Response to interpellation 2025/26:521 on Spain's amnesty for illegal immigrants
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that Sweden has the lowest asylum-related immigration in 40 years thanks to a restrictive migration policy 1 2. M argues that Spain's amnesty undermines the return policy and is unfair to those who follow the law 1 2. M expresses concern that a left-wing government could introduce a requirement-free migration policy similar to the Spanish one 2. M emphasizes that they rearranged the migration policy to reduce asylum immigration and manage problems such as overcrowding and gang crime 3. M is concerned about demands for amnesties and emphasizes the importance of internal border controls 3. M wants to preserve free movement in the EU but needs to control the borders 4. SD argues that Spain's decision risks affecting Sweden through the EU's free movement and describes the situation as an invasion 5. SD considers Spain's amnesty to be like welcoming a whole army while being aware of the risks 6. The party argues that mass immigration causes insecurity, exclusion, and gang crime 7. SD criticizes Magdalena Andersson for praising the Spanish government without criticizing the amnesty 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)
Mr. Speaker and listeners! Tobias Andersson has asked me if I and the government intend to act to ensure that Sweden is not affected by Spain's amnesty for illegal immigrants.
As is known, Swedish migration policy is currently undergoing a paradigm shift. Unlike the previous government, this government has had a concrete plan to address one of the voters' most important issues, namely to create order and clarity in migration policy. This is a long-term task, but we can state that it has yielded results. Thanks to a responsible and restrictive migration policy, Sweden now has the lowest asylum-related immigration in 40 years. More persons with deportation orders are leaving the country; since the government took office, returns have increased by nearly 60 percent.
That the person who has been notified of a decision on return respects the decision and voluntarily leaves the territory is a key component in an effective return policy. A functioning return by force is however also important as an incentive for voluntary return. Different special solutions for the regularization of irregular migrants who have been denied their asylum application undermine the return policy and thereby reduce the incentives for voluntary return. Such should therefore be avoided.
Regarding Spain's amnesty, I can state that the residence permits apply in Spain and do not grant the right to free movement. The European Commission has stated in this context that the Member States need to ensure that their decisions do not create risks for the Schengen area and carefully consider potential migration and security consequences. The Government agrees with that statement.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that Sweden today, thanks to the government's work in the migration policy area, is well-prepared for potential migration and security consequences of other countries' less considered actions.
Checks to ensure that persons who wish to enter or stay in Sweden have the right to do so are carried out by the Swedish Police Authority at the regular border control. Checks also take place through the reintroduced border control at Sweden's internal border, which the government most recently decided to extend from and including May 12, as well as through so-called internal immigration controls. A person can, for example, be denied entry if he or she is judged to pose a risk to public order or security. I also want to remind that the government has recently proposed modernized rules for internal immigration control, which creates conditions for more internal immigration controls than today.
In summary, the government is monitoring the situation in Spain closely but sees no immediate risks that the Spanish migration amnesty will affect Sweden.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer and for the work he has carried out together with us in the migration policy area during this mandate period. Johan Forssell mentions parts of the work that has been carried out. We now have the lowest asylum-related immigration since we began measuring 40 years ago. More people are receiving deportation decisions, and more of those who receive such a decision leave the country; we therefore have, not least, a strongly increased return.
We have also, among other things, tightened unregulated labor immigration and facilitated the deportation of criminals. And tomorrow, if I am not misinformed, the new, tightened requirements for citizenship will begin to apply. Finally, we are now setting requirements for self-sufficiency, longer period of residence, language and social studies tests, and stricter requirements for good conduct – long overdue!
Mr. Speaker! All of this is, of course, very much needed, but that is not why I submitted this interpellation. Sweden and many other countries are currently pursuing a tougher migration policy, but Spain stands out in the opposite direction. Now we see how Spain's socialist government is doing what it can to contribute to the risk of a new migration chaos within the EU. They have announced that they intend to let between 500,000 and perhaps up to 840,000 illegal migrants apply for residence permits in the country. It has been reported that only during the first three days, 43,000 applications were submitted.
Mr. Speaker! What is happening in Spain now cannot be described as anything other than an invasion – an invasion of Spain and Europe from Africa and the Middle East. It is not about immigrants who have sought out Spain to become part of Spanish society or contribute to its economy; they are, by definition, there illegally. It is about illegal immigrants from foreign cultures, with values that are in direct conflict with ours.
This should actually be quite simple. If one is in a country illegally, one should return, regardless of whether that country is Sweden or Spain. Spain now risks being changed for the worse in the foreseeable future. It is clear that it is up to them to destroy their own country themselves, if they so wish. I do, however, sympathize with the Spanish people and am convinced that on the next occasion they will choose different politicians than those who are now destroying their country.
