Response to interpellation 2025/26:289 on the consequences of the government's migration policy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that the government's migration policy is undergoing a paradigm shift to create order and clarity, which has resulted in the lowest asylum-related immigration in 40 years 1. 1 2 M emphasizes that the system is legally secure, that individual assessments are made where the child's best interests are considered 1 2 and that deportations are necessary for regulated immigration 1 2. 3 SD argues that deportations are a tool for regulated immigration and that individuals themselves choose to split up their families 3. 3 SD advocates for stricter conditions for family reunification 3. 4 SD argues for clear rules based on the country's interests as the welfare system has a limit 4. 5 M defends the regulated migration policy as legally secure and necessary to handle integration problems and insecurity 5. 6 M argues that a return to previous requirement-free policy would be devastating 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Daniel Riazat has asked me how I view the splitting of families with children who have sought asylum in Sweden and if I intend to take any measures to prevent this from happening. He has also asked how I view deportations to dictatorships and if I intend to take any measures to prevent this from happening.
Swedish migration policy is now undergoing a paradigm shift. Unlike the previous government, this government has had a concrete plan to address one of the voters' most important issues: to create order and clarity in migration policy.
This is a long-term effort, but we can state that it has already yielded results. Thanks to a responsible and restrictive migration policy, Sweden now has the lowest asylum-related immigration in 40 years. More people with deportation orders are leaving the country. At the same time, the proportion of experts seeking to come to Sweden is increasing, which contributes to strengthening Swedish competitiveness.
When it comes to the children's rights perspective, there are central provisions regarding the best interests of the child in the Aliens Act. They mean that in cases involving a child, the child's health and development and the child's best interests in other respects shall be particularly considered. By the Convention on the Rights of the Child becoming Swedish law on 1 January 2020, it was also clarified that courts and legal practitioners shall consider the rights that follow from the Convention on the Rights of the Child in weighings and assessments concerning children.
In other words, there is a clear child rights perspective in Swedish migration law. Children's rights shall be ensured in the work of the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Police Authority, and it is important that the asylum and return process is legally secure for both children and adults.
An important parameter in the government's migration policy is that those who are entitled to protection should be granted residence permits as soon as possible. If an application for a residence permit is, on the other hand, rejected, the foreign national shall return to their home country as soon as possible. Sweden has one of the world's most legally secure asylum systems, and that decisions by authorities and courts must be followed constitutes, in turn, one of the foundations of a rule of law. Furthermore, all countries, regardless of form of government, have an international law obligation to receive their own citizens.
Sweden is in a continuous dialogue with a number of countries regarding cooperation on various migration issues, including return, as part of our bilateral relations. This includes, among other things, promoting both the voluntary and the forced return of foreign nationals who lack the right to stay in Sweden. In this context, the Government has been clear that aid can be conditional, for the purpose that the recipient country shall follow international law principles and cooperate with Sweden on issues regarding the return of its citizens. This is a task that I follow closely and that the Government intends to continue with.
Daniel Riazat (-)
Madam Speaker! Since the blue-brown parties took over government power after the 2022 election, the SD-led migration policy has led to extremely negative consequences both for those deported and threatened with deportation as well as for society as a whole. Families have been split apart. Work communities and bonds of friendship have been torn down.
The Sweden that once distinguished itself for things we could be proud of now distinguishes itself instead by a party started by Nazis governing the country's politics, not least the migration policy, which we have heard the Migration Minister stand here and represent and speak about.
The deportations, which occur to countries such as those that Sweden advises Swedish citizens against traveling to, are breaking record after record. The majority of the parties in the Riksdag do not seem to have any problems with this inhumane policy.
Recently, much attention has been drawn to how nursing assistants, nurses, journalists, teachers, youth leaders, self-employed individuals, and people from all parts of society risk being deported.
Agreements with dictators have led to uncertainty among certain groups. I want those listening to this debate to be vigilant, because what the minister calls "regardless of form of government" means dictatorships.
An example where the government has signed agreements with a dictator to send home a large number of people who risk persecution, torture, and imprisonment are the Kurds. In this case, the government, through very far-reaching mandates to the Security Service, has ensured that hundreds of migration cases and deportations are classified as secret. This was done after Sweden's NATO negotiations with dictator Erdoğan, where he demanded the deportation of oppositionists and Kurds, and where the Swedish government and Minister Forssell said: Yes, absolutely – we will arrange that for you!
Despite the fact that Sweden has not had such a small immigration in several decades and has not granted so few residence permits in modern times, the SD-led government continues with the racist migration policy, while large parts of our country turn against this inhumane migration policy and this racism. Everything from moderately-led to left-led municipalities are currently protesting against the government's irresponsible deportation policy and point out the negative consequences this has for both individuals and society at large.
