Response to interpellation 2025/26:381 on a ban on deportations of teenagers
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers that the government is carrying out a responsible restructuring of the migration policy and is working towards a permanent, sustainable solution for young people 1 2. M argues that a tightening of family migration is necessary for integration 3 and that a stop law is not a permanent solution but creates uncertainty 3 4. M considers that MP bears responsibility for the situation 2 3 and that their policy would lead to higher asylum migration, chaos, and segregation 3 4. MP argues that young people are terribly affected by legislative changes and demands a legislative change that allows deported young people to return 5. MP advocates for permanent residence permits for children 6 and a stop law to protect young people 7.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Annika Hirvonen has asked me when I and the government will present the government's proposal on the valve, if I can guarantee that the intended valve, when it is finally introduced, will cover all types of teenage deportations that have now been highlighted, if I and the government will take measures so that the youths who have already been deported as teenagers can return to their families in Sweden, and if I and the government will refrain from enacting legislation so that more families who are established in Sweden are split up in the future.
The government is carrying out a responsible restructuring of the migration policy. It is of great importance that asylum migration to Sweden decreases so that we get better conditions to succeed with integration. This requires, among other things, a more restrictive regulatory framework for family reunification than what Sweden has had until now. It is, however, important that the rules are uniform and reasonable.
That young adults, who turned 18 during the period with residence permits as relatives of their parents, are rarely granted extended residence permits is nothing new, but it is a consequence of legislative changes from 2016 and 2021.
The Government is keen to promptly find a solution for the young people who have been caught in a bind due to previous governments' legislative changes.
As stated at a press conference on March 6, residence permits can be granted to close relatives in more situations.
The Swedish Migration Agency has announced that the agency will, for the time being, not make decisions on rejections in certain cases regarding continued residence permits. This applies to cases for persons who have not reached the age of 21 and who have been granted time-limited residence permits as children and relatives of parents who have residence permits in Sweden or are Swedish citizens. The persons concerned have turned 18 during the permit period or the processing time.
Within the Government Offices, active work is underway to draft a legislative proposal. The Government is keen that the legislation shall be uniform and that it is a permanent and sustainable solution that is presented as soon as the work is completed.
The upcoming proposal will not apply to young adults who have received a deportation decision that has become final and to young adults who have already left Sweden. There is, however, a possibility to submit a new application for a residence permit. The general rule is, however, that an application for a residence permit shall be made outside of Sweden.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! We have a situation where many young people have been affected in a completely appalling way by the legislative changes that Johan Forssell has also presented to the Riksdag. The Swedish Migration Agency writes in its decision that the abolition of the valve that we in Miljöpartiet demanded and had passed in 2021, with particularly lenient circumstances for adults with strong ties to Sweden, has contributed to a sharp increase in the number of youth deportations.
Mr. Speaker! Today we have a situation where those young people who, in the midst of perhaps the worst crisis of their lives, have dared to tell us others about their life situation will not be covered by the government's valve. The Prime Minister said that they could apply again, but today there is no basis for them to apply again if the government does not intend to change the law.
A few weeks ago, I met Jomana, 18 years old. She came to us in the Riksdag together with friends, teachers, her principal, and her father to tell us about her life situation. She had just bought her graduation cap when the letter from Migrationsverket arrived. Dad, mom, and little brother, who is now a Swedish citizen, get to continue living here. But Jomana, who came here when she was four years old, is to be deported to Egypt alone. She had four weeks to pack up an entire life.
All over Sweden, hundreds, perhaps even several thousand, people gathered to demonstrate last weekend. At Norrmalmstorg, we heard Jomana, Ayla, Batis and several other young people who are not covered by the Migration Agency's stop. Their lives will now, in some cases, be decided by how quickly the government comes forward with its legislative amendment: Will the legislative amendment arrive before the court's final decision?
For some, it is already too late. They have appealed as far as it can go, and they will soon meet the same fate as the sisters Darya and Donya. Darya and Donya were among the last who were deported to Iran before Israel's and the USA's bombs began to fall. Now they write and tell their friends when they have coverage: "Don't forget us. We are going to die."
I demand that Johan Forssell also finds a legislative change that gives these sisters the opportunity to return to Sweden. They have already applied for permission, and under today's rules, they have been denied.
I also demand a solution for those young people who have already received their decision. Let us keep the Prime Minister's word and stop all deportations of young people!
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! To begin with, one can observe that the historiography that Annika Hirvonen provides has large gaps in it. The legislation we have today has actually applied in Sweden for almost exactly ten years. It was a unanimous Riksdag that adopted it. Miljöpartiet also stood behind that legislative change. That is how it is, and it can be seen in the Riksdag's minutes that it was in that way.
Since then, it is true in and of itself that other changes have occurred since then. We received the Swedish people's mandate to change the direction of the migration policy. The voters saw that what the red-green government left behind was chaos, with a large sense of exclusion and major integration problems. It was not possible to continue as before. All of this was seen by the Swedish people.
