Decommissioning of permanent residence permits and adaptation of Swedish law to the EU's Migration and Asylum Pact

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government's work to get order in Swedish migration policy continues right up to the very end of this mandate period. The pace of reform is relentlessly high.

The previous large-scale immigration to Sweden, in combination with a lack of integration, has contributed to our country facing major challenges with a growing sense of exclusion. We Moderates have therefore promised the Swedish people a paradigm shift within the migration area after decades of mismanagement and political fear of touching the issue.

It matters who is in power. Together with our friends in the blue and yellow team, we are now placing Sweden on par with other European countries so that we do not stand out as a country with particularly favorable and generous rules in the area of immigration law.

During the Swedish presidency of the EU during the spring of 2023, important and arduous work was carried out by the then Minister for Migration, our current Minister for Foreign Affairs, Maria Malmer Stenergard, so that the union could reach an agreement and make decisions on a common asylum and migration pact. This was completely necessary so that we would also, at the EU level, be able to establish a regulatory framework so that we as a union can also jointly bring order and clarity to migration policy.

It is about strengthening the control over the EU's external borders and ensuring that the asylum process is streamlined. So-called secondary movements, where applicants for international protection travel further between EU member states, are countered. Applicants' rights are guaranteed, and furthermore, no EU country subjected to migration pressure shall be left alone.

The pact means, among other things, that asylum processes will become faster and returns more efficient. This is good for Sweden, and it is good for European cooperation. The Swedish government's and the Moderate migration minister Malmer Stenergards work was absolutely crucial to getting this in place.

Now we also need to incorporate the new rules and their terminology as well as their systematics into Swedish immigration law. It is among other things what the proposal that we are debating today has to handle.

Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government has, as I initially mentioned, also established that Swedish migration policy shall not be more extensive or generous than what is required according to our international commitments and EU law. Therefore, the possibility of being granted permanent residence as an asylum seeker is now being phased out.

Since the migration crisis just over ten years ago, when over 160,000 people sought asylum in Sweden, permanent residence permits as a result of someone being granted asylum have in practice been almost entirely removed, but not in all parts. There is also no requirement in EU law to grant such permanent residence permits.

In order for Sweden not to have greater factors of attraction to our country than necessary, the possibilities for these permits for asylum-related immigration are now being phased out. The right to a public counsel during the processing of asylum cases, or cases regarding international protection as they will now be called, will also be limited.

Madam Speaker! Many who seek to come to Europe and Sweden do so primarily to obtain a better life for themselves and for their families. That must be respected. But an absolute majority who come here do not have grounds for asylum and must therefore return to their home countries.

If one stands up for the principles of regulated immigration, a no must be a no. The new asylum and migration pact contributes to sharpening this through an increased focus on return. But the one who comes to, for example, Sweden and needs protection shall also receive it. A yes on an asylum application shall lead to an expectation that one is quickly integrated with requirements for knowledge of both the Swedish language and Swedish society. One shall support oneself and have an honest way of life when one, as a foreign citizen, is here.

The end of a successful integration process should be an opportunity for Swedish citizenship. Since Saturday, on National Day itself, Swedish citizenship has been re-evaluated by us Moderates and our coalition partners with exactly requirements for demonstrated effort and integration capacity. We have done this despite loud protests from the left-wing parties in this chamber.

Madam Speaker! The left-wing opposition remains completely in disagreement regarding the paradigm shift in migration policy that we are now implementing. None of what we have done could have been achieved if Magdalena Andersson had continued to be Prime Minister and Morgan Johansson Migration Minister.

Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet continue to be the most extreme. They say a flat no to the entire moderate-led government's proposition, even though, for example, the Council on Legislation has stated that it is not an option to let the current legal situation continue.

The Pact will enter into force with direct applicability in just a few days, but despite that, both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet want the government to begin a new task aimed at more generous conditions in our country than in the rest of the EU for those seeking asylum in Sweden specifically. It is completely incomprehensible.

Centerpartiet has, as usual, a number of objections which however will once again lead to more asylum seekers to Sweden. Some EU-law minimum level is obviously not of interest to them.

I am most surprised, however, by the Social Democrats, who for years have spoken about Sweden having a strict migration policy – at least as a rhetorical device. But in this report, they want, among other things, that quota refugees should also continue to be able to be granted permanent residence permits, which EU law does not require. They want to introduce a new, more generous type of residence permit which they call an establishment permit, which EU law does not require. They want the state of Sweden to also continue to cover large legal costs for more people in the form of public counsel, which EU law does not require.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are sliding more and more towards letting go of the idea that Sweden should have a strict migration policy. They still use the term in the public debate, but the proposals put forward in the Swedish Riksdag in recent months, not least in the report we are debating today, show that they do not quite have the strength to uphold the promises of a strict migration policy when the left-wing winds gain an ever stronger foothold internally.

Madam Speaker! How will it go if misfortune arrives after the election this autumn and the Social Democrats are to negotiate with the Left Party and the Green Party over government power, the two parties that are truly extreme in terms of Swedish asylum and migration legislation? We can all calculate that there will be no talk of any strict migration policy as long as the Social Democrats get the keys to Rosenbad. Power takes precedence over political direction as usual when it comes to the Social Democrats.

If one wants a tight or even minimal asylum migration to Sweden, which we Moderates promise to stick to, one must in the autumn election vote so that the Moderate-led government can continue to govern the country for at least four more years. No other alternative than the blue and yellow team exists, clearly seen.

Madam Speaker! I would therefore like to conclude by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal and the rejection of the reservations.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has committed itself to international conventions and the right to asylum. Consequently, we have an obligation to ensure that people have the opportunity to seek asylum and that the process is conducted in a legally secure manner.

In Sweden, it works in such a way that people seeking protection here are given a public counsel throughout the entire process, that is to say a legal representative, a lawyer, who helps the asylum seeker to understand the process, understand legal issues and ensure that important circumstances come to light before decisions are made. It is a system that has functioned well and which has served the right to asylum well.

Now lawyers are no longer to be granted access to cases, but the government thinks that holding a brief information meeting is sufficient. Lawyers are expected to provide legal advice without being given access to documents or knowing anything about the process. It is not a functioning, legally secure process.

Lawyers from the Bar Association declared in DN this weekend that this violates ethical principles for lawyers. They were clear that if the Riksdag votes for the proposal, lawyers cannot undertake these assignments. They have an ethical responsibility as lawyers to provide individual, correct, and well-founded advice, which they will no longer be able to do as a result of this proposal.

What do the Moderates have to say to the lawyers who will no longer be able to do their jobs? What does one have to say to asylum seekers who seek protection but will no longer be granted a legally secure process?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has one of the world's most legally secure asylum processes. We should be incredibly proud of that. We have independent authorities that work with the issues and independent courts that make the decisions.

