Response to interpellation 2023/24:843 on the Upper Secondary School Act and the Swedish Migration Agency's long processing times

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! [The member] has asked me if I intend to take any general measures to ensure that those who previously had temporary residence permits supported by the Act on Residence Permits for Students at the Upper Secondary Level, the so-called Gymnasielagen, shall be granted permanent residence permits, and if I intend to take any general measures to ensure that other asylum seekers are not affected in a similar way by the Migration Agency's long processing times. The question is based on an article about the Migration Agency's handling of cases according to the Gymnasielagen.

Initially, I want to say that in my capacity as a representative of the government, I am prevented from commenting on individual cases. It is the Swedish Migration Agency and the migration courts that are to take a position on the specific circumstances in the cases.

The Migration Court of Appeal has established that the conditions for being granted a permanent residence permit according to the upper secondary school law must be met no later than at the time the temporary residence permit expires. The court argues that this interpretation is also supported in the bill Temporary restrictions on the possibility of obtaining a residence permit in Sweden as well as in the bill Supplements to the temporary law for residence permits concerning studies at upper secondary level. The latter, Vänsterpartiet has voted for in the Riksdag.

The Upper Secondary School Act was introduced by the former red-green government with the support of, among others, the Left Party as part of an already dysfunctional migration policy. Unfortunately, we can state that the criticism directed at the law was justified.

Unlike the previous government, this government has a concrete plan 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 now, after barely two years, it can be stated that the paradigm shift in migration policy that the government promised is under implementation.

The work has resulted in that asylum migration to Sweden has decreased to historically low levels, despite that a large number of asylum seekers continue to seek themselves to the EU. This government has taken control over the Swedish migration policy and ensures that it is responsible and restrictive.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! We received a particularly contentless answer from the Minister. I note, however, the closing remark, where the Minister in an innovative way implies that this is about migration policy in general and that the government is restrictive. The Minister attempts an ideological answer - with limited success, I would say, because it is not quite this that is being requested in this debate.

I believe it is better that we stick to the focus here, namely that the long processing times at Migrationsverket have caused a hundred young people covered by the Secondary School Act to have received rejections or are expected to receive rejections on their applications for permanent residence permits, even though they have done everything correctly according to the law. They have completed their educations and obtained permanent jobs and meet all the requirements set out in the legislation.

These young people have built up their lives in Sweden, lived here for nine or ten years and contributed to our society. Now they risk deportation, completely in conflict with the intentions of the law. The only problem is that Migrationsverket has not extended the temporary residence permits in time but has dragged out the time by several years. When the affected individuals then applied for permanent residence permits, they were denied with reference to the fact that they did not have valid permits when they started their permanent employment.

Regardless of what the Minister thinks about the Secondary School Act, we still have it, and it must be followed. It turns out, however, in over a hundred cases, that it has not been done, due to processing times of several years. It is completely unacceptable and undermines the rule of law, and leads to that person who de facto has the right to their permanent residence permit instead being deported after nearly ten years in Sweden with a job, studies, a home, and a family.

They have met exactly all the requirements that the Riksdag set. They have qualified for permanent residence permits but have not received them, for the sole reason that their extension applications have lain unprocessed at the Swedish Migration Agency for up to three years. It is unreasonable and undermines legal certainty and undermines the entire confidence in the asylum process.

Instead of the minister's answer, which did not at all address the long processing times and what they have caused, I would actually like to have an answer on what the minister intends to do so that these people, who have done everything correctly and fulfilled all requirements according to the law, receive redress.

How does the Minister for Migration intend to ensure that one is not affected in this legally insecure manner? It is not only that this handling contravenes the Upper Secondary School Act and its intentions, but it also contravenes the principles in the Administrative Procedure Act to refrain from processing applications for so long that they lose their validity.

So, what does the Minister intend to do to ensure that these individuals, who have done everything correctly and who meet all the requirements of the law, receive redress, and what does the Minister intend to do regarding processing times overall, even for other asylum seekers—the question that was not addressed at all in the answer.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The situation that a hundred young people in southern Sweden have now found themselves in must be experienced as completely Kafkaesque. Ever since 2015, when they arrived in Sweden as children, they have fought to not be deported, in many cases to one of the world's most dangerous countries to live in for all those who do not share the Taliban's values, namely Afghanistan.