Regarding the change that the interpellor points out here, i.e., that one moves from particularly compelling to exceptionally compelling grounds, the Swedish Migration Agency itself has stated that it is unclear what impact that specific change has had for this group.
The basis is therefore the legislative change from 2016. I can also state that the Swedish Migration Agency itself has pointed out that the number of teenage deportations has decreased. It is therefore lower now than it has been previously. This is not a new problem.
What is new, Mr. Speaker, is that we are the first government that has actually made an effort to produce a permanent solution for this group of diligent young people, so that they can complete their studies in Sweden and apply for other residence permits for work or studies.
I turn a bit against Annika Hirvonen. It is clear that an opposition should be able to demand accountability from a government. But perhaps Annika Hirvonen should look at herself in the mirror and reflect on her own responsibility for this, when Miljöpartiet has voted through this legislation.
When it comes to the bill, it seems that it was only a few weeks ago that people woke up to it, when the media began writing about this. But from the government's side, we have been working on this for almost a year. We have worked on developing a permanent solution – no emergency solutions, no panic solutions, and not what we saw a few years ago with the completely legally insecure upper secondary school laws, which were rushed through after very extensive criticism from everyone and everyone and which brought very harmful consequences that we actually still live with.
We want a permanent solution for this group, and we have investigated such a solution. We have received a proposal. We are processing that proposal right now. It concerns a valve. That valve will be wider than what the investigation suggested. But it is important, so that we get exactly a long-term solution in place.
Then it is the case that over time, those in this group will also need to find other residence permits in Sweden. The same rules apply to everyone else. Then one must study or work. Again: We are not to have any such high school laws. We are not to have any amnesties or other solutions that lack legal certainty. We are to have a strict regulatory framework for family immigration in order to succeed with integration. But that regulatory framework must also be reasonable, and it must be fair. That is the valve that we are now preparing.
I am fully committed to producing it as soon as possible – I am very eager to do so. But I am also, Mr. Speaker, very eager that it will be done correctly. I do not want to engage in any political games for this group of young people. I think they have already had enough problems. I want it to turn out well for them. I want there to be a solution that lasts in the long run, so that we can move forward.
I am fully committed to doing this, and I believe that it will be very good for these young people.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with Johan Forssell that we fundamentally would not have had this problem if permanent residence permits had been the main rule from the beginning, when a child is granted permission to come to their parents in Sweden as a relative to them. If one were to be granted a permanent residence permit, this situation would not arise, where one has to apply again and where the processing time can determine whether one has reached the age of 18 or even passed the age of 21 when Migrationsverket finally makes the decision.
We saw this problem and this risk – together with referral bodies across the country. That was why we demanded a safety valve – particularly sensitive circumstances for persons with strong ties to Sweden – which the Moderaterna, SD, KD, Liberalerna and Socialdemokraterna abolished in 2023.
If one now sees that the problem fundamentally is that permanent residence permits do not exist, the solution cannot be to remove permanent residence permits, as the government plans. It should be the opposite conclusion. But I realize that we are far from a majority in this Riksdag who see that the reasonable thing would be for it to be just permanent residence permits at the first decision, at least for children.
I completely agree with Johan Forssell that we should not rush a solution that will not be good. A good compromise would have been the proposal I submitted, which was actually voted on in this chamber and only received a "no" by a single vote. It is about a temporary stop law, so that no more young people manage to be deported before the long-term solution from the government is in place.
I wonder if Johan Forssell is aware that it is not a given that one is allowed to return to Sweden once they have left the country. For those young people who want to return to their mom and dad and friends – to their life – it can actually be the case that the very fact that they have everything in Sweden can speak against them being allowed to come back here. Darya and Donya applied to come back to their places of study in the nursing program, which they had started in Sweden. But they were refused with the justification that the court did not see that studies were their main reason for wanting to come to Sweden. The court perhaps thought that they want to come back by any means. But let us ask ourselves: What would we ourselves have done in that situation?
The legislation is rigged against these young people, those who want to return to their entire lives. That is why a signal from the government was needed. Does the government think it is reasonable and fair that those young people who have been deported should have a harder time returning to Sweden just because they have more reasons than just work or just studies for wanting to come here?
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! Annika Hirvonen is raising individual cases. The truth is that they might have been able to stay in Sweden if Miljöpartiet had done something about the problem during the six years they had. But nothing was done.
It is we who have had to sort out this legislation. It is we who have to clean up among all the temporary laws, all the panic solutions and all the emergency solutions, which are hardly even any solutions. They have created a lot of other problems. This government is the first government that has made an effort to produce a permanent solution for this group of unruly youths. Annika Hirvonen knows that. That is how it is. To place the responsibility for this on me, I think therefore limps. What responsibility does Annika Hirvonen have? One had six years anyway to produce a solution.
