Response to interpellation 2025/26:61 on the proposal to abolish permanent residence permits
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M believes that permanent residence permits should be replaced with time-limited permits to manage integration problems and avoid previous demand-free migration policy 1. 2 M argues that the proposals are compatible with international commitments and are not prohibited by current rules 2. 3 M wants a migration policy with clear requirements, contribution ceilings, and investments in the Swedish language 3. 4 M argues that V's previous policy led to the 2015 refugee crisis and created parallel societies 3 4. 3 M believes that V's requirements for permanent residence permits are irresponsible and would lead to tax increases or cuts in welfare 3. 5 V argues that it is unjust to retroactively convert granted permits to temporary ones 5. 6 V argues that the purpose should be to lower the thresholds for citizenship 5 6. 6 V believes that it is far from the best interests of the child to revoke permanent residence permits 6. 7 V argues that the government is using scapegoat politics against immigrants to escape responsibility for unemployment, housing shortages, and the school system 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)
Madam Speaker! Tony Haddou has asked me if I consider it compatible with Swedish law, EU law, and administrative law principles to retroactively revoke already granted permanent residence permits. Haddou has also asked me what legal analysis underlies the government's assessment that this is possible without violating current rule-of-law principles and how I intend to ensure that particularly vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, or children, do not end up in an uncertain situation or lose the right to stay in Sweden. Furthermore, Haddou has asked me how the principle of the best interests of the child in the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been weighed in the preparation of this proposal and what measures the government intends to take to avoid thousands of people who have lived in Sweden for a long time ending up in an uncertain situation by having their promises of lasting security through permanent permits withdrawn.
I would like to emphasize initially that the proposals and assessments addressed in the interpellation were presented by the Minimum Level Inquiry in its final report Amendment of permanent residence permits for certain foreigners (SOU 2025:99), which was submitted to the government at the end of September. The government has not yet taken a position on the inquiry's proposals, which are currently subject to referral processing until December 19, 2025.
In the report, the investigation proposes a new law which implies that permanent residence permits shall, as a rule, be revoked and replaced with a time-limited permit, if the conditions for that permit are met. The proposal covers certain foreigners, including refugees, alternatively those in need of protection, persons who have been granted residence permits due to particularly compassionate circumstances and relatives to these groups. The purpose is to encourage those affected to want to become Swedish citizens to a greater extent. An exception rule is therefore proposed that revocation shall not occur for a person who has initiated a case for Swedish citizenship before the new law enters into force.
Neither EU law nor any other international regulation requires that residence permits be permanent. However, when considering changes to granted residence permits, fundamental principles of legal certainty and the consequences for the persons concerned shall be taken into account. The investigation assesses that the proposals are compatible with Sweden's international commitments, the Instrument of Government, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The investigation further assesses that there are no provisions in the area of migration that prohibit the introduction of legislation that entails that existing permanent residence permits are changed.
To counter unreasonable consequences, the investigation proposes that a permanent residence permit shall not be revoked if exceptional reasons speak against it and, with regard to the foreigner's expected conduct, there is no doubt that he or she should have a permanent residence permit. If a permanent residence permit is revoked, the Swedish Migration Agency shall, on its own initiative, investigate whether the person can instead be granted a time-limited residence permit. The investigation proposes that the question of a time-limited residence permit shall be examined according to the current rules in the Aliens Act and that such a permit shall be granted from within the country if the requirements for a residence permit are otherwise met.
The Government has, as stated, not yet taken a position on the proposals in the report. It has been referred, and the referral bodies have the opportunity to comment on the mentioned assessments. The proposals will subsequently be analyzed within the Government Offices.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
A permanent residence permit is not just a legal document. It is a promise: Here you can end your flight – here you are safe and can build your life and your future. Now the government wants to tear up that safety, and thousands of people risk being thrown out of Sweden. People feel unsafe, scared, and insecure in this moment because of this government. That is why I have called the minister to this debate.
This is not just any proposal. The government wants to abolish permanent residence permits in favor of a model where only time-limited permits are granted. It is a truly poor idea and something that only creates uncertainty and insecurity.
But even more serious is that the government also wants that already granted permanent residence permits can be retroactively converted into temporary ones, something which, according to the government's own investigation, can affect between 98,000 and 180,000 people, many of whom have a long period of residence in Sweden – upwards of ten years or more.
This raises a number of serious questions about legal certainty and about respect for fundamental rights. In the name of honesty, it clearly contradicts Sweden's rule-of-law principles when the government wants to withdraw favorable administrative decisions and review decisions to the detriment of people. Something like that has nothing to do with a democracy. It is both unlawful and arbitrary. We have rule-of-law principles in a democracy, not least to protect individuals against the state's exercise of power. The minister brushes this aside slightly in his answer.