The threat of deportation has been met with anger among the people and among colleagues. People are joining together to protest against the minister's policy.
I have therefore asked how the minister views the splitting of families with children who have sought asylum in Sweden to obtain protection, and whether the minister intends to take any measures to prevent this from happening.
I have also asked how the Minister views the deportation of people to dictatorships. I believe you hear the answer: The Government does not intend to stop sending people to torture, oppression, and death. Instead, the Government boasts here today from the rostrum that it pursues a migration policy that is an irresponsible deportation policy which risks both the rights and lives of individuals and our society as such. It separates children from their parents and partners from each other, it breaks bonds of friendship and it splits our society.
Why is it so important for Sweden's Minister for Migration that people are deported to dictatorships – why?
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! The interpellation submitted by Daniel Riazat is titled Consequences of the government's migration policy, but when one reads it, it sounds more like a pamphlet from Ung Vänster.
It is stated that the government's and the Sweden Democrats' migration policy has resulted in extremely negative consequences for both those who have been deported and those threatened with deportation, as well as for society as a whole. The question is how one reasons when making such a statement.
When it comes to those who are deported, it is about foreigners who lack permission to stay in Sweden and have received a deportation decision being deported. That is how a regulated migration policy works. There are people who have permission to stay in Sweden. They get to stay; no one questions this.
Then there are people who, for various reasons, receive a deportation order. It can be because the foreigner has had their asylum application rejected, it can be because one is in Sweden illegally, and it can be because one has committed a crime that leads to imprisonment. No one is deported if there is no reasonable reason.
Does the Prime Minister Riazat mean that no one should receive a deportation decision? If a foreigner rapes a woman – should that foreigner continue to reside in Sweden?
Deportations are part of how regulated immigration works. If one is against deportations, one wants free immigration, and Member Riazat should know that there is no party in Sweden's Riksdag that openly wants to support free immigration. Then we have parties such as Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, which in practice support free immigration.
In other words, deportations are not some extremely negative consequence, as Member Riazat expresses it, but deportations are the tool we have to maintain a regulated immigration.
Member Riazat also argues that families with children who have sought asylum in Sweden are being split up. This must be clarified so that everyone listening to the debate understands what the member means. It is about family reunification.
The chairman argues that it is Sweden's migration policy that has split families when a person in the family has left their family in their home country and traveled all the way to a country in northern Europe instead of seeking asylum in the first safe country.
I would say that the one who leaves their family has made the decision to split the family. We have never asked any asylum seeker to come to Sweden. There is no international organization that urges asylum seekers to pass through several safe countries and come to Sweden. It is they themselves who make that decision, and then one is actually not a refugee but an economic migrant.
When it comes to family reunification, it is obvious that there must be rules for this. We have areas with high concentrations of immigrants with massive social problems because anyone has been able to bring their relatives here, even though the person in question has not been able to support themselves properly.
That is why the government and the Sweden Democrats have worked on developing stricter conditions for family immigration. The person who brings their relatives here must show that he or she can stand on their own feet so that the family that one is reunited with does not need to live in misery.
Perhaps Member Riazat does not care about the conditions under which these families actually get to live when they finally arrive in Sweden. For him, the only goal seems to be that they make it here. Getting to Sweden seems to be the entire core of Member Riazat's policy. Such a policy is not sustainable.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Just as I mentioned in my response, we see clear results of the government's migration policy. We received the Swedish people's mandate, and they gave us the task in the last election to get migration in order, to get it under control, and to tackle the serious problems that people saw in a long series of areas.
It was not least about the fact that an all too extensive asylum migration over all too many years had created very large integration problems in our country. It is thousands of children who are growing up in poverty and vulnerability and a long series of different integration problems.
These are costs that must be paid by someone. There is no such thing as free money, and we see that tax money from hard-working people needs to be spent on a failed integration. We see resources that could have gone to more teachers in schools, more nurses, more police officers, and a long line of other things, but which instead had to be spent on this.
Now we see good results. We see that asylum migration is the lowest in 40 years. We also see a return that is increasing from low levels. This is important, especially when it concerns persons who have committed crimes in Sweden. But it is also about maintaining a regulated immigration.
Madam Speaker! One actually has to make a choice here. One cannot say that one wants regulated immigration and wants to safeguard the right to asylum but that no one should have to go home. It is intellectually completely dishonest.
We make very careful assessments; I dare say that Sweden has perhaps the most legally secure asylum system in the world. Individual assessments of protection needs are always made. This means that a person from a country, regardless of whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, can have a protection need. It is the individual's circumstances that are decisive, and it is about legal certainty.
One cannot simply sit and look at a map and believe that everyone from a certain country will by definition have a protection need for all time, while for another country it is the exact opposite. It would have meant a less legally secure order than the one we have today, where it is always the individual's circumstances that are decisive.
