest deportation legislation in the Nordic countries and furthermore tighten the requirements on conduct for residence permits.

This is, as has been said, a consistent piece of work. It is based on the principle that those who wish to stay in Sweden must follow our laws and rules and respect our values. This is a piece of work that we Moderates are proud of and something that could never have been carried out if Magdalena Andersson had been Prime Minister for an SV-M government; it is worth remembering.

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates want to build a Sweden where order and decency prevail, where laws are followed and where values are respected. We want to build a Sweden where people who strive and behave correctly can build their lives and their futures. We also want those who do not respect our rules and values to a greater extent to be able to be removed from the country.

I am completely convinced that an absolute majority of the Swedish people agree with this political direction. For it to continue to prevail, we need at least four more years with a Moderate-led government – otherwise, everything we are currently implementing risks being torn down by Magdalena Andersson, Nooshi Dadgostar and Amanda Lind. Sweden cannot afford that.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee's report and the rejection of the reservations.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member speaks a lot about Swedish laws, but this is not about that. He speaks a lot about crime, but this is about lifestyles. That everyone staying in Sweden should follow Swedish law is probably seen by all members here as a given. Vänsterpartiet argues, however, that the government's bill is not about this, but about a gradual dismantling of fundamental rule-of-law principles.

The government has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that legislation protects everyone's equal value, but now they are introducing a legal order where people are not equal before the law. The government wants to shift legislation and focus from crime to behavior with the sole goal of deporting as many as possible. We are no longer equal before the law, but some are to be judged based on their lifestyle and their behavior. I find it difficult to come up with anything more arbitrary and insecure regarding the rule of law. It is now clear that people in Sweden are to be treated differently based on ethnicity.

The Chairman speaks about Swedish values. Which ones? We cannot base the assessment on values. And what are the clear legal definitions of misconduct? Some such definitions have not been presented at all. Besides values, crimes have been discussed, and for those, there is already a criminal legislation.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! That the Left Party is opposed even to what we are doing with this bill and this committee report is in no way surprising. The Left Party has consistently voted no to everything the government has presented during the paradigm shift in migration policy.

How the Left Party will manage to reconcile with the Social Democrats is a mystery, but we can guess what the alternative will be. It is what the Left Party is pushing for that will become the Swedish migration policy after the election this autumn, should misfortune strike.

We mean that both Swedish laws and Swedish values should have a greater impact when granting new residence permits, extending residence permits, and revoking residence permits. This is what the concept of "dishonesty" aims at. As we mention in the bill and the report, it can involve, for example, lack of regulatory compliance, unpaid debts, or dishonest livelihood. That Swedish values are to pay one's debts, pay tax on one's income, have an honest livelihood, and follow the rules and laws that exist in our country is clear to the vast majority of the Swedish people.

Just as I mentioned in my speech, integrity is not a new concept. It already exists in the Aliens Act, and integrity assessments have been carried out previously, for example, when granting citizenship.

It is this that we need to strengthen to achieve more order and clarity in Sweden than we have today, and it is regrettable that Vänsterpartiet opposes it.

What is the alternative for Vänsterpartiet? Is it always status quo that applies regardless? For you, there are no problems. You want to keep the immigration legislation and the migration policy exactly as it is, or preferably as it was in 2015 or before that – with all the consequences it had.

My counter-question to Tony Haddou is: What is the Left Party's alternative? Should all these problems in society be left as they are, or should something be done about them?

We are clear that action is required here and now.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I interpret the answer as that clear legal definitions are lacking. This with values that the member expresses is legally uncertain and arbitrary.

I was asked what the Left Party's alternative is. Sweden already has a criminal law, and that is what one should be judged by. The problem with the government is that it creates legal uncertainty and arbitrariness in Swedish legislation. If one commits a crime, one should be judged based on that crime.

But the government wants to make this a question of lifestyle, where one is judged based on how one lives, even though one may not have committed a crime. One can, for example, be deported if one has received a fine. The Member of Parliament speaks about a holistic perspective. In that case, a student who stumbles home after a student party and has a fine in their luggage risks deportation.

Is this how we are to have it in Sweden? Should people feel afraid and insecure? Should we have legislation that is completely arbitrary and legally uncertain? This is what we criticize. If one commits a crime, one shall be judged based on that crime, not based on anything else. One shall not be judged based on lifestyle or according to the Moderaternas pleasure. We shall not have completely arbitrary and legally uncertain legislation in Sweden, because it is not in accordance with the principles of the rule of law.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us establish a fundamental fact: Only Swedish citizens have an unconditional right to be in Sweden, while those with residence permits are allowed to be here on a legal basis. It is thanks to our hospitality that they are allowed to stay in Sweden, and it is therefore reasonable that they follow Swedish laws and Swedish values.

The concept of conduct is not something new, even though the Left Party tries to make it sound like it is. There is no arbitrariness in this. It is not a politician who will decide whether someone has poor or good conduct, but independent courts and independent authorities will examine it when it concerns, for example, the extension of residence permits. Conduct will be included in the assessment, because it is not only reasonable but completely fundamental that one should behave when staying in the country Sweden. Therefore, it is good that we get this in place.

The preparatory works specify some of what this is about, which I also mentioned earlier. It concerns, for example, lack of regulatory compliance, unpaid debts, and dishonest livelihood. This can form the basis for the assessment of whether a residence permit should be revoked or not granted further.

Tony Haddou says that we have a crime legislation. Of course we do. Therefore, it is strange that Tony Haddou tomorrow will also vote against tightening the rules for deportation of criminals. But as usual, the Left Party votes no to everything we put forward.

The Left Party is essentially for free immigration and lax rules for those who come to Sweden. We stand for something else. I fear an alternative where Tony Haddou becomes Minister for Migration in Magdalena Andersson's government after the election this autumn. I believe that the Swedish people should keep an eye on that.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Losing your residence permit in Sweden and being deported from here is a consequence that for many is far worse than receiving a fine or even ending up in prison. If you, for example, have your roots in the Taliban's Afghanistan, a deportation decision does not only mean that you lose your home, have to pull your children out of school, and must stop your work. It also means that you and your family are forced to adapt to the Taliban's extremist values and way of life. You are expected, among other things, to oppress women and follow to the letter the rules in a culture of denunciation where the slightest deviating behavior can lead to you being reported.

It is, therefore, very far-reaching consequences one can be hit with if, based on the new law, one is judged to have a lack of integrity. When it concerns such serious consequences for individuals, it is incredibly important that there is legal certainty and predictability in the legislation, that one can defend oneself before a court and that the requirements for evidence are set high.

But, Viktor Wärnick, here you have chosen rather low standards of proof, not like in criminal cases: beyond reasonable doubt. No absolute right to defend oneself with, for example, a lawyer before a court is introduced either. How have you intended to do this?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet continue on the track that Vänsterpartiet was just on here at the rostrum. They are mixing up the cards and want to make it seem as if we would have no order at all in Swedish legislation. That is not what it is about at all.

This is about behaving properly if one is in Sweden. If one has a residence permit, one must therefore follow our rules and our values, otherwise it can be part of an assessment of whether one fails in their conduct or not, for example, at the time of renewal of one's residence permit.

Those who have grounds to be in Sweden will, of course, not be deported. Those who risk death, torture, or other inhuman treatment are not deported from Sweden. Sweden is a constitutional state that follows the principle of non-refoulement. The Green Party knows this, but they are mixing up the cards to cause fear.

This is about the people who are in Sweden and who do not behave. They may not commit crimes, but they still do not behave. They do not, for example, pay their debts or follow the rules that exist in Sweden. That is what this is about.

We must have the possibility to remove persons who do not behave themselves from our country. That is what this proposal is about. Both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet oppose this as part of the general opposition against the entire paradigm shift within migration policy that we are now presenting and passing in the Swedish Riksdag.

Miljöpartiet is against all of this. They are fundamentally for free immigration and not for any rules at all to maintain order in the country or to ensure that people behave when they are here. That is what the objections are really about when one goes into technicalities.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One could say that my question concerns technicalities, but in a constitutional state, these technicalities are central. What I asked about, and which Viktor Wärnick did not answer, was why the government and the Moderaterna have chosen such a low standard of proof when it comes to lack of integrity. If someone is to be convicted of speeding or assault, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed the acts and, furthermore, did so with intent.

Furthermore, one has an absolute right to personally and with the support of, for example, a lawyer, defend oneself against the accusations before a court, even if it only concerns a fine. Even then, one has that right.

In the proposition on lack of integrity, the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is therefore not applied, and the Moderaterna do not introduce the right to personally defend oneself in court, even though the consequence can be that one is forced to leave their home and their job, take the children out of school and move to a country where all people are expected to practice oppression against one another, for example Afghanistan, where Sweden deports people today.

This decision can be made by the Swedish Migration Agency, and when one appeals, one does not even have the right to defend oneself before the court. There is also no requirement that it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that one, for example, intentionally took on debts that one had no intention of paying.

Then I wonder why the Moderaterna, in the rule of law Sweden, have chosen a lower standard of proof when the consequences are so much more serious than when one receives speeding fines.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! The vast majority of those who are in Sweden live honestly, work, and behave correctly. They are an appreciated part of our society. But there is still a small group who come to Sweden and who commit crimes, who misbehave, and who do not respect Swedish laws and values. Then we must have a greater possibility to remove these individuals from our country.

Fundamentally, it is only Swedish citizens who have an unconditional right to reside in Sweden. This is the basis of the proposal that we are presenting today.

We think it is reasonable that one behaves and follows Swedish laws, rules, and values. If one does not do so, it should be possible for independent, autonomous agencies and courts to examine whether one's residence permit, for example, should be extended or revoked. That is what the proposal is about. In that process, there is a rule of law order which means that if one is not satisfied with the decision made by an agency, the Swedish Migration Agency in this case, one has the opportunity to appeal exactly this.

The concept of "vandel" (misconduct) is not something new. It has existed in Swedish immigration legislation and immigration law for a long time. Now we are introducing this in regard to residence permits simply to achieve better order and clarity there as well.

I regret that the Green Party consistently says no to all of this that would make Swedish migration policy so much better. I regret that a line is being pursued which, on the contrary, would mean that more people seek out Sweden, that more come to Sweden to seek asylum just here, and that we have fewer opportunities to remove those who do not behave.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by urging everyone to note that Annika Hirvonen did not receive answers to her questions regarding the details that actually determine people's legal status.

Viktor Wärnick just said several interesting things in the speaker's chair, for example that it is clear and distinct which requirements apply. I can then quote the Council on Legislation, which I know the government has a bit of that view on at the moment: "A measure as intrusive as the revocation of a permit should have clear support in law." They therefore think that it does not have it today. It is therefore not clear which requirements apply.

Viktor Wärnick also said that those who have grounds to be in Sweden are not deported. I do not think one needs to open many newspapers from the last half-year to see that this is not true, regardless of whether we are talking about labor migrants, teenagers, or anything else. Very many who have grounds to be in Sweden are deported. This legislation will add to that.

We fully agree that those who commit crimes and who are criminals should be deported, but the question of conduct is something else. Crimes and threats against security, which are included in the legislation, we vote for. That is why we also vote for the bill.

We must be clear that the concept of "vandels" is not a good concept. It is unclear. Everyone who has spoken regarding the legislation agrees that it is bad. It is, as Viktor Wärnick said, clumsy and weak. It is clumsy and weak to let something like that through in a constitutional state like Sweden.

I actually want to hear how it is that the Moderaterna have released the basic bourgeois premise of standing on the individual's side and not on the system's side, and that laws should be transparent and legally secure. Now the Moderaterna are simply laughing at the most fundamental virtues of the bourgeoisie. I find that sad.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! As is usual in the migration debate, there is a very high level of tail-wagging from Niels Paarup-Petersen. If one looks at the report to see who supports which parts, one sees that the Center Party, which I can understand, will vote for this legislation in all essential respects.

In some parts, there are some objections. It concerns primarily a number of announcements, i.e., things that one thinks the government should continue to work on. One can, however, ask Niels Paarup-Petersen if he will vote for the legislation as such or not if he is in the chamber tomorrow.

We are doing this because we believe we need to achieve better order in Swedish migration policy also when it comes to the issue of misconduct for those individuals who are in the country. The concept of misconduct is, as I have said a number of times, not something new in Swedish immigration legislation. It has existed previously.

In that case, one must be consistent and stand by the fact that Swedish immigration legislation has not been functioning at all when previous integrity checks have been conducted. Is this what the Centerpartiet means?

We mean that this must be broadened so that more are covered so that we can simply remove those who in practice choose to opt out of being in Sweden by coming here to commit crimes or not follow our laws, rules, and values otherwise, for example if one has an dishonest livelihood. We think it is reasonable.

As I said earlier, it is therefore not a question of a subjective assessment being made by some politician or similar, but the assessment shall be made by an independent, autonomous agency and then a court, where one can appeal. This is the order that we consider important.

Centerpartiet can answer how they will vote on the legislation.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my reply, we will vote for the legislative proposal, partly because both crimes and threats against national security are included there. One of the challenges with the government is that it often puts things that are quite sensible together with things that really are not sensible, and as the Riksdag unfortunately functions, it is a whole package that must be adopted.

