Response to interpellation 2022/23:398 on the deportation of children born and raised in Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the deportation of children born and raised in Sweden as well as the government's plans to amend the Aliens Act. M argues that the government wants to ensure a legally secure system where a no is a no and that enforcement must function so that resources can reach those with actual protection needs 1 2 3 4. M emphasizes that the best interests of the child is already a portal paragraph and that the proposal on particularly compelling circumstances is a reasonable balance 1 2 4. MP argues that children living in limbo must be granted residence permits and that the government's plans weaken children's rights 5 6 7. MP wants to strengthen the Convention on the Rights of the Child and reverse the order of assessment so that the best interests of the child are prioritized 6 7.
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! Annika Hirvonen has asked me if I am prepared to refrain from weakening children's opportunities for residence permits under particularly distressing circumstances and if I am instead prepared to conduct a children's rights review of the Aliens Act.
The interpellation stems from several individual cases. As a minister, I cannot comment on how an authority or a court handles and decides on individual cases.
Regarding the question of children's possibilities for residence permits on humanitarian grounds, the government decided on July 13, 2023, on a referral to the Council of Legislation with a proposal to, among other things, remove the possibility of granting children residence permits on the grounds of particularly moving circumstances. Instead, children shall be granted residence permits on the grounds of exceptionally moving circumstances even if the circumstances do not have the same severity and weight as required for adults.
This means a return to the order that applied previously in Sweden and which was also proposed by the parliamentary Migration Committee. The proposal implies a reasonable balance with a narrow exception provision but a lower threshold for children.
In light of Annika Hirvonen's question, I am not prepared to expand the possibilities for residence permits but instead want to see that more cases are assessed according to the main rules in the Aliens Act.
Regarding the children's rights perspective, there has long been a portal paragraph on the child's best interests in the Aliens Act. It means that in cases concerning a child, the child's health, development, and the child's best interests in general shall be given special consideration.
By the Convention on the Rights of the Child becoming Swedish law on 1 January 2020, it was also clarified that courts and law enforcement officials shall take into account the rights resulting from the Convention on the Rights of the Child in weighings and assessments concerning children.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child Inquiry carried out a comprehensive mapping and analysis of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Swedish law in order to provide support for the ongoing work with the transformation of the Convention's provisions. The work also included the provisions of the Aliens Act and was reported in the report Convention on the Rights of the Child and Swedish Law in November 2020.
In other words, there is already a clear child rights perspective in Swedish migration law today. Children's rights shall be ensured in the work of the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Police Authority, and it is important that the asylum and return process is legally secure for both children and adults.
I want to emphasize that the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not in itself entail a specific right for a child to be granted residence permit in Sweden. The best interests of the child shall, however, be taken into account in the processing and examination of a case.
I naturally follow the authorities' work in the field of children's rights, but at the current moment, I do not intend to take any further measures.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! There are children in Sweden who are born and raised here and who are starting secondary school now but who still have not received a personal identity number and who still do not know if they will be allowed to stay in Sweden. The authorities have decided that they shall not be granted residence permits, but at the same time, the authorities have not enforced the decisions on deportation. The children have thus lived their entire lives in limbo in our country.
I met one of these children here in the Riksdag. Murhaf Hamid became nationally known for having sold a record number of daffodils. He is one of these children who has lived his entire life in Sweden, in his case also in almost all of Sweden. The Migration Agency has moved the family from Kiruna to Skåne and from eastern Sweden to western - all the time in limbo, an entire upbringing, an entire life.
We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that this situation exists, and from a children's rights perspective, one must state that we cannot continue to have it this way. Children have the right to a secure upbringing. If the authorities cannot execute their decisions on deportation, the children must be granted residence permits. In today's Aliens Act, there is a basis that provides the possibility to grant residence permits in these cases, the so-called humanitarian protection ground.