These young people were affected by illegally long processing times and legally insecure age registrations. Therefore, the previous government created an opportunity for them to obtain permanent residence permits, which they should have received from the beginning. The Upper Secondary School Act was the result of a very hard struggle in an increasingly colder political climate where we in Miljöpartiet finally managed to get it so that those who study, take their upper secondary school exam, and then get jobs can actually be able to obtain permanent residence permits.

It is extremely high requirements that these young people have lived up to. Completing a high school education and furthermore getting a job within six months is something that they have achieved to such an extent that it even beats Swedish youth.

These are young people who have fought hard and who right now, as we stand here in the chamber, are taking care of our elderly in nursing homes and building pipes so that Sweden functions better. These are young people who work as pavers and concrete workers and ensure that the streets become tidy and who take care of children with special needs in our schools.

Now, after almost ten years in Sweden, the rug is being pulled out from under them, again. Why? Well, because the Swedish Migration Agency has, for some reason, chosen not to process their temporary residence permits for several years. During that time, they have remained, continued studying, found jobs, and fought incredibly hard to become part of society and also to obtain the security that they, in many cases, have not had during their entire lives. Many have been in flight since they were born.

This is a legal uncertainty that is offensive, and the treatment of this group is unparalleled in Swedish history. If one has an ambition that those who are actually integrated into Sweden should receive what they are entitled to, one must think that this is offensive. I think that the government's tone regarding integration should speak for the fact that one also sees that things have gone really wrong here and that something needs to be done. I wonder if that is the case.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I can begin by agreeing that processing times are sometimes long, even too long. In just this case, however, one must ask what is actually the underlying problem in the context. I want to assert forcefully that the underlying problem here is actually not the processing times, but rather they are a consequence of what is the underlying problem, namely a legally uncertain legislation right from the very beginning.

One has to go back a few years here to remember the different asylum laws. Fundamentally, it was a group of people who came to Sweden and who, in a legally secure manner, were judged not to have grounds for protection. That is how it is in our migration policy that a yes must be a yes, but a no must also be a no. That is the entire basic premise for a long-term sustainable migration policy. Anything other than this would be unsustainable.

The Upper Secondary School Act was heavily criticized from the very beginning. The Council on Legislation wrote in its referral response or its opinion that the limit had been reached for what was acceptable in terms of how legislation can be designed. Major referral bodies wrote that the complexity made it difficult to interpret the legislation and gain an overview of it, and that it could also have serious consequences, not least for individuals.

The Swedish Migration Agency pointed out, as did we from my party and several other parties, that the construction of the legislation was very complicated and that this would lead to exactly application difficulties but also affect legal certainty negatively. The Swedish Migration Agency pointed out that the new legislation also risked leading to exactly longer processing times.

The Council on Legislation could not recommend that the referred proposal should even serve as a basis for legislation. Nevertheless, it became legislation based on the highly criticized bill. It became a high school law, and this I regret. It was not a serious way to handle migration policy.

I think it is perhaps a bit absurd that we, who were actually against the upper secondary school act, should bear the responsibility for the problems that have arisen. We warned about precisely those problems earlier. Somewhere, one must be able to take responsibility for the decisions one has made. This legislation should not have been put in place from the start. It was legally uncertain even then.

Then there are problems with the processing times, and it is naturally always regrettable when individuals are affected in a negative way. One of the reasons why the government has allocated large resources to the Swedish Migration Agency is so that they can maintain their staffing levels, but also because the processing times for permit applications have been far too long.

We have also, in the regulatory letter, tasked the Swedish Migration Agency with shortening the processing times for open cases. It can also be noted that despite all the shortcomings that exist, approximately 70 percent of those who have been granted permits according to the Secondary School Act have received permanent residence permits.

It is impossible for me as a minister to comment on individual cases, fundamentally because we have a rule-of-law order where it is the Swedish Migration Agency and the migration courts that are to take a position on the specific circumstances in the various cases.

