Response to interpellation 2023/24:243 on making Swedish citizens stateless

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Now I have come to interpellation number 6 in today's agenda. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these questions today, Rasmus Ling!

Rasmus Ling has asked me if I can guarantee that the government will not submit proposals that Swedish citizens without dual citizenship could be deprived of their citizenship and thereby become stateless. He has also asked me if I and the government stand behind the UN refugee agency UNHCR's goal to eliminate statelessness by 2024. Finally, he has asked if I will work to strengthen the position of citizenship instead of devaluing its significance by making it possible to be revoked.

Let me first say that the government does not plan to present any proposals that would mean that people could be made stateless. Investigating that question is also not part of the mandate for the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee, which was appointed by the government earlier this year, where all parties in the Riksdag are represented. From the committee's directive, it appears that the mandate in this part only covers investigating whether the citizenship of persons with dual citizenship can be revoked in certain specified cases.

The Government considers that UNHCR performs important work in reducing statelessness in the world, and Sweden has fulfilled several commitments within the framework of UNHCR's ongoing campaign against statelessness.

When it comes to Swedish citizenship, it is protected today in our constitution. No one who is or has been resident in Sweden may be deprived of their citizenship. This distinguishes us from many countries in Europe, including our Nordic neighboring countries, where there is usually some room to revoke citizenship in certain cases.

The international conventions on citizenship that Sweden has acceded to allow the revocation of citizenship in a few specific situations. It is, for example, permitted if someone has been granted citizenship through fraudulent proceedings, false information, or withholding of relevant facts, if a person has enlisted in another state's defense force, and in cases of conduct that seriously harms the convention state's vital interests – this could, for example, involve terrorism.

In the later cases, international law requires that a revoked citizenship must not lead to statelessness. But that requirement does not apply if someone has been granted citizenship through fraudulent proceedings, false information, or withholding of relevant facts. In that case, a state may revoke the citizenship, even if the consequence is statelessness. The interest in safeguarding the value and integrity of citizenship is then considered to outweigh.

Based on the conventions on citizenship and statelessness that Sweden has acceded to, there are therefore, in and of themselves, no international law obstacles to proceeding in that way in this clearly delimited case. At the same time, there are other strong reasons to avoid, as far as possible, people becoming stateless. It deprives the individual of the national identity and rights that normally accompany citizenship, and it entails a number of practical problems for the person concerned.

This is, as I have already mentioned, also the starting point for the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee. The committee shall, among other things, review whether a possibility should be introduced according to the constitution to be able to revoke citizenship for partly those who have committed system-threatening crime, crimes against humanity or certain other international crimes or other very serious crimes, partly those whose citizenship was acquired as a result of false information or through other improper procedures. The directives' mandate to consider a possibility for such revocation applies, however, only regarding persons who have dual citizenship. The directives do not therefore cover revocations that could lead to statelessness.

I hope that it is possible to win broad political support to go that way. Already in 2006, a government investigation, appointed by the government at the time after several high-profile cases of bribery at the then Migration Agency, proposed a constitutional amendment that would make it possible to revoke citizenship when a person has received it by providing incorrect information. The 2013 government citizenship investigation, which I myself led, joined that line.

It is, as I see it, about safeguarding the value of Swedish citizenship. Most rights in Sweden are, admittedly, already obtained by living here. But the rights that are reserved for citizens are of great importance. Only Swedish citizens have the right to vote and are eligible for election to the Riksdag. Certain public positions and assignments, such as judges and police, require Swedish citizenship.

Swedish citizenship is safeguarded primarily by us upholding the rights and obligations it entails. Requirements for a certain period of residence in Sweden and an honest way of life already apply today but need to be further strengthened. The Government has therefore appointed an inquiry tasked with submitting proposals on stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship. The Government also wants requirements to be set on language and social studies knowledge for Swedish citizenship.

Furthermore, we risk undermining the value of citizenship and creating mistrust towards our legal order if it is not possible in retrospect to intervene against a citizenship based on incorrect or fraudulent information. The same can be said about the situation where a person commits serious crimes, such as terrorism, without there ultimately being a possibility to intervene against the citizenship itself.

