Stricter conditions for family immigration

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates went to the election in 2022 to bring order and clarity to the migration policy. During the Social Democrats' eight years in power, Sweden received 320,000 asylum seekers without any plan whatsoever for how they would be integrated and become a part of the Swedish community.

The consequences of the Social Democrats' irresponsible migration policy were obvious: unemployment among foreign-born individuals was approximately three times higher than unemployment among domestic-born individuals. Many who came to Sweden did not speak Swedish despite several years in Sweden, and values such as honor culture with devastating consequences especially for women and girls, as well as various forms of extremism, spread across our country.

During these nearly four years, we have carried out a necessary paradigm shift within migration policy. Our policy has had an effect, and now we see the result. This year, according to the Swedish Migration Agency, 4,200 people are expected to seek asylum in Sweden. This is the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1984, which is as far back as it can be measured. This is a reduction of 75 percent since the Moderat-led government took office. We have restructured migration policy so that Sweden can succeed with the integration of all people who have come here.

A low asylum migration is a prerequisite for that. Sweden has moved from primarily being a country for asylum migration to being a country for highly qualified labor migration. We have delivered on the mandate we received from the Swedish people.

Madam Speaker! What recently unfolded in Spanish Ceuta demonstrates with all desired clarity why our migration policy, where we have control over the reception of asylum seekers, is so crucial and why we must never again return to the unconditional migration policy that once prevailed in Sweden.

In a single day, over 50,000 people crossed the EU's external border, and nearly 100 people died. According to the EU Commission, this was the largest border crossing in a single day in over 20 years. What happened in Ceuta should be a wake-up call for the entire European left, but instead, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet repeatedly choose to say no to every proposal that would strengthen regulated immigration here in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The events in Ceuta clearly show what risks there are in creating drivers for economic migrants to make their way to Europe. To present proposals for a generous migration policy with amnesties can lead to large waves of migrants with immensely tragic consequences.

A new large wave of migration to Sweden would also complicate our opportunities to succeed with the integration of all those who have come to us. It is therefore important that we in Sweden maintain the restrictive migration policy that we have now established.

Madam Speaker! Part of this reorganization concerns what we are debating today, namely the Moderate-led government's proposal for stricter conditions for family immigration. Sweden has for a long time had some of Europe's most generous rules for family immigration. The now proposed legislative changes adapt the Swedish regulatory framework to the minimum levels of EU law, and they are proposed to enter into force on 1 October this year.

Different rules shall apply regarding the possibility of being a sponsor for, on one hand, Swedish citizens, other Nordic citizens and persons with permanent residence rights and, on the other hand, persons with residence permits.

In order for a residence permit to be granted on the basis of ties to a person who has a time-limited residence permit, it shall as a rule be required that the person with whom there is a tie has resided in Sweden with a residence permit for at least two years. A waiting period is thus introduced. Exceptions shall, among other things, apply for unaccompanied children and for refugees in certain situations.

The maintenance requirements for family immigration are being tightened. Among other things, maintenance requirements shall apply in more situations. The requirement shall also apply in an application for continued residence permit, in order to ensure that people can support their relatives over time.

We shall now also legislate on something as reasonable as that the person who, for example, lacks a protection need but is in Sweden due to what is called enforcement obstacles – perhaps because the person themselves is not particularly interested in leaving our country – shall not at the same time be allowed to bring their relatives here.

Madam Speaker! In this bill, we also have proposals to stop the unjust so-called teenage deportations. For many years, young people have been deported from Sweden the day they turn 18 because they can no longer obtain residence permits as children of their parents. The Moderate-led government already commissioned an inquiry a couple of years ago to resolve this issue, and now we are presenting the proposals before the Riksdag.

For us Moderates, it is important that the migration policy is restrictive so that we can manage the integration. But the migration policy must also be fair, and it has not been fair that responsible youths have been deported simply because they have turned 18. Residence permits should, for example, be able to be granted to young adults under 21 who have previously been granted residence permits due to ties as children.

Madam Speaker! Unlike us in the blue and yellow team, who are in agreement on migration policy, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Centre Party have been in disagreement on pretty much everything during this parliamentary term. While the Social Democrats have wanted to give the impression that they want a restrictive migration policy and therefore voted with us in most of the votes here in the Riksdag, the Left Party and the Green Party have voted no to pretty much all of our tightenings.

The Social Democrats have, however, gradually begun to slide towards a more lax attitude towards migration policy, and today the opposition has six joint proposals to make family immigration more generous. This involves, for example, reducing the currently proposed waiting time for relatives to immigrate to Sweden from two years to one year.

The red-green opposition also wants it agreed that it should be sufficient to meet the maintenance requirement once, at the first application, and that no requirements should be set at a renewal application. In practice, one sends the following signal: Make sure to have an income in any case when you want to bring your relatives here – after that, according to the left-wing opposition with the Socialdemokrater at the forefront, it is all clear to live at the expense of Swedish taxpayers through benefits and other transfers!

One also wants foreign students to be able to bring their relatives here, as if one were completely blind to the extensive fraud that has occurred regarding study permits and the family immigration that has been linked to these.

Overall, it is not at all about maintaining a strict immigration policy at the EU minimum level, which the Social Democrats want to pretend they stand for. Here, they instead join forces with the activists in MP and V to once again increase the pull factors to Sweden. It is completely irresponsible.

In addition to what is agreed upon collectively in the left opposition, I can mention some of the proposals from Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. These two parties will, in fact, demand to have their proposals implemented upon the introduction of a new, more generous migration policy in Magdalena Andersson's government if they win the election in a little over a month.

V and MP say a flat no to raising the maintenance requirement. They want family immigration to be a right that is mandatory for Sweden rather than an opportunity for those who meet the requirements. They are also very critical of the expanded possibilities for DNA analyses that we are now conducting for the purpose of being able to ensure biological kinship in family immigration, among other things.

Madam Speaker! It is these parties that the Social Democrats will have to cooperate with and negotiate the migration policy with if they – God forbid – win the election in September. We know how the Social Democrats act when they govern with the left-wing parties: then it results in a more generous migration policy with poorer control as a consequence.

That is precisely why the election is fundamentally a choice between continuing on the established, responsible path together with us or risking a development where Sweden once again experiences a large and uncontrollable asylum migration. To succeed with integration, there is only one alternative: a moderate-led government and a blue-yellow law that sticks to a regulated, predictable, and responsible migration policy.

Madam Speaker! I therefore wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and thereby reject all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for an engaged speech, Viktor Wärnick, and also for good chairmanship in the committee!

It is quite funny when the Moderaterna talk about order and tidiness in migration policy. Shall we simply go through what this order and tidiness entails? It means the following: Every time a piece of legislation has been passed, one realizes a bit later that one has made a mistake. That is the order and tidiness.

It was said that teenagers should not be allowed to stay in Sweden but should be deported if they are here due to attachment. 18-year-olds should be deported! We said that would be foolish. Then you said we were lax, Viktor Wärnick – but then you did come to the conclusion that we were right and changed your minds. Then you did, admittedly, make a rather poor change, which is not enough, which we can come back to. But you realized that we were right, even though you called us lax.

Then we have the track change. You removed the right to track change, without transitional rules. Masses of people who worked and contributed to Sweden were deported. It was bad legislation; you should have had transitional rules or adapted the regulatory framework. You did not do that. You did not listen, and you called us lazy. Now you want to change it again – at least after the election, according to what you say at your press conferences. You called us lazy, but you were wrong. We were right.

When it comes to citizenship and that the time that must pass before one can obtain citizenship is now being extended, we said that there must be an opportunity for those who are well-integrated and contribute to Sweden to go first. You called us lazy, but now you have changed your mind and are doing as we say. You were wrong, and we were right.

This is how it is, time and again. The Moderates go too far because they follow the Sverigedemokraterna's lead instead of listening, thinking, and acting a bit long-term. That was the problem even when Ulf Kristersson implemented the regulation that led to the situation in 2015/16, that is, that one did not think long-term, and once again the Moderates do not do that.

Order and discipline presuppose that one thinks long-term. It presupposes that one thinks about what Sweden needs and that one thinks about both the positive side and strengthens the consequences when people make mistakes. You only do one part, and therefore it does not become order and discipline but only new chaos.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by thanking you for the kind words regarding the work in the committee and our cooperation there, even though our parties have stood very far apart on labor policy. I would actually say that we stand even further apart since Niels Paarup-Petersen became the migration policy spokesperson – we had, hear and be amazed, more in common with Jonny Cato than we seem to have with Niels Paarup-Petersen.

Too little and too late – that is what the Center Party is now saying about the migration policy. This applies primarily to the exceptions that they think we should introduce. I can still state that at two different points in time, 2016 and 2021, different rules were introduced that affected the youth we are now talking about. Just as I mentioned in my speech, an inquiry was commissioned two years ago where one part was to review how we could solve that problem.

This issue has been noticed in the media over the last half-year, approximately. The Director General of the Migration Agency has however stated that it is not that more individuals are affected by this than in previous years; it is just that it has now been noticed in the debate. Good so!

What we are doing now is to correct this in the way we have said we will do, that is to see to it that one can belong to the family all the way up to the age of 21 instead of 18. I do not know if the answer from Centerpartiet is that they want to go even further than that, but we are now doing what we have said.

We are introducing tightenings in the regulations for citizenship, something that could not have been done if the Center Party had cooperated with the Left Party, the Green Party and the Social Democrats. We are also doing a number of different things to tighten the regulations surrounding Swedish migration policy, because it has been completely necessary.

None of this could have been done if the red-greens had had a majority during this mandate period; I think it is important to point out.

I have a counter-question for Niels Paarup-Petersen, regarding whose leash one is on: What in the Left Party's and the Green Party's right-extreme migration policy will he agree to or not agree to in the event of an election victory in a month?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Let us begin with what the member mentioned about me having said that it was too little and too late. I would rather say that it was too much and too early. It is still a different matter. You did things that you should not have done, Viktor Wärnick. It is not about that you have not done things. That you did not secure the exceptions, which you realized we were entitled to, is another matter. This is about that you did a lot of things that you should not have done. It was, therefore, rather too much and too early.

The investigator himself concluded that exceptions should be made linked to these 21-year-olds. There were six requirements in the assignment to the investigator, and in all these requirements, there was talk of tightenings. Nothing was mentioned about relaxations. I think one should be a bit more honest regarding these points.

It is very good that you have raised the limit to 21 years, as we said you should do. You actually want to lower the limit for another group from 21 to 18 years, but it is still good that you have changed your mind here.

We do not want a higher age limit. What we want is that one should actually have a chance to stay when one turns 21. The only thing you are doing now is saying that one should be deported at age 21 instead of at age 18. It is still the case that the requirement to be allowed to stay and work is that one has a salary that is far above what any 21-year-old in Sweden earns. The alternative is that one gets into an education, but then one is punished if one has ties to Sweden. These two things you have not wanted to change. It can also be that you are not listening. Therefore, these young people will not have an honest chance to stay. This is the problem.

Today we are going to discuss family reunification immigration, and I think it is good that this topic is being raised. We have seen teenage deportations and competence deportations, and now we are going to see birth deportations. The one who gives birth risks having to choose who in the family should be deported. When one has another child, a reassessment is made, as the member himself touched upon, and then the requirements for what salary one must have to stay are increased. If one has two children, the requirement is 52,000. If one has a third child, the requirement is 64,000 a month. Who increases their salary by 10,000 kronor a month just like that?

This will mean that the family will be forced to choose who should be deported. That is what will happen now, and the government has still not answered how one can think that it is a reasonable policy.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! The tightened rules that we are now introducing regarding family reunification are absolutely necessary. Sweden has, in the Center Party's own words, been far too lax in relation to family immigration. We have not set the requirements that should be set on those who are not Swedish citizens but still want to bring their relatives here.

Centerpartiet usually stands for the line that one should be able to support one's family and not be a burden on the welfare system. A part of the liberal heritage of ideas in Centerpartiet is usually the perception that one should be able to support oneself and one's family. Therefore, we are now setting stricter requirements. We go down to the EU's minimum level so that Sweden does not stand out and so that Sweden does not have attraction factors.

The Center Party is, however, against many different parts of this report. The Center Party wants a number of exceptions. They do not want the longer waiting period permitted in EU legislation. They do not want us to have high wage requirements. They also do not want us to ensure that the person who wants to extend the residence permit for their family, whom the person has brought here through family migration, can continue to support the family – then it is suddenly completely free to live on the Swedish social security systems or on other types of benefits. This is the Center Party's completely incomprehensible line.

To top it all off, I saw a post on social media yesterday by Niels Paarup-Petersen and was completely appalled by the intellectual dishonesty in it. He presented it as if the person who is about to have a child has to choose between deportation and abortion. That is the level at which Centerpartiet is conducting the political debate right now. I think it is repulsive.

We think it is reasonable that one supports their family if one wants the family in Sweden and that this is checked on a number of occasions. Niels Paarup-Petersen's style of debate is something he must take responsibility for himself and be ashamed of.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the committee chairman for the work there and for this parliamentary term. We have been one hundred percent in disagreement, but there has been a cooperation in the presidium.

I want to start where the member ended. It actually turns out as Niels Paarup-Petersen said. With these rule changes, people in Sweden will be forced to choose between abortion and deportation. That is the truth. Decisions will be reassessed and reassessed, and if one does not meet the requirements after the rule changes that this government puts forward, it is this choice that one faces. It would have been more honest to say that this is what will happen.

The Moderates look set to make their worst choice in over 20 years, perhaps even worse than the catastrophic election of 2002, a unique forecast from Svenska Dagbladet showed in recent days. It takes its toll to conduct a policy that daily destroys people's lives, destroys families and destroys establishment. It costs. I think one should be honest, because the truth is that people will be faced with a choice between abortion and deportation.

One expels the children's classmates and neighbors, and one expels people who have lived here for the greater part of their lives. When the Moderaterna took office, they took immediate action to remove the possibility of exceptions due to particularly sympathetic circumstances in order to increase the number of teenage deportations. The Moderaterna knew that this would happen. The same applies to the situation that was raised now.

I must ask a question to the member regarding the extremely important rule changes being presented. Does it give the member any kind of joy to deport children and split up families? Does it give the member any kind of joy to deport teenagers who have lived here for the majority of their lives?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I also wish to initially thank Tony Haddou for good cooperation, in any case regarding procedural issues, committee work and other matters. I know that Tony Haddou is now making his final debate in the Swedish Riksdag; he is not running for another term in the Riksdag. Tony should have a big thank you for fine cooperation in the Social Insurance Committee's presidium. Even though we have had spirited debates in this chamber, we have been able to distinguish between substance and person when we have planned the committee's work, and for that I am very grateful.

The debate technique, debate style, or mud-wrestling that the left-wing opposition wants to engage in regarding migration policy, which I mentioned in connection with Niels Paarup-Petersen's various posts in the chamber's rostrum and on social media, Tony Haddou now confirms that he is putting up for. I think it is repulsive. I do not think we should debate in that way in Swedish politics.

We have the following starting point: If one is to bring relatives to Sweden, one should be able to support them. It should therefore not be a burden on Swedish taxpayers that the social insurance system or other benefits are used to support relatives who immigrate. There must be order and structure. Sweden should not stand out in Europe as more generous than others.

The examples that are raised are so extreme that I hardly have words for it. I want to say that, despite everything, an individual assessment is made based on the current legislation, which we will make decisions on here tomorrow. There are a number of different exceptions. There are possibilities to look at the family as a whole.

What the Left Party, the Centre Party and others are debating now is about painting a horror scenario. I do not think that belongs in Swedish politics, and I reject it.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! This government said it was a horror scenario when we said that more teenagers would be deported when the possibility of exceptions in particularly moving cases was removed. We said the same thing about track switching. It was said that these were horror scenarios, but week after week we have seen that these people are threatened with deportation, that families are torn apart and that lives are shattered.

I did not really get an answer to my question. Does it give the member joy to deport children and young people who have lived here for most of their lives? If one wants to stop the teenage deportations, this government must go once and for all. The government has shown an inability to handle these issues. What is being done now in practice regarding the teenage deportations is to change the age limit from 18 to 21 so that the deportation decision instead comes at the age of 21.

I think that one should take responsibility for the policy one pursues, and that member does not want to say here if the rules are that a reassessment is to be made repeatedly. If you have another child, you are out. If you become ill or unemployed, your child will be deported. These are the rules the government is putting forward, and I think one should be honest about that. We will get situations with a choice between abortion and deportation, and children who have lived most of their lives will be deported. If this government stays and the policy remains fixed, completely new groups of children will be threatened with deportation in Sweden.

That is why I ask the member again: Does it give the member any kind of joy to deport children and split families in this way? We will get completely new groups, even more family splits, and more children who are deported. Does it give the member any kind of joy?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! For me and the Moderates, it is absolutely central that we have now carried out the paradigm shift in migration policy that the Swedish people gave us the mandate to do in the previous election. We have brought order and clarity to Swedish migration policy – something that has not existed before. We are now ensuring that Sweden does not stand out compared to other European countries, that Sweden does not have more generous regulations, and that Sweden simply becomes a more normal country regarding immigration policy. I believe that the Swedish people continue to give this great support.

I do not believe that the Swedish people support the extreme politics that Vänsterpartiet stands for. We can talk about a real horror scenario if Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, the two most activist parties in Sweden's Riksdag, gain influence in Magdalena Andersson's government if they, God forbid, win the election in a month. Vänsterpartiet wants to do exactly as has been done in Spain, namely introduce amnesty for those who have gone underground and hidden illegally in the country. The one who has received a decision that they do not have grounds for protection and therefore must leave Sweden, Vänsterpartiet wants to reward with an amnesty. They want to reward the shadow society. They want to reward chaos. This is what the Socialdemokraterna have in front of them, this is what one shall cooperate with, this is what one shall negotiate with.

This is the real horror scenario in Swedish politics and something we, in the name of consumer information, must become even better at telling the Swedish people about, because this is something the Swedish people do not want to have.

Furthermore, let me say something about the concern for our opinion polls and how we will fare in the election. I believe the Vänsterpartiet should reflect for a few rounds, given the reporting of the recent weeks regarding the actions of its own parliamentary group and terror-romantic acts when they have sent letters to various murderers and terrorists. Raise the level, I say to Vänsterpartiet.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Unreasonable, cried Ebba Busch when eight-month-old Emanuel received the notice that he would be deported from Sweden despite the parents having residence permits as switchers. 18-year-old Jomana came to Sweden as a four-year-old, and many thought it couldn't be true when they read that she received a deportation notice the same week she ordered her graduation cap. Little brother became a Swedish citizen, and mom and dad received permanent residence permits. But Jomana was to be deported.

Both of these completely insane and unreasonable deportations of children of persons with permission to live in Sweden have shocked the Swedish people and obviously also many politicians in the Tidö parties. But we in Miljöpartiet were not shocked because we had warned of exactly these consequences.

And now we warn again. Let us not in two years read in the newspapers that Moderates and Christian Democrats are lamenting that a new mother is forced to leave Sweden or forced to send away one of her children because she has not managed to increase her salary by several thousand kronor. She must earn 52,860 kronor to live with her husband and two children. If she has another child, the salary must rise to 64,000 kronor, otherwise, according to the government's new law, the entire family will not be allowed to stay in Sweden.