In the answer, the minister tries to downplay the seriousness of this by saying that the purpose is to make those affected want to become Swedish citizens to a greater extent. But – excuse me, Madam Speaker – this shows a low level of knowledge and experience from the Migration Minister regarding people who have come to our country.
I have known refugees my entire life and worked with refugees my entire adult life, and I can say that I have never ever met anyone who has a permanent residence permit who does not want to become a Swedish citizen. The problem is not that they do not want to become citizens. The problem is that there are thresholds. No matter how much right and correct they do, the government now wants to make it even harder.
Who is it that the minister knows who does not want to become a citizen? Had he known anyone, he would have known that there are clear built-in problems beyond the individual's control, such as verifying identity or date of birth, that one comes from countries with collapsed administrative systems and so on. How are the elderly, the sick, and the disabled, who to a greater extent have more difficulty qualifying for citizenship, to manage with the government's new requirements? Are they to be deported, even though they have done everything correctly and properly and have held permanent residence permits for several years? Shall their right to stay in Sweden cease?
Madam Speaker! If the government is serious about wanting this target group to become citizens, they can put forward proposals without having to tear up permanent residence permits. Instead of doing this and clearing away the existing obstacles, the government wants to put forward even more requirements and obstacles when it comes to citizenship. How is one then supposed to feel secure and safe at all, even if one has received a promise to stay?
This is one of the strongest infringements of the individual's privacy. It is also a direct threat to the rule of law if the government proceeds with such a proposal here. I do not believe that anyone feels safer or more secure because of the minister's answer.
If the purpose is for more people to become citizens, why doesn't the minister arrange it in a legally secure manner? Why does one then want to revoke permanent residence permits?
In this speech, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, Malcolm Momodou Jallow and Karin Rågsjö (all V) concurred.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the interpellation.
There were very many different things in Tony Haddou's speech that are incorrect and that are wrong. The very smallest problem is perhaps that I have not been called here by Tony Haddou, but we have an interpellation debate right now. But that was the smallest inaccuracy and perhaps the smallest problem.
A bigger problem is possibly that Tony Haddou does not at all seem to have read the investigation that forms the basis for these proposals. Had Tony Haddou actually done so, and perhaps not just read the front page, had Tony Haddou realized that the group that we need to look further into consists of 15,000 people. That is where the investigation lands, and it is clearly a completely different figure than the one presented here. When we discuss such important issues, we should not unnecessarily scare people but be keen to discuss in an honest way, based on facts simply – clearly and distinctly expressed in this investigation.
Tony Haddou asks me questions about this and that and how we have taken all this into account in a preparation which, I want to point out, is currently ongoing. That is also the explanation for why it is not possible to give so many answers right now. The proposals are currently out for consultation, and then we will take a position on them and decide whether we should proceed and in what way it should be done in that case. But we are not there yet today.
I welcome that there is such a great interest from the Left Party in our historical reorganization of the migration policy. But Tony Haddou must have a little patience. Now the proposals are out for consultation, as mentioned, and then we will return.
What I can say, however, is that we, as we have said, are reforming the migration policy, and one part of that work is precisely to leave permanent residence permits and instead transition to a model with temporary residence permits. It is very important, not least because we can see that we still have very large integration problems in Sweden today. An important explanation for that is that for a number of years, Sweden pursued a completely requirement-free and sometimes also legally insecure migration policy, encouraged by Vänsterpartiet. We can look at the legally secure high school laws, which meant that so many people sought out Sweden in such a short time that the system simply did not function.
This was not only serious for Sweden, but we can also see a number of very serious consequences, not least for many people who have grown up in that exclusion and the segregation that became the result of the demand-free migration policy. We shall never, ever return there, at least not as long as I am migration minister.
Therefore, it is important, Madam Speaker, that Sweden has a well-thought-out migration policy. We are now changing the Swedish legislation step by step. We are aligning it with the EU's minimum level, not because it is fun, but because it is necessary. It is necessary so that Sweden will have the opportunity to manage the major integration problems that we are still struggling with after the 2015 refugee crisis. This is, of course, not the only thing we are doing. It is not the only answer when it comes to the integration problems.
But it is like this: No integration policy in the whole world can manage a return to the red-green requirement-free migration policy that led Sweden straight into the refugee crisis in 2015. We have seen the consequences of it, and we shall not return there.
