Strengthened protection against foreigners who pose qualified security threats
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD motions for approval of the committee's proposal 1 and argues that V embraces political violence and extremism 1. V argues that Sweden should have a strong protection against security threats without the principles of the rule of law and proportionality being sacrificed 2, and argues that current legislation is sufficiently repressive 2. M motions for approval of the committee's proposal 3 and argues that V and MP want to impose restrictions 3 as well as that the tolerance for V's actions is non-existent 4. M argues that powerful tools are necessary for Sweden's security 5. MP considers that expanded possibilities to detain persons who pose a serious security threat may be needed 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Adam Marttinen (SD)
Madam Speaker! We are debating the report on strengthened protection against foreigners who constitute qualified security threats. The proposed amendments aim to strengthen the protection against foreigners who constitute qualified security threats and involve, among other things, expanded possibilities to take these foreigners into custody with longer detention periods and lowered evidentiary requirements for the detention of adults. It is a clarification regarding the conditions for deciding on deportations and harsher penalties for certain crimes according to this Act.
The amendments proposed in the report simply aim to protect our country against foreigners who in one way or another constitute a security threat. In plain terms, it often concerns foreigners who, through various types of violent extremism, constitute a terror threat.
Madam Speaker! In this context, it is difficult not to speak for a moment about the Left Party. The Left Party is the party that, more than any other party, embraces political violence and extremism. It is not just about their youth wing being explicitly revolutionary communist and having close cooperation with the openly violence-promoting far-left environment. The same applies to the mother party, where the party leader during the 2000s defined himself as a communist.
Before the 2006 election, Vänsterpartiet welcomed one of Sweden's worst traitors of all time as a member of its party. In the present day, the party has been degraded by individuals who have taken a stand for terrorism as a method. For example, a significant number of candidates have expressed support for Hamas and their terror attack on October 7, 2023, but support for Putin and the regime in Iran has also been uncovered.
Exclusions of certain terror sympathizers that have occurred after high-profile reviews have been met with extensive protests within the party, which testifies that it is not a matter of any unfortunate recruitments but rather recruitments that have great internal support.
When the government now wants to strengthen security against foreigners who pose a security threat, I just want to say: Guess which party is calling for a rejection of the government's proposition? Yes, you probably guessed correctly. It is the Social Democrats' and Magdalena Andersson's ideological friends in Vänsterpartiet.
Vänsterpartiet has in these issues a long tradition of opposition to Sweden being able to deport foreigners who constitute a security threat. They have wanted to abolish the law on special control of certain foreigners and at the same time open the border for more uncontrolled immigration.
The election this autumn is, of course, about very many issues, but one issue that I believe should be given greater importance concerns precisely the work against foreign security threats. The Swedish people must understand that a vote for the Social Democrats comes with a special responsibility now that the Social Democrats have welcomed the Left Party as an intended part of their government. It is a party that welcomes a continued Islamization of our country through mass immigration, a party with increasingly closer ties to violence-seeking Islamist environments, and a party that today votes no to a proposal aimed at protecting Swedish lives against foreigners who constitute a terror threat. A vote for the Social Democrats therefore comes with a special responsibility.
Do we want more Islamization and more foreign security threats, or shall we let a blue-yellow government continue to secure our country from both internal and external threats?
Madam Speaker! Serious values are at stake. A government must be in agreement when making decisions regarding the deportation of, for example, foreign Hamas sympathizers who constitute a security threat. Something tells me that a red-green government, whose parties nominate similar persons to positions of trust for their party, will allow these foreign security threats to remain in our country. It is a development that would be deeply unfortunate, but here today I can state that the government, with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, seems to have a majority for its bill.
I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of the left wing's various reservations.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Madam Speaker! I begin by saying that Vänsterpartiet demands a rejection of this proposal. We do so for various reasons.
We mean, of course, that Sweden should have a strong protection against serious security threats. However, this must not mean that one disregards the requirements for respect for the principles of the rule of law and for proportionality. The protection of fundamental freedoms and rights in connection with deprivation of liberty and the use of coercive measures must be strong – for adults and perhaps even more so for children.
This is our protest against breaking the norms of the rule of law and allowing interventions that could be avoided with better preventive measures in society. I believe many know that Vänsterpartiet acts powerfully for that. Sometimes those who desire repressive measures take the lead.
What it is about now is increased opportunities for detention, longer detention periods for adults, even without any limit whatsoever, and extended periods for children. There shall also be lowered evidentiary requirements for adults and harsher penalties for children when it concerns certain crimes.
