Response to interpellation 2022/23:63 on the deportation of foreign nationals for serious crime
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M wants to tighten the regulatory framework for deportation through a new investigation 1 and wants the deportation issue to always be examined during prosecution 1. M wants less consideration to be given to the foreigner's ties to Sweden 1, that re-entry bans should become longer 1 and that assistance should be used as a means of pressure 2. M also wants that persons who have not been convicted should be able to be deported in cases of lack of good conduct 2. M considers that tightening is important for safety 3 and wants to achieve a paradigm shift 4. SD considers that foreign citizens who commit serious crimes should be sent back 5 6 and that deportation is crucial to address crime 7. S wants to hear if lying to the police constitutes a lack of good conduct 8 9 and argues that people who have not committed crimes should be deported 9.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Richard Jomshof has asked the Minister for Justice whether the Minister intends to take any general measures regarding the deportation of foreign nationals convicted of serious crime and, if so, which ones. The work within the government is distributed such that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
From the Tidö Agreement, it appears that a new government is to be appointed - it should be a new investigation, not a new government, that is to be appointed - with a mandate to further sharpen the regulatory framework for deportation due to crime. According to the Tidö Agreement, such an investigation should be tasked with proposing constitutional amendments which, among other things, mean that the deportation issue shall always be examined when foreigners are indicted for crimes, that no more consideration shall be given to a foreigner's connection to Sweden when examining the deportation issue than is required with regard to international commitments, and that execution obstacles shall not result in the court not making a decision on deportation. It also follows from the Tidö Agreement, among other things, that such an investigation should be tasked with submitting proposals that mean that re-entry bans become longer and, as a starting point, are issued for life in cases of serious crime.
The coalition parties agree that the aforementioned proposal, as well as others listed in the Tidö Agreement to tighten the regulatory framework for deportation due to crime, shall be submitted as a government bill to the Riksdag, and I intend to work towards this.
Richard Jomshof (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer.
There is no doubt that gang crime, organized crime, and the constantly recurring shootings and explosions all around in suburbs and municipalities are worse today than ever before. As a direct consequence of this, we also know and can see that insecurity is spreading. It is not least about the fact that innocent people all too often end up in the line of fire when the violent criminals settle scores.
A very large majority of those behind this crime have a different background. This also applies to phenomena such as robbery with humiliation and assault and gang rape. They come, not least, from countries in the Middle East and Africa.
I have said it before, but I think it is important to emphasize that those who are here in Sweden have received a roof over their heads, lifelong benefit support, and access to a welfare system that, despite its shortcomings, is one of the world's best and most well-functioning. Despite this, all too many choose to say thank you by waging some kind of low-intensity war against the surrounding society. All too many are also Islamists with the goal of dismantling and opposing our open and egalitarian democratic society.
Multiculturalism, mass immigration, and the Islamization that follows in its wake are destructive forces. The noted Quran riots, which hit Sweden during the Easter weekend, are a clear proof of this.
When I wrote my interpellation in November, 30 people had been convicted in connection with the riots. Of these, none will be deported after serving their sentence, even though a majority of them are foreign citizens - they are therefore not citizens of Sweden - and even though they have been sentenced to multi-year prison terms for aggravated sabotage against emergency services. Several of them are also convicted from earlier. It concerns everything from drug offenses to sexual offenses. There are even IS returnees among them. Since then, an additional 17 people have been convicted, and there will be more during the spring. Exactly how many it concerns, I do not know. But more will be convicted.
It is strange that citizens from another country can come to Sweden and commit those types of crimes without being sent back. It is remarkable. But just as the Minister notes, the question of deportation is included in the Tidö Agreement. I want to assert that it is a central issue. On page 19 it says: "An opportunity to be able to deport gang criminals who lack Swedish citizenship without them having been convicted of a crime shall be investigated. It should also be mapped out how many foreign citizens are active gang criminals."
It is a very good piece of writing. I really look forward to a sharp proposal on the issue. But there is a problem linked to that very writing. This will be an open question. How are we, even when a new law has been put in place, going to be able to deport gang criminals who lack Swedish citizenship without them having been convicted of crimes if we do not today manage to deport the gang criminals who lack Swedish citizenship and who have committed very serious crimes? It would be interesting to hear what the Minister of State has to say about that.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! I wanted to participate in the debate because it is currently relevant with issues of lack of integrity and such things. It occurs that people lie to the police when they have committed a crime and that people lie to authorities when they commit crimes. Connected to what Member Jomshof is talking about regarding being able to deport people without them even being convicted of any crime, my question to the Minister for Migration is how she views people lying to the police.