Spain's decision risks affecting other EU countries as well, including Sweden. When hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants have obtained Spanish residence permits, it facilitates their use of the EU's free movement and thus enables them to travel to other countries. I do not believe that Spain, when issuing so many residence permits to persons who are in the country illegally, will have full control over who leaves Spain. This entails an increased need for measures from other countries' sides in this area – hence this interpellation debate.
The Minister has answered extensively regarding much of what we have done and, partly, how one views Spain's actions, but has this been raised from the government's side with the Spanish government or with Johan Forssell's counterpart? Does the government intend to take any further measures to ensure that Sweden is not affected by Spain's decision?
Jamal El-Haj (-)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
It is reasonable to discuss the consequences of migration, integration, and crime. Sweden has problems with gang violence, segregation, and exclusion, which must be taken seriously. But it is not serious to describe the entire immigration as a failure or to place the responsibility for societal problems on people with a foreign background as a group.
Research shows that certain groups with a foreign background are overrepresented in crime statistics. At the same time, research shows that important explanations are socioeconomic factors such as unemployment, poverty, overcrowding, low education levels, and residential segregation.
The vast majority of immigrants work, study, run businesses and contribute to society just like everyone else. Immigrants have also played a decisive role in Sweden's development. Thousands of doctors, nurses, nursing assistants, engineers, entrepreneurs, researchers, drivers and construction workers with a foreign background keep Sweden running every day.
It is also important to remember that Sweden's history is largely a history of migration. During the post-war period, Sweden had an enormous shortage of labor. Swedish companies actively recruited people from among other countries such as Finland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Palestine and other countries to build housing, roads, industries and welfare.
They were part of building modern Sweden and contributed to the economic development that laid the foundation for a welfare we still enjoy today.
Crime is also not linked to ethnicity. If one looks at convicted and suspected politicians, one sees that even the Sverigedemokraterna over the years have had a significant number of representatives at the national, regional, and municipal levels who have been convicted or suspected of various crimes. But no one would claim that all Sverigedemokrater are criminals because of this.
In the same way, it is unreasonable to judge millions of people with an immigrant background based on actions committed by individuals. When it comes to Spain, it is also strange that the country is portrayed as a threat to Sweden. For a long time, Spain has welcomed Swedish retirees, families with children, and others who have chosen to settle there for work, studies, or quality of life. Swedes have been given opportunities to create a life in the country and access healthcare, school, and community services. Instead of criticizing Spain, we should perhaps show gratitude that the country has received so many Swedes over the years.
One can have different views on migration policy, but the debate becomes better if it is based on facts and respect – not on blaming entire groups of people or other countries. Solving Sweden's problems requires that we do not pit people against each other. It requires that we fight crime, strengthen integration, create more paths to work and education, and stick to the principle that people should be judged by their actions and not by their origin.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tobias Andersson, for the interpellation! I can say that I am very concerned about the policy that the Spanish government is implementing. This is indeed a very large amnesty. It is certainly not the first – several have occurred over the last 45 years – but it is very extensive. It is up to 750,000 people who can be affected by it.
We stand up for a strict migration policy. We do so because Sweden must be given a chance to succeed with the integration of all people who have come to Sweden. During the Social Democrats' time in government, they refused to recognize the problems that result from not managing the migration policy. Difficult trade-offs and important objections were brushed aside with empty talk that the problems will solve themselves as long as we believe in people.
But the problems are not being solved. What is required is that this is managed and that reforms are made moving forward to, for example, handle the overcrowding, the fact that school results are falling, or that exclusion is growing. A few years ago, we had a situation where there were fatal shootings more or less every other day. That was the situation that we as a government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, had to clean up. It was a gravely neglected migration policy and gravely neglected policy in many other areas.
Now we have, as we have said, the lowest asylum-related immigration in 40 years. A cornerstone of that policy is the following very simple but also fundamental value: Those who do not have grounds for asylum shall return home.
If you have grounds for asylum, you will have your case examined in Sweden. We perhaps have the world's most legally secure migration system with the Swedish Migration Agency and the possibility to appeal to courts in two instances. But if you do not have grounds for asylum, you must travel home. Otherwise, we simply do not have a regulated immigration.
When Spain does this, one sets aside this fundamental principle in migration policy. It is said that even those who do not have grounds for asylum will, sooner or later – in this case, rather sooner, as it is a very short time one needs to have stayed in Spain – be granted a residence permit. It is enough to go underground and stay without a permit.
I am concerned about that development. It is not only unfair. It means de facto that those who remain illegally still get to stay. One thinks of those who actually followed the law and went home. It becomes a great injustice in this. And then, of course, it can also have consequences for other countries.