Swedish citizenship encompasses very great opportunities to contribute to cohesion. It is an important tool for ensuring that people who have their future in Sweden are also given opportunities to fully enter our society.

That is why it is so important to safeguard the value and integrity of citizenship in the long term.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! To begin with: It is pleasing to receive a clear and direct answer to one of the questions. The Government is therefore not planning to present any proposals that would mean that people could be made stateless.

Many of us, not just me, were both concerned, questioning and otherwise when Gunnar Strömmer was on Sveriges Radio on the question and said that he "himself sees no obstacles to it. But it is in an investigation, and we have to see what it concludes." The question was whether Sweden should be able to make people stateless. I am glad for a clear answer now that one does not plan to do so. It is about as close to a guarantee as one can get.

The question is also not included in the investigation of the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee, which the Minister for Justice said it was in Sveriges Radio on November 21.

I am, therefore, very happy, and I want to emphasize that this is an important announcement that I appreciate.

But the question remains, Madam Speaker: Why did the Minister for Justice say this on the radio? A statement from a member of the Swedish government is not a statement from just anyone. What a member of the government says plays a very large role. It is, first of all, normative. What a member of the government says affects people to the highest degree. People believe that what a member of the government says or opens up for can come to happen. There are therefore also regulations in the Instrument of Government which state that what a member of the government asserts shall be correct, which distinguishes them from everyone else in the Instrument of Government. This, therefore, only applies to the members of the government. My first question is therefore why the Minister for Justice said what he said on the radio.

Madam Speaker! Another question concerns what perhaps actually lies more on the Foreign Minister's desk but which was nevertheless raised in the context. I mean that such a statement also has an impact internationally when it comes to UNHCR's goal to eliminate statelessness. No straight answer was given to the question in this part, but the Minister for Justice only says that the government considers that UNHCR is doing a good job and that Sweden has fulfilled several commitments. But, Madam Speaker, I mean that this was a statement in the other direction.

My question is: Does the government consider what consequences its statements may have in the international arena before making them? How does it affect Sweden's ability to point out the problem to other states that make people stateless if we ourselves signal that we think it is acceptable to go that way and open that door?

Madam Speaker! I have, therefore, two questions. Why did the Minister for Justice say what he said on Sveriges Radio on November 21? And is one considering what consequences it has in the international arena when one makes this type of statement?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I had hoped that Rasmus Ling would also say something about the issue at hand, namely the citizenship issue. I intended to ask to take that up just now, but let me first answer both questions directly.

Regarding the current segment in Ekot, I believe that those who go back to it will note that I spoke at one point. At that time, I say that I do not see any obstacles, and by that I mean that I do not see any international law obstacles for such a regulation.

I believe that everyone who approaches international law agrees on this. The international conventions we have signed provide an exception in a very specific case, namely if it is someone who has deceived their way into a citizenship. In that case, the international law requirement on dual citizenship does not apply, and it is, in short, the only thing I adhered to.

Regarding the investigation, it is possible that I could have expressed myself more precisely. But the first thing is that the directives are not about the investigation having to look at the question – which I want to emphasize that I do not say in the segment either. It was some kind of report from a discussion that was taking place a few flights of stairs up here with the parliamentary journalists, where a number of different questions were asked about the factual issues and the circumstances. It was not the government's position in the issues that surrounded the quote.

I have never said that it is included in the investigation's directive to look at the question. The directives are unambiguous: It is not included. There, dual citizenship is a requirement. But in that specific case, purely from an international law perspective, there are admittedly no obstacles. It is simply based on the fact that it is generally known to be that way; that is how the convention looks.

The interesting thing is that the work that is now aimed at abolishing statelessness - which the government, therefore, fully supports - also acknowledges this exception from the principle. The European Court of Human Rights also does so in its assessment of such issues in relation to the right to privacy.

This was perhaps a somewhat bold attempt to intellectually and honestly dig into what international law says, possibly also in polemic with those who have demanded more general infringements of citizenship even if the consequence becomes statelessness.

That was the answer to the question of why. I wanted to clarify what international law says. On the other hand, I have never claimed that the investigation has any such directive.