But now we stand where we stand. I wish we had not been in this situation. It would have been much better if there had been a permanent solution earlier. But the responsibility for this probably falls more heavily on Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet, who had six years but still did not succeed or did not want to – I do not know how it was.
Since then, I have received requests for a stop law. We have, of course, looked into it. We consider those types of questions. But we have landed on the conclusion that it would be a bad solution for several reasons.
Firstly, it is not a permanent solution. It is only a stop – no solution. The uncertainty would still remain for this group of conscientious youths. Admittedly, the number of teenage deportations has decreased recently, according to the Swedish Migration Agency, but we know that there are people who have been affected by a, so to speak, unfair regulatory framework. This would, however, not be any solution.
Secondly, it is a fact that it would take longer to produce a stop law than a permanent solution. In that case, one can wonder what one would actually gain from it.
Thirdly, it takes time to prepare legislation so that it becomes good. It must not be wrong. We have seen historical examples of when one simply rushes and sloppily produces solutions. The Green Party perhaps knows this better than anyone else. The same lawyers who are now working on developing a permanent and sustainable solution for this group would, if we were to have a stop law, need to set aside that work to instead develop a stop law. The work of finding a permanent solution would thus even be delayed, and it would create even greater uncertainty and even greater insecurity for this group. What would we actually gain then? Nothing at all. We would only create new uncertainty.
What we need is precisely a permanent solution, and we are working on it.
Then Annika Hirvonen says something else that I find interesting: that we in Sweden should instead have permanent residence permits as the main rule. I have also understood that Miljöpartiet says no to the tightening of family immigration, which we are planning. It is important consumer information ahead of the autumn election. If one were to say no to it, it would lead to several things. Sweden would then naturally receive a significantly higher asylum immigration than we have today. After our reorganization, Sweden today has the lowest asylum immigration in 40 years.
We do this for one single reason. We do it so that Sweden can succeed with the integration of all people who have come to Sweden during the last ten years.
The Green Party's policy would be a death blow to that possibility. It would perhaps mean that we once again get a situation similar to the one ten years ago, during the refugee crisis, when there was chaos. It was exclusion. We are still living with the integration problems after that. It would also lead to very large costs. It is clear that these are things that must be financed in some way, for example in the form of increased taxes for people who work and cuts in school, healthcare, or somewhere else.
We have tried that policy before. It led to chaos, segregation, and exclusion. At least I do not want Sweden to ever return to that.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Johan Forssell asked what we would gain from a stop law. We might gain Batis's future, Jomanas's dreams, and Ayla's security. Young people who have already received decisions from the Migration Agency would be protected from deportation.
We would win. And even if it takes a little longer for the long-term solution, we would have saved more from the terrible fate that many young people have already experienced, for example Darya and Donya who were sent to war-torn Iran.
Mr. Speaker! It is fantastic that the popular mobilization that these youths' story has led to makes it so that Johan Forssell now stands here and speaks about how he will stop family divisions, because in the government's plan lies an even worse family division law.
The government's plan has been that families who have come here, where mom or dad loses their job or gets a lower salary, can be forced to choose to have one of their children deported. The mother with cancer who can no longer work can be faced with the same horrific choice. The mother who has twins but whose apartment is only classified as large enough for one child can need to deport the older brother if the government proceeds with this proposal.
Johan Forssell, you did not answer the question I asked: Will you proceed with the family separation law or not?
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! As I have said several times, I wish that we did not have the situation we have today. I wish that the red-green government, Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet, had not left behind a chaos and an unjust legislation.
I note that Miljöpartiet had six years to find a permanent solution but did nothing. I also note that we are the only government that has actually taken the time to investigate a permanent solution so that it will be good for this group of diligent young people. It is clear that they should be able to complete upper secondary school. It is clear that these young people should be able to build themselves a future in Sweden and work and become a part of our fantastic country.
It is clear that we should be able to find such a solution. But we must not have any panic solutions. The solution that Annika Hirvonen mentions here is not a solution at all, but just a stop that would take longer to put in place than a permanent solution. What has been gained then? If one really wants this group well wants to find a permanent solution as quickly as possible, not a solution that lies even further in the future, which is only a stop and which still leads to great uncertainty and insecurity?
I cannot draw any other conclusion than that Miljöpartiet is more focused on a political game than on genuine concern for this group, because if they really wanted to, they would want to find a permanent solution as soon as possible.
We stand for a restrictive migration policy in order for us to succeed with integration. It is very important for us. Therefore, I become very worried when I hear Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet talk about us returning to precisely the migration policy that led Sweden straight into the refugee crisis and which has created such large problems with segregation, exclusion, insecurity, and billion-dollar costs.
The Green Party wants that policy back, and it is a consumer warning: With Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister, one might get the Green Party's migration policy as a bonus.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.