We say that we do not want the concept of "vandelsbegreppet" – it is stated incredibly clearly. There are four parts in our accompanying motion. I am unsure about the heading, but in one of them it states that we do not want the concept of "vandelsbegreppet". I do not think it is confusing for people.

When it comes to those who come here and do not want to follow our rules, I can say that I have come here and gladly want to follow the rules. But I have also broken many of them. I have driven too fast – I can say that. I do it every single time I drive on a country road. It might be stupid to say it in the chamber, but I can admit it. You others do it too, even when you drive in the city sometimes.

I have spoken with a guy who was driving 46 kilometers per hour on a 40 road. I have done that many times, and I have been fined during the last half year for having driven faster than that. I have driven too fast on a country road. I am quite sure that Viktor Wärnick has also done it, if he has a driver's license. But one does not need to confess everything – we take the fifth.

Due to two speeding fines – one for having driven 46 kilometers per hour on a 40-way and the other for having driven 80 kilometers per hour on a 70-way, or something of the sort – he cannot be granted a residence permit.

Then one has not followed the rules in this country, and that has consequences for the residence permit. That is what is required today, before the concept of "disrepute" has been introduced. The Moderates must answer: Has one broken the rules so significantly that one cannot continue to be in Sweden?

That guy has children and a wife here. Is a speeding fine in the future enough for one to be deported from the country? It is a crime that should be taken into account. This imprecise legislation gives no answer as to whether it is enough; that is the challenge.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It may seem legislatively procedurally technical, but I am raising it nonetheless. The tail-following that Niels Paarup-Petersen has here is so high that he should be able to answer how he views the bill as a whole.

From what I can read in the committee's proposal for a parliamentary decision under point 1, regarding the government's bill, he will therefore vote tomorrow for the Riksdag to adopt the government's proposals for laws in the report.

Then one wants a number of announcements. One does not therefore vote no to the parts that one is standing here and saying are so problematic that they should have been broken out. One says that we should have had a different order so that one can vote for the parts that one considers important. Tail-wagging is one thing, but practice is something else. I think the Centerpartiet is held responsible when it comes to why one acts in that way.

When it comes to the concept of "vandels" (malicious intent) in general, a proportionate assessment, a holistic assessment, shall be made, just as we state in the committee report and as the government states in the bill. Exactly what will be included in this is difficult to say. It has not been that way previously either when it comes to the assessment of "vandels". It is something that is developed and designed in practice and which is supported by and can be derived from what is stated in the preparatory works. It is a fairly common practice in Swedish legislation to act in that manner. It is therefore nothing new.

We believe that those who abuse Swedish hospitality should be able to be removed from the country to a greater extent than is the case today. As far as I understand, the Center Party intends to vote for this – on a technical level, even if they claim to stand for something else in their rhetoric.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! This proposal is yet another of the proposals that the Tidö parties have used to scare people in general and immigrants in particular. The ink had hardly had time to dry on Tidö castle before one Tidö party member after another threw themselves into the debate to tell that immigrants would indeed be sent out of the country if they do not behave.

Prostitutes, sick people with an addiction, and beggars would be kicked out quickly, and whoever said something that did not suit the Sweden Democrats or tough Moderate ministers would suffer the same fate. But as reality met the Tidö parties, it was the latter who had to back down.

I myself had a debate with the then minister Paulina Brandberg regarding the view on prostitutes. The minister spun herself into a reasoning about prostitution and that prostitutes certainly are not crime victims, but after a while it was announced that prostitution would not be included in the concept of dishonor. In a similar way, the tone and the wording have been softened regarding the sick and beggars. But the damage of the tone was already done, which was surely the intention.

The same thing has applied when it comes to freedom of expression. After the investigator stated at a press conference that immigrants should watch their tongues, a large discussion arose about freedom of expression. Where would the line be drawn? For those who had read the investigation, however, it was clearly stated that it does not propose any shifted boundary for freedom of expression as such. The expressions that can serve as a basis for deportation are only those that are already criminalized today. But the damage was already done.

People are afraid in the Tidö parties' Sweden, and they feel that they must watch their tongues. This applies, moreover, not only to immigrants but also to the media, civil society, and employees at authorities. This is a dangerous development.

Mr. Speaker! With this as a background, we have to contend with the bill that is now on the table. It is very different compared to the statements and outright attacks that government representatives have engaged in. We believe that it has a number of flaws that need to be corrected, and there are a number of clarifications that need to be made.

Firstly, the legislation does not affect the residence permits that are based on Sweden's international commitments. This means that, for example, refugees are not included. Among the Tidö parties, it has sounded as if people on the run should be thrown out in droves because they have exercised their right to demonstration. This will not happen. Simply put, it primarily concerns labor migrants and students.

Secondly, the proposals do not mean that a person is deported because they have received a parking fine or driven too fast. For an offense to be so serious that there is a risk of deportation, it must involve systematic and gross misconduct. A person who parks incorrectly is not deported. A car guard who systematically receives fine after fine risks doing so.

These clarifications are important for understanding how we Social Democrats have reasoned and how we make our assessment of the issue.

Mr. Speaker! With this established, we Social Democrats nevertheless have a number of objections to the bill.

The first objection concerns the concept of "vandelsbegreppet" (the concept of delinquency) as such. This concept was phased out of the legislation regarding residence permits over 30 years ago because it was already considered outdated and moralizing at that time. Furthermore, it was rarely used as a basis for deportation. We believe it is illogical to now reintroduce the concept when we have simultaneously introduced a new concept, "skötsamt och hederligt levnadssätt" (an orderly and honest way of life), regarding the citizenship test.

The same concepts should be used consistently. That the Tidö parties persist with the concept of lack of integrity shows with all desirable clarity that it is about signal politics in the spirit that I have already detailed earlier in this contribution.

The second and most serious objection concerns the fact that the government does not include in the law what constitutes a lack of integrity. Both the investigation and the Council on Legislation advocate that what should be included in an assessment should be codified in the legal text.

For us Social Democrats, this is a completely crucial issue. We mean, like many referral bodies, that there is a risk of arbitrariness and a development of practice that makes the criteria that can form the basis for a deportation become unclear and all too broad. In order for this to be preventable, it must clearly appear in the law what applies.

That one has committed a crime, poses a threat to public order or security, has failed to comply with regulations, supports oneself dishonestly, or has unpaid debts must be stated in the legal text. The Tidö parties want to deliberately create uncertainty and enable a development where the limit is pushed towards increasingly unreasonable deportations, something that is completely in line with their ambition to deport as many as possible on as loose grounds as possible.

The third and final part that we Social Democrats see as crucial is a solid evaluation and follow-up of the changes.

We see a great value in clarifying in the legislation that those who are guests in Sweden must also behave themselves. Therefore, we believe that a stricter assessment of a decent and honest way of life should be made. But should it turn out that the worst fears expressed in the public debate, including here in the chamber, are unfounded, this must be quickly corrected and rectified. Therefore, evaluation must take place continuously and with the Riksdag's clear mandate behind it.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude by summarizing the Social Democratic position as follows: Those who behave and do everything correctly shall also be given good opportunities to be a part of our fantastic country. But those who misbehave and who with all desirable clarity show that they cannot manage to live according to the rules, norms, and laws that we have here in the country shall not have an unconditional right to be in the country. The issues must, however, be handled in a legally secure manner and in an understandable way. That is how a strict migration policy should be designed, and that is how we Social Democrats do it.

With that, I conclude by moving for approval of reservation 2.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This bill is titled "Stricter and clearer requirements for conduct for residence permits." I will willingly admit that the name is somewhat misleading, in two different ways.

Part of this, we have no substantial requirement for residence permits today. Current rules focus almost entirely on criminal proceedings, i.e., judgments in criminal cases, where it is assessed whether a person should be refused or deprived of a residence permit. It is mostly a separate set of regulations, even though there are some overlapping parts.

It is also about reintroducing something that has been the rule rather than the exception in Swedish immigration law history. Rules regarding the refusal or revocation of residence permits due to antisocial behavior or dishonest livelihood already existed before the 1954 Aliens Act and with broad support in this chamber – or rather in the two chambers in the building across the street.

The rules on antisocial behavior were phased out in that year's Aliens Act in 1989. This was against the background that the rules were rarely used, which perhaps was due to the fact that foreigners simply did not have the same tendency to cause problems at that time compared to how it looks today.

Finally, the rules regarding lack of livelihood were also phased out in 2005.

What we are doing with today's bill is, in other words, to return to a kind of normal state, not only for how things have looked in Sweden but also for how they look in our neighboring countries. We are reintroducing a possibility to consider not only crime but also other regulatory violations in cases regarding residence permits.

What does misconduct mean then? It is a question that seems to be quite misunderstood among the general public but also among the opposition, judging by the reservations that are in this report.

Vandel is therefore an immigration law measure, not a criminal law one. It is that distinction that I believe has disappeared a bit. It is what people tend to not quite understand. This means that a residence permit can be revoked for other rule violations than purely criminal ones. But it is precisely rule violations that the assessment of conduct (vandel) aims at. It is therefore not about making an assessment of a person's lifestyle outside of the specific criteria specified in the law.

What about the legal certainty, then? I believe several of the opposition parties have already touched upon that in the debate. The preparatory works in the bill are very clear about what types of factors should be considered within the framework of a misconduct review. This is something that I believe many in this debate have missed until now.

The arguments in the reservations are very much about the fact that misconduct does not have a definition in the legal text and that the concept would therefore be legally uncertain. If one actually reads the bill, which it looks a bit like that several of the participants in this debate have not quite done, one sees that up to 40 pages are devoted to framing the very concept of misconduct and explaining what is included in a misconduct assessment, but also what is not included in a misconduct assessment. This is completely normal within Swedish administrative law, which relies very heavily on preparatory statements. This is how the Swedish legal system normally functions.

However, the description of misconduct is not exhaustive. I believe that is what several of the opposition's debaters here are aiming at. That is correct. Other rule violations than those specifically pointed out may also be taken into account when conducting this misconduct review. This does not, however, mean that the concept itself is legally uncertain, because it is still rule violations that we are talking about. We assume that the public has the capacity to understand what is permitted and what is not. It is thus rule violations on one hand and threats to security on the other.

What circumstances are it then that are to be considered?

Firstly: crime that is not so serious that it reaches the rules on deportation due to crime. That space will become significantly smaller in light of the bill we are debating here tomorrow, as we lower the bar for precisely deportation due to crime quite considerably. But there will still be such a space, especially in combination with other indications of lack of integrity.

Secondly: threats to public order and security, which can mean interaction with, for example, criminal networks, terrorist organizations, violent extremism, and so on.

For the third: grossly disturbing behavior due to, for example, intoxication. That a person has been detained according to the Public Order Act could be an example, likewise that a person has received a stay-away order or a ban on entry because they have behaved very badly. This can be documented and submitted as evidence. It is nothing strange for people who work within the public order authorities. I believe there is also a misunderstanding here – many think it would involve alcoholism or something similar as an individual phenomenon. But that is not enough, it must be abuse plus grossly disturbing behavior which then receives some type of legal consequence.

For the fourth: other lack of regulatory compliance, which concerns not following judgments or authority decisions. Examples can be that one consistently ignores paying fines or penalties or has received repeated demands for grants or benefits that one was not entitled to without this having led to prosecution. This is quite common because prosecution is not always initiated, especially not when it concerns smaller amounts.

For the fifth: dishonest livelihood. There are various factors that point to this, for example that a person has been subject to independent forfeiture. Independent forfeiture is, therefore, a real success story that this government has implemented. It is about having one's assets forfeited because it is predominantly likely that these assets come from criminal activity, i.e., that they are proceeds of crime. It can be a very clear indication that one does not have an honest livelihood.

It can also be about exploiting people for organized begging or prostitution. Also here, there have been very many conscious misunderstandings, both from the opposition and from others in the general debate. It was clearly stated already in the Tidö Agreement – so early, that is – that it is persons who are involved in organizing prostitution who shall be subject to this integrity check and not persons who are exploited in that profession. It was clear already in the Tidö Agreement. I do not understand how so many people who work with politics have not been able to grasp this since then.

For the sixth: other economic conditions, which may involve a demonstrated unwillingness to pay taxes, debts, maintenance payments or the like.

Last but not least: statements. In that case, it concerns statements that are punishable in themselves, i.e., crimes against freedom of expression or freedom of the press. Here there is a difference between what the investigation proposed and what I think could have been better. I do not think it should be required that a person has been convicted of a crime. I think that statements can still be assessed, because of how those rules look. They are somewhat special. But this is what we are presenting in the bill.

When one reads this, one realizes quite easily why the opposition's proposal to bake all of this into the legislative text is less appropriate. The Aliens Act does not normally look like that. It would also not make a huge difference, I am fairly sure.