At the same time, I also do not want to, as a government minister, impose a constitutional investigation where all parties are subject to some kind of thought ban. That was perhaps my general blunder. Fundamentally, however, I have not claimed that the investigation has any such directive from the government. Our intention is not to produce such a proposal.

Regarding the consequences, I think this, for those who want to discuss issues in a straightforward way: I remember that Rasmus Ling and I were seen here some day later in another interpellation debate, and I thought then that you went out in a way that was not entirely characteristic of your balanced presentation on the issue, perhaps also in a way that contributed to creating a stir around an actually quite innocent account of what international law says in the area. It is possible that this stir was also intended to give a false impression of what the discussion fundamentally was about.

The reason why I think this is important – and I hope that all eight parties can sit down in the constitutional law inquiry and talk about how we should safeguard the value of citizenship in cases involving dual citizenship – is that over time it has come from many different sources that this can be an important element in safeguarding the value. Remember that the inquiry I mentioned, which came with its proposals in 2006, was commissioned by the then Social Democratic government in light of a number of bribery scandals at the Migration Agency!

That our state and we as a society cannot safeguard the most important expression we have for an individual's bond to the community, namely citizenship, I believe is in the long term destined to jeopardize the value of citizenship. I hope that the discussion can be moved forward in a nuanced way. I believe that it would be good for citizenship and for our Swedish society.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have listened to the radio segment several times, and it was indeed the case that the Minister spoke about international law obstacles and addressed the legal prerequisites in one part of the interview. I do not believe that one can listen to the segment and take away anything other than that Gunnar Strömmer actually opened up for being able to make Swedish citizens stateless. It was not only that which became the headline, but also what the Minister de facto said.

It is true that we then had an interpellation debate on another matter. From my perspective, one cannot emphasize or raise the tone any further than to say that Swedish citizens can be deprived of their citizenship and become stateless. What tone one has or in what way one says this does not matter. When one puts forward that type of proposal, in my world, one has raised the tone as much as is possibly possible.

Madam Speaker! I also want to ask another question. In the response, the Minister for Justice mentions a number of disadvantages for the individual in being stateless. It is easy to visualize them. One is not allowed to vote in elections, one is not allowed to have certain jobs, and so on. Citizenship is of great importance, just as was stated. But I would like to ask, Madam Speaker, what advantages are there for the state in having people here who have no other citizenship, who cannot be deported and who cannot be taken anywhere else. They are in Sweden, but they are deprived of their citizenship. What does the state have to gain from that? What is the advantage for Sweden as a nation in having people here who are not citizens but who cannot go anywhere?

Madam Speaker! I am well aware that the government is working on tightening the requirements to become a Swedish citizen. It is being done all the way from obtaining a residence permit. Permanent residence permits are to be phased out so that people will move from temporary permits over a very long period to obtaining citizenship. As the situation is right now, Madam Speaker, there is also, even if one meets all the requirements, a two-year processing time. The Swedish Migration Agency simply has very long processing times. Even though Gunnar Strömmer is not the responsible minister in this matter, it lies within his department, and he may know that the government is working to reduce this time.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to address this regarding other countries. I view with concern, as I said in my previous speech, what the consequences will be for other countries and for Sweden's opportunity to influence in these types of issues when one, on the one hand, makes such a statement, and on the other hand, has the rhetoric one has on a more general level and takes so lightly, as I perceive it, at making people stateless or removing the citizenship for persons who have dual citizenship.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me, in the event that anyone here at home or out in the world should be in doubt about what the government's line is in these matters, clarify our line. The first is that we safeguard Swedish citizenship. The second is that we fully stand behind UNHCR's efforts aimed at eradicating statelessness. The third is that we also want to safeguard the value of Swedish citizenship in such a way that we - in like manner with our Nordic neighboring countries and most European countries and in the way that international law for very good reasons permits - also want to be prepared to be able to review a citizenship in the event that someone has either cheated or bribed themselves into a citizenship or has committed a very serious crime against the state, for example terrorism. This applies to cases where the person concerned has dual citizenship, that is, when the consequence of the reviewed citizenship does not become statelessness.

