Response to interpellation 2023/24:291 on making people stateless
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government is not planning proposals that involve making people stateless 1 2 3 4. M emphasizes that the government wants to safeguard the value of Swedish citizenship through stricter requirements on language, social studies, and longer periods of residence 1 2. M also states that Sweden supports UNHCR's campaign against statelessness 3. V argues that the Minister for Justice is unclear and that it is unclear whether the government accepts demands from SD to make people stateless 5 6. V points out that SD wants to pursue a policy that can result in statelessness 6 7. SD argues that citizenship should not be a protection for terrorists or criminals and that the people's safety weighs more heavily than reducing the number of stateless people 8 9. SD considers that Sweden needs to be able to revoke citizenship from dangerous individuals, even if it means they become stateless 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)
Madam Speaker! I have asked the Minister for Justice whether he considers it desirable to have an increased number of stateless persons and how the Minister intends to act within his area of responsibility based on his standpoint on the issue. He has also been asked under what circumstances the Minister considers that a person should be made stateless and if the Minister intends to take any initiatives within his area of responsibility to enable persons to be made stateless. The work within the government is so distributed that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
Let me first say that the government does not plan to submit any proposals that would mean that people could be made stateless. Investigating that question is also not included in the mandate for the 2023 Freedom and Rights Committee, which was appointed by the government last year and 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 Minister for Justice also accounted for this in December in his response to interpellation 2023/24:243.
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. More countries have now acceded to both of the UN statelessness conventions, namely the 1954 UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. These are conventions that Sweden acceded to already in the 50s and 60s respectively.
Statelessness for persons living in Sweden is primarily due to stateless persons who are granted residence permits for reasons of protection or due to family ties. Another reason for statelessness is discriminatory legislation in certain countries which entails difficulties in transferring citizenship from mother to child. An additional reason is that certain countries deprive parts of the population of the right to their citizenship. An important way to break that development is for more countries to comply with the UN statelessness conventions. It is for these reasons, among others, that UNHCR's work against statelessness is so important.
One way to avoid statelessness is to allow dual citizenship, which Sweden has done since 2001. The person applying for Swedish citizenship therefore does not need to renounce their previous citizenship.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the government wants to safeguard the value of Swedish citizenship. The government has, among other things, appointed an inquiry tasked with submitting proposals for stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship. The government also wants there to be requirements for language and social studies skills for Swedish citizenship.
Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer. It is pleasing that at least the Minister Malmer Stenergard and I myself seem to agree that statelessness is something that should be avoided.
The basis for the interpellation seems to simply be built on a misunderstanding. Therefore, the question must be asked why Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer has been so unclear. He says one thing in the media only to say something completely different at a later stage. It is not particularly confidence-inspiring or reassuring behavior. The government is, of course, still relatively new to the job, but such lack of clarity is deeply unfortunate, especially when there are others, who have different perceptions, who have their fingers in the jam jar.
The largest party in the government base, the Sweden Democrats, has clearly stated that they would welcome people being made stateless. I understand that the Minister does not have the ability or even the will to answer regarding what policy another party pursues. But the agreement between the government and the Sweden Democrats is obviously to be updated annually. It is a long-known fact that the government sits at the mercy of the Sweden Democrats and must submit to their whims.
Based on the Minister's answer here today, I wonder if I have correctly understood that the government would not accept any demands from the Sverigedemokraterna to investigate or introduce the possibility of making people in Sweden stateless.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! The interpellator and Member of Parliament Samuel Gonzalez Westling writes in his interpellation that the government and the Sweden Democrats want to make more people stateless. That is not true. It is not an end in itself that people should become stateless. It would not benefit anyone in any way.
However, the Sweden Democrats believe that naturalized citizens who could seriously harm society through terrorism or organized crime should be able to have their citizenship reviewed. This could result in some becoming stateless. But that is not the purpose; rather, it is that citizenship should not be able to serve as a protection for persons whose sole purpose is to harm Sweden.
The primary purpose of such a proposal is to make Sweden a safer country and to protect the Swedish people from terrorists and perpetrators of violence.
Then it must be said that an immigrant who is welcomed to Sweden, receives a citizenship and is thus also welcomed into the community, shall be deprived of that citizenship if he or she betrays the community by harming it. It must be clear that the person who is welcomed into the community can also be cast out if they have come to Sweden to harm people.
