Response to interpellation 2022/23:83 on the strengthening of third countries and quota refugees
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the strengthening of third countries and quota refugees. M argues that Sweden is one of the largest resettlement states in the EU 1 and that the limitation to 900 quota places is necessary as the asylum reception has been strained 1. M emphasizes that Sweden has taken a great responsibility and that it is important to show that the country can manage the integration 2 3. M argues that the work with third countries reduces the root causes of migration 1 3. M argues that the government is not setting a bad example since Sweden is in the top three in reception and that the government prioritizes helping women, girls, and LGBTQ persons. S argues that the government shows poor judgment and is a bad example by reducing the reception of quota refugees 4. S argues that reduced resources destabilize third countries 5. S argues that the government should push for all countries to increase their reception of quota refugees 4.
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! Ola Möller has asked me how I mean that third countries are strengthened by Sweden receiving fewer quota refugees.
Resettlement is a way for countries to offer a lasting solution for particularly vulnerable refugees who do not have such an opportunity available where they are located. During 2021, Sweden received 6,400 quota refugees and was thus the largest resettlement country in the EU. During 2022, 5,000 refugees were resettled, which meant that Sweden continued to be among the largest resettlement countries both in the EU and globally.
The government will, in accordance with the Tidö Agreement, limit the resettlement to 900 quota places per year starting in 2023, a number that will still make us one of the EU's largest recipients. The change is implemented against the background that Sweden's asylum reception has been very strained for a long time and that we now need a level that reflects the number that Sweden can manage.
The responsibility for resettlement cannot rest on a few states. Sweden has taken a great responsibility, but for the quota refugee system to seriously be able to function as a tool to provide protection to people on the run, more countries need to contribute with annual refugee quotas.
The interpellator seems, however, to have confused the issue of quota refugees with the work of strengthening the countries from which people flee. The Government has never claimed that third countries are strengthened by Sweden receiving fewer quota refugees. The work to strengthen third countries in which the Government participates is rather about reducing the number of vulnerable people fleeing from the outset or improving their opportunity for protection in the surrounding area.
The work against the root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement is broad and encompasses a multitude of different aspects. Among other things, the EU works strategically with partnerships with countries of origin and transit countries. The Government is also pushing to strengthen cooperation with third countries in the area of return in order to reduce the burden on transit countries and be able to guarantee an orderly return.
I also want to add in conclusion that perhaps the most important question for improving the situation in transit countries is to establish a new and improved asylum system with reduced irregular migration and smuggling, as well as an improved return. It is a task that I am participating in and look forward to continuing with.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
The quota refugee system and the quota refugees in Sweden can be seen as a direct extension of the white buses. Since 1950, Sweden has received quota refugees, and we have maintained a very proud tradition. Among other things, we have not set requirements on which quota refugees they should be, but we have let the UN handle it. That means that Sweden has received the most vulnerable, unlike many other countries.
It is roughly like in healthcare, meaning that those with the greatest need should receive help first. That is how the quota refugee system looks for Sweden's part.
The government wants to change this. We have heard representatives for the government parties say here in the chamber that the UN should be informed that it is those who are not equally in need of protection who should be selected. It is about people who can contribute to Sweden.
This is a very clear class policy. It is not the most vulnerable in the working class who flee from their home countries first, but it is the people who primarily have economic resources – the middle class and the upper class – who flee first. Often it is those with education who come via the irregular routes, while the quota refugee system safely brings here the people who are in greatest need of help. Instead of people buying their way to priority, they get help to come here because they have the greatest need of it.
Who will be the most vulnerable? It is about rape victims who have had their genitals destroyed, the one born with Down syndrome, the one who has lost both parents, or the one who stands alone with their small children. It is these people that the government chooses to leave behind with the new system and the cuts.
In light of this, the question is relevant. The quota refugee system constitutes a secure path into Europe. The refugees receive permanent residence permits and are motivated to be here in Sweden. They receive help so that they can enter society by being distributed among the municipalities.
The countries that in the future will have to bear the greatest burden with the most vulnerable people will now face a greater burden. It will inevitably be so. If the most vulnerable remain and those with resources, money, and social capital flee, the burden will become greater for these countries, and this destabilizes them. It causes their healthcare systems to become more strained.
In combination with the cuts to aid, it will mean that fewer resources will take care of a larger burden of support in those countries, and it will be destabilizing. I believe that the Minister for Migration understands this.
