Strengthened return activities

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates are convinced that regulated immigration is a prerequisite for Sweden to function as a welfare state but also to be able to have control over both the internal and external security of the country.

Those who have the right to stay in Sweden shall be given good conditions to integrate, learn the Swedish language, support themselves, and become part of our Swedish community.

Those who do not have the right to stay in Sweden must return home. A no must be a no, otherwise the regulated immigration will crack, and then Sweden will ultimately have free immigration in practice. So we cannot have that. The Moderate government therefore proposes a number of changes to our Swedish legislation to strengthen and streamline the return activities.

Madam Speaker! According to Skatteverket's statistics, there are between 110,000 and 185,000 people in Sweden who do not have the right to stay here. They live in the so-called shadow society, a society without order, control, and legal certainty. They often live under difficult conditions. They are subjected to exploitation. In the shadow society, crime and vulnerability also flourish. It is not acceptable. It is not fair to the people who live here legally and follow the rules. Therefore, we must do something about this. That is what we do in the report being debated today, and that is what the debate is about.

Madam Speaker! Our proposal contains several parts.

The Moderate government proposes, for the first instance, that six agencies – Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Kriminalvården, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Pensionsmyndigheten and Skatteverket – shall have an obligation to provide information on persons they suspect lack the right to stay in Sweden. It is an important reform. It means that we get a system where the agencies cooperate to enable the identification and removal of those who do not have the right to be here.

Secondly, more internal immigration controls are enabled, and the authorities are given additional tools to clarify an alien's identity. Among other things, a possibility is introduced to seize and search an alien's mobile phone if it can be assumed to contain information about the person's identity. Furthermore, fingerprints and photographs shall be allowed to be used in alien cases to a greater extent and more effectively than today.

Madam Speaker! In many contexts, Sweden has had a poorly functioning inter-agency cooperation where secrecy barriers have blocked the exchange of information. Now we are changing that even within the area of immigration law. It is not wrong in any way for Swedish authorities to help each other where there is an opportunity. It should have been in place for a long time. It is hardly surprising, however, that the left-wing opposition is critical and angry about what we propose.

The Left Party and the Green Party say a flat no. In practice, they do not want to do anything about the shadow society and all the negative consequences it has for Sweden as a country.

The Social Democrats and the Centre Party want to raise the bar for when authorities are allowed to share the information they have. They want to de facto make it more difficult for authorities to cooperate and function effectively. It is weak of the Social Democrats, above all, to succumb to the internal left-wing winds within the party, but it is hardly surprising. It is a trend we have seen throughout this spring despite all the talk and all the promises of a so-called strict migration policy that the Social Democrats promise to pursue after an election victory this autumn – that is, if misfortune were to occur.

Madam Speaker! The left-wing opposition claims that our proposal creates uncertainty. They say that it could lead to reduced trust in the authorities. They say that it could lead to people avoiding contact with the authorities. But these are smokescreens because they are generally critical of our paradigm shift in migration policy.

Firstly: The duty to report applies only when there is reason to assume that a person lacks the right to stay in Sweden. It is a reasonable threshold, given that it should not be up to the authorities concerned to themselves carry out any complete assessment of whether a foreigner has the right to stay in the country.

Secondly: In our proposal, we have made it clear that the duty to provide information is limited. It only applies to six authorities, and it only applies to information that the authorities already have at their disposal.

Thirdly: This is not about the six concerned authorities conducting their own investigations, but rather about providing information they already have to facilitate the work of the Police Authority and the Swedish Migration Agency in the return process regarding persons who do not have the right to be in our country. It is about cooperation.

A united left-wing opposition wants to complicate and weaken this. They say that it is too far-reaching. It is completely incomprehensible to me.

Madam Speaker! The left opposition says that this is disproportionate. I think it is disproportionate to let between 110,000 and 185,000 people live in the shadow society. I think it is disproportionate to let them be exploited and subjected to crime. I think it is disproportionate to let them contribute to a parallel, black labor market without taxes and regulations. It is this that is disproportionate. With this proposal, we add another piece to the puzzle to solve this problem. It should have been done a long time ago.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about the fact that this proposal concerns something as fundamental as law and order. Sweden is a country built on law and order. We have laws and rules. We expect people to follow them and that the state upholds them.

For many years, however, Sweden has not done so. For many years, we have allowed people to stay here without following the rules. For many years, we have allowed shadow societies to emerge. This must come to an end. That is what this proposal is about, regardless of what the left-wing parties want to make it seem like.

I believe that the vast majority in Sweden have lived under the delusion that the authorities have shared information with each other, for the benefit of the rule of law and so that decisions can be enforced. Now we are ensuring that it actually becomes so. It is met with protests from the left-wing opposition, but I am convinced that it has the support of the Swedish people.

Madam Speaker! I therefore wish to move for the adoption of the committee's proposal for a parliamentary decision and the rejection of all reservations.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating what has in general speech come to be called the reporting law, that is to say, an obligation for individual employees within various agencies to report if they suspect that a person they have contact with has the status of being undocumented in Sweden. I understand that Viktor Wärnick would like to misunderstand this as Miljöpartiet thinking that it is good for people to live as undocumented, but that is not the case. All of us who have actually met people living in undocumented status and know what incredible vulnerability it entails are very keen that people do not end up in what Viktor Wärnick calls the shadow society in the first place.

This law is about what life should be like for those who live in the shadow society. Should one dare to turn to healthcare when in acute need, or is one too afraid to do so?

People who live in undocumented status do not do so because they feel they have a choice. They simply feel that the alternative – being deported to their home country – is so much more dangerous that they even take risks with dangerous births, outside of hospitals, for fear of being reported. It is the consequence of the proposal that Viktor Wärnick puts forward today.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I think the fear propaganda that Miljöpartiet engages in, not only in this issue but also in other issues in the migration policy area, is remarkable. One exaggerates to the point of bursting when describing how the social development will look if we get our legislative proposals to pass this chamber.

Annika Hirvonen claims that one would not be able to go to healthcare, but there is nothing in this proposal regarding that healthcare should be given any obligation to share information with the Swedish Police Authority or the Swedish Migration Agency. The bill even specifies explicit exceptions that ensure that will not be the case. It doesn't matter, however, because the Green Party narrative will always be that everything will go completely to hell if we, from the coalition parties' side, get through the legislation that we are presenting here in the chamber of the Riksdag.

I think it is deplorable to argue in that way, but it is nothing particularly new. This is how Miljöpartiet behaves in all issues concerning migration policy. For Miljöpartiet, migration policy is fundamentally about free immigration. They do not want any special requirements for people who come to Sweden. They may say it in the rhetoric, but with all their different objections and all the reservations they put forward here in the chamber, they advocate in practice for free immigration. They say that the decisions of Swedish authorities and courts are wrong – people supposedly have a moral right to stay here in the country if they feel like it.

We think it is reasonable to have a principle of regulated immigration. If one does not have the right to be in the country, one should leave the country. For that reason, information needs to be exchanged between the authorities specified in a much better way than today.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I truly wish it were fear propaganda, but what I told about is a real case. It has happened. Doctors in the World met a woman who said that she did not dare to seek care and did not dare to give birth to her child in a hospital, for fear of being reported, even though she had a high-risk pregnancy and even though both her and the child's health were in danger if she did not have access to care during the delivery.

Even though it does not state in the bill that healthcare shall report people – and it is a huge mobilization that lies behind that; we have pressured the government to remove healthcare from the reporting law – this fear will still be real. The first thing the midwives are to do when they are finished delivering a child is, in fact, to report the child to Skatteverket, and Skatteverket shall report undocumented people. Therefore, this fear is not at all imaginary. It is not at all about scaremongering, but this is the reality and a real choice that the people who find themselves in the shadow society will be faced with.

As much as we in Miljöpartiet want that no human being should be there, we need to acknowledge that in reality, there are many people living as undocumented. I believe that even they should dare to give birth to their children in the safety of a hospital.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! As usual, Annika Hirvonen wants to delve into individual cases and use them in her argumentation regarding the potential flaws in the legislation. As usual, however, it may actually be the case that there are circumstances in the individual cases that Annika Hirvonen wants to utilize here in the parliamentary rostrum, despite the fact that we should not do so, which we do not fully know about. This is the Green Party's rhetorical trick. Someone knows someone who has heard something, and therefore the legislation is wrong.

We ensure a better exchange of information between a number of different agencies – specifically six of them. It is not about healthcare or about schools. It is about Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Kriminalvården, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Pensionsmyndigheten and Skatteverket. They shall, if there is reason to do so, make a report to Polismyndigheten so that it can be ensured that the person who does not have the right to stay in the country returns home.

If one violates the principle of regulated immigration, it must have consequences. One should not be able to remain in Sweden without consequences when a decision has been made to leave Sweden because one lacks grounds for protection or other grounds to stay in Sweden.

If return is not functioning, we do not have regulated but free immigration. I understand that Miljöpartiet actually desires free immigration, because that is what is argued for and what proposals are constantly put forward for.

This law is not called the disclosure law in common parlance, but it is Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet who call it that in their rhetoric. You also have a certain responsibility for the level of the debate!

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It is actually the case that if an undocumented pregnant woman comes to healthcare to give birth, healthcare shall, with this bill, report her.

Something I am so proud of in Sweden is all the people all around the country who provide care to undocumented people when these individuals do not dare to turn to healthcare. For over 30 years, care has been given to undocumented people in Sweden.

With this government, undocumented people are more afraid than ever. It is not about any fear propaganda or smokescreen, which the member tries to claim.

I believe that the notion of who is undocumented needs to be nuanced in the debate. In a family, one parent may have a residence permit, the other parent may be undocumented, and the children may be citizens. If one parent is to apply for sickness benefit after a workplace accident, the other parent risks being deported as a result of the contact with Försäkringskassan.

So both Skatteverket and Försäkringskassan are to be reporters, Viktor Wärnick.

The government only wants to make people deportable but knows nothing about the consequences, the personal fates of those affected, or the employees who are to carry this out. It is not a matter of smokescreens or fear propaganda.

According to a survey by Akademikerförbundet SSR, only 3 of Sweden's 290 municipalities support the government's proposal, and of Sweden's 21 regions, none express support. Why are you presenting something that neither the municipalities nor the regions support?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! That the asylum activists in Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet say no to everything related to the principle of regulated immigration and the maintenance of the order for regulated immigration is not surprising. They do so consistently and persistently and primarily demand rejection of everything. In the second instance, they may consider joining the Socialdemokraterna and Centerpartiet to make the legislation slightly less effective.

The Left Party does not want us to have regulated immigration. According to the Left Party, there are always stories, exceptions, and reasons for people to be allowed to stay in Sweden even though they do not have the right to stay. But then the principle of regulated immigration cracks, and we get free immigration.

It is this that the Left Party and the Green Party are running on, and it is this they intend to demand from the Social Democrats to let Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister after the election this autumn, should the worst happen. This is what the alternative is.

I think Tony Haddou should say it as it is, and there is a question Tony Haddou should answer clearly and distinctly here in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag: Does Vänsterpartiet stand for the principle of regulated immigration at all?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I think the member should raise their level a bit, and I received no answer to my question.

I also said that the image of who is undocumented needs to be nuanced and gave a fairly clear example of what can happen if this bill is passed.

Viktor Wärnick feels a deep bitterness towards Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet when it comes to migration policy. But let me remind Viktor Wärnick that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet together are currently larger than Moderaterna in the opinion polls. Could that be what is stressing Moderaterna when they present these proposals?

The committee chairman also spoke about exceptions. It is not the Left Party that is constantly demanding exceptions, but it is the Swedish people who are pressuring the government. The government wanted to deport teenager after teenager but had to return with exceptions because it didn't work. The government wanted all teachers and all healthcare staff to be informants. Was it I or was it you, Viktor, who returned to the Riksdag with exceptions? I believe it was you. The government crashed the labor migration completely but returned with exceptions.

Madam Speaker! This government is a total crash.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Not even in this debate does Tony Haddou intend to answer the question of whether the Left Party stands up for the principle of regulated immigration, because it does not. That is also what underlies all the different countermeasures and counterproposals the Left Party puts forward in the chamber.

Vänsterpartiet has no answer for how we are to deal with the problem that 110,000–185,000 people stay in Sweden without the right to be here. Vänsterpartiet has no solution whatsoever to that, because fundamentally, they think it is not a big problem because they have their reasons to be here. That is how one argues.

We will not get away from the fact that the Left Party in a government will pursue the same line. Regardless of the Social Democrats' talk of a strict but not stupid migration policy, the Left Party and perhaps Tony Haddou as migration minister will propose relaxation after relaxation and rollback after rollback of the reforms we are now implementing.

This concerns six authorities that are to share information with the Swedish Police Authority so that we can better ensure that those who do not have the right to be in Sweden also leave the country. I understand that return activities is a term that the Left Party does not usually put in its mouth. But this must work, because otherwise we do not have regulated immigration. The Left Party does not believe in this and does not want to say in the chamber of the Riksdag that one stands up for it.

I am, however, convinced that there is broad support among the Swedish people for a yes to be a yes and a no to be a no. When election day comes, we shall see who is right on this issue.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that a no must be a no, that the Centre Party is for returning and that one must follow laws and rules, so we do not need to make things up about each other. Good!

The Centre Party stands up for the principle of regulated immigration. But there are also other principles, for example regarding the individual, the inviolability of human life, and that employees should feel safe in their workplaces.

That is where this discussion also needs to be taken. When there are other principles, they also need to be weighed against each other, but the government does not do that. The government only sees migration. It sees nothing else. So as soon as it concerns deportations, the government becomes blind. Suddenly, everything else disappears.

We must agree that we are to find those who are to return. The police have a lot of powers for that. The question, however, is whether it needs to happen at a birth. I understand that the Moderaterna, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, are upset that all teachers and nurses will no longer have to report every undocumented person they see, as one would actually have wanted it to be.

When we talk about the shadow society, the Moderaterna must also tell us what they call a society where births occur in the shadows, because information about every birth must be sent to authorities who must then forward it to the police. It is these cases we are talking about. There will be a lot – or perhaps not a lot – of individual cases. It is a matter of principle, so let us talk about the principle.

Should the person who perhaps lives without papers in Sweden have to think about this in the delivery situation? Should the staff have to think that the most important thing in the room right now when the child is born is to ensure that the person is deported?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Now I think that Niels Paarup-Petersen is once again making a difference in the own proposals that are presented in this committee report and the rhetoric.

Niels Paarup-Petersen intends to vote for this bill but with an amendment to the requirements for when authorities shall provide information to the Swedish Police Authority. That is, it is not desired that the basis should be "reason to assume," but rather it is desired that there should be "strong reasons to assume." It is also desired that the collateral information that the authorities may have should not be provided to the Swedish Police Authority. That is the difference in the Center Party's proposal.

I am not quite sure whether it is due to ignorance or because of rhetorical tricks that Niels Paarup-Petersen involves healthcare, just as Miljöpartiet did. Nowhere in this proposal does it say anything about healthcare being to provide information to Polismyndigheten. Of course, during the birth of a newborn child, information shall be provided to Skatteverket. Does Niels Paarup-Petersen have any proposal in the report about that they should stop doing it? No, he does not.

It is a high tone, but there are no concrete proposals behind it. Niels Paarup-Petersen intends to vote for the proposal tomorrow but with a more ineffective requirement that there must be "strong reasons to assume." The six authorities that I listed shall to a greater extent make their own assessment of whether the person they have information about is in Sweden illegally or not.

This is what it sounds like from a Centre Party that has completely lost its way in Swedish politics. It is a party that has totally abandoned the conservative side and has now focused on supporting a socialist government – the most left-leaning government this country can have since the days of the wage-earner funds. That is the proof of how Niels Paarup-Petersen argues.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! The discussion on the employee funds can, in itself, be taken with the Liberals who submitted the proposal.