Another argument that is often raised against this type of regulation is that it involves a kind of double punishment. A member of the opposition touched upon this in a previous exchange of remarks. It would then mean that two identical acts committed by two different people would result in completely different outcomes if one person is a foreigner and the other is a Swedish citizen. This is entirely correct. In that part, however, it is important to point out that an administrative deportation is not a punishment. This is also a distinction that many in the opposition do not really seem to understand.

The result of a deportation is, in most cases, that a person is forced to live in the country where he or she is a citizen. It is not particularly dramatic – especially not since we are now talking about persons who do not have a protection status declaration against that country but are here for other reasons.

That this type of deportation, namely administrative deportation – or deportation under immigration law, perhaps we could say – is not seen as a punishment has also been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in a couple of cases. There is one called Maaouia v. France, which concerned whether the rights arising from Article 6 should be applied when a person risks deportation for administrative reasons. The Court held that the answer to this question was no, because that type of procedure does not involve what they call a criminal charge. This is stated in the judgment – so no, it was not a question of double punishment because it was not a question of a criminal law proceeding.

The fact that it is not about punishment is the reason why we can also consider other rule violations than those specifically pointed out in the preparatory statements. Had this been a criminal law rule, Annika Hirvonen and Tony Haddou and everyone else here would have been completely right, because one cannot construct a criminal law rule in that way. There is a principle called nulla poena sine lege which says that criminal law rules must be extremely precise. This is of course very good, we think – so it shall work that way. This is, however, not a criminal law rule, and therefore the regulatory framework can look like this.

Mr. Speaker! There are also a number of other rule changes in this report that I particularly want to highlight. One concerns an adjustment to the minimum level regarding the residence permits regulated by EU law. It will now be easier to refuse or deport persons with such residence permits.

We are also introducing a general basis for revoking time-limited residence permits when the reason for the residence permit no longer exists. This may be the case, for example, when a foreigner no longer has a protection status declaration.

Today, it is quite common for persons to lose their protection status declaration but still be allowed to keep the residence permit they received as a consequence of the protection status declaration. There is therefore no legal basis for the Swedish Migration Agency to take back a residence permit in those types of cases, and it is very strange. The question of why it looks like that must be asked of the opposition, but we are therefore introducing this now, and I think it is completely reasonable.

We also shorten the time limits for when a residence permit can be revoked because the person is not in Sweden. This is, of course, also completely logical.

Furthermore, we are removing a very important rule which states that extraordinary reasons are required to reclaim a residence permit for a person who has lived in Sweden for five years. This is a game changer. It is a very important rule that has slipped away a bit in the debate. It is also somewhat of a sign that many in the opposition are not really keeping up with what we are doing here.

If more of the opposition members had understood what this entails, there would certainly have been more reservations on this point, but I could not see that there was any reservation on this point in this report, because people do not really have a handle on the rule changes we are making.

Last but not least, the grounds within the proportionality assessment that should argue against reclaiming a residence permit will also carry less weight compared to today.

Mr. Speaker! Above all, we are getting a completely new regulatory framework – which I am very proud of – for deportations involving circumstances other than just criminality. This is at least as important as handling those deported for crimes.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In my reply to the Moderates' Viktor Wärnick, I asked two questions that I did not receive any answer to. It was about why the government in this bill on lack of integrity has chosen such a low threshold of proof, even though the consequences for individuals of losing their residence permit after a long time in Sweden are very far-reaching. I would like to assert that for most of us, it is a much worse consequence to be deported to, for example, Afghanistan and be forced to pull children out of school, sell the house and leave the job, than even to receive a shorter prison sentence.

In this bill, however, no higher standard of proof is introduced. There are different levels for different types of cases, and from what I can read, this is solely about it being probable that a person with intent has avoided paying their debts. This is not to be proven either as established or beyond reasonable doubt, which applies in many other situations.

Since Viktor Wärnick from Moderaterna did not have any answer to this question, I would like to ask the Sverigedemokraterna this, because it happens quite often that Moderaterna do as Sverigedemokraterna want without perhaps themselves really thinking about the issue.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the last part, I can guarantee that the Moderaterna and other coalition parties have been extremely involved in this legislative process. It has been a give and take, but I think we have landed on a reasonable product.

Regarding the standard of proof, it is correct that it should be probable. That depends precisely on the fact that this is not a criminal proceeding. This was what I touched upon in my speech, and it is many of the opposition members who have been critical on this point. People tend not to quite understand the difference between criminal law and administrative law, but this is, therefore, an administrative law proceeding.

If it had been a criminal proceeding, this – as I also said in my speech – would have needed to look completely different both in terms of how the legislation is designed and, naturally, regarding the standard of proof. In that case, it would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed the acts in question. This, however, is an administrative law proceeding, and that is precisely because it is not about punishment.

When it comes to the second, Annika Hirvonen perhaps said it is a question of preference. I have lived abroad for very many years, and I would much rather be deported from another country than serve a prison sentence anywhere else in the world. It may be my personal preference, but I absolutely do not think it is as intrusive.

The example with Afghanistan is quite irrelevant, because these rules do not apply to persons who have a protection status declaration. Not all persons with Afghanistan as a country of birth who are in Sweden have a protection status declaration, that is absolutely true. There are many who come as relatives from there, for example – unfortunately.

If one has a protection status declaration, that is to say that one has some type of threat against them in their home country, one is not deported due to misconduct. In that case, completely different rules are required to break through the presumption against deportation. If one does not have a protection status declaration, I do not think it is anything strange that one is sent back to a country such as Afghanistan or some other country of that type.

In summary, it simply depends on the fact that this is not a criminal law rule.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I had actually intended to continue a legal-technical reasoning regarding low evidentiary requirements and the poor opportunities for people to at all defend themselves and foresee the consequences that can follow an action that they perhaps themselves, thus, had no intent for at all. But I must still say that I got stuck on a word that Ludvig Aspling sort of smuggled into a sentence. He said: Many come as relatives from Afghanistan – unfortunately.

I must say that those we are talking about here are children of refugees as well as cohabitants and spouses. It is about women and about children who, therefore, are to be reunited with a parent in Sweden. There is nothing to complain about in that. It is, on the contrary, one of the most fundamental human rights and something that I consider to be the lowest level of decency in a country.

To complain that a woman who is married to a man living in Sweden should be allowed to come here from Afghanistan nevertheless testifies to Ludvig Aspling's view of humanity. The same applies to saying "unfortunately" about a child being allowed to come from Afghanistan to its mother here in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I shall return to the technicalities in the next speech.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We all look forward to when Hirvonen returns to the technicalities.

Annika Hirvonen is wrong – it is not a fundamental human right to be allowed to move to Sweden. There is no support whatsoever for that opinion. There is not a single case from the European Court of Human Rights, the EU Court of Justice, or any other international court where it is stated that it is a fundamental human right to be allowed to move to Sweden. It is complete madness.

Regarding Afghanistan: In her first exchange of remarks a few minutes ago, Annika Hirvonen described Afghanistan as – and I quote – a country where everyone is expected to exercise oppression against one another. That does not sound like a particularly pleasant place. Why should we have immigration from a country where everyone is expected to exercise oppression against one another? If what Annika Hirvonen says is true, I actually think they can stay there.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! This government wants nothing else than to deport as many as possible. It is the core of the government's policy and the chosen direction since four years ago. The methods being used erode democracy and human rights. It is an unlawful direction that pits groups against each other and creates fear in society.

With the proposal on vagrancy that we are debating today, the government wants to create a legal order where people are not equal before the law. In fact, one is not to be judged based on criminality but based on lifestyle. It is difficult to come up with anything more arbitrary and insecure regarding the rule of law. It is clear that people in Sweden are to be treated differently based on ethnicity.

In recent days, Amnesty wrote in Expressen that with this government, we are heading towards racial laws. I think the chamber should give it some serious thought when a human rights organization as large as Amnesty says that about the government.

No one is surely happier than the Sverigedemokraterna; they are certainly nostalgic over the idea of keeping Sweden Swedish and so on. But the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna are therefore to carry this out. They perhaps thought it would save them before the election, but it does not seem to be going down well with the Swedish people. We see this, not least, in the opinion polls. I believe that the Swedish people appreciate democracy, human rights, strong legal principles in Sweden and all people's equal value.

Mr. Speaker! Residence permits can therefore be denied or revoked not only due to criminality but also with reference to other aspects of a person's lifestyle. The Government thus proposes that, unlike what applies today, it shall not be required that one has committed a crime for other lack of integrity to be particularly considered when assessing residence permits. According to the Government, it may instead involve misconduct that neither constitutes a crime nor concerns the foreigner's means of support. Migration law shall now therefore be linked to broad and vague assessments of individuals' lifestyles.

As usual, the government receives criticism from almost all referral bodies. Central to the criticism is that the concept of "vandel" (misconduct) is perceived as unclear and legally difficult to capture. It is arbitrary and insecure in terms of the rule of law. We cannot accept legislation on such loose grounds.

Everyone who stays in Sweden shall follow Swedish law. It is a self-evident fact that no one here questions at all. The Left Party argues, however, that the government's proposition is not about this, but about a gradual dismantling of fundamental rule-of-law principles with the sole purpose of enabling more deportations and a more restrictive migration policy.

There are serious points in this. It is an unclear and vague concept, and legislation should be clear and predictable. It simply is not here. Formulations such as "orderly and honest way of life" are used, and in a previous exchange of remarks, we heard about Swedish values and so on. These are unclear and vague concepts that are legally ambiguous, which provides a large room for interpretation and opens up for subjective assessments. It increases the risk of arbitrary decisions.

Mr. Speaker! It also creates different standards for different people. The residency requirement is directed only at persons without Swedish citizenship, which means that the same behavior results in completely different consequences depending on who you are. This contradicts the principle of equality before the law.

Then there is also a retroactive application to some extent, that is, the government wants the integrity requirement to be able to be applied retroactively when a holistic assessment is made. This would mean that already granted residence permits could be reviewed, which creates great legal uncertainty.

We also see a lack of proportionality and necessity in this. A fundamental principle in Swedish and international law is that restrictions on rights may only occur if they are necessary in a democratic society and proportionate in relation to the objective. The investigation fails in this and proposes far-reaching restrictions on individuals' freedoms and rights.

Mr. Speaker! The government seems to be prepared to stretch, bypass, or risk violating fundamental rights in order to achieve the goal of increasing the possibilities to deport people and limiting immigration. This is a development that the Left Party strongly opposes. Sweden needs a migration policy that safeguards the rule of law, human rights, and the equal value of all people, not legislation that opens up for arbitrariness, discrimination, and legal insecurity.

Vänsterpartiet wants the entire motion to be rejected. It belongs in the wastepaper basket. I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin this debate by moving for approval of the committee's decision, which means approval of the government bill and thereby rejection of the motions made in this report regarding stricter and clearer integrity requirements for residence permits.

As I have so often said in this chamber, the Christian Democrats, together with the partner parties in the Tidö community, have charted a new path for Sweden regarding migration policy. It is about addressing the problems resulting from the fact that asylum migration to Sweden has for a long time been extensive and that previous governments have not made sufficient efforts to address the problems that have arisen.

We as politicians have a responsibility to create a safe country for our citizens, and today's proposal is a necessary step to create the security that our residents expect.

Mr. Speaker! In today's debate, I want to begin by saying that the vast majority of people who come to Sweden live honestly. They do not commit crimes, they work, and they behave correctly. They are an appreciated part of Swedish society. I cannot emphasize it enough.

At the same time, we must realize that there is a small group that comes here, commits crimes and misbehaves. It is a group that does not respect laws and rules or does not even make an effort to become part of society. For far too long, this group has been able to continue behaving badly without it having any consequences.

This has, of course, with all justification, been perceived as unfair – especially for all those who have come here and behave themselves. It has damaged the Swedish people's trust in the migration policy, and it has been completely counterproductive in the work to address Sweden's extensive challenges in the area of integration.

Sweden is a welcoming country. Many of us are hospitable. But that does not mean that one can come here and behave however they please. When one comes and visits, one follows the requests of the one who invited, and one shows respect.

The government has from day one been clear that those who come here and commit crimes choose away a future in Sweden. That one follows laws and rules should be a self-evident matter. But it should also be a self-evident matter that one behaves. It is precisely what the government's proposal on stricter and clearer requirements on conduct for residence permits is about.

Mr. Speaker! The proposals are based on the so-called vandalism investigation, which was submitted in April 2025. The background is that the government considers the vandalism screening that is already carried out today when a person seeks to come to Sweden to be too limited, as it almost exclusively takes crime into account.

The purpose has been to create a stricter regulation with greater possibilities to remove foreign nationals from the country due to misconduct or lack of integrity. But it has also been to create greater possibilities to revoke residence permits even for other reasons, for example if someone has provided misleading information to obtain their residence permit. We Christian Democrats and other parties in the government base consider today's possibilities to be too limited. Now we are changing that.

Mr. Speaker! The Government is therefore proposing entirely new requirements for integrity. This means that the integrity assessment should not only focus primarily on crime, but other forms of misconduct can also be taken into account to a greater extent.

The new integrity assessment will be carried out in connection with applications for and renewals of residence permits, as well as when assessing whether a foreign national should be granted a permanent residence permit. The requirements shall apply during a foreign national's entire stay in Sweden, and a residence permit can therefore also be revoked. This means that the requirements shall be significant for the residence permit throughout the entire stay in Sweden.