Part of that work is also to place demands on the individual. I understand that this is very far from the Left Party's politics, where it is always someone else's responsibility. But for me as a Moderate and as Migration Minister, it is important to see that one's own motivations and one's own efforts also play a role. It is about learning Swedish, finding a job, and becoming a part of our Swedish social community.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! I do not know if the Minister for Migration thinks it is a finesse to not answer questions at all. I asked, for example, a question at the end of my speech: Why should permanent residence permits be revoked at all? But the answer I received was about restructuring migration policy, and it was claimed that I had not read the investigation.
The investigation is very clear that it concerns between 98,000 and 180,000 people. These are people living with uncertainty. One should not wave away the seriousness of this, as the minister here does, without even answering questions.
Permanent residence permits are a security for people who have established themselves and built their lives here. They have already received a legal promise, in a democracy and a rule of law, to be allowed to stay here permanently. Now the government wants to back down on this.
If this is to overhaul migration policy, it speaks for itself how unjust and arbitrary it is. It is not worthy of a democracy.
It is ordinary families who risk having their lives shattered from one day to the next when the government and the Sweden Democrats declare that they want to retroactively revoke permanent residence permits. It is about coworkers. It is doctors, childcare workers, and truck mechanics who are forced to live in fear of not being allowed to stay in this country, where they have built a future. It is the children's playmates whose lives are completely thrown into turmoil.
Instead of looking forward to the first lost tooth, the children are marked by their parents' anxiety about a life in limbo, where one does not know whether the family will be allowed to stay in Sweden or not. To try to downplay the seriousness of this is more serious than the question itself.
Madam Speaker! People have built up a life in security, perhaps secured an apartment and started a family and children. Why then does the Minister want to destroy their lives? They have received permanent residence permits. What is the purpose? It is already clear that these people want to become citizens. The path there cannot be to tear down their security. The path there must be to lower the thresholds and ensure that they can obtain citizenship. Such systems must be introduced – today, there are thresholds for many when it comes to becoming a citizen.
They want to become it, even after more than ten years in Sweden. But as the minister hopefully knows, there are obstacles that prevent them from becoming citizens.
What this government is doing is driving a wedge between people. In practice, they are dividing us who live in Sweden into different groups. By saying that only time-limited residence permits shall be granted and by retroactively revoking permanent residence permits, the government intends to create uncertainty and anxiety among a large number of people. The humanitarian consequences are very cruel.
Madam Speaker! Sweden has made the Convention on the Rights of the Child into law. This is not about following it. Already today, the protection in the Aliens Act is far too weak for children. There are major deficiencies that have been exacerbated under this government. We receive criticism from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child regarding this and how we handle children in the asylum process. Do not throw this away now when people have received permanent residence permits! It worsens their situation and affects their development, their mental health, and their opportunity for integration. This is as far from the best interests of the child as one can get.
Sweden should not be a country that throws people into insecurity and uncertainty. I truly think that the answer from the minister shows that a well-thought-out and and solidary refugee policy is needed, which takes its starting point in conventions and their spirit and also in the promises that Sweden has given. To be allowed to stay here permanently shall be permanent. It is not something one just tears up.
In this speech, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, Malcolm Momodou Jallow and Karin Rågsjö (all V) concurred.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! There are probably two different reasons why Tony Haddou is dissatisfied with my answers. For the first, we think very differently on migration issues. For the second, Tony Haddou does not seem to have realized that these proposals are currently under consultation. The questions that have been asked in the interpellation are therefore impossible to answer because the proposals are still undergoing consultation. The Government has not taken a position on them.
This is stated clearly and plainly in my response. I said it clearly and plainly in my first post, but Tony Haddou seems to have missed it or possibly written his statements in advance instead of listening and taking in what I say. It is a bit strange.
Madam Speaker! There are different perspectives here that stand against each other. The friction is primarily due to the fact that we have very different views on migration policy in general.
An important part of this is precisely how one views the question of whether Sweden should have rules that deviate completely from the rest of the world or whether we should continue on the path that the government has set out on.
We have tried the Left Party's migration policy. It was precisely that policy that led Sweden straight into the refugee crisis in 2015. It created major integration problems in Sweden and enormous problems with insecurity. It created parallel societies and has led to a situation where tens of thousands of children in Sweden today grow up without seeing their parents go to work. They might not even learn Swedish. This creates enormous costs for society. This is the policy that the Left Party and Tony Haddou now want us to implement again.
From the government's side, we are devoting an enormous amount of time and effort to managing the consequences of this irresponsible and in many ways completely out of touch with reality migration policy. It simply did not meet the reality. The Swedish people saw the consequences of that policy. They felt the consequences of it, and they voted it out.