Children are always taken into account in the migration process we have today. Our system is based on Swedish legislation but also on EU legislation and international conventions. A legally secure system does not, however, automatically mean that everyone who wants to be in Sweden is judged to have grounds for protection; it is important to remember that. It is a completely decisive part of a regulated immigration.
One also always takes into account the child's health and development, but it does not always mean that the decision will be what the guardians want. Again: An assessment of the individual's protection needs is always made. It is no stranger than that.
It is also the case that all countries, regardless of form of government, have an international law obligation to receive their own citizens. Here, this government speaks with greater clarity than any other government has done previously. A concrete such example is that we condition parts of the development aid. Swedish aid is no longer an ATM that just pays out money, but we also say that we have clear Swedish interests.
We want to find collaborations with countries. We are happy to participate and cooperate to build up and create a better future in those countries. But in that case, it is important and reasonable that those countries also listen to what priorities Sweden has and want to cooperate with us.
Daniel Riazat (-)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that no human being is illegal. Actions can be illegal, but no humans are illegal.
Then it was very interesting how what I said in my previous speech about this being an SD-led government was illustrated in a live broadcast in front of all of Sweden. I ask a question to the Minister for Migration, who belongs to the Moderates, and then a Sweden Democrat – who himself has been a quota refugee and had his entire journey to Sweden paid for – stands up and tells the minister what line the government should take. After that, the Minister for Migration is allowed to speak based on the line that the Sweden Democrats have set.
There are so many in our homeland Iran, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, who would gladly have swapped places with you and come here after the massive attacks and the deadly terror against the population recently. If one is against that type of migration, one can start with oneself.
According to the minister, this is an issue that a very large proportion of voters prioritize highly, namely that we should have a massive deportation policy and an inhuman asylum and refugee policy. It is nothing but a lie. The issue of migration does not even make the top three in the aggregation of all opinion polls' surveys of which political issues are important right now. There, it is about healthcare, economy, school, unemployment and other issues.
Still, one continues even today with this mantra, which is a lie to make people believe that the problems in our society are about how many people look like me – not about that you have destroyed the Swedish social safety nets, that you have increased the division and the economic gaps so that they are as large as in the 30s and that we have more unemployed than in several decades. Instead, one talks about that migration is still high and that we must stop it.
That is not how it looks. I have the figures in front of me. It is 6 percent of those who have been granted residence permits who have received permanent residence permits during the last three years. That is a very low figure. How are people supposed to feel security and become part of Swedish society if they risk being deported tomorrow or do not know if it is in a month, two months, or two years?
I know about this, because I have been one of those people. I had come to this country, learned the Swedish language, and been a part of Swedish society for several years when my family was not granted a fair trial, just as most other families are not granted one either. We also received a deportation decision. But thanks to people who stood up for solidarity, in contrast to the SD-led government, and ensured that we were allowed to stay in the country, I can stand here today and debate this SD-led, nationalist government that has driven Sweden into the ground in all areas, including the migration issues.
There is also talk about a lack of integrity and about the need to deport more people who commit crimes. Are those who are active in Nazi organizations in Sweden not counted? What do we do with those families? Should we split families where, for example, a son is active in a Nazi club? Should we proceed in that way? Is that the type of debate we want?
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden went through the nightmare that was the migration crisis in 2015. What many understood then was that goodwill or love is not enough to manage migration. It is harder than that. Clear rules based on Sweden's interests were needed.
Sweden shall receive as many as this country can manage. Sweden shall receive as many as this welfare system can manage. Sweden shall not receive so many people that it creates conflicts in our country.
All this, which is so obvious for many in Sweden today, Member Riazat does not seem to understand. It is quite sad that someone who sits in Sweden's Riksdag has so little contact with the public and the difficulties that many experienced during the migration crisis and thereafter. It is about societies where people truly wanted to welcome people, but where the problems that follow in the wake of immigration simply became too much.
It is not that anyone is racist, as Member Riazat claims in his interpellation. It is about the fact that there is a limit to how many Sweden can manage to receive. We who sit in Sweden's Riksdag – even we who came here as quota refugees – must first and foremost prioritize the Swedish people and their well-being. If one wants the privilege of being able to be this moralizer, one can be it somewhere else. Sweden's Riksdag has a duty to represent but also serve the Swedish people and their interests.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! It is amusing to hear Daniel Riazat trying to score political points on the procedural order we have here in the chamber, which has been decided by all parties, regarding how interpellation debates are conducted.
Now, Daniel Riazat has managed to be expelled from his party, as I understand it, but otherwise he could have spoken with his party representatives about perhaps changing that order. It is, however, democratically decided here. It is no stranger than that. I thought perhaps Daniel Riazat might still be aware of it, but obviously not.