It is important to include in this that, in connection with a review of conduct, a holistic assessment shall always be made in each individual case. In such a holistic assessment, it shall also be possible to weigh in the lack of conduct that a foreign person has committed previously. On the other hand, lack of conduct that occurred before the legislation came into force shall not be sufficient in itself to revoke a residence permit.

Mr. Speaker! What does the integrity check entail? It is, to begin with, about whether the person is considered to pose a threat to public order or security. Naturally, it also concerns criminality.

We also introduce the concept of other lack of integrity. It can involve actions and behaviors that society clearly opposes on an overall level, for example, incurring debt without any intention or effort to settle the debt. It can also involve providing for oneself in a dishonest way, for example, by organizing begging and in that way exploiting other people.

It is also about violations of rules, regulations, and agency decisions, for example, grant fraud or not paying one's fines. Grant fraud is of course already illegal today, but the consequence for the person who cheats is usually only that they have to pay back the amount they have cheated themselves. Now, the cheating can have significantly more tangible consequences.

Statements should not be considered to constitute a lack of integrity, but they can be an indication of links to violence-promoting extremism, which in itself can constitute a lack of integrity.

There are a number of phenomena that are not covered by the new proposals. It concerns prostitution, substance abuse, and begging. It is an important distinction, in order to mark that people who in different contexts are victims should not be affected by the legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Further grounds for revoking residence permits concern threats to public order or security, misleading information in the application, or changed circumstances. And restrictions regarding length of stay are removed.

In summary, the government is therefore proposing that sharp and clearer requirements on integrity should be introduced in order to obtain and retain a residence permit in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Many seek to come to Sweden to get a better life. If they participate and contribute to the community, there should be good opportunities to stay. But in the case of a lack of integrity, these changes provide the conditions to create a safer Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! When the Tidösamarbetet ensures that changes are made to create order and clarity in Sweden, the opposition stands aside, as in many cases before. But as usual, it is clearly fragmented. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet usually say that it was better before and that it should be as it has always been. They say no to the change and the tightened requirements that are now proposed to increase safety in Sweden. They reject the government's proposal. On the other hand, Centern and Socialdemokraterna have an orientation that in large parts and to some extent stands behind this. They vote, for example, for the bill itself, but they reserve themselves against some points.

I can state that Ola Möller, in his very powerful and content-rich speeches, often builds up scenarios that, like Don Quixote's windmills, do not exist. The large and strict migration policy that Magdalena Andersson speaks of does not always seem to exist in Ola Möller's conceptual world. Sometimes the statements are built on what has been heard in some interview instead of looking at what is written in the bill.

It is a facade that shows that the Social Democrats in many ways share the government's direction. But we can wonder if the words in the speaker's chair are about preparing for the upcoming chaos government in which one will need to adapt to those who today say no to the change. As usual, despite the mantra of a strict migration policy, it is most likely that it will instead become a strict chaos policy in all different directions, if, against all odds, it were to become a new government.

Mr. Speaker! I have often repeated that Sweden needs a strict, fair and responsible migration policy. That is what we Kristdemokrater have delivered together with the other Tidö parties. We take the responsibility. We create a safer Sweden and speak about what the conditions are for staying in Sweden.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motion proposals.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ingemar Kihlström has a responsibility for the consequences of this legislation. Therefore, I want to return to the question of the requirements of proof. Ludvig Aspling argued that in order to be deported due to lack of conduct, "probably" should suffice. "Probably" therefore means that it is slightly more likely than 50 percent.

Do the Christian Democrats really think that the standard of proof should be so low? It concerns such serious consequences as, for example, being forced to leave one's home, one's work and one's life, pulling children out of school and moving to, for example, Afghanistan, which has been an example that very well could become relevant.

In the Administrative Court, there are different standards of proof. Can it really be true that the government parties have reached an agreement with the Sweden Democrats that it is precisely here that the standard of "probable" shall apply? It does not appear in the bill how the reasoning regarding the standard of proof has been conducted.

So, one does not set a clear standard of proof justified by the serious consequences of this for the individual. One also does not introduce a strict right for people to defend themselves. And one does not reason clearly about with what intent a person should have committed these acts and who it is that should prove it.

This concerns me very much, precisely because it risks not fulfilling the requirements for legal certainty that we have. It is unpredictable and makes it difficult to defend oneself, and the evidentiary requirements are far too low.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This debate clearly shows the differences in this chamber. A large majority, including future partners of the Green Party in a government, stand behind the requirement that those who come to Sweden and utilize the hospitality that exists should not only follow laws and rules but also show that they want to be a part of Swedish society.

We can state that the requirement of integrity exists today. It is used in the assessment of residence permits.

We can also note that the bill clearly states that a holistic assessment shall be made. Just as many speakers have already said: If there are obstacles to enforcement and one has grounds to stay, one will naturally not be deported.

In the Green Party's world, however, it is like this: Regardless of how one behaves, regardless of whether one chooses to follow rules and regardless of whether one continuously takes out loans without wanting to pay, no assessment shall be made as to whether one should continue to have the opportunity to be a part of our society.

Naturally, we do not deport anyone to an uncertain and risky future. It is also clear in the bill that it is not about "negligence of a trivial character." But if one clearly stands outside of society, a significant majority in this chamber considers that one should not be a continued part of this society. I can only regret that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet do not see that connection.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think the level of the debate is a bit low. I am asking concrete, factual questions about the bill for which Ingemar Kihlström and Viktor Wärnick are responsible. In response, I am getting readings of some kind of pre-written slogans about hospitality and that people should behave. Yes, we can agree that people should behave. But what we are talking about now is under what conditions people should risk being torn from home, work, and schooling and deported to countries such as Afghanistan, and with what legal safeguards such procedures should take place.

I think it is reasonable that Ingemar Kihlström, as a representative of a government party, can answer these substantive questions. Instead, he devotes himself to claiming that the Green Party thinks that one should be allowed to stay in Sweden regardless of how one behaves, which he himself knows is not true.

I want answers to the questions: What standards of proof shall apply? Why has the right for people to defend themselves in court not been clarified, when the consequences can be so serious? It is spoken here of, for example, deliberately taking out loans that one had no intention of repaying. But in the court process where this is to be decided, one does not have the right to defend oneself with the help of a lawyer. There is no clear standard of proof. It does not need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that one had this intent. Ludvig Aspling says that it should be sufficient if it is probable – a little more than a 50 percent chance – that one did it deliberately. Does Ingemar Kihlström really agree that it is sufficient if it is a little over a 50 percent chance that one did it deliberately and a 40 percent chance that it was a mistake?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has one of the most legally secure systems in the world for the assessment of migration policy matters. The Swedish Migration Agency makes decisions that can be reviewed in both the migration courts and the Migration Court of Appeal. Cases can also be taken to the EU level. We can state that the legal certainty that Annika Hirvonen gives the impression of does not actually exist. A character assessment is being carried out today. A holistic assessment of the situation must be made, and it is not individual actions that determine whether one is allowed to stay in Sweden.

But at the same time, we must be clear. If one is in Sweden, one must behave. It is also fair towards the vast majority of those who have come to our country – those who choose to behave, go to work, follow the rules and strive to become a part of society.

I can still state that there is a good basis for the new bill, even though there are naturally political objections to certain parts. Such is politics. We do not agree on everything.

There is also a clear direction. If one behaves, follows the rules and naturally does not pose a threat to Sweden, one should be able to stay. But if one does not do that, there is, after a comprehensive assessment of one's life and the circumstances regarding conduct, a possibility – perhaps a justified possibility – of deportation. I think it is legally secure based on the premises in the bill and I support it. Regrettably, Miljöpartiet stands aside and says no to the entire bill.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start in the same way as in the exchange with Viktor Wärnick and point out that Ingemar Kihlström did not answer Annika Hirvonen's questions. One might wonder why no one from the government parties can answer these questions, which concern the basics of the legislation. Is it that they do not dare to do so? This is something I think the voters can take away.

We heard earlier the Sweden Democrats talking about how families unfortunately have to be kept together in this country. The Sweden Democrats are therefore the largest party in the government constellation and are to have the Migration Minister post and many other posts in the upcoming government if Tidö wins. We know that the government now, to a much greater extent, wants to send children into detention without them having committed crimes. We also know that Christian converts are being deported. Is this really the policy that the Christian Democrats want?

We are not against those who are truly criminal etcetera being sent out. But it is not just that we see now. We see a completely different thing. When Kihlström in the debate talks about there being order and tidiness, we are with him, but it is not order and tidiness. It is not clear what applies.

In connection with citizenship, there is the concept of "orderly and honest." Why can we not use it in this legislation? Then it would become clear. It has been defined in courts what it means, and we have used it in other legislation. Why is it not sufficient in this area as well? Why must a diffuse concept be introduced? I would very much like to hear that from the Christian Democrats.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Member Paarup-Petersen says that we are introducing a new concept, but that is not the case. There is already a concept of "vandels" (bad faith) in the handling we have today, for example, regarding applications for residence permits. As I said in my main speech, we think that concept is too narrow. We are broadening it. We are submitting a proposition where we propose that more points should be weighed in the individual assessment when looking at all the different points that exist.

I can, like my colleague Wärnick, state that the Center Party supports the legislative change. This is needed in Sweden so that we can create justice for all the fathers and mothers who have come to Sweden and choose to behave, go to work and follow the rules, but can see that, for example, the neighbor refrains from doing so without it having any consequence. It is about there being justice and clear rules. Therefore, the concept of "vandels" (disrepute) needs to be broadened and these changes implemented.

Member of Parliament Paarup-Petersen highlights some other things as well, but I can state that much more has been done for, for example, Christian converts during these four years than during the eight years with the previous government, which Member of Parliament Paarup-Petersen supported. I can state that we get things done in practical action and do not just say big words in the speaker's chair. Are we satisfied? No. Will we Christian Democrats act in different matters now in the election campaign? Absolutely. But we make sure to deliver. We do not stand and say empty words in a speaker's chair. We make sure that it becomes practical action.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is excellent that one ensures that there is practical action in politics, but the question is whether it is also good action. That is the second essential part. The answer is that it is not fully good action.

I can give another example. A man is married and has children here. He applies for a permanent residence permit. Due to what the Swedish Migration Agency calls repeated and similar crimes in close proximity in time, in this case two traffic fines in 2023 and 2025, his application is denied. The justification is that his misconduct suggests it is too early to conclude that he does not risk re-offending. It is, therefore, once again a question of two traffic fines.

According to the Christian Democrats, it is not harsh enough for the concept of "vandels" (disrepute) that is to be introduced, which is even more diffuse and even harsher. Annika Hirvonen has also asked questions about it. What does it actually mean for the level in practice? Where are the possibilities for appeal? What legal certainty exists for these individuals? These are people with families.

The majority of Sweden's population drives too fast according to the Transport Administration. That surely includes immigrants too. That is just how it is. I also believe that the majority of those who are in the chamber right now drive too fast sometimes. There might be one who doesn't have a driver's license.

That type of crime shall now be punished even more severely and shall, to a greater extent, be able to lead to deportations. How does the new legislation affect that type of case? I have also tried to get answers on that from others. But it is not possible to get an answer.

Can the Christian Democrats answer whether it will be sufficient or not in the future for such a person to be deported?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a rhetorical trick to resort to an individual case where we in no way have the complete picture.

The Swedish Migration Agency makes its assessments. These assessments can be appealed in court. I do not intend to engage in the individual case or judge it from this rostrum.

It may be that Niels Paarup Pedersen makes his shortcuts. It may be that Niels Paarup Pedersen chooses to take a loan. One makes a de facto collective assessment.

We leave it to our authorities to make assessments. We enact laws and create rules. A significant majority in this chamber believes that there are too few opportunities for the authorities to assess whether a person should remain in Sweden or must return to their country of origin.

Things are weighed. In this case, it was pointed out that there was a family. There may be other things. There can, of course, be reasons. That is why it is important that an individual assessment is made.

I am not the person who is to decide that, and I do not think that politicians should be the ones who decide it. We provide the basis for making an assessment. It will be able to be reviewed in a legally secure manner, just as is done with character assessments today when people apply for residence permits.

We need to do more to ensure that there are tangible consequences for those people who have come here and who choose to stand on the sidelines of society. That is what we on Tidösidan agree on. The Centre is essentially in agreement with us, even if it doesn't sound that way from the speaker's podium.

The Centre Party will press the yes button at the vote. We can state that we are in agreement, but it doesn't sound like it.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! From the government's side, many of the answers have concerned those who commit crimes. The word hospitality has been recurring, even from the Christian Democrats.

Now the government is introducing rules that will result in people being locked up to a greater extent. They shall be impoverished to a greater extent as asylum seekers, and they shall be deprived of civil rights to a greater extent. They shall face greater restrictions on moving freely in Sweden. They shall live within a delimited area and so on.

Hospitality must surely include the word freedom. That is what the government is depriving people of. I do not know how much of the hospitality remains since last week when the migration pact was decided.