Tony Haddou seems to be misinformed. It is not the case today that all asylum seekers have the right to a public counsel. It is only if one is presumed to receive a rejection that one has had the right to a public counsel. Right must be right.

What we are now doing so that Sweden does not stand out compared to other European countries is that we are aligning ourselves with the minimum level required according to EU law, also regarding the public legal aid, the legal assistance one can receive. We have in Sweden previously been very extensive and generous with this. But now we are moving towards the EU's minimum level in order to reduce Sweden's factors of attraction.

We who have the privilege of sitting on the Migrationsverket's oversight council know that these questions have also been asked there. Migrationsverket answers that they will be able to resolve these questions moving forward – which lawyers or others will make up the group that will provide legal assistance moving forward.

It is naturally important that this remains. But Sweden shall not be more generous than the rest of the European Union, because it means that more people can imagine seeking to come to just Sweden. It is this that we want to move away from.

This is what it is about when the Social Democrats talk about a strict migration policy – which we have the strength to actually implement in Swedish legislation, as we now adapt to the EU's minimum level. Tony Haddou and Vänsterpartiet say no to this, in all parts, because they fundamentally do not like that we are doing this. Now they have found a common issue, that of the public assistants, but fundamentally Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want to reject everything. They still want permanent residence permits as the basis. They still want the legislation that applied before 2015, when we received an enormous pressure on Sweden. Tony Haddou should answer how this is possible.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! There was a time when the Moderates cared about the right to asylum and people's professional ethics. This has been gone for a long time; that time is over.

The Speaker is trying to evade the responsibility of answering the question. This is not about the minimum level or about whether more or fewer people should come here. It is about lawyers being able to do their jobs. Here, the Tidö parties are depriving lawyers of the possibility to do their jobs. Why is that being done?

I understand that the government wants fewer people to come to Sweden, but this is not about that. This is about a crazy setup, I want to say. No other instance in society would accept something such. No one would want to meet a doctor who is expected to give advice without first seeing the medical records. This is what the Moderaterna and the Tidö parties are now doing in asylum cases. Lawyers shall not be granted access to the asylum seekers' cases. It is not about more or fewer people coming here.

This is strongly against professional ethics and impairs legal certainty to such an extent that the process will no longer be able to take place in a legally secure manner. Why do the Tidö parties not want to stand up for legal certainty in the asylum process at all? Now, people who risk persecution, torture, or human trafficking are to meet lawyers who are not allowed insight into their cases. How are the lawyers then supposed to be able to give advice, Madam Speaker?

I think it is good that professional groups and professions are speaking out against this government. Teachers and healthcare staff spoke out when it came to reporting laws. It went against their professional ethics. Now lawyers are speaking out – this goes against their professional ethics because it conflicts with the ethical principles for lawyers. They will not accept these assignments unless this is fixed. In what way do the Moderaterna and the Tidö parties intend to sort this out?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Just as I mentioned in my previous contribution, these objections from Vänsterpartiet are fundamentally not about this specific question at all, but this is about the general attitude towards the paradigm shift we are now undertaking in migration policy.

We believe that Sweden should not go beyond what is required according to our international commitments and EU law. That is precisely what lies behind what we do throughout this entire bill – even regarding public legal aid and legal advice, which this is about. It is therefore nothing that implies that the right to asylum would be restricted in any way. That is not what this is about, but it is about Sweden no longer being more extensive than other European countries have been.

One has, according to the proposal that is now on the table, the continued right to legal advice. If one wants to provide insight into one's case, one must provide such a power of attorney. This, too, can be arranged. It is therefore not about restricting in any way, but about us placing Sweden at the lowest level required according to EU law, so that we do not have factors of attraction compared to other European countries.

We have noted this both in the bill, which comes from the government, and in the committee's report, which a majority in the committee stands behind. We think that it is now time for Sweden to settle on the minimum level so that we can manage the integration of all those who have come to Sweden. That is where the focus should lie in the migration policy moving forward, not on being more extensive than EU law requires.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's proposal to set asylum seekers' rights at the EU minimum level. If one reads the Council on Legislation's opinion on the proposal, one can get no other impression than that the minimum level is what the government has strived for regardless of consequences – even if it would become more expensive for the taxpayers when public legal aid is removed in the first instance and the responsibility is placed entirely on Migrationsverket, only to then have to pay almost the same costs in a court process, which in more and more cases may lead to the cases still having to be sent back to Migrationsverket for a new processing.

One strives for a minimum level at the expense of legal certainty. One strives for a minimum level despite the risk that refugees who have a right to protection because they risk persecution and death do not receive that protection.

Viktor Wärnick often says that he is proud that we have the world's most legally secure asylum system. I want to inform Viktor Wärnick that Sweden, even with today's system, is repeatedly convicted for deportations in conflict with the UN's prohibition of torture. Even today, Sweden is convicted for deportations in conflict with the European Convention. With these changes, which are far-reaching, one devalues everything that the Moderaterna talk about when they say they are proud of today's legal security.

I wonder: Is it really more important to reach a minimum level than to ensure that those who need protection are given a legally secure process?

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! Of course, no system is completely flawless. But when the Green Party debates migration policy, it sounds as if all deportations are wrong. Everyone who receives a deportation decision in Sweden has received it on incorrect grounds. No one should have to leave Sweden. A no should not at all be a no. This is the starting point in the Green Party's rhetoric.

I mean that we fundamentally have one of the world's most legally secure asylum processes and that we should be proud of that. We can always get better. But when Miljöpartiet speaks about our asylum process, it often sounds as if it is flawed from beginning to end. That is not the case.

Annika Hirvonen is completely right that we want to settle on the legal minimum level that we are able to settle on with regard to international commitments and EU law. The reason for this is that Sweden has received very many asylum seekers over many decades, especially during the last decade – during 2015–2016 we reached a peak with several hundred thousand asylum seekers. During Magdalena Andersson's eight years in government, when Miljöpartiet was part of the government for seven years, we received 320,000 asylum seekers.

Integration is not working in Sweden. We can no longer be a country that stands out particularly compared to other European countries. We cannot have an order that makes it particularly interesting to seek out Sweden to have one's application examined here. Therefore, we are now aligning with the EU's minimum level. This is what it is about at its core.

The legal advice that one will be entitled to, which also follows EU law, is attached to this proposal. This will ensure that one receives the help that is needed. It is fundamental. This is what we are now presenting so that Sweden can manage the integration moving forward.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Council on Legislation notes that without an adequate preparation of the question, what effects the maximally restrictive line towards refugee immigration can bring about in various respects, it cannot go further in its assessment than that it appears doubtful that the lowest possible level of refugee reception at every point would promote integration and reduce exclusion. And what is worse: The risk is palpable that the system in some cases closes the border also for those who truly have a right to international protection.

What is being said is, in short, that the government cannot at all justify the effects of its own proposal. There are many fine words about how it would promote integration. But one cannot even make an assessment of how and in what way that would be the case. How many fewer will come when it becomes less legally secure?