I understand that the deportation activists in Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna are not satisfied with our proposals. I can nevertheless state that the collateral information is crucial. I am pleased that Wärnick still went there after his incorrect statement. It is not only in terms of the requirements that we have other proposals, but also regarding the collateral information and that, for example, it should not be the individual employee who is to do it, but the authority itself.

It is a principled difference. An individual employee already has a civil servant responsibility. Should they, when they see something that could be a problem, additionally need to feel "If I don't do this in the right way, the Tidöre government will certainly punish me"?

We are once again creating the idea that we are to frighten both employees at agencies and all immigrants. The government's basis today is that we are to frighten everyone all the time, and that is what we oppose. Yes, it is principled, and it should be.

All municipalities are against this. Are there perhaps two that are for it? I think it is something like that. All regions and all trade unions are against it. It is not because of some made-up thing or some super-leftist thingamajig.

Region Skåne is governed by Tidö, and they are against it. What should the member call them? They agree with me that this is a problem, but they do not agree with their own government. I think it is important to take that with you when you hear these strange platitudes. I do not want migration policy to be more important than the human being in a delivery room, and I stand by that principle any day.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Just as I said in my exchange with Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet, I believe that Centerpartiet is engaging in unworthy fear-mongering.

Centerpartiet therefore has no other proposal than to accept the government's bill but with a change of the requirements from "reason to assume" to "strong reasons to assume". Furthermore, they want to remove the side information. This brings us to the question of what side information is.

In the proposition, it states, if we are now to stick to what we are to make decisions on and not hearsay about any individual case or similar, then as follows: ”It means that as a rule it should be such information as the authority needs in order to be able to carry out its own mandate.”

In the proposition, it further states: ”There should be no requirement that the surrendering authority itself has an actual need for the information, but a duty to report should arise even if the authority becomes aware that a foreigner lacks the right to stay in Sweden through so-called collateral information. Collateral information can, for example, involve information that a foreigner provides on their own initiative in an interrogation in a criminal investigation where his or her right of residence is not of importance for the investigation of the crime. It can also involve observations made by the foreigner in connection with an inspection or procedure within the framework of a specific matter that is not of direct relevance to the purpose of the inspection or procedure.”

It means that these six authorities shall also be able to share information that is not related to the authority's activities. Healthcare is not included in this, no matter how much Niels Paarup-Petersen and Annika Hirvonen stand and wave with that scare tactic. We have specifically specified these six authorities in order to address the shadow society and to ensure that those people who do not have the right to stay in the country leave Sweden.

Niels Paarup-Petersen has no answer in his rhetoric as to what we should do to deal with the shadow society. He has no such proposals at all, but instead employs a puffed-up rhetoric. But it also falls flat when one looks at how the Center Party intends to vote in the vote tomorrow.

(Applause)

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by thanking Viktor Wärnick for clarifying in the final exchange exactly why we have problems with the collateral information. There are rather vague descriptions from the government's side regarding what it should actually mean and include. Is it to include what is seen during an inspection and so on? It can sometimes be tasks that the authority does not need to handle its matter. It is precisely for that reason that we also want to proceed with limitations of the collateral information.

But that was not why I requested the floor. As usual, Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed reviewing old KU reports. That is how one can enjoy oneself. I noted a conflict regarding the shadow society. We know it exists, but we dispute how large it is. So do researchers, who point to slightly different figures. From the government side, they would like to take a stand and point out that there are 185,000 people in the shadow society. Other figures, however, show approximately 35,000. My question to Viktor Wärnick is quite simply: What does he base these figures on?

As a consequence of this, I remember very clearly that during the previous parliamentary term, there were countless interpellations and written questions regarding when the large-scale census in Sweden would be established. It has still not happened, even though the Tidö Government has had four years to carry out such a large-scale census. My question to Viktor Wärnick is: When will we get such a large-scale census?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I think it is relevant that an opportunity is given to share collateral information with the Police Authority in order to facilitate the return work.

It is clear that the six agencies listed in the bill can sometimes detect and see things that are not relevant to their own work but may be relevant to the Police Authority's and ultimately the Swedish Migration Agency's ability to ensure that those who do not have the right to be in the country also leave it.

What it is about at its core is: How do we ensure that we achieve the most effective agency cooperation that is only possible? And how do we ensure that the six agencies are not given any kind of investigative mandate where it is they themselves who are to decide and evaluate the information? That information should be handed over to the Swedish Police Authority. That is why it is relevant to provide as much space as possible to hand over as much information as possible so that it can then be taken further and the deportation can be executed in a more efficient way than today.

I regret that the Social Democrats are letting the left-wing currents within their own party lead them away from the more efficient toward the more inefficient and toward more exceptions in the legislation, so that we get a less efficient agency cooperation. I think that is regrettable.

I believe that the Social Democrats will face a difficult negotiating position with the Left Party and the Green Party when forming a government after the election this autumn, should misfortune strike and a majority is obtained.

The statistics come from Skatteverket, and I believe they are just over a year old: Between 110,000 and 185,000 people are estimated to be in Sweden without the right to be here. The census will probably not be carried out as in the good old days, when we had made a pilgrimage to Skatteverket. Skatteverket works on this continuously and has done some of the work that the Riksdag and the government have tasked them to do.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Viktor Wärnick, for the answer!

I am pleased that the Moderaterna have now adopted the same views as we had during the previous parliamentary term, namely that it is better for the Skatteverket to receive specified assignments to work towards municipalities that detect, for example, increased water consumption in an apartment, so that those types of targeted interventions can be made. It is significantly more efficient for the taxpayers and significantly better for all of Sweden, so I am pleased.

I am stuck on Viktor Wärnick's hairsplitting argument that agency cooperation would be hindered by our proposal. Let me speak a bit about administrative policy, Madam Speaker. It is incredibly interesting and exciting.

Authorities have recently flagged that secrecy barriers need to be torn down. It has not always been so, and there is also dispute over whether it is really the case that secrecy rules set up obstacles for agency cooperation. Sometimes the secrecy rules have been over-interpreted, and perhaps cooperation and collaboration can already be achieved today without us needing to make legislative changes.

Clearer limitations, clearer boundaries, and clearer regulations have been requested for how this should be able to occur, so that one as an authority can feel secure that one is not violating any confidentiality provisions when cooperating. This is precisely what our proposal is about, that is to make it extra clear what type of information should be exchanged, when it should be exchanged, and in what way it should be exchanged.

It is regrettable that the government does not want to do this, but instead wants to proceed with proposals that are a bit too far-reaching and which will result in criticism about a reporting law once again. The government could counteract this significantly better than what is done in the bill.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I must await Ida Karkiainen's main speech here in the rostrum and listen to the arguments as to why we should have more limited legislation on when the authorities can exchange information with each other.

Our proposal is that there should be a reason to assume that someone is here illegally and that the information should then be shared. The Social Democrats want a higher requirement. They want a more restricted version and to introduce the requirement "strong reasons to assume". The reason why we think that would be a bad alternative is that the legislation would then become less effective.

Furthermore, the six authorities should be assigned more investigative responsibility or responsibility for assessing the information they themselves possess before handing it over to the Police Authority. Our thought is that the authorities should not perform any such assessment. The authorities concerned should not be tasked with performing a full review or even a partial review themselves; instead, this shall be done by the Police Authority and the Swedish Migration Agency.

I think it is regrettable that the Social Democrats, in the hyped-up debate climate that has prevailed in this issue, feel compelled to put forward a limitation in the law in order to, so to speak, wave a flag to show that one does not agree with what, according to the accusations of the Green Party and the Left Party, is a reporting law. We think it is information-exchange legislation to ensure that the return work functions more effectively.

I also think it is regrettable that the Social Democrats do not think that authorities should be allowed to share information that they have but which does not concern their own activities. It is entirely a limitation of the legislation that makes it much harder for us to counter the shadow society and all its consequences and ensure that those who do not have the right to be in Sweden return.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! When the government parties signed the Tidö Agreement in October 2022, there was a point in the section on migration about introducing a comprehensive reporting obligation. All municipalities and authorities in Sweden would be required to report undocumented migrants. The criticism was not long in coming. Rightly so, public officials spoke out and pointed to the Tidö Agreement's far-reaching proposal. Teachers would be forced to report students, and healthcare personnel would be forced to report patients. The protests were many and extensive.

Perhaps that was why the Tidö parties backed off significantly when it came to what was ultimately presented. Perhaps it was a wise investigator who pointed out far-reaching consequences if the government's proposal were to go through. Perhaps it was referral bodies and experts who provided well-argued criticism. Perhaps it was liberals who took on that mission to be a watchdog against the Tidö government's most far-reaching proposals. Perhaps it was a combination of all of that.

The proposal that we are debating here today is, in any case, significantly changed compared to the Tidö parties' original idea, which we Social Democrats think is good. But the proposal is not good enough, which is why we also have a number of reservations.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must have a migration policy based on order and tidiness. Those who have had their case reviewed and received a rejection of their asylum application shall return. It is a fundamental prerequisite for the migration system to be legitimate and for people to feel confidence in the laws and rules that apply.

For us Social Democrats, there is no contradiction. A humane and strict migration policy presupposes that decisions actually apply. Therefore, a functioning return activity is an important part of a regulated migration.

A non-functioning return activity risks fueling the shadow society, Madam Speaker. We do not want any shadow societies in Sweden, no vulnerable areas, and no societies where rules other than the law book apply. But unfortunately, that is not the case. How large the shadow society is, no one really knows. There are some different figures and assumptions, as we have heard here today. But that it exists, we know, and when we know that, we have a responsibility to also do something about it. That is the Social Democrats' firm opinion.

Madam Speaker! Much of the work that now forms the basis for the government's bill was initiated during the previous, Social Democratic government. We gave the authorities better tools, increased the number of detention places, strengthened the work against population registration crimes, and commissioned investigations to improve return activities. That work was necessary to reduce the emergence of shadow societies where people risk being exploited by unscrupulous employers and criminal networks.

Persons staying in Sweden without permission can be exposed to serious crimes. This can, for example, involve human trafficking, human exploitation, forced marriage, honor-related violence and oppression, violence in close relationships or children exposed to violence.

We therefore see that several parts of the government's proposal are acceptable, but we see – despite the government's heavily reduced proposal – risks that must be managed so that the legislation is compatible with the principles that our society is built on and so that it does not become a reporting law. There is also a risk that the shadow society is bolstered and that people stay away even more than today if the provisions are not designed carefully.

Madam Speaker! Let me be clear about one thing: information exchange between authorities is not something new in Sweden. On the contrary, a functioning welfare state is built on the fact that authorities can cooperate when needed. Schools make reports of concern when children are harmed. Social services, the police, and other authorities cooperate to combat crime and protect vulnerable people. The Swedish Tax Agency, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, and other authorities already share information today to counter benefit fraud and to maintain trust in our common systems.

Furthermore, the Council on Legislation points out the circumstance that the person who stays in Sweden without having the right to do so can already today be guilty of a crime through the stay. Certain authorities already today have an obligation to provide information in relation to the law enforcement authorities when it concerns information needed in law enforcement activities. In cases where a foreigner lacks the right to stay in Sweden and thereby commits a crime, the aforementioned authorities thus already have an obligation to provide information in relation to the Police Authority.

It is therefore not the principle of information exchange that is the decisive issue in this debate. It has long been pointed out by authorities that their need to exchange information with one another is great and is hindered by secrecy rules. The decisive issue is how it is done.

For us Social Democrats, all expanded reporting obligations must rest on legally secure grounds. They must be proportionate and clearly defined. The state must be strong enough to uphold decisions made but also wise enough to understand that trust in the authorities is one of Sweden's most important assets. When people seek care, when children go to school, and when people come into contact with social services, they must feel confidence in society's institutions. If that trust is eroded, we risk creating greater problems than those we are trying to solve.

That is why we Social Democrats stand up for both order and rule of law. That is why we say yes to more effective return work but no to unclear rules that risk leading to arbitrariness or undermining the trust in the welfare system's activities.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is strong because we have a high level of trust. People generally trust the authorities, the welfare state, and each other. That trust, however, cannot be taken for granted. It has been built up over generations through the rule of law, equal treatment, and professional authorities. It can be destroyed quickly, not least through political claims about agency activism and other matters.

That is why we are critical of the government's desire to introduce a duty of action that is to be activated when there is only reason to assume that a person lacks the right to stay in Sweden. Such a low burden of proof risks creating uncertainty and arbitrariness. Public employees shall make decisions based on knowledge and objective assessments and not based on loose suspicions.

It is not just anyone who presents these perspectives in the government's bill and in the government's referral of the bill, but it is, among others, the Bar Association and Lund University who point out that the evidentiary requirements are very low. We therefore believe that the legislation should be designed so that strong reasons are required to assume that a person lacks the right to stay in the country before information is passed on. This would strengthen both legal certainty and legitimacy.

Madam Speaker! It must also be clear that the responsibility for the exchange of information lies with the authority and not with the individual official. It is true that there is always an official who will come into contact with a case. That is so. But no individual employee should be left alone with the responsibility for difficult legal assessments and, furthermore, with the risk of facing an increased threat profile. This is also pointed out by a number of referral bodies.

Madam Speaker! We also see risks that information spreads further than the legislator intends. That is why we react so strongly against the government's loose phrasing regarding side information. It must be clear and regulated which information is covered by the reporting obligation. The government is also partly clear in the bill. Had they only stopped at the information that the government lists and not entered into the side information, the bill would have been significantly better.

This is also pointed out by the Council on Legislation, which in its opinion writes the following: ”It is therefore important that the authorities, when they fulfill their obligations of duty, are aware of which rules they should apply in order, among other things, to avoid that confidential information is disclosed or handled incorrectly. According to the Council on Legislation, the relationship between the currently relevant obligation of duty and other obligations of duty needs to be clarified in order to facilitate correct application by the authorities.”

Furthermore, it is not always better with more information. It may even be more efficient with less information and more limited information. We do not want authorities to be flooded with information that they do not actually need.

Madam Speaker! When people experience that contact with authorities can have unforeseen consequences, the willingness to seek care, contact authorities, or take part in society's support decreases.

This is particularly serious when children are affected. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is Swedish law. Children must never be caught in the crossfire of the authorities' information exchange. The Government must ensure that the child's best interests carry significant weight and that the information sharing does not become more extensive than what is absolutely necessary. No pregnant woman should refrain from seeking care out of fear. No child should risk being left without protection because people lose trust in society's institutions. Therefore, the collateral information must be more clearly limited.

Madam Speaker! We support that the authorities are given better opportunities to establish identity. For the return work to function, it is required that identity can be clarified so that authorities have effective tools. But even here, proportionality must be protected. Mobile phones today contain large parts of people's private lives – family contacts, photographs, messages, and personal information. Therefore, the state must use such coercive measures with great caution.

We share the Council for Legislation's assessment that the government's proposal to be able to retain a mobile phone for up to three months risks going further than what is proportionate. The state should have the tools required, but it should not intervene more than is necessary.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats' task has always been to build a society where people can feel both trust in one another and confidence in the state. We want order and clarity in migration policy. We want to counter shadow societies. We want return decisions to be enforced. But we also want to safeguard the rule of law, protect personal privacy, and defend the trust that has made Sweden strong. It is through that balance, between responsibility and solidarity and between efficiency and the rule of law, that we build a stronger society for everyone.

I support all of our motions but move for the approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a bill that aims for more deportations to be carried out.

That too few deportations have been carried out has been a major problem for many years. The result has been the presence of tens of thousands of illegal migrants in Sweden who function as a workforce for organized crime. It has also involved the exploitation of these illegal migrants. It is important to establish that no one wins from us having so many illegal migrants in the country – except for criminal elements, who can in various ways exploit the illegal migrants.

This government and the Sweden Democrats have a mandate to counter the shadow society and ensure that those who do not have permission to stay in Sweden actually leave the country. That is exactly what will be the outcome through the proposals in this bill.

The Government proposes that certain authorities shall, on their own initiative, provide information about a foreign national to the Police Authority when there is reason to assume that the foreign national lacks the right to stay in Sweden. A criticism put forward against this proposal is that such a proposal may result in reduced trust in the public sector. The question that should then be asked of the critics is: Reduced trust from whom?