The government has settled on a level where asylum seekers are treated as poorly as they possibly can be. I think the government in this debate should be a bit careful about using the word hospitality.

The chairman spoke about those who come here and commit crimes and so on. He then spoke about behaving properly. In that case, one departs from criminal responsibility, as it is instead about lifestyle and so on. One may wonder how legitimate the legislation is.

What I came to reflect on was what the member was touching upon in their speech regarding the one who incurs debt. When one introduces such concepts, it makes everything a bit less legally secure and more arbitrary.

People can have economic difficulties, as many have during this government. They live in poverty, are economically very strapped and struggling, and live in a vulnerable situation. Will such a person be deported because they have been forced to go into debt?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The word hospitality seems to have a broad meaning. According to my understanding, it is about the person who comes to someone choosing to follow the rules that apply at the place they come to. It is not strange that we set rules for how we should behave towards one another and decide how the laws are.

It is about people choosing to continuously exploit the system, for example through benefit fraud or by not paying the fines they receive. They can take out loans without having any ambition to pay them back.

In Vänsterpartiets Sverige, it seems to be okay to come here so that one can exploit the system. This is in contrast to the absolute vast majority who come here and choose to try to follow the rules.

Member of Parliament Haddou mentions those who live in poverty. A number of families are very short of money. It is not the case that all those families continuously take out loans or choose to stand aside from the rules. They are struggling on. Under this government, they have had it better. It has been noted that we have the lowest child poverty in Sweden in ten years.

It is also about us setting clear rules. In this case, the Left Party stands aside. They say: You are welcome to come to Sweden and do what you want. If you misbehave, you can stay. It may be conceivable that this does not apply if you commit a crime, but otherwise, you can stay.

What does it say to all those, fathers and mothers, who do everything right and try to become a part of Sweden? Is it not to show a total nonchalance towards those who actually behave?

In my Sweden, one does their duty and can demand their rights. That does not seem to be the case in the Left Party's Sweden.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely the same points that are being repeated now as have previously been said to the Miljöpartiet, and they have also been said by the Moderaterna. That is done instead of answering the question, which now, for example, concerned the one who takes on debt.

There are no clear legal definitions of this. It leaves it up to the courts. It is legally uncertain and arbitrary. We do not know what applies when we legislate in the chamber, and neither does the government.

There is no predictability at all. People do not know if they are going there for misconduct or not, if they have taken loans twice and perhaps have had fines for a long time. They do not know if they are going there upon the overall assessment or not.

There is no predictability whatsoever in the legislation. In all the answers one receives, it is a rant and a long exposition about that everyone who comes to Sweden shall be allowed to do as they please, according to the opposition. It is not serious, and for that reason, it is not objective either.

Now we are in a situation where the government is pushing through the residency requirement despite all the criticism that has come. Virtually all referral bodies have criticized this. It is a proposal that hits those who obviously have it the hardest.

It is not about crimes, but it is about lifestyles. That is primarily where the criticism has come against the government. I do not think it is legitimate to have it in the legislation at all.

The person who incurs debt and perhaps lives in economic hardship, perhaps has taken out loans or has fines, simply risks being deported. Is that what the member says, so that we get some hint of it at all?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! No, I will not give any clear statement. We politicians are not to go in and micro-manage.

We provide greater opportunities to make a holistic assessment. More criteria are needed to assess whether a person chooses to become a part of society or continuously stands aside. As has been said before, an individual assessment is made based on the circumstances that exist.

I can also observe that Vänsterpartiet, despite the argumentation, does not present any alternative. In principle, one says that it is good enough as it is today. One says no to the change, and one has comments on a number of sub-proposals, but one says that the situation today is good. We can observe that Vänsterpartiet would probably prefer to turn back to the situation that prevailed before 2016.

We can also observe that there is a clear majority. I am thinking of the intended coalition partners for the Left Party if the party, to my horror, were to be part of the government base and perhaps even hold the position of Minister for Migration. What will the demand be then? Will it be about scrapping the residency requirements that the Center Party and the Social Democrats are now largely proposing? We can only fear that chaos will break out the day negotiations begin.

I am clear that the hospitality I show and the protection we are to give to those who truly have need also comes with requirements – requirements to do what one can to become a part of society.

Then we, as politicians, naturally need to do more. We can never be satisfied with what we have done, but we need to offer further opportunities for language, integration, and work. But it is clear what we say when we talk about which rules should apply in order for one to be allowed to stay in Sweden continuously. That, Mr. Speaker, I think is relevant.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Kihlström began to speak about Don Quixote. It made me reflect a little on literary history and on which character I would like to embody. I then unexpectedly thought of Alyosha Karamazov in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. I do not know if the member has read it, but I thought that we could take up some of the character's thoughts regarding morality and good conduct.

Drug crimes, child pornography, Nazism in a number of cases, hate speech, loss of weapons, association with gang criminals, gross defamation and a number of lost driver's licenses – that is the sum of the Tidö parties' government basis. And these are not individual cases, Mr. Speaker, but it is about a collective assessment of the whole, which Member Ingemar Kihlström requested.

I would like to ask the relevant question: Would Ingemar Kihlström say that the government base has good conduct in its delivery?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is always interesting to hear Member Möller in the speaker's chair. He chooses, as usual, to take a detour and switch tracks to something completely different from what the debate is about.

Now it is about which rules are relevant for those who have been given the opportunity to obtain a residence permit here in Sweden. It is also a bit exciting because Member Ola Möller in many ways shares the direction that the government has. Ola Möller goes out into the landscape and finds a number of Swedish citizens who have done different things – something that I have not intended to evaluate in this debate. Here we are talking about those who have been given the opportunity to come to our country. It is about those whom Member Ola Möller also thinks it is reasonable to place relevant requirements on.

One could turn the question back to Member Möller: Are the requirements set forth in the bill relevant? The answer is yes – how then does Member Möller see the possibility of maintaining these requirements after the election when two of the intended coalition parties so clearly step aside and give a thumbs down? It is not just about some small adjustment, they clearly say no.

I think this is a relevant question to ask in this debate: Does Ola Möller think he sees a future with a government base where parts of the base stand aside when we, and also Member Möller's party, stand behind stricter requirements for maintaining a residence permit? That, Mr. Speaker, is relevant to the debate.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Suddenly it feels more like I should assume my previous role as a football referee and expel member Ingemar Kihlström, because this was not connected to the question I asked at all.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that the member does not want to evaluate. Now I see that the Sweden Democrats are coming up to Ingemar Kihlström in the speaker's chair to give tips on how the Christian Democrats should respond. That is how the Tidö cooperation works, my friends! Thank you, Ludvig Aspling, for the maneuver of going up to the member and showing the phone! Ludvig Aspling has previously shown notes in here when he wants to tell his Tidö comrades what they should think.

Let me return to the question. Since the member does not want to evaluate these examples, we can try something else. Imagine that, as a labor migrant, one pays for the sirloin and the alcohol with tax money that would have been used in the local municipality, or that one skips the fringe benefit taxation for this. Imagine that one chooses to run a troll factory where one attacks minorities and undermines democracy in this country. If one is a labor migrant and does this – would it constitute a lack of integrity?

The member wavers when it comes to statements. Everyone else has held the line that it is illegal statements that should apply, but the member de facto said in their speech that it could be about links to extremism if one says something that is not illegal. How does the member view statements that Sami and Jews are not Swedes or that mosques should be torn down? Could that, if uttered by a labor immigrant, indicate links to extremism?

When it comes to the cooperation in the government, the strict migration policy will, of course, remain in place.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is exciting that one can end up so sidelined in a debate. It is also exciting that one, like Ola Möller, even though one is sitting with their nose pressed against the wall in the glass house, throws so many stones.

I could talk about troll factories, lottery activities and all the things that have happened within a certain party, but I choose not to do that. I choose to stick to the debate.

It is completely correct as Member Ola Möller says: An expression can be linked to violent extremism. In my Sweden, it is relevant that it is woven into the assessment of whether one has a connection to violent extremism. I interpret it as that Member Möller's Sweden should also have a number of criteria for people to be allowed to retain their residence permit.

It is telling that Möller, in the reply, like Don Quixote sets out into a landscape where he creates some new windmills to storm against. I find it a bit distressing.

I think it is better to say and state that there is a significant discrepancy in the issue, and in other issues, within the government base that Member Möller represents. The tail-wagging can be high, but we will see a red-green chaos if Sweden, to my horror, were to get such a government after the election.

We manage our questions, and we manage our members in Kristdemokraterna. I see that we can bring legislation to port that increases safety in Sweden. I also note that member Möller largely supports this, and that is positive. That is what this debate is about.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservations 3 and 5.

For the Center Party, order and regularity in migration policy is a fundamental principle. It is also to see that we are dealing with human beings. That is a good combination. It means that a no must be a no, Mr. Speaker, but also that a yes must be a yes. A yes must also not be transformed into a no due to arbitrariness. Those who follow the rules, work, and behave correctly should be able to know that the decision they have received from the state applies.

Centerpartiet therefore views with great concern how the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are step by step eroding the security for those who behave and contribute. A clear example of this is that permanent residence permits can be revoked and that people who work and support themselves risk deportation due to arbitrary wage floors. Teenagers who have grown up in Sweden are being thrown out. And now it is about delinquency. This is a policy that is not intended to integrate people but to frighten them.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party argues that policy must combine humanity with order and stability. Those who behave and contribute to society should also be given a clear and secure path forward and not have to live in constant uncertainty and fear of being deported at any moment. It is a fairly reasonable basis. But the government chooses another path, creates disorder in migration policy and completely misses the individuals' perspective. That, Mr. Speaker, also damages Sweden fundamentally.

We agree that it has previously been too difficult to deport anyone. We have seen that criminals who have committed serious crimes have been allowed to stay. But we also see now that the government is completely exaggerating this direction.

Centerpartiet shares the government's basic position that there must be consequences for not following the laws here in Sweden. However, denying or revoking a residence permit is one of the most intrusive measures that the state can take against an individual. It must therefore be done with great care and be based on clear, predictable, and legally secure grounds.

We believe that persons who fail to comply with regulations should be able to have their residence permits denied or revoked, for example if one abuses the welfare systems, is criminal, is an extremist, or whatever it may be, not least if one has dealings with criminal networks or violence-promoting organizations. But at the same time as we stand behind this, Mr. Speaker, we must also be able to say that the government's disgraceful proposal completely fails in terms of legal certainty, proportionality, and predictability. We have previously spoken about literary classics, and this could probably be called Kafkaesque.

The proposals risk leading to arbitrariness and create a fundamental insecurity for individuals who have built their lives here in Sweden. It is very serious. That is not how we do things in Sweden – at least not until now, when the Swedish has been set aside in favor of the Sweden Democrat.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has refused to listen to all referral bodies and proposes that this walking requirement shall be introduced even though no one knows what it actually means in legal terms. Both I and others have asked all representatives of the government parties who have so far been at the rostrum where the boundaries are, etcetera. No one can answer. It is a major challenge. The Government refuses to clarify how they view this.

How is an ordinary person supposed to live up to the Sweden Democrats' sense of integrity when it doesn't even appear in the law what it means and when the government cannot answer that? We don't know. And how long should historical sins be counted? We don't get an answer to that either. How narrow is the narrow path of virtue? No one knows.

Mr. Speaker! It is simply bad legislation. Therefore, we vote for the principle itself but are also very clear that the way in which this has been done is not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker! We already have the concept of a decent and honest way of life in Swedish legislation, for example as a requirement for citizenship. It is a concept that is clearly codified in law and which one, as an individual, has a chance to live up to. Why not use that instead, as the Center Party has suggested? What is it about "vandel" (misconduct) that is so important for the government that "decent and honest" is not enough? Can we perhaps get an answer from the Liberals on why "vandel" is so much better than "decent and honest"? One must have a thought about it when the current one is not enough. One must have an idea of why one is in favor of this. Or will it be silent as usual when one has weighed in?

Mr. Speaker! I am aware that the government does not care about the Council on Legislation's continuous and massive criticism, as we have seen time and again, just as one does not care in the slightest about legal certainty. But I still want to repeat what the Council on Legislation says here, so that it is included.

The Council on Legislation emphasizes that the legislative text restricts itself to stating in various ways that it must be a case of lack of integrity, which can be said to be a generally accepted and relatively broad determination. This means that an individual cannot understand what in this context can lead to negative consequences for him or her. A measure as intrusive as the revocation of a permit should have clear support in the law.

The Council on Legislation is saying, in plain terms: One cannot know what applies in order to live up to the requirements of conduct. It is rubbish, Mr. Speaker! The laws that are to have people deported for lack of conduct are as unclear as the invoicing from the Sweden Democrats' parties. It is not sufficient.

Sweden shall, of course, deport criminal immigrants, Mr. Speaker. That is not a question. But to create laws that are only intended to make all immigrants feel constantly afraid and unwelcome is abhorrent.

Already today, as mentioned earlier, we have seen a guy denied a residence permit by the Swedish Migration Agency due to two speeding fines – no other crimes. He works in a shortage occupation. The employer is very satisfied. He has a wife and children in the country. Now he is not allowed to stay here forever because of two speeding fines with two years between them, 2023 and 2025.

