Response to interpellation 2022/23:409 on visas for Iranians and guarantees for stay 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 concerns visas for Iranians and guarantee systems for stays. M argues that a guarantee system would not change the assessment of whether a person returns 1, as the risk that the entrant remains persists and guarantees can be exploited by human smugglers 1. M believes that rejections are due to the worsened situation in Iran 2 and that sponsorship entails more work for the authorities 2. M regrets the situation in Iran 3 but argues that risk assessments are necessary for regulated immigration 3. S argues that other EU countries use guarantee systems successfully 4 and that it is unreasonable to accuse poor pensioners of a lack of means 5. S argues that guarantees ensure that visitors do not become an economic burden 5.
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! Ola Möller has asked me if I could consider introducing a guarantee system for visas, which exists in some other EU countries. By guarantee system, it is meant that a person in Sweden would provide financial guarantees for certain potential costs for a person who has been issued a visa to Sweden.
Initially, I want to emphasize that Swedish embassies and consulates are independent authorities and that the government therefore does not interfere in the assessments and considerations made in individual visa cases. The authorities independently apply the EU-common framework in the processing of visa applications, that is, the Union's visa code. An individual assessment is made of each application, among other things based on the probability that the applicant returns before the visa has expired.
According to the visa code, member states have the possibility to require applicants to provide a commitment regarding sponsorship, private accommodation, or both. The commitment is then taken into account during the examination of the application but does not constitute a guarantee that a visa will be issued.
Several reasons, however, speak against the introduction of a system of this type in Sweden. It is difficult to see how the guarantee would result in any significant change in the original assessment, and a risk remains that the entrant does not return when the visa has expired, even if security is provided. It is also not possible to ignore that this type of security could become part of human smugglers' toolbox in an attempt to circumvent the EU-wide regulatory framework.
Therefore, issuing visas against guarantees risks undermining the visa policy, and the government has no intentions at this stage to introduce such a system in Sweden.
Ola Möller (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Migration for the answer. The Minister for Migration and I have had our disputes here in the chamber. It often heats up, and we may not always leave here as best friends. But today, I will make an honest effort so that Swedish citizens can be able to meet their grandmother, their father, or their grandchildren.
But I want to start by reminding of something completely different regarding Iran. When it is not perceived that anything new is happening in a country, news reporting often falls silent, but a feminist revolution is still ongoing in Iran. The words woman, life, freedom must continue to resonate in this chamber and across the world, and we must never forget the Iranians who were murdered by their own regime. We must never forget the little girls who were gassed to death with poison.
What I honestly and sincerely want to ask the Minister for Migration is whether she sees any possibility of helping Swedish citizens to meet their grandparents and get them to Sweden for a wedding or a baby shower so that they do not have to keep them in, for example, Turkey. I choose to raise the issue now because visa rejections are increasing and often on quite experientially loose grounds. I accept that they are independent authorities, and I absolutely do not request that the government should intervene in individual decisions, but it is nevertheless the government that enacts the laws that the authorities adhere to.
I am somewhat confused by the answer because a lot of other EU countries have this system and are not flooded by a mass of Iranian pensioners trying to take advantage of the welfare system or have a mass of human smugglers who take these people across the country's borders. There, it works perfectly well. It is not just one country but many, and it is countries that are just like ours: Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, which admittedly is not an EU country, Czech Republic and Luxembourg. It is not strange; it works in other countries.
Therefore, I would really like to know if the Minister sees any brightening for these people in Sweden when it comes to being able to have their relatives come here for a visit. What is it actually that prevents it and that makes it so that the government cannot even initiate an investigation at the ministry?
Something the Minister took up in his answer to my written question in the spring, and which also appeared in the media, was that we should not have special rules for individual countries. I completely accept that. Obviously, we should not enact a law that says this only applies to Iran, but it must apply to everyone who is affected by this today or in the future.