Will there be reduced trust in the public sector from illegal migrants? Probably, but they are not supposed to be in Sweden.

Will there be diminished trust from the Swedish people? No, because they will see that there is order and tidiness in Sweden and that society as a whole cooperates to ensure that illegal migrants leave the country.

What diminishes trust in authorities is when we have authorities that enable illegal migrants to remain in the country. That is when honest citizens begin to ask questions about whose interests our authorities actually protect – Swedish citizens' or illegal migrants'.

Another criticism of a proposal for such a duty of disclosure for certain authorities is that illegal migrants would no longer turn to these authorities – but they should not do that! Illegal migrants should go home.

(Applause)

Why is it a problem that illegal migrants cannot turn to Swedish authorities? They are supposed to go home! The authorities covered by this reporting obligation are Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Kriminalvården, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Pensionsmyndigheten and Skatteverket. These authorities shall therefore provide information about the foreigner to Polismyndigheten if there is reason to assume that the person lacks the right to stay in Sweden. It concerns one or more concrete circumstances that with some strength indicate that the person does not have the right to stay in the country based on the information that the authority has access to.

The authorities covered by the duty of disclosure are authorities that often come into contact with illegal migrants and who often gain access to information regarding a person's right to stay in Sweden. The data covered by the duty of disclosure are data needed to carry out a deportation, for example, the foreigner's identity, citizenship, residential address, contact details, etc. The data to be handed over to the Swedish Police Authority are delimited in the bill.

The authority shall also provide information on the circumstances that form the basis for the assumption that the foreign national lacks the right to stay in Sweden. This may facilitate the Swedish Police Authority's assessment of whether the information should be forwarded to the Swedish Migration Agency or the Swedish Security Service.

This is not about these authorities being tasked with finding out whether foreigners have a right of residence or not, but it is about the authority, when information emerges in its own operations showing that someone does not have the right to stay in the country, conveying certain pieces of information about this foreigner to the Swedish Police Authority so that the Swedish Police Authority can in turn carry out its mission to execute deportations.

In the proposition, there are several other proposals on how the return activities should be made more efficient. Among others, there are proposals to facilitate internal foreign national controls by lowering the requirements regarding when these may be carried out. It will become easier for police to assess when they should carry out internal foreign national controls, and this means that more such controls will be carried out and that more illegal migrants will be deported.

The proposition also contains a proposal that, during an internal immigration check, a house search may be carried out to seize the foreigner's passport or other identity documents if it cannot be clarified that the foreigner has the right to stay in Sweden. Foreigners staying in Sweden without a residence permit rarely carry their identity documents with them but store them in a place where they usually sleep. This could be a residence, a workplace, or a private car. If the police are to be able to seize passports or other identity documents during internal immigration checks, access to these premises must also be granted.

A possibility shall also be introduced to seize a foreigner's electronic communication equipment if it can be assumed to contain information regarding the foreigner's identity. There is often information about foreigners' identities in, for example, mobile phones, computers, or USB sticks.

Mr. Speaker! The bill contains several proposals that strengthen the possibility of establishing identity through, among other things, the use of biometric data such as fingerprints and photographs. It is fundamentally nothing strange. If Sweden is to be able to enforce its own decisions, Swedish authorities must know who the foreigner is, what citizenship the foreigner has, and which country the foreigner is to be returned to.

Collecting and effectively using biometric data among foreigners is a tool to ensure that the return system works and that issued deportation decisions can actually be enforced. A fundamental starting point must be that Swedish authorities know who is in the country. If an identity cannot be established, the return, the immigration controls, and the possibility to enforce the deportation decisions that have been taken are hindered. It is not something that we will accept.

Mr. Speaker! Ultimately, this is about the credibility of the migration system. If those who receive a "no" can remain in Sweden year after year, trust in the entire migration system is eroded. A "yes" must be a "yes", but a "no" must also be a "no". Therefore, a functioning return is a prerequisite for a strict migration policy.

With these proposals, we ensure that it will be very difficult to be an illegal migrant in Sweden. Those who nevertheless choose to remain as illegal migrants in Sweden will sooner or later be found and sent back to their home countries. This disorder, which was accepted by the Social Democrats for decades, shall finally be dismantled.

When more deportation decisions are enforced, the shadow society shrinks. Organized crime finds it harder to exploit people, and confidence in the rule of law is strengthened. Above all, the principle is upheld that Swedish authority decisions actually apply and must be respected. A country where deportation decisions are not enforced loses control over migration. A country that actually enforces its decisions shows that laws and rules apply equally to everyone.

Mr. Speaker! This is not just about migration and deportations. It is also about our responsibility towards the Swedish people. On April 7, 2017, an Islamist who sympathized with the Islamic State committed a terrorist act less than one kilometer from this chamber. Five people died as a result of this terrorist act. The terrorist was an illegal migrant. He stayed in Sweden without permission after having been denied his asylum application.

Allowing illegal migrants to stay in Sweden is not about whether one is left or right, liberal or conservative. It is about whether one wants to safeguard the safety of the Swedish people or not.

If only 1 percent – 1 percent – of Sweden's illegal migrants were recruited by terrorist organizations, it would mean that we had thousands of perpetrators ready to carry out thousands of terror attacks. Those who create obstacles to illegal migrants being deported create the conditions for the next act of terrorism.

If the authorities had been able to convey information to the Swedish Police Authority and if the police had been able to carry out more internal immigration controls and had had more tools for internal immigration controls, the terrorist would most likely have been discovered before he carried out his terrorist act on April 7, 2017. Then, five innocent people would also be with us today. We have a responsibility towards the public to deport those who are not supposed to stay in the country so that tragedies do not occur. We have a responsibility to create safety for the Swedes.

Unfortunately, we still have parties in this assembly that do not know whether they serve Swedish citizens or illegal migrants. This government and the Sverigedemokraterna will always prioritize the safety of Swedish citizens.

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

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Member posed the rhetorical question "reduced trust from whom" regarding this proposal in his speech. I thought I could answer that. It is about reduced trust from authorities, trade unions, civil society, universities, lawyers and advocates, human rights organizations, children's rights organizations, teachers across the country and healthcare personnel across Sweden. I would nevertheless like to remind the Member that it was all of them who forced the government and Sverigedemokraterna to return to the Riksdag with a scaled-back proposal. Namely, they do not want reporting laws in Sweden.

Still, the member stands here and talks about the Swedish people. I think that voice made itself heard, and very loudly – enough to push the government back from the disclosure law when it happened. I therefore do not really believe that the member is in a position where he should talk about what the Swedish people want and do not want. Several times, a strong opinion in Sweden has pushed back legislative proposals from this government. They do not want them. They say: "Stop, that's enough! We do not sign off on this." It obviously damages trust and confidence.

I received no answer from the Moderates when I asked my question; the member felt mostly pressured. I will therefore pose the question to member Nima Gholam Ali Pour instead. In a survey from Akademikerförbundet SSR, only 3 of Sweden's 290 municipalities express their support for the bill that we are debating today. Of the country's 21 regions, none express support for this law. Why is the government presenting a proposal that totally lacks support?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I shall begin with the final question.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats are convinced that a person who does not have permission to stay in Sweden – a person who is an illegal migrant in Sweden – shall be deported and that the deportation shall be executed. Different authorities must cooperate more, and preferably, no authorities at all should enable the illegal migrant to stay in Sweden.

Another reform that we have implemented during this mandate period is that we have stopped the social services' ability to pay out financial assistance to illegal migrants. It was yet another way for a municipality to enable illegal migrants to stay in Sweden.

We are, therefore, doing everything we can so that as many illegal migrants as possible are deported. Then, regional politicians and municipal politicians who oppose this – who want illegal migrants to stay in Sweden – can speak for themselves and explain why they do not want authorities to cooperate so that deportations of illegal migrants are carried out. That question, therefore, you do not need to ask me, Tony Haddou, but you can ask it to those regional politicians and municipal politicians who, for some reason, want more illegal migrants in Sweden.

Then I wonder: Reduced trust from whom? Is it the case that some express reduced trust in the government because we want to deport illegal migrants? That is a discussion one can have with the public. What kind of authorities and trade unions are it that want more illegal migrants in Sweden? I would like to know that.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if the member is merely pretending that he is unaware of who pushed back against large parts of that proposal, but I can tell him that it was the collective trade unions in Sweden. In large part, all trade unions were against the proposal, and in large part, the entire civil society in Sweden was against it. Has the member missed that? It was the strong public opinion that made the government have to withdraw it and return with a scaled-back proposal.

Many have rebelled against the proposal. The Sweden Democrats and the government are in constant conflict with trade unions, civil society, municipalities, or regions because they do not want the government's policy. This resembles the debate about the return migration grant. The municipalities and regions said they did not want it, and yet it was implemented. Then one stands here and pretends not to know about it: "What is this about?" It becomes almost laughable, I must say.

The question must, however, still be posed to the member. The member says that I should pose the question to the municipalities and regions, but when Akademikerförbundet SSR conducts a survey and asks whether they want this proposal or not, it is thus only 3 of Sweden's 290 municipalities that give their support to the government's proposal. Of Sweden's 21 regions, none express support for the law that we are debating today. According to a survey from the union, neither municipalities nor regions want this law.

The member must still be able to answer. What is this due to? Can it solely be due to the fact that they want undocumented people, as we hear here in the debate? I do not think that is a particularly sober way to answer. A bit more objectivity, please, Nima Gholam Ali Pour!

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member refers to the fact that civil society, regions, and municipalities do not want cooperation between authorities and the Police Authority to carry out more deportations of illegal migrants, and the member asks me what I think about that. I can only say: I do not agree with them. I want more deportations of illegal migrants to be carried out. I want us to have fewer illegal migrants in Sweden.

I also explained in my speech why I want that. They are being exploited. It is not the case that they have a better life here in Sweden. They are being used as a workforce by organized crime.

The member may pose the question to those parts of civil society, regions, or municipalities that the member refers to as to why they do not want more cooperation between certain authorities and the Swedish Police Authority so that more illegal migrants will leave Sweden. The member may pose that question to them. I can only say that I do not agree with them and that I also do not understand the reasoning. Why would one want more illegal migrants in Sweden when the only ones who actually benefit from it are criminal organizations?

I also want to add that we are, therefore, talking about cooperation, collaboration, and information exchange between certain authorities and the Swedish Police Authority. It is about the fact that the Swedish Police Authority should actually only carry out its mission. The Swedish Police Authority shall execute deportations of illegal migrants; that is their mission. This shall then be promoted by certain authorities that can assist the Swedish Police Authority.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by agreeing with Nima Gholam Ali Pour on one thing, and that is that it is good that those who do not have the right to stay in Sweden leave the country. That is, after all, a prerequisite for regulated immigration. So it is. But in a constitutional state, there are also certain limits on how one handles laws, and in order to have a functioning welfare state and a functioning society, one must have certain principles for how one acts.

I actually have two questions. The first concerns this matter of side information. Why couldn't the government and the Sweden Democrats simply agree to clarify what applies? Because that is the challenge, that is, that there is such great uncertainty. We see that the regions point this out and that the trade unions point this out.

If the government had only done what we asked, that is to say clearly described that side information should not be included, we would not have had this problem. Then we could have voted for the proposal to a greater extent. That is why this is a reasonable thing to point out from our side.

My second question concerns the fact that when the directives for the reporting investigation were presented, the intention was that healthcare, school, etcetera should be included. Nima Gholam Ali Pour has been out and defended it and explained why it is very important that all types of public employees – for a while it was a bit unclear whether it should also apply to independent schools – are included.

I would therefore like to hear from Nima Gholam Ali Pour whether the Sweden Democrats still consider that schools, healthcare, and all others should have been included in that legislation and if they intend to continue to pursue that during the next parliamentary term.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the final question. The Sweden Democrats want to see as much cooperation as possible so that there are fewer illegal migrants in Sweden. Then, in the legislative process, it can be determined which authorities it should apply to and whether the municipalities should be involved in that. An investigator shall look at the whole and produce a proposal.

When it comes to the directives, I do not believe the member has read them. In the directives, it states that one must actually take into account the sensitive missions of healthcare, schools, and social services. It is therefore stated in the directives, and it was something that the investigator had to take into account.

Mr. Speaker! What is important to say is that we have more than 100,000 illegal migrants in the country. It is actually a crisis. It is more than 100,000 people who can be used by criminal gangs and by terrorists. Some have already been used by terrorists. People have died because of this. I did not mention in the rostrum all those who have been subjected to criminal acts where illegal migrants have been involved.

This is a crisis for the country. Sverigedemokraterna want as many public institutions as possible to be involved in the work of reducing the number of illegal migrants in the country.

We also want there to be some kind of prohibition against even enabling illegal migrants to stay in the country. Part of civil society in my hometown Malmö enables illegal migrants to stay in Sweden. It should not be permitted.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is an investigator who is to produce this based on the directives. It is correct that it states in the directives that one shall take into account but not exclude school and care. There is still a big difference. And the Sweden Democrats did not want that; that was at least the message we received then. That is why I ask the question.

It is almost election time anyway. The question is what the voters will get after the election. If Tidö wins, the Sweden Democrats will be the largest party in Tidö and thus receive the largest number of ministers and, as we have been told, the migration minister post. In that case, it is quite significant for the voters to know this.

Again – we are in complete agreement that those who are here but do not have the right to stay should leave. The question is whether every single instance throughout society must do that job, as opposed to when it concerns all types of crimes etcetera. We are not asking the teacher to report the parents' speeding fines, undeclared work, or similar information they receive. It is just this specific thing that the Sverigedemokraterna think should be reported. It is that part we are a bit surprised by.

That is why I ask again: Will the Sweden Democrats, in continued governance with Tidö, continue to work so that the individual teacher, the individual social worker, and the individual healthcare worker – nurse, doctor, and whatever it may be – in their everyday lives shall report someone whom they see does not have the right to stay in the country. As many as possible is an indication of that. But it is a bit diffuse. It would be good to have a clarification on that front.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I shall try not to be vague. The Sweden Democrats want as many public institutions and authorities as possible to be involved in the work of reducing the number of illegal migrants. That includes healthcare, social services and school.

We do not want illegal migrants and children of illegal migrants to attend our schools. We do not want our taxpayers to pay for the education of illegal migrants. We do not want illegal migrants to turn to our hospitals. They are primarily for Swedish citizens, for people who live here in Sweden and have permission to stay here.

Illegal migrants should only go in one direction: they should go home. That is how regulated immigration works. If the member does not accept that, I assume the member argues that illegal migrants should have a right to Swedish welfare. The member is, after all, speaking about them having a right to receive support from social services, which is part of the welfare, and access to healthcare and to school. All of that is included in the welfare.

Shall we give people who do not even have permission to stay here access to the welfare? It is not order and tidiness. Then one attracts those people here. Their children, namely, do not have access to school in their home countries. Then the illegal migrants have an incentive to come to Sweden, because there is school for their children here. They do not even need to stay in school with permission; if the Center Party gets to decide and if the Sweden Democrats get less influence after the election, they will namely get access to the Swedish welfare.

We want as many illegal migrants as possible to be deported and as many as possible to leave the country and go back to their home country.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I was just out on Norrbro, where a crowd of demonstrators defied the rain to send us a message: Stop the reporting law! Stop children born to undocumented people from becoming involuntary informants against their own mothers!

With this law, the Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket) becomes an authority that is obliged to report, and when the midwife reports the child to Skatteverket after the birth, they are therefore obliged to report.

The Sweden Democrats say that they want fewer undocumented people. At the same time, they pursue a policy that throws more and more people into undocumented status. With their deportation policy, they make more and more people lawless in this society.

Does Nima Gholam Ali Pour think it is right that undocumented mothers should be worried about seeking care, because they are so afraid of the consequences if they are forced back to their home country? Out of fear of being reported, they do not dare to seek care, even though their own health and the health of their unborn children is at stake.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Healthcare is not covered by the duty of reporting that we are to vote on. Healthcare, which the member refers to, is therefore not included in this legislation.