We must stop this, Viktor Wärnick! Today!

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! There is a party that has engaged in massive disinformation regarding migration policy in Sweden. This party claims that a deportation decision and a deportation are equivalent and has claimed in the media that an eight-month-old baby would be placed alone and without its parents on a flight to a foreign country. Such things do not happen in Sweden. But Miljöpartiet does not want to take on the pedagogical task of explaining that it is two different things to assess someone's right to a residence permit and to execute a deportation. I believe that Miljöpartiet has a great responsibility to keep the debate on this sane.

What the government does in the bill, which is confirmed by the committee majority in the report and which the Riksdag is to make a decision on tomorrow, is to finally tighten the regulations regarding family immigration. They have been far too generous and have caused Sweden specifically to appear more generous to many of those who have sought themselves to Europe and then wanted to bring their relatives to Europe and to Sweden. Now we set requirements that one must be able to support one's family. One must also have resided in Sweden legally for two years. This is the main rule for one to at all be able to manage an integration process. We introduce a waiting period so that it will simply look more promising for an individual and their family to be able to manage in Swedish society.

We do not want free immigration. We do not want open borders. But that is actually what the Green Party proposes with all its proposals in motions and reservations. It is not said outright, but it is de facto what is wanted.

When it comes to the deportation of teenagers, we are now doing what we said we would do. We are solving the problem by raising the limit from 18 years to 21 years to give, above all, those of high school age a second chance. We are doing what we have said.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Viktor Wärnick began his speech by accusing others of disinformation. Then he finished it by lying.

Madam Speaker! Now we must speak about the bill that is on the table. With this bill, the government wants a mother who has fled war and been separated from her children during the flight to practically have to worry for four years about how the children are doing in refugee camps and have telephone and video calls as the only channel to comfort, raise, and express love. She must have 52,860 kronor before tax in salary if she wants to be reunited with her husband and her two children. A mother testifies to the Red Cross: With today's regulations, I already cannot afford to bring all my children here. How am I supposed to choose between them? I love them all equally.

The wage levels the Moderaterna propose are insane. Only if you earn over 75,000 can you be reunited with all your children if you have four children.

This proposal does not improve integration, but rather makes it impossible for families to be reunited and permanently separates small children from their mothers and fathers. It is shameful.

Furthermore, the proposal for review every two years means that a family that has already been reunited in Sweden after fleeing war can be torn apart, for example if a parent has the misfortune of becoming unemployed or if the family has another child.

No, we are not exaggerating when we say that mothers will face the choice between deportation and abortion.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! During the eight years that Annika Hirvonen, together with the Social Democrats and others on the Swedish left, had influence over Swedish migration policy, we received 320,000 asylum seekers without having any plan at all for how they would be integrated.

We have had an incredibly generous family reunification immigration which has resulted in many people coming to Sweden without there having been a secured livelihood, an organized life, employment, and a path into the Swedish community for these individuals.

In 2015 we had the catastrophe year, the only year when one has actually seen an environmentalist party state that Sweden cannot receive so many people. At that time, it was 163,000 people who applied. It was the only time Miljöpartiet said: Okay, now we probably actually need to dig our heels in and do something about this.

We are now doing what we have promised the Swedish people that we would do. We have begun the journey towards getting the migration policy in order.

This issue with family immigration is completely reasonable. If one wants to bring over their relatives, one must be able to provide for them. One must simply be able to pay for the family that comes. Otherwise, it burdens Swedish taxpayers in a way that is not reasonable in the long run.

It is also reasonable that, if one wishes to extend a relative's residence permit in Sweden, one can show that one can continue to pay for them or that there is a possibility within the household community to support them together, according to the levels and requirements we set, so that one does not end up at a level where one needs to use benefits or social insurance benefits to be able to live in Sweden.

These are perfectly reasonable parts of the bill we have now presented, but the Green Party, of course, says no to it. The Green Party does not want any requirements. The Green Party thinks that shadow societies and exclusion are a byproduct that we have to live with and that we should not set higher requirements for those who come to Sweden. There is a great contrast in Swedish politics between us and the Green Party.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! As an outside observer of the debate here, one can sometimes become a bit confounded. The Moderates spoke about the events in the exclave in North Africa, where one must cross a large ocean to reach Europe. The Moderates did not mention the disinformation campaigns and the hybrid warfare that preceded the events but in the next breath accused Miljöpartiet of disinformation. It says something about the proportions in the debate and the view on the whole.

(Applause)

It was not actually what I was going to get up and say, Madam Speaker, but I thought it needed to be mentioned.

What can be said about this debate is that it summarizes the mandate period quite well, both regarding the background and the origin of the debate and regarding how the results of our various positions turn out.

The focus in the Tidö parties' proposal lies on making family reunification more difficult and practically impossible, as well as deporting as many as possible. It is not for nothing that the bill has been called a family-splitting product. It is a logical continuation of the deportation policy that has left a strong mark during the current parliamentary term. Likewise, it is a half-hearted attempt to prevent the debate on teenage deportations, which is so troublesome for the Tidö parties.

The teenagers have been replaced by 21-year-olds, but not in all cases. Teenagers are obviously still being deported, which we have been able to observe during the summer, even though they are well-integrated and part of the local community. The consequence of the now proposed order is simply that even more well-established 21-year-olds will be deported and forced to leave friends, neighbors, and colleagues, while the problem with the teenage deportations has obviously not been fully resolved.

What should also be highlighted is that the government is once again being torn to pieces by many referral bodies, not only based on political positions but also based on the actual content. The lack of clarity in the preparatory works, messy and difficult-to-overlook procedural rules, and weak or no anchoring in research and proven experience is a recurring theme.

Even referral bodies that usually cheer for the government, for example a number of employer organizations, are strongly critical of parts of the product. The Migration Agency, courts, academia, civil society, and a number of authorities have again raised strong objections to core parts of the government's proposal. The reluctance of the Tidö parties to listen is strong, in the same way as earlier during the mandate period.

No government has received as much criticism from, among others, the Council on Legislation as this government. For Tidö, it is rarely about doing what is right, but rather about pushing through what one thinks is right in the Swedish Riksdag with the smallest of margins. Such an approach can only be described as dogmatic and anti-intellectual.

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, the migration policy direction is clear. We want a strict migration policy. Those who come here and those who are here shall be given good conditions and support to be able to integrate. If one behaves well, conducts oneself correctly and shows that one wants to be a part of our society, one shall also be able to become that. If one misbehaves and, for example, commits serious crimes, one shall be deported and leave the country as far as is possible. A strict migration policy can never be about deporting as many as possible as an intrinsic value.

That is why we have landed on the conclusion that the requirement for reassessment of the subsistence requirement proposed by the Tidö parties should not be introduced. It is a mechanism that will lead to large-scale deportations of people who have lived in the country for several years and who have established themselves here.

It is also not just about teenagers this time. Everyone in a family can be subject to deportation, not because they have misbehaved or done something wrong, but because dad has become unemployed for a short period, because mom has been diagnosed with cancer, or because one of the parents has been brave and started a company.

Furthermore, it can lead to people choosing not to continue their studies to get a highly qualified job, but instead continuing to work in a job for which they are overqualified. High school students can drop out of school to take a low-paid job so that a younger sister can come here. Older siblings can be deported because they have had a younger brother.

This policy is atrocious, Madam Speaker. It builds in deportations as a recurring part of the legislation itself. These are deportations that only manage by changing people's lives. We are actually dealing with human beings. This is not strict migration policy. It is stupid migration policy. It is stupid, and therefore we Social Democrats, together with the other opposition parties, say no to this part.

Madam Speaker! The deportations of teenagers are one of the Tidö parties' greatest failures. The entire issue has highlighted the reluctance existing among these parties to look beyond the harsh and tough rhetoric, where immigration is only a problem and where people's life destinies lack significance. The handling has also been accordingly. When the government finally managed to come with a decision, it turned out that the core issue itself, that of young people's strong connection and establishment in our country, was not addressed.

We Social Democrats have constantly argued that it is precisely strong ties that must form the basis for how an individual's right to be in the country should be assessed. If one has stronger ties to Sweden than to any other country in the world and one has done everything right, one should be allowed to stay. This is something we in the opposition completely agree on. Then one can discuss different legal formulations, but the strong ties are something we agree on.

We must also look at all those who have fallen victim to the Swedish Migration Agency's long processing times. An investigation must urgently look into that, and it must take place during the next parliamentary term.

With this said, the direction, the spirit, and the will are the same in the opposition. This is also made clear in today's report. The Social Democrats, the Left, the Centre, and the Green Party agree on this issue in reservation 10, which I move to approve.

Madam Speaker! I notice that the speaking time is going fast here, and I apologize already now as I will probably run over a little.

Another issue that we Social Democrats place great importance on is Sweden's competitiveness. That Sweden shall be attractive for researchers and top students is absolutely crucial for us to hold our own in the global competition.

The high rate of innovation and strong capacity for transition that exists in our country comes in no small part from the fact that many talented and wise people from all over the world choose to seek out our country. Many of them do so with reference to the Swedish welfare and openness. Therefore, it is with some surprise that I can state that this important resource is being restricted and strangled.

We have already seen reports that teenage deportations are scaring away researchers. This bill will hardly calm the anxiety that has spread. I believe this is a strategic mistake of quite large dimensions in a time when researchers choose to leave, for example, the USA. There, the restriction is great, and therefore people want to come to Europe. Then we in Sweden choose to say: No, we are not that eager for you.

That is why we Social Democrats clearly want to broaden the circle of academics who can bring their relatives here – compared to the Tidö parties' proposal. Note that it is compared to their proposal. This is de facto also restricted in our proposal.

Even here, the opposition is actually in agreement in a reservation.

Madam Speaker! As I have mentioned, a strict migration policy is a prerequisite for good integration. Therefore, we also see that the subsistence requirement for one to be allowed to bring their family here can be raised slightly from the outset. The proposal that the Tidö parties are pushing through will, however, in practice almost make it impossible for most to bring their families here, as we have heard here earlier in the debate. With the combination of the requirement for a two-year waiting period and the very long queues that unfortunately exist at Migrationsverket, it could take years before families can be reunited.

We mean that the maintenance requirement can be raised marginally, but we do not want to exclude a lot of work-related incomes in the way that the Tidö parties do. Those who behave correctly, who try, and who show a good will to integrate shall be given a fair chance to be reunited with their family. This well illustrates the Social Democratic view on migration policy. It shall be strict, but it shall be reasonable.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I can once again state what I began with. This bill breaks down the positions in Swedish migration policy in an illustrative way.

Should Sweden be a country that pursues a strict migration policy and a strong integration policy – a country where, through effort and honest attempts, one can become a part of our social community and where not even origin but rather one's participation, intentions, and commitment define one's belonging?

Or should Sweden be a country where people are deported and driven out simply because they happen to have a different origin and are not profitable enough – a country that pursues a senseless migration policy, an impossible assimilation policy, and an active deportation policy?

On September 13, the Swedish people will make their choice. I am convinced that Sweden needs a new direction and a new leadership, and for that, a social democratic election victory is required.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ida Karkiainen (S) concurred.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I must nevertheless begin by commenting on what Ola Möller said about the events in Spanish Ceuta. He, like other left-wing politicians, would very much like to say: Don't look here, nothing to see here, no danger.

It was, therefore, a violation of the border that was so massive that we have not seen anything like it in over 20 years – across the EU's borders.

Both Ola Möller and I have visited Lampedusa – also a part of the EU. There is, admittedly, a large sea between the mainland and Lampedusa. Lampedusa can probably still be said to belong to Africa, but we all know what problems it has led to when many migrants have made their way there.

One reflexively does not want to talk about the problems we see regarding immigration. I am actually disappointed by the Social Democrats' reaction when it comes to this. Here we should be more proactive. We should not follow the Green Party's lead and say that it is heartless for Sweden not to have accepted any of these migrants – because we already have the integration debt we have. I think the Social Democrats should consider how they want to conduct the policy in this area.

Since then, I have a question for the Social Democrats' Ola Möller regarding precisely this bill and this committee report. For at least three and a half years, you have said you defend a strict migration policy – during the last half year, we have seen that it wavered when it comes to this. Now, I believe that the Möller variant of the migration policy is one that is strict, reasonable, and not stupid.

One can then look at the follow-up motion that the Social Democrats have written. There, there are many proposals for rejections, exceptions, and more generous rules than we propose. Despite the fact that it is also stated in the motion that Sweden shall not go beyond what EU law requires, that is exactly what they want to do when it comes to waiting times, subsistence requirements, and other matters. How is that?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I can only be dismayed that Viktor Wärnick does not see the influence operations and the grand politics that lie behind what happened in the enclave of Ceuta. It is actually a bit frightening. I expected more from the Moderaterna.

It was also clear in the statement we made that Friday when it happened that we would not take a redistribution, for example. Instead of siding with Niels Paarup-Petersen, perhaps Viktor Wärnick should look at the channels we Social Democrats have when we comment on politics. Then he would not ask those types of questions or give those types of speeches.

When it comes to our follow-up motion, the fact is that EU law is not just about what regulates migration law. The European Convention also exists, which fundamentally regulates. One has a right to family reunification. The family shall be protected and so on. There are statements from the EU Commission regarding that, for example, those in need of subsidiary protection and refugees should be treated equally to the greatest extent possible and so on.

The Moderates' problem is that they have blindfolds on regarding this. It is therefore no longer about pursuing a strict migration policy, but it is about deporting as many as possible. It is completely in line with the will of the largest party in the Tidö agreement. We have also had it clarified in recent weeks what it is about.

It is here that the anti-intellectualism partially comes in. The Moderates take the exclusive right to define what is strict. Everything that does not go as far as the Moderates want to go is then designated as non-strict. But we de facto tighten family immigration even in our motion. This is also done in the reservations submitted jointly in certain parts, for example when it concerns students. From that perspective, we tighten this – we do. One only has to read our motion. We also say clearly that we want to raise precisely the maintenance requirement at the first application. But what the Moderates engage in is deportation policy.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Now Ola Möller must speak his mind. Does he mean that the proposals we are presenting here would violate the European Convention, ECHR, that they would violate the EU's regulatory framework in some way? Or is it a political judgment he is making when he thinks we should be more generous? I am thinking of the Social Democrats' proposals in relation to what the government is presenting. Intellectual honesty is also about, in that case, stating what one thinks about this. No one else would claim that we have gone so far as to violate this.

One can, as said, look at what the Social Democrats propose or say in their follow-up motion. I still think that one needs to stand by what one has said here. Ola Möller is one of the authors of the motion. There it states, among other things: We have also decided that our regulatory framework for migration policy should be in line with the EU's minimum level.

Despite this, there are thus 14 motions with objections and proposals for more generous rules than those contained in the bill that the government has submitted. This includes, among other things, that subsidiarily protection-needing persons should also be included in this circle when it comes to mandatory rules on residence permits. They want a shorter consideration period. They want one year instead of two years. Two years is the scope that exists according to the EU's regulatory framework. They do not want tightened subsistence requirements in the way that we propose.

Ola Möller can call this being in accordance with the EU's minimum level and that we should go as far as the strictest side as we can. This the Social Democrats have spoken about in the rhetoric during almost the entire mandate period. But there has been a shift now at the end, where it seems that the left flank in the party has been given increasingly more space.

We also know what the Green Party and the Left Party will propose in Magdalena Andersson's government – amnesties, just as the Spanish social democratic government has introduced. And we have seen the consequences.

All this is therefore a shift from the strict to the more generous, but Ola Möller does not want to pretend that. How is that?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Viktor Wärnick could read his own investigation and the bill. For example, both the European Court of Justice and the EU Commission point out in their guidance on how we should interpret EU law that subsidiary protection seekers and refugees shall be treated equally.

Then one takes a directive that was written in the early 2000s. This with subsidiary protection need was not even regulated in any directive at that time; those discussions were ongoing. To say that it should be as in a 25-year-old document is extremely dogmatic. That was also why the Council on Legislation criticized the government regarding a previous proposition. It was said de facto that we risk ending up in a situation where we do not give protection to people who actually have a right to it, that is, we violate the right to asylum in the matter of the implementation of the EU Asylum Pact.

Then one ends up in a situation where "in line with the minimum level" is not just about reading a directive and then mechanically – nota bene, as the Council on Legislation said – interpreting it and writing it into the legislation. One must look at the whole. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is law, we have a constitution that shall protect private life, and Article 8 of the European Convention is clear. When very many referral bodies say that this could actually violate Article 8, the Social Democrats make a reasonable assessment of what constitutes a strict migration policy and what constitutes a deportation policy, which Tidö is driving.

The basis for this is Ludvig Aspling's statement about an ethnically cohesive country. That is the core of politics. That the Moderaterna are standing on that and dancing to that tune is actually a bit frightening, and it also says something about how far to the right the Moderaterna have gone.

I just want to conclude by informing the assembly that Sweden actually received more asylum seekers during Fredrik Reinfeldt's time than was done during Stefan Löfven's and Magdalena Andersson's time in power. We changed that legislation in 2015.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Many years ago, when I started working in politics, the Swedish state had an official list of claims about immigration that, according to the Swedish government, were not true – it was called myths about immigration. Those of you who are a bit older might remember it, those of you who are a bit younger might not.

The list was on the Government Offices' website and was mocked, with all rights reserved, quite vigorously online. It is a bit comical to look back at it now. Many of the myths that were claimed to be untrue turned out, after all, perhaps not to be so untrue, including myth 4: Those who get to stay bring the whole family here.

It is written exactly as sloppily as one can expect from people who try to defend the mass immigration project, and to be fair, I should also point out that even if the claim is true in itself, the reality is even worse. In Sweden, until quite recently, you could bring over entire thick families, even if you have a deportation order at the bottom and thus cannot stay yourself. More on this soon.

Sweden has extremely generous rules for family reunification. Approximately one-third of all residence permits that have been issued in recent years have been to exactly family members. A large part of these have in turn come from the same countries of origin as people who seek asylum. This in combination with the very low maintenance requirement and not least the possibility to bypass the maintenance requirement means that the rules for family reunification give rise to exactly the same problems as the asylum immigration. It becomes in practice the same thing, except, naturally, that they have always proven their identity.

To this is also added the fact that the rules for family immigration in themselves are a strong pull factor to Sweden. When Sweden has historically been marketed among human smugglers as a requirement-free ATM nation, the rules for family reunification have been part of the sales concept: The Swedes will not only support you but your entire clan. This journey is the best investment you will ever make. Not an entirely untrue pitch – until now, that is.

Sweden's areas of exclusion, our pool of structurally unemployed, our prisons and our social service offices are, statistically speaking, full of people who came here to live with their relatives. It is relatives, that is, attachment persons, who themselves naturally in most cases do not need to be in Sweden at all.

What specific changes are being implemented now? For one thing, certain categories of migrants will not be able to bring relatives here at all, which will affect international students and persons who have residence permits due to execution barriers.