We are now carrying out a reorganization of the migration policy. We want to fundamentally reduce asylum migration to Sweden in order to have the possibility to manage the major integration problems that exist, but also to ensure that the excessively long detention times are shortened. Therefore, we are allocating financial resources for this.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Something that shocked me here and that brings the question to a head is what the Minister for Migration concluded with, that this government or the ministers can never comment on individual cases but that they find it very easy in the same breath to say that the persons did not have grounds for protection. This shocks me immensely. It is pervasive in this government. One never comments on individual cases, but one says that, for example, unaccompanied minors did not have grounds for protection.

When it comes to not having grounds for protection, as the Minister for Migration initiated in the exchange: Tell that to the women and girls who were deported to Afghanistan during the period when it was known that the Taliban were advancing! The whole world knew it, but Sweden still issued deportation decisions for girls, to Afghanistan. Tell them that they did not have grounds for protection! It is distressing to hear this from the Minister for Migration.

Many of the girls have been registered as adults. There is a case where a 13-year-old girl was registered as an adult even though the two case officers at Migrationsverket had not even met her. It is a lack of legal certainty that the girls are experiencing. To say that they do not have grounds for protection is offensive.

It is also pervasive that the government says that a yes is a yes, that a no is a no, and so on. But when it comes to the women who consistently received a no, the Migration Agency then said that we must make the assessment that all women from Afghanistan have grounds for protection and must receive a yes. At the same time, the government said that a no is a no. Over the course of the day, this was turned into a yes, so the theory that the government is tinkering with does not hold. It is a lie. A no can become a yes. I believe that everyone from Afghanistan has grounds for protection. It is distressing that the government does not.

The Gymnasielagen, which we are discussing today, was introduced to give the unaccompanied young people who were affected by Migrationsverket's long processing times, changed legislation, and uncertain age assessments a fair chance to stay in Sweden. Now they are being affected by long processing times again – several years long – despite the fact that the entire legislation was intended to make up for what they had suffered from.

It is systematic when it is over 100 people. Then it is no longer an individual case. This is something the Minister for Migration must understand.

The clear majority of the unaccompanied minors who arrived were around twelve or thirteen years old, and many came from Afghanistan. If they are denied now, they cannot return to Afghanistan. They have their entire lives in Sweden, everything from studies and steady jobs to homes and families.

These wrongly made decisions risk leading to these persons being forced into undocumented status. They cannot return to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and forced deportations there are impossible. The only thing that happens is that the government pushes people into undocumented status even though all have jobs – organized jobs and permanent employment. They go from white jobs to black jobs in order to support themselves. They are currently inside the system but are being pushed out of it. The minister cannot be satisfied with this.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have all in this debate spoken about legal certainty, something these youths have not seen particularly much of. That their decisions are delayed so long that one loses the rights one would have had if the decision were made in time is not legally certain.

It has also been established repeatedly that the age assessments that this group was affected by were not legally secure. On the contrary, they were arbitrary. Now, it is once again illegally long processing times that affect these youths in a completely unacceptable way. If the decisions had been made in time, they would have received permanent residence permits and been able to continue working in their permanent jobs in Sweden and continue their lives in security. But because they did not receive legally secure decisions in time, they end up in the shadow society instead—in limbo. Possibly some flee from Sweden to countries that actually do not deport to Afghanistan, where many of these youths have their origins.

This is a disgrace for Sweden. A government that nevertheless speaks of the rule of law needs to act so that those who have done everything right also get justice.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Tony Haddou says that these individuals have grounds for protection and criticizes me when I say the opposite. But it is not I who is saying that, Madam Speaker, it is the Swedish Migration Agency that makes the assessments. It is also the courts we have that have made these assessments.

We have a rule-of-law order in Sweden where asylum decisions are made by responsible authorities and courts, not by politicians in the Riksdag. It is not anyone in the speaker's chair here who is to decide who gets to stay, who has grounds for protection and who does not. Why is it that way? Yes, because we have a rule-of-law asylum policy. Anything else would have been incredibly insecure in terms of the rule of law.

It is actually quite astonishing to hear claims like those we have just heard here. Why have courts at all that one can appeal to in asylum cases if it is still politicians from Vänsterpartiet or Miljöpartiet who are to stand in the speaker's chair here and decide who has grounds for protection and who does not? It is incomprehensible to me.

I actually also think that this prompts a number of questions. Do Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet even stand behind a regulated immigration? Do Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet stand behind the order we have with independent courts that make this type of decision? It has not always been so in Swedish migration policy, but previously there was another order – which we left, for very good reasons. I thought that discussion was over, but obviously it is not.