So that is where we already are. One cannot, as an immigrant, go around and do whatever one wants and stay forever. No, two speeding fines can be enough for a denied residence permit. And we are not talking about a speed demon here; we are talking about someone who drives as we others often do. Half of Sweden's population drives too fast on Sweden's roads. But that is still the level we are at already today, before the wander – this absurdity – is introduced.

So we are going to have a deportation requirement, the government thinks. Then it is reasonable to ask: How easily should one now be able to be deported? It is not about individual cases, which they try to avoid the question with. The question is: What does the government want it to mean? That is what I am trying to get answers to, Mr. Speaker. What do the government parties want? What is the purpose? One must have developed this legislation with a purpose and a thought about what the consequences will be. You cannot just lay it on some agency and say: We will see what it becomes. When you tighten the rules, you must know who it is that is allowed to stay today who should be sent out.

Some things in the legislation, for example this with the connection to terrorism, we are on board – obviously! But the other parts – maybe not.

Let me ask some concrete questions. How little do the Moderaterna mean that the individual's rights should count? Should one be granted the legal certainty that has been raised time and again? How afraid do the Liberalerna mean our immigrants should be to make a single misstep? How easily do the Kristdemokraterna mean families should be torn apart? I think it would be reasonable to get answers to these questions.

Previously, you could be called bourgeois. For some, perhaps that no longer applies, now that the rule of law weighs so lightly.

I honestly guess that the government parties do not dare to answer these questions. Or maybe I should be kind, Mr. Speaker – they perhaps just cannot answer them. They do not know what their trade requirements actually mean either. That, Mr. Speaker, should perhaps be enough to not introduce it. And it is certainly enough for the Center Party to want it to disappear after the election.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! A society is not held together only by its rights. It is also held together by its expectations, by the fact that those who come here are expected to follow our laws, respect our fundamental values, and live honestly. That is neither strange nor controversial in itself. It is the very basic condition for ensuring that everything we hold dear in our country does not disappear.

For far too long, Swedish migration policy has been characterized by a strange caution regarding exactly this. We have asked questions about grounds for protection, work, and ties – which we will, of course, continue to do – but we have to an all too small extent taken a stand on something that most people perceive as completely obvious: that those who wish to live in Sweden must also behave and respect our values, that a residence permit is not just an administrative status in the system but also builds on a responsibility, and that the right to stay here is not decoupled from how one actually lives here.

The proposition "Stricter and clearer requirements for conduct for residence permits" means that a foreigner's conduct shall be considered to an increased extent when residence permits are granted, renewed, and revoked.

Mr. Speaker! If a person wants to build their life in Sweden, it is reasonable that society can set requirements – not only that the papers themselves are in order on the day the application is submitted but also that the person does not misbehave, does not engage in crime, does not support themselves dishonestly and does not show an obvious unwillingness to follow the rules that apply here.

It is a complete self-evident truth that the right to stay in the country must be linked to requirements of conduct. It is as self-evident as that citizenship presupposes an honest way of life and as that the one who comes here shall not only have rights but also obligations.

Mr. Speaker! Today, the assessment of conduct takes into account crime almost exclusively. It is too narrow. The Government's proposal is based on the premise that other serious misconduct must also be able to have significance. Therefore, in the future, it shall specifically be possible to consider if a foreigner poses a threat to public order or security, has been convicted of a crime, or otherwise has failed in their conduct. The main purpose is to create greater opportunities to remove persons from the country due to such misconduct.

It concerns, for example, threats to public order or security, such as support for international terrorism, extremist sympathies, or links to violence-promoting organizations. It concerns crime, even when it is less serious, for example, occasional petty offenses. It also concerns other lack of integrity, such as benefit fraud, undeclared work, failure to pay fines, incurring debt without the intention or effort to pay and make things right, as well as organizing begging.

This is important. We are talking about behaviors that society already counters today. We are not talking about private idiosyncrasies or vague moral judgments, but we are talking about actions and lifestyles that clearly have negative consequences for other people or for society as a whole.

It is about people who cheat the welfare systems, who support themselves through black market work, who do not follow authority decisions, who do not behave correctly and who in some cases threaten order and safety. That such a lifestyle should be able to affect the right to stay in Sweden is not particularly radical.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has simultaneously been clear about what should not be included. This also has significance in the debate. Prostitution, substance abuse, and begging shall not be included as a basis for the assessment of lack of integrity. It is also clarified that expressions in themselves shall not be able to constitute a lack of integrity, but expressions can confirm or reinforce the picture of links to violence-oriented or extremist organizations – when that link proves to be criminal. It is only punishable expressions that shall be able to be included as a basis for the assessment.

This is crucial because critics like to pretend that the government is opening up for arbitrariness. But that is not what is happening. What is happening is that the regulatory framework is being changed so that other serious misconduct than just criminality can also be weighed in. And this is being done within the framework of individual assessment, proportionality, and the possibility of appeal.

Mr. Speaker! One of the major objections concerns the word misconduct itself. It is said to be old-fashioned, vague, and insecure regarding the rule of law. But the problem here is not the word.

There are people who are not convicted of the most serious crimes but who nevertheless live in a way that clearly shows that they do not respect the rules and expectations that must apply in order to stay in Sweden. That person should not be protected by an overly narrow regulatory framework simply because the misconduct happens to fall outside the traditional catalog of crimes.

It is precisely for that reason that the government uses the term vandel; to clarify that it concerns a broader assessment of how a person lives their life in this country.

Mr. Speaker! It is also important to mention a few words about legal certainty.

The Government has clarified in the bill which types of circumstances can be taken into account, how they should be understood, and that a holistic assessment shall always be made. The reasons for denying or revoking a permit shall be weighed against the alien's ties to Sweden. The stronger the ties, the more serious the integrity deficiencies required. How far back in time a deficiency lies shall also be taken into account.

The review of the badge shall also be appealable to court. This is important to hold firm on. There shall be more opportunities to act against mismanagement, while the individual review remains fixed.

The proposition also means that residence permits shall be able to be revoked in more cases than today. This applies, for example, when someone other than the foreign national has deliberately provided incorrect information or misrepresented circumstances of importance to obtain the permit, or when the conditions for the permit are no longer met.

A residence permit cannot be something that is obtained on incorrect grounds and then retained. Someone who has been allowed to stay here on incorrect premises or who later turns out not to meet the conditions should not be able to hide behind the bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker! What recurs in much of the criticism is the same old tune. People would like to speak about responsibility, but not set requirements. People would like to speak about rules, but not about the consequences when rules are broken. People would like to speak about rights, but more rarely about obligations. It is precisely that attitude that has contributed to Swedish regulations for a long time being too weak in this area. And it is precisely that attitude that the government is now breaking with.

Mr. Speaker! It should not be required for a person to commit serious crimes for the state to react. It should not be the case that benefit fraud, undeclared work, obvious non-compliance with regulations, or links to extremist environments are met with a shrug of the shoulders as long as the person has not crossed an excessively high threshold. It sends completely wrong signals.

We mean that those who want to live in Sweden must also live up to basic requirements of conduct. We mean that misconduct must have consequences, we mean that the rules must be sharper and clearer, and we mean that this is necessary both for the sake of the rule of law and for the legitimacy of the migration policy as a whole.

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

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Happy Sunday! I want to start by moving for approval of reservations 2 and 4. It was not so clear earlier – yes, it was clear but wrong, I can also say, if I am to be honest.

My question to the Liberals is simple. Today, the concept of "vandel" (misconduct/impropriety) is to be introduced, despite major reservations from almost all referral bodies. I have the following question, which I also raised in my speech from the rostrum: Why is the concept of a "skötsamt och hederligt levnadssätt" (proper and honest lifestyle) not sufficient? What is it that is included in "vandel" that is so important that the other concept is not enough? The Liberals must have a clear picture of what extra one gets with the concept of "vandel" but not with the concept of "skötsamt och hederligt levnadssätt" that makes it necessary to use "vandel".

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, there is to be no motion for approval of reservation 5, Recall on the grounds of non-criminal behavior or minor offenses?)

Yes, that is correct.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

I think the criticism of the word vandalism says more about the member's and the Center Party's reluctance to speak plainly than about the real problems that exist today.

What is it that one is turning against? It is said that one is in favor of everything stated in the bill, except possibly the concept of misconduct. Should Sweden take into account if a person cheats with grants, works illegally, does not pay fines, does not behave correctly, has connections to extremist environments, or in other ways shows a lack of respect for the rules that apply here? Is it then the concept of misconduct that is the problem?

I think it becomes a bit hazy when it comes to the basic principle, that is, it becomes difficult for ordinary people to understand. The one who is entitled should not just fill out the correct form at the right time, and we seem to agree on that, but that person should also live in a way that is compatible with our laws and basic social norms. Therefore, I think the concept of misconduct becomes important. It still captures that negligence is not always contained within a narrow list of crimes, that people can live in a way for a long time that harms society, erodes trust, and shows contempt for our common rules, without necessarily being convicted of serious crimes.

Why doesn't the word misconduct work? It seems as if it were a free-floating moral concept where an authority arbitrarily dislikes people's lifestyles. That is not true. It is clearly stated in the bill why we use the concept.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! If it is so clear in the bill, why can the member not speak about this?

I asked a clear question. There is a concept called "skötsamt och hederligt" (orderly and honest). The government does not want to use it. Instead, they want to use "vandel" (integrity). Why? What is in the concept of "vandel" that is not in the concept of "skötsamt och hederligt," which is so important for the government that it becomes "vandel" instead of "skötsamt och hederligt"? I get no answer. It is a challenge.

The concept of "orderly and honest" is more codified in law. It is clearer, and it is used in the assessment of citizenship. It does not only cover crimes and serious crimes, but it also covers other aspects of life.

Why do the Liberals think the concept of misconduct is better than the concept of orderly and honest, even though the concept of misconduct receives such enormous criticism due to the lack of clarity? Patrik Karlson himself speaks about how it is difficult to understand certain things. Yes, it is difficult to understand, especially for the one who is to live up to the regulatory framework. And that is the challenge. The word misconduct is difficult to understand. It is difficult to know what it means. More or less all referral bodies say that it is unclear.

I am completely convinced that the Liberals would, of course, never agree to the term misconduct instead of orderly and honest without knowing what it is one is facing. Therefore, I want an answer to the question of what it is in the term misconduct that is so important for the Liberals that orderly and honest is not enough.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

I believe that the government has clarified which circumstances can be taken into account in the overall assessment.

Let us begin with the member's starting point, which he also touched upon in his main submission. It has been a somewhat mocking tone, I think, with the starting point that 50 percent of the population drives too fast and that only such a matter can cause one to be deported. That is not the case.

A holistic assessment will be made, for example, of the foreigner's ties in relation to the credit deficiencies. The stronger the ties are, the more serious the deficiencies need to be. It should also be possible to consider whether it has only occurred recently, if it occurred a long time ago, or if it has occurred over time. It is important to include this. Furthermore, it shall be examined in court.

I have raised many of the matters that will be included. When assessing whether someone should be allowed to stay in the country, one will look at systematic misconduct, benefit fraud, undeclared work, unpaid fines, links to extremist environments, or an obvious unwillingness to comply with society's rules.

I think it is clear what signals we are sending out and what is to be judged in the concept of misconduct. That is why it is important for us to also use the concept so that it is clear.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like Patrik Karlson to answer some questions based on what he himself thinks should be the outcome of this legislation.

Should a woman be deported due to lack of good conduct if she has a partner who takes out repeated loans in her name without her knowing and without him having any intention whatsoever of ever paying back these loans? She may not have any possibility of proving that it is the case in this way, that it is he who has done it in her name.

Should a person who has misunderstood the regulations for housing allowance and who has applied for the housing allowance incorrectly on repeated occasions be investigated for lack of integrity?

The risk when moving from what is criminal to actions that are not criminal is not only that we get different rules for different people – a legislation for what is forbidden for Swedish citizens and another for what is forbidden for foreign citizens. Another risk is that the actions that are not such as one is convicted for in court also do not have the same evidentiary requirements and the same degree of investigation behind them.

The risk is that the burden of proof is placed on the individual: "No, it wasn't me who took these loans. I didn't understand the regulations. I didn't cheat intentionally."

How does Patrik Karlson view these two types of cases?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I want to express the same thing that representatives in this debate have done earlier. It is quite typical to take such specific examples and try to make the entire debate about something completely different than the main problem itself.

The government does not say that every small occurrence shall lead to deportation. It does not say so in the bill. The government also does not say that a triviality shall determine a person's future. The opposition is trying to make it sound like something more is at stake. I think that Sweden should be able to react against other serious misconduct than serious crime.

But if we take the specific case, such a matter will not lead to one's residence permit being revoked. A collective assessment will be made based on what occurs at the individual level. Many other things, for example, ties, shall be considered in each individual case.