To begin with, the abuse of permits for studies is very extensive, even though we have to some extent dealt with it during the mandate period. What it practically amounts to is an opportunity to buy a work permit via a Swedish university. A large part of why this is so attractive and why people are prepared to pay money for it is precisely the possibility of bringing over a relative who also receives a work permit. When one buys the work permit, it is thus two for one. On paper, there is a maintenance requirement, but applicants have systematized submitting forged bank statements, and if one is to be completely blunt, Swedish embassies unfortunately do not do what they should to scrutinize these.

So, that is where we draw the line. That being said, we do not prevent international students from staying here with their cohabitant or partner, but they must do so on a visa as in all other normal countries.

Persons with so-called residence permits due to execution obstacles are persons who have a deportation decision in the background but who cannot be deported for any reason, most often because the person themselves obstructs and receives a time-limited residence permit while waiting for them to return. That such persons during the waiting period have been able to bring their relatives here is strange to say the least. That such persons until recently were able to do so even if they have been deported due to crime is one of the most bizarre rules I have ever seen – and if one deals with immigration law in Sweden, one sees quite a lot, to say the least.

This is the end of it now, and before the next mandate period, Sweden should naturally completely phase out the legal figure of residence permits due to execution obstacles. Those persons should instead be sorted under the inhibition rule.

We are also introducing a general rule of a two-year waiting period for those who have a time-limited residence permit. The waiting period in that context is a kind of benchmark for integration. It is assumed that a person who has lived in Sweden for a couple of years understands how the country works, has learned the language at least a little, and has adapted to the conditions here. This is a least-said uncertain assumption, but the family reunification directive has an explicit provision on just this. Many comparable countries in our neighboring area apply this rule. Again, it is also about eliminating pull factors. We cannot be more generous than our neighboring countries.

The maintenance requirement will also be raised, i.e., what salary is required to be able to bring over a relative. This currently corresponds to the subsistence minimum, which means that one can bring over a relative who immediately falls into poverty – naturally completely natural given that the left-wing parties have an ideological goal of having as many non-self-sufficient foreigners in the country as possible, because it is good for them. It is a catastrophe for Sweden, but from a purely selfish, self-serving purpose, there is a certain logic in it.

The maintenance requirement will be increased to 1.3 times the standard amount plus the actual housing cost. This means that a person who wants to bring a wife and two children here needs an income of approximately 50,000 kronor gross instead of approximately 30,000 kronor which applies today. The new amount is, of course, much closer to what one actually needs to be truly self-sufficient in Sweden. The national standard for maintenance support for such a family, assuming they live in Stockholm and have an average rent, is approximately 28,000 kronor, which corresponds to approximately 40,000 kronor gross. Coming here and requiring maintenance support immediately after arrival will therefore no longer be possible according to the new rules. It is very important.

The subsistence requirement will also affect certain categories of migrants who are not affected by it today. This applies to researchers, doctoral students, and persons who have a residence permit and who have, therefore, arranged their permits in Sweden with the help of such a permit.

As for researchers, this may not have any huge practical significance because a researcher position provides at least 50,000 kronor per month. One does not usually conduct research for less than that, so they will meet this salary requirement quite gallantly. Doctoral students, on the other hand, earn a bit less, and in some cases they will need to wait until they defend their thesis before they can bring their family here.

Most important of this is, naturally, the residence permits. The fraud with the permits for permanent residents is very extensive. It is largely due to corruption in other EU countries, something that is somewhat difficult for us to address from here. We have an ongoing agency assignment regarding this, but there are, so to speak, natural limits to what Sweden can do.

That we do not have a maintenance requirement for persons who stay here on vabostatus and who want to bring a family member to Sweden has naturally led to persons with weak ties to the labor market seeking to come here to bypass the maintenance requirement in the country where they reside. Put simply: You are a third-country national living in Denmark, but you cannot bring a new wife to Denmark because you have too low a salary or do not work at all. But if you use your vabostatus and register in Sweden, then presto, it works. You become registered here, and then you can bypass the maintenance requirement in your own country of residence.

This is naturally completely unreasonable, so we are now closing that possibility.

It is also important what types of incomes will be counted. Today, you can fulfill the subsistence requirement with sham employments, unemployment insurance, and activity support, which is unreasonable for easily understandable reasons. The purpose of this is to ensure that the person moving to Sweden does not move straight into poverty. That is the point here. That risk is obviously much greater if one, for example, has a subsidized employment. Subsidized employments have a very strong tendency to cease to exist the day the subsidy ends. All surveys from Arbetsförmedlingen show that. It is therefore completely logical that that type of employment is not counted.

The maintenance requirement will also apply upon extension of the permit. It is extremely important, not least because the requirement for residence time for citizenship has been significantly increased now compared to a few months ago. To confirm that an employment remains even upon extension is very important to counter the corruption within this system, which is very extensive today.

When a test of the maintenance requirement is conducted, it is only forward-looking. It is possible to fake an employment. Unfortunately, it is perhaps a bit easier than it should be. For example, it is possible to forge payslips. It is considerably more difficult to fake that an employment has actually lasted over a two-year period. In that case, it is a completely different documentation you have to fake. That is why it is important that a test is also conducted upon extension.

The same applies to the housing requirement. One must have a residence to bring a relative here. That is nothing we are changing in this bill. But the cheating – that is, the trade with addresses – to be able to bring people from third countries is extensive in Sweden. It has been testified to. But it will also become much more difficult now because you must prove that you have been registered at a certain address during the period you have had the initial residence permit.

Several of the grounds in Chapter 5, Section 3 of the Aliens Act, namely the main rule on family immigration, will also become optional instead of mandatory. It may sound like a detail, but it is quite important. It increases the possibility of rejecting an application if any of the regular grounds for refusal were to be applicable.

Last but not least, we have the question of young adults outside the nuclear family – or the teenagers, as they are often called. During the previous parliamentary term, a rule change was implemented which means that they may no longer receive permanent residence permits at the same time as their parents. They received them before July 2021. This means that they must now renew their permits until they must have their own permits. This occurs at 18 or 21 years of age, depending on what type of permit the person of attachment has. There are slightly different rules.

All parties in this chamber voted for these rules. They were passed by acclamation in July 2021. It was during the pandemic parliament, so it was a bit chaotic. If anyone from the left side missed that they voted for this, perhaps some of the explanation lies in the fact that it was in the middle of the pandemic. All parties in this chamber, therefore, voted for the rule that young adults outside the nuclear family no longer receive permanent residence permits. The rule will now be changed, because it has led to unfair results, some believe. I can agree in some cases, definitely.

Now there will be a rule regarding the renewal of two-year permits until one is 21 years old, with the possibility of an extra extension after 21 if there are special reasons for it. This means that one can remain attached to their parents until one is 25, perhaps, at the very most. I think that is completely reasonable if one wants to see a generous regulatory framework. It is much more generous than in most countries near Sweden.

I shall speak a little about the opposition. I have never seen such a confused group of parties. It is a total cacophony of different reservations and specific statements, which in a rather good way illustrates what chaos Sweden faces if these parties are allowed to form a government. Something worth mentioning is that a residence permit based on connection to a parent can be granted to an adult person who has stayed in Sweden with a residence permit and during that time received a special connection to Sweden. Foreigners shall thus be treated as children for the rest of their lives. You shall be able to get a residence permit based on connection to a parent when you are 40 years old.

We have seen quite old teenagers during this mandate period. I believe the oldest I have met is 27. Now we are going to have teenagers who are up to 40 or 50 years old. There is no upper limit. It is not completely well-thought-out. If it becomes a reality, the abuse of the rules will be completely unbridled.

This regulation is admittedly not prepared. Even if this reservation were to win in the voting, it still could not be applied by any migration court. It would probably fall in a judicial review, because there are no preparatory works behind this and no description of what it actually means. But it might even be interesting to see how they comment on that matter?

Last but not least, I want to say something about family separation. Several opposition parties have argued that the rules we introduce split families. But who is it really that splits families? After these rules have come into force, situations will arise where people cannot bring their relatives here. This concerns people who do not manage their own livelihood, for the most part. That is actually the big difference.

A person can leave their family in the country where they live to go to another country – in another part of the world, if we are honest, since EU citizens are privileged and are not covered by this – to which the person has no connection. The person has no job arranged, simply because they have heard that in the new country it is very comfortable and easy and that the person will be taken care of, regardless of how it all ends. The question one must ask is: If such a person cannot bring their relatives here, is it then Sweden that has split the family? One does not have to be so slow as to buy that argument.

It is obvious that it is the one who leaves their family who splits their family. It is completely obvious. If one prioritizes family life, one should live together in one's home country, where one is a citizen, just as most people do. It is completely obvious.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to thank you for a pleasant mandate period. This is our last debate. We have had some pleasant trips and fun debates. It has been an honor to get to know all of you. I hope that as many of you as possible sitting here pass the re-election, if you stand for it. Thank you very much!

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by telling Member Aspling that even in Sweden, people have sex and can have children. One can, therefore, have children after having come to Sweden, and thus have children in Sweden. When the government throws those children out, the government splits that family. That is what we mean.

I want to ask a very concrete question. It was difficult to get answers from the Moderates regarding the government's policy and its consequences. We were only told that we were being unpleasant when we spoke about them.

I have respect for Ludvig Aspling in that he is usually well-prepared and says it as it is. I appreciate that. I try to be like that but am still on a learning curve regarding migration policy in certain areas.

My perception is that government policy, for example, means that a person who has permission to be here and work and who has a husband and two children, under the government's new policy, will need to meet a salary requirement of 52,860 kronor. I may not have the exact figures, but if one has a third child, according to the table at the government's press conference, a new salary requirement of 64,181 kronor will arise when one's permit is to be extended and reassessed and which one must then live up to. Is it correctly understood that this is how the regulations are?

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is just a mathematical model that follows the same curve as how it looks today. I do not know if Niels Paarup-Petersen is aware of how the maintenance support works. It is indexed depending on how large the family is. It follows the subsistence minimum. This is the standard amount according to the Swedish Enforcement Act.

The maintenance requirement becomes higher the more children one has and the more people there are in the household. It is the same thing now. It is just that the amount becomes higher.

We have heard fears from several people in the debate that this will split families, that this would be unreasonable and so on. But it is the same situation that prevails today. The maintenance requirement that applies right now is also indexed upwards. It is exactly the same thing that will apply moving forward. It is just that the level starts at a higher sum of money.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that we also have an indexing. We have the net amounts here. But now, of course, one increases by 30 percent. That is one part.

But we heard the Moderates lift up as a success that one is now also going to review how permits are granted. Is that correct, and is it also something that didn't quite work before?

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! That is almost correct. It is not that the housing cost is indexed upwards. It will still be a housing cost. But yes, it is correct. It also applies when extending a permit. It is simply a matter of planning one's life.

I heard in a previous exchange of remarks about what happens if one has children in Sweden. Niels Paarup-Petersen mentioned here that people have sex with each other. I have three children myself. I know exactly how it goes. I have been there. But I also know that there is another side to it, and that is that one can plan one's family in Sweden.

Niels Paarup-Petersen is familiar with contraceptives? Does he know what they are? He nods. Good, very good. Good then. That means one has a possibility to plan one's stay in Sweden. If one wants a very large family but cannot afford to support it in Sweden, one simply does it in one's home country. It is not more difficult than that.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I hope that you have had some leave, rest, and sunny days with your family this summer. I have made up a lot of time with my children this summer. There has been a lot of ice cream and play. We have gone on excursions and some visits to Liseberg. We have bathed in the sea from piers, and on the west coast we have caught crabs from the rocks.

It has been long sunny days of holiday with friends and adventures. Between running and playing, my youngest daughter has sometimes laid herself on my stomach and fallen asleep for a little while. It is one of my favorite moments. I also believe that such moments, with safely sleeping children taking deep breaths, are favorite moments for most of the world's parents. They are moments of closeness and security.

Children can have a reading time before bedtime. "Just one more page" is probably something many parents recognize themselves in. It quickly becomes two, three, and four pages, and then they drift off a little easily.

My children can have their parent beside them before bedtime. Sometimes it is to read a bedtime story, to talk about what the best part of the day was, or to chase away nightmares. Sometimes it is enough to just be there and provide security.

Sweden should be a country where split families can be reunited and relive the basic security: a goodnight kiss, a comforting hug when the child has hurt themselves, or just the knowledge that the parent is there. It should be simple. But today is not such a day.

Madam Speaker! With the new law that the government has presented and which we are debating today, children – someone's beloved kids – will be deprived of their childhood. Families will live in long-term, in many cases permanent, family separation. It will be impossible for them to be reunited in Sweden. The government wants to legislate for several years of waiting time, sky-high maintenance requirements, and brutal rules which say that if you become ill or unemployed, your child risks losing their residence permit and being deported from the country.

Madam Speaker! Children have the right to be reunited with their parents if they, for example, have been separated during flight from war and conflicts. This is guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since Sweden has signed the convention and made it into Swedish law, one might think that this is being complied with. But that is not the case with the government's new proposal.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all decisions concerning children. But this fundamental right has been trampled on by this government since day one of its assumption of office. Never before has Sweden had such a child-hostile government.

Children separated from their families belong to the most vulnerable groups of children. They easily become victims of violence, abuse, and exploitation. Imagine that you are forced to explain to your children that they cannot be with you in safety, but that they must stay in dangerous conditions because the government has made it impossible for you to meet the requirements. In what way will the child's best interests be put first then?

It is inhumane, and the government's bill will have serious humanitarian consequences, especially for children and families. To be able to live with one's family is a fundamental human right, and that basic principle is something we in Vänsterpartiet intend to safeguard and uphold.

The world does not become better by more people doing wrong. More need to do right. That is what Guterres said when he was the refugee commissioner for UNHCR. Nothing could be more true. Yet, this government has never done what is right and proper. On the contrary, they have systematized family separations and deportations in a horrific way.

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

This is clearly seen in the deportations of teenagers that are ongoing and which the Minister for Migration and the government never had any intention of stopping. The Tidö parties have lied throughout the entire spring and said that they have stopped the deportations of teenagers, but are only pushing the limit now from 18 to 21 years. Political theater from the government does not help all the young people who have received unreasonable and inhumane decisions regarding deportation.

Two weeks ago, 19-year-old Bader, who came to Sweden when he was 12, was sent alone to Syria. Previously, we have been able to read about how Darya and Donya were sent to Iran and Nardine to Egypt, while Diya and Kani can be sent to Iraq. Every week there are new cases, and those who are highlighted in the media seem to be the tip of an iceberg.

Vänsterpartiet has repeatedly pressured the government and submitted proposals to stop the deportations of teenagers. We are also doing so now in a counter-proposal to the one the government has submitted. We demand that the teenagers be allowed to stay. We also believe that the teenagers who are deported should be reunited with their families here in Sweden.

If our proposal does not pass at tomorrow's vote, the only way to stop the teenage deportations is for us to replace this government next month.

Madam Speaker! The mandate period is approaching its end. Thus, in September, we can put an end to the Tidö parties' inhumane migration policy. The last four years have entailed deep deteriorations and gross restrictions for people on the run, for asylum seekers in Sweden, and for people who have lived and established themselves in Sweden for a long time.

These four lost years have also entailed a high price in other respects. It is not only asylum seekers who have been affected by this policy. I believe that many listening to the debate can agree with me that Sweden is more fragile than it has been in a long time. People have been left to fend for themselves by the government. They have had to deal with the economic crisis on their own.

Poverty has doubled during this government. The sick and the unemployed are left behind and met with lower unemployment benefits, cut social security, or more expensive medicines. One in eight children lives in poverty in Sweden. The welfare state is breaking down, not because it has to be so, but because the government has decided that it shall be so.

The record-high mass unemployment has been left completely without measures, and the government has succeeded in paralyzing and crashing the housing market – all so that they can provide even more tax cuts to the very richest.

Madam Speaker! It is not, after all, the people who have come from Syria who have privatized health centers and sold them for a cheap price to their buddies. It is not those in need of protection from Eritrea who have ensured that welfare thieves dip their straws into the welfare and pump out tax money from our common fund – tax money that should go to nursing assistants who are to take care of grandmother or to extra teachers in the classroom. It is not lone arrivals from Afghanistan who have created a pension system that means that women who have toiled their whole lives for small wages today cannot even manage on their pension. And it is not women in need of protection from Iraq who for years have deprioritized the sick and unemployed and left them in the lurch.

No, Madam Speaker, this is the result of right-wing politics and political decisions. Let us not blame others!

That is also why this government repeatedly and consistently needs the scapegoat policy. It is only to be stated that the government and the Sweden Democrats have, point by point, totally failed to handle serious societal problems. We see time and again who pays the price for this, and it is not worthy of Sweden.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this is for my part the final debate in the Riksdag. I would therefore also like to take the opportunity to turn for a moment to those outside the Riksdag who are listening to the debate.

September 13 is the election. It is a fateful election that stands between division and cohesion. What one says and does matters. Our words and actions can either bring people together or fuel hatred and contradictions.

The Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, who over time have radicalized into a reactionary right, chose to build a government with the party whose core is to create contradictions in society, which daily allows its representatives to incite and hate and which believes that there are too many non-ethnic Swedes in the country. It is a hateful rhetoric that triggers and divides.

On the other hand, we have a left-wing policy based on the simple but great insight that we humans are strong but also fragile. We therefore need each other, and I believe that society always wins when we stand up for one another. That is when Sweden is at its best, and that is when we can also build a more equal society, where we thrive by cultivating the best in each other.

In September, one can vote for a different political direction, which is based on cohesion. Then, one should vote for Vänsterpartiet. The key to success for Sweden has never been a brutal deportation policy or splitting up families with children. No society benefits from that. Our strength has instead been that we have invested in society – in people, education, housing, health, and equality. That is how Sweden develops and grows. Our entire modern history has shown that.

Previous generations received better education and better jobs while our numbers increased. This was possible thanks to profitable investments. This is a lesson that Sweden must take to heart today. Vänsterpartiet stands ready to build a larger and stronger Sweden after the election. It is possible to build a more spacious and stronger Sweden by investing in society and the people in it. This is the most effective and the most important thing we can do, and it is what determines how well we succeed in society.

Restrictions on the right of asylum, deportations of teenagers, and family separation are not the way forward. Sweden can do better than that. The Riksdag can do better than that. Vänsterpartiet does not intend to turn their backs on families and teenagers when they need us most. Therefore, we vote no to the majority of the government's proposals tomorrow, and we also join together as a united opposition in several counter-proposals. And we hope to be joined by Members of Parliament from other parties who know deep down – yes, you know – that a family separation law cannot be anything other than a family separation law, no matter how much one speaks well of it, no matter how much one wants to embellish it, and whatever excuses one finds.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservations 2, 3, 4 and 9.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to see the looks of some here in the chamber when I requested a reply to Tony Haddou. Of course, I will not spend so much time on the political, but I want to thank Tony Haddou for his time here in the Riksdag and for the time in the committee.

The mandate period started quite amusingly for me and Member Haddou. We ended up in Svenska nyheter for a verbal exchange regarding labor immigration. I didn't know the Member then and thought that this was going to be a long mandate period – both Tidö and a Left Party member that I would have to deal with and argue with.