Why is the government cutting the number of quota refugees and the aid when it has the effect of destabilizing the countries that the government, in other contexts, including in the EU, says it wants to stabilize? One must think of both here. The government wants to give with one hand but also takes away with a large fist.
Please feel free to answer the question of how countries become more stable when the most vulnerable stay behind and the resourceful flee.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! The issue of quota refugees is incredibly important but also a difficult debate. Just as Ola Möller says, it is true that these are very vulnerable people who are truly in need of protection.
Sweden has taken an enormous responsibility. As I mentioned initially, little Sweden was the country that received the most individually in the entire EU both in 2021 and 2022. I can only regret that more countries do not step forward and take a greater responsibility for the quota refugees.
Alongside the fact that we have taken a large responsibility compared to other European countries but also in view of the whole world, we have also belonged to the countries that have had the very largest reception of asylum seekers who have traveled to the Swedish border themselves. This has led to an unsustainable situation in Sweden with an integration failure as a result of several governments not having taken responsibility for immigration or integration, in particular not Ola Möller's government which resigned in the autumn.
There are enormous problems in Swedish society that we, as responsible politicians, will now tackle with full force. It is about residential segregation. It is about the school, where far too many students do not learn Swedish, do not receive an education, and in many cases unfortunately are condemned to an exclusion that becomes very long-lasting. It is about crime. It is about women who never get the chance they should get in a free and democratic society.
This is what we are prepared to take responsibility for. At the same time, we continue to take responsibility for receiving quota refugees who are so vulnerable. With our 900, we are still among the top three in the EU in terms of per capita. So don't come and say that this government is not taking responsibility!
There is a very important aspect in this discussion that Ola Möller precisely misses to emphasize, namely that it is traditionally men who come to Europe. It is men who pay the refugee smugglers and come here. Therefore, this government, which the previous government failed to do, prioritizes women, girls, and LGBTQ people, who are so incredibly vulnerable in the refugee camps. Is that really wrong, Ola Möller?
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is wonderful that the Minister for Migration shows the commitment she has. I appreciate that. But the debate is not difficult. This is not at all difficult, even though I understand that it is difficult for the government. What it is about is whether we should accept 5,000 quota refugees and continue to make a major effort, which the Minister for Migration emphasizes as an example. The Minister for Migration highlights what has been done and says that it is good. But now the government, which takes responsibility by not taking responsibility, shall take responsibility. It is Orwellian rhetoric.
The Minister says that one should now take greater responsibility for women and LGBTQ people. But one goes from 5,000 to 900. The UN has a free mandate to pick out those with the greatest need. The government parties' representatives stand in the speaker's chair and say that it is those who can be integrated and can be of use to Sweden who should come here. But then I want to ask the Minister: How is a child with Down syndrome an integration problem? Please describe it to me! Where lies the integration problem when we bring here an orphaned child with Down syndrome? How is it a problem that our Swedish healthcare helps Yazidi girls who have been raped by Muslim men to get a life? How is that an integration problem?
Genocide is occurring all over the world. Last week, the Bundestag in Germany said that the Yazidi genocide in Sinjar in 2014 would be recognized. We have a different tradition in Sweden. Here, we are not allowed to handle it that way. But the UN, the German Bundestag, and the British Parliament have said that it is a genocide. The Rohingya, who are Muslims in Southeast Asia, are also being subjected to a genocide. The children in Tigray are subjected to a systematic genocide with a forced famine catastrophe. It is those children and people that this is about.
You go from 5,000 to 900 in the quota refugee system, where the UN selects those most in need. This means that there are also fewer girls, women, and LGBTQ persons who can come here. I have no problem with pointing out that it is these vulnerable groups who can come, but that was not what the government party's representatives stood in the migration debate here and said.
How are these countries stabilized? The Migration Minister avoids that question. It is said that I have made a logical error or similar. But the question remains: How do war-torn, poor countries become more stable and safer, which also reduces the migration flows to Europe, by these vulnerable children, women, and LGBTQ persons being selected out by the government by moving from 5,000 to 900? I also know that the major parties in the government support basically want to remove the quota refugees entirely. Furthermore, they are not to have permanent residence permits. But how do these countries become safer and wealthier from that policy?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! I believe it is somewhat unfortunate if one cannot acknowledge that the migration issue is genuinely difficult and that it contains trade-offs that must be made. If one does not acknowledge that, it becomes, with the reasoning that Ola Möller provides, too difficult not to ask the question of why it should stop at 5,000 – why do the Social Democrats think that everyone over 5,000 should not have the right to come here?