Daniel Riazat also does not seem to know how a law-abiding and regulated migration policy works. I think that is very serious. It is serious to be intimidated in the way that is happening here and to assert pure inaccuracies.
We have a regulated immigration where it is always the individual's need for protection that is governing. It is not I who decides that. It is not Daniel Riazat either for that matter, I can inform you, but it is the Swedish Migration Agency and independent courts that make those decisions.
So it is, Mr. Speaker, for an important reason, namely that migration policy must be legally secure. It should not be politicians with lacking knowledge of migration policy who stand in the Riksdag's rostrum and decide who shall be allowed to stay and who not. That would not be legally secure. That would not be Sweden. An individual assessment must always be made, and it is best done precisely in these courts.
We have a very good order. I can state that the proposal that Daniel Riazat is standing here and putting forward, that this should be decided here in a debate, would be a very bad order. Above all, it would be a very legally uncertain order that would create very large problems. I am opposed to that system. I perhaps do not need to go into it further.
We have changed the migration policy in the context of the very large integration problems that exist in the country. Daniel Riazat does not agree, I understand. I know that neither Vänsterpartiet agrees. I know that neither Miljöpartiet agrees.
I am not sure that we will find a common standpoint in this discussion. One can, however, wonder: What would be the alternative to what we are doing right now? Would it be to continue with the old migration policy, the one without requirements that created such enormous problems? One might not see it when sitting here in the bench in the Swedish Riksdag, but I am convinced that the Swedish people see the integration problems – see all the children growing up in exclusion, see the insecurity, and see the division.
Then one can, as Daniel Riazat seems to want, simply continue as before. Or one can tackle the problems, and that is what we do by reforming the migration policy. For example, we say what Daniel Riazat seems to find so upsetting: If one does not have a need for protection, one shall return home. If one commits a crime and is deported, we shall execute the deportation so that no perpetrator can continue to ruin the lives of their crime victims.
We are changing the policy. We see good results. I am convinced that there is strong popular support for this. We will continue to implement the reforms that we have promised the Swedish people in order to make Sweden safer and more secure.
Daniel Riazat (-)
Mr. Speaker! I have not received any answer to thank the Minister for.
Once again, the government and the Minister for Migration continue to paint a false narrative about what the conflict line in our society is: that it is about people being tired of there being those who look like me in this country, when instead it is about us having a government that has taken Sweden a hundred years back in time when it comes to labor market policy, housing policy, school policy, healthcare policy, fiscal policy, and a number of other areas.
Once upon a time, we could stand proud and hear Sweden mentioned in the rest of the world as one of the world's most equal countries that welcomed people and gave them a sanctuary. Today, we are known for the fact that the government is supported by a party that was built up by Nazis. That is the conflict line in our society. So it will be during the 2026 election, when this government will, thank God, disappear from state power. We hope to achieve a reorganization of politics in its entirety, get order in society and prioritize solidarity and community among people rather than standing here and trying to divide people. That is what the minister and Nima Gholam Ali Pour from Sverigedemokraterna have always done. They paint a false picture of the problems in our society.
The government sells weapons to dictators, which leads to people having to flee their countries. Then, they do not want to take responsibility for them. The government gives 300 million kronor to an ISIS and al-Qaeda-controlled regime in Syria. The Kurds are slaughtered and flee, but we do not want to receive them.
The government enters into agreements with dictatorship after dictatorship to keep people away from Sweden's borders. I and the future Swedes will never stand on that line.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I do not demand that the left of the future should align itself with the government's line, but it is reasonable to demand that one still reads up on how Swedish migration policy works before taking a position in the Parliament's rostrum and begins asserting a lot of direct inaccuracies and nonsense. It is a reasonable requirement.
I would, however, like to conclude in solidarity and say the following. I agree that this will become a major conflict issue in the election campaign in a few months. Daniel Riazat is unfortunately not alone in wanting to return to the previous requirement-free migration policy: the one that created such great problems for Sweden, created such great insecurity, and created problems with social exclusion, segregation, and unemployment. Many in Vänsterpartiet and in Miljöpartiet want to see exactly the same policy, that is to say, a return straight back to the migration policy that led Sweden into the refugee crisis in 2015.
I believe that this would be devastating for Sweden and our future and for integration, and it would create a long series of problems for not least the children. Sometimes it sounds as if the great challenge in migration is just to give people a roof over their heads the first week when they arrive. It is a short-sighted perspective. Here it is about many years, to manage employment and security issues, schooling and issues of values, and to hold Sweden together.
This is about complicated matters, and in that case, one needs a plan. You cannot just stand in a speaker's chair and utter simple slogans; everyone is welcome, only we are solidary. It doesn't work like that. I know that Daniel Riazat does not agree with me on this, but I am convinced that a large part of the Swedish people see these issues.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.