What really worries me, however, is that I do not see any Social Democrat or anyone on the left side who actively distances themselves from this. On the contrary, I see that Magdalena Andersson, who wants to become Swedish Prime Minister again, very recently traveled to Spain and met Spain's socialist government, which she praised. She met all these people without – in any case, not what I noted – even criticizing this massive amnesty.
This raises important questions ahead of the election that the Swedish people will make in 100 days. Is it amnesties of this type that we will also see in Sweden? One does not need to go back so far in time to see examples of this. A few years ago, we were left with the totally legally insecure high school laws. It was 9,000 adult persons who lacked grounds for asylum who were allowed to stay in an amnesty. This set aside important principles in migration policy and was furthermore carried out in a completely legally insecure manner. It has also created major implementation problems.
We are following this issue closely. I have also, in a meeting with the EU's migration ministers, made very clear and distinct what the government thinks about this. But above all, I am worried about what would happen if we were to get a left-wing government in Sweden that would introduce this requirement-free migration policy.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, also for this answer! I think it is important to highlight what the Minister glosses over, namely the fact that Magdalena Andersson recently, after the amnesty had been communicated and after one had started distributing tens of thousands of residence permits to illegal immigrants, nevertheless chose to travel down to Spain and hail the Spanish government. This was furthermore done before an audience filled with various flags that none of us would have wanted to be seen with. This happens completely without the Swedish media asking Magdalena Andersson questions about how she intends to act if she becomes Prime Minister: Can the Spanish example, with hundreds of thousands of residence permits to persons who are in the country illegally, be something for her to draw inspiration from, given that she expresses her support for Spain's government?
Mr. Speaker! I intended to mention the fact that mass immigration is sometimes likened to the Trojan horse. This comparison appears in social media feeds constantly. The underlying meaning is that people have welcomed immigrants, and among them – it has not been all of them, but they have been there – there have been individuals who have sought out Europe filled with hatred towards us who already live here. They are criminals, terrorists, and Islamists.
Countless are the terrorist attacks and crimes committed in Europe by immigrants whom we have welcomed, legally or illegally. I think, however, that the analogy fails in this case. We are not talking about thirty Greeks hidden in a wooden horse that Spain naively let roll inside the walls. We are talking about non-existent walls. It is up to 1 million illegal immigrants who are in Spain and now receive the right to stay legally. It would be more like Troy hoisting up the gate and welcoming the entire Greek army – not just those who hid in the horse – and furthermore did it from the beginning, well aware of the risks. Then they were granted residence permits in Troy despite having come there to conquer the city.
I note that Jamal El-Haj has entered the debate. He takes up the fact that many of those who have come to Sweden have contributed to our society. That is, of course, entirely correct. I believe, however, that there are people with an immigrant background who could have put forward that position with a higher ethos than Jamal El-Haj himself.
Jamal El-Haj has had to leave his party because he has repeatedly associated with Islamist sympathizers. It has become clear to everyone. We have all seen the pictures. I know many immigrants, not least those active in my party, who would express the same standpoint and argue for those well-integrated in our society and the contributions to society they make daily when they go to work. But the credibility falls flat when it is Jamal El-Haj who puts forward the standpoint.
I do not believe that Jamal El-Haj's loyalty is towards Sweden or the Swedish people. I believe that his loyalty is towards the Palestinian people. I do not intend to comment on whether he himself is an Islamist and harbors those types of values, but I can state that many in his circle of acquaintances do.
He also notes that one should be judged by one's actions. I think that should also apply to Jamal El-Haj. So he was probably also judged by the Social Democrats when he was no longer allowed to represent the party.
Jamal El-Haj (-)
Mr. Speaker! My purpose in participating in this debate was to provoke the real Sweden Democrats, and I have succeeded in that. I have fulfilled my purpose. I actually have nothing more to say.
It is appalling when the Sweden Democrats – and in particular this member – accuse Marxists who do not even believe in God of being Islamists and accuse Christians, who are not even Muslims, of being Islamists. That is exactly what this is about.
Mr. Speaker! I could stand in the speaker's chair and mention all the Sweden Democrats who have committed crimes. But there is a difference between a person like me, who is raised in the labor movement and in social democracy. We take care not to use that method. I never use it.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I can only repeat what I have said earlier. We are reforming the migration policy – away from the unconditional policy that we inherited. We have significantly reduced asylum migration. We have actually done it for a single reason, and it is about Sweden being able to succeed with the integration of all the people who have come to Sweden in recent years.
One can, in fact, have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. It is a fact that the vast majority of people who come to Sweden are honest. They want a better life. They want to work and behave correctly. It is no stranger than that. At the same time, one cannot wave away important objections when so many people arrive in such a short time. Where are people going to live? How are we to avoid overcrowding? How are we to ensure that we do not get a "us-and-them" society? How are we to handle problems with criminal gangs that recruit children and so on? One must, therefore, think through this very carefully. One must have politics to solve those problems.