We are now making enormous efforts to turn around the development on the integration side. It is about more people in work, contribution ceilings, lowered taxes, investments in the Swedish language, and setting important and reasonable requirements linked to citizenship and clarifying which values apply in Sweden.
We have reformed the migration policy. Today we have the lowest asylum migration since 1985. We have come a good way, but a great deal of work remains.
The Left Party's response in this situation is that we are now to return to precisely the policy that led Sweden straight into the refugee crisis in 2015. The Left Party wants us to have permanent residence permits even though the rest of the world has temporary ones. We shall not have any maintenance requirements for family immigration. We shall say no to setting requirements for obtaining Swedish citizenship.
There is no integration policy that can handle a return to the situation we had ten years ago, when 163,000 people seeking asylum arrived in Sweden in just one year.
The Left Party's demands and its opposition to reforms is a sure recipe for increasing exclusion, increasing insecurity, and increasing unemployment in Sweden. It would also be very burdensome for our public finances. Now I note that the Left Party has not budgeted for it in its budget proposal. That is very practical. One can possibly do that in opposition if one does not care so much about taking responsibility. But one cannot do that in a government position.
It would also lead to very large consequences for many people in Sweden. It is about tax increases for teachers, nurses and police officers – ordinary people who go and work – or of course cuts in our important welfare activities, such as school, healthcare and elderly care.
The unconditional migration policy that the Left Party now seems to be drumming up and that they want to return to is linked to very large costs for Sweden – for Sweden as a country and for our municipalities, but above all for very many people who would be affected by this.
It is the Left Party's right to push for that policy, but I, as Minister for Migration, will never implement that irresponsible policy.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! I believe it could be good for the Swedish people to hear this. After two rounds, one has not been able to provide answers to questions at all. It is about understanding the seriousness of this. The Minister himself shows how dependent he is on scapegoat politics and the rhetoric against immigrants. Scapegoat politics does not save you from solving the problems with unemployment, the housing shortage, welfare, or the school.
There are 100,000 more unemployed under this government. It is not something that, in four minutes, one can blame the Left Party for. It is nothing that, in four minutes, one can blame immigrants for. The government has shown very clearly that they are going to the election on a hatred towards immigrants and on a scapegoat policy. They flee their responsibility for having completely ignored unemployment, the housing shortage and welfare, and not having cared about the school at all. When it comes to the economy, they have slammed on the brakes and totally stopped. Everything is more expensive. People feel that. Then the Migration Minister needs the scapegoat policy.
I do not think we will get any further than that. But I want to tell the minister that, before I came to the Riksdag this morning, I met several fellow citizens here outside who handed over lists of names against the proposal to revoke permanent residence permits. They have gathered 66,406 signatures, and this is still ongoing.
I would now like to hand these over to the Minister for Migration in the debate. I hope that they understand the extent, but also that people out there live in fear and insecurity. It is something the Minister can do something about. Their children also have a right to safety and a future. It is a promise that they have been given. It absolutely does not need to be broken.
In this speech, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, Malcolm Momodou Jallow and Karin Rågsjö (all V) concurred.
Migrationsministern Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I have now answered Tony Haddous's questions several times. I do not think it will matter much if I do it one more time.
I note that Tony Haddou does not want us to talk about the Left Party's policy. I can understand that. We have, in fact, tried that policy once, with enormous costs for Sweden. We know what it created. It created insecurity. It sent tens of thousands of children into segregation and poor integration. The children did not see their parents learning the Swedish language or even going to work. It was an unemployment that split Sweden.
We are still working on managing the consequences of the demand-free migration policy that the Left Party now wants us to return to. I think it is completely irresponsible. At best, it is a naive policy. In reality, it is a very dangerous policy. The price for that policy – for Tony Haddous' proposal to return to the situation in 2015 – will in reality be borne by very many children in our country, who will grow up under very poor conditions. It is nothing that I, as Migration Minister, want to contribute to.
I have nothing against people who come from other countries, as Tony Haddou claims. I know that it is the type of rhetoric that one might resort to in the debate if one doesn't have much else. What I am against is a requirement-free migration policy. I think it is important that when people come to Sweden, we clarify what opportunities exist here, that we provide support and that we provide help. We do an incredible amount, not least initiatives on the Swedish language. It is about more people entering employment, about benefit ceilings, and about it always paying to work. But it is also about us placing requirements on the individual. That is important. Own efforts actually matter. It is an important Swedish value. It is a value that has built Sweden into what it is today and which allows us to enjoy the prosperity we have. But then we actually cannot, Madam Speaker, do as the Vänsterpartiet and return to the requirement-free migration policy that did not pass the test of reality but instead led Sweden straight into the refugee crisis in 2015.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.