Response to interpellation 2022/23:17 on practical implementation obstacles
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that a sustainable migration policy requires those who receive a rejection to return to their home country 1. M wants to intensify the return through increased cooperation, more detention centers, and conditional aid 1. M emphasizes that individuals have a duty to cooperate and that the system is legally secure 2. M argues that enforcement is necessary to counter the shadow society 2 and that decisions in most cases can be enforced if one cooperates 3. V argues that people end up in limbo when decisions cannot be enforced 4. V claims that the government worsens the shadow society 4 5 and that the only solution is residence permits 4 5. V argues that signal politics harms legal certainty 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.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tony Haddou, for the interpellation!
Tony Haddou has asked me if I intend to take any initiative in connection with the report Residence Permit due to Practical Enforcement Obstacles and Prescription, SOU 2017:84, and if I intend to act to ensure that people with practical enforcement obstacles, who cannot be deported, do not get stuck in limbo.
A fundamental prerequisite for a long-term sustainable asylum and migration policy that counteracts the emergence of a shadow society is that those who have been denied their asylum application or for other reasons are not allowed to stay in Sweden and return to their home country.
When a decision on deportation or expulsion has gained legal force, it is primarily the individual's responsibility to fully cooperate with the execution of the decision and to leave the country. When a person with a legally binding decision on deportation or expulsion fully cooperates in the return process, it is in principle always possible to carry out an execution. Only in a few cases does a permanent execution obstacle arise. These cases can be handled within the framework of the current order.
The Government intends to further intensify the work on the return area in accordance with what is stated in the Tidö Agreement. The Government wants, among other things, to give a reinforced mandate to the Swedish Migration Agency, the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Tax Agency, and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service to cooperate regarding return activities. The Government also wants the number of detention places to increase and be supplemented with alternatives of electronic or other surveillance of persons awaiting the execution of a return or deportation decision. According to the Tidö Agreement, parts of the aid shall also be conditional, and diplomatic measures shall be taken to increase returns.
The Government also intends to work for increased return through readmission agreements, both bilateral and through the EU.
A yes must be a yes, and a no must be a no. The Swedish legal order must not be undermined by individual individuals not following decisions made by our authorities and courts.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! The Minister's last sentence is precisely the core of the debate that I am raising. I quote exactly what the Minister just said: "The Swedish legal order must not be undermined by the fact that individuals do not follow decisions made by our authorities and courts."
So good that we can start there, I think. How are these individuals, who are actually very many more than the Minister wants to admit, supposed to follow deportation decisions if they cannot be enforced?
I meet stateless Palestinians who have lived in Sweden for half my life and who cannot be deported but are also not allowed to stay. There are several examples where Palestinians cooperate regarding their deportation, which the border police attempt to carry out without success. The police also make the assessment that it is impossible to execute the deportation decision and send the case back to Migrationsverket.
Still, life continues like this for families, year after year. Some of those affected by these deficiencies in Swedish legislation are Palestinians from Gaza - I probably do not need to remind the Minister of State what the situation is in Gaza.
Among those affected are also many from Afghanistan. This week, Sharia laws were introduced there. I do not need to remind the Minister of State either about how the situation is in the world's most dangerous country, where the Taliban rule and where genocide against the Hazaras is ongoing.
In the film Limbolandet, made by Marit Israelsson, one can follow Ousama. He has lived in Sweden for ten years and is to be deported because the asylum grounds were not sufficient. The entire burden of proof is placed on the individual. He has cooperated all the way, despite unreasonably high demands, but his home country does not accept him.
These are some examples that show that the law we have - and the Swedish Migration Agency's assessments - result in people who de facto cannot be deported still receiving deportation decisions and ending up in limbo.
I meet people in this situation quite often, and I wonder: What are they supposed to do in this situation? Are they supposed to live their entire lives in limbo? What is it they are supposed to do? The Government does not seem to have any plans at all for this group.
When one receives a deportation order and cannot be deported, one loses all their rights. One loses their home. One loses their livelihood. One cannot work or study. One also cannot return. What are these people supposed to do? They remain, but without a single right.