But over time, my respect for Member Haddou has truly grown. I think that on a personal level, he is fantastically funny and pleasant to deal with. There have also never been any oddities in the cooperation with our equally capable chairperson in the committee. It has been a joy to work under that presidency. I have said that many times, and I want to say it here too. Both have an ability to distinguish between matter and person, which I respect deeply. That type of member in the Swedish Riksdag was needed in these times.

Member Haddou has given me many laughs both on trips, in break rooms, and in other contexts. We are really not always in agreement. Politically, it can get heated. But we know that, and then it becomes pure sport. Then one does not need to throw mud or badmouth. We take each other's hands afterwards and are okay with not being in agreement. In that regard, Member Haddou personifies much of what is the finest in a democracy. I can, as someone has wrongly quoted saying, hate you for your opinion but die for your right to say it.

Tony Haddou and his views were also needed here. So thank you for the good cooperation and for being a good comrade, Member Haddou!

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, may I say to Ola Möller. I am very happy to hear this. And I also want to thank the entire Social Democratic group in the committee. It has been a very good cooperation, and it is exactly as Ola says: It has heated up at times, and we do not always agree with each other. It has heated up to the point that we have ended up in Svenska nyheter, for example.

The Social Democrats have had a political starting point that has caused them to take some hits, sometimes from the Left Party and sometimes from the Tidö parties. But it has always been substantive with Ola Möller. It has been very important that we have these areas of conflict and can talk politics substantively with each other and have these debates.

In migration and asylum policy, we do not always stand close to each other. Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna often stand a good distance apart. But I am glad those times when we, as today for example, can find common ground, cooperate, and demonstrate a common opposition to this government. I believe, in fact, that Socialdemokraterna, just like Vänsterpartiet, think that this is not a good government for Sweden. It has damaged the development for Sweden, and it harms people. It is a policy we do not want.

So again: Many thanks for your words, Ola Möller!

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to follow in the same footsteps as previous speakers and thank you for a very good cooperation, many laughs and – now you have to close your ears on the other side – also drinking alcohol, which actually has happened, I can admit. I appreciate it, and I appreciate doing it with politicians from many different parties.

I appreciate when people don't just see the harsh words spoken but that we can actually also have a beer between the parties. Thus, we introduce a bit of Danishness into the Riksdag as well.

Tony Haddou is a person with a strong drive and very strong opinions but undoubtedly also with a very strong ideological foundation. I can say that I sometimes miss more people with a strong ideological foundation in this chamber. Thank you very much for both the laughter and the good cooperation! We might see each other at a bar if we don't see each other in the chamber.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Niels Paarup-Petersen! This summarizes it very nicely. I am happy and moved to hear this. It also shows on a human level that we need each other during these years.

It has been very important to talk and cooperate with Niels. We have found common ground many times in this politics. I was very happy when we were able to pressure the government together this spring and show a human side of Sweden. I believe that it is very important. In that regard, Niels has contributed incredibly much.

I believe that we in Sweden are in a situation that we must get away from. We politicians need to see each other better and work more together for a more human Sweden. In that regard, you, Niels, have shown the way many times. I am very happy about that cooperation. Many thanks to you!

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Very briefly: We meet here in the middle, right?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is rarely that the migration debates are this pleasant. I have been in many committees where issues are discussed without it becoming as polarized as the migration debate has become. This is a welcome break from that.

Tony, I am going to miss you so incredibly much! I understand that you want more time, perhaps with the children in Gothenburg or perhaps for other parts of life, which members of parliament who do not live in Stockholm have to sacrifice a lot of to travel in week after week.

I really appreciate the cooperation we have had. You have made incredibly important contributions, not least in one of the issues we are debating today, namely the deportations of teenagers. If we had not joined forces, even with Centerpartiet, and had a united front and highlighted these issues – from the individual heartbreaking stories to sharp political proposals – it might not have been the case that the government was eventually pressured to come forward with a proposition that raises the age limit to 21 years. Even though the issue is not completely settled yet, this will matter for many.

This is one of all the questions that Tony Haddou has driven from the depths of his conviction – truly ideological and grounded in humanity.

I wish Gothenburg all the happiness that finds you as a politician. Thank you for the cooperation!

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Annika! It has been a very good cooperation. That is what I want to say. I am very happy to have cooperated with you and that we have been able to push forward on the issues you mention.

I always think that politics should be done with the heart. That is what we have done together. It has been very important for many people. In migration policy and the issues we debate, it is about people's lives and living conditions. When we press the buttons, it changes people's lives.

I am very happy that we – with Annika's knowledge and the wisdom she possesses – have been able to come up with proposals all the time, pressure the government and ensure that people get better conditions. Above all, I am thinking of the pressure when it comes to the deportation of teenagers.

I really appreciate your efforts and our cooperation. Thank you so much, Annika!

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's majority proposal, which means the rejection of the motions raised within the area and approval of the government's proposal.

Madam Speaker! What we are debating today is actually greater than individual paragraphs in the Aliens Act. It is about what migration policy Sweden shall have. It is about how we create order and clarity. It is about how we make integration work better. It is about how we can reconcile clear requirements with humanity and responsibility.

For the Christian Democrats, the answer is clear: Sweden needs a migration policy that is strict, fair, and long-term sustainable. We need a policy that takes into account Sweden's ability to integrate the people who come here. We need a policy that sets requirements on those who come to our country, but we also need a policy that sees the individual human being and that can make reasonable exceptions when people risk falling between different regulatory frameworks. It is precisely this balancing act that the bill we are discussing today is about.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats, together with the other parties in the Tidö agreement, have charted a new and necessary direction for Swedish migration policy. It is important to remember why.

In 2022, we received the mandate of the Swedish people to reform the migration policy. It was a mandate to move from a previous policy with very extensive immigration and all too low requirements to a more restrictive and fair migration policy. It was a mandate to take the problems with integration seriously. It was also a mandate to re-establish the principle that migration must be compatible with Sweden's ability to integrate people and create a functioning society.

We must dare to speak plainly. Migration is not just a question of how many people are allowed to come to Sweden. It is also about what happens after one has arrived here. Does one have the opportunity to learn Swedish and can one learn Swedish? Does one have the opportunity to get a job? Can one support oneself? Can children grow up in safety, and can one become a part of Swedish society? It is these questions that largely determine whether migration becomes an asset or if people risk getting stuck in long-term exclusion.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats' view of humanity is based on the fact that every human being has a unique and inviolable value. But for that very reason, the policy must also be realistic. We cannot help people by conducting a migration policy that leads to segregation, overcrowding, unemployment, and long-term exclusion.

We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that previous policies have contributed to the problems that Sweden must now deal with. And we cannot continue to make decisions without asking ourselves how society can actually manage the integration.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as we must have order and clarity, we must also be able to see when a regulatory framework has consequences that were not intended. This is precisely what the new so-called "teenage valve" is about. Since Sweden introduced temporary residence permits as far back as 2016, a situation has arisen where young people who come to Sweden as children and have been granted residence permits due to ties to their parents end up in a legal vacuum when they turn 18. At that point, the legal assessment changes. In the eyes of the law, one is no longer part of one's parents' nuclear family in the same way as a minor child. Therefore, the basis for the residence permit can fall away completely.

The problem is also, in many cases, that one has not had enough time to fulfill the requirements for a residence permit of one's own. This is a situation that no government should ignore, and it is a situation that we are now taking responsibility for solving.

Mr. Speaker! It is also important to remind of the history. This problem did not arise yesterday. It is not a problem that has arisen during this government's time. Since the changes to the migration legislation occurred ten years ago, the situation has existed. It has therefore existed even under S-governments, even though previous speakers have tried to create a smokescreen and say that this is this government's problem.

The issue became particularly highlighted through the public debate about the so-called teenage deportations. But it is important to keep political rhetoric and what the legislation actually says separate. The previous, more generous provision on particularly mitigating circumstances was not specifically designed to solve just this issue. That is why we now need a more accurate solution and not yet another temporary exception. We do not need another special rule but a clear, permanent and predictable provision.

Mr. Speaker! That is why the bill contains a completely new valve. It means that young adults between 18 and 21 years of age shall be able to be granted residence permits on the grounds of ties to their parents. This is an important change. It is based on the insight that the boundary between child and adult does not always function in the same way in law as it does in reality.

An 18-year-old is of legal age, but that does not mean the family ties disappear. It does not mean that parents stop being parents, and it does not mean that a young person who has come to Sweden as a child suddenly has the same conditions as an adult person who has lived their entire life here. That is why we are now creating a safety valve.

Mr. Speaker! It is also important that the new valve does not only apply to persons who are located in Sweden. Even persons who have already left Sweden shall be able to be covered. They shall be able to apply for and be granted residence permits according to the new provision and thereby be given an opportunity to return. It is an important part of the solution.

It is now that we are creating a permanent rule for the future, and then we will also be able to handle those people who have already been affected by the previous situation.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to say this clearly: That we are now creating a valve for young adults does not mean that the Christian Democrats are abandoning the principle of a restrictive migration policy, but on the contrary. We can have two thoughts in our heads at the same time. We can say no to excessively extensive family migration and at the same time say yes to a reasonable solution for young people who have come to Sweden as children. We can set requirements for integration and at the same time understand that young people need the opportunity to complete their schooling and create a future. We can safeguard a regulated migration and at the same time be humane. These are not opposites; it is responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, we must speak about the second major part of the bill: family reunification. Changes were needed here. For a long time, family reunification has been extensive, and the rules in Sweden have in some respects been all too generous compared to other countries in Europe. It is not sustainable.

For the Christian Democrats, integration is central. Those who come to Sweden shall be given the opportunity to become a part of society, but society must also set requirements. One of the most important requirements concerns that people shall have the opportunity to support themselves and their family. Therefore, it is important that the subsistence requirement is tightened.

We are now raising the subsistence requirement significantly. It is also relevant that it should also apply in the case of an application for extension. Subsistence is not just about economics. It is about independence, about participation and about the possibility to stand on one's own feet. It is about creating a path into Swedish society.

Work is one of the most important keys to integration. When people work, they learn Swedish through everyday life, they meet colleagues, they get a social context, and they contribute by paying tax. Children get to see their parents go to work. That is how exclusion is broken.

Mr. Speaker! We are also introducing a waiting period of two years as a general rule before a person seeking asylum can bring their family members here. Why are we doing that? Because it is reasonable that the person who comes to Sweden first is given the opportunity to establish themselves, to learn the language, to get a home, to get a job, to become self-sufficient and to enter into society.

This is not a punishment, but it is part of a policy that wants to create better conditions for integration. We must dare to ask what actually gives people the best opportunities to succeed in Sweden. The answer is not to create parallel societies where people never enter the labor market. The answer is establishment, language, work, and responsibility.

When the Tidö cooperation implements these changes, it is interesting to see how the opposition acts. We hear recurring promises from certain parties on the left wing that the migration policy shall be strict. But when the concrete decisions arrive, the picture becomes significantly more divided.

The Social Democrats say that they stand behind a stricter migration policy. At the same time, there are strong forces within the red-green chaos opposition that want to return to a significantly more generous migration policy. The Center Party, the Left Party and the Green Party are pushing a direction in several issues that would mean a return to a policy with significantly fewer requirements.

This is not a path that we Christian Democrats want to take. It gives a clear foretaste of what it will be like in a future red-green chaos government, which I naturally hope will not become a reality. The so-called S-led left-leaning government will take a staggering and unpredictable path where the heels will certainly be set firmly in the ground and pull the politics in the opposite direction of the Center Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party, despite the Social Democrats' mantra of a strict migration policy.

That is probably also why it is so difficult to get answers on what S wants to do in a government position. One does not know who one wants to or can cooperate with, or who is pulling in which direction. My advice to the inhabitants of Sweden is: Avoid this experiment!

Mr. Speaker! We have seen what the result is of an excessively high immigration in combination with a requirement-free integration policy: exclusion, segregation, overcrowding, and in some areas a growing feeling that Swedish society is far away. It is not a legacy we should accept, but it is problems we must solve.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a continued strict, fair, and responsible migration policy. The Christian Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, have shown that it is possible to change the policy. We have shown that it is possible to move from a policy with all too low requirements to a policy where responsibility, requirements, and integration are at the center. That work must continue.

Sweden shall be a country where those who come here and behave correctly are given the opportunity to build a future. But Sweden shall also be a country where our laws apply and where decisions made are respected. That is how we create security, that is how we strengthen integration and that is how we build trust. That is how we build a Sweden that holds together.

We at Tidösidan, in the blue and yellow team, are prepared to take the continued responsibility to lead Sweden in the same direction also during the upcoming parliamentary term.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's majority proposal in the report 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 said: We must ask ourselves what gives people the best opportunity to enter society.

If you ask the Red Cross, they agree that people need to learn Swedish and get jobs. But just like referral body after referral body, they point out that people also need a basic security. Being able to live with one's family is a prerequisite for integration.

Röda Korset has published a debate article in Aftonbladet with a quote from a person who described the wait like this: ”When I was waiting for a decision on family reunification, my health was very poor due to stress and anxiety. I could not concentrate on learning Swedish, achieving my goals, or integrating into society. Now my children are here and we have a nice time with other families. I teach in the school and my children go to school and preschool. They speak fluent Swedish. I am so proud of them.”

Referral body after referral body points out that the government's goal and the reason for the Family Separation Act, namely that it wants to improve integration, will in fact not be achieved. It is on the contrary that when one tears families apart and makes it harder or even impossible for families to be reunited, immigrants receive poorer integration.

The Christian Democrats used to be a party that stood up for families. Today, the Christian Democrats split families.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Member Hirvonen, for questions that I did not catch but for comments on the policy that the government is now moving forward with!

To clarify: We do not split families. In a previous post, it appeared quite clearly that it is a person who chooses to travel to another country in another part of the world who leaves their family.

Then we can discuss the conditions for family reunification. Already today, there are requirements regarding salary, housing, prerequisites, and the amount of time that must pass before one can be reunited with their family.

These are relevant requirements. We can observe that the policy for which the Miljöpartiet was a driving force for at least seven out of eight years led to a situation in Sweden with exclusion. Up to 185,000 people live in the shadow society, and there is a large number of exclusion areas. Many people – primarily women – have not entered the labor market.

One of the most important prerequisites for a happy childhood is to feel a sense of participation in society. We can state that the requirement levels established based on EU requirements provide the opportunity to make the changes we are making now. One can naturally have a political discussion, but for us Kristdemokrater, protecting children's rights is to give children the chance to see their parents be a part of society, have work and a relevant home, as well as feel security. It is to unite the family in a way that promotes the children, and that is what we want to continue to work for.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is important that children get to see their parents being a part of society. It is even more important that children get to see their parents at all. Now the Christian Democrats are introducing a law that means families who have fled war, been split apart during the flight and been reunited in Sweden, can be torn apart again.

Then I mean that the Christian Democrats are splitting families. The other day, Ebba Busch went out and said that mothers who give birth – if they are Swedish mothers – should receive pension money from the students. Now, the Christian Democrats are proposing a law that means a mother who has immigrated as a relative and is expecting a child gets to choose between abortion and deportation. We heard the Sweden Democrats' proposed solution: Use contraceptives!

Is it also the Christian Democrats' answer to families who have been split up due to flight, received asylum in Sweden, and been reunited here? Has the Christian Democrats' family policy really sunk to this incredibly cynical level?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It can be observed that the debate sometimes unfortunately takes turns that I do not consider relevant. It sounds as if today's requirements for reunification are completely non-existent and that there are no wage demands. It sounds as if we are the nasty people who never do anything good.

I can state that during MP's seven years in government, nothing was done regarding the deportations of teenagers, even though they have occurred since 2016. Nothing was done there, but here we stand and say that we are the good party, while the Christian Democrats, together with the rest of the government, ensure that people have abortions.

I do not think that one should argue in that way. One can argue about which wage demands should be set. Already today, a family that has another child receives a higher wage demand. Already today, it can be the case that one does not have a sufficiently high wage.

We can also note that in our neighboring countries, for example Norway, there is a significantly higher salary level to allow family immigration than the one we are proposing. In Denmark, they have a two-year waiting period. We are adapting to a level that is relevant from an EU perspective. One can always politically discuss which level should apply, but in our world, we prioritize the family.

I can state that the Green Party may not have grasped the problem of low birth rates in Sweden. In that perspective, I think it is an excellent solution to stimulate mothers to take on the responsibility of becoming a parent without losing out on it in terms of pensions.

We ensure that migration is coherent and that families have the relevant conditions to have a secure existence in Sweden. We set ourselves at a level that is in line with other EU countries. It is our policy and our view on the family.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I shall begin by thanking Ingemar for the time in the committee and for the speech here.

The Christian Democrats said, somewhat in the same spirit as we have heard from the government parties earlier, that one does not split families but that people themselves make the choice to leave their family and so on. This has not been the Christian Democrats' position previously. I am somewhat horrified by this development.

I believe that the Christian Democrats, even in the countryside, know that people on the move get separated from one another and that many are forced to leave their children behind because of the dangerous routes. I believe that many Christian Democrats know why people are split up during flight and why children are separated from their parents. Large organizations – the very largest in the world – work so that children who have been separated can be reunited with their parents. That is the situation that people on the move face.

What we are doing here is, on the Christian Democrats' proposal, to vote against family reunification and split up families with children, despite the party's history of safeguarding just the family. If these rules are introduced, we will see families being torn apart and people who have fled from war and conflicts and received protection here will not be allowed to live with their family.

If the best interests of the family and the child are principles that the Christian Democrats believe are worth defending today and tomorrow, it is time to show it. My question is no more difficult than this: Why have the Christian Democrats completely abandoned the principles of the best interests of the family and the child?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I must also begin by thanking Tony Haddou for our time in the Committee on Social Insurance. As has been said earlier, the chairman and the vice-chairman have done a good job of presiding when it comes to the function itself. Politically, however, we often stand on different sides and have content-rich and robust debates. Thank you very much, Tony, and all the best in the future – perhaps not politically, but with your family and other things you undertake!

To the main issue: Have we left the family behind? The answer is: Absolutely not! We can state that the Christian Democrats have talked about the family for decades and will continue to talk about the family. Just as I said in the previous exchange of remarks, we Christian Democrats believe it is important that Sweden gets more families.

We see the problem that not enough children are being born in Sweden. More are needed. We have proposals, and there are certainly other political proposals. It is important. But what is important for the children's security and future? Participation and integration.

Even today, there are requirements to be reunited. I interpret this as the Left Party considering that these should not be raised, but that it is still relevant to have requirements. I see no motion stating that no requirements should be set on salary or housing for reunification, since the reservation concerns not changing today's rules. We therefore already have rules for family reunification today, which means that families who do not meet these rules are kept split even with the Left Party's policy.

This is some kind of blame game about who is the meanest. I do not want to be part of that. At the same time, we can note that we have neighboring countries that have similar or even higher requirements. Is it that they do not meet the criteria? No, that is naturally not the case. We have the opportunity to establish a level, and we establish a level that we believe is more relevant in order to achieve a relevant policy for family reunification.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! In my speech, I took up a quote from Guterres: The world does not become better by more people doing wrong. More people need to do right.