When it comes to the undocumented, they are not undocumented; they have papers in their home countries. They are illegal migrants. They have plenty of papers in the archives in their home countries. There are papers somewhere that identify them. But they do not want to show those papers. These people, therefore, have papers. The best thing they can do is actually to go to their home countries. There is no reason to stay here in Sweden and go to some hospital and give birth to a child.

They have no permit to be here. Then they must go home. That is how a regulated immigration works. I know that Miljöpartiet says that they support a regulated immigration, but they do not. They support a free immigration. When it comes down to it, they believe that illegal migrants should be allowed to take part in the Swedish welfare and Swedish healthcare. Preferably, they should not be deported at all.

It does not work in reality. There is a reality; when a country begins to give illegal migrants too many benefits and begins to create incentives for them to stay in Sweden, more illegal migrants will come to Sweden. Then the criminal gangs will get even more labor and even more resources to use. So we do not want that in Sweden.

This government and the Sverigedemokraterna are not listening to the protesters at Norrbro. We are listening to the Swedish people, who have given us a mandate to reduce the number of illegal migrants.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to enormous protests from the Swedish people – from trade unions that organize millions of Swedes, from doctors, from social workers, from teachers, from librarians, from academics, from engineers and many others – the Sweden Democrats and the government were forced to back down and say: No, healthcare shall not be included.

But since the Swedish Tax Agency is to report people and the Swedish Tax Agency is the first authority a midwife contacts when she has delivered a child, will a consequence of this reporting law be that pregnant women who are undocumented risk not daring to seek care? I received no answer on whether Nima Gholam Ali Pour thinks that is right.

It is still clear that he believes that those who think it is wrong for undocumented women to be afraid to give birth safely in hospitals are in favor of too much immigration. That can explain the Sweden Democrats' misunderstanding of our policy.

I think one must be able to hold several thoughts in one's head at the same time. One can want to prevent people from ending up in undocumented status without, for that part, denying those people who de facto are undocumented basic rights, such as the right to healthcare and a child's right to education. The shadow society cannot be fought by making it more dangerous for the people who live there.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One thought that the Green Party can never get into their heads is that illegal migrants are actually going to go home. But they must do so. How can it be that we have more than 100,000 illegal migrants in this country? It is something that is completely unacceptable.

I really want to emphasize that the goal for us in Sverigedemokraterna is that it should become impossible for illegal migrants to live in Sweden. It is only then that they will go home. We are not there yet – illegal migrants will still have access to certain services that would actually make them want to stay. It is absolutely our intention that illegal migrants should go home. It should become difficult for them to live in Sweden, preferably impossible.

When it comes to the reason why the proposal that the government has put forward looks the way it does, it is simply speculation that different movements would have influenced the government. The Member knows nothing about that. This is just something one puts forward to encourage these parts of civil society to continue working against the government's policy and the Sweden Democrats' policy, which will only make Sweden safer. If we have fewer illegal migrants in Sweden, Sweden becomes safer. The terrorist act that I told about was carried out by an illegal migrant. He could have been found. He could have been deported. His deportation could have been executed. But it never happened, because we had the lax legislation that we had. Today we are changing it, so that we do not get more terrorist acts.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know what to do. I will not dare to give birth to my child in a hospital. These words come from a pregnant undocumented woman who, despite having a high-risk pregnancy, does not see the healthcare system as the safe alternative for her delivery. That fear is based on the proposed reporting law. Even though it has not yet been introduced, the consequences have long been tangible. People are afraid. Many do not dare to seek care or let their children go to school. We cannot have a situation in Sweden where women do not dare to go to the hospital when they are about to give birth. The fear has already caused people to refrain from care that is crucial for their and their children's health.

The government has been forced to back down regarding the reporting law after massive protests, but now wants state authorities to act as informants. For a woman who lacks a personal identity number and needs to give birth, the birth notification must be sent to Skatteverket. This is naturally important for children to receive legal identity and rights, but when Skatteverket receives the information, it shall now also be used to arrest and deport the mother. This is a consequence of the Tidö parties' policy.

This has rightly been criticized by trade unions, authorities, civil society, teachers, healthcare professionals, universities, lawyers and advocates, human rights organizations and children's rights organizations. Now, authorities are to share information between one another – information that had a completely different purpose from the beginning. The person working at Försäkringskassan shall begin to pass on information coming from social services, healthcare, home care and so on. This damages all relationships between people, the state and authorities. The government wants authorities to be the border police's extended arm, but that is neither their task nor their mandate.

The perceptions of who is undocumented need to be nuanced. This is not heard, at least, here in the debate. It is actually the case that one parent can have a residence permit while the other parent is undocumented and the children are citizens. If one parent is to apply for sickness benefit after a workplace accident, the other parent risks being deported as a result of the contact with Försäkringskassan. Everything is connected. It is not more difficult than that. Family constellations look different. It can be the case that one parent simply lacks papers.

We have here in the debate heard from Nima Gholam Ali Pour that it is about illegal immigrants. He naturally links it to terror and so on. It is not a nuanced picture. I actually think that members in this chamber should understand the situations people live in. They can live in terrible situations. There are children who are afraid to go to school. The situation is not simple for them.

If these people had it better in their home country or could possibly have been deported there, they might have chosen that option. But for many, it is not an option at all. Had one understood different situations and contexts, one would have understood this. But this government does not. It has only one goal in mind: to deport as many as possible. Partly, it is because the Sverigedemokraterna want it. They just want white Swedes to be here. They are nostalgic and want to keep Sweden Swedish. We heard that even in the previous debate.

What I have now raised is only some of the examples of what will be linked with these authorities. But the absolute worst thing is that people will become more afraid. We have consistently opposed the introduction of a reporting law.

The proposals met powerful opposition, especially from the trade union movement and civil society organizations, and the government had to back down and return to the Riksdag with a scaled-back proposal that includes six state agencies. Initially, it was wanted that even teachers and healthcare personnel should be informants. I hardly believe that teachers became teachers to report students. That healthcare personnel, with their professional ethics, do not want to be informants is obvious. They provide care and save lives and should not be informants.

It cannot be any clearer that the country's municipalities and regions have said no to this. Only 3 of Sweden's 290 municipalities give their support to the government's proposal.

Of Sweden's 21 regions, none give their support to the proposal at all. No one wants it. I do not know if Nima Gholam Ali Pour and the Sverigedemokraterna are living in the delusion that the Swedish people want this.

It became clear in the Swedish public opinion regarding several migration proposals that the government is pursuing an extreme migration policy that the Swedish people do not want. It is being forced to back down on the deportations of teenagers. It was forced to back down on the labor migration, and it is now being forced to back down on the disclosure law.

The municipalities and regions rebelled against the return migration grant. They want to look after and take care of their inhabitants. They do not want to make them suspicious. That is the Sweden I am very proud of.

Mr. Speaker! The only thing the government is doing now with the proposal is that it damages trust in Swedish institutions. It damages trust, professional ethics, and democracy. We cannot have a society where the government and the Sweden Democrats force staff to become informants.

Mr. Speaker! Already today, undocumented people live under intolerable living conditions without support and the right to support themselves. An informant law would create dreadful consequences and only deepen and worsen the shadow society that the government says it is combating.

People staying in Sweden without permission may have been subjected to serious crimes such as human trafficking, human exploitation, oppression, or violence in close relationships. It can also involve children exposed to violence. With your hand on your heart: Do you believe that those people will now dare to come forward after the debate we have had and that you have created?

I believe, in itself, that the purpose of the Tidö parties is to create fear of those people. It is such bullshit we hear in every debate about whether one would care about these people. It is such bullshit, because that is something one has never done.

If one cared about undocumented people, one would have tried to understand their conditions from day one. One might have visited the Rosengrenska Foundation or some other instance such as Doctors of the World and understood what it is like when undocumented people seek care, or when they, with the fear in which they find themselves, need to go with their child who has a fever to seek care. Do you think those people feel safer with your politics and your eagerness to just want to deport them, whatever the cost may be?

Mr. Speaker! Overall, the proposal will lead to the so-called shadow society growing, and the vulnerability of some of the most vulnerable in our society will increase. In addition to these legislative changes hitting people living without permits very hard, they will also lead to increased anxiety among employees at the authorities concerned, and it will create mistrust between people.

Reporting has no place in our society. In this context, I want to remind that a considerable proportion of those living without permission in Sweden do so because they cannot return. Proposals for reporting do not make deportation decisions more enforceable, no matter how much you want them to.

Already today, undocumented people live under intolerable living conditions, and they are already struggling. Now more will be forced to go underground, even after the debates we have had, and children will be kept from the right to schooling. For those who need life-saving care but do not dare to seek help for fear of being reported, the situation can be severely worsened to the extent that the person risks their life.

Mr. Speaker! The election in September stands between division and cohesion. This government has given us four years of division. I believe that society always wins when we stand up for one another. That is how Sweden is at its best and has always shown itself to be at its best.

It is a choice that we have to make every day, both in our everyday lives and in our political decisions. In the proposal that we are going to vote on, one chooses completely the wrong path. In September, one can vote for a different political direction based on cohesion. Then, one should vote for Vänsterpartiet. The politics of division and a politics of fear and mistrust must come to an end in September.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 2 in the report. It also contains the Left Party's motion for rejection. If that proposal fails in the preliminary vote, we will in the main vote support the motion from S and C in order to try to gather as broad a support as possible. I also want to move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that the Left Party says no to everything proposed regarding strengthened return activities in the bill that the blue and yellow team has submitted and which is also partially supported by the Centre Party and the Social Democrats, even if it sounds different from the speaker's chair.

My question to Tony Haddou is therefore this: What measures does Vänsterpartiet intend to propose to strengthen the return activities? What measures does Vänsterpartiet specifically intend to propose to reduce the shadow society in Sweden?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must nevertheless make a correction. We move for the rejection of the bill. But in the bill, there are sections 8 and 10 regarding the right to a public counsel and so on, where you create legal uncertainty. We do not reject those parts, but in broad terms, we are against the proposal. The member is correct.

If we are to review the issue completely, for example regarding return, there are organizations that work with return. This government has not understood that at all. It is about long-term work. For example, the Red Cross has a long-term work with this where they work humanely and with dignity with people.

It is about individually tailored support and practical issues. Returning takes time even for people who want to return. It is about the children's schooling and that one has a job here and means of support. One might have housing and so on. It looks so different for different people. There must be support for them.

One should not at all pretend that there is no work involved in returns. There is actually work involved with it. The support provided is about alleviating and preventing human suffering for people.

We will be able to work with the exploitation of people if people dare to come forward. In that case, we need legislation that allows us to protect people who come forward. They should not risk being deported.

What the government is doing now is presenting legislation that will make people quieter and afraid to step forward. That is the big difference between us. Had we had legislation that made people dare to step forward, they would have done so.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish Tax Agency's official statistics state that there are up to 185,000 people in Sweden without a legal right to be there. On the question of how we are to solve that problem, the Left Party has zero answers.

Vänsterpartiet thinks we should do exactly as we have done previously. What I can see is that no new reform proposals or proposals for measures have been presented in any of the motions that Vänsterpartiet has submitted during this parliamentary session or during previous parliamentary sessions during the mandate period.

The Left Party's proposal is always the opposite. If people have stayed here illegally for long enough, opposed the authorities' decisions and court decisions, they should be rewarded with an amnesty and be allowed to stay in any case. That is the Left Party's answer to this question.

The Left Party thinks that people should be rewarded if they hide for long enough. It is not at all about standing up for the principles of regulated immigration. They think that the person who has hidden should have the right to stay here.

Furthermore, one wants to return Sweden to the legislation that applied before 2015, which led to the enormous crisis that we saw in the entire society. That is being completely ignored. In 2015, over 160,000 asylum seekers came to Sweden in one and the same year.

Even Miljöpartiet, admittedly under great convulsions, understood that we could not continue on the path we had taken.

Vänsterpartiet has learned nothing from history. They have no proposals. They simply say no straight through to the return rules that the government proposes. They scare people, and they use this as propaganda against the government when it is rather about that which does not have the right to stay in Sweden also must leave the country. Vänsterpartiet never says that, but rather says the opposite: free immigration.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Let me remind Viktor Wärnick that the Moderates, during the previous parliamentary term, reached an agreement with the Left Party and the Christian Democrats regarding rules for labor exploitation and so on. So yes, there are proposals that you have been involved in together with the Left Party! It might feel a bit uncomfortable.

I hear here about 185,000 undocumented people in Sweden. I filed a report with the KU against the previous Migration Minister when she spoke about 100,000 undocumented people and that you didn't have an exact figure and so on. Have we, therefore, received 85,000 more undocumented people during this government? Congratulations on your work in that case! It is truly a condemnation that you have succeeded in ensuring that we get more undocumented people in Sweden. That was not the purpose of the Tidö parties' policy.

To be completely objective and honest, Mr. Speaker: In the previous exchange, I gave a detailed example of how one can work long-term with the return work for people who want to return and give them support. But that is, like, not tough enough on crime for the Tidö parties. It has to be harsh. "Now we are going after terrorists and the illegal ones!" – that is how it sounds.

That is not how reality looks. It could be someone's wife who is undocumented. In that case, support is needed for the family so that they can manage it. It does not work as simply as you are trying to make it sound.

You cannot conduct a nuanced and objective debate about this. That is why the entire Tidö project has crashed. People do not want this; there is an uprising in Sweden against your politics. All trade unions are against the proposal, as are all municipalities and all regions. Teachers and healthcare staff and almost all authorities are saying no to the proposal. No one wants your politics.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The bill is about giving the authorities more and better tools to enforce deportation decisions. Among other things, it concerns a duty to provide information, which means that certain authorities shall provide information to the Swedish Police Authority when there is reason to assume that a foreign national lacks the right to stay in Sweden.

Vänsterpartiet calls such an obligation to report as informing on others. I must say that it is a rather offensive description. If Vänsterpartiet, by "informing on others," means that authorities provide information to one another so that laws are followed and decisions are enforced, it is a strange argument. In a constitutional state, foreigners who lack the right to stay in the country must leave the country. It is not controversial; it is how constitutional states function.

I therefore want to give the Vänsterpartiet member the opportunity to explain their reasoning. Is Vänsterpartiet against deportations in general, or does Vänsterpartiet consider that deportations should be carried out but that the authorities should at the same time have poorer opportunities to execute them?

If it is the latter position that applies – why does Vänsterpartiet then want the authorities to work less effectively in executing decisions that have been made according to Swedish law?

This is about authorities that help the Police Authority to carry out its mission and enforce decisions that have already been made. In what way is that restrictive?

Here we are talking about persons who lack the right to stay in Sweden. It is not about any political opinion, Mr. Speaker, but it is about what Swedish law says.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost: Research, experience, and knowledge show that decisions are enforced and followed if people have confidence in the justice system and that the decisions have been made in a legally secure manner.

It is far too many who experience that this is not legally secure, and there is evidence that decision-making many times does not occur in a legally secure way in migration policy. If this government had ensured a more legally secure migration policy in Sweden, more would have followed the decisions. But that is not the case.

For four years, the government has avoided research, knowledge, and experience, and perhaps that is why the government is so sour and bitter about the situation we find ourselves in.

The member of Parliament speaks about authorities "assuming" that a person is undocumented in Sweden. How are they supposed to be able to assume that? Are they going to base it on racial profiling and ethnicity – which is the Sweden Democrats' favorite card – or how are they supposed to be able to assume it? Apparently, there is not to be any safety valve or ground for protection, but if one works at Försäkringskassan or Skatteverket, one should just be able to assume that someone is undocumented. I think the member of Parliament should explain themselves regarding this.

Regarding the question of whether this is a reporting obligation or not, it is obvious that it is a reporting obligation. It is also obviously what all of Sweden has protested against. Trade unions, civil society, the municipalities and the regions – the entire professional body across all of Sweden has protested against the proposal because these are reporting laws.