We in Miljöpartiet have fought for the Convention on the Rights of the Child to become Swedish law and for children who end up in this situation to have their rights met – that the best interests of the child should be considered. Therefore, we have strengthened the humanitarian protection ground, particularly regarding children. First, we did so in 2014 in negotiations with the then Moderate-led government, and then as recently as a couple of years ago. The Convention on the Rights of the Child inquiry also points to the Aliens Act and states that children's rights in this law need to be strengthened. I am therefore concerned about the government's plans to instead do the opposite and weaken children's rights.
I should have met Saliha here in the Riksdag. She was invited and registered as a visitor, but late at night, the family was picked up by the border police and deported to a country that Saliha had never been to, where she does not understand the language and cannot make herself understood. She did not manage to finish sixth grade and was not allowed to go on the class trip to Gröna Lund, for which she had collected money with her classmates. She was born and raised in Sweden, and she longs for home.
Madam Speaker! The Government should reconsider the plans to weaken children's rights in these poignant cases.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! As Annika Hirvonen knows very well, I cannot comment on individual cases.
Let me first point out that a legally secure and sustainable asylum system actually requires a functioning return for those persons who are judged not to be in need of protection. This also applies in relation to children, which can be incredibly difficult in the individual case. But if we do not maintain the regulated immigration, which ensures that it is actually the reasons for protection that determine whether one is allowed to stay or not, it becomes very difficult for Sweden to maintain a functioning immigration at all. This also means that if, after a legally secure review, often in several instances, one has been denied, one is obliged to leave the country, and the authorities shall also execute such a decision.
Individual individuals receive the support needed for the journey to be carried out in a good manner. No unaccompanied child is returned if there is no organized reception. In cases concerning children, special consideration shall be taken regarding the child's health and development and to what the child's best interests otherwise require. As I said initially, it has long been a portal paragraph in the Aliens Act that one shall always take into account the child's best interests.
Regarding the proposal that children should be able to be granted residence permits on the grounds of exceptionally compassionate circumstances instead of particularly compassionate circumstances, it applies just as before that a collective assessment shall be made where the child's state of health, adaptation to Sweden and the situation in the home country can be considered. To take into account the best interests of the child does not always mean that the decision will be what the child and any potential guardians desire. The regulation we propose was in effect for many years in Sweden, and I mean that it reflects our obligation to have a safety valve for the most compassionate cases.
Let me also mention that through the Swedish Migration Agency's instructions, the agency is mandated to analyze the consequences for children before decisions or other measures that may concern children. The Swedish Migration Agency has previously reported on measures and results of the work to ensure the child's rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Legal support for the assessment of the child's best interests has been developed, and training on child rights competence is, of course, provided for the Swedish Migration Agency's staff.
Just as Annika Hirvonen said, it sometimes happens that the Police Authority has to execute a decision. Even then, special consideration shall be given to the needs of children when planning the execution of the deportation or expulsion decision. At every processing step or decision that affects children, the Police Authority shall conduct an assessment of the child's best interests.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! The Swedish asylum system is not legally secure, and returns do not always work. We can start by looking at the latest report regarding deficiencies in legal certainty that RFSL published at the beginning of August. There it is shown that rejections are given for asylum applications from hbtqi persons who have not felt enough guilt or shame, or from intersex persons who have not expressed sufficiently deep thoughts and reflections regarding the body that is neither clearly a man's nor a woman's. That one is mistreated on the street or has lived for twenty years in a same-sex relationship is not assigned any significance, despite the risk of persecution or even the death penalty in the home country.
So no, the asylum system is not legally secure. When we have children who have lived for thirteen years without the Swedish Migration Agency being able to enforce its rejection decision, then there is something wrong with the return. Today's system punishes the children. The children are left to live in limbo, without the same rights as their classmates, without a personal identity number and without the possibility of joining a class trip to Åland or simply dreaming of a future, of pursuing higher education.