The only thing we have heard in the debate from the government parties and the Sweden Democrats is talk about the EU and other countries: They do this, and then we should also do it. But I truly agree with the former commissioner for UNHCR: We need more countries that do the right thing. Nothing becomes better by more people doing the wrong thing.

KD talks about families, wants more people to start families in Sweden and so on. But children must be given a chance to be reunited with their parents. This integration spectacle is used all the time. I believe we both want much better integration, but then one has to ask: Does it become easier or harder for a mother who is away from her two children to learn Swedish?

All knowledge, research and evidence – all the experiences that exist today – say that it is much harder to learn the language, get into work and so on with a policy where one is supposed to learn one thing and the other but is not allowed to meet their children. If this mother, for example, has two children and a husband, she must also earn over 52,000 kronor.

One is making family reunification impossible. That is what I want to get at here. That is what the Christian Democrats are doing, and that is what shocks me. A party that has historically claimed to protect families with children and families in general does not seem to care anymore.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I will give Member Haddou the point on one thing: We have changed direction in migration policy. In the debate ten years ago, we certainly had a different one. We have conducted the analysis. We have seen what the policy that, among others, Member Haddou advocates has created for the situation in our country.

We have many people, including children, who live in a shadow society with vulnerability and insecurity because the migration policy has not addressed that issue. We also have many areas of exclusion where both children and others live in insecurity due to an integration policy that is far too lax.

I believe in human potential. I believe that people strive to learn the language, acquire housing, and find a job with the aim of being able to be reunited with the family they left behind at one time. I believe in that drive. I believe in that possibility. I believe that it provides a good foundation for integration and participation in our society.

We have, as we have already said today, requirements. It is not a requirement-free society. But in comparison with other countries, we have much lower requirements. We have previously, under different governments, tested a path that has led to a situation that we now must manage.

In light of that, it is relevant to make the changes we are making today. We are providing an opportunity. We are creating a valve for 18–21-year-olds to solve a problem that the previous government constellation, which Tony Haddous's party supported, did nothing about. We are now also doing something that puts us on par with other countries regarding family reunification requirements. I think it is relevant for creating security in Sweden.

We will not agree here, Tony Haddou, but thank you for this time in the chamber!

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by agreeing with Ingemar Kihlström: One can have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. That is why one can have a controlled migration without it needing to be blocked. One can have strict rules, or whatever we are going to call it, and control over who is here without deporting people because they have children. That can be done.

The Christian Democrats have, however, chosen not to do so. They have chosen to have only one thought in mind, namely deportations.

As Ebba Busch said when we introduced the existing regulatory framework: This is a heavy day. We should not split families. That is what the leader of the Christian Democrats said when we introduced today's regulatory framework. That is something one can take with them.

I know that the Moderaterna got angry when I pitted abortions against deportation. The Sverigedemokraterna then saved them a bit by saying that there are also condoms. It is quite funny. The reality, however, is that situations will arise where people who have come to Sweden and become pregnant will need to choose: If they want the child, it can lead to deportation.

The requirement that the Christian Democrats now want to introduce is that they must earn 10,000 kronor more per month, on already high levels. It is difficult for people. That is the situation the Christian Democrats place people who are already here in.

This is the reality. Then one might think it is disgusting that we say it is so, but what is disgusting is that the legislation is such. The Christian Democrats should not agree to that.

I would like to know what one would have chosen oneself. Would one have chosen abortion or deportation in such a situation? It is a reasonable question to ask. It is the one that people will be subjected to with your politics, and then one should also be able to answer it oneself.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I personally think that abortion is a completely different issue to discuss that should not be included in the migration debate. In that regard, I share colleague Wärnick's opinion.

I can state that we have different opinions on which levels should apply and how those levels should be followed up. Today we have levels for bringing one's family here, regardless of whether one has one, two, three, or four children. Today we have a time period of one year. We can state that the party that Niels Paarup-Petersen, who himself does not want to raise the levels but wants to keep them, has intended to cooperate with thinks they are too low and wants to raise them by 10 percent – we say 30 percent. We can state that we have different political directions of will.

Both I personally and my party think it is relevant to follow up that the requirement is met, that it is not just a on-paper requirement that one should have received a salary and a job. As said earlier in the debate, it can be easy to achieve that, but it is difficult to show that over two years one has a different salary than the one one actually has. Therefore, I think it is relevant.

Since then, there is a passage that Niels Paarup-Petersen chooses not to highlight at all: There are possibilities for individual assessments and exceptions. It is very important to say.

I think it is completely wrong to make this contradiction. We can discuss the levels. We can discuss whether it should be a one or two-year grace period on having to apply. We can discuss whether it is today's level, 10 percent or 30 percent that is relevant. But let the debate stop there! Every family also has to plan its future, regardless of whether it concerns housing, work or how many people there should be. Let the debate be about that!

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, let the debate be about that! That is exactly what I am doing. The consequence of this policy arises if you plan to have an extra child or happen to have it. Sometimes the world is actually such that people do not plan their family expansion in every detail all the way through. I do not know how it looks for the government's representatives, but not all my children were planned, I can admit. It happens around the world that it is so.

What is going to happen now is that we will get birth deportations. It will happen. We said that we would get teenage deportations. You said: No, we won't get those. We did. We said about track switching: Now people who sit and work will be deported. You said that it wouldn't happen, but so it did. We said about the wage floor: People who work, contribute and do everything right will be deported. You said no. It happened.

You should listen to us now as well. What is going to happen now is that people will be deported because they are having children or deported before their children. It is not family policy; it is a policy where the Kristdemokraterna go from a family party to a family-splitting party. That is what it means.

One can talk about the children, as the member says KD does. But as Jakob writes: Act according to the word, otherwise you deceive yourselves – and in this case, also the voters.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It can be noted that the Centre Party says it has been against much of what we have implemented but has voted with us on quite a lot. If I remember correctly, the Centre Party also voted down the track change. We did not say that it would not have consequences, but we stated that it was a policy that was not fruitful. Many of us realized that it was nothing for the future.

I actually think it is relevant to set requirements. We can discuss the requirements, and we can note that on the red-green side there is chaos regarding what level the subsistence requirement should be at. Some think it should be as it is today, one party thinks it should be raised by 10 percent and we think it should be 30 percent.

These are the conditions. It may not be that our three children were completely planned, but at the same time, we as a family have handled it just as all other families have to handle it. It has been about our work situation, how we are to distribute parental leave, where we live, and even which car we should have. It is relevant to say.

Let us discuss this. The Tidö government notes that the requirements that have existed, and exist, in Sweden regarding level and time are significantly lower than in other countries. We think it is relevant to settle on that level.

We can observe that eight years with a government where C provided its passive support has led to a situation with a lack of integration. It is important for the children's sake to have a parent who learns the language, has a sufficiently large home and a job so that one can support oneself. It creates a useful foundation and is a prerequisite for the children to be secure.

We are not always in agreement, Niels Paarup-Petersen, but in this final exchange of remarks, we are more in balance.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservations 1, 5 and 8.

Mr. Speaker! I just heard in the exchange of remarks that C has voted yes to much, but not everything, of the government's policy. It is completely true. We have voted for what was wise and against what is foolish. More people should do that. We have the answer, of course!

I also believe that one can have different perspectives in politics. I appreciate the perspectives from both the right and the left. It is smart to listen to the middle, and then we land sensibly in the end.

Let us look at some examples where we have voted for. Many of them are issues where we have pushed, but the Moderaterna and other parties have been a bit slow to come forward. We have clearly been for deportations of criminals on a larger scale than before. It is much appreciated that it has increased on that point. We are clear on the issue of qualification in welfare. Centerpartiet was the first of all parties to push in that issue. We are for expanded police powers in border areas, but not border controls and ID checks that do not work.

One must learn the language when one comes to a country. I am trying! You must forgive me when it does not go all the way.

Simplifications for residence permits for researchers and doctoral students are proposals that the government has put forward, and that is good. There have been faster processing times for certain labor migrants, and that is very good. Great! We are for this and much more that we have voted for. If one is curious, one can look at the minutes.

We are no longer part of the legislation that Ulf Kristersson was involved in implementing. It is not a party that proposes it. Vänsterpartiet is somewhat close. But otherwise, we are not there, and that is not what the debate is about at all. We see the problems. Just as has been said, we have been on board with the majority of the government's proposals. It is only those who want to mislead or are ignorant who can claim otherwise.

We also see the problems that this government has created and continues to create today. I can give some examples. It takes several years to get answers from Migrationsverket, up to three years. But you refuse to give Migrationsverket more money when they ask for it in order to keep up with their cases, and that creates even longer processing times. Still, you want to give the authority absurd tasks, for example, to revoke existing permanent residence permits for people who have done nothing wrong – people who have been here, worked and contributed to Sweden as well. That is bad.

We constantly see people who work and contribute being deported because of mere trivialities. It was something the Moderaterna promised to stop – but did not do.

We see an enormous legal uncertainty where it is impossible to know what actually applies in migration cases, and that is what the Council on Legislation and the courts say. But people are not listening.

We can see that people who have applied for citizenship and have waited for three or four years suddenly have their applications thrown in the trash, and then they have to apply again. It is worthless.

We can see that people who work and contribute are being deported with their families because the Moderaterna have agreed to abandon the Swedish model and place the power over what are reasonable wages in Sweden in a procedural step instead of with the unions and the employers.

Those who have been promised a change of track and have received jobs suddenly find out that the government has changed its mind and expels them. Now they may get an exception – we shall see – because the government has realized that it was wrong.

We see teenagers being deported because the government does not consider their connection to Sweden to count. We have seen the government throw our European allies under the bus, but they embrace the Taliban. That is not us.

We see that Sweden is losing attractiveness among people who can contribute to Sweden and instead choose Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Norway or Denmark. That makes Sweden poorer. It costs billions in tax revenues. Svenskt Näringsliv has come to that conclusion itself.

Now we see today what will happen when you introduce the family split law – when you introduce deportations because people have children. It is a new level. We have had teenage deportations and competence deportations, and now we get birth deportations.

Every time we have warned about the consequences, and every time you have talked about us presenting horror scenarios, exaggerating, and being reckless. Now it is apparently also disgusting to warn about the consequences, which are real. But every time you have realized that we were right, you have tried to pretend that you want to solve the problem in hindsight, but you have not done so. You must start listening to us in time.

The Center Party agrees that criminals should be deported. But the major paradigm shift during the mandate period is something else, namely that people who contribute, behave well, have a family and ties are deported. They now have no legal basis to be here.

When you, together with the Social Democrats, removed the possibility to stay due to particularly compelling circumstances, we said that it would lead to more teenage deportations. It is a matter of young people who have their whole life, their family, and their connection here, but they now have no legal basis to remain. We said that it was wrong, and you called us reckless. We were right, and now you are changing the rules. It does not solve the problems, but you hope to trick the voters. The same applies to citizenship.

We have said that the one who actually contributes, who works, supports themselves and takes responsibility, reasonably must be able to go first in the queue. You called it absurd. Now you intend to do exactly that, but the Sweden Democrats say you can forget about it. So that will not happen.

When you removed the track change without transitional rules, we said that it would mean that people who work will be deported. Now you have realized that it was true, and now you say that you will do something about it after the election. This is the real paradigm shift. It is not about that permanent residence permits have been removed as a basis. That change, to tighten many rules, already began during previous terms, and continued during the January agreement. We have stood behind much of that. The new thing is that this government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, has started to build a system where people can be deported despite having done exactly what we have told them to do, that is, work, support themselves, live legally and build a life in Sweden – and now because they bear children.

Now families risk being split up without having done anything wrong. It is not a reasonable migration policy. It is not a strict migration policy either. It is just stupid, just as the Social Democrats said earlier. It is a policy that punishes people who have behaved themselves.

Before you take the next step, you must start listening. You refused to listen to us. Now it is the Sweden Democrats' needs, not Sweden's needs, that count. Therefore, the government has closed its ears to all reasonable and sensible demands, expectations, and information.

If you do not want to listen to the Center Party, perhaps you will want to listen to the Council on Legislation. But this government does not want to listen to the Council on Legislation, nor to the courts, because they are now activists, according to this government. But perhaps one can listen to Företagarna. Something that is generally perceived as conservative is companies. Let me quote what they say about this: "Företagarna fully supports the principle of self-sufficiency, that those who live and work in Sweden should be able to support themselves and their families. ... The proposals, however, transform a sound principle into a direct obstacle to the competence supply that Swedish companies depend on."

Are the companies also left-wing extremists? No, they probably aren't. They are just sensible. And you should listen.

The business owners write that these are the most intrusive proposals for the companies and their employees and speak about it being the strongly tightened supply requirement of 1.3 that the government is putting forward that is the problem.

Certain incomes, such as unemployment benefits, activity support, and income from subsidized employment, may not be counted, which we say they should. The employers write: "The tightened subsistence requirement shall also apply when extending residence permits" – and now you are welcome to listen – "which creates a recurring uncertainty for already established families".

It is the left-wing extremists in the business organizations who are saying it. It is the business organizations who are saying that it harms Sweden. I know that you do not want to listen to us. But for goodness' sake, listen to them!

They also said in January that they thought the extra many teenage deportations that you wanted to introduce, before you in February realized that it perhaps still was not so good, were bad. It complicates the recruitment of employees with teenage children. You wanted to change from 21 years to 18 years, in order to get more teenage deportations. That was what you thought in January.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates have stated in this debate that it is disgusting when I describe the actual, concrete, and real effects of the legislation that the government now wants to implement. But what is disgusting is the policy, not the fact that one describes what it is.

I am not ashamed to say no to this insane, family-splitting policy. I am not ashamed to tell the Swedish people what the government is actually doing. But I am ashamed that Sweden is to be like this, ashamed that people should have to choose between abortion and deportation or – if they are lucky – plan ahead and choose a condom, as the Sverigedemokraterna say.

Let me be completely clear here. The Sweden Democrats were clear. They are right. What is going to happen is that if you have another child, there will be requirements that your income must increase. The Moderates refuse to acknowledge it. The Christian Democrats pretend that it is not true. But it is the reality. If you have an extra child, you must earn at least 10,000 kronor more per month for all your children to be allowed to stay in Sweden. It is insane politics.

Mr. Speaker! Many different issues have been raised in this debate. Ceuta is an issue that has been taken up from several sides, because it has been used to pretend that it is the policy we will get if the government does not win. Then hundreds of thousands of immigrants will come streaming across the border. That was what it was hoped that this debate would be about. That was what it was hoped that the election campaign would be about.

The reality, however, was that Prime Minister Sánchez in Spain directly asserted that the situation at the border in Ceuta constituted a direct infringement of the country's territorial sovereignty. And we agreed. Police and military were sent there and within 24 hours, almost everyone who had crossed was returned. Within specifically 48 hours, almost everyone was back.

We said: Support Spain, so that we can get that border in order. But the government did something else. Ukraine, Finland and Spain all agreed that what created the crisis was disinformation, which was fueled by Russia. But instead of standing behind Spain's efforts, the government went along with Russia's agenda as well as the agendas of those countries that blackmailed Europe in the migration crisis. You showed that these countries can win political points through that kind of action. It is harmful for Sweden and for Europe.

Instead of uniting Europe, one divides it, just as one is now dividing families. It shows that Sweden is led by a government that easily allows itself to be manipulated by right-wing radical forces when stable, sober foreign policy decisions are required during a hybrid attack. That is what we see.

Mr. Speaker! I know I am going slightly over my speaking time now, but I also want to raise the issue of the deportations of teenagers. We have, in fact, heard a lot about it from the government. The only thing they are doing now is waiting to deport these young people until they are 21 years old.

We must reintroduce particularly compelling reasons. We must remove the wage floor that the government has introduced, which lies far above the collective agreements. We must remove that even affiliation is an obstacle to residence permits. And we must actually get a return center, so that those people whom we know have been here, who have been established here, who have worked here, who have contributed here and who have gone to school here can more quickly receive a yes if they return to Sweden and can once again become a part of Sweden and contribute to our country.

Mr. Speaker! This government has made a paradigm shift, from migration policy to deportation policy. It no longer makes any difference what you contribute. You are to be deported if it is even possible at all. One starts from the minimum and not from what is good. One only starts from whether it can be made harder. It is not wrong to make rules harder. But to only start from the assumption that the minimum is best is actually stupid. One must be able to think two thoughts at the same time.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In his speech, Niels Paarup-Petersen devoted much attention to what he calls baby traps. According to him, this will be because the maintenance requirement will also apply when extending a residence permit. Let's say that you get a residence permit in Sweden and, for example, bring your wife here and live here with your wife for two years. Then she is to apply again, but if you have had another child during that time, it means that the maintenance requirement becomes higher, because it is indexed upwards per person. Niels summarizes it like this: "If you get an extra child, you must earn at least 10,000 kronor more."

I am quite sure that Niels hasn't really grasped what is written in the bill. That is perfectly okay. He admitted in a previous exchange of remarks that he doesn't quite have a handle on what we are talking about today. I just want to correct it for the record.

Niels! When a maintenance requirement is received, even in the case of an extension of a permit, the household's income is therefore counted. It is not only the sponsor's income but also the household's income that is counted.

If we use the template we discussed in a previous speech, a family with two adults and two children, we see that one must have an income of approximately 50,000 to be able to have attachment and meet the maintenance requirement in Sweden. It is calculated per household. It is therefore sufficient for both parents to have their own income of 25,000.

What the member from Centerpartiet says, that one must increase the income by 10,000 kronor, is therefore not correct. The only thing required is that the wife or husband who comes here also gets a job before one has more children.

I do not think it is strange that one should secure an income before expanding one's family. Most Swedes think in that way. If we are to have more children, we must ensure that we have sufficient resources to support the family.

Hand on your heart here, Niels – you didn't really have a handle on this, did you?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! As I said before, one must increase their income by 10,000. That is what it is about. The requirement is 52,000. Then it becomes 64,000. Is that correct, or is it not correct? One can absolutely divide the income among several. But is it not so that the income must increase if there are not to be deportations? Is that correct, or is it not correct?

Now the Sweden Democrats are standing and shaking their heads. But the reality is that you are deported if you do not reach the income requirement of 64,000 if you, for example, have three children or 52,000 if you have two children. At least one person shall be deported in that case. It is a requirement. That is what it comes down to.

It has been said that there is a possibility for exceptions. But if we look at how this government has ensured that the Swedish Migration Agency handles exceptions, we can see that they are not being used.

My question to the Sweden Democrats is: Does the Sweden Democrats' Ludvig Aspling believe that this leads to people not being able to be deported? If so, why does he believe that?

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not correct that the income must increase by 10,000 kronor. On the other hand, the household's income must increase by approximately the same amount. But that is a bit of a different question. There are two people in the household. In most cases, it is not one person who has a child alone. It usually requires two people to have a child. We had a discussion about this earlier as well, and I know that Niels Paarup-Petersen understands the basic biology.