Can the Minister for Migration imagine conducting a reasoning on how we can help Swedish citizens meet their grandmother and grandfather? I know that the Minister for Migration also fundamentally believes that families have the right to meet.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would like to agree with the sympathies that Ola Möller expressed, not least for the women in Iran and their incredibly courageous struggle for human rights. The Government views the situation for human rights in Iran, which remains very worrying, with the utmost seriousness. In view of the developments since last autumn, the Government has also strongly condemned the Iranian authorities' violations of human rights in both statements and direct talks with Iranian representatives, including at the ministerial level. Sweden has also worked within both the UN and the EU to increase the political pressure on Iran and provide international support for the population's rightful demands for respect for human rights.
It is, however, a fact that the deteriorating political and economic situation in Iran has had a significant impact on Sweden's issuance of visas to persons from Iran. That many are denied visas is primarily due to the fact that the risk of persons not returning has increased, and it is a risk that must be taken into account in the assessment when visas are to be granted. It is obviously unfortunate that persons in Sweden find it more difficult to meet relatives and friends from Iran through visits to Sweden. It is, however, completely necessary to make this assessment in order to uphold the visa regulations.
Sweden follows the common EU framework, and it is our duty towards other member states to ensure that those who are granted a visa to Schengen can support themselves, do not pose a security risk, and intend to return. We expect other countries to also follow this framework.
The visa policy has several clear goals. It is about ensuring that we have control over who comes so that we can detect security risks. The person who comes here on a visit must also not become a commercial burden but must have sufficient means to support themselves. Finally, we must also be able to count on the person returning before the visa expires. I take all these tasks very seriously.
The reason why it has become more difficult for Iranian citizens to be granted visas is not primarily about economic means, which the interpellor aims at by trying to argue for a new instrument, but it is about the risk that persons will not return is judged to have increased. According to the regulations, an application shall be rejected if there is doubt about the intention to return. It is a low-level requirement that ultimately is about maintaining a regulated immigration to Sweden and the EU.
Speaking of Germany, I can mention that the majority of Iranian citizens seeking asylum within the EU do so in Germany, and there it is estimated that over 3,000 Iranian citizens who have sought asylum have entered on granted visas between January and the end of May this year.
Ola Möller (S)
Madam Speaker! I do not really know where to begin. It is a rather harsh criticism of other countries when the Minister says that we apply the regulatory framework and assume that others do as well, and so they have a system that Sweden believes does not work but which obviously works there. It becomes a criticism that they should not be as meticulous as Sweden in their control of people who come here, because they still allow Iranians to come here while we do not do so for security reasons.
Regarding the return, we have people who have been to Sweden ten times and returned every single time. But now they are suddenly denied and constitute a security risk. One is not even consistent in the assessment. I find it difficult to see that a grandmother from Iran would come here and start conducting terrorist activities and industrial espionage, because those are the risks. It will not happen. It is not the retirees who come here and cause havoc - if anyone comes here and does so. If the Iranian regime wants to get people into our country to cause havoc, they do it. It is not a problem; they solve it - partly because the IRGC is not classified as a terrorist organization, which it obviously should be. It took a long time before the government took this step to protect Sweden from one of the world's worst terrorist organizations.
Madam Speaker! I hope that somewhere, the Minister for Migration, with what she says about it being due to the current security situation, is indirectly saying that if it just becomes safer in Iran, people will be granted visas to a greater extent in the future. The problem is that people are rejected for very different reasons. Some rejections are justified by the fact that one has adult children in Iran, and then one's connection to the country is not large enough. Therefore, one does not return after a visit to Sweden. Would one choose to go to Sweden to be with this child and leave the children that one lives with? It is a very strange logic that the authorities apply here.
Furthermore, it is about this issue with assets. To accuse an Iranian pensioner living in an apartment of having too few funds is quite bold. It is poor people we are talking about, and it has been that way all the time. They do not have large financial reserves. But it is even to the extent that people who have had large funds in the bank have been rejected. And it is very strange, because if one were to run such a system, we would have a guarantee. Then we would have a guarantee that the person who comes here will not be an economic burden on the Swedish system.