No one wants this, except for the Sweden Democrats and, reluctantly, the Tidö parties—the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals. They had a small internal crisis some years ago when they were to handle the issue, Mr. Speaker, but then Nima had to yield to the Liberals.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to state that the member means that it is a given that authorities have information exchange so that one can execute decisions that illegal migrants are actually to be deported. That is what the member claims.

Then the members want to know how authorities should assume that someone does not have a permit. It says in the bill: One proceeds from the information that is available within the authority's operations. It is no great secret.

It should not be so difficult for a legislator to understand this. Most among the general public probably do not have any difficulties understanding it either.

If authorities are not to share information, if identity checks are not to be strengthened, and if the Swedish Police Authority is not to be given better opportunities to find persons who lack the right to stay in Sweden, the consequence will be fewer enforced deportations. There is no other consequence if there is to be less cooperation between different authorities to enforce deportations. Anyone can understand that.

If one starts from what the member said, it is actually fewer executed deportations that Vänsterpartiet wants. And what does that mean? It means that the shadow society will only grow. We will see more illegal migrants in Sweden because there will be fewer executed deportations, and that in turn will undermine the regulated immigration.

If we have many foreigners staying in Sweden without permission, the regulated immigration is undermined. It is frightening, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democrats intend to have a government cooperation with a party that wants fewer executed deportations of illegal migrants.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! If the member had listened to the opposition's criticism of this three or four years ago, the Tidö parties would not be as pressured as they are now ahead of the election.

I raised several examples in my speech and in the exchanges of remarks. It could, for example, be about a pregnant woman who needs to go to the hospital to have a safe and secure birth. This bill takes away this opportunity from the woman. That is the problem. If the member had just listened when we have repeatedly raised this, he would understand it.

The Swedish Tax Agency, as a government agency, shall simply register the child, and then the woman is identified as undocumented. The first thing the child does in this world is, therefore, to identify its mother. If the member and the government had listened when we have repeatedly said this, it would not have been a problem. But they have simply sat back and faced criticism across all of Sweden.

Now they are in a situation where the opinion polls are crashing. They are very stressed. The Liberals are leaving the Riksdag. They have laid out all the scenarios in front of them and are now, before they step down, creating a bit of a crisis in the Riksdag with receipt systems and so on.

If this government had listened from the very beginning in these matters, one would not have found oneself in this situation. Now one stands here with one's pants down and with a reporting law that no one in all of Sweden wants. It is not the opposition's fault. It is due to the government's absolute eagerness to implement politics that no one wants. It is almost laughable.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This is an exciting day for those who are now sitting at their computers and want to hear about migration policy.

I want to begin this debate by moving for approval of the committee's majority decision, which means proposing that the Riksdag reject the motions raised in the report Strengthened Return Activities.

The Christian Democrats, together with the other coalition parties in the Tidö community, have made major changes in many areas. This applies to the justice policy, and it applies to the migration policy. We have ensured to reverse the development that the previous government's insufficient efforts led to and steer it in another direction.

Mr. Speaker! The proposals we are debating today are about streamlining the return work.

Having a functioning return is a fundamental pillar in regulated immigration. Everyone has the right to apply – but not everyone has the right to be granted – a residence permit in Sweden. This means that a yes is a yes and that a no must, in practice, be an enforced no.

It is about us having a credible migration system that works. Previous governments have unfortunately not prioritized the work on returns to a sufficiently high degree. The consequence was that the number of executed decisions on deportation to the home country was the lowest since at least 2015 when we in the Tidö agreement took over in the autumn of 2022.

The system of various exceptions and amnesties, such as the upper secondary school law, has undermined regulated immigration and made it more difficult for our executive authorities, namely the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Police Authority, to execute deportation decisions.

We Christian Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, base the policy on the outside on a fundamental principle: Sweden shall have a regulated immigration.

We have legally secure processes – perhaps the world's most legally secure system – which involve an individual assessment and the possibility of appealing to court. But if one receives a final no, one must leave the country.

We must make this work. If we do not, we will get a shadow society that takes hold and becomes cemented.

We have turned the trend. Since the government took office, the return has increased. It is positive that our measures are yielding results, but at the same time, there is still a balance to be settled. Even though it is good that we turned the trend, the return must therefore continue to increase.

Mr. Speaker! The consequence of people with deportation orders choosing to stay in Sweden is that regulated immigration is undermined. To an excessively large extent, these individuals also become part of the shadow society.

Different figures have been mentioned here. Some estimates indicate that there are around 100,000 people in the shadow society. The Swedish Tax Agency has estimated that between 110,000 and 185,000 people are here in Sweden without either a personal identity number or a coordination number. The number may not be the important thing, but we can state that it is a large amount of people.

The shadow society is widespread and inhumane and must be combated. People, not least children, suffer in the shadow society. People risk being exploited. In the shadow society, people who pose threats to Sweden's security and safety can also be hiding and may come to commit different types of crimes in our society. This is an important reform so that we can continue to reach the shadow society.

This is a situation that parties in our Riksdag choose to ignore. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet say a clear no. They do not see the problem and, as stated, would rather that these persons remain in Sweden in some way, even though they have received a legally secure process where a no must be a no.

That people stay in Sweden without permission is a problem, which in fact a majority in this chamber realizes – both in this debate and when we press the buttons tomorrow.

The change, Mr. Speaker, concerns new rules and tools for our authorities so that they will have better conditions to increase returns and combat the shadow society.

It concerns, among other things, new rules for internal foreign national checks. By changing today's requirements from "reasoned ground to assume" to "reason to assume," we assess that the Swedish Police Authority will be able to perform more accurate checks.

It is also about new and expanded powers for the Police Authority to investigate a person's identity, including through house searches, body searches, and the possibility to seize mobile phones and other electronic equipment.

We also propose new and more far-reaching rules regarding the use of biometric data.

Finally, we propose that an obligation to provide information should be introduced for certain authorities to, on their own initiative or upon request, provide information to the Swedish Police Authority regarding persons who do not have the right to be in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps the most prominent issue in this work has been precisely the duty of disclosure, which, as mentioned, entails an obligation for certain authorities to, on their own initiative or upon request, provide information to the Police Authority when there is reason to assume that a person they have contact with within their area of operation lacks the right to legally stay in Sweden.

It is unreasonable that we have a situation where an authority holds information that the Swedish Migration Agency or the Police Authority needs in order to be able to execute deportation decisions, but due to today's confidentiality rules, are not allowed to share this with the executing authorities.

Regulated immigration requires the entire public Sweden to pull in the same direction and assist the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Police Authority in their mission to execute deportation decisions. The proposal means that Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Kriminalvården, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Pensionsmyndigheten, and Skatteverket shall, on their own initiative, provide information to the Swedish Police Authority. It will then be the Swedish Police Authority's task to forward information to the Swedish Migration Agency if it is the Swedish Migration Agency that is the responsible authority for executing the deportation.

Mr. Speaker! When the Tidö cooperation seeks to make changes that create order and clarity in Sweden and ensures that safety increases for all Swedes, large parts of the left side reserve themselves against both the total proposal and its parts. They choose to seek different alliances in order to reduce the authorities' powers and possibilities and also, to varying degrees, want to ensure that today's system is maintained so that the risks of the shadow society and the vulnerability of individuals continue.

Where the Christian Democrats and other parties in the government base look to Sweden's security, the Social Democrats and the Centre, despite intending to vote yes, choose to join forces with the other parties in the red-green chaos, where, as mentioned, the Green Party and the Left clearly say no to change. They are two parties that do not want a no to be a no in reality.

It is a clear foretaste of, and perhaps also a warning for, what will happen if, against all odds and against our wishes, an S-led left-wing government should be the result of the election this autumn. We can only guess which heels will be put to the ground and what tug-of-wars there will be when C, V and MP have to show where they stand in order to back a social democratic government. For the sake of Sweden's security, I hope that it does not become a reality.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a strict, fair, and responsible migration policy. The Christian Democrats, together with other parties on the blue and yellow side during this parliamentary term, have worked and created conditions for Sweden to become a safer and more secure place.

In summary, Sweden, with the many and important proposals presented in today's bill, will increase returns and reduce the shadow society.

As I have previously stated, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for decisions and rejection of all motions.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When I listen to Ingemar Kihlström, I get the impression that he would like to make the complex and difficult issues black and white: If one is in favor of a pregnant undocumented person who is about to give birth not having to worry about being reported by Skatteverket at the same moment the midwife reports the newborn child to Skatteverket, one does not want someone who has been denied their asylum application to leave Sweden.

But the fact is that reality is somewhat more complex than that. Why else would the Christian Democrats have excluded healthcare from the reporting law? Why do the Christian Democrats not want nurses and doctors to be covered by the duty of information? Was it because the Christian Democrats too have listened fundamentally to the doctors, the teachers, and everyone else who has said that if one introduces a reporting law that covers those professional groups, one crosses a line where human dignity itself and these professions' professional ethics are exceeded and compromised?

I want to ask the same question to Ingemar Kihlström that I asked the others in the Tidö group. Does Ingemar Kihlström think it is right that undocumented pregnant women should have to worry about being reported when the Swedish Tax Agency becomes part of the reporting law?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Hirvonen for a reflection that follows the same tracks as we have heard earlier in this debate in the chamber.

We can state that there is a shadow society in Sweden. We can always discuss how many. 35,000 is mentioned, 100,000 is mentioned and 185,000 is mentioned. These are de facto persons who, after a legally secure review at the Swedish Migration Agency and in courts, have received a no on their application. There are persons who have received a no who have left the country. They have followed the decision. Then there is a large shadow society where persons are in our country even though they do not have permission to do so.

Does Member Hirvonen think it is fair towards those who have received a review, who have chosen to follow the decision and leave the country, that the authority does not do what it can to enforce the decision that has been made after a legally secure review against those who remain in the country?

We can observe that there is a reassuring majority in the chamber and in the debate who believe that a no should be a no. But the Green Party and the Left Party say no to a no being a no. They believe that amnesties should be established, that people should be allowed to stay in Sweden, and that it should be possible to choose to disregard an authority's decision.

In the next turn – I do not have time to touch upon the issue now – I will speak a bit about the history. It is not quite so simple. Miljöpartiet and other debaters have cried wolf before there has even been an investigation proposal on the table. It has been said that this is also how it will be for teachers and healthcare personnel. The historical picture is completely different.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Nor do the Christian Democrats want to answer the question of whether they think it is right that pregnant undocumented people should be worried about giving birth in hospitals when the Swedish Tax Agency becomes a reporting authority.

In the place, Ingemar Kihlström speaks about all the undocumented. Among them are, among other things, a number of Christian converts, who have not at all received a legally sound asylum review. Ingemar Kihlström knows himself that there are many, not least from Afghanistan, who have converted to Christianity, whom the Swedish Migration Agency and the courts want to deport to the Taliban's oppression. The UN has stopped several deportations of Christian converts to the Taliban due to the prohibition against torture. They risk oppression and death.

There are many churches that offer a sanctuary for these people, who put food on the table when there is no other possibility to support oneself, when one is not allowed to work and is not allowed to receive benefits. There are many people who step up for them.

I wonder if Ingemar Kihlström thinks these churches are doing wrong. Does Ingemar Kihlström really think it is so black and white?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that there is no answer to the simple question I asked: Does Member Hirvonen think it is relevant that there are 185,000 people in Sweden who have received a legally secure review but who are still here? Is it fair to all those who have left the country? In my world: no.

Since then, there have been "the wolf is coming" cries from teachers and healthcare personnel. It is stated in the Tidö Agreement that in some cases, exceptions may be relevant, for example within healthcare. But they were removed already in the investigation proposal. This applies to healthcare, teachers, and libraries.

The government's proposition is clear. It is about authorities cooperating, just as authorities cooperate when a child is harmed. Now it is about following law and order as well as creating security in the system.

MP Annika Hirvonen likes to highlight individual cases. First, there are the pregnant women, who can de facto go to the hospital without risking being reported. The question of the tax authority becomes a pseudo-argument. MP Hirvonen also chooses to highlight Christian converts. There, I can please MP Hirvonen by saying that during our four years we have succeeded in bringing that issue significantly closer to a legally secure position. During MP Hirvonen's support for the S-government for eight years, people ignored the problems of the Christian converts. We are taking care of the problems, and we ensure that we deliver. But we have not reached all the way, and therefore we are not satisfied.

I still think that a no should be a no, and I do not experience MP sharing that view.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must make the correction I made in my reply to the Moderates. It concerns not wanting to do anything about the shadow society. It also came up with the Christian Democrats that we do not want to do anything.

The Moderates and the Christian Democrats negotiated with the Left Party during the previous parliamentary term regarding considering workers in vulnerable situations as crime victims. The purpose was for people to be able to come forward.

But when it no longer fits their perception of reality, one hears something completely different. Now it is the reporting of crimes that is to be upheld.

It is also unserious to say that the opposition does not want to do anything for people in these situations, especially when one has negotiated with these parties to stop such things.

But those were not the questions I intended to raise. For the third or fourth time, the government parties are giving no answers. There will be a situation in Sweden where women do not dare to go to hospitals when they are going to give birth because they risk being reported. It is one of several problems with the bill. When a woman gives birth, a birth notification is sent to Skatteverket. This also applies to those who are undocumented and lack a personal identity number.

We do not object to doing exactly that. We understand that it is important for children to have a legal identity, rights, and so on, according to the legal order we have in Sweden. But when the Swedish Tax Agency receives this information, they shall, according to the bill, indicate the mother. Then she will be arrested and deported. That is the consequence of the policy. Why do the Christian Democrats go so far?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I will give Member Haddou the right on one point. We have no problems with talking to different parties in the Swedish Riksdag. We look at practical politics, and we look at getting something done. We do not set up red lines just because someone has a certain party designation. It is correct that we have made agreements with Vänsterpartiet during previous parliamentary terms.

The difference between Member Haddous's Left Party and us Christian Democrats is that we have conducted an environmental analysis. We have analyzed the situation in Sweden and seen the problems that exist. There is a broad majority in the chamber that also extends into Member Haddous's planning half. Social Democrats and to some extent also the Center Party state that we have a situation that requires measures. We do not agree on all the commas, but there is a broad analysis that shows that we need to do something.

In this matter, there is a consensus. A no must be a no. We should not have a shadow society with the vulnerability that exists for children and others there. According to the motion's report, I cannot interpret it in any other way than that Vänsterpartiet thinks it is good to maintain this shadow society. They do not seem to see it as obviously good that authorities share information. That part should not apply.

We are apparently to let persons who, after a fair trial, have chosen to live their lives in a shadow society with the vulnerability that entails, remain in Sweden. That is not something we Christian Democrats stand for.

We stand for the fact that one should receive a legally secure trial. It is not always the case, but in those instances, we need to change that.

According to the bill, healthcare and school are removed from the information obligation. Children and adults can even go to the library and borrow a book without risking a report. I think we have taken appropriate steps through this.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I still have not received an answer to the question of why the pregnant woman should risk being deported when the Swedish Tax Agency receives this information. They have received directives from the government to deport such a woman.

I do not think the Christian Democrats want to answer the question, because it hits them hard that it will come out that pregnant women seeking care will be reported. I believe that this is the big problem. It is probably the core of why the Christian Democrats do not want to answer the question of why they want to go so far.

The chairman also spoke about the difference between the parties. There is truly a difference between division, mistrust, and fear on one side and cohesion and equality on the other side. That is the difference between our parties. It is very clearly visible in the bills that are laid before the Riksdag.

The committee members said that children are suffering in the shadow society. We agree with that. But if it is for the child's best interest that the government presents proposals such as these, there is instead a report of concern that can be filed if there is a suspicion that a child is suffering. To report a child is something completely different.

A report of concern exists to give children the help they are entitled to. Reporting can, in the worst case, mean that one sends a child to a situation that does not constitute the child's best interests. That is the difference between reporting and a report of concern.