It is not that the income for one person must increase by 10,000 kronor, but the household's income must increase by 10,000 kronor. This means in practice that even the partner must get a job in Sweden before one has more children.

I do not think it is unreasonable. The vast majority of Swedes have a very basic understanding that if you want to start a family, you must first get a job. It is not strange. Most people understand this. That principle should naturally also apply to foreigners who move here. If you want to start a family or make the family larger, you must get a job.

It is not as Niels Paarup-Petersen says, that a person in the family needs to earn 50,000–60,000 kronor a month. That is a lot of money. Not everyone reaches those sums. But that is not what it is about. It is, therefore, two adults in the household who together must achieve that income.

When listening to Niels Paarup-Petersen's speech, it becomes completely obvious that he has missed this entirely. You hear it immediately when he talks about these rules and says that a person must earn this much money and that it is a huge amount. No, it is at the household level. That was what I tried to explain in a previous speech to Niels. This reflects the Penal Code and the standard amount, which is also calculated at the household level. This is not as unreasonable as Niels thinks.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! What I have said is: If one does not earn that amount, people will be deported. That is what we say, and it is correct. It is no more complicated than that. If one does not earn 64,000 when having a third child, one will be deported – not "one" as in the individual person who has income, but someone else in the family will be deported. One must deport either a child or the entire family. Otherwise, one will not live up to the regulations. This is the reality, and it is what we have said time and again.

That is why it is true and correct that there is a risk that deportations occur because one has children. That is the reality. Now Aspling is also standing and agreeing with me. Having another child is not a guarantee that there will be a deportation – I understand that. We have never said that either. But the risk arises because of this change – the big change in addition to that the ceiling is raised very significantly. What is being said is that the person who is already in the country and is a Swedish citizen can support their family for a certain amount, but that the person who comes here needs a different amount to be able to support their family. In addition to that, it is the case that the requirement for how much money one must have increases when one has more children. It will most certainly lead to people being in a situation where there will be deportation if they have additional children and that those who consequently need to consider whether they should have an abortion to avoid deportation.

This is what we have said, what we have written on social media, what I stand for and what is correct. I will stand by it, because it is a fact. When not least Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna look back in a few years, I am sure they will see: Yes, it was true – people were deported because of this.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

For a long time, asylum-related immigration to Sweden has been extensive. In combination with an overly lax integration policy, it has contributed to growing exclusion, to segregation, to overcrowding, to a lack of self-sufficiency, and to all too many children growing up without seeing their parents go to work. Today, around 700,000 people live in Sweden's areas of exclusion, and around 160,000 of these are children. These are not just figures in themselves – it is a societal failure that has been allowed to grow because all too many have preferred signals over structure and intentions over responsibility.

It is against that background that one should understand the reorganization that this government has made in the migration area. The goal is a responsible and long-term sustainable order, where a yes actually means yes and a no actually means no. Those who come to Sweden shall be given good opportunities to become a part of our society but also meet clear requirements for establishment, self-sufficiency, and responsibility.

Since the government took office, the number of asylum seekers has decreased sharply, despite continued high application pressure in many other European countries. But it is not enough to only look at the asylum migration itself. The family reunification migration, which we are talking about here today, still constitutes a significant part of the immigration to Sweden that occurs year after year. For a long time, it has been able to occur on very generous terms, often without the regulatory framework taking sufficient account of integration, the welfare state's capacity, and the simple fact that family reunification must also work in reality.

Mr. Speaker! A fundamental principle in the bill is that the rules on family immigration shall be adapted to the EU's legal minimum level. Sweden shall, of course, comply with EU law and our international commitments. But Sweden shall not, out of old habit, settle for the level that is required if the consequence becomes worse integration, greater exclusion, and reduced trust in the system. For a long time, people in this country have almost made a virtue out of being more far-reaching than necessary in migration policy, as if the most generous were always also the most responsible. That has not worked in reality.

Mr. Speaker! With this bill, we are making the rules clearer and more situation-specific regarding who can be a sponsor. It is an important change. Today's and yesterday's regulatory framework has all too often assumed that the same order should apply to completely different people in completely different situations. But a Swedish citizen, a Nordic citizen, a person with a permanent residence permit, a labor migrant, a person with a time-limited residence permit on an asylum-related basis, and an unaccompanied child do not have the same standing in Sweden. They do not have the same degree of establishment or stability. Nor do they have the same prerequisites to bear responsibility for family reunification. It is therefore reasonable to make certain differences between these groups.

For Swedish and Nordic citizens and persons with permanent residence rights, it shall suffice that one is resident here. For persons with residence permits, however, more shall be required. One must be resident in Sweden. One must have PUT or TUT with a certain period of validity. There must also be well-founded prospects that one will be allowed to stay permanently in Sweden. This is sound in itself. Why should the state allow a person who themselves only has a very uncertain or short-term right to stay in the country to immediately constitute a basis for far-reaching rights for others? To have it that way would be illogical.

Mr. Speaker! The bill also establishes another important principle: the rules on residence permits shall only be mandatory when EU law requires it. In other cases, there shall be an opportunity to grant a permit but not an automatic right. This is crucial. When EU law requires that the nuclear family shall be covered, Sweden must, of course, live up to that. But when EU law does not require a principal right to a permit, the country must be able to make a holistic assessment.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to children, we are not only tightening the rules – we are also making them clearer and more sustainable, in my opinion. The right to a residence permit for a child who is not the joint child of the person seeking asylum and his or her spouse or cohabitant shall be clearly linked to custody. It is a very important change.

The possibility of granting residence permits for a future spouse or cohabitant is limited through this matter. However, there will still be room for this in situations where couples have had particular difficulties living together in their home country because the relationship itself is not accepted. This could, for example, involve same-sex relationships in countries where such conditions are met with persecution, violence, or in the worst cases even death. It is a reasonable limitation. But otherwise, migration law in this country shall not be based on future promises, assumptions, or untested relationships. We know that sham relationships occur. We know that family relationships are sometimes used as a pure migration strategy. We also know that people, not least young women, can be pressured into relationships that they have not chosen freely.

Mr. Speaker! The possibility of residence permits for family unity must remain, but on the right grounds. It should protect an already ongoing family life, not be used to create a new family life from scratch through migration legislation. At the same time, the law must not be rigid in the face of what may be considered unusual or complicated. There must be a safety valve for what could sometimes be classified as sympathetic or simply odd situations. There will always be cases that fall outside what is classified as a normal case. It could be a question of persons who have ended up between regulatory frameworks, family situations that are deeply unique, or circumstances where a strict no would appear purely unreasonable. In those cases, a form of safety valve is needed. But it must also remain a safety valve. For far too long, Swedish migration policy has had a tendency to present main rules with one hand and empty them of content with the other through exceptions that have become so broad that the system has eventually become an incomprehensible patchwork.

Mr. Speaker! In this bill, we also address the much-discussed issue of young adults who have been caught in the crossfire due primarily to the legislative changes from 2016 and 2021, also referred to in the debate as teenage deportations.

Now we are expanding the possibility of residence permits for young adults who have previously had permits and making the rules more uniform. It is wise because otherwise, the legislation risks striking arbitrarily between different groups depending on which basis of permit their parents have.

There have been different age limits in different regulations. We are now moving forward with a more coherent arrangement where the possibility of being granted a residence permit based on ties shall exist up to the age of 21. That is reasonable. It gives more young people the chance to complete upper secondary school, establish themselves and, in the long run, fulfill the requirements for their own independent permit.

Mr. Speaker! We are also, as mentioned, moving forward with changes regarding the waiting period. As a general rule, it shall be required that the person with a time-limited residence permit has resided in Sweden for at least two years before relatives can be granted a residence permit on the grounds of family ties.

Through a legally regulated waiting period, people are given the opportunity to establish themselves in society, secure housing, gain a foothold in the labor market, learn the language and understand how society works before the reunification takes place. It is a tool for better integration.

Of course, there are those who object that the waiting itself can be difficult. That is true. But the alternative is not painless either. The alternative is that families are reunited in very weak conditions, in overcrowding, in economic insecurity, and in areas where exclusion is already deep.

At the same time, the proposal is designed with clear exceptions. The requirement shall not apply, for example, to family reunification between unaccompanied children and their parents, in certain refugee cases, for children born in Sweden or where special reasons argue against a waiting period.

Mr. Speaker! Closely linked to this is the tightened self-sufficiency requirement. Being able to support oneself and one's family members is of decisive importance for integration and for participation in Swedish society. This in itself is not particularly controversial.

Now the maintenance requirement is changing with an increase to 1.3 times the normal amount. It is important because women who come to Sweden through family reunification today are most often those who are furthest from the labor market. It is important because children should not grow up in households where the maintenance is already too weak from the beginning. It is important because work provides not only income but also language, independence, networks, and empowerment. But exceptions shall be able to be made where it would be unreasonable not to do so, for example in certain particularly sympathetic cases.

Mr. Speaker! We also propose that this shall apply when applying for a continued residence permit. If the maintenance requirement is only assessed once, when the relative first arrives in Sweden, we are in practice sending the signal that it does not matter what happens afterwards. The purpose of the maintenance requirement is not to have a temporary checkpoint. The purpose is to promote self-sufficiency and counteract exclusion over time.

At the same time, there is an important balance here. In the case of an extension, the relative's own income must also be able to be taken into account. If a spouse or cohabitant who arrived as a relative has started working, it must be included in the assessment. It is wise, it rewards personal effort, it strengthens the incentives for work, and it ensures that the legislation better reflects actual integration progress.

In conclusion, I want to say one short thing. Ola Möller mentioned from the rostrum that he saw some somewhat surprised looks when he took the floor on Tony Haddou. It was probably my look he saw. It was probably more of curiosity. I thought: What is it that is being cooked up here? It turned out not to be anything major.

I can personally claim that I am a bit of a rookie in this context. I completely missed what happened and that Tony Haddou is leaving. Thank you for your time in the Riksdag, Tony Haddou! It is obvious that we do not think alike in politics. I have appreciated our conversations that we have had during spontaneous coffee breaks and when we have met at the gym.

We have talked about everything under the sun. I know you might have thought I've been a bit annoying when I've complained about renovations at home and such, but that's something one has to live with. Regardless of what you do moving forward, and I have no idea, I wish you good luck. I wish you all the best in life, and may your health also be good!

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must take the opportunity to thank you for the kind words, Patrik Karlson. I have appreciated having you as an opponent here in the chamber and in the committee, but also when we have met over a coffee or at the gym and had a chat. These questions play such an enormous role in people's lives. Then one must be able to distinguish between the issue and the person in order to make progress in politics. Thank you for that!

The questions I intend to ask concern the logic that the government has had at times during this debate. It is a problem that children do not see their parents go to work. This has been repeated by the government. I share that view. It is clear that children should see their parents go to work and so on.

It is the responsibility of politics to ensure that jobs are created. It is an area that the government has completely neglected over these four years. Instead, one responds that children should not be allowed to see their parents at all. That is what is left of the logic. One question I have is: How is family separation supposed to fix integration?

My second question concerns the deportation of minors, given that you do not go all the way here. On TV4, Simona Mohamsson said: We have stopped the deportation of minors. Some week later, Nardine was deported to Egypt and torn away from her parents. Since then, we have seen cases of deportation of minors and deportations of young people being split from their families almost every week. Why this charade?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I can start with the latter question. We have now put forward a bill that will truly change the situation that has caused many young adults to be caught in a bind on utterly unreasonable terms. I mentioned in my speech that it was based on the two legislative changes that were first made in 2016 and then finalized in 2021.

At some point, one must begin to be tested as an individual. When you are 21 years old, you are no longer a teenager. Then it is time to be able to stand on your own two feet. I actually believe that a broad majority in the chamber agrees on that fundamentally.

It was asked earlier, I do not know if it was in a speech or in an exchange of remarks: Where else should the line be drawn? Should people automatically be allowed to stay on the basis of connection not just until they are 30 or 40 years old, but should it never end? Should there not be any reasons at all for being in this country on one's own basis? My counter-question, which I would very much like to have an answer to, is: Where does Vänsterpartiet want to draw a line in these cases, or do you not want a line at all?

Then we come to the question of children seeing their parents go to work. It is super important. What has also been important during this mandate period is the situation in which the government stepped in. It was an enormously difficult situation economically, with an extremely high inflation. It was something that in itself resulted in us having a recession in this country.

The government has, step by step through the budget and other reforms, made interventions that have pushed down the inflation level but also jump-started the economy itself. Then there are many things in our global environment that we cannot influence, such as the trade war that Trump initiated or what we have now seen in, among other places, the Middle East. This means that things in our politics do not progress as quickly as they would have in a normal situation.

We see how unemployment is falling and how the economy is growing. Therefore, it is so important that the government's economic policy continues even during the next mandate period.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not feel that I received any significant answer regarding the logic when it comes to children not seeing their parents go to work. The Government answers in the bill that children in those situations should not see their parents at all. We risk causing family separation with the proposals you are presenting today.

It is a serious and major problem with the logical fallacy you are making. Children do not see their parents go to work. Then you present a proposal that makes it so that children do not see their parents at all. I think that is much more serious.

When it comes to the deportation of teenagers, it is you who are pushing the age from 18 to 21 years. One could, for example, strengthen the connection. It would not have been particularly difficult. During this debate, it has sounded a bit as if it would not be possible to stop the deportation of teenagers. It is well obviously possible to stop the deportation of teenagers! It is much better and more honest to say that this government throughout the spring has not wanted to stop the deportation of teenagers.

What has been done throughout the spring by this government is to crisis-manage the deportation of teenagers. They have tried to save themselves, dragged their feet, and just tried to manage this, which is a crisis for the government. And the crisis continues. Even today, when the bill is to be presented, that is the case. They have not solved the deportation of teenagers. They have instead pushed the age from 18 to 21. They have therefore not stopped the deportations, and those who pay the price for this are all the young people who risk being separated from their families.

My appeal to the Liberals, Christian Democrats and Moderates is: Give the opposition company! Increase the chance for these teenagers to stay in Sweden! It is inhumane to separate teenagers from their parents.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

The portrayal of the member and Vänsterpartiet and also the rest of the opposition in this issue is completely incorrect. The government was very aware of this. That is why that issue was included in the investigation that was started in 2024. We saw how the regulatory framework in some cases hit unreasonably hard against young adults who had been in Sweden on attachment grounds and who ended up caught between different permit grounds, different age limits, and legislation that in this case was not coherent.

We are correcting that now with this proposal. Now, one should be able to obtain a connection permit up to the age of 21. By then, one has also stopped being a teenager. By then, one is actually an adult. But, that being said, one has then had the opportunity to complete upper secondary school and establish oneself before an independent permit can be held on one's own grounds.

I still don't quite understand what the Left Party's own proposal is. One wants to go further, at least. But it seems as if, in practice, one wants to establish a principle where a long stay in Sweden in itself, or at least almost, should grant the right to stay regardless.

That is where we differ. We can state that. We do not think that one should be allowed to stay regardless of what. There must also be valid reasons for it. Of course, connection is important, it is certainly so, but we do not think that the right of migration in this country should be able to be built on the principle that every long-term stay gradually transitions into a permanent right to stay. There must be clear criteria and requirements for how one should conduct oneself regarding their stay in this country, regardless of whether it concerns work, studies, or some other form of establishment.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals are now presenting a law which means that families who have been reunited after being separated during flight can be forced to be separated again if one parent loses their job.

One faces a waiting time so that small children, for example those located in a refugee camp outside Sweden, are forced to grow up with mom or dad on Zoom, in practice for four years, before they can hug their parent again.

The motive stated in the bill is that this would improve integration. I would then like to ask the Liberals, who often talk about how important school is, if they are aware of the consequences of such a delay of several years in when children start in Swedish school. In addition to the humanitarian harmful effects it has on a child not being able to live with their parent, it also has direct negative consequences for the children's opportunity to succeed in school, simply because they start in Swedish school when they are several years older.

Children who move to Sweden and start first grade here have equally good chances of completing upper secondary school as children who are born in Sweden. But if they arrive later in their schooling, that chance decreases.

Referral body after referral body has pointed out that the government's family split law worsens integration, it does not improve it. I think that the Liberals are a party that is responsible for this with higher education, research and knowledge. How do you relate to this as a Liberal when those who know things say that the government's proposal will have the opposite effect and not at all lead to what is hoped for?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

I actually didn't quite follow the reasoning regarding schooling. We cannot control how old the children are when they come to Sweden and thus at what point they will start in Swedish school. It is roughly as if we were to funnel children from the rest of the world here so that everyone would start in grade 1.

Children and young people will come to Sweden at different points in their lives and thus also have different prerequisites for how they will approach and manage Swedish school. Therefore, it is extremely important that in Swedish school, the teaching is worked on in a more individually adapted way so that children at different stages can absorb the teaching they need in order to then move forward into adult life.

There will always be criticism of legislative proposals. It is very rare for a government bill to receive 100 percent agreement from all referral bodies. It is practically impossible to end up in that situation. And even if it were the case that we listened to the referral bodies all the time, we are elected by the people, and we have a number of different things that we weigh in when we prepare different legislative proposals.

In this case, I almost get the feeling that Annika Hirvonen would prefer some form of technocracy in this country and wants to abolish the possibility of direct election of elected representatives in this chamber. I cannot interpret it in any other way at all.

It is clear that one should always listen, take in, and weigh different arguments for and against. This government does that too. We have done so constantly since this mandate period began. But that does not in itself mean that one always lands on the same conclusion as the referral bodies. I do not think at all that it is anything strange.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It becomes very clear that from the Liberals' side, one has not familiarized oneself with this issue.

It is said that one cannot control how old the children are when they arrive here. But if one says that all children must wait two extra years before they come here, then one is at least steering towards the fact that everyone will be two years older than without this law. It is very simple mathematics. That becomes the consequence for all children, regardless of how old they are when a parent applies for them to be reunited in Sweden. If one sets a waiting period of two years, the children will always be two years older. And that, therefore, has negative consequences for these children's chances of completing school, because they are older when they start school.

It is very rare for a proposal to receive no criticism; that is completely correct. It is probably even rarer for a proposal to receive this much criticism, which the government ignores.

This bill has truly been torn to pieces. The MR Institute, the Red Cross, the Bar Association, and even business organizations, organization after organization and agency after agency have criticized this.

It is clear that elected officials have different considerations to take into account. In the case of the Liberals, perhaps one has taken into account that they are about to be kicked out of the Riksdag and want to fish for support votes from Jimmie Åkesson. Who knows? I should perhaps conclude by also thanking Patrik Karlson for his time in the Riksdag, given the Liberals' opinion figures. But we shall see how it goes.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is fun that humor still exists in the chamber; even I can appreciate such a contribution!

I can also start by thanking the member for the question. I want to say that the choice of words family division may sound rhetorically effective, but it is completely misleading. It sounds as if this government's purpose were to separate people because one thinks it is fun, but that is not true!

The whole purpose of this is that family reunification should occur under conditions that give families and their children an actual chance to live stably, safely, and integrated in this country. It is a crucial difference. We know the result of what the Miljöpartiet advocates for here in the rostrum. We have seen the consequences, and it is not a beautiful sight. Then the Miljöpartiet says: We want more of that!