This legislation was legally uncertain from the very beginning. It was not only us who said that, but it was a long series of different referral bodies. The responsible authority, the Council on Legislation - everyone pointed out how deficient the legislation was, the difficult-to-overlook consequences, and the consequences of growing processing times. We are now also seeing the result of that.

We are doing our best by, for example, allocating resources to the Swedish Migration Agency to try to manage this situation as well as possible. But one might have wished for a bit more self-criticism, Madam Speaker, from those in this chamber who insisted on voting through the legally secure legislation. One can question how serious it actually is to now shift the responsibility onto us to clean up the mess.

We are now allocating financial resources specifically to shorten processing times. We are also tasking the Swedish Migration Agency to carry it out, and we will do so, Madam Speaker. Above all, we will never return to the type of highly criticized, legally insecure legislative experiments that the previous government engaged in. We are now restructuring migration policy so that it becomes long-term. We need lower asylum reception in Sweden.

At the same time, we are developing our policy in other areas, not least to ensure that exclusion is reduced. More people who have come to Sweden shall receive education and work so that they enter Swedish society. But the basis for this, Madam Speaker, is that we have a regulated migration policy where it is those who have grounds for protection who are allowed to stay and where the asylum review takes place in courts, not by politicians here in the Riksdag.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I said in my opening remarks that the Minister could gladly avoid shifting the focus from what the debate is about, but now the Minister did so for almost four minutes. He tried to shift the focus.

It is about the fact that these young people have done everything correctly and properly. Why doesn't the minister answer that? They have done everything correctly according to the legislation. They have met all requirements, they have permanent jobs or are studying and so on. They have met everything that the Riksdag decided on; the only problem is that the processing times dragged on for over three years. Therefore, they did not receive their permanent residence permits. Still, the minister stands here in earnest and says that it is legally secure. It is shocking, I must say.

When it then concerns the question of whether Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have a different view than the assessments and so on: What I said is that assessments change. "A yes is a yes, and a no is a no" - no, it does not have to be so. Migrationsverket can make a decision that can be appealed to Migrationsdomstolen and so on. A no can become a yes. That is nothing new.

We stand behind that, but what we are reacting to is that the minister says they did not have grounds for protection. It was sweeping. First, you say that you should not talk about individual cases, and in the same breath, you move on to specifically talking about that they do not have grounds for protection. It is offensive.

It is incomprehensible that one chooses to uproot these people from their jobs, studies, and homes and throw them out of the system. They are inside the system, have lived here for nine or ten years, work, and so on. The only problem, which I return to, is the processing times. For some reason, Migrationsverket has let their cases just sit for three years instead of actually ensuring that they receive their permanent residence permits.

If one has done right, one should get right. That has not happened here.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I intend, once again, not to comment on individual cases in this, but the basis for all this legislation - the basis for the legally secure situation we have - is that the group was not judged to have grounds for protection. That was the case; I was in the Social Insurance Committee when the legislation was drafted.

I also remember how many of us warned about the consequences. We said: Do not do this, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet! It is insecure legislation. It will be very difficult to interpret, and it will lead to a long series of problems - including growing processing times. People will be caught in the crossfire because of this legislation.

The legislation is so poorly implemented and drafted that virtually all referral bodies rejected it. The Swedish Migration Agency warned against doing this, and the Council on Legislation said that the limit had been reached for what is even acceptable for legislation. Nevertheless, Vänsterpartiet insisted on pushing the legislation through, and the result has been just as bad for many individuals as we warned. Where is the self-criticism from Vänsterpartiet in this?

Now we are trying to clean up the mess that the parties on the left were involved in creating. We do this by allocating resources to the Swedish Migration Agency to shorten processing times. We issue the mandate to carry it out, and we work together with the responsible authority to ensure that processing times become as short as possible. It is, of course, in everyone's interest. But it is not easy when the foundation is a very legally uncertain legislation that should never even have been implemented and which many of us warned against.

I can promise Tony Haddou that we will continue to implement reforms to shorten waiting times and processing times, Madam Speaker, and that we will never carry out any similar legislative experiments again. Thank you for this debate, Tony Haddou!

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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