It is not reporting that fixes the shadow society. Instead, it worsens and deepens it, and it puts children in even more difficult situations. With a report of concern, one could at least have provided the child with help.

The Christian Democrats have taken a clear stand on what they want. I do not believe that the Christian Democrats out in the country want this or are aware of what kind of situations people will be faced with with the disclosure law. That is why the member does not want to answer.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Here our perceptions of reality differ. We Christian Democrats have made necessary changes to our policy based on the situation we have in Sweden with exclusion and lack of integration due to the large volumes of asylum seekers who came to Sweden during 2015, 2016 and after that.

Many have chosen not to respect the decision of a no that they have received. We are talking about the family's best interests and the family's responsibility. Then there is also a responsibility lying with the parents. That they choose to stand aside from the system and continue to live in our country with the vulnerability that it entails for the children is not acceptable.

In the same way, it is not acceptable that the authorities do not cooperate, for example in the way they do when a report of concern is made regarding a child's situation.

We naturally do not want to deport a pregnant woman. But we also do not want to have a shadow society where people choose to live on the sidelines for year after year. We have seen that the policy that Member Haddou advocates has led to this situation. This situation involves vulnerability for men, women, and children, who have to live with constant fear of what will happen just because one has chosen not to follow the decision that the authorities have made in a legally secure manner.

We have a majority here in the Riksdag. Included in that are the cooperation parties intended by Member of Parliament Haddous.

One can turn it around and say that the member ignores the problems that exist with the shadow society. We see to it that something is done about it. We also see to it that children can receive education, that one can seek healthcare, and that one can even borrow books. We see to the human being, but at the same time, we must see to it that the system hangs together if we are to have a sustainable integration policy.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Member Kihlström from Kristdemokraterna says that we have cried wolf. I do not know if the member heard what Sverigedemokraterna just said, namely that the goal is that everyone shall report. It is this wolf we have cried about. Kristdemokraterna are crying for it, while we are crying about it. That is the difference.

It is this policy that the Sweden Democrats want to pursue. This is the largest party in this government cooperation and the party that is to have the position of Minister for Migration and which is to have several ministerial posts, according to the Prime Minister. This is not crying wolf, but simply pointing out what the Sweden Democrats say. I can add here that the Sweden Democrat nods. This is not just made up, but reality.

We are on board with the migration policy that means those who do not have the right to be in Sweden shall return. But the government's migration policy is no longer a part of the policy; it is superior to everything else. It has never been that before. This is what the Centerpartiet is not on board with, and that is the difference.

Let the police carry out operations against undocumented people in the falafel kiosk, but they shall damn well not do it in the delivery room. That is the difference. It is not harder than that. This is the difference compared to saying yes to operations against those who do not have the right to be here to ensure that more return.

We agree with a large part of the government's policy, but there are limits. There is humanity, basic rights, and principles that we must hold onto. They, the government and the Christian Democrats, have completely forgotten that. It is not acceptable.

Let me ask a concrete question. Why does it not just state clearly and plainly in the legislative text that the side information should be exempted? Then we would have avoided such risks and this situation.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Niels Paarup-Petersen, for the question!

Many C representatives at both the municipal and regional levels shouted "The wolf is coming!" and "Let teachers and healthcare personnel be exempt from the duty of information!" long before the investigation directives were even finished.

Even before the investigation presents a proposal, people are already shouting "The wolf is coming!". I think it is unserious to say, before the proposals from the investigation even exist: This is how it will be; this is how it will be.

To continue with the metaphors, I can also state regarding ministerial posts that one does not usually sell the skin until the bear – or in this case, the wolf – is shot. We will not do that in this case either.

In the same way as we can state that the bill we have before us now is a product where we four parties, as in all government collaborations, have ensured that we achieve what we believe is best for Sweden. The best for Sweden is to reduce the shadow society and, despite this, give people the opportunity to go to the hospital and receive care, go to school and receive education, and go to the library and borrow a book without the staff there needing to provide information. But it is relevant that different authorities that possess information provide it to Migrationsverket and the police so that a decision can be enforced.

I would like to turn the question to Niels Paarup-Petersen: Does Niels Paarup-Petersen think it is correct that we have individuals who, after a legally sound review by the Migration Agency, in court, and perhaps even in the Migration Court of Appeal, still choose to stay in Sweden, with the vulnerability that it entails for themselves and perhaps their children and future children? Is it not relevant that the authorities cooperate to enforce those decisions in accordance with the policy we adopt here in the chamber?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrat here asks whether it is not important that the authorities ensure that the person who receives a decision that they are not allowed to stay in Sweden also does not stay in Sweden. Yes, it is important. That is what we have signed on to. I said about two minutes ago that that is the case.

But that is not the only value that exists. It is, again, this that is the difference. It is where the Kristdemokraterna, from seeing that a society is many things, have been led by the Sverigedemokraterna's one-sidedness to believe that at this moment it is only migration policy that counts. Nothing else counts. That is why we have had teenage deportations, competence deportations, and this type of discussion. Kristdemokraterna have given in on everything that concerns their fundamental values.

It is claimed again that we cried wolf before everything was finished. Yes, that is true. But we did not say: This is how it will be. We said: This must not be how it becomes. Why was it necessary to say this? Well, because the Sverigedemokraterna say: This is how it shall be. And if the Sverigedemokraterna say that it shall be so – that healthcare staff and teachers shall designate – the Centerpartiet says no. Healthcare staff and teachers shall not designate. It is not crying wolf. It is pointing out the risks of what the largest party in the government context says they want. It is obvious.

The Christian Democrats stand here every day and shout about what the Left Party wants. The Left Party will not even sit in any government, and they know that too. They are not bigger than the Social Democrats. They are hardly visible compared to the Social Democrats in the opinion polls – neither are we, unfortunately.

KD says that the ministerial posts are not sold. But the Moderates and the Liberals have sold them. One may perhaps not completely forget that here in the speaker's chair.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We can begin by stating that one does not build an alliance of mere promises. From the Kristdemokraterna side, we are in any case clear that the distribution of ministerial posts takes place after the election.

I believe that even Member Paarup-Petersen, if, against all odds and against my own wish, a different majority were to emerge, must envision that even the few left-wing voices that he now neglects will have an influence on future politics. We have seen it. During the last parliamentary term, it was even the case that a wild card in this chamber influenced the politics we conducted in the Swedish Riksdag. Such a situation could very well arise.

I still maintain that many Center Party members, even before the proposal existed, were out and saying very clearly: This is what the proposal looks like. It is perfectly correct – drive opinion and argumentation! But do it based on what we present!

It is de facto as I said in a previous exchange: Already in the Tidö Agreement, when the large and, in your eyes, evil Sverigedemokraterna demanded everything they could, we other parties said: Exceptions shall be made, for example, for healthcare. This was never mentioned by any member of the Center Party. They shouted "The wolf is coming!" – it will affect healthcare. In the investigation, it was clear: Both healthcare, school, and libraries are exempted.

I can state that we agree on the substance: a no must be a no. The Center primarily votes yes to the changes being made; it is actually only the Left and the Green Party that are saying no. The Center is on our side of the court. You are welcome to come and join our team as well, now during these football times. I believe it is a much more winning concept than trying to push through center politics on the red-green chaos side.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservations 4 and 5 and hope that it is correct this time.

Mr. Speaker! For the Centre Party, order and humanity in migration policy is a fundamental principle. A central part of an orderly migration policy is that a yes is a yes and a no is a no. This means that the person who receives a no shall return.

To maintain the legitimacy of the asylum system, it is crucial that decisions on removal and deportation can be enforced in an effective and legally secure manner. Therefore, we share the government's objective to provide the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Police Authority with more and better tools for this purpose, otherwise the shadow society will continue to expand.

But, Mr. Speaker, the individual official shall not bear the responsibility for the sharing of information; the duty of disclosure shall lie at the agency level. There is a significant ambiguity in the proposal regarding the questions of responsibility. When it is simultaneously said that an official responsibility is to be introduced, one can become very worried about how this can affect the individual person on the ground in our agencies, whom we are, as we know, completely dependent on to make our policy work – not only in the migration area, which for the government is the only thing that exists, but also in all other areas.

We see that several heavy referral bodies – Kriminalvården, Saco and Offentliganställdas Förhandlingsråd – have warned against the negative consequences that can arise when individual civil servants are burdened with a personal responsibility. It creates an unsustainable work environment, hinders recruitment to important societal functions and damages the basic and fundamental trust between citizens and public employees.

The government's response is that this shall be regulated in the respective authority's rules of procedure and that no change occurs regarding the official responsibility. But that is not enough to address this concern, Mr. Speaker. A rules of procedure can be changed at any time, at a local level. It provides no protection.

Centerpartiet considers that a statutory clarification is required. This is what we want to point out to the government. We agree on the overall [framework], but there are parts that do not hold – this is one of them.

It must unambiguously lie with the authority as a legal entity to be responsible for ensuring that information sharing takes place and that it occurs in the correct manner. One should have introduced into the law that an authority may not delegate the responsibility for information sharing to individual officials, but that has not been done.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal also suggests that electronic communication equipment – it is typically about mobile phones – shall be able to be seized for up to three months in order to clarify a person's identity. In all other contexts, the police are given 24 or 48 hours.

This is a completely crucial prerequisite for these people's lives – that must be taken into account. It is not just about a small thing. It is the only way to keep in contact with one's family, for example, and to conduct banking matters, make ticket purchases, or whatever it may be.

The reason why it is wanted to be three months is not that it is needed to do the actual work with the mobile phone to clarify a person's identity, but it is only because the processing times are long. But people's rights do not stand under processing times; they stand above them. Therefore, this right should be preserved and clarified.

Mr. Speaker! There is also a definition of what information should be provided, so-called side information. That definition is far too broad – I will continue a bit with that. Not only we but also all of Sweden's regions, more or less all municipalities and all referral bodies consider that this must be regulated more clearly.

The question is whether the government's proposal is compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child at all, which is Swedish law. There is a risk that an increased investigation of personal data leads to a more extensive dissemination of information about, for example, children than is intended. The child's best interests must be taken into account there.

Before we move forward here, I want to thank all those who ensured that the proposal we are discussing today is not even worse. Now we are discussing how information from healthcare might potentially need to become part of a reporting society. The very idea was actually that it should be so – it was the Sweden Democrats' purpose and goal that every nurse and every teacher should always ask themselves: Is this a person who does not have the right to be here? Let me report this person! The purpose was that this should be part of these employees' everyday lives. So we cannot have that.

This is still the goal for the Sweden Democrats, as we have heard here in the chamber. One must keep in mind that they will become the largest party in a potential Tidö government number 2.

Mr. Speaker! Now, as has been said, the proposal has been limited to a few authorities and healthcare has been exempted. But the risk remains that it will have indirect effects due to the cooperation between the authorities. Therefore, SKR (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner) also highlights the risk when it comes to childbirth etcetera. The risk is that undocumented pregnant women, out of fear of being reported, avoid seeking necessary care for themselves or their small children. This has terrible consequences.

We cannot create a society where migration policy stands above the human being in the delivery room – a society where migration policy is the only thing one needs to care about. Instead of us fighting the great shadow society, it is the births that take place in the shadows. That is not sustainable, Mr. Speaker.

Here, I would like to give a personal promise to those out there who are listening. It is a bit difficult with these things sometimes. I have three wonderful children myself, and their births have been an incredible experience. There has been a lot of worry. Not least for the mothers, there has been very much pain and a lot of trouble in many ways. I will not go into that. But there has also been a lot of hope, love, and surprise. It is totally overwhelming in those situations.

Everything has really not gone without problems, I can say. But the feeling has constantly been that everyone in the room is working for the same thing, to help the mother and the child, yes, even me as a father, actually. They have done everything they could for it to be good, and they have been there fully for us.

Only in the most brutal situations in Swedish history has it been different. That is the point. From tomorrow onwards, the midwives and nurses may no longer just be able to ensure the child's safety and security – they could also be those who lead to the child being deported if the mother does not have the right to be in the country.

We are now, therefore, going to make a decision on whether information about children and mothers at the delivery ward shall be included in the information that is disseminated. And "side information" has not been clearly defined. The child is registered when it is born, and Skatteverket has a duty to inform the police. It is not clear that this is the exception.

Centerpartiet and the rest of the opposition want to exempt all information that comes from, for example, healthcare. But the government parties and SD say no. We are debating the proposal today, but I have no hope of convincing the government parties to change their minds. I cannot claim that.

Even if it is probably not fundamentally the purpose for the deliveries to become the new front line in the Sweden Democrats' war against migrants, it is not worthy. The delivery room should always be for the child and the mother and not for politics.

It is only the mothers and the children who are affected, not the fathers. They do not need to be there. They do not need to be registered. They are not in the most vulnerable situation of their lives. They can go free, but the mothers cannot do that.

Mr. Speaker! I fully agree that those who do not have the right to stay in Sweden must leave the country. But human dignity must not leave Sweden for that. We can hold fast to the principle of putting the child first without putting Sweden last.

I would almost like to claim that the only way to put Sweden first is to put the child first, as Sweden usually does – at least the Sweden I recognize.

I have had the luck of having three healthy children, to be born in the Nordic countries and to have the best conditions in life. But far from everyone has that luxury. Childbirth can end in both happiness and tragedy and everything in between. But they should end with reporting.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! A functioning return is the very cornerstone of regulated immigration. Return is the reality check of migration policy.

Everyone can talk about regulated immigration. Everyone can say that those who have grounds for protection should be allowed to stay and that those who lack grounds for protection should leave the country. But only when a rejection actually leads to a return do we know if the words mean anything.

Without a functioning return, there is no regulated immigration. Then the assessment becomes a recommendation. Then the rejection becomes a notation on a piece of paper. Then the legislation becomes something that the state refers to but is unable to uphold.

Then the shadow society also grows, where people are exploited by unscrupulous employers, where vulnerability is made permanent, where crime can take root, and where respect for laws and decisions is eroded step by step.

Fundamentally, it is about being honest, partly towards those who seek protection and actually have a right to it, and partly towards those who are denied and still respect the decision. It is also about honesty towards Swedish citizens who have the right to expect that the laws the Riksdag decides on also apply in practice.

Return can therefore not just be empty words in migration policy. It is, on the contrary, the very prerequisite for it to hold together. If Sweden is to be able to provide protection to those who need it, Sweden must also be able to say no to those who do not have the right to stay. When the "no" has been tested in a legally secure manner and gained legal force, it must also be enforced – otherwise, we do not have regulated immigration. Then we have rules on paper with, in practice, free immigration for those who choose not to follow the decision.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has and shall have regulated immigration. The consequence of it being regulated – which, for the sake of clarity, means that it is not free – is that only those who meet certain criteria shall be granted the right to stay here.

That immigration is not to be free is no coincidence. It is the result of democratically made decisions in this Riksdag. The parties in the Riksdag have decided that immigration shall be regulated and what conditions shall apply for a person to be allowed to stay in Sweden.

Of course, these decisions can be reviewed. Those who want a different order can go to the polls on it, win support for it, and change the legislation. That is how it works in a democracy. But it is not this we see. On the contrary, we hear time and again how parties say they stand behind today's legislation while simultaneously trying to escape its consequences. They say yes to the regulation but no to the result of the same. They stand behind the law in theory but back away when it takes effect in practice. It is confusing, to say the least.

At its core, this is also about something larger than just migration policy itself: Shall we follow Swedish laws or not? If certain decisions can be ignored, which other decisions then do not apply either? If one can place oneself above the Aliens Act, which other laws can one then place oneself above? And does this possibility, in that case, also apply to Swedish citizens?

When politicians take the laws they themselves have enacted lightly – regulated immigration with associated criteria for a positive decision in this case – and at the same time take the decisions made by authorities and courts lightly, the democratic system is undermined in the short and long term. The question is really: Why should people respect the law if the state itself begins to treat it as a wish?