I honestly think it is a bit out of touch with reality. Again: Is it good to defend that families are reunited in overcrowded conditions and that children grow up in households without their own means of support or do not have Swedish in their home at all? We know that the consequences will be catastrophic, and then the Green Party says: We want more of that!

A family life built in poverty – deliberately orchestrated by Miljöpartiet, it seems – in uncertainty and with long-term dependency is fragile. We know that. Children are affected, and relationships are pressured. Women's freedom is also restricted to an enormous extent, but Miljöpartiet seems to completely ignore that. Furthermore, trust in society is eroded, and Miljöpartiet says again: That is what we want more of!

The problem with the Green Party is that they still fundamentally think that more exceptions and amnesties are always the solution, while sharper requirements that bring some order and clarity to this are appalling.

Our experience over the last decades shows something completely different, however, and that is why we have overhauled the migration policy during this mandate period.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating a bill entitled Stricter conditions for family immigration. It is a bill that will lead to it being impossible in several cases for people who have fled war to be reunited with their children at all.

Unreasonable salary requirements are being imposed on families who want to be reunited. According to the presentation that the government itself gave at its press conference, a parent must have a salary of over 52,000 kronor before tax to be able to be reunited with their partner and their two children – 52,000 kronor! That is a salary that is far above what most Swedish families subsist on.

Mr. Speaker! Not only are these requirements being raised beyond the limits of reasonableness. One also introduces a waiting period. In addition to the time you already have to wait to receive your asylum decision and the time you have to wait to receive a decision on whether your small children can come to you in Sweden, they add two extra years. It is two years of raising, comforting, and holding your children through hugs on Zoom, heart symbols, and thumbs up.

There is something particularly horrific about a policy that acts to split small children and their parents in that way. This is justified by the argument that it would improve integration, but no referral bodies agree with that. Instead, referral body after referral body points out that it rather worsens integration.

If this is also testified by many people who have already today been affected by the consequences of today's lower maintenance requirements. One parent describes it like this: When I was waiting for a decision on family reunification, my health was very poor due to stress and anxiety. I could not concentrate on learning Swedish, achieving my goals, or integrating into society. Now my children are here, and we have a nice time with other families. I teach in the school, and my children go to school and preschool. They speak fluent Swedish. I am proud of them.

You can imagine this for yourself. Imagine that your children are in a refugee camp. You were separated during a chaotic flight, and you managed to get to safety. Now you are going to learn a new language, but how easy is it to sleep at night when the worry gnaws: How will my children be tomorrow? Do they get the food they need? Are they safe in the refugee camp? What will happen with their opportunity to get an education?

In Sweden, the requirements are high for one to even be reunited. Three children may not share a bedroom, and as I mentioned, there are high requirements for income. It is not enough that you have this income, but you must show that you will likely have it also for a period ahead. In practice, permanent employment and housing are therefore required in a country with extremely long housing queues and 100,000 more unemployed than when the Tidö Government took office.

People who get to live together with their family integrate faster than single adults. We also know this from research, so the justification that this would be good for integration is probably not entirely true. I believe the truth is actually that in this, one strives to make life as fucking miserable as possible for those who flee to Sweden so that no one else will want to flee here. It is about as few human rights as possible for refugees and for their children. The minimum level is, according to the government, a self-sufficiency.

Mr. Speaker! This is indecent. A country that fought for the Convention on the Rights of the Child to be written at all and which has made the Convention on the Rights of the Child into law betrays these children in the worst way. It is not enough that it will become harder to be reunited. The most cynical thing in the government's proposal is perhaps that a family that was once reunited can be torn apart again if a parent becomes unemployed or if a little brother is born. Then the income requirements skyrocket, and you may also need to find a larger apartment – and quickly! If you don't succeed, the whole family cannot stay because of the new rule that the subsistence requirements shall also apply upon review.

The members of the Tidö parties thought we were drastic when we pointed out that this leads to a woman who becomes pregnant being faced with the choice of having an abortion or being subject to deportation, but that is exactly what women will be faced with with these new rules.

We must warn against the unreasonable consequences of the government's bill in the same way as we once, in 2023, warned of a wave of teenage deportations if the government proceeded with removing the rule on particularly mitigating circumstances that we in Miljöpartiet introduced in 2021. We introduced it precisely to avoid unreasonable deportations of youths who have grown up in Sweden, turned 18, and have not had time to obtain permanent residence permits.

They did not listen to us. They also did not listen to us when we raised how unreasonable it would be to abolish the possibility of track switching and simultaneously all the rights for the 4,700 people who already lived here via track switching.

Now we see Ebba Busch and others horrified when the consequences of this become reality and parents are informed that their eight-month-old baby has received a deportation decision while the parents have the right to stay. We also saw how horrified many politicians became when the teenage deportations caused an outcry in their own parties. Politicians who did not care when we warned of the consequences began to care when the pressure became too great.

Mr. Speaker! I hope that we stop these family separation rules at tomorrow's vote. The opposition is united in that these requirements shall not be applied when seeking an extension for a family that is already living together in Sweden, because it leads to a family being split up.

It also leads to all families constantly feeling an anxiety: What will happen? What happens if my employer fires me? What happens if I say no to attempts to exploit me? One becomes dependent on one's employer and is forced to live with that anxiety until the family members become Swedish citizens. It could be about ten years.

The opposition is, however, united: We shall not have any livelihood requirement for families seeking an extension when they already live here. Nor shall we have the two-year waiting period. And it is enough that two Members of Parliament who were not elected for the opposition parties stand behind our reservations so that we can stop these family-splitting rules.

Mr. Speaker! The Government finally presented a proposal that they say stops the deportation of teenagers, and to some extent perhaps it is true. It is said, namely, that the youths are deported only after they have turned 21, when they are no longer teenagers. But many are deported even before then, despite this legislative change. One example is Bader, who is not at all covered by the government's so-called stop for the deportation of teenagers.

This is not a real solution. Even though I am very proud and happy that the government was pressured to do something, we cannot be satisfied with legislation that will still lead to young adults who have Sweden as their home country and whose families are allowed to stay here being deported alone to Iran and other countries to which they no longer have a relationship.

The young people who have been deported from Sweden because of these rules, which the government has actively decided on, need to be given an opportunity to come home again. I still have not received word from any politician in the Tidö parties that they agree with me on that. But Darya and Donya, Nardine, Bader and the others should be allowed to come back, and as soon as we win the election, we will ensure that a real solution is put in place that stops these unreasonable deportations.

Mr. Speaker! We have many common reservations in this report, and these are important issues. I therefore wish to move for approval of both reservation 11 and reservation 15.

The latter is precisely about what needs to be done when the Tidö parties lose the election. We must take a holistic approach to migration policy. The mess they have caused during these years has had enormously devastating consequences. It is not legally secure, and it is not coherent.

We need a humane migration policy where we stand up for human rights, the right to asylum and the Convention on the Rights of the Child and ensure that we stop these unreasonable deportations that split families, tear colleagues apart from elderly care homes and hospitals and simply split our entire society.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In reservation 4, which concerns the rejection of a new rule that the subsistence requirement shall also apply in the case of an extension of a residence permit, Annika Hirvonen writes as follows: "Families that are established should not be torn apart just because a parent loses their job, gets cancer, or pursues further education."

The subsistence requirement is forward-looking. That is, one looks at what income a person will have in the future. A person who pursues further education retains their employment. The person may perhaps earn less during a period, but it does not matter because one looks at the salary according to the agreement and the agreements remain.

Contrary to what Annika Hirvonen says, a person who undergoes further education has a stronger position than they would have had previously because it is a strong indication that the company wants to keep the person as an employee. By undergoing further education, you therefore have a greater chance of meeting the maintenance requirement than if you do not.

Regarding persons who become ill, it states on page 87 of the bill: "Work-related compensation provided temporarily during ongoing employment should, however, be equated with wages. This can, for example, involve sickness benefit or parental benefit."

My opening question is therefore: Is Annika Hirvonen sure that she looked through what is stated in the bill before she wrote her reservation? What is stated in the reservation does not, in fact, match.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I truly hope that the Swedish Migration Agency will make the generous interpretation regarding education that Ludvig Aspling describes. I will see to it that I send the link to this speech to them, because it would be very good if people who choose to further their education and have a lower income for a couple of years do not lose their family. That would have been the reasonable thing. However, it does not appear clearly from the bill that it is the main rule.

Regarding sickness benefit, the thing is that it is only a portion of your salary. Let's say you have two children and a husband whom you support. Then you need to have a pre-tax salary of 52,000, and you do not get that with sickness benefit. The problem is, therefore, that that income, even if it is counted, is so low that parts of your family cannot remain with you.

We also already know today what enormous problems many who get cancer are affected by – and it is about poverty. It is a poverty that many are already affected by today. For a person with a family who has come as a relative immigrant, the illness means not only worry about poverty but also worry that the family will be split up.

We think this is completely inhumane. If the government had wanted to prevent this, there would be a general exemption stating that the subsistence requirement does not apply if a person becomes ill and that the person's children, husband or wife will not be deported if the person cannot work. That would have been the honest way, if that is what is meant by this.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite obvious that Annika Hirvonen has no idea what is written in the bill, for example when it comes to what salary is required. It is not that a person needs to have a salary of 50,000 kronor. At a time of extension, there are two people in the household, and it is the household's income that needs to amount to that much – not the income of one party. One does not need to be a mathematician to understand that it changes the situation quite significantly. Not everyone earns 50,000 kronor, but for two people, it is considerably more reasonable. It is quite obvious that Annika Hirvonen missed this when she wrote her statement.

Regarding the health insurance, Annika Hirvonen objected that it should be stated in the bill if that was the intention. In my opening statement, I pointed out that it actually is stated in the bill, on page 87. Annika Hirvonen has, however, not read the bill, so she has no idea what is written there.

When it comes to the splitting of families, it is true that the situation that Annika Hirvonen flagged can occur – one may need to leave Sweden. However, it is not we who split any family. The family can go home together – we will not hold anyone in Sweden. It is completely voluntary to live here; Sweden is not a prison.

Last but not least, I want to say something regarding the concerns that Annika Hirvonen expressed concerning people who become ill or pursue further education. Hasn't Annika Hirvonen considered that this situation can arise already today? We do have a subsistence requirement, and it is entirely possible to submit an application. Then it shall be processed, and there will be some administration that sometimes takes quite a long time. One can become ill or pursue further education during the processing time.

I looked in Rättsbanken to see if there is a single case from any migration court where it is stated that one does not have the right to family reunification because one is pursuing further education or has become ill. Annika Hirvonen wondered about this, but there are no such cases.

Can Annika Hirvonen point to a single court case where the situation she flags in the reservation has occurred in reality?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! What is happening is that people are making the decision not to educate themselves. I have met people who have turned down a place in the medical program to instead take jobs as cleaners because of the migration regulations that the Riksdag has decided on. This is what is happening – one chooses not to pursue further education in order instead to fulfill various types of wage requirements for permanent residence permits, when there were, or family reunification.

Even though it states in the bill that sickness benefit is taken into account, I argue that the problem is that the sickness benefit can become so low that families are split up. This leads to the fact that the person affected by, for example, cancer needs to be worried not only about their health and whether they can afford to pay the bills, but also that the children could be deported from Sweden.

The government has also removed the right to parental leave pay for immigrants. Let us, for example, imagine that someone is reunited with his wife and his two children and that it concerns a person who needs to be on parental leave. The compensations will then not be high enough. Furthermore, it is not everyone who has that right, because the residence-based social insurance benefits no longer apply to everyone residing in Sweden.

If one had wanted everyone affected by cancer to have the right to continue living with their family, one would have left room in the bill for a general exemption from the subsistence requirement in the event of illness. That has not been done, and it is a huge problem.

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker, listeners and members! Four years ago, this government took over a migration policy characterized by disorder and exclusion. The background to that was an asylum reception that, for far too many years, had been at far too high a level. From Sweden's side, we repeatedly took a much greater responsibility than we had needed to do. It was a responsibility that was not in proportion to our population or, for that matter, to our ability to succeed with the integration of people who come to our country.

Sweden's rules were far more generous than other countries'. This created major integration problems and very high costs. It also created a long series of problems with integration. Far too many children grew up in families where mom and dad did not go to work, where they did not learn the Swedish language, and where they did not feel they were a part of Sweden. The latter is about much more than just geography – it is also about a community.

A "we-and-they" society was created, Mr. Speaker. This was the consequence of the unconditional migration policy and all the beautiful words used to argue for it.

These were not the only problems, however. An integration policy was pursued where important and difficult questions were not taken seriously. Actually, it is quite strange, Mr. Speaker, that it is not until 2026 that one must speak Swedish to become a citizen in our country.

For many years we put proposals on the table, but they were voted down by the parties to the left. Persons who committed serious crimes in Sweden and who were not Swedish citizens were still allowed to stay. They could continue to commit crimes, create crime victims and destroy people's lives. Despite all the words that there would be change, year after year, grossly criminal persons were given almost a sanctuary in our country.

This was the situation that we inherited four years ago. It was about exclusion, problems with crime and sometimes even clan rule. It was also why, in the election four years ago, we received a very clear mandate from the Swedish people to clear away these problems and regain control over the migration policy that had led Sweden straight into a dead end.

Four years later, Sweden has the lowest asylum-related immigration in 40 years. We have changed the policy, and we have done so for a single reason. The reason is that Sweden must be given a chance to succeed with the integration of all those people who have come here in recent years. We shall not turn a blind eye to the enormous problems that actually exist in our country, for example, all the children who grow up in exclusion and do not see their parents go and work.

A lot can be done to make integration work better. I want to admit that this is complicated, Mr. Speaker, but one thing I am completely convinced of: There is no integration policy in the world that can manage a return to the old migration policy with which we in Sweden, year in and year out, received masses of people without a thought for how it would turn out when they arrived in our country. It was, frankly, an irresponsible policy.

Sweden was described in international media a few years ago as a warning and a horror example. I almost lost count of the number of articles written about the country where people did not even have roofs over their heads and where shootings occurred on streets and squares almost every day. That is how it looked in Sweden just a few years ago; it can be good to remind oneself of that sometimes.

Today, the same journalists come to Sweden and write completely different articles. They ask how it is possible that Sweden, which follows all international conventions, has succeeded in reducing asylum migration so significantly in order to address the major integration problems that the previous government seemed completely uninterested in handling. It is actually a remarkable change that has occurred.

The prescription rules have changed. It is no longer profitable to go underground and become part of the shadow society. One can no longer apply for asylum again after only four years; instead, one must now leave Sweden if their application is denied in order for the prescription period to begin.

After four years with a bourgeois government, Sweden now receives the toughest regulatory framework for deportations in the entire Nordic region. We have changed the law so that deported persons with execution obstacles are no longer provided with benefits. That is how it actually looked. Previously, criminals who did not go home received benefits, and then it was perhaps not so strange that they did not want to go home. This previous arrangement was, to say the least, offensive both to the crime victims and to the taxpayers.

We have shifted the focus from refugee reception to high-skilled labor immigration. When we took office, the average processing time for a work permit for this group was over 100 days. Now we are down to under 20 days.

These are a few but nevertheless significant examples of what has been achieved during this mandate period. But we are obviously not finished, for if we were, I would not be standing here today in this debate.

Madam Speaker! When these changes have gone through, the major cleanup in migration policy is complete. Now we have better opportunities than before to succeed with the integration of all the people who have come to Sweden during the last ten years.

Let me just say the obvious: The vast majority of people who come to Sweden want to work and behave correctly, and they do not commit crimes. They become at least as provoked as everyone else when people commit crimes but are not deported. Very many are doing everything right today. They work in the welfare sector and in Swedish companies or start companies in a long line of industries.

With this said, it is not possible to turn a blind eye to the fact that the problems of exclusion still exist. If one does not see that we today have 180 areas of exclusion in our wonderful country and 700,000 people, of whom many are children, who live in this exclusion, one is more than well-intentioned naive. In that case, I recommend that one leaves the chamber and sees how reality actually looks. It is not always beautiful, and we have a responsibility to change it.

Madam Speaker! Family immigration has been very high for many years. Over half a million people have been granted residence permits due to family ties over the last ten years. This has been allowed to happen on terms that do not safeguard life chances or opportunities for those who actually come to Sweden as a family member. It should not feel right or fair for anyone to smilingly welcome people to Sweden straight into a lifelong exclusion, but it should be in everyone's interest to set important requirements for this to work and to say that in Sweden there are fantastic opportunities for those who work and make an effort, but that no one else will do the job for you. One has an individual responsibility to participate and contribute and work to the best of one's ability.

This is exactly what the bill is about. It is an important step in the work against social exclusion and to ensure that the conditions for this type of family immigration are reasonable, encourage people to work and behave responsibly, and avoid having the bill paid by children growing up in social exclusion, by taxpayers in the form of higher taxes, and by small businesses in the form of higher employer contributions. Someone must, after all, pay. There are no hidden money presses that can create billions upon billions, so someone actually has to pay.

Madam Speaker! The new rules that the Riksdag has to take a position on have as a starting point not to be more generous than what follows from EU law and Sweden's other international commitments. Just as has been pointed out here, a waiting period of two years for family immigration is proposed, which shall be the main rule. The purpose is, among other things, that persons who want to bring their family to Sweden shall have more time to establish themselves and become a part of our country. Similar rules already exist all around Europe, for example in our eastern neighbor Finland. This shall apply to persons with a limited residence permit. Citizens will not be covered by the same rules because they do not need a residence permit. Alternatively vulnerable persons are covered while certain refugees are exempted.

We also propose that the maintenance requirement should cover more cases than today, and it shall also be assessed repeatedly in connection with the extension of residence permits. The reason for this is that persons who come to Sweden and want to bring their relatives to our country, which is obviously a fully reasonable wish, must also be able to support these persons. There must be a residence of sufficient size, there must be a fixed point in life, and there must be an income – both for the sake of integration and so that taxpayers do not have to foot the bill. All hard-working people in our country should know that their money goes to the right things, not to paying for increased exclusion and higher benefits.

There are also proposals to expand the possibility of denying residence permits. Consideration shall be taken in accordance with regulations if there is a risk that family members will be subjected to violence or other violations if a residence permit is granted. Consideration shall also be able to be taken of both conduct and compliance.

Madam Speaker! With this debate, we can summarize an intense and reform-oriented mandate period. I believe everyone can agree on that. As I began by saying, the government inherited a difficult situation where, in migration policy over a long series of years, it had sounded as if there were very simple answers to very complicated questions and where major societal problems, for example integration problems, had systematically been swept under the carpet.

Now, the same parties that once led us into the refugee crisis are saying that Sweden shall return to precisely the policy that led us into this very crisis. In no fewer than six joint reservations, the opposition finds common ground. Let me congratulate the Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet on this, for it is obvious that it is you who are setting the pace here and that the Socialdemokraterna are following. We see that in black and white in the report.