It is true that Vänsterpartiet has been hesitant regarding previous reforms in this area, which have also concerned serious tightenings. The legislation we have today regarding protection against foreigners who constitute qualified security threats, the LSU Act, is already strongly repressive. We believe that it is sufficient and that there are not sufficient motives today to tighten it further.
It is claimed that the legal situation and the security situation have changed. We believe that the security situation is approximately the same as when the amended LSU Act entered into force in the early 2020s.
We hold fast to a principle that we have also had regarding the Aliens Act, namely not to agree to lowered evidentiary requirements for detention. In that, we have support from several referral bodies which argue that it is unreasonable to have detention periods that can in principle last as long as desired. Persons held in detention according to LSU do not even need to be convicted of any crime. It is about more vague assumptions about what is suspected to happen.
We must take much greater account of the Convention on the Rights of the Child than is usually done and what is particularly needed when it comes to coercive interventions. It is tragic that the government time and again proposes more intrusive measures against children without having followed any child rights principles at all. They disregard the requirements of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which state that children may only be deprived of their liberty as a very last resort.
In the specific cases where children are judged to pose a qualified security threat, the children should be placed in an establishment adapted for children, where they are offered rehabilitation, care, and schooling. When it comes to compulsory interventions, it is difficult to see any other alternative than that we need to use the National Institutions Board and its institutions.
Mikael Damsgaard (M)
Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
We are now moving towards the end of the parliamentary term. This afternoon, we have a conclusion here in the chamber and thank the members of parliament who are not standing for re-election on September 13. But the fact that one parliamentary term ends and a new one begins does not mean that politics starts with a blank sheet of paper. There are questions that truly run across parliamentary terms and that we can follow over time. The Act on Special Control and Certain Foreigners, LSU, which we are debating here today, is just such a question.
In this law, the most highly qualified security threats against Sweden are regulated. The current legislation was put in place during the last parliamentary term, in the spring of 2022, after a many-year process.
Already in 2017, one mandate period earlier, the then S-MP government committed, in connection with the so-called terror agreement, to review the Act on Special Foreigner Control, as it was called then. Prior to that, the Security Service had pointed out in a special submission to the government that the legislation was unclear, difficult to interpret, and difficult to apply.
The demands came after a couple of decades of Islamist terror in Europe and in the Western world. We remember "nine eleven", Madrid and London. But we also remember Sweden and Drottninggatan. Despite the acute security threat, it took five years for the Social Democrats and the Green Party before the government committed to reviewing the law until a new law was in place.
We from the Moderates welcomed the new law when it arrived, but we noted already then that several problems remained unresolved and persisted. Our starting point then and now is that foreign citizens who pose a threat to Sweden's security shall leave the country. If this is not possible for various reasons, these persons must be able to be held in custody or be monitored in a reassuring manner.
It is against this background that the current government commissioned an investigator in 2024 to investigate changes in the legislation. Today we are debating a government bill that addresses parts of the investigation's proposals.
Madam Speaker! In the bill, the government proposes expanded possibilities for detention in so-called LSU cases. Among other things, a lowered standard of proof is proposed for so-called probability detention of adult foreigners. Instead of it being probable that a decision on deportation will be issued, it is proposed that it shall suffice that it can be assumed that a deportation will be issued.
It is also proposed that longer detention periods be introduced and that the sharp time limit for the detention of adults be removed. Instead, the requirement of proportionality shall constitute the ultimate limit.
In the case of custody of a child, it is proposed that the time limit be extended to three months with the possibility of an extension of an additional nine months in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances means that high requirements are set. It is proposed that a decision on custody of a child shall always be reviewed every four weeks.
To clarify that the law can also be applied to foreigners who seriously affect the security situation without themselves being able to be linked to security-threatening acts, it is proposed that the current deportation provision be changed back to the wording that existed previously: A foreigner shall be able to be deported if it is particularly called for with regard to Sweden's security.
Madam Speaker! It is also proposed that penalties for certain crimes according to LSU be tightened. The minimum penalty for staying in Sweden in violation of a re-entry ban shall, for crimes of the normal degree, be tightened from imprisonment to imprisonment for at least six months. The minimum penalty for those who help someone who is deported from Sweden to return to Sweden in violation of a re-entry ban shall be tightened from imprisonment to imprisonment for at least six months.
There is a broad majority in the committee for the tightenings the government proposes. But we see that Vänsterpartiet once again wants to block tightenings that strengthen Sweden's security and wants to reject the bill in its entirety. Miljöpartiet also wants to make certain limitations. This is a natural consequence of what has been proposed previously. Vänsterpartiet was also completely opposed to the terrorist crime law.
Despite there being a broad majority in the committee, the rift in the red-green government alternative demonstrates an inability to conduct a sharp crime policy and a policy to protect Sweden's security. I also note that the Social Democrats, which is the largest party in the red-green government alternative, do not participate in the debate on this important product.