That is exactly why the government's bill on strengthened return activities is so important. It is based on a self-evident principle that a functioning return is a prerequisite for a responsible migration policy. It is simply a matter of the state's ability to carry out its own decisions.

Mr. Speaker! The problem is also serious in the sense that the police state that there are approximately 11,000 open cases that have been handed over from the Swedish Migration Agency where the person is wanted. In addition, there are several categories of people who are wanted based on cases from the court, people who have received deportation decisions, and people who have never stayed legally in Sweden.

As several others have pointed out, there are tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in the shadow society. It is, as said, about people who live in an environment where exploitation, black market work, and crime are spreading. In some cases, it can also be about persons who pose pure threats to Sweden's security. It is this that is at stake.

Mr. Speaker! The return has increased in recent years. It has occurred through clearer steering, sharpened focus, and better tools that actually deliver results.

Even though the development is moving in the right direction, there are still far too many who do not return. Therefore, as I said, we must become better at identifying those who stay here illegally. That being said, all exercise of authority must, of course, be proportionate, legally secure, and with respect for personal integrity. But the rule of law also actually requires that decisions made are enforced.

Mr. Speaker! If the state in practice rewards the one who stays over the one who follows the law, we are actually saying that rule-breaking pays off. It is unfair to those who respect a rejection, unfair to those who truly have grounds for protection, and unfair to the citizens, who have the right to demand that laws which this Riksdag decides upon are also obeyed. The one who safeguards people's opportunities to receive protection in Sweden also in the future must therefore safeguard the system's legitimacy, and that legitimacy requires a functioning return.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's bill contains several crucial reforms.

Firstly, a new obligation is introduced for Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Kriminalvården, Kronofogden, Pensionsmyndigheten and Skatteverket to take the initiative to provide information to Polismyndigheten if there is reason to assume that a foreigner does not have the right to stay in Sweden. What is the alternative, really? Is it that the state knows but does not act, that important information is held by one authority but never reaches the authority that is actually supposed to execute the decision, or that authorities continue to work in silos while persons remain in the country despite lacking the right to be here?

Secondly, we are modernizing the rules on internal immigration control. This is necessary because internal immigration control is a necessary tool in order to be able to detect persons who are staying illegally in this country – it involves, among other things, checking whether employers hire persons without the right to stay and work here – and in order to be able to enforce decisions made. For example, workplace inspections are an important part of that work.

For the third, the possibility of using fingerprints and photographs to verify identity during checks in the return work is strengthened. Unclear identity is one of the major practical obstacles for enforcement. If the state cannot securely establish who the person is, the return becomes slower, weaker, and in some cases impossible. Without functioning identity control, we get no functioning return.

Mr. Speaker! We cannot pretend to stand behind a regulated immigration without simultaneously accepting what a regulated immigration actually requires. In the end, the question is quite simple. If legally binding decisions on rejection and deportation cannot be followed, which decisions should then be followed? If we do not stand up for the laws that we ourselves have decided upon, who will then do it? If a no no longer means no, what remains then of the regulated immigration? Not much.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now the Liberals, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Sweden Democrats have defended themselves, regarding the criticism they have received, by saying that the opposition parties only want free immigration. That is the explanatory model we have consistently received from all the Tidö parties during this debate.

I do not believe that there has been any party in the Riksdag that wants free immigration. Everyone wants a regulated immigration. Then all parties differ when it comes to what the regulatory framework should look like.

When the Tidö parties cannot defend their policy and their bill at all, they say that the others just want free immigration. It is not objective at all. What we have criticized are parts of this bill, for example, the notification law. If one cannot defend one's own policy, I do not understand why one says that the others do not want regulated immigration or that the others want free immigration and so on. That is not true. All the Tidö parties have done this throughout this debate.

In the speech, I also heard the member say that the bill is so important. Is it really so important that a pregnant woman should be identified as soon as she gives birth so that the child can be registered with Skatteverket, who is to be the informant? Is this so important when one talks about the shadow society? Is it the priority for the Liberals and the government that a pregnant woman seeking care should be identified?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

If one does not have a functioning return and if one does not pursue a policy to get more people who, after a fair legal review, have had their application rejected to also leave the country – if one opposes every such proposal – it does not matter what one calls it. Then one is de facto for free immigration. This is what we hear in the submissions time and again and again.

One actually means that the only reason a person needs to come to this country is that the person wants to. That is what it constantly boils down to. Then it becomes free immigration regardless of what headlines one puts on its motions and party programs and what one stands and says here in the rostrum.

I think, therefore, that it does not hold together. It is important to point out the consequence of not being for proper work with strengthening returns. In the end, this is also not humane towards those who actually have genuine grounds for protection. We are eroding the legitimacy of our migration policy, of our migration system, in this country. If we cannot maintain the distinction between those who have the right to stay here and those who do not, we will ultimately weaken the trust in the entire system. That is not a path I want to end up on. I think that those who have the right to receive protection should receive it and be allowed to stay in this country. The return work is an incredibly important part of maintaining that.

Then there is the question of childbirth. No, healthcare is exempt, just like the school and social services, among others. We will have to return to that question a bit later.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit this that is the problem. One does not get an answer to the question at all from any of the Tidö parties. Then there is this matter of pretending that there is no work on return. There is, in fact. There are very many who work with return in Sweden.

I took the Red Cross as an example, which tries to alleviate and prevent human suffering in the return work. But research, knowledge, and experiences show that return work takes time. It is about people. The Government consistently receives criticism from the Council on Legislation: that they do not see that migration is about people. They need individually adapted support. It is about children going to school. It is about people having their whole lives here. It is about people having lived here for perhaps 10–15 years or more.

It is not the case that just because the Tidö parties say "now we are strengthening the return work," people will return to their home countries the next day. Many times, it is not possible to deport. One of the absolutely central reasons why people are not deported is that it cannot be done.

Then I do not think that one should make life as miserable as possible for those people and put them in an even more vulnerable situation. Instead, one should ensure that they are given a life as bearable as possible.

Then there is the question of whether we get a situation where women do not dare to go to the hospital when they are going to give birth. We already have that problem today. People have to go to organizations that provide care underground because they do not dare to go to other care for fear of being reported. I do not want such a society.

I have not been given an answer even once to the question: Why should the Swedish Tax Agency [Skatteverket] specify women who give birth? Why is it prioritized?

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!

I will give the member the right on one point, and that is that we have a return work. But it is not working. We have hundreds of thousands of people who already today find themselves in the shadow society. They are people who have been rejected and who make themselves inaccessible so that the deportation is not carried out. They are already there, as was said.

What would be truly harmful is rather to continue sending the signal that the one who stays away long enough will eventually be able to bypass our system and get a place here. It is in this way that the shadow society deepens and worsens for the people who find themselves in it.

I therefore think that we need to keep two thoughts in mind at the same time in this issue. It is clear that people shall be treated with dignity, but decisions must also be carried out. If we have made a decision, we shall stick to it.

I also think that much of the criticism is directly misleading. The proposal is fundamentally about something very simple but completely crucial: We are to carry out deportation decisions that have already been made. As I mentioned earlier, it is therefore about six state authorities sharing information with each other, not that healthcare, school, or social services are to become any kind of control bodies. We have said no to that, and that is not what will happen either.

Undocumented people have the same right to healthcare after the legislative change as before. It is obvious that if one is in an emergency situation, one should be able to seek care and receive help so that, in the worst case, based on their medical condition, they do not suffer a bad outcome. It is, as said, nothing that changes with this legislation.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! People shall be treated with dignity, said Patrik Karlson, and one has the same right to healthcare after the legislative change as before.

That is true. But will people dare? Will women to the same extent dare to seek care when it is time to give birth? Doctors in the World have already met women who, because of the reporting law, do not dare to go to healthcare, not even when there are risks linked to her pregnancy.

There is a difference between having a right and actually daring to exercise that right. Had Patrik Karlson and Liberalerna truly prioritized that no woman should be too afraid of reporting when she seeks care, one would have ensured that it should never risk leading to the mother who is undocumented being reported when a midwife reports to Skatteverket that a baby has been born at the maternity ward. That barrier could have been demanded by Liberalerna.

From the other Tidö parties, I have mostly heard denial in this debate and words that we, by highlighting the real problems, want the shadow society to grow and that more people should live in undocumented status.

I want to ask Patrik Karlson how he views the real concern that exists now.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

I understand that the opposition is not satisfied with the answer, but it hardly matters what one says – one is opposed anyway.

The simple answer is that I do not at all believe it will become the large, widespread problem highlighted by Member Annika Hirvonen. The person giving birth in Sweden can apply for a permit for the child, and the authorities then receive the information. The person who is to return will likely also need to state it in connection with this. But that does not in itself mean that one will not receive good maternity care. It also of course does not mean that those who provide the maternity care will need to inform the responsible authority, as they are covered by specific care-related confidentiality provisions.

It is sensitive when children are involved. I completely agree with that. That was also why it was so important for us to ensure that neither libraries, social services, schools, nor healthcare were included in this. But does it mean that in all individual cases where a child is involved, one should not be able to execute a deportation decision?

I cannot go into every detail in every individual case; it must, of course, be examined proportionally based on each individual situation. There may be a number of different execution obstacles that arise during the process which prevent deportation or rejection. But if that is to be the starting point all the time, one hardly needs to have a functioning return activity at all.

Therefore, I ask: Does the member want any concrete tools to implement a legally binding yes or no?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, absolutely, but what we are talking about now is the government's bill Strengthened Return Activities, which obliges employees at the Swedish Tax Agency to state if they receive information about a person who is undocumented. And the first ones to receive information when a baby is born are the Swedish Tax Agency. It is the midwives' task to report it to the Swedish Tax Agency, and in connection with this, it will become apparent if the mother is undocumented.

In reality, it means that pregnant women who are undocumented have to a greater extent a justified fear of being reported if they choose to give birth in a hospital, which is naturally the absolute safest for both the woman and the child. Already today, we hear testimonies from Läkare i Världen about women who wonder if they dare to give birth in a hospital.

It is here somewhere that the light is shed on the question of human value. Where is the Liberals' limit for who should be reported as undocumented?

We in Miljöpartiet think this is hair-raising. When everyone eventually agreed that healthcare should not be included, why did the Liberalerna not demand that the midwives, with the connection to Skatteverket, should be exempted from reporting? I do not understand that.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

We think that this has landed in a reasonable conclusion: Six authorities shall have responsibility for sharing information among themselves in cases concerning return. That was why it was so important from the very beginning to clarify that specifically school, social services, and healthcare should be exempted.

The Swedish Tax Agency has an immensely important role in all of this. It covers an extremely large number of tasks of great relevance for such matters, so excluding the Swedish Tax Agency entirely would have made the entire proposal meaningless.

I still think it becomes strange when Miljöpartiet says no to information exchange, no to stricter control tools, no to more effective determination of people's identity – no to things that actually make a difference in these issues. Yet, one wants to appear responsible. I don't think that really adds up.

How is the return to be organized if the state is not allowed to use information that already exists? We are working with information exchange in a number of other matters in society, for example when it comes to the taking into care of children, which I believe Ingemar Kihlström mentioned earlier. There are also a number of other measures.

How is the return to be carried out if authorities are to hold crucial information without the Police Authority being allowed to access it? I actually do not understand that. How is the return to work if people who do not have the right to stay here cannot be detected?

There, Miljöpartiet is answerable. You only say no to everything and have no own concrete proposals on how the return should work better than today, and that is because you do not want a return at all. It is not possible to draw any other conclusion.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Patrik Karlson says that it is important to have two thoughts in your head at the same time and that people should be treated with dignity. But then the question is why there is only one thought included in the actual proposal. One has neglected to think about the part that concerns ensuring that the side information does not become incorrect.

My question is, in fact, quite simple. Why have the Liberals not ensured that side information is clearly and explicitly excluded from the legislation?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! It is good to be brief and concise now that the day is getting long.

I explained both in my speech and in previous exchanges of remarks that we consider the bill to be well-balanced. This also applies to what is called side information. It is extremely important that the Police Authority receives relevant information so that a consolidated assessment can be made and the people who are staying illegally in this country can be found. We think it is very important.

Then, of course, as with all other legislation decided upon in the chamber, it is necessary from a political standpoint to follow up and evaluate the results of the whole. If it falters, one may need to adjust a number of things; that is what must be done in that case at that time. But here and now, we consider, as said, that the proposal itself is well-balanced. That is why we stand behind the proposition.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Many, including trade unions, SKR and municipalities, have been clear that this is legislation that, due to these details, risks creating a situation for people that is anything but dignified.

The Liberals are now talking about how certain mothers should receive a specific rut deduction. Others may perhaps be deported. That is the challenge. What is the guarantee that it does not happen? It doesn't exist. Many referral bodies have requested a guarantee. I do not understand why they have not been able to give them that. Why is it so important that the side information is included?

Yes, one can evaluate legislation in hindsight. But when it comes to these completely basic safety matters, I wonder why one couldn't first test running without the side information.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

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

It is extremely important in a well-functioning democracy that institutions, organizations, and other relevant bodies provide their views on various legislative proposals that are crafted and decided upon in this chamber. But the purpose of this proposal is, after all, to be able to establish identity and enforce legally binding decisions in matters concerning foreigners. In that case, I think it is proportionate that the Police Authority is given functional and relevant tools to manage that.

This concerns something very concrete, as I said. We have repeatedly failed with the return. We see how the shadow society has grown, not in a short time but over decades. That is, among other things, why identities are unclear. People submit different information to different authorities, documents are missing, and people keep themselves hidden.

It has simply been too weak a system. I believe the bill has landed well in how we can improve it and get order on what I consider to be a major problem. I mentioned from the rostrum that I think the single most important issue is that Sweden has a functioning return activity. That also requires that authorities have a very detailed exchange of information with one another. Otherwise, I actually find it difficult to see how one is to manage to achieve that goal in today's society.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today, a large group of people from many different organizations gathered to urge us in the Riksdag to vote no to this entire declaration law. I received a petition that Läkare i Världen has organized with people who demand that we stand up for the right to care and against proposals that risk damaging the trust between people and society-sustaining functions. Thousands of people have signed this petition.

Thanks to everyone who organized against the reporting law, we can state today that point by point, the Tidö government has backed down. We are not at the finish line, but schools, healthcare, libraries, social services, and all other municipal activities are exempt from the reporting law.

It is absolutely certain that without all of you who have protested – organizations and trade unions that together organize several million Swedes – the reality after this vote would have been much worse for the people who live in the incredibly vulnerable situation it means to be undocumented, but also worse for society.

The reporting law erodes people's trust in institutions such as healthcare and social services. It also erodes the trust between colleagues. When it is the individual employee's task to report a person in a vulnerable situation, the employee is also faced with a moral dilemma. The person who, in that situation, stands up for their professional ethics risks asking themselves: Will my colleague report me now? Trust between colleagues is eroded.

In the former Soviet states, there was a reporting system. Those who have experiences from there advise us against taking steps in this direction.

Today, there are six government agencies covered by the so-called information obligation or reporting duty. Among these agencies are those that have contact with people precisely as a result of them seeking medical care. In this debate, many of us have highlighted the example of the midwife, that is, the fact that a midwife's first contact once the birth is complete is with the Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket) to report that the child is born and by whom. If it is a mother who is undocumented, it becomes obvious to the Swedish Tax Agency, which is then obligated to report. In practice, it is then the baby who involuntarily reports its mother and the midwife who needs to grapple with her professional ethics if the Swedish Tax Agency is to receive this information.

Madam Speaker! The government has chosen to exempt healthcare, but in a woman's perhaps most vulnerable moment, they leave them to choose between insecure home births and the risk of being reported. In this debate, there has been a desire to pretend that this is some made-up horror story, but it is real. Doctors tell us politicians that this is happening already. Women with high-risk pregnancies ask them: Do I dare give birth in a hospital?