They are pushed out into a statelessness and into the shadow society that the government exacerbates and deepens. And this risks increasing even further due to increased rejections regarding countries to which one cannot be deported. Many people who have received a rejection of their asylum application simply cannot return. That is the fact. And instead of handling this fact and proposing possibilities for residence permits - there are no other alternatives - the government comes with repressive measures against a shadow society that they themselves have created.
This has not worked. The previous government also tried that. People are still living in this situation but under more difficult conditions. This government reinforces the same policy, and the obvious consequence is a larger group of undocumented people living under even more difficult conditions without any possibility of influencing their situation.
I must once again ask the question: How does the Minister intend to act to ensure that people with practical execution obstacles, who cannot be deported, do not get stuck in limbo? Deportation is not an option for them, and an increased shadow society is counterproductive. The only remaining option for the group I am talking about is a residence permit.
It is probably better that people are allowed to come in than that they are allowed to be pressured outside the system? Most have built up their entire lives here, and then they should be able to stay.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Generally speaking, deportation decisions can be enforced to all countries on earth provided that the persons concerned cooperate fully. In some cases, this may require a significant amount of active personal action, but this is an obligation that follows from the individual's duty to comply with the decisions of Swedish authorities and courts.
However, in individual cases - exceptional cases - situations can arise where, despite the individual's efforts to cooperate, the decision cannot be executed. A typical example is Cuba, which has legislation that means entry is refused in some cases even though the person concerned truly wants to return and does everything he or she can to make it possible. In such cases, there is a regulatory framework in place to grant residence permits, and in those instances, these persons do not end up in the limbo that Tony Haddou speaks about.
Already during the preliminary review of a case, the authorities shall assess whether a potential deportation decision can be executed or not. If it is assessed that the decision cannot be executed, the preparatory works for the Aliens Act prescribe that a deportation decision should not be issued. If it is instead the case that the obstacles arise after the deportation decision has gained legal force, as in the case with the Cubans I mentioned just now, there is thus a possibility to grant a residence permit. The obstacles must not be due to the individual's own actions or lack of action.
In summary, there is therefore an arrangement to prevent persons without own fault from ending up in a limbo situation. When listening to Tony Haddou, it sounds as if this possibility does not exist at all, and I hope that part of the legislation has not passed the member by.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! I believe we need to clarify whether this is true or not. One cannot be deported to every corner of the world. So the legislation does not work that way, and the asylum process does not work that way either for that part. I believe the Minister for Migration knows this but wants to signal that we are now to deport as many as we can.
That the government wants more people to be deported does not, however, make people more deportable or the decisions more enforceable. Regardless of whether the government strengthens the police or other authorities and fills the streets with police, the Migration Agency with staff, and the courts with lawyers, the fact remains that some people cannot be deported.
One must remember that a legitimate return system is built on a legitimate asylum system. The Minister stated earlier that a yes should be a yes and a no should be a no. Such a signal policy showing tougher measures is recurring among the Minister and the government in order for them to show themselves to be decisive, but the legitimacy of deportations lies in the legal certainty of the asylum decisions.
The Council of State allows legal decisions that cannot even be implemented to be made. This risks undermining legal certainty even further in the asylum process. It is not the case that all deportation decisions are made on legally secure grounds, and obviously, not all decisions can be executed. Lawyers and human rights organizations have repeatedly highlighted these deficiencies, but the government does nothing. The only ones affected by this are the asylum seekers, who are pushed into undocumented status and vulnerability.
And how is one to follow the prevailing order that the Minister refers to? It is hardly used today. Many so-called new asylum seekers are in their second or third asylum process from previous cases that have been prescribed, many times because they could not be executed. This is something that the Swedish Migration Agency has demonstrated. It is this reality that the Minister for Migration must face, or as her coalition partner expressed it: Reality comes and haunts. People in such situations cannot be deported.