I also believe it is important to look up. I want Sweden to be an open country. I want us to be able to continue helping people who are fleeing. But if the Swedish population experiences that immigration and integration are not working, I believe that in the long run there is a risk that we will not have the same ability to help. I am not just thinking here and now and until the next mandate period, but I am thinking long-term about Sweden and Sweden's reception. I want, as I said, that we should be able to help. If we are to be able to have an acceptance for it among the Swedish people, we must show that we can manage to get immigration and integration in order.
We have a heavy task ahead of us given how the previous government and the government before that with Miljöpartiet handled the migration and integration issue. But it is a difficult task that we are truly prepared to tackle with full force. It is also why we see that a major paradigm shift was needed in Swedish migration policy. But I want to emphasize that Sweden, even with the implemented reduction to 900 quota refugees, continues to be among the largest resettlement countries both in the EU and globally.
So, regarding Ola Möller's question on how we strengthen third countries! Cooperation with third countries is about reducing the root causes of why people are forced to flee or migrate irregularly to the EU. It is also about supporting vulnerable people who are fleeing and improving their opportunities for protection in the surrounding area. We also need to build well-functioning migration systems in third countries, so that people who are in need of protection can stay there, or alternatively return if they do not have a legal right to stay in the country. The Government is actively working to strengthen cooperation with third countries in the area of return to reduce the burden on transit countries and be able to guarantee an orderly return.
The long-term solution to irregular migration is to achieve a new and improved asylum system in the EU where a yes is a yes and a no is a no. An improved return and efforts to reduce smuggling and irregular migration overall, we believe, is the way forward. That is why I am so pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these issues when we, as the EU's presiding country, welcome our migration minister colleagues from the European countries to Stockholm later this week. Cooperation with third countries to strengthen the countries of origin is a priority issue during the Swedish presidency and also an issue that is increasingly discussed at the EU level, for that is how we can create change in the long term.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Swedish people want to ban profits in welfare and also want to nationalize the electricity grid. If one asks a question and conducts an opinion poll, it is not always the case that in every instance it will result in an answer that we are to bring here into the Riksdag. I believe that the Swedish people, specifically when it comes to refugees, think that we should receive those who truly need it, for example, children with disabilities, victims of rape and the like.
I will make it very simple. I will take a Swedish example. We have a school class here in Sweden that has one student with special needs. Then another student with special needs comes to that class. Everything else is the same. There are the same number of teachers and the same amount of resources. It will by definition mean that that class and that teacher get a greater burden. There will be more to do. It will become tougher. There will be less time for all students, as no additional resources are sent in. Furthermore, in this country, one has a government that is cutting back on the school, so the resources for the class have even decreased. What happens then? Well, many of the students in this class who do not have special needs, perhaps also some of them who have special needs, will seek to leave from there.
It is exactly the same thing. If many people with great needs are in a country and resources become fewer, it will become more chaotic, and then the people who have resources will seek to leave from there to an increased extent. That is what happens when the government does not bring in enough quota refugees. The government should therefore push for all countries to increase their quota refugee reception, because then we get safe routes and help these countries get better support, manage to reduce poverty, and get more stable institutions. Instead of showing poor judgment and being a bad example by reducing the quota refugee reception, one should instead work for all other countries to raise it. But then one cannot lead by such a bad example as to lower it oneself.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! I do not think my intellectual capacity can handle that example with the school class. But I will take it home with me and reflect on it.
I mean, as I have said, that this is a genuinely difficult debate. The question of migration and the reception of quota refugees involves important trade-offs.
We are not setting a bad example from the government when we are still among the top three in the reception of quota refugees. I think more countries should be able to take responsibility, but as Migration Minister in Sweden, I can only take responsibility for what the Swedish government chooses to do in the migration area. We are now undertaking the very difficult task that the Social Democrats have left behind, that is, to get immigration and integration in order. It is a massive undertaking that we are carrying out with full force. We take responsibility.
I believe there are few in Sweden or in the rest of the world who would say that Sweden has not helped those who are fleeing. Now we have a huge responsibility to also ensure that they truly enter into society.
I am proud that, unlike the previous government, we are able to make that prioritization and say that we particularly want to help women, girls, and LGBTQ people. These are groups that are incredibly vulnerable in the refugee camps that we are helping them from.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.