None of us want to see a shadow society where people are forced to live with the vulnerability that it means to be undocumented. Without the right to work or the right to other means of subsistence, undocumented people become easy victims for those who want to exploit others. Being undocumented is an incredibly difficult situation. The people who end up there experience that they have no choice or that the choice – what is in the other balance – is a return to torture and persecution.

Many people are not believed in the migration process. They fail to prove that the fear they carry is well-founded, and therefore they are deported. To understand why people still remain as undocumented in Sweden, one needs to understand that the fear is real. We also know that the UN in several cases has condemned Sweden for illegal deportations of people who felt a well-founded fear of persecution.

One step to reduce the shadow society is to strengthen legal certainty. I am talking, for example, about LGBTQI persons who are urged to live with their identity hidden in their home country and about Christian converts who are referred to Afghanistan and to follow the Taliban's customs and practices. Can we not start by stopping those types of legally uncertain deportations?

Madam Speaker! In this bill, in addition to the reporting, there are a number of other changes that risk eroding people's trust in authorities and exacerbating the vulnerability of marginalized groups. The bill also contains policies that risk leading to persons who are profiled as undocumented, for example due to the racial profiling that has sometimes been observed in various reports, suffering quite serious consequences. I wonder what it would mean for each person in this chamber to be deprived of their mobile phone for several months. For many, it means that they cannot pay their bills or identify themselves at the bank and that they simply lose the opportunity to keep in contact with loved ones.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet propose a complete rejection of that which concerns reporting. We have, however, endeavored to reach an agreement with the rest of the opposition on an improvement. In the first instance, we will vote for a rejection of the proposal. If our proposal fails, we will vote for the reporting law to become less bad by having the threshold for when one should report someone raised from having reason to assume, which is a very low threshold, to there being strong reasons, as well as for a legislative change which implies that collateral information shall not be part of what is to be reported.

These improvements are real and significant. I hope that we can get a majority in the chamber. It would be of great importance, not least so that people do not mistakenly end up in this reporting system due to profiling.

Madam Speaker! In addition to these proposals, there are proposals from us that one should always be granted a public counsel during the processing of a motion for dismissal. It is an important guarantee of legal certainty. We also think it is incredibly important that the government takes to heart the serious criticism regarding how legislation is enacted at a rapid pace.

I request to return in later exchanges of remarks regarding which reservations we move for approval. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, however.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to reject almost the entire bill. Among other things, Miljöpartiet opposes that certain authorities shall, on their own initiative, provide information to the Polismyndigheten when there is reason to assume that a foreigner lacks the right to stay in Sweden. Miljöpartiet also wants to reject those parts of the bill that give the Polismyndigheten more tools to establish the identity of foreigners staying in the country.

This is not about symbolic politics. It is about tools that the Police Authority needs in order to be able to execute deportation decisions.

The Green Party says that they support regulated immigration, but regulated immigration presupposes that decisions actually have consequences. If a foreigner is denied their application and a deportation decision is made, it must also be able to be enforced. In that case, the Swedish Police Authority must have the tools required, and other authorities must be prepared to contribute information that facilitates the enforcement. It cannot be the case that authorities sit on information that could contribute to enforcing a deportation decision but are still expected to keep it to themselves.

The Green Party says it wants to have regulated immigration but at the same time opposes several of the tools required to maintain it. Therefore, I want to ask the member if she agrees with me that we politicians should create the conditions so that as many deportations as possible can be carried out.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! That as many as possible should be deported is probably the Sweden Democrats' policy. There was much talk for a long time about that a no must be a no. I think it is starting to be time to talk about that a yes must be a yes. More and more people who have been granted permission to stay in Sweden shall now, with the Sweden Democrats' policy, be deported despite having done everything right. The rules are being changed so that people who have received a yes can be sent out.

My goal is not that as many people as possible should be deported. We in Miljöpartiet stand behind that persons who have sought asylum, who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution and who can safely return to their home country, should also return. The type of measures that are now being proposed do, however, nothing to improve legal certainty. These measures will cause people who live in the shadow society and who feel fear of returning to live in a darker shadow society where they dare to a lesser extent to seek care when they need it, for example when they are going to give birth to children.

Reasonable proposals that, in a legally secure manner, ensure that people receive the correct decision from the start and can appeal if it is safe to do so, we of course say yes to. But that is not what is on the table now.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe the member listened properly to what I said. I said that we politicians have a responsibility to create the conditions so that as many deportations as possible are carried out. It is about decisions already made, that the individuals are illegal migrants in Sweden and that we shall give the Police Authority the tools and the information needed to be able to carry out the deportations, which is the authority's mandate. This was what I asked the member about, and I hope that the member can answer my question and not a question that the member has made up themselves.

We have more than 100,000 illegal migrants in Sweden – that is the estimate that has emerged in the debate – and we have an extensive shadow society. Then the politicians must come with answers and not just say that the proposal on the table is bad. We must get rid of quite a few illegal migrants, and that means that many more deportations must be carried out. The deportations we have decided on must be carried out.

People who lack the right to stay in Sweden are often in a very vulnerable situation, are vulnerable and often fall victim to criminal actors who exploit them. It is not a sustainable situation for either society or the people who live in this vulnerability.

We have a large number of foreigners who lack the right to stay in Sweden and who, according to decisions made, must leave the country. These are decisions that have already been reviewed in several instances in the rule of law in Sweden. They have thus received a fair review, and now they must leave the country.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, that is the case, for example for Ayla, 21 years old, in Märsta. Here, the government stopped the deportation following strong pressure when it concerns young adults who have grown up in Sweden. Thank goodness Nima Gholam Ali Pour finally came to his senses!

We know that among those who are undocumented, there are some decisions that could be executed without any problems. But in very many cases, that is not the case. It can be for practical reasons, such as that the embassies do not issue passports or that it is not possible to fly to the home country in question.

The question is whether one should always prioritize measures for enforcement regardless of the consequences. Should one really prioritize that over pregnant women daring to give birth to their children in hospitals? No, I do not think so. Should one prioritize it to the extent that one makes a deal with the Taliban regime just in time for it to make it legal for men to marry nine-year-old girls? No, I do not think so.

I think we need to prioritize strengthened legal certainty and higher speed in decision-making so that people do not have to wait unreasonably long. We also need to ensure that people receive good information. If we have legally certain decisions, reasonable processing times, and good information, the number of people living in the shadow society will decrease.

It is also the Green Party's goal, and we have a very different view on in which cases it is even reasonable to receive a rejection. Thankfully, the unreasonable teenage deportations were stopped, but much work remains. SD makes more people deportable, which means more end up in a limbo and in the shadow society. Our goal is different.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of all the Green Party's reservations.

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

MALCOLM MOMODOU JALLOW ()

Madam Speaker! It hurts to listen, above all to the Sweden Democrats in this debate, to Nima Gholam Ali Pour's hate and arrogance. That he engages in self-harming behavior is something he is too stupid to understand. It is appalling.

Nima Gholam Ali Pour says that there should be no incentives to stay here and that the goal is to make it impossible for people to stay in Sweden. This does not only apply to undocumented people but to everyone. If the Sverigedemokraterna had been allowed to decide, neither Nima Gholam Ali Pour nor I would be sitting in this chamber. But he is, as he said, too stupid to realize that he is engaging in self-harming behavior.

When I came to Sweden, I was given the opportunity to both attend school and access healthcare, and I was given the conditions to stay, build a life, start a family, have wonderful children, and become a member of Sweden's highest decision-making body. If the politicians back then had said the same thing as Nima Gholam Ali Pour says now, neither I nor Nima Gholam Ali Pour would be sitting in this chamber. But that is not what he is thinking about.

I have learned that when one climbs up the ladder, the first thing one does is not to pull the ladder away without helping others to also climb up. Therefore, it hurts to hear a Swede with a foreign background, who has come here and been given the conditions to become who he is today, say such terrible things about other people who are trying to climb up. That is not me, and there are many of us who are not like Nima Gholam Ali Pour and SD.

Madam Speaker! SD does not just want to get rid of those who do not have residence permits. SD wants to get rid of everyone. Keep Sweden Swedish. There are discussions ongoing about revoking people's citizenship and about revoking permanent residence permits retroactively. It concerns people who have done everything right, but now they suddenly want to change the law to get rid of them. It is not just about the undocumented. It concerns everyone who, according to SD, is not welcome in this country, and now they are doing everything they can in terms of legislation to get rid of us.

But we are going nowhere, because we live here. I have lived here for over three decades and, just like everyone else, have contributed to society. I want things to go well for Sweden and everyone who lives here. That is why it hurts to hear the rhetoric of the Tidö parties.

Madam Speaker! When did Sweden become so heartless? When did fear become a Swedish core value? When did we decide that the person knocking on an authority's door should no longer be met with help but with suspicion? When did we decide that social workers, case officers, and community counselors should no longer primarily help people but help the state to monitor these people? When did we decide that a child's fear is a reasonable price to pay for a few more political points in the next election campaign?

Madam Speaker! Let us be honest. This bill is not just about returns and reporting, but it is fundamentally about what kind of society Sweden has become. It is about what happens when fear is allowed to govern politics and people are no longer seen as human beings but as problems to be managed.

Today, the government proposes that Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Kriminalvården, Kronofogden, Pensionsmyndigheten, and Skatteverket shall be obliged to report people to Polismyndigheten if they suspect that these people lack the right to stay in the country. They call it efficiency. I call it a society where people learn to fear the state.

Madam Speaker! I came to Sweden, as I said, as a young person with dreams, hope, and faith in the future. I came to a country that was not perfect but that tried to be better every day. It was a country that taught me that the state should protect the weak, not suspect him. It was a country that taught me that solidarity is not a beautiful word but a responsibility and a duty.

That is why it hurts so much to stand here today, because I no longer recognize the Sweden that once inspired the world. Step by step, decision by decision and law by law, the boundary of what we accept is being moved. Every time we move the boundary, people say: "This is not that serious. It doesn't affect me. It's only about a few."

History teaches us something else. It teaches us that freedoms almost never disappear overnight. They disappear bit by bit until people one day wake up and discover that the country is no longer the same.

Madam Speaker! I want us to be honest with the Swedish people. When the government speaks of increased controls, of more identity checks, and of people being reported to the police, we all know which people one envisions. It is not the businessman from London, the student from Paris, or the consultant from New York who looks like the majority society in Sweden. No, the people who will be stopped, checked, and suspected, whose phones will be searched, whose fingerprints will be registered, and who will live with fear are people from the African continent, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America.

It is racialized groups that will be controlled – people from the global south. The government knows it, the opposition knows it, and the Swedish people know it.

Frantz Fanon wrote that the first act of colonialism is always to divide people into categories, to create a we and a them, and to make some people full-fledged citizens and others objects to be monitored, controlled, and disciplined.

When I read this bill, it is impossible not to think of Frantz Fanon's words. Behind the paragraphs lies a view of humanity where certain people are primarily seen as a security problem. They are not seen as human beings, neighbors, workers, mothers, fathers or children, but as objects for the state's control. History teaches us that when the state begins to see people as objects, it is always the most vulnerable who pay the price.

Madam Speaker! The referral bodies are warning. Asylrättscentrum, the Red Cross, the trade union Vision – all are warning. But the government is not listening. They dismiss all these organizations as left-wing activists. When fear becomes the driving force of politics, facts become an obstacle. When suspicion becomes ideology, people's stories become uninteresting. Then one stops asking what is right and starts asking what earns applause.

Madam Speaker! I am thinking of the family living with constant anxiety, as we have heard here today. I am thinking of the child – the child who does not understand the law or read the government bills, the child who only sees their parents' fear and hears whispers at the kitchen table, the child who wonders why mom is crying and learns to be afraid of people who should be helping. What does it do to a child? What does it do to a society? What does it do to our common future?

Madam Speaker! I am tired of people being used as scapegoats for problems they have not created. I am tired of politicians who speak about people as if they were statistics in an Excel sheet. It hurts my heart to see how the Tidö parties openly build their entire political activity on racism and hatred against immigrants.

Madam Speaker! When I grew up, I was taught that a society's greatness is not measured by how it treats the strong. It is measured by how it treats the weak. It is measured by how it treats the one who stands alone, the one who is poor and has no money, the one who has no power and the one who has no one to speak for him.

Tomorrow we will make a decision that says a great deal about what kind of country Sweden has become or what kind of country Sweden wants to become. The government calls it strengthened return activities. It sounds administrative, technical, and almost innocent, but behind the bureaucratic words hides something much larger. It is about fundamentally changing the so-called social contract. It is about turning authorities into control stations and institutions of denunciation. It is about making fear a political tool and about creating a society where people learn that the doors of the authorities no longer lead to help but to danger.

Madam Speaker! I want us to set the statistics aside for a moment. I want us to leave the tables and the investigations and think about the people. Think of the mother who lives with violence in the home. Think of the father who has been cheated out of his wages by an unscrupulous employer. Think of the child who goes to school every day and dreams of becoming a doctor, a teacher, or a football player. What happens when these people learn that contact with the authorities can lead to the family being split apart? What happens when the fear becomes greater than the trust? What happens when people stop daring to seek help?

The government says that this is about efficiency, but no one has been able to explain how a society becomes stronger when people are pushed further away from society's institutions. No one has been able to explain how trust is strengthened through suspicion. No one has been able to explain how democracy becomes stronger when people learn to be afraid of the state.

The problem is that this is no longer about evidence. It is about politics and ideology. It is about showing decisiveness, signaling toughness, and creating headlines. It is about overt racism that is being normalized in every way possible. In that pursuit, the human being has completely disappeared. The human being has been reduced to a case, to a number, to an act, and to a problem to be administered away.

Madam Speaker! I am sincerely worried when I see the developments in our country, because it always starts in the same way. First, it is said that the measures should only be directed at a few. Then they are expanded, then they are normalized, and finally, people wonder how it could go so fast and so far. History teaches us that freedoms rarely disappear overnight. They disappear step by step, little by little, decision by decision and law by law until that which was once unthinkable suddenly appears as normal.

Madam Speaker! I am tired of people who have fled from war, persecution, or misery being portrayed as threats to our society and being used as scapegoats. I am tired of the Tidö parties always portraying the solidarity that we on the left side show towards vulnerable people as a lack of integrity, un-Swedishness, or naivety. Solidarity is not naivety. Solidarity is what distinguishes a society from a collection of individuals. Solidarity is what makes us help each other when life falls apart.

Madam Speaker! What we are debating here today is not just about migration, but also about what morality should guide our society. It is about what values our children shall inherit. Shall they inherit a society built on trust or a society built on fear?

Madam Speaker! Martin Luther King said that the ultimate measure of a person is not where they stand in times of comfort, but where they stand in times of trial. The same applies to nations. Sweden's character is being tested now – not when everything is easy and not when everyone agrees and we are in accord, but now, when human rights have become politically inconvenient, when solidarity is mocked and portrayed as dangerous, when fear is rewarded and when courage costs.

Finally, Madam Speaker: I want our children to grow up in a country where authorities provide security, not fear, a country where rights do not depend on opinion polls, a country where human dignity is not negotiated away for a few percentage points in the next election, a country that dares to stand up for its principles even when the wind blows hard.

It is the Sweden I believe in. It is the Sweden I came to when I was young. It is the Sweden I will continue to fight for. Therefore, I say today an absolute no. I move for the rejection of the proposition and the proposal in the committee report and for the approval of my reservation and motion 2025/26:4169 in its entirety, with all the motions under the respective points.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I requested earlier in the debate a nuanced debate on undocumented persons, and I hope that can be had in the future. I think it is remarkable that we do not receive answers from the Tidö parties on the question of maternity and delivery care.

Healthcare was supposed to be exempted, but now we have a situation in Sweden where the law will hit hard against the women who seek out maternity care and who risk life and health when they do not do so because they are reported to Skatteverket. So that is how it looks. I think it is remarkable that the Tidö parties do not answer the question at all. This must be rolled back after the election in September.

I think this debate shows very clearly what the election is about, namely what kind of Sweden we are to have. Are we to have division or cohesion, and are we to have fear and mistrust or a society where we look out for one another?

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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