As I said, it is not just about Germany either; Belgium, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Luxembourg also have this system. Germany is currently a clearly much more immigration-friendly country than Sweden; we saw that, for example, in the citizen proposal that just came in regarding making it easier to become a citizen in Germany. It is not quite the path Sweden is taking, of course with some justice. Germany shows clearly and distinctly that the country wants immigration, and if one is then going to seek asylum, one naturally chooses Germany.
That was also the purpose of the entire reorganization that the Social Democrats have made of the migration policy: The pressure of asylum seekers is to be shared. It is not strange that it turns out that way.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! There is no lack of commitment here, but I believe we must clear up a number of quite large misunderstandings that underlie the interpellant's way of arguing.
As I said in my previous post, the reason why many are now being denied visas is first and foremost that it is assessed that there is a large risk that they will not return before the visa period expires.
There are a number of criteria that one must meet in order to receive a visa. This partly concerns the security issue, but that was not what I primarily aimed at in my motion. It partly concerns that one must be able to support oneself, i.e., have sufficient assets. That is what the entire interpellation is about, but it is therefore not primarily this that now constitutes the reason for the rejection. It is instead the third factor, namely the assessment that a person will not return.
This is unfortunately an effect of the changed situation in Iran. The number of people from Iran seeking asylum in Sweden is significant. Iran is the fifth largest country of application. During the first six months of this year, the number of asylum applications increased by over 50 percent compared to the same period last year. Many EU countries, not least Germany, have seen a sharp increase in asylum applications from Iran. A significant proportion of those seeking asylum do so after having been granted visas to Schengen. There are therefore very good reasons to exercise caution in the issuance of these visas.
In relation to Iranian citizens who have had their asylum applications rejected, the Swedish Migration Agency states that Swedish authorities face significant difficulties with enforcement and that cooperation with Iranian authorities is deficient. This means that the intention to return is central in the issuance of a visa. It is difficult to enforce a rejection or deportation in any other way.
A sponsorship regarding costs due to the visit does not affect the assessment of the intention to return. It is therefore a separate assessment. A system with sponsorship also risks resulting in more work for Swedish authorities. Given that the effect is assessed to be limited, I and the government see no reason to introduce such a sponsorship in Sweden.
Ola Möller (S)
Madam Speaker! I am sorry; I am not coming anymore. I really tried. You who have traveled from Gothenburg to listen to this debate - you hear it. Your grandmothers who have been here ten times show that they return. But we do not trust them, says the Minister for Migration.
She also sees no reason to try to investigate and resolve this. It doesn't matter if you step in and say that you will pay the storage costs for those who cannot be deported. It doesn't matter, because it will result in more work for Swedish authorities. So I am sorry, but there will be no wedding in Sweden.
Some of you are thinking: Now we are leaving the country! This applies to the doctor I spoke with, the nursing assistant at the elderly care home, and the machine operator. I am sorry, because we need your competence in this country. We are working very hard to get competence to Sweden, but unfortunately, we now have a government that says: We do not trust you. We do not trust your family.
Madam Speaker! I am sorry, but I will not be coming anymore.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! I actually only draw two conclusions from the debate, even though it has been somewhat scattered and full of misunderstandings.
The first conclusion I draw is that I deeply regret the changed situation in Iran, not least for women and for human rights, and the consequences this has for the opportunities for families to meet here in Sweden. But in order for us to be able to uphold the visa regulations, it is necessary that we make an assessment of the risk that the person will not return. In that case, the authorities make an assessment that there is an increased risk with the changed situation in Iran, which has these consequences.
The second conclusion I draw is that the facade that the Social Democrats are now putting so much effort into painting—that they have changed their migration policy and are prepared to stand up for order and discipline in migration policy—is merely a facade. For point by point, when difficult decisions must be made, when one must stand up for regulated immigration and ensure that we have order and discipline in migration policy, the Social Democrats back down.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.