Instead of subjecting people to limbo in different ways and instead of acting counterproductively, the only solution is to grant the group I am talking about residence permits. In several European countries, this has been done. It is actually a common solution when one cannot deport, and Sweden has done it previously in our legislation. But here, they now want to worsen the problem, and even more rejections to countries to which one cannot deport contribute to the shadow society.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! The interpellor makes it sound as if no decisions on residence permits are being made due to obstacles to enforcement, but according to the statistics, 639 such decisions have been made up to October during the current year. This shows that we have a regulatory framework that is being applied. If the deportation cannot be enforced, such decisions can be made, and they are also made.
I think it is important that we stick to how our immigration system is actually supposed to function. It is incredibly important that we have a legitimacy in the system. It is about us being able to continue to be a country that helps people who are fleeing. There is an enormous need all around the world, and for us to be able to help, I am convinced that the residents in Sweden must feel that the immigration is good but also fair.
If one has a legally secure process, which I say we have in Sweden, and after such a process a decision on deportation is made that becomes legally binding, meaning that it must be enforced, and this is not complied with, we risk undermining trust in the entire regulatory framework. Furthermore, it is deeply unfair, because the individuals who have been judged not to have grounds for protection burden the system in a way that, in the long run, means we will have fewer opportunities to help those who truly have grounds for protection.
I would say that there are many arguments for having a functioning and efficient return where a yes is a yes but a no is also a clear no.
It is about upholding the rule of law, about ensuring that issued decisions are enforced, and about ensuring that no one stands outside or above the law. It is about safeguarding legitimacy, as I was mentioning. The same decision should not lead to different outcomes. A rejection shall therefore mean return, and an approval shall mean settlement. It is about limiting costs, as significant costs arise if people remain in the reception system.
It is also about countering the shadow society. The interpellor speaks of the shadow society that the government complicates and deepens and which he claims the government, obviously during the month we have been here, has created. It is actually quite the opposite. In order for us to fight the shadow society, where people, not least children, suffer very badly and where unscrupulous employers exploit people in a terrible way, we must ensure that decisions are executed.
Tony Haddou was aware of the problem with the short prescription period, that is, that people have incentives to remain hidden in Sweden because after only four years one can apply for asylum again. Again, this burdens our system and means that we have fewer opportunities to help those who truly have a need for protection. Therefore, the government intends to proceed with and look into either extending or completely removing the prescription period.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! Of course, you in the Moderate Party are worsening the shadow society that has existed since before. When you were in opposition, you voted for, for example, the changes in LMA and ensured that people were deprived of their homes, their livelihood, and their opportunity to work and study. They were stripped of all their rights, and that is how the system looks today. It is this shadow society that you are worsening.
When it comes to legal certainty, as the Minister pointed out, deportation decisions to Afghanistan are being issued today. This cannot be legally certain at all. Women are receiving deportation decisions to Afghanistan, where Sharia laws prevail. It is also known that it is not possible to deport them to Afghanistan, and yet decisions on deportation there are being issued.
How can the Minister stand here and say that it is a legally secure asylum policy? It is naturally not when decisions are made to deport women and children to Afghanistan, which is among the worst things one can do. Many European countries have put a stop to this, but not Sweden. Here, one lives on some kind of signal politics where we make more and more people deportable when we know that it cannot be enforced. Then the legitimacy in the asylum system that the Minister speaks about does not function. It is clear that it cannot do that when one cannot follow these decisions. Legal decisions are made that nevertheless cannot be followed. Then this legitimacy and the legal certainty in the asylum process are lost.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! I believe that Tony Haddou and I have quite different views on this regulatory framework. For me and for the government, it is crucial that decisions made must also be executed. As I said initially, it is the case that if one fully cooperates, one can also in the vast majority of cases execute decisions on deportation or rejection. And if that still is not possible, there is a functioning regulatory framework in Swedish law to grant residence permits. Then one does not end up in the limbo that the member describes.
I would say that we have a legally secure asylum system, and we have good opportunities for a legally secure review. We allocate resources to the Swedish Migration Agency and the migration courts, so that they can live up to the requirements that should be set. The Swedish order also has a very high reputation internationally.
I would just like to conclude by reminding that it is the authorities and the courts that make these assessments and not the government or individual ministers.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.