I find it extremely difficult to see that it can be so. But if it is as in this case, one should reasonably be able to prove that one has been extorted and that someone else has committed a crime, for example a serious forgery of a document, in one's name. I do not see that as any oddities, and that should also be presented in such cases.

I do not quite understand what kind of scaremongering the member Annika Hirvonen is employing in this matter.

I will return to question two in the next turn.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was a reassuring and perhaps a worrying message in Patrik Karlsson's answer.

Partly, he argues that it is not a matter of lack of due diligence if it happens once that it is discovered that a person has taken out debts in your name and you cannot prove that it is the case in that way. If you cannot prove that he, for example, has managed to figure out the code to your bank-id and used it behind your back on repeated occasions, it therefore cannot in itself lead to it being seen as a lack of due diligence.

Patrik Karlson follows up by stating that one should reasonably be able to prove that this has occurred. This is where it becomes very difficult for people. They cannot always prove that, for example, another person has taken out loans in their name.

It shall no longer be required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is indeed you who have taken these loans with the intent not to pay them. Instead, lower standards of proof will apply. If one has an expectation that people should be able to prove that it was not they, I am genuinely worried that this legislation risks having devastating consequences for individuals who simply cannot prove it.

In a court process in a criminal case, it is the prosecutor who must prove beyond reasonable doubt. But here, the individual themselves will have to prove their innocence and that it was not they who took the loans, did not have malicious intent or did not have intent not to pay. This adds a very large layer of legal uncertainty on top of the other layers that we have spoken about today.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

Let us agree that we do not agree. This sounds dramatic, but I want to assert that it still builds on the same misleading picture that the government has proposed a system that is completely hazy and that no one knows what applies.

The proposition is clear that it is not about a single trivial instance of misconduct. It is also clear that the connection shall play a role. The stronger the connection is, the more serious the breaches of integrity are required.

A proportionality assessment shall be made in each individual case, and a judicial review shall be conducted.

There is also a follow-up part to this. Say that one has unpaid debts. It doesn't even have to be about being forced into something. I myself have been involved in forgery once in my life. Now, it did happen many years ago, but it was quite easy to be able to show that it was not I who had taken that loan.

But regardless, in the next stage, it must be that one has zero interest in doing the right thing and paying off these loans.

Again: A holistic assessment is being made. To simply wave around a single case is pure scaremongering. That is not what this entire legislation is intended for.

Regarding the fact that requirements are placed on foreigners in a way that does not apply to Swedish citizens. Residence permits are not the same thing as citizenship. It is remarkable that I even need to say that in this chamber.

Swedish citizens have an unconditional right to reside in this country. That is the very meaning of citizenship. Those who are not Swedish citizens reside here because we have granted them that possibility under certain legal conditions. These are two completely different legal situations.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The member concluded his previous remark by saying that it concerns two different legal situations. It is in itself a major and serious problem that legislation is carried out that does not safeguard everyone's equal value; people are treated differently depending on where they come from. I think this is a serious problem in this entire bill – perhaps one of the biggest problems, which many referral bodies also point out.

The chairman was also in his speech about when rules are not respected, which circumstances should be taken into account and so on. The problem is that one does not know. There is no predictability at all in this legislation.

A situation that we also discussed with the Christian Democrats earlier is that poverty in Sweden has doubled during this government. People living in vulnerable situations may end up in a situation where they are forced to take out loans, and they may have received some fine. They then risk losing their residence permit. It is this that we have been criticizing here for a few hours now.

The government gives no answers at all but only says that it is a collective assessment and asks what the alternatives would be. One sees no problems at all with this, despite all referral bodies seeing serious problems, including some of the heaviest referral bodies, such as the Council on Legislation, the Bar Association, and so on. The legislation is unclear. One has had four years to present something clearer, but it is very unclear.

I want to ask the member about this. Do you simply hand over the interpretation regarding everything the member has now spoken about and everything the government has presented to future practice? Is that why we are not getting any answers at all?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

To begin with: Rights can be of varying strength depending on what legal status one has. This applies to many areas, and it also applies, of course, to the right to stay in this country. That does not in itself mean that people with residence permits are less worthy, as one would like to make it sound. It does not mean that their legal certainty should be weaker.

It does not mean either, as is constantly pointed out here, that the state shall act arbitrarily – on the contrary. The consequences of interventions and decisions must rest on an individual holistic assessment and on an assessment of the connection to this country. We have repeatedly repeated this in this debate. It shall be proportionate, and one will have the opportunity to appeal to court. That is why we have designed this proposal as we have done and put it on the table.

What is it that we are talking about? Yes, we are talking about people who may not be convicted of the most serious crimes but who nevertheless, through their lifestyle, show that they do not respect the rules that exist in this country – support themselves dishonestly, cheat on benefits, work illegally, do not follow authority decisions, incur debt without wanting to make things right and pay back, or have connections to extremist environments. Shall we then turn a blind eye to this because it, as the member and the Vänsterpartiet want to pretend, does not always fit into some kind of narrow catalog of crimes?

This proposal is important because it re-establishes a simple principle: The right to reside in this country is not decoupled from how one actually lives here. Those who wish to stay in Sweden should not only avoid the most serious crimes but should, as said, live in a way that shows respect for our laws, rules, and fundamental societal norms.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! What I criticized initially is that one is introducing a legal order where people are not equal before the law. It is about people's legal certainty, and it is weaker for the one who has come to Sweden; it is more arbitrary and more legally uncertain. The goal and ambition of this government is to make as many as possible deportable. It is this misconduct this is about, and that is why the government has submitted this bill.

The problem here is, firstly, that I did not receive an answer to my question at all. Furthermore, we have received different answers from four different parties on this issue.

I also asked the question of whether the member should leave the interpretation to future practice or not. The problem is that no matter how you do it, you undermine the legal certainty regarding this issue. The legislation is arbitrary, and you undermine the legal certainty.

We get no answers at all. Does it, for example, factor into a comprehensive assessment that you, due to economic vulnerability, have been forced to take out a loan and have a debt behind you that you have been unable to pay? Do you then receive a deportation decision? Is the residence permit revoked? That predictability should surely exist in the legislation?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Tony Haddou, for the follow-up question!

It is simply a matter of stating directly: Here in Sweden, everyone is equal before the law. We do not make distinctions between people. It is absolutely outrageous that it is even presented that way.

We have heaps of legal concepts in this country. Legal text is filled out through preparatory works, case law, proportionality assessments, and judicial review. It is not strange; that is how it has functioned for a long time here. That is how a living legal system works in reality.

Reality is complex. If we make the legal text itself too rigid or too exhaustive, I believe we will get a system that will not work in practice and, unfortunately, will also certainly become significantly easier to circumvent. We want a regulatory framework that is sharp enough to work in reality and at the same time is legally secure enough to actually also hold up in court.

Then it is central to return to what I have mentioned earlier: An individual overall assessment will be made. A proportionality assessment shall be made. The foreigner's connection to Sweden shall be taken into account. How old a criminal record is shall be weighed in. And there is an opportunity to appeal.

I think this is the answer to the member's questions. It is just that the member does not like the answers, because the member does not want this legislation. That is the problem: One finds things and tries to crack down on something completely different. But in the end, it is about the fact that the member and Vänsterpartiet actually think that everyone who wants to come to Sweden, regardless of reason, should be allowed to do so and regardless of reason should be allowed to stay. That is what it is ultimately about.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In the exchange with the member from the Liberals, he called my fears scaremongering. It is a word that I wish I could use regarding this bill on stricter and clearer requirements for integrity for residence permits. But it is not scaremongering we are talking about, but now it becomes reality. Now people are legally divided into different groups with different rights in several respects. What is legal for a Swedish citizen has serious consequences for those who are not Swedish citizens.

For us in Miljöpartiet, this is clearly a frightening step away from the rule of law that we know Sweden as. Amnesty speaks of a first step towards racial laws. We also hear criticism from referral body after referral body and from the Council on Legislation, which the government has not at all made an effort to address and handle.

The criticism is that the proposal is insecure regarding the rule of law because one does not even specify which behaviors and actions could lead to deportation due to lack of integrity. The criticism is also that it will have a retroactive effect. Actions that were not criminal and that one could not foresee could lead to deportation in the future will now affect one's fundamental right to continue one's life in Sweden. For us in Miljöpartiet, this is completely unacceptable.

We legislators must safeguard the citizens' trust in the state. One must be able to trust that people are treated equally, and one must be able to trust the rules that one has complied with. If one has followed the rules, one should not be penalized in retrospect simply because a government later decides that something one did previously was wrong. This law does not live up to those requirements.

Furthermore: When one moves away from the principle that only actions that are criminal can lead to deportation due to lack of conduct, it also has consequences for legal certainty.

Criminal acts are handled with extremely strong legal safeguards. The person who is suspected has the right to a defense counsel. One may defend oneself personally before a court. And in order to be convicted, it must not only be established beyond reasonable doubt that one has committed the act, but it must also be established beyond reasonable doubt that one had the intent required for it to be counted as a crime. But with the new vagrancy requirements, it no longer needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that one intentionally committed an act that is reprehensible. It can even be the case that the act seen as reprehensible is not even specified in the law – yet it can still lead to one's entire life being turned upside down.

People who have lived in Sweden for many years, whose children are born here, who have established themselves, bought houses and work here, now risk deportation to countries with completely different conditions, for example to Afghanistan, for actions that are completely legal for the rest of us.

We in Miljöpartiet want the Riksdag to reject this proposition. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1.

There are also a number of other points that we are critical of, in addition to the fundamental flaws in the rule of law. One of them concerns freedom of expression.

Before this motion on misconduct was submitted, ministers from the government have on repeated occasions stated that people who make legal statements that the ministers in question consider grossly inappropriate should be able to be deported precisely because of these legal statements. In the motion, however, it is clear that the government is backing down from these statements by, among others, Johan Forssell. It is stated that illegal statements are required for it to be a question of lack of integrity.

It is very important that the government backs down on that point. At the same time, however, one opens up for even legal statements to be able to be taken into account. The fact that the government and the investigator have already told people that they should watch their tongues and be afraid to say things that are legal for others to say in Sweden risks, together with this opening in the bill, to mean a de facto restriction of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, if not at least in any case through self-censorship.

People in Sweden will live with the worry that legal expressions and legal actions could lead to deportation due to lack of good conduct. I have personally spoken with a researcher of German origin who was subject to a revocation of permission to be in Sweden, presumably because he participated in climate demonstrations. I have asked questions to Migrationsverket about another demonstrator who herself did not commit any crime but stood with a sign at a demonstration while other people at the same demonstration committed civil disobedience. She has been denied Swedish citizenship.

It is difficult today for a Member of Parliament to gain insight into and understand how this type of statements from ministers and writings in government bills are actually applied in individual cases. But it is clear that there is a concern that is not unjustified that even fully legal participation in constitutionally protected demonstrations could have devastating consequences for people's rights in Sweden. This must be taken much more seriously by the Riksdag than the Tidö parties do.

Demonstrations are, by definition, disruptive. That is, in a sense, the very purpose of a demonstration: to attract attention. It is people's opportunity to influence decision-makers – people who do not have access to either editorial pages or podiums. Demonstrations need to have absolute protection, and people must dare to participate. There should be no concern whatsoever that someone participating in a demonstration could risk deportation due to lack of good conduct simply because other people in the same demonstration commit, for example, civil disobedience.

Madam Speaker! In several exchanges, my opposition colleagues and I have asked concrete questions to the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats, but we are receiving no clear answers. We are receiving no answers as to why the term "lack of diligence" is chosen over the terms that are already used today in other laws. I received no answers on which evidentiary requirements they consider reasonable or why. On the whole, it appears as if the governing parties actually do not quite understand what it is they have placed on the Riksdag's table. They have convinced themselves that it will probably be fine: This will do.

Instead of answering the real questions, one repeats answers to completely different things – questions that have not been asked. One pretends as if it were the case that without this bill, people who commit crimes would not risk deportation. But, Madam Speaker, that is not the case. What is introduced with this bill is, on the contrary, an opportunity to deport people who have not committed crimes.

Honestly! Against the background of the weak legal certainty guarantees and the requirements for evidence, at least if we are to believe Ludvig Aspling, an opportunity is being introduced to deport people who have not even done anything wrong but who cannot prove it themselves. It could, for example, involve a woman who did not incur debt without it being a violent man who did so in her name.

Madam Speaker! On September 13, there is an election in Sweden. Then we vote on which direction we want to take. Shall we continue in this rule-of-law-uncertain direction, where people are divided into us and them? Or shall we choose a direction where we instead strengthen trust in society and confidence that laws and rules apply equally to everyone – a direction where one can trust that the laws that one organizes one's life according to are not overturned retroactively?

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet will fight for a different direction forward.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (-)

Madam Speaker! It is the first time I stand here in the speaker's chair as an independent. I have not had the opportunity to request a reply. Those who know me know that I love to request a reply, because I love the debate. Since I have not been able to request a reply, I will allow myself to use this time to say everything I need to say. Hold on tight!

Madam Speaker! There are laws that change rules. And there are laws that change the relationship between the state and the human being – between the state and the people. The Vandel proposal concerns such a law.