Madam Speaker! Since this is my last debate before the summer break and probably also this parliamentary term, I would like to thank my colleagues in the committee. We have had a good cooperation and a positive atmosphere for discussion, even if we have not always agreed on all issues. It has been an intense parliamentary term with a high pace of reform, not least during this parliamentary session and especially this spring. As said, even if we sometimes stand on opposite sides of the barricades, I would like to thank you for a good cooperation and for the exchanges of views we have had.
Finally, I also want to thank the Chamber Office and the Committee's Office and wish all employees in the Riksdag Administration a very happy and pleasant summer.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Madam Speaker! Yes, it is obvious that we sometimes stand on different sides of the barricades, though not always, which I want to emphasize.
I notice that the bourgeois bloc loves to bring up that we in the opposition differ on some points. We do, and we also have every reason to do so, I think as a representative for Vänsterpartiet.
Vänsterpartiet believes that the principles of the rule of law are important and that the government parties too often betray them. This bill is one example, and there are more. I stand by the fact that Vänsterpartiet has held this position for a long time and has been very restrictive on the defense issue. I do not regret it, because I believe our line is correct. Our argumentation is based on an analysis of and a belief in early interventions.
Yes, Vänsterpartiet has had to exclude persons who have had deviating attitudes towards, among other things, revolutionary groups, and I mean that we should receive respect for having acted quickly when such has been discovered.
I think this line is reasonable, because we must all try to handle irregularities within our parties. However, this is not always done on the government side, and it would be desirable to receive a comment on that.
Mikael Damsgaard (M)
Madam Speaker! Among the Moderates, the tolerance for such actions as we have seen from representatives of Vänsterpartiet is almost non-existent, and I mean that we would handle such things quite quickly.
I appreciate Member Nordborg's honesty, and I think Swedish politics and political debate benefit from different parties saying what they truly think and stand for, and from them standing up for their position.
Vänsterpartiet and we differ on the issues. But the fact that I raised the rift in the red-green government option is not about criticism of Vänsterpartiet, but about consumer information. The Social Democrats, who unfortunately are not participating in the debate, want to make a major turn to the left in, among other things, economic policy with a red-green government, while at the same time, similar to the bourgeois side, they want to pursue a strict migration policy and a tough criminal justice policy. This combination, however, will not be possible. A government must, after all, be in agreement and make its decisions collectively, and Vänsterpartiet – who we hold fast that want to sit in government, which also honors you – will reasonably not agree to the tightenings the Social Democrats want to implement.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank Mikael Damsgaard for the opening kind words, which I of course appreciate.
What happens after the election depends on the outcome of the vote. We in Vänsterpartiet are pleased that our numbers are rising, which means we have a slightly better negotiating position. It is always about negotiating which issues we want to prioritize and what we can compromise on, and regardless of which party we are discussing with, it is about positions of strength.
Perhaps the attacks on every small point of difference between the Social Democrats and the other opposition parties, especially the Left Party, are a sign of anxiety from the government side that they will lose the election this autumn. I do hope that is the case and that we move forward. But what will happen then is, ultimately, a matter of negotiation.
Mikael Damsgaard (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me go back to what Gudrun Nordborg said about preventive measures in her first speech. I believe it is naive to think that we can curb this type of qualified security threat with traditional preventive work. This is about people who are ideological drivers behind, not least Islamist, terror. I find it difficult to believe that these individuals are particularly susceptible to preventive interventions. The legal requirements are high, and it concerns quite few decisions per year. But it is necessary to have these powerful tools in the toolbox, and to divest ourselves of them, as the Vänsterpartiet wants, would be both unfortunate and dangerous for Sweden.
That we are talking about the rift within the red-green government alternative is simply a matter of consumer information. It would be dangerous for Sweden to get a government that eases migration policy and criminal justice policy so that crime is given more space in our society. That what we have succeeded in pushing back could take steps forward would be dangerous for Sweden, and it is this consumer information we want to give the voters.
Ulrika Westerlund (MP)
Madam Speaker! Depriving a person of their liberty is one of the state's most intrusive measures. In a constitutional state, as a general rule, it should be reserved for situations where someone has been convicted of a crime, upon suspicion of serious crime, or to protect a person from seriously harming themselves due to severe mental illness or substance abuse.
At the same time, in some situations, there may be strong reasons to deprive certain persons of their liberty through detention based on the Act on Special Control of Certain Foreigners, which we are discussing here, among other things. When we were in government, we were involved in introducing the law in 2022, so it was not something we opposed.