This is manifested in the directives to the ongoing investigation. It is manifested in debate articles in connection with the appointment of the constitutional committee, and it has been confirmed by me and others in various contexts thereafter. It is the government's line, and it is the one that applies. To the extent that one wants to contribute to not creating uncertainties in the outside world about what Sweden stands for in these parts, it is good if one can reproduce the government's line in a correct way, both here and in other contexts.

I would like to expand on this regarding safeguarding citizenship. To begin by underlining that this does not need to be a partisan distinction, I want to say that it was, in fact, the Social Democratic government before the change of government in 2006 that commissioned an inquiry in light of the fact that the then Immigration Agency had become the subject of a bribery ring where Swedish citizenships had been handed out for payment. There, a discussion arose which I think was very justified: Is it satisfactory that the state in such a situation cannot intervene retroactively against a citizenship, even though the criteria for becoming a citizen were not met and the citizenship had been obtained through fraudulent behavior?

To say that the state and society should not have that possibility is to create a vulnerability intended to create mistrust towards citizenship itself but also towards the state's ability to safeguard our most important institutions in our democracy. Both that situation and the broader issue of system-threatening crime - which is the second situation that international law points out and which most comparable countries in our global environment are targeting, including our Nordic neighboring countries - demonstrate the need to be able to safeguard our democratic institutions that the directives to the Freedom and Rights Committee aim at.

The fact that there have been such initiatives from various political sides and in contexts that we normally lean towards when we think about such issues – the Nordic, the European – should mean that there is a foothold for a serious and balanced discussion on these issues.

It is constitutional issues we are talking about. The strive must always be as broad a consensus as possible regarding such issues. I hope that even Miljöpartiet can be made into a constructive dialogue party in the issue that the directives say the investigation should look at.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet will be constructive in the investigation. The Minister of Justice can rest assured of that. It is we in all the contexts in which we operate, not least when it concerns parliamentary investigations and when they concern such important matters as constitutional issues. There, the Minister can feel completely at ease.

To be constructive naturally does not mean that one will agree on all issues. These are not easy questions. I do not know all the details regarding the 2006 investigation that the Minister for Justice refers to and why the Reinfeldt 1-government obviously did not take it further. I have not looked into that or into why the 2013 citizenship investigation was not taken further. We will have to see where the now-appointed investigation lands. There are more questions as well.

Miljöpartiets starting point is that we want to see a strengthened citizenship. This means that, admittedly, one should not grant it lightly, but a citizenship is also not something that one gives and takes away however one pleases. It must be something that is permanent in the vast majority of cases.

We oppose, and above all oppose, the discussion about being completely without citizenship. It would be purely devastating. What advantages Sweden or any other state would have from a lot of people living and acting here without being citizens, I find very difficult to see at all.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Citizenship is of immense importance, even from a legal perspective. It already appears from the citizenship legislation that citizenship in itself is the primary expression of the bond between the state and the citizen. With it come both rights and obligations that those who are not citizens do not have. This concerns, of course, the right to vote in general elections, but also various positions of trust in society. Being a member of the Riksdag, a police officer, a member of the military, or a judge are things that are reserved specifically for citizens. It is an expression of the importance of citizenship in our democracy. From a rights perspective, it is also given a special status.

That we agree on safeguarding the value of citizenship is an important starting point for a continued constructive discussion in this area. One question is, of course, how one does that concretely and whether it should include a possibility to review a citizenship in certain situations.

Let me underline that doing it perfunctorily or imagining a situation where citizenship is not regulated constitutionally is completely ruled out for me. What it fundamentally boils down to is whether there are exceptional situations where someone forfeits the right to be a Swedish citizen, either through the manner in which they acquired the citizenship or by committing very serious crimes that have very large consequences for the state and society as a whole.

What makes me think that the issue is undramatic in that sense is that our Nordic neighboring countries, other European democratic states of law, and international law allow it, precisely because citizenship has such an important value. If we can move that discussion forward in an open and constructive way, I believe it is to the benefit of the issue at hand and, in the long run, for society, citizenship, and everything positive that it stands for, not least as a force for integration in our society.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)