If one looks at the failed integration of immigrants and how citizenship has practically been handed out to immigrants under the Social Democratic government, one can observe that there are certain immigrants with Swedish citizenship who feel greater loyalty to the Islamic State or a criminal gang than to Sweden. It is sad. There are people who live in Sweden but who have not needed to become part of society to become Swedish citizens. They have other loyalties.
If a migrant with Swedish citizenship were to commit an act of terrorism, we in the Sweden Democrats believe that it should be possible to revoke that person's citizenship. It is not about increasing or decreasing the number of stateless persons. It is about those who hate Sweden and want to harm Sweden not being allowed to stay here, even if they once succeeded in becoming citizens without any requirements being placed on them.
It is important in this context that Sweden, according to the European Convention on Nationality, can render a person stateless if citizenship was acquired as a result of false information, fraudulent behavior, and similar.
The UN may have its goals, but Sweden as a sovereign nation also has opportunities and rights to take measures. This includes making a person stateless under certain circumstances. What remains is what prioritization one makes. I have understood that the interpellator and his party Vänsterpartiet prioritize the UN's goal to reduce the number of stateless persons. They prioritize this over the safety of the Swedish people.
We Sweden Democrats believe that the safety of the Swedish people weighs more heavily than reducing the number of stateless persons. If one commits acts of terrorism in Sweden, one should be able to lose citizenship even if one then becomes stateless.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I listened to the Minister for Migration's answer to the question and became a bit thoughtful. I heard the Minister for Migration's answer and then I heard the Sweden Democrats, who say something completely different. It becomes very unclear in this debate that my colleague from the Left Party has asked questions about.
The Moderates do not want to make people stateless, but the Sweden Democrats – who are a basis for the government – want to pursue a policy that can result in people becoming stateless. That is what the Sweden Democrats said here in the debate. What is it that applies? What does the division of labor look like in the government? Who is it that decides in this issue? The Sweden Democrats are saying something completely different from what emerged in the answer from the minister.
This is an all too important issue for the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates to give different answers. It becomes very misleading for those listening to the debate. The Minister for Migration is involved and governs Sweden, but here different things are being said. It became clear in this example that the Minister for Migration seems to have a completely different attitude toward the UN's goals than the Sweden Democrats do. What is the relationship with the UN in the question of statelessness?
The Moderates seem to think one thing, and the Sweden Democrats present something completely different. But perhaps one does not need to care about that if the primary goal is to protect the Swedish people? The Sweden Democrats say that the UN's goals do not matter, but the Minister for Migration says something completely different. She says that the goal does matter and that we should follow it. It is a very unclear message from the government on this issue. What is it that applies?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! There were many different questions. I will begin by clarifying, based on the question I received from Samuel Gonzalez Westling, that the government has no plans to present any proposals that would mean that people could be made stateless. Investigating that question is also not included in the mandate for the 2023 freedom and rights committee, which was appointed by the government last year and 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 citizenship can be revoked for those with dual citizenship who have committed system-threatening crime, crimes against humanity, certain other international crimes, other very serious crimes, or whose citizenship has been acquired as a result of false information or through other improper means.
I want to be very clear that the fact that a person becomes stateless in cases where citizenship has been granted by, for example, providing false information, is not an international law obstacle. It may be worth noting. In that case, the person has cheated their way into a citizenship, which is offensive. It is therefore easy to understand why such a possibility exists, purely from an international law perspective. In these cases, the interest in safeguarding the value and integrity of citizenship takes precedence. But, as I have already said – and I think I have been quite clear – revocations that can lead to statelessness are not something that the constitutional commission should investigate.
The Government thinks it is important that the investigation looks at the possibility of revoking citizenship for those who have dual citizenship. It is a step in safeguarding Swedish citizenship and its value.
The government has appointed an inquiry to strengthen the value of Swedish citizenship, and that includes proposing a longer period of residence from today's five to at least eight years as a general rule. It also includes proposing sharpened knowledge of Sweden's society and culture, proposing the reintroduction of requirements for self-sufficiency, proposing sharpened requirements for honest conduct including a check of previous criminality in the entire EU, and investigating a loyalty declaration, citizenship conversation, or similar ceremonial elements of an obligatory nature.
Revocation of citizenship is in another investigation and is an additional way to try to strengthen the value of Swedish citizenship.
I must say that I was somewhat confounded by the post that Tony Haddou hastily and humorously made in the debate. It is not the case that if one is part of a government basis, one is automatically merged into one and the same party. We are four parties, three of which are in government, and I have very clearly accounted for the government's positions. That we then, as individual parties, can have a partially different view on things but still cooperate in areas where we agree is no democratic anomaly but rather how it usually goes.
This is a debate that I welcome, because I do not think these are entirely simple questions. Let us continue the debate!
Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)
Madam Speaker! When it comes to what investigations are to do, I think it is obvious to everyone that they are to do what they are appointed to do. There is probably no misunderstanding between us on that. What makes the whole thing unclear is what emerges when we talk outside of the investigation.
What the Minister actually says is that there is an investigation, but not what the intention is to do or what might be expected to happen afterwards. What we hear from the Sweden Democrats is that one could open up for making people stateless on other grounds than those the Minister spoke about, i.e., what is permitted according to international law. That was not what the Sweden Democrats spoke about.
My specific question was: Is it correctly understood that the government would not accept any demands from the Sweden Democrats to investigate or introduce the possibility of making people stateless in Sweden? I can supplement that question by referring to what we just heard the Sweden Democrats talking about in the rostrum.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! Today's discussion is fundamentally about whether a Swedish citizenship acquired by an immigrant should be able to become a guarantee to be able to stay in Sweden even if they commit the most horrific crimes. We Sverigedemokrater believe that there should be no such guarantee. Those who come to Sweden from other countries have another home country. If they choose to engage in terrorism or organized crime in Sweden, they have exhausted their right to stay in Sweden, even if they were to be citizens and even if they were to become stateless.
The safety of the Swedish people is simply more important. Of course, stateless people are vulnerable, but the safety of the Swedish people is more important. No one wants there to be more stateless people, but the safety of the Swedish people is more important. If we are to make Sweden a safe country, criminals and terrorists cannot hide behind a citizenship while they commit their crimes. As we have stated previously, Sweden has every possibility under international law to revoke citizenship even if the person were to become stateless.
In 2022, Sweden received approximately 90,000 new citizens. The most common countries these citizens came from were Syria, Eritrea, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Some of these citizens will be very dangerous. Some of these citizens may commit acts of terrorism in the future. Quite a few of these citizens harbor no loyalty towards Sweden. We will need to revoke some of these citizenships, and we must be able to do so even if those persons become stateless - if that is what is required for us to protect the Swedish people.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! The Government says one thing – I think the Minister was clear in his statement – but the Sweden Democrats say something else. What we are concerned about is not the investigation that the Minister is currently involved in and so on, but what the results will be afterwards when one takes completely different positions on the issue.
The Sweden Democrats say that they will pursue a policy that can result in more people becoming stateless. Judging by what the member just said, they do not seem to take much consideration of this. In that case, it is not about this matter of dual citizenship and so on, as the minister is touching upon, but the Sweden Democrats have a completely different purpose.
Can the Minister then guarantee in the Riksdag that one stands behind the UN's goal to reduce the number of stateless persons? The Sweden Democrats obviously do not. They seem completely ruthless in this issue. But can the Minister guarantee this?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! To begin with, I shall answer Samuel Gonzalez Westling's question. I believe that in every post I have been clear and repeated that the government does not plan to present any proposals that involve people being rendered stateless. To be very clear, I also want to say that it is I who represents the government in this debate.
When it comes to the UN's important conventions on combating statelessness, the government considers that UNHCR performs important work in reducing statelessness in the world. Sweden also supports UNHCR's ongoing campaign against statelessness, which began in 2014 and continues through this year.
Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)
Madam Speaker! I do not know if it is that I am being very unclear, but my question was not what the government intends to do right now or what its plans are right now. The question was: If the Sweden Democrats set the requirement that one should be able to make people stateless, will the government then say no? It is a very simple question. One can answer yes or no.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! We have agreed within the government support on the directives for the investigation, and it is stated clearly and explicitly that it is not expected that any proposals be presented that involve people becoming stateless through the revocation of citizenship. That is also the government's position on the issue, that is to say that the government has no plans to present any proposals. I hope that I have thereby been very clear.
I would like to thank you very much for the debate. I truly understand that this issue is being raised, and I look forward to continuing the discussion once the committee has submitted its proposals.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.