The government now proposes expanded possibilities to deport foreigners who are judged to pose qualified threats to Sweden's security, increased possibilities to use coercive measures, and harsher penalties for more crimes against the law. Miljöpartiet considers that in some cases it may be necessary to have expanded possibilities to take into custody persons who are judged to pose a serious security threat and therefore may be assumed to need to be deported from Sweden. At the same time, the need for new tightenings can be questioned based on the fact that the law has been in force for a relatively short time, which affects the possibilities to assess the need for changes in the existing legislation.
This has been pointed out by several referral bodies, including Save the Children, which do not consider it justified to introduce further tightening of the legislation before previous reforms have been evaluated. We in Miljöpartiet simultaneously understand the need to counter terrorism and other qualified security threats. Therefore, we urge the government to return with proposals on how legal certainty in security cases can be strengthened. The government should ensure that the rules now being introduced are evaluated within a five-year period.
In the proposition, the government proposes that the evidentiary requirement for taking adults into custody according to LSU shall be lowered. Today, it is required that it is probable that a decision on deportation will be issued, but the government wants it to suffice that it can be assumed that the foreigner will be deported.
The Government also proposes that the current time limit for the detention of adults in executive detention be removed. Today, as a general rule, a person may not be held in executive detention for longer than one year, but under certain conditions, an adult may be held in executive detention for up to three years. The Government's proposal means that a person who is not convicted of a crime can, in practice, be held deprived of liberty for a very long time, as long as the detention is judged proportionate in the individual case.
Miljöpartiet notes that the referral bodies raise serious concerns regarding the proposals for lowered evidentiary requirements and longer detention periods. The Swedish Section of the International Commission of Jurists and the Bar Association have questioned whether the government has shown that the current time limits are insufficient. The Institute for Human Rights has pointed out that the proportionality assessment is particularly difficult in LSU cases, where transparency is often limited, and has questioned whether the proposal is compatible with the European Convention. Civil Rights Defenders has warned against unreasonably long detention periods and that already intrusive deprivations of liberty under LSU risk becoming even more intrusive and burdensome for the individual.
Miljöpartiet urges the government to take the concerns of the referral bodies in this part more seriously. When the burden of proof is lowered and time limits for deprivation of liberty are removed, the requirements for legal certainty, proportionality, transparency, and effective oversight increase. The government should therefore ensure that the consequences of the lowered burden of proof and the longer detention periods are specifically followed up in a future evaluation of the legislation, including how the rules affect legal certainty, the risk of unreasonably long deprivations of liberty, and Sweden's international commitments.
Madam Speaker! Sweden must have a strong protection against serious security threats, but the work against security threats must be conducted with respect for the principles of the rule of law, proportionality, and fundamental freedoms and rights.
In connection with deprivation of liberty and coercive measures, the protection of rights must nevertheless remain strong, for both children and adults. Children who are judged to pose a serious security threat are covered by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is Swedish law. It means that the best interests of the child shall be considered in all decisions concerning children and that deprivation of liberty of children may only be used as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period. According to the view of the Miljöpartiet, this starting point cannot be compatible with placing children in detention, regardless of what the background to the detention is.
The proposition means that children in qualified security cases shall be able to be held in detention for significantly longer periods than today. It is a very intrusive change. Children who are in a migration law process are often already in a vulnerable situation. To then open up for longer periods of deprivation of liberty and placement in a security ward risks seriously harming children's health, development, and safety.
We share the concern that has been expressed by various referral bodies, including Save the Children. The criticism is not only about individual provisions in the current bill but about the government repeatedly proposing increasingly intrusive measures without sufficient child rights analyses and without demonstrating that the measures are necessary and proportionate.
Save the Children has specifically warned that children risk being held in detention or monitored for long periods and on insecure grounds. The Institute for Human Rights has emphasized that the proposals for significantly extended detention periods for children are not in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Miljöpartiet therefore rejects all parts of the bill that imply that children can continue or, to an increased extent, be held in detention or separated from their guardians. Detention of children must be prohibited. Children may only be deprived of their liberty as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate time, according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is Swedish law. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clearly urged Sweden to prohibit and prevent children from being placed in detention due to migration status.
At the same time, there may be specific cases where children who are assessed to pose a qualified security threat may need to be deprived of their liberty. In such cases, the child should not be placed in Migrationsverket's detention or in a security ward, but rather in an activity adapted for children. It is Miljöpartiets view that Statens institutionsstyrelse, despite its shortcomings, has the best conditions to meet children. Sis has long experience of offering care to children and young people, and we believe that children who need to be placed for security reasons can be placed there.
I vote in favor of reservation 2.
This is my last speech before the summer, so I wish all colleagues a pleasant summer.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.