An investigation into misconduct will be conducted. Contempt toward the Swedish people is also a point to be investigated. Does lying to the police constitute contempt toward the Swedish people? Are there grounds to deport a person who is not a Swedish citizen and who has actively lied to both the police and the authorities and who has, for example, poached?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! The Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals agree that, together with the Sweden Democrats, they will take responsibility for Sweden. I look forward with confidence to the regulatory changes that are to be expected in the migration area during the coming parliamentary period. I want to pin down the question that Richard Jomshof concluded with, namely how we are to be able to deport foreign citizens who have not committed crimes when we are now failing to deport those who have committed crimes. It is a fully justified question.
My ambition as Minister for Migration and the ambition of the government and the coalition partners is to completely overhaul the policy. We need a paradigm shift. We must ensure that people are sentenced to deportation in many more cases than today. That is what all these proposals aim for.
Something that is often forgotten is that even if a deportation is ordered, it is unfortunately far too difficult to carry out the deportations. Here, the government has very high ambitions to work much more with diplomacy. The previous government did not seem particularly engaged in that. One must work diligently with the countries that refuse to accept their own citizens, even though international law requires them to do so.
It is also something that we will take up during this week with our colleagues in the EU, whom we have the pleasure of welcoming to Stockholm for the first informal RIF Council here. If we can work together at the EU level to secure repatriation agreements and work as a united force against countries of origin that do not want to cooperate, that is extremely good.
We will also take up a specific point about the fact that one must work with a whole-of-government approach. We cannot have it be the case that a Minister for Development Aid says one thing, a Minister for Trade says another thing, a Minister for Foreign Affairs says a third thing, and a Minister for Migration who very much wants the countries to take back their citizens. The entire government must work together.
All authorities that come into contact with the issue of deportation of citizens must also work in the same direction. It is easier said than done. But here, the Tidö parties have high ambitions to achieve a change. We want, for example, to use aid as a means of pressure against those countries that refuse to cooperate.
Even though I am aware that it is a difficult task to both implement legislative changes and achieve a different management of authorities, I have high ambitions regarding the government succeeding significantly better than what has been the case previously.
Regarding the question of misconduct, I have debated it with Ola Möller previously. The government argues that even if the level has not been reached to be sentenced to deportation as a result of a crime, one should still in certain cases be able to be deported due to lack of conduct. This concerns, for example, persons who have dealings with a terrorist organization or in other ways show that they absolutely do not want to become part of Swedish society or comply with the democratic principles that apply here.
Richard Jomshof (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. As Maria Malmer Stenergard has stated in her answer, a new investigation will be appointed - thus not a new government but an investigation. I think you should be given the chance for a while longer.
The investigation concerns further tightening the regulatory framework regarding deportation due to crime. On page 43 of the Tidö Agreement, it states that the question of deportation shall always be examined when foreigners are prosecuted for crimes, and that obstacles to enforcement shall not mean that the court does not make a decision on deportation. The Minister has already stated this, and it is of course very good. If you ask me, this is the absolutely most important part of the entire Tidö Agreement.
I mean that people of this sort - it doesn't matter what background they have - have no business being in Sweden. If you come to Sweden and commit very serious crimes, you should of course be sent back home again. It doesn't matter if you come from a neighboring country or some other country. In Sweden, we expect that you behave and contribute to the common good.
I also want to assert that the issue of deportation is central to addressing gang crime and the increasingly more severe organized crime, as it is largely an imported problem. That picture is reinforced, not least by the fact that around one-third of those serving sentences in Swedish prisons de facto lack Swedish citizenship.
The problem of grossly criminal foreigners being allowed to stay in Sweden did not begin with the riots in Koran, but has existed for a very long time, for very many years. Both rapists and murderers have been allowed to stay in Sweden after serving their sentences when they in fact should have been sent back home again.
A notable case is the four Eritrean men who gang-raped a woman in Flemingsberg last year. Two of the men also raped the woman again in an elevator at Flemingsberg station. All the men will be sentenced to multi-year prison terms, but despite the prosecutor's demand for deportation upon conviction, no one will be deported after serving their prison sentence. It is just one tragic example of many.
One can also look at figures from Brå that show that nearly six out of ten foreign murderers who were registered as residents in Sweden when the crime was committed are released from deportation after serving their sentence. It is very serious that the situation looks like that.
That foreign citizens refrain from raping and murdering in Sweden is not an unreasonable requirement - nor is it that they do not start or participate in riots where, for example, one tries to kill police officers. I think it lies within the bounds of reasonableness that one does not engage in that kind of activity. Therefore, it is of course good that new legislation in the area is being planned.