We inherited a country that was in a crisis situation. I am proud of the reorganization we have made in Sweden in recent years. We have succeeded in tackling various societal problems. We have pushed back the criminal gangs. We have reduced the number of shootings. We have given people the courage to go out on the streets again and to live the life they want to live – in freedom. We always put the crime victims and the safety of ordinary people before the criminals.
I am therefore very concerned. I am concerned when I hear demands that we should now, for example, follow the Spanish example and carry out large amnesties for persons who do not have the right to be in Sweden. I am concerned when I hear demands that we should now change direction in Sweden. That must then mean that we are to return to the situation we had three and a half years ago. Back then, there were shootings every day. Criminal gangs could take liberties at the expense of ordinary honest people. The asylum migration was very extensive and created a large number of problems for people, perhaps not least for persons who themselves had immigrated to Sweden. I dare to assert that very many felt that it no longer worked. That policy had reached its end.
Part of this work also involves the fact that we today have significantly better security and order at our national borders. We can, for example, ban a person and deny a person entry if the person is defined as posing a threat to public order or security. I also stated that we have developed a, in reality, completely new regulatory framework for internal foreign national control, so that we can ensure that we actually know who is located in Sweden. We have also then made Sweden less attractive as a destination country for asylum migration.
This is important on many different levels. It is important so that we can avoid having a "us-and-them" society. It is important so that we can increase the cohesion in our country and so that we can reduce exclusion. It is also about us knowing who is located in Sweden, Mr. Speaker. This is also important from another aspect, which concerns Sweden's security.
We have today a shadow society in the country of perhaps up to 100,000 people. It is perhaps even more – no one knows. These are people who we believe are in the country but who do not have a legal right to be here. There are people there who sometimes commit crimes. There are people there who sometimes are also subjected to crimes. Several serious crimes have been committed by individuals in this group. That we know who these people are and where they are located and that they, in line with a regulated and legally secure migration policy, return home is also important for Sweden's security.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Johan Forssell, for this answer!
I would like to start with a question regarding the Minister's latest statement. How does one view the criticism that the EU Commission has now directed at Sweden specifically regarding the internal border controls? The Minister highlighted the need for them, and I view it positively that we have them in place. How does one intend to ensure that the EU does not clash with Sweden when we try to secure our own borders and our territory and protect law-abiding Swedes from potential security threats?
The consequences of the mass immigration that has hit Sweden are clear every day. We see them in the insecurity, in the exclusion, in the unemployment, in the gang crime, in the multiculturalism, in the Islamization, and so on. The negative effects of mass immigration are so obviously tangible that few politicians today dare to meet the voters by propagating for open borders and free immigration. What for a long time was an opinion only voiced by Sverigedemokrater has today won broad support in the Swedish parties.
An exception we have had to listen to during this debate: Jamal El-Haj or Jamal El-Hamas, as his former party chairman called him in the speaker's chair here. The member is proud that he has lured out a true Sweden Democrat, as he expressed it.
I would like to assert that this applies to all Sweden Democrats and certainly many others – not least the Social Democrats, given that Jamal El-Haj had to leave the Social Democrats due to the connections to anti-democratic movements that I highlighted in my previous speech. Jamal El-Haj has found himself at both Hamas-linked conferences and demonstrations with waving Hamas flags.
My point regarding my previous remark to him is: There are many wonderful people with an immigrant background who contribute to Sweden. I would not include him in that list.
TALMANNEN
I think one should be careful when balancing comments about individual members. Just invoking this misstatement by a party leader, I think, was perhaps crossing the line.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I received a question regarding how the government views the internal border controls. What Tobias Andersson said is correct. We have received this statement from the commission.
The border controls have been in place for nearly ten years. They are extended every six months. They exist for a reason, and that is to ensure that we have control over our borders in the regrettable situation that we unfortunately find ourselves in with, for example, an increased threat of terrorism.
We do not want these controls to be in place longer than is actually necessary, I want to say. We like the free movement in the EU. It is important, not least for economic reasons. We also know that this is something that affects many people in the Öresund region.
New legislation is on the way. I am thinking, for example, of the EU's migration pact, which enters into force this summer. We will have to see how it will be implemented and what consequences it will have. We are analyzing the statement from the Commission. We have just – in May – extended the controls for an additional six-month period. I also want to emphasize that we have a good dialogue with the Commission regarding these important issues. As recently as yesterday – I arrived home tonight – I was in Luxembourg and met the other migration ministers and also the Commission. We discussed, among other things, the situation within the Schengen area.
This is the answer I have to give right now, but we will return in the future when we need to make a new decision. These controls simply expire every half-year.
Thank you, Tobias Andersson and Jamal El-Haj, for this debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.