We must reverse the order of the assessments regarding the best interests of the child in immigration cases. Today, one looks first at the adult and perhaps concludes that the mother is to be deported. Then one looks at the child and asks: Is it best for the child to stay alone without their mother in Sweden or to come along? If we turn the tables and look at the child's best interests, it would have been obvious that the best for the child is to remain in the country where they were born and raised. That answer would have been reached in the cases we have witnessed now: Murhaf and Saliha and several others. Then one needs to assess whether it is also necessary for the parents to stay with their children.
It is obvious that children's rights, the best interests of the child, are not being realized today. Training at the Migration Agency is not enough. We need to change the legislation. The government will, of course, change the legislation regarding the protection of children on the run, but I do not understand why that change involves weakening children's right to protection.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! I did not quite perceive any question, but I can at least begin by agreeing with what Annika Hirvonen said about the fact that enforcement really does not work. Far too few of those who have been refused their asylum application actually leave the country. Around half do so voluntarily, despite it being an obligation for the individual to follow decisions made.
I hope it is not as it could almost be perceived, that Annika Hirvonen is urging that one should not follow the decisions that have been made by authorities and courts. Ultimately, it is the case that if we want to be able to help as many as possible who actually have protection needs around the world, as we have discussed in previous debates here today, then we must use our resources in the very best way.
It can be extremely tough in the individual case, but it is required that we dare to make such decisions and ensure that they are enforced if we are to be able to use resources for those who need it the most. If there are reasons even after a decision on deportation or rejection has been made, a new residence permit can also be granted due to obstacles to enforcement.
There is also a valve for humanitarian reasons, which we are tightening because we believe it should target precisely the most distressing cases.
When it comes to the issue of LGBTQI persons, we have a close dialogue with, among others, RFSL and RFSL Ungdom. As stated in the Tidö Agreement, we will commission a review of the legislation and its application, and I ask to be allowed to return to that part.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! The government wants to weaken children's rights in the Aliens Act. The motive for wanting to weaken children's rights is not apparent. I can guess that it is yet another concession to the Sweden Democrats and their agenda to undermine human rights, especially for people who come from other countries.
We in Miljöpartiet want to strengthen children's rights. For us, it is obvious that children like Murhaf and Saliha, who are born in Sweden, who are raised here and who are in sixth grade, should be granted the right to a secure upbringing in their home country Sweden.
Children's rights must be strengthened, and it is catastrophic that Sweden's government is now instead going to dismantle children's rights in the Aliens Act. It will lead to more children getting stuck in limbo when they receive rejections of asylum applications that are impossible to enforce. Because that also happens in Sweden today. Despite knowing that it is impossible to enforce, a person can receive a rejection and end up in limbo. Despite the fact that it has demonstrably been ten years without a decision being able to be enforced, people continue to be forced to live in these limbos, even children.
Thirteen years - a child's entire life - that is how long Murhaf and Saliha have lived in limbo in our country. It is not worthy; the Convention on the Rights of the Child is law.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! To begin with, it can be stated that the decisions being made now and that have been made during the past year have been made on previously decided legislation that has also applied during the government in which the Miljöpartiet has sat.
The government proposes, however, a stricter valve when it concerns particularly and especially compassionate circumstances, so that particularly compassionate circumstances shall be required to be granted such a residence permit. But the principle of the best interests of the child still applies in Swedish immigration legislation and has done so for a very long time. This does not, however, per se mean that the decision will always be what the child or any guardians want.
We have very different views on the migration legislation. From the government's side, we are now restructuring the legislation to ensure that a yes is a yes and a no is a no. It is, just as Annika Hirvonen says, extremely unfortunate when children are left to live in uncertainty for a long time. Therefore, it is so important that the enforcement becomes better. If one can get a faster decision and a faster enforcement, the process also becomes more humane. This is something that we are putting a lot of effort into and which I also assess to be compatible with the best interests of the child.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.