But what do we do before new legislation is in place? What do we do with all those gross criminals who are allowed to remain in Sweden today? We have, for example, those from the Quran riots that I mentioned, and there will probably be more given how people have chosen to sentence. And when legislation is finally in place, what do we do then with people who should not have been allowed to stay in Sweden? Is there anything we can do in retrospect?
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! I think it is important in this context to highlight that people who de facto have not committed any crime should be deported, regardless of whether it is due to gang crime or other reasons. I want to hear the Minister for Migration's view on people who lie to the police. It is a problem! A culture of silence prevails in gang environments. If one actively obstructs the police's work, I would call it a lack of integrity based on the provisions in the Palace Agreement. It is also about lying to authorities.
The Minister should surely be able to have an opinion on whether lying to the police constitutes a lack of integrity? If the Minister cannot say that it is a lack of integrity when, for example, gang criminals lie to the police, I must say that I find it even harder to understand the entire investigation. Somewhere, one must still ground it in an understanding of what a lack of integrity is? Is it a respect for the Swedish people to actively lie to the authorities, or will such things also form the basis for deportation when the investigation is complete and then becomes a government bill here in the chamber? I think that is an important question.
I also want to point out that the previous government did a lot when it came to securing the deportation and extradition of foreign nationals. The case with the Moroccan street boys was a clear example of a good effort from the then-government to secure the deportation of those individuals who had no business being in the country. A lot of work was done on that, but it is a difficult matter. Both Member Jomshof and the Minister for Migration know that. But please do answer the question of whether it is a lack of integrity to lie to the police and authorities.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! My answer to Ola Möller's question is that the government has appointed an inquiry to look at whether people can be deported due to lack of conduct. I do not want to anticipate the result of the inquiry but look forward very much to the result of it.
Regarding Richard Jomshof's post, I want to refer to what the Prime Minister was clear about in the government statement. Responsibility has been taken for a country that finds itself in several parallel crises, and the recent escalating spiral of violence unfortunately testifies that there is no turning back. The fight against serious crime must be won and safety must be maintained throughout our country.
A tightening of the regulatory framework for deportation due to crime will not reverse the development on its own, but it is an incredibly important part. Even in opposition, the four parties in the government base showed consensus regarding deportation due to crime. It was also these announcements that led to a new regulatory framework being put in place in August, which implied a tightening in certain parts but which does not go nearly as far as the coalition parties want.
I am very pleased that there is consensus among the government coalition parties, because it is important that Sweden as a constitutional state can maintain safety in society and respect for our laws. Everyone who is in our country, whether they are Swedish or a foreigner, needs to follow Swedish law and refrain from crime. But it is also about standing up for the crime victims. The government's ambition is to make criminal activity in Sweden more difficult on many levels through powerful measures.
If a foreigner has committed serious or repeated crimes, there must be better conditions for deciding on deportation. To return to Richard Jomshof's original question regarding the adoption of general measures in the matter of deportation of foreign citizens, it will not be about general measures but about several specific such measures, and not only within my area of responsibility.
When it comes to the question of what can be done before the new legislation is in place, I am just as impatient as Richard Jomshof and want to point out how incredibly important it is to ensure that in cases where someone is granted a deportation order – they are few – the deportation can also be executed. This has been handled all too poorly, but we will work with full force so that it can be done.
Richard Jomshof (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister! It was a good answer. I think it is positive that the question of deportation is so central and that one - we - are working on it in such a comprehensive way. That question is, in fact, crucial to tackling this type of crime, precisely because a majority of those who commit these crimes unfortunately - or however one chooses to see it - have a different background. That is how reality looks.
I hope that we get new legislation in place as soon as possible, because it is naturally also about ensuring that those who are in Sweden, and who behave themselves, do not have to be affected because there are other people who do not understand how to behave in our country.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! My focus is set on achieving the paradigm shift that Swedish migration policy truly needs during the upcoming mandate period.
In the speech on paradigm shift, it struck me that Magdalena Andersson was said to have stated at some point that the paradigm shift the current government is talking about was already carried out by the Social Democrats in 2015. However, there are probably too many of us who see through this attempt to rewrite history. That the Social Democrats, together with the Green Party, could provide a paradigm shift in migration policy—at least one that goes in the right direction—fails on its own implausibility. It is this government that, together with the Sweden Democrats, provides a paradigm shift.
There are very many parts of the migration area that need to be tightened. As I have said here earlier today, deportation due to crime is no exception, and that is something Richard Jomshof and I completely agree on, even though the regulations were tightened as recently as in August last year. But like other changes during the last eight years, this was something that came far too late and was far too little.
We have a completely different ambition, and we will return with stricter legislation. We will also ensure that the entire government works as a united force to be able to execute deportation decisions.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.