The government calls it a wandering requirement. I want to call it what it actually is: one of the biggest steps away from the fundamental principles of the rule of law in modern Swedish migration policy. That is what we are debating here today.

Madam Speaker! In a constitutional state, people should be judged for what they do – not for who the state suspects they are, not for who people know them to be, not for what rumors are circulating and not for authorities' subjective perceptions of their character. But that is exactly the door that the government now wants to open.

For the first time, a system is being introduced where people's right to work, study, live with their families and build their lives in Sweden will, to an ever greater extent, be determined by the state's assessment of their conduct.

What does that mean, Madam Speaker? It means that we move from asking "Has the person committed a serious crime?" to asking "Does the state think the person is living in the right way?". That is where the problems begin.

Madam Speaker! Amnesty writes that Sweden is moving towards racial laws, and I agree one hundred percent. The Council on Legislation, lawyers, human rights organizations, the Institute for Human Rights and several other referral bodies have directed strong criticism towards the bill. They have not only rejected the proposal. They call it, among other things, the biggest step away from the fundamental principles of the rule of law in modern Swedish history. They do not do this because they want to protect serious criminals, but because they see what happens when laws become vague, unclear and blurry.

They see what happens when power is shifted from courts to agency assessments. They see what happens when people no longer know which actions can actually lead to them losing the right to stay in Sweden. Predictability is not a technical detail, Madam Speaker, but it is the very foundation of the rule of law.

There are moments in politics when one must ask a simple question: Who is the law for? Who is it directed against? When I read this bill, I cannot help but think that it is not about justice. It is about power. It is about creating a Sweden where some people shall live with full security while others shall live with constant uncertainty. Some people shall be judged by the law and others shall be judged by politicians' perceptions of their character.

Madam Speaker! The Government calls this a procedural requirement. But let us speak plainly. This is a character requirement. The Government wants to transform the Swedish Migration Agency into moral police reminiscent of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It is a morality requirement, a requirement where the state shall decide if you are sufficiently well-behaved, sufficiently suitable, and sufficiently desirable to stay in the country where you may have lived for 10, 15 or 20 years. It is here we must stop, for who shall define what constitutes good conduct? It is a question we must ask ourselves, Madam Speaker.

I want the Swedish people to understand what this is actually about. It is not about the grossly criminal. There are already legislations for them. It is about something much larger. It is about giving the state the power to say: We do not think you are living in the right way.

Imagine a single mother! She works. She pays tax. She struggles to make the finances work. Food prices rise. Rent rises. Electricity prices rise. She falls behind. The debts grow. Is that then a lack of integrity?

Imagine a person who receives a reclaim from Försäkringskassan! It is not a judgment, no crime, no court. Is it then a lack of integrity, Madam Speaker?

Imagine a person who has lived in Sweden for 15 years! The children are Swedish. The friends are here. The work is here. Life is here. This person is an environmental activist or against genocide and goes out to demonstrate and show solidarity with Palestine. The state makes a comprehensive assessment of the person's lifestyle. Is it then reasonable that the entire future should be able to be destroyed, Madam Speaker?

The most remarkable thing is still the hypocrisy we see. At the same time as the government wants to measure the conduct of immigrants with a microscope, they never examine their own.

We have seen political scandals in this government. We have seen economic scandals. We have seen revelations about cheating. We have seen representatives who have had to leave their posts. We have seen recurring revelations about links to extremism in the political environment – today one stands here and lectures others on Swedish values. We have seen reporting on politicians who have socialized with persons in organized crime. We have seen information about representatives who are being investigated for serious crimes. We have seen revelations about suspected tax schemes and questionable handling of public funds.

But I never hear the government say: Let us conduct a fitness test of the power holders within the Tidö parties! Never do I hear them say: Let us assess the politicians' character before they are allowed to enact laws! Never do I hear them say: Let us revoke the privileges for those who abuse the people's trust!

No, we will never hear that. The demand for integrity should only be directed downwards, never upwards. It is directed towards those who have the least power, never towards those who have the most. It is directed towards immigrants from the global south and no one else.

Madam Speaker! That is why this is not about integrity. It is about double standards. It is about a Sweden where certain people have to prove their human worth over and over again while others never need to do so. It is about creating two classes of people – the people whose rights are self-evident, and the people whose rights are conditional.

Madam Speaker! My parents taught me that a person's worth is not determined by her origin, by her name, by her religion, and by where she is born. But that is exactly where this government is heading. It says that certain people should never really get to feel at home in Sweden. They should never really get to feel safe and never really get to know if they are allowed to stay in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Let me ask a question to the government and the governing parties: Who is it, really, who is supposed to define what good conduct is?

Who has given this very government the moral legitimacy to stand here and lecture other people on character, values, and human dignity?

Is it the Moderaterna, a party leading a government that time and again has been shaken by scandals, cronyism, conflicts of interest, ministerial resignations, and revelations that would never have been accepted if they had concerned people instead of power? Is it the same government whose migration minister has had to answer questions about his own son's connections to the violent far-right environment?

These people now want to tell other parents how they should raise their children.

Is it the Christian Democrats, a party whose leader himself has a criminal conviction behind him and who also openly supports genocide? Now they want to introduce moral assessments for people who have never even been convicted of a crime.

Is that what we call Swedish values? Is that what we call good conduct? Or do the conduct requirements only apply to people who are born somewhere else?

So we have the Sweden Democrats, Madam Speaker, a Nazi party that was started by an SS soldier and which has built its entire political identity on talking about law and order, a party that hates and hunts immigrants, a party that wants to measure immigrants' character with a ruler, a party that wants to examine immigrants' conduct with a microscope.

At the same time, for years the Swedish people have had to read about SD politicians who have been convicted of crimes, forced to resign after scandals, or exposed for racism, threats, violence, or financial irregularities. One has a party leader who associates with gang leaders but wants to deport immigrants based on authorities' subjective perceptions of their character and who they associate with. One has members who are indicted for drug offenses and suspected of pedophilia. They are to speak about morality and tell us others how we should behave.

We must also not forget the troll factory, where people were employed by the Sverigedemokraterna to spread hate and threats. Now, furthermore, new allegations are emerging regarding suspected fraud with the party's finances, fabricated arrangements, dubious handling of tax funds, and transactions that raise serious questions.

Madam Speaker! If this law were to be applied according to the same principles to the Tidö parties as to migrants, half of the political debate would be about the government's own conduct. But that is exactly what reveals the entire project. The conduct requirement is not about morality, not about values, not about justice. It is about power.

When an immigrant makes a mistake, the government speaks of character. When those in power within the Tidö parties and their families, friends, and voters make a mistake, the government speaks of mistakes.

When a migrant is scrutinized, a microscope is used. When one's own side is scrutinized, a magnifying glass with the lid on is used.

It is not justice. It is not equality before the law. It is double standards elevated to a state principle.

Madam Speaker! Those who wish to measure the conduct of other people should first dare to examine their own. Those who wish to instruct others on Swedish values should first live up to them themselves. Those who wish to give the state the power to judge people's character should first ask themselves if the power itself truly deserves that trust.

Madam Speaker! We must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to be. Do we want to be a society where people are judged based on clear laws, evidence, and judgments, or do we want to be a society where the state is given ever greater power to judge people's way of life, character, and value?

For me, the answer is simple. The rule of law does not exist to protect racists and corrupt criminals just because they are those in power. The rule of law exists to protect everyone, especially when public opinion calls for more power, more control tools, and tougher measures. That is when principles are tested. That is when courage is tested. That is when democracy is tested.

Madam Speaker! I say no to arbitrariness and double standards. I say no to legislation that undermines the rule of law. I say yes to a Sweden where people's rights are not decided by politicians' subjective opinions about their conduct.

Therefore, I move that the proposition be rejected.

I also want to mention that I have written a follow-up motion which I have been informed that I am not allowed to move for approval of, because it says the same thing as reservation 1.

I think this is very strange from a democratic point of view. As an elected representative, I should be able to submit a proposal and move for its approval. But now I was told that because my proposal says the same thing as reservation 1, I must move for the approval of reservation 1. It would have been fair if it stated that my proposal is included in reservation 1. But it does not.

I just want this to be said. I move for the approval of reservation 1.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want to remind the members of what the rules of procedure say about good order and respect towards one another.)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Member Jallow is critical of our bill on integrity. I wonder, however, if this is truly a principled stance or if he is applying a certain double standard.

Member of Parliament Jallow has often highlighted his background in Gambia as an inspiration for his political commitment. That is, in itself, completely legitimate; I often speak of my own time in other countries as an inspiration for what we do here.

Jallow has also frequently commented on Gambian politics, including in an article in The Standard from last year where he, on a large number of points, quite extensively criticizes the government that rules there now. But on one point, Jallow does not seem to be critical, and it concerns Gambia's very strict rules regarding fraud for residence permits. I find that a bit interesting.

In that country, one can indeed be deported for being unemployed. That cannot happen in Sweden according to the proposal we are presenting now. One can be deported for being ill. That cannot happen according to the proposal we are presenting now. One can be deported for being a journalist who reports critically about the country or because the authorities simply think that one is a bad or unpleasant person, completely without legal criteria.

Gambia has a regulation for conduct regarding residence permits that is draconian in comparison to what we are introducing now. However, Member Jallow chooses not to criticize it, which leads me to believe that he is using rather significant double standards here.

I would therefore like to ask a simple question: How is it that MP Jallow advocates for completely open borders in Sweden, without any restrictions whatsoever on how many or which persons should move to Sweden, while at the same time supporting extremely harsh immigration legislation in Gambia?

Principally, I think it is a bit strange.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (-)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ludvig Aspling, for the reply – I was longing for it!

I think like this: I understand that the member does not see me as Swedish. That is why the member refers to Gambia. But I am Swedish, just like the member. I understand that the member as a Sverigedemokrater has a bit of difficulty seeing non-whites as Swedes. But I stand here as a Swedish Member of Parliament and represent the Swedish people. Therefore, I criticize the member's disgraceful proposal.

I dare to say that I am one of the most principled and consistent members, because in the same way that I criticize the Swedish government's proposals, I criticize the Gambian, Iranian, and Congolese governments' proposals and so on. That is how I do it. I have no double standards.

That one can be deported from Gambia if one lacks a job is the stupidest thing I have heard. That one is deported from there because one does not have a job is one of the most intelligence-deprived things I have ever heard. It does not exist.

I know this, because I come from Gambia. I am very well-versed in the politics there. That is why I am critical of the politics there, just as in many other countries. When I see democracy being threatened, regardless of which country it is, regardless of which continent it is, I take a critical stance toward it. That is what I do here as well.

The Sweden Democrats must focus on the proposal we have here in Sweden. The Sweden Democrats want, in some way, to open up for deporting as many people as possible who come from the global south. That is what it is about and nothing else. Let us talk about that.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! We want to deport those persons who have a lack of integrity. Whether they come from the global south or from any other country outside the EU does not matter in this context. All persons who are not Swedish citizens will be treated equally.

Whether the member perceives themselves as Swedish is rather uninteresting. What is interesting here is the obvious double standard. As I pointed out in my opening question, member Jallow is very diligent in commenting on politics in Gambia. He has written several articles about the politics in that country. I have looked at some of them. He has never once criticized the extremely tough rules for conduct that apply to obtaining residence permits there.

This leads me to believe that the member applies double standards, namely a standard in Sweden that implies completely free immigration, that there should be no restrictions whatsoever on how many can or may move here and that no one should be deported to the global south or to any other place. The member, on the other hand, supports extremely harsh rules for who can move to Gambia.

I am not saying this to criticize Gambia, because I believe that all countries should have the opportunity to shape their immigration legislation in the way they find appropriate – without being an expert in the field. But it is quite obvious that Member Jallow applies two completely different yardsticks and two completely different principles regarding immigration law depending on whether we are talking about Sweden or Gambia. Why is that, Member Jallow?

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (-)

Madam Speaker! If there is a party that has double standards when it comes to this issue, it is the Sweden Democrats. As I mentioned, almost half of the party's members in the Riksdag are convicted criminals. We have people here who are convicted of everything from drunk driving to drug offenses, people who are charged with pedophilia and so on. There are, therefore, people in this chamber who are convicted criminals. It concerns a thousand different things. They have a party leader who associates with gang leaders and who has invited a gang leader to his party.

The Sweden Democrats have had members who are convicted criminals and who have been forced to resign. There have been scandals regarding racism, threats, violence, and financial irregularities. That group therefore exists within a party that wants to talk about the importance of good character and say how others should behave. All of this is upside down.

Why do the Sweden Democrats have double standards? It is the party that constantly demands tougher measures against others. It is the party that wants the state to examine people's character, morals, and lifestyle. But do those rules also apply to themselves? No, they do not, because had they done so, half of their members would not be sitting here. That is the reality they never want to face. They must examine themselves and have some self-awareness. That would help.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want to inform both Member Malcolm Momodou Jallow and others that under point 1, regarding the government's bill, the motion from the Member is also being treated. It is therefore being taken into account. The reservation is one thing, but the decision point that the reservation concerns also covers the motion's proposals.)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 June.)

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