What I consider to be serious, Madam Speaker, is that the memory of certain parties seems terribly short. Sometimes it sounds as if the refugee crisis of 10 years ago was 100 years ago. But when 80,000 people recently stormed a border in just a single day, the question was asked whether the risk has increased for it to become a new crisis. Yes, of course the risk has increased. Otherwise, this would not have happened and almost 100 people died during a single day.

I think it is important to learn from old mistakes, and despite all the fantastic efforts that have been made and despite that so many people who have immigrated to Sweden work and behave well and are an appreciated part of our country, it is not possible to turn a blind eye to the fact that, as we said, we have 180 areas of exclusion and 700,000 people in exclusion. Is this then really a good opportunity to return to the largely requirement-free policy that was a contributing factor to precisely this exclusion? That is what this debate is about, isn't it?

With such a policy, it will be very difficult to succeed with integration. Furthermore, it will make Sweden once again a more attractive country for asylum migration. It is obvious. This lesson Sweden learned during the refugee crisis ten years ago. Was it a coincidence that 250,000 asylum seekers came to Sweden over two years while only a fraction of that many came to our Nordic neighboring countries? No, it was no coincidence but a consequence of a regulatory framework.

This policy is sometimes described as humane. But there is nothing humane in creating major integration problems. There is nothing humane in seeing exclusion grow – it is rather the opposite.

I now turn to you who are watching and listening to the debate. You who work, can you really afford a return to the old politics? Someone must pay for the exclusion. Can you really afford the increased taxes on labor and entrepreneurship that will be the consequence if the rope is pulled back to the old migration policy?

Madam Speaker! I believe that it is important that we instead hold the course and do not return to the politics that created the problems. It has been tested before, and it has failed before.

There is nothing to suggest that it would work better this time, but we shall stick to our line of action. We shall stick to a low asylum migration so that we can succeed with integration. We shall stick to the fact that it is important, for example, to learn some Swedish if one is to become a citizen in our wonderful country. We shall stick to the fact that the person who comes to Sweden and commits a crime and is not a citizen themselves has chosen to opt out of being a part of our community. In that case, they shall be deported.

This is important. This is how we hold Sweden together. This is how we move our country forward.

(Applause)

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I note that the Minister for Migration used more than 50 percent beyond the time the Minister for Migration reported.)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by stating that the Minister did not adhere to either the time or the truth here.

I appreciate seeing the Minister here at the rostrum, but it is clear that I would have appreciated if we could establish that everyone agrees that we are not going back to 2015/16. Everyone agrees.

We appreciate that there has been a tougher stance against criminals and that people who commit crimes are deported. We have been part of that, and we are part of the fight against the shadow society etcetera. There is plenty of evidence for that because we have voted for the majority of the government's proposals. What we have not voted for is what is bad.

I do not believe, as the minister pointed out, that anyone has perceived that this government welcomes people with a smile. On the contrary, they laugh when people are deported. It is a different policy.

Let us talk about integration. Under this government, we have had over 100,000 more unemployed, but you in the government refuse to listen to our proposals to create more jobs and make it easier to hire.

In school, we have a record in dropouts. Never before in Swedish history have so many children left school without completing it. It is the Tidö policy.

Let us talk about the language. You say no to our proposals on requirements for intensive Swedish in school and that SFI should transition to job-Swedish so that one has a focus on work and learns the language. You say no to that.

We all believe that exclusion should be combated and that responsibility should be encouraged. People should take responsibility for themselves and support their own family, but today's debate is about something else. The requirements are being significantly raised, and it is being said: Even in the future, you or your family risk being deported because you have children.

It is not about increasing integration or creating a sensible policy. It is just madness.

Let us have tough requirements, and let us ensure that it becomes clear for those who come here that they are to contribute to Sweden. But let us have a sensible and wise policy – not this.

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! The problem with the Center Party's policy is that what Niels Paarup-Petersen says does not align with what he does, or what the Center Party does, for that matter. They are two completely different things. I do not know how many podiums one can stand on at the same time or how many chairs one can sit on. There are 349 seats here, and sometimes it feels as if the Center Party occupies all positions at once.

We are going to have a strict migration policy, says Centerpartiet, but at the same time we are going to sextuple the quota refugees.

I can agree that there are far too many people in unemployment. At the same time, the entire government plan of the Center Party is based on giving influence to Social Democrats, Green Party members, and perhaps Left Party members. It is obvious with the figures we have today. The Left Party, which the Center Party has joined forces with in the chamber here today, does not even believe in a market economy.

That is how it looks. Point by point, what the Center Party says in the chamber does not align with what they do. But one thing I know, and that is that the Center Party was most responsible for the situation that I was involved in and had to clean up four years ago.

We can take, for example, the completely legally insecure upper secondary school law, which was not just one but two. The laws created many problems and exclusion. Many people – many experts – warned against it, but still, Centerpartiet chose to persist with it.

I will never return to that policy again – that is what I warn against. The Centre Party, which I sometimes agree with, has landed very far to the left on just migration issues. The parties that the Centre Party aligns with here in the chamber actually want to go back to the old policy. We have even heard here in the chamber that there wasn't even a crisis in 2015. If it is that type of parties that Niels Paarup-Petersen wants to give influence to, there will be new crises.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! We would gladly take all the seats in the Riksdag. That would be nice, but that is not how it looks like it will be.

We would gladly give you in the Moderaterna influence in politics in the future, but you are becoming too small to be able to create a government basis with support from anyone other than SD. It will be difficult, and it will become even more difficult in the future.

Yes, we have had to clean up. We have all had to clean up since 2015/16. We have done it with the Socialdemokraterna, and we have done it with the Moderaterna. But Ulf Kristersson and Johan Forssell were in the alliance government, which implemented the policy that led there. It was not me. One must have a little self-awareness to begin with, because it is after himself that Forssell has had to clean up. He should of course do so – it is a good principle. But then one should not blame others at the same time.

Forssell is beating his chest – there has never been a more satisfied migration minister. As I said, it is good that it becomes easier to deport criminals and that the requirements in the integration policy have been raised. But he is also beating his chest when it comes to deportations of teenagers, deportations of skilled workers, and now deportation of births. It is remarkable, because those are bad things.

The government has done good things, and it has done bad things. We have voted for the things that have been good, and we have voted against the things that have been bad. Politics does not need to be harder than that. The Moderates' problem is that they are dependent on a party that demands that they vote for bad things.

The Moderates have voted against a lot of things that they went to the election to implement. They said that we would accept more LGBTQ refugees and women. They have done the opposite. The Christian Democrats went to the election on more quota refugees, and L went to the election on 5,000 quota refugees, if one is to speak of them – which is something we have also said that we will stick to. Then one can have different views on it, but we stick to what we stand for in any case.

Someone must pay for the government's migration policy. Someone must pay for the fact that the bus driver was deported and is no longer there, so that one has to find another way to get to work. We pay for the education of people who are then deported. We are losing tens of billions in tax revenues because of the government's policy, according to Svenskt Näringsliv.

It is time to learn from old mistakes and start listening to the Centre Party. We advocate for a wise migration policy.

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! As said: the Centre Party sits in all chairs at the same time. One day you are supposed to have a strict migration policy, and the next day you are supposed to sextuple the quota refugees. On one hand, you are supposed to have stricter requirements, but on the other hand, you vote no to the requirements when they reach the Riksdag. On one hand, we have learned from old mistakes, but on the other hand, we are supposed to return to the policy that for a long time has created problems.

This will just be a hodgepodge. I have seen before how it ends: It ended in completely insecure high school laws. It was the Center Party's major contribution to migration policy, for thousands of people without grounds for asylum.

This is not easy. There are always people behind the numbers. I admit that. That is why it is so important that these things are managed, that there are clear and distinct rules and that there is a migration policy that is well-organized, where courts make the decisions.

My experience is that the Center Party is not much to hold onto when it starts to blow and gets difficult. Then it always becomes those types of special solutions. You make a small exception here and a small exception there, and then you have those types of patchwork quilts.

When all the changes were stacked on top of each other, the result was not particularly good. It did not turn out well for people, but I would say it became a rather inhumane and totally insecure legal framework. It also created a situation where very many people without grounds for asylum sought their way to Sweden. That was the final result after the years that Centerpartiet was involved in governing our country.

This brings about integration problems, but it is also costly. The parties that the Center Party has joined forces with today make no secret of wanting to multiply asylum immigration. This will create enormous costs, and someone must pay for it. In that case, there are only two ways: Either it is people in the welfare system or other important activities that must be removed, or it is increased taxes for people who work and increased taxes and employer contributions for companies.

I still haven't received any answer from Centerpartiet. What is the decision? But perhaps there will be more occasions in the future. I hope so.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! With the legislative proposals that the government is now presenting, we will in a few years end up in a situation where a family that has been reunited in Sweden after being split up, for example in connection with war, risks being torn apart because a parent becomes unemployed or becomes unexpectedly pregnant and the salary is not automatically increased by thousands of kronor, or because a third child is born and there is only one children's room.

This family-splitting policy will lead to inhumane and unreasonable consequences. Abortion or deportation? It will become a real question that women will have to face because of the law that the government is now proposing.

We in Miljöpartiet and the rest of the opposition have gathered to say no to families who already live in Sweden being torn apart if someone loses their job or has a reduced income due to illness or has another child. The subsistence requirements shall not be applied in these extension situations.

Johan Forssell has shown, when it comes to the proposals on teenage deportations, that he is prepared to back down at times. He has done so when the policy he has implemented has led to unreasonable, family-splitting teenage deportations. Is Johan Forssell also prepared to back down when it concerns separating small children from their parents?

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! For Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet, everything that is not free immigration and everything that does not involve free access to the entire Swedish welfare state, from day one, is cruel and inhumane. That is Miljöpartiet's policy.

But behind those words, Annika Hirvonen, there is a reality. That reality is today about 700,000 people in exclusion and about 180 exclusion areas in our wonderful country. It is children who do not see mom and dad go to work and who do not learn Swedish. It is a violation-society that is gaining a foothold in a way that we do not want.

All the demands are cruel for Miljöpartiet. There probably isn't a single demand in migration policy that I haven't heard is cruel and inhumane. But it is like this, Annika Hirvonen: It is not making demands that is what is cruel. Sometimes it is the absence of demands that creates very cruel situations. It creates exclusion. It creates very great human suffering.

It is important, I think, that there are requirements. If one comes to Sweden, one shall work and behave properly. It is, frankly, absolutely obvious for the vast majority. If one comes to our country, one shall participate and contribute – because one has a responsibility to do so, but also because all of Sweden benefits from it. But no such policy exists in the Green Party's proposal. There are no requirements at all. It sometimes sounds as if everyone should be able to come to Sweden from day one, but that would create very large integration problems. It would create increased taxes for all people who go and work, for small businesses, and for growth companies.

We have tried that policy before. It did not end particularly well. It ended in a very large exclusion. Does Annika Hirvonen not even see these problems? That is what I wonder.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Now, I was not speaking about free immigration. I never speak about free immigration because it is not our policy. Now I was speaking about this proposal. Families who have been reunited in Sweden but who are then affected by unemployment or have more children will be split apart with this new proposal. Parts of the family will be torn apart.

Johan Forssell uses the word "cruel" himself. I probably agree that it is very cruel to have a policy that means if a parent gets cancer and can no longer work and have the high income they have had, parts of the family need to leave the country. I think it is a special kind of cruelty that a person should be affected in that way because of illness. I also think it is a special kind of cruelty to accept that a woman who happens to become pregnant is faced with the choice to have an abortion or to be deported if she is a relative immigrant and the family's income cannot increase by approximately 9,000 kronor in connection with the child being born.

It is, of course, a cheap point to simplify the debate by claiming that some want free immigration and that everyone else wants something reasonable. That way, one escapes talking about the real consequences of the actual proposals that are on the table. But that is not taking responsibility for the politics that one conducts.

I think that Johan Forssell could instead explain why he thinks this is a reasonable policy and why he thinks it is right that a parent who becomes unemployed can be punished by having parts of the family sent away from here.

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe I am the only one in here who thinks that it is a loathsome rhetoric that Miljöpartiet is employing in these difficult issues. It is truly beyond all criticism, but it is also a pattern. I regret it. In a time where we already have major problems with hate and polarization, Miljöpartiet chooses to use the speaking time here to fuel it – with pure inaccuracies, even.

Has Annika Hirvonen read the bill? It states there about exceptions and different rules if one, for example, falls ill. It is there. Why doesn't Miljöpartiet mention it? I know that this gives easy points. It will surely do well on social media on some platform, but it is not a good way to conduct the debate. It is incredibly cheap, I think. I do not think it belongs in a serious debate.

The Green Party may not say they want free immigration – I understand that. But point by point, point by point, the Green Party wants to remove all rules regarding this.

Take the subsistence requirement for family immigration, which we are discussing here today! Miljöpartiet wants to return to having significantly lower requirements than today. One should be able to become a citizen without being able to speak a single word of Swedish. There are people who commit serious crimes, but we shall not lower the threshold for deportations in Sweden. What will be the consequence of this? We know it, because we have tried that policy before. It creates a very high asylum immigration. It creates major integration problems. It creates very inhumane situations where thousands of children grow up in families where mom and dad do not go and work and where one does not learn the Swedish language.

We have tried that policy. It has failed before. I can only regret that this policy now also seems to be the common policy of the entire red-green government alternative and that the Social Democrats also seem to have been convinced of this. It is a harmful policy. People will pay the price in the form of greater integration problems, greater exclusion, and higher taxes. It cannot be the future for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I heard the Minister for Migration speak in the exchange about how one should work and behave correctly and so on. We agree with that. But this was the case, for example, with the track-switchers, but they and their children received deportation decisions. An eight-month-old baby received a deportation decision. The teenagers did everything correctly and properly, and they still received deportation decisions. This, therefore, does not quite add up.

This makes me think of what I touched upon in my speech. Two weeks ago, 19-year-old Bader, who came to Sweden when he was 12, was sent alone to Syria. Previously, we have been able to read about Donya and Darya who were deported to Iran, Nardine who was deported to Egypt, and Diya and Kani who are to be sent to Iraq. Every week, new cases.

In January, the deportations of teenagers in Sweden were highlighted. Johan Forssell said that he would fix it. Then Johan Forssell put this on the back burner throughout the spring, not to handle the deportations of teenagers but as crisis management for the government, which said that the deportations of teenagers would be stopped. Ministers went out and said it. Simona Mohamsson sat on TV4 and said: We have stopped the deportations of teenagers. A week later, Nardine is on the plane and is being deported to Egypt. Her parents are left behind.

Why does the Minister for Migration not stop the deportation of teenagers as promised in this bill? Instead, you are pushing the age up from 18 to 21 years. Then, one still risks being deported. Why did you put this on the back burner and use the teenagers in your crisis management instead of stopping the deportation of teenagers?

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! The situation that Tony Haddou describes has a history. I believe that Tony Haddou is aware of it. Tony Haddou has sat in the Riksdag for many years and knows that this is legislation that entered into force in 2016 and then in 2021.

I would of course wish that it had been handled earlier. It would have been much better. I also note that the Left Party's interest in this issue has been very selective. It was actually only when the media started writing that I received questions about it – otherwise no interpellations or questions.

I believe it bothers the Left Party very much that it is a moderate migration minister who is fixing this. One has had so many other opportunities earlier but didn't care, rather one seems to have been completely uninterested in the issue. Now we are producing a solution for this group, and I am convinced that it will turn out very well.

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by congratulating Vänsterpartiet, which, together with Miljöpartiet, now has the lead on the red-green side and has succeeded in bringing the Socialdemokrater along in a return to the previous irresponsible migration policy that multiplied asylum immigration and created such large integration problems in our country.

I want to ask a question to Tony Haddou, now that Sweden is finally starting to get its head above water again and there is an opportunity to succeed in handling the integration problems. We are making changes so that one must be able to speak Swedish to become a citizen. One must work and behave correctly, and if one wants to bring relatives to Sweden, there must be a livelihood and a secure point in the country. If one misbehaves and commits crimes, one shall be deported. Why does Vänsterpartiet vote "no" point by point to these reforms?

It is not I, Madam Speaker, who am advocating for an extreme policy. It is the parties on the red-green side, perhaps most clearly symbolized by the Left Party, which with clinical precision want to return to how the policy was ten years ago. It did not work then. Why would that policy work better today, and why is it so important for Tony Haddou to turn back the clock to before the refugee crisis?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I truly see that Johan Forssell wants to avoid the question of the teenage deportations. He gave a speech for over twelve minutes but did not want to talk about the teenage deportations which he promised would be addressed and resolved in this bill. He has not wanted to talk about this question at all. On the other hand, he used these teenagers during a half-year in the Moderaternas own crisis management. I actually think it is a disgrace.

In the exchange of replies, he is now telling the story instead of answering the questions. I am very familiar with the story; I have, after all, reported Johan Forssell for lying about 2016 and the vote regarding this at that time. He said that all parties had voted for this, which was a direct lie, and now the Committee on the Constitution must examine this. That they were to stop the deportation of teenagers was also a lie. This crisis management does not look particularly good for the Moderaterna now that they have not stopped the deportation of teenagers. We get reports where young people are torn from their parents and sent to countries that they often have no connection to at all.

Johan Forssell says that I am being selective in this and that we would not have talked about the deportation of teenagers. But when the Moderaterna even wanted to ramp up the deportations in 2023 and remove particularly sensitive circumstances, we warned about what would happen. We said this before the deportation of teenagers. It is obvious that the minister should be criticized for not having handled this but instead using teenagers in the party's crisis management.

Now we are in a situation where the issue has not been resolved at all. This government has shown nothing other than an inability to stop the deportations of teenagers.

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

Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Tony Haddou, albeit unintentionally, pointed out one of very many differences between my and the Left Party's migration policy: Why do the Moderates not want to talk about the deportations of teenagers? It is perhaps not talking that makes the difference. There has been very much talk earlier, but very little has happened.

We act instead. We change, and it is a Moderate Migration Minister who does it, despite there having been so many chances earlier to handle the problems. But back then, the interest had vanished.

We are nevertheless in agreement regarding this group that if one works and behaves correctly, one should be allowed to stay. Now we will produce such legislation. What we are not in agreement on, however, is the Left Party's return to the previous, completely requirement-free migration policy. Tony Haddou has indeed said that he did not think that 163,000 people who came to Sweden in a year constituted any crisis. It seems to be a normal day at work, despite all the major problems it created in the form of major integration problems, thousands of children growing up in families where mom and dad do not go to work, segregation and exclusion.

It is a very inhumane result of the migration policy that Vänsterpartiet stands for, that Miljöpartiet stands for, and which now also the Socialdemokraterna in several important respects have stood behind together with Centerpartiet.

We have tried that policy before. It did not end particularly well. It ended, as said, in major integration problems and major tax increases. It also ended in a situation where people did not learn the Swedish language and where one could become a citizen in our country without being able to speak a single word of Swedish. It ended in that persons who came to our country and committed very serious crimes – violent crimes, sexual crimes – were nevertheless not deported but could remain here and continue to destroy the lives of their crime victims.

It is not a politics that I want to return to, and I do not believe that the Swedish people want it either. Thank you, Tony Haddou!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 13 August.)

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