One does not answer the adequate criticism from referral bodies, and one also ignores the warnings from the Bar Association now. The Bar Association says that the way one is now proceeding to implement this means that it is not possible for a lawyer to undertake these assignments, which we in the Riksdag have otherwise agreed that lawyers are most suitable to undertake.

And what is worse, as the Council on Legislation writes: The risk that the system in some cases also closes the border for those who truly have a right to international protection is palpable. There is, therefore, a risk that Sweden does not live up to the right of asylum and that it becomes so restrictive and insecure in terms of legal certainty that we will deport people to persecution, torture, or death. We in Miljöpartiet consider this to be a completely unacceptable consequence. I believe that Viktor Wärnick should take the criticism very seriously.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that it is precisely Miljöpartiet that refers to the Council on Legislation in matters concerning the migration legislation. It is the same party that, in a government position with emphasis, demanded that we should introduce the legally insecure upper secondary school laws, despite the Council on Legislation's criticism that the legislative work had reached its limit for what could be considered acceptable. The same party now uses the Council on Legislation as a scapegoat in the political debate.

Of course, one must take the Council on Legislation's criticism regarding the legal areas seriously. But the Council on Legislation says at the same time, which the Green Party and Annika Hirvonen do not mention here, that it is therefore not the time to refrain from making decisions to introduce the different parts of the Asylum and Migration Pact into Swedish immigration law, because, according to the Council on Legislation, it is not an option to let the current legal situation persist.

Despite this, the Left Party and the Green Party choose to primarily reject the entire bill. Primarily, they therefore think that we should say no to everything and that the government should restart the work in a more generous and extensive direction in order to return to the Swedish Parliament with new legislation that goes beyond what is required according to EU law.

I think that Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet should answer how it can be that in one moment one wants to use the Council on Legislation as a punching bag, but in the next moment does not want to listen to the Council on Legislation.

I think it is important that we now do what we have said we will do. Sweden shall not stand out compared to other member states in the European Union, which we have done for a very long time. This has led to very many seeking out just Sweden. We are aligning ourselves with the EU's minimum level, and we have also said that it is a fundamental part of the paradigm shift that the Moderate-led government has made. The right of asylum is continued to be protected, despite what Annika Hirvonen says.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! This debate needs to begin with some observations regarding the matter itself. The Council on Legislation has written an opinion that criticizes both the bill itself and its preparation. Deficiencies in the knowledge base, deficiencies in the handling of the referral bodies' views, short and far too fragmented referral periods, and pure guesswork and deficiencies in the democratic anchoring are highlighted.

The parties have time and again shown how they handle the legislative process and how they relate to knowledge, research, and experience. If there were a top list for poorly prepared proposals, this proposition would probably lie very high up on it.

The criticism does not stop there but also comes from the referral bodies. It has been very significant there as well. The criticism comes from authorities, academia, the judiciary, and civil society.

The time to comment on such a large and decisive change as the implementation of the pact and the phasing out of permanent residence permits has been far too limited. Certainly, there has been a time factor regarding the introduction of the pact. That must be respected. But regarding permanent residence permits, there is no compelling factor.

But the government has spent the mandate period fussing with nonsense such as arguing over wage demands and return migration grants and threatening to retroactively revoke permanent residence permits instead of tackling the real issues. They have engaged in culture wars instead of orderly processes and real problems, quite simply.

All this, of course, falls straight into the lap of Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and his weak leadership, as well as the fact that it is actually Jimmie Åkesson who has steered this mandate period.

Madam Speaker! With this established, we can address the question in substance. We Social Democrats believe that the phasing out of permanent residence permits is primarily the right way to go. It is about creating a clear and distinct path to citizenship.

However, the government's proposal falls short in this regard as the path between the temporary residence permit and a potential future citizenship is not clear. We also see great risks that the deportations, not only of teenagers but of entire families, will continue moving forward.

That is also why we think it is important that quota refugees are granted permanent residence permits when they arrive. A quota refugee is, by definition, someone whom we bring here. We are therefore choosing that they shall come here. It is the absolutely weakest and most vulnerable people in the world to whom Sweden extends a hand. Not giving them permanent residence permits is, frankly, cruel. Furthermore, more quota refugees do not result in any asylum pressure on Sweden. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that quota refugees are granted permanent residence permits even moving forward.

But in the Tidö parties' Sweden, schoolmates, friends, colleagues and neighbors will continue to be deported despite being rooted here and having strong ties. It is not a strict migration policy. It is a stupid migration policy.

The strict migration policy is, in fact, about ensuring that the pressure to migrate to Sweden does not differ from the pressure to migrate to other EU countries, and it shall be low. Due to the great responsibility that Sweden has taken on over the last decades, we shall also have a lower migration pressure for a foreseeable period.

But the strict migration policy is not about making life as difficult as possible for those who are already in the country. Nor is it about the idea that there should be an intrinsic value in deporting people. Murderers and rapists should, of course, be sent out as soon as possible. But those who have done everything right and want to be a part of this country shall also be given good opportunities to become that.

Madam Speaker! That is why we Social Democrats want to introduce a residence permit. It should be a clear step on the way toward citizenship, a permit that promotes integration and community. Therefore, there shall be language and social studies requirements in order to be able to obtain a residence permit, just as there shall be a self-sufficiency requirement. This type of permit exists in countries such as Canada and France, and it is a good way to manage the path to citizenship. It will also reduce the risk of families being deported before they have obtained status as permanent residents.

With the establishment permit, the path to citizenship becomes understandable and gains legitimacy. The person who behaves correctly and who shows that they want to integrate will also integrate faster, thanks to their own efforts.

Madam Speaker! The Council on Legislation is clear in its opinion that there is a risk that those who have grounds for protection will be denied protection due to the order that the Tidö parties are now introducing. This would mean that Sweden risks violating the international conventions we have committed to follow. It actually means that we may possibly violate the right to asylum.

We Social Democrats stand up for the right of asylum. It is a right based on a deep humanism and on an experience from humanity's greatest catastrophe: World War II.

It is in light of this that the question of public legal assistants must be seen. The Bar Association points out that the order now being introduced violates legal ethics. It is a very serious observation, an observation that confirms the risks that the Council on Legislation highlights. Sweden will therefore likely breach its convention obligations when the laws we are debating here today enter into force.

That the Sweden Democrats are cheering because of this is not unexpected. But that the Liberals and the Moderates, who still claim to have at least a small element of liberalism left in their bodies, can accept this is in many ways shocking. I wonder what Bertil Ohlin and Torgny Segerstedt would say about this way of proceeding when it comes to international conventions and liberal principles.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by stating the following:

This government has repeatedly been criticized for its way of proceeding when it comes to legislative processes. It is rather the rule than the exception in this area. It is also about how it proceeds when it comes to people's lives and well-being. The respect for both parts is significantly lacking. Anxiety, fear, and legal uncertainty characterize many of the proposals that the Tidö parties are now putting on the table.

For us Social Democrats, it is important to be clear that we will have a strict migration policy. But it must never be about deliberately making people's lives harder or undermining the rule of law in the way the SD-led government is now doing. It is possible to be strict and still maintain the direction for a Sweden where effort pays off and where we stick together – a Sweden that is a bit more like what Sweden should be, quite simply.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of reservations 2 and 4.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are a very creative party – one must give them that. The Social Democrats want to replace permanent residence permits with a so-called establishment permit. An establishment permit is a permanent residence permit but with a different name. This is what the Social Democrats mean by a strict migration policy. One has a liberal migration policy but uses other terms.

The Social Democrats describe the establishment permit as a substitute for a permanent residence permit. They acknowledge in their reservation that it is, in practice, a permanent residence permit – but with a different name. It becomes a bit ridiculous.

Do the Social Democrats want a strict migration policy where those who are granted asylum in Sweden stay here for a limited period, or do you want these foreigners to stay here permanently?

Do the Social Democrats have any principles at all when it comes to migration policy? It doesn't seem so. On one hand, you want to retain some form of permanent residence permit and call it an establishment permit. On the other hand, you will vote for the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas proposal to phase out permanent residence permits, which is good.

I do not think the voters really understand what the Social Democrats actually stand for.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It is regrettable that Member Nima Gholam Ali Pour does not know how the own process will function moving forward. What will occur is a number of reviews of the temporary residence permits. This will subsequently lead to obtaining the status of permanent resident.

For us, it is important that those who behave correctly and who want to be a part of this country and who show that by passing knowledge tests, language tests, and securing livelihood can also feel that they can work towards citizenship. The criticism that some parts of the Tidö parties had towards their own insane proposal to withdraw permanent residence permits retroactively was indeed that there was no clear path to citizenship.

By introducing a residence permit, we will bridge the period from year two and three to year five, when one receives the status of permanent resident – if one shows that they want to be a part of this country and if one behaves correctly. Indeed, situations can arise – and I understand that Member Nima Gholam Ali Pour would welcome this – where entire families, neighbors, friends in the football team, and perhaps teachers are deported because they have not reached the status of permanent resident. This is the bridge that we believe those who behave correctly should have the opportunity to cross.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! We can then return to what the Social Democrats call a residence permit. If this is nothing other than a new permanent residence permit, why do the Social Democrats want to establish such a thing at all?

If the Social Democrats support the idea that foreigners seeking asylum – and certain other groups – should only have time-limited residence permits in Sweden and nothing resembling a permanent residence permit, why does one want to establish a new residence permit that resembles a permanent residence permit?

If the idea is that persons who have been granted asylum are to stay in Sweden temporarily until the need for protection ceases, why was a special permit needed that is to apply all the way until citizenship?

The government's and the Sweden Democrats' line is very simple. Protection shall be temporary. Those who wish to stay permanently in Sweden shall meet the requirements that exist in order to be able to obtain Swedish citizenship.

The Social Democrats' model seems instead to be based on first abolishing permanent residence permits and then creating a new permit that fulfills exactly the same function. I therefore still wonder: Do the Social Democrats believe that asylum should lead to a temporary stay in Sweden, or do you believe that asylum in practice should lead to a permanent settlement?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, it is embarrassing to listen to the member. He says: Now we return to the establishment permits. The only thing I spoke about in my speech was the establishment permits, Nima Gholam Ali Pour. Drop the talking points and listen instead to what I am actually saying! I described what the establishment permit is. That was what I devoted my contribution to.

It is distressing that the member does not know what he is deciding on. It states in the directive for permanent residence that it is a permanent status. After five years with continuous grounds for residence, you therefore receive permanent residence rights in an EU country. It states in the directive.

You say that one should submit an application every five years and receive a new permit, and you say that it would make asylum seekers leave the country. That is an incorrect description of what you are doing. The only thing you introduce is an opportunity to deport people between year three and year five – or if they have not had continuous grounds for a permit. The whole idea, therefore, is to deport people. That is, so to speak, the point.

I am convinced that people who have come to our country and who do everything right, learn the language and clearly show that they want to become Swedish citizens, shall be given a fair chance to become so. The Sweden Democrats do not want people to become Swedish citizens, which we have seen regarding the handling of the Swedish Migration Agency's processing and also regarding the issue of transitional rules for citizenship.

The Sweden Democrats' idea is, therefore, deportation. One is allowed to have that idea – absolutely. But it would be good if the member at least knew what it is he is actually deciding on.

When it comes to being permanently resident, it states clearly in the directive that it is a permanent status.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! We are now carrying out the paradigm shift that we have promised the Swedish people. Just as I have said in a number of previous posts in the migration policy debate here in the chamber, I believe that the Social Democrats are fundamentally satisfied that we are now doing this. It would, in fact, never have been possible for the Social Democrats to do it if they had remained in power and had government partners in the form of Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, who say no to everything.

Despite this, the Social Democrats are now moving more and more in the direction of a more generous migration policy. I think it has been clear throughout the spring that it is internal left-wing winds within the Social Democrats that are now leading to a departure from a strict migration policy.

Ola Möller often uses a rhetorical trick and says that migration policy should be strict but not stupid. Strict but not stupid apparently means that we should depart from EU law and be more extensive, more generous than what is required, despite the Social Democrats having previously said that a strict migration policy implies a policy in accordance with the minimum level of EU law and our international commitments.

As I mentioned earlier, the Social Democrats now believe in this report that we should go further and do more than what EU law requires regarding quota refugees. They are to be granted permanent residence permits, even though this is not required. They want to introduce a new and more generous type of residence permit, the establishment permit that Ola Möller speaks of, which EU law does not require. They also want the state of Sweden to continue to fund expensive public legal aid, which EU law does not require.

How is it that the Social Democrats are sliding in this direction? Is it about an adaptation to the extremists in Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet in order to even be able to put together a government base after the election in the autumn? Or how is it that the Social Democrats have abandoned the strict migration policy for a more generous one, which they call non-restrictive?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I still think that the following sentence from the Council on Legislation deserves to be repeated: "Without an adequate preparation of the question of what effects the maximally restrictive line towards refugee immigration can bring about in various respects, the Council on Legislation will no longer go further in its assessment than that it appears doubtful that the lowest possible level of refugee reception would at every point promote integration and reduce exclusion. And what is worse: the risk that the system in some cases closes the border even for those who truly have a right to international protection is palpable."

Here we have come. We have reached a point where the Moderates are actively doing what is the Sweden Democrats' wet dream, that is, undermining our international conventions. One is thus prepared to decide on legislation that in practice abdicates the right of asylum.

I am actually surprised that Viktor Wärnick has ended up there, and I believe that Viktor Wärnick himself realizes that he is a prisoner in the rhetorical straitjacket of a minimal refugee immigration. The Moderates have abandoned the strict migration policy, because the strict migration policy is not about messing with people and deporting them.

It would have been interesting if Viktor Wärnick had listened to his own Minister of Justice and to the Minister of Finance, who made the analysis that it was the deportations of teenagers that caused the Moderates' worst result in 20 years in SCB's measurement of the week.

It may be so, Viktor Wärnick, that the rhetoric about making Jimmie Åkesson happy and making him Minister for Migration has reached its end. What the Moderaterna are doing now is not strict migration policy, but it is stupid migration policy.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Madam Speaker! If we are to comment on SCB's party sympathy survey, I understand that Ola Möller and the Social Democrats feel a palpable stress, because there one sees that the trend for the Social Democrats is continuing to decline. In other surveys, the trend for Magdalena Andersson as opposition leader is continuing to decline. We also see that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have benefited from the debate that has taken place.

That is what I mean by that the left-wing winds are almost blowing up to a storm within the Social Democratic leadership, and it has led to Ola Möller and his party comrades here in the Swedish Riksdag now feeling compelled to move away from a strict migration policy to a more generous one, even though in the rhetoric one still speaks of a strict migration policy.

A strict migration policy is what Magdalena Andersson has spoken about intending to pursue. How that is to work with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet in the same government, no sensible person can understand. But it is what she mentions, and it is also what has been the basis for us settling on the minimum level that our commitments require, regardless of whether it concerns international commitments or EU law.

The Social Democrats have expressed this previously, but now a number of exceptions, additions, and more generous rules are being made up, and then one stands there and claims that this is about the deportation policy being discontinued. What Ola Möller does not mention is that those who do not have the right to be in Sweden should be deported. This applies regardless of whether one has a temporary residence permit or not when a new assessment is made or if the first assessment is made.

Nor even this seems the Social Democrats to stand behind anymore, but now they are talking about the deportation policy. They are talking about that the migration policy should be strict but not stupid. I cannot see it as anything other than an adaptation to make it work with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet after the election in the autumn.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are almost twice as large as the Moderates in the SCB measurement and are more than 3 percent above the previous election result, so I understand that as a Moderate one tries to impose a stress on the Social Democrats. It is clear – as a Social Democrat one always wants to have 40 percent, so I can admit that there is some form of stress regarding the fact that we are not approaching the 40-percent mark. But when it comes to replacing Ulf Kristersson's and Jimmie Åkesson's government, we feel little stress.

It is also interesting that it is portrayed as if Social Democracy would somehow have eased the pressure regarding the strict migration policy. We have not done that. We say that we want to abolish permanent residence permits but have an establishment permit that can be achieved if certain set criteria are met. We want to do this to accelerate integration, because there is clear research indicating that for those who realize and feel that they are to be part of a country moving forward, integration will also proceed faster. Therefore, the establishment permit, which of course shall be temporary, is a very good way to go.

Since it is exciting that no one outside the Tidö parties is allowed to say anything about any kind of relief, exceptions, or safety valves. But when they now themselves introduce a kind of high school law 2 to save themselves from what the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance define as one of the major problems for the Moderaterna, that is to say their own deportation policy, then it is wise politics.

The Moderates are therefore allowed to carry out a policy that lacks legal certainty. I have stood here many times and said that I think the first upper secondary school law was wrong. I think one should have listened to the Council on Legislation that time, I think one should listen to the Council on Legislation even now.

Viktor Wärnick has not learned anything. He criticized that one did not listen to the Council on Legislation last time, and now he himself ignores it. I cannot see that it is consistent with the tail-following.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are once again dealing with one of the bills that truly provides us with the changes we have long needed.

One proposal in the bill we are discussing today is to phase out permanent residence permits for several groups of foreigners. These groups consist of those in need of protection, permanently settled foreigners who have residence permits due to exceptionally compassionate circumstances, and foreigners who have residence permits due to certain permanent execution obstacles. Neither will foreigners who have residence permits because they are relatives of persons from these groups be able to obtain permanent residence permits.

There has never been a need to grant these groups permanent residence permits. It sends the wrong signals about what, for example, asylum is. If you are granted asylum in Sweden and thus a residence permit because you are in need of protection, you shall stay in Sweden as long as you need that protection. When the war you fled from ends and you are no longer in need of protection, you must return to your home country. That is what asylum is: You are granted temporary asylum in a country to later return to your home country when peace returns.

Some parties in this assembly have distorted this so that asylum only means that people in general come to Sweden and settle here forever. That is not the purpose of the right to asylum. If one has been in Sweden for a longer period and fulfills all the requirements, one can of course apply to become a citizen. That is another matter. In that case, one has joined the Swedish community. One has learned the language, one has adopted social codes, and one has created a real connection to Sweden.

As a foreigner with a residence permit in Sweden, one should assume that one's stay here is not to be permanent. A residence permit should apply as long as one has grounds to stay in Sweden. If one came here as a refugee, one can stay here as long as one is a refugee. If there is peace in one's home country, one shall return, if one has not become a citizen of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! A phasing out of permanent residence permits for the groups I have mentioned will, among other things, change the citizenship process. Usually, there are requirements that a foreign national must have a permanent residence permit to obtain citizenship, but since these groups can no longer be granted permanent residence permits, they must instead have well-founded prospects of being granted a durable residence permit in order to be able to obtain citizenship.

The assessment of whether a foreigner has well-founded prospects of being granted a permanent residence permit is forecast-based. The authority applying the law may assess whether the foreigner, based on intention and circumstances, will be able to have a residence permit in Sweden for a longer period. The assessment is facilitated by the fact that the Riksdag has voted to increase the residency requirement for citizenship to eight years, since the person applying for citizenship usually has already had a permanent residence permit for a longer period.

In summary, it is about assessing whether the foreign national will stay in Sweden for a longer period in the future. The procedure has its origin in EU law and already exists in the Aliens Act when it concerns certain family migration. There is therefore a practice regarding how the assessments should be made.

I can add that immigration to Sweden will decrease when we phase out permanent residence permits for certain groups. That one did not have to provide any reason to retain their residence permit in Sweden was clearly a magnet for asylum seekers when they chose which country in Europe they would travel to.

Madam Speaker! Another part of this bill concerns adapting Swedish law to the EU's Migration and Asylum Pact. Among other things, it concerns adapting Swedish law to the Asylum Procedures Regulation, which gives the government or the authority designated by the government the power to design a list of safe countries of origin and safe third countries, which will make it possible to reject asylum applications more quickly. A safe country of origin means that the person comes from a country where there is normally no need for protection. A safe third country means that the person has already passed through or stayed in another safe country where protection can be obtained. In both cases, the need for Sweden to examine the asylum application is reduced.

Through the EU's migration and asylum pact, Sweden will have greater opportunities to refuse to examine asylum applications from persons who already have effective protection in another country. If protection has already been granted in a first asylum country, one should not be able to travel further through several countries and demand a new asylum review in Sweden. That arrangement will protect Europe and Sweden against the mass migration that we were hit by in 2015.

Madam Speaker! Another important part of the bill concerns screening. For a long time, Swedish migration policy has been characterized by a perspective where the focus has been on reception. Now, the focus is instead shifted to control.

Those who come to Sweden and seek international protection shall first undergo a screening. The purpose is to establish identity, carry out security checks, register the person, and collect the information required to determine which procedure shall be applied. Sweden has previously checked identity and registered asylum seekers, but through the migration pact, these checks are strengthened and formalized through a specific screening procedure that shall be carried out before the person proceeds in the process.

The state must know who is on Swedish territory before the person is admitted into the regular asylum procedure. We must know who the person is, where the person comes from, and if there are circumstances that affect Sweden's security or the continued processing. For the vast majority of foreigners, this poses no problems at all. But for persons who attempt to hide their identity, provide incorrect information, or pose a security risk, the screening procedure means that the authorities get better opportunities to detect this at an early stage. It strengthens the control over migration. It strengthens security. It also strengthens the confidence in the asylum system.

Madam Speaker! In this bill, there are many different proposals, but at its core, it is about a very simple principle: The person staying in Sweden shall have a reason to stay in Sweden. If one has been granted protection because one has fled from war or persecution, the residence permit shall apply as long as the need for protection remains. If one has been granted a residence permit on some other ground, there shall also be a continuing reason for the stay. But for a long time, Swedish migration policy has been based on a different logic. Residence permits have, in practice, been regarded as permanent from the very beginning. It has sent the signal that the person who comes to Sweden will also be allowed to stay here, which is not always the case.

Most asylum seekers are rejected. If they are to be granted asylum in Sweden, they shall stay here as long as they need protection, but no longer. It is irresponsible to communicate anything else. Such communication has created misunderstandings and led to some who have been in Sweden temporarily having seen it as a right to stay permanently. With this bill, we break with that order.

Permanent residence shall no longer be the starting point. Those who wish to build a permanent life in Sweden shall instead qualify for Swedish citizenship through long-term residence and personal effort.

Sweden should not allow foreigners to reside permanently in the country when their connection to Sweden is temporary and short-term. That principle is both reasonable, fair, and necessary. That principle shows respect for the people who live in this country.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and against all reservations.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the other Tidö parties have backed down considerably during the mandate period. It is not exactly a popular migration policy that the Tidö parties have presented. They are backing down both from their policy and in all opinion polls recently. They backed down regarding the deportations of teenagers and the "track-switchers," and they backed down from the salary requirement so that the entire system today seems to consist of exceptions. They also backed down from the reporting law, where they wanted teachers and healthcare staff to be informants.

Now the Tidö parties are also backing away from the proposal to withdraw permanent residence permits retroactively, which would affect 98,000–180,000 people in Sweden, according to their own investigation. My simple question to the member is whether the Sweden Democrats are dropping that proposal now or if they will demand that the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals ensure that Sweden retroactively withdraws 98,000–180,000 permanent residence permits from people and families who are rooted and live their entire lives here? Is that a demand that SD will make after the election?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! What demands one can make depends on how many mandates one has after the election, but it is absolutely part of our policy. We do not want people to be in Sweden with permanent residence permits. That is why we are phasing them out. We as a party believe that the permanent residence permits that exist in Sweden should be revoked. The voters will decide whether they support it.

Our policy is very popular – that is why the Social Democrats join proposal after proposal. Confusion arises regarding how the opposition parties can cooperate at all, given that the Socialdemokraterna have supported almost all migration policy from the Tidö parties during the mandate period. Small adjustments have been made, but the principles have been supported.

I would not say that we have backed down. This is the largest reorganization of Swedish migration policy in modern times, and we have implemented many proposals. The member has taken the floor and complained about our proposals, so yes, we have implemented a lot. We have, for example, tightened the citizenship requirements. We have moved forward with many proposals and ensured that one must qualify for the welfare system. Only ten years ago, no one could have imagined that this could be implemented, and I believe the member knows that.

It is not at all the case that we have backed down from any proposals.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! But you have actually backed down from several proposals, Nima Gholam Ali Pour. You backed down, for example, regarding the reporting law. Healthcare staff and teachers will now not actively have to report patients or students. There you backed down because of the union opposition and the large opposition out in the country from people who do not want this. The professionals do not want this. Ordinary Swedes out in the country do not want it either. It is a crude deportation policy that people in Sweden do not stand for. You actually backed down, at a press conference, regarding retroactively withdrawing permanent residence permits for 98,000–180,000 people in Sweden.

Actually, this was good; it was the only thing I needed to know. If you vote for the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, or Liberalerna, you contribute to the fact that between 98,000 and 180,000 people in Sweden risk having their permanent residence permits revoked. If you vote for the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, or Liberalerna, you contribute to destroying people's lives – the Sverigedemokraterna made that very clear here. It is their policy, and they claim the position of Minister for Migration and so on.

It is a very dangerous Sweden we have ahead of us if the Sweden Democrats come to power. I think it has shown during this mandate period that Sweden does not want this. This crude deportation policy is insane, and the Swedish people are not complying with it.

I received an answer, and Sweden knows what it means.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would say that the member is wrong in everything he says.

I will begin with the duty of disclosure, which the member calls the disclosure act. It was already stated in the directive that account should be taken of the sensitive data that schools and healthcare have. The investigation that presented the proposals did not include healthcare, schools, or social services. We stood behind the bill that was submitted to the Riksdag. It was not at all the case that we backed down. The proposals did not include healthcare, social services, or schools from the beginning.

When it comes to withdrawing permanent residence permits, it is interesting that the member of Parliament is anticipating events. We have not had our demands passed yet. What I said to the member of Parliament was that the election must first be carried out, and then we will see if the people support our position. Whether we get our demands through is another process. As far as I know, the Moderaterna, KD or Liberalerna do not have the same standpoint as we do, and one should not confuse their positions with ours.

The people simply get to decide what they support. Do they want to keep people with permanent residence permits in the country, or do they want the permanent residence permits to be withdrawn so that these people either choose to become citizens or receive temporary residence permits?

I have today argued against permanent residence permits. We intend to phase out the permanent residence permits. I really do not want there to be people remaining in the country with permanent residence permits, and I therefore think that these residence permits should be withdrawn.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to correct Nima Gholam Ali Pour. When one reads the Tidö Agreement, it becomes clear that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have backed down on several points in relation to the Tidö Agreement.

It is written that the municipalities shall be covered by what is called the duty of information, which most of us call the reporting law. However, that is not what will happen. It is also written that only persons up to 18 years of age shall be eligible for the right to family reunification. Many of us are very happy that we have pressured the government and the Sverigedemokraterna to back down so that at least a large part of the teenage deportations that the government's policy has led to are stopped.

It is true that the Tidö Agreement states that the retroactive revocation of permanent residence permits shall be investigated, and an investigation was presented that was dismissed as being completely worthless by every referral body.

I must say that it is a serious announcement that the Sweden Democrats are now saying that one should go to the election on the legally insecure policy that this would entail. It is as if the state of Sweden is taking back a promise that was supposed to apply permanently. It is as if someone gets a building permit to build their house but then, after 10–15 years, is told that Sweden has a new government and that the house is to be demolished. People are forced to uproot their families and leave Sweden.

It is a policy that does not belong in a constitutional state, but it is well in line with the Sweden Democrats' own scandals and the party's relationship to law and justice.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, that is what it says in the Tidö Agreement. However, one must actually carry out the legislation, and the Ministry of Justice has the capacity for that. Everyone following this debate can see that no government has implemented as much legislation within migration policy and criminal justice policy as this government, with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, has done.

I move on to the residence permits. If one is to be in Sweden, one must either have grounds for it or become a citizen. It cannot be that one as a foreigner – that is, as a non-citizen – is allowed to be in Sweden without having any grounds for it. This is what permanent residence permits entail. Now, one will no longer be able to obtain a permanent residence permit, but if one has previously been granted a permanent residence permit, one is actually in Sweden without having grounds for it. That is wrong.

A foreigner must either become a citizen or have a reason. If it concerns asylum and peace is established in the person's home country, the person must be sent back – then one cannot say that one has a permanent residence permit and choose not to go back despite there being peace in the home country. If one wants to be in Sweden permanently, one must become a citizen, learn the language and become a permanent part of the community. No one is shutting people out, but a foreigner cannot be in Sweden permanently without having some reason for it.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if I heard incorrectly. Did Nima Gholam Ali Pour say that there is no one who throws people out?

(NIMA GHOLAM ALI POUR (SD): No, I did not say that.)

It is, after all, the case that the Sweden Democrats have systematically devoted themselves to throwing people out of Sweden with this deportation policy. Yes indeed – many legislative changes have been made which have led to people who have established themselves in Sweden, for example children who came here at the age of four, being deported when they turned 18. The same applies to adults who moved here to work in elderly care, in healthcare, or as support for those who need personal assistance. Yes, they are being thrown out now with this deportation policy.

Nima Gholam Ali Pour says that those who have no reason to stay here can leave the country. I do not know which people he means who have no reason to be here, because people have acquired many reasons to be here when they have lived for a long time in Sweden with the promise that they will be allowed to stay permanently. They have started companies here, they have jobs and colleagues here, they have born their children here or seen their grandchildren born and take their first steps here, and they have their friends and neighbors here. They have their everyday life and their life here.

Madam Speaker! One might think that one should not be able to get a permanent residence permit, but to now come and blame those who have received permanent residence permits and accuse them of not wanting to become part of Sweden and not wanting to become citizens is still quite bold. Sweden has promised that they shall be allowed to stay permanently, that they are safe here and that they belong. This promise, Sweden cannot simply withdraw.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! It feels as if the member has already written her notes because she begins every speech by accusing me of something I have not said. I said nothing about deportations, but the member claims that in order to be able to begin her harangue.

But let us continue on that theme. If one does not have permission to stay in Sweden, one must be deported. There is no other ground for deportation than that the person lacks permission. That is how the Aliens Act works, and the members know that.

The grounds for staying in Sweden must be based in the Aliens Act. It is not enough that one has met someone and fallen in love or that one begins to do positive things in society. The grounds must be based in the Aliens Act. That is how regulated immigration works.

Does the member perhaps not want regulated immigration? Does the member perhaps not want to deport anyone at all? Does the member perhaps want free immigration so that everyone who comes here gets to stay? That is the impression I get when I hear the member speak about deportations and the reasons for being allowed to stay in Sweden.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I cannot grant Annika Hirvonen an additional turn to speak despite many questions being posed to her. The questions shall instead be regarded as rhetorical since it was the final entry in the exchange of remarks.

Members should consider how to handle the final post in an exchange of remarks because the opposing party does not have the opportunity to answer questions.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! In the introduction to the proposal we are now debating, the government states that reduced asylum-related immigration shall create better conditions for integration and reduce exclusion. It strikes me that the government, over four years, has not presented a single integration measure and not a single measure to reduce exclusion. On the contrary, the government has deepened and worsened the economic gaps, it has presented proposals that directly harm integration in Sweden, and it has crashed both the labor market and the housing market. It would not be an overstatement to say that the government has a historically strong policy for what we call segregation and increased gaps, and that it has led to a historical failure.

As always, society stands at a choice between division and cohesion. I believe that society always wins when we stand up for one another. That is when Sweden is at its best. It is a choice we have to make every day in both everyday life and our political decisions. The proposal we

Now, the debate is taking the completely wrong path.

Madam Speaker! The Government shall adapt Swedish law to the EU's migration and asylum pact. However, it has chosen to settle for a minimum level. The risk with that is that it will exclude persons who in fact have a right to international protection. The basis for the pact concerns how much legal certainty a person on the run shall have when she seeks protection in Sweden.

The word asylum means sanctuary, and in the debate we have heard that it is precisely that the government does not want to give people. The government has deliberately and actively chosen to protect asylum seekers as little as possible by settling on a minimum level. It is a historical departure from the right to asylum. Under this system, the need for protection will not be examined in a legally secure manner, asylum seekers will not receive the legal support that is required, and one makes it impossible for asylum seekers to show that they are in need of protection.

This has been met with sharp criticism from the Council on Legislation, the Bar Association, and virtually all organizations that are experts in the field. The Council on Legislation points out that the entire government's proposal is characterized by flaws in the preparatory process and has a weak democratic anchoring, and that there is a lack of independent and knowledge-based scrutiny of the legislative proposals. The Council on Legislation argues that this, in practice, risks limiting the scope for individual assessments regardless of how strong the humanitarian reasons may be.

The Council on Legislation has, in its opinion, felt compelled to write to the government that migration is not something mechanical but that it is about people – adults and children. It also appears that the government seems to understand to an extremely limited extent that migration and immigration are about people. Legislation affects real lives. It is not just about figures and established minimum levels.

The following should instead have been guiding for the government, and I quote from the Council on Legislation's opinion: "A constitutional state presupposes that the law shows respect for everyone within the country's borders, including those who are not citizens of the country. The requirement for respect for the individual human being encompasses everyone. That requirement is the basis for refugee law. The person who is a refugee thus has certain fundamental rights."

Respect for all people's fundamental freedoms and rights is not held particularly high by the government, and it is only to be lamented.

Madam Speaker! The Bar Association also directs sharp criticism towards the government's proposal, not least because the government has actively chosen to undermine legal certainty and undermine the system of legal counsel for asylum seekers.

Today, people seeking asylum are given a public counsel throughout the entire process, and also in the first instance at Migrationsverket: a legal representative who helps the individual understand the process, identify legal issues, and ensure that important circumstances actually come to light before decisions are made. That system has functioned well and served the right of asylum well.

Now, public counsel are not to be granted access to cases before and during their work. The government thinks they should only hold short information meetings. Lawyers in Sweden are thus expected to provide legal advice without being given access to important documents from Migrationsverket or even knowing which process the person is covered by. In a debate article in DN this weekend, lawyers in Advokatsamfundet wondered when else in society such an arrangement would be accepted. No one would want to meet a doctor who gives advice without having seen the medical records, and no one would accept that an auditor makes a statement without having reviewed the underlying documents.

Still, it is this that is now being proposed for people who risk persecution, torture, or human trafficking if the decision is wrong. This contradicts the ethical principles for lawyers, and the Swedish Bar Association is clear: If the bill is implemented in its current form, lawyers cannot undertake these assignments.

Do you in the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna understand what a situation you are putting people in, what a situation you are putting asylum seekers in, and what a situation you are putting the profession and lawyers with ethical principles in? I understand the Sverigedemokraterna – they simply don't give a damn about basic legal principles and have never cared about it. But have you other parties lost it completely? This could absolutely have been resolved during the course of the process.

Quite honestly: Most in this chamber know very well that the bill being placed on the Riksdag's table will not make anything better – not one bit. It will not make it better for people on the run. It will not improve the EU's chances of agreeing on a fair or dignified reception and an asylum right worthy of the name. Nor will it improve establishment and integration, which is supposed to be one of the main reasons here.

On the contrary, the purpose of the law is one-sided, namely to deter people fleeing from seeking asylum in Sweden, and the person seeking asylum in Sweden shall, according to the proposal, be treated as poorly as possible. It is a free moral fall in the Riksdag, where the right to asylum is at stake when it is needed most.

Madam Speaker! In line with the government's absolute bottom line in migration policy, they have also chosen to remove permanent residence permits from the Aliens Act for persons in need of protection and persons with the status of permanent resident in Sweden and their relatives.

The government also wanted to withdraw between 98,000 and 180,000 permanent residence permits that had already been issued to people, but massive protests in connection with the deportation of teenagers forced the government to back down on that at a press conference. But now permanent residence permits are to be removed, and then one can ask what happens with, for example, the deportation of teenagers and other groups who live with temporary residence permits. The path to citizenship is far too long and impossible for many. Many lives will be shattered if this is not corrected.

Permanent residence permits are a promise: here you can end your flight, here you are safe and here you can build your life and your future. It is about ordinary families who risk having their lives shattered from one day to the next after the Sweden Democrats and the government declared that they would revoke permanent residence permits retroactively. It was good that massive protests forced the government to back down from the proposal, but now we heard here that it risks coming back after the election.

As the Council on Legislation said very clearly, it is about people – adults and children. It is colleagues – doctors, childcare workers and truck mechanics – who have to live in great anxiety over not being able to stay in the country where they have built up a future. It is the children's playmates, whose lives would be completely upended. Instead of looking forward to the first lost tooth, the children's future would be characterized by the parents' anxiety about a life in limbo where they do not know if they get to stay or not.

To you who have built a life in security, perhaps bought an apartment, started a family and children, and who have jobs and their whole lives and existence in Sweden: Vänsterpartiet does not intend to let the government and Sverigedemokraterna destroy it for you. We cannot let this government continue, and we cannot let this government drive a wedge between people.

Madam Speaker! Now we will, after July 12 when the law enters into force, have a situation in Sweden where only time-limited residence permits are granted. One can live for perhaps 13 months at a time, the government thinks, which through this proposal creates uncertainty and anxiety among a large group of people.

The Tidö parties have previously, ignorantly, defended this by saying that the government wants people to live up to the requirements for applying for Swedish citizenship. I can understand the idea that more people should become citizens, but on one hand, the Sverigedemokraterna do not want people to become citizens, and on the other hand, eight years is far too long a time to become a citizen.

It is about requirements that many will not be able to live up to, even if they are permanently resident in Sweden and live their lives here. For the elderly, the sick, and persons with disabilities, it is not as easy to live up to tests and requirements. Furthermore, there are clear built-in problems with citizenship that are beyond the individual's control, such as strengthening identity and date of birth from countries with collapsed systems.

Furthermore, which perhaps is the most appalling part of what I was touching upon, it takes at least eight years to obtain citizenship. It is far too long for people who live here and who are affected by uncertainty and a lump in their stomach every day.

Madam Speaker! Sweden should not be a country that throws people into insecurity and uncertainty. A thoughtful, humane, and and solidary refugee policy is needed, which takes its starting point in international conventions and the spirit therein. This we can achieve as soon as we vote out this government in September. It looks bright, because the Swedish people have time and again rejected the government's policy.

I move for approval of reservations 1 and 4 in the report.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! An important part of the bill that we are debating today concerns that those who seek asylum in Sweden shall be granted protection for as long as they need it. Then, when things have calmed down in their home countries, they are intended to return home. Asylum shall therefore not lead to permanent residence permits.

This is something that Vänsterpartiet, together with Miljöpartiet, has reserved themselves against. Vänsterpartiet argues that permanent residence permits should be the main rule. But if the need for protection is temporary, which it usually is, why should the residence permit then be permanent? That question is likely asked by many in Sweden.

Many support the right of asylum. One wants to provide protection to those who need it, but at the same time, it is expected that those who once sought protection in Sweden shall return to their home countries and help rebuild them when the crisis, the war, or the unrest that exists there is over.

The proposal also contains a path to citizenship for those who do not receive permanent residence permits. If one has met the requirements for citizenship, especially the residence requirement, one also usually meets the requirement of having well-founded prospects of being granted a permanent residence permit.

This sounds like reasonable proposals for most who live in Sweden. Why is Vänsterpartiet against this?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It was a very simple question from the member. We do not share that view. I hear the member saying continuously here in the debate that people who come here seeking protection should go home. That is the basic idea of the Sverigedemokraterna. I do not share that view.

I believe that the Sweden Democrats have missed the entire public debate in Sweden regarding the deportations of teenagers. Many children came here as young people, and now the Sweden Democrats think they should go home, we hear here in the debate. In the media, it sounded different. There, Jimmie Åkesson said that a solution must be found for these young people.

I think it is very good that people who have come to Sweden and sought protection build up their lives here, learn Swedish, enter the workforce, educate themselves and become a part of Sweden. I am proud of that. The Sweden Democrats show the opposite: People who come to Sweden should go home. I do not share that view.

When it comes to the issue of permanent residence permits, it is a