Response to interpellation 2023/24:351 on the Prime Minister's migration policy
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 Prime Minister's previous migration policy and whether he has apologized for it. M argues that the government is implementing a paradigm shift with a concrete plan to reduce immigration and solve societal problems 1 2 3 4. M emphasizes that asylum immigration has decreased to historically low levels and that they are now taking control of migration 1 2 4. S questions whether the Prime Minister actually apologized and accuses M of shifting the focus from the issue 5 6 7. S argues that M cannot answer the question and suggests that Jimmie Åkesson may have lied 5 6 7. M claims that S and their coalition partners want more extensive immigration 3 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! I have asked the Prime Minister if he shares the view that he has apologized for the migration policy he previously pursued both in and outside of government office, and if the Prime Minister, in that case, can account for the reasons for this.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
The migration policy pursued by previous governments until 2015 has generally enjoyed broad consensus in the Swedish Riksdag. The situation in the world during 2015 caused the then government, consisting of the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, to, following pressure from the opposition, introduce a temporary law that limited the possibilities of obtaining residence permits in Sweden. However, no systematic reform work aimed at addressing the serious social problems that have arisen as a result of a disproportionately high immigration to Sweden was carried out.
In the 2022 general election, the Swedish people therefore gave the government a strong mandate to take responsibility for solving the country's most important societal problems within migration and integration policy.
Unlike the previous government, this government has a concrete plan, the Tidö Agreement, to solve a broad spectrum of migration-related societal problems and reduce immigration to Sweden. Completing the Tidö Agreement is a long-term task, but even after one year, it can be stated that the paradigm shift in migration policy that the government promised is being implemented. The work has resulted in asylum immigration to Sweden decreasing to historically low levels, despite it increasing sharply in the EU. The government has taken control of Swedish migration and ensures that it is responsible and restrictive.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Migration for the answer.
The interpellation is addressed to the Prime Minister, because it was mentioned in the party leadership debate by Jimmie Åkesson, party leader for Sverigedemokraterna, that the Prime Minister had apologized for his previous policy. That was why I addressed the interpellation to the Prime Minister, because it is difficult for the Minister for Migration to apologize for something that the Prime Minister has done. I am therefore a little surprised that it is the Minister for Migration I am speaking with right now.
I simply ask the simple question: Is it the Minister for Migration's view that the Prime Minister has apologized for all his previous migration policy?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! This debate is about shifting the focus from the fact that this government is doing what the Social Democrats could not or did not want to do during their eight years in power.
This government has, over just over a year, tightened the requirements for family immigration, tightened the requirements for labor immigration, given the Police Authority more effective tools for internal immigration control, submitted proposals to tighten the requirements for Swedish citizenship, taken a crackdown against the shadow society with increased cooperation between the authorities, established return centers and joint authority projects to increase the number of deportations, tasked the Swedish Migration Agency with prioritizing the revocation of incorrect residence permits, which has resulted in twice as many revocations, and given the authorities effective tools to combat fraud and abuse. It has had an effect. Asylum immigration to Sweden decreased by 26 percent last year compared to the year before, while it increased by almost 20 percent in the rest of the EU. Last year we also reversed a Social Democratic downward curve. The return increased, in fact.
Mr. Speaker! This is only the beginning. The coalition partners have an ambitious agenda to implement a necessary paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy. That is where my focus lies, not on the Social Democrats' historiography.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! I actually do not understand this. I agree that there is a shift in focus taking place. But it is a shift in focus from whether the Prime Minister has apologized, which Jimmie Åkesson said in the party leader debate - I believe it was on January 17, 2024 - to discussing migration policy in general. This is not what it is about.
Madam Speaker! I am surprised that the Prime Minister is not coming here to answer this question. It is obviously completely impossible for the Minister for Migration to answer it. That is what we must find out. I just want to know this. If one wants to apologize to the Swedish people, there is no better place than the chamber of the Riksdag to do so. I am therefore giving the Prime Minister an opportunity here to come here and have it entered into the minutes that he apologizes.
I would like to know, for example, whether it is the 60,000 permanent residence permits that the Bosnians received in 1993-1994 that the Prime Minister is apologizing for. Is he apologizing for the fact that permanent residence permits were granted to the Bosnians in 1993? Or is he apologizing for the motion from 1998 where generous family immigration was discussed? Or is he apologizing for the fact that it was argued there that the permanent residence permits would increase after the Social Democratic government had reduced the permanent residence permits in 1996? Or is he apologizing for the statement in SVT in 1989 when it was said that the Moderaterna shall ensure that Sweden has as open borders as possible?
In 2011, there was a settlement with Miljöpartiet that was roughly about that Sweden should be able to be a haven for asylum seekers, or that we should be able to have an asylum policy and be a haven for asylum seekers. At the same time, those who want to come to Sweden to work should be able to do so, that is to say that those who want to come here should be allowed to come here,
Is it the EBO from 1994, which was added during the Bildt government at a time when Ulf Kristersson sat in the Social Insurance Committee and reasonably was involved in picking out the legislation, that he wants to apologize for? In 2009, the Social Democrats distanced themselves from EBO and wanted to abolish it, but not until 2019 did Ulf Kristersson go out and say that he wanted to abolish EBO. Is it this that he wants to apologize for?
Or is it about the child support, which he brought up in a family policy program in 2005 and then, as social welfare councillor, introduced in the City of Stockholm in 2007? It is a child support that has segregated something enormous. Is it about that social interventions in Rinkeby and Kista were reduced by 81 million, i.e., 16 percent, between 2005 and 2012? An alarm report came from the district administration in 2013 that it was no longer possible, and a few months later the Husby riots started. Is it this he wants to apologize for?
I am giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to come here and do it, that is to say to say: This is what I apologize for. But the Prime Minister instead sends the Minister for Migration to turn this into a migration policy debate. It is about whether the Prime Minister has apologized, as Jimmie Åkesson says, or whether he has not done so.
If the Minister for Migration cannot confirm here that Ulf Kristersson has apologized for these things, it means that Jimmie Åkesson has lied. In that case, Jimmie Åkesson did lie in the party leader debate. I have no problem stating this; we can do that, Minister for Migration. But this is not about migration policy, it is about whether Ulf Kristersson has apologized. Or did Jimmie Åkesson lie in the party leader debate?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! The unsustainable immigration to Sweden has resulted in a number of societal problems. Ola Möller focuses on the historiography, and the government focuses on the workshop and the future. I am pleased that we are four parties who have agreed on a far-reaching reform for a stricter migration policy and strengthened integration. The four of us are now jointly carrying out a historic reorganization of migration policy, which is exactly what we received the voters' trust to do.
The Social Democrats could never lead the same journey, because they have a completely different traveling companion. The Center Party thinks that Sweden should receive more asylum seekers, and the Green Party says that asylum immigration to Sweden must increase if they are to support a Social Democratic government. The Left Party advocates for a new amnesty, which the Green Party otherwise joins. All in the Social Democrats' intended government base want a much more extensive immigration - including the Social Democrats, who in their latest budget proposal budgeted for increased immigration.
Mr. Speaker! We know from experience that there will be red-green relaxations when the Social Democrats sit in Rosenbad. It is naturally why Ola Möller wants to shift the focus, but the truth remains the same: This government is doing what the Social Democrats did not manage and will not be able to do, that is, taking control of immigration.
Finally, I note that there are two things that the Social Democrats have raised for many years, namely that EBO should be abolished and that the track change should be abolished, but that they, despite eight years in power, failed to do so. We are doing that now, however.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! The shift in focus, if we are to speak of such, is that this becomes a debate that will be completely incomprehensible to the listener. I ask if the Prime Minister has apologized for the policy, because Jimmie Åkesson said it, and then we get a long harangue about a lot of other things from the Minister for Migration. She does not even utter the word "apology."
Since the Minister for Migration is here anyway and we are discussing this with excuses, I wonder about one thing. The Minister for Migration has previously spoken about that there is only one party in this chamber that has any credibility in migration policy. I found an old flyer where it says:
"Warning to Swedish girls! Avoid unprotected intercourse with blacks who carry deadly AIDS! Most of all: Do not defile your race, Your Sweden, Your family and kin! Perform abortion only in emergencies. Keep Sweden Swedish."
This flyer was what the founders of the Sweden Democrats took with them in. They demonstrated on November 30 - were beaten, caused havoc and shouted incredibly offensive things that I do not intend to repeat. Should the Sweden Democrats not apologize for that? Is this party the only credible alternative in Swedish migration policy, according to the Minister for Migration? If so, is this not worth an apology from Jimmie Åkesson?
Obviously, the Minister for Migration cannot speak for whether the Prime Minister has apologized. In that case, Jimmie Åkesson has lied. But it also means that this flyer represents what the Minister for Migration considers to be the only credible migration policy among all the parties in this chamber. I wonder if the Minister for Migration does not think that one should apologize for that.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! I have probably never before seen an interpellation that has been so clinically devoid of political content. Apparently, this is how the Social Democrats choose to use the constitutionally mandated power of oversight, which naturally must be their prerogative.
This debate is not about what Jimmie Åkesson has said regarding the Prime Minister's statements, but about the Social Democrats wanting to shift the focus from, for example, the fact that their intended government support conditions its support on a more generous immigration policy. Ola Möller can, in accordance with this, not answer how the Social Democrats intend to implement the policy they now say they stand behind.
Behind the Moderate-led government, however, stand four parties that have a broad consensus on what must be done regarding immigration policy. We are now reforming the policy step by step instead of just talking about it, and we are already seeing results. The number of asylum applications during 2023 is the second lowest in the 2000s. The number of granted residence permits is at the lowest level since 2015. The number of revoked residence permits is increasing, and the number of executed deportation decisions is increasing. We are creating a new reception system with a focus on short processing times.
Together with its coalition partners, the Moderate-led government is doing what the Social Democrats are unable to do with their friends C, V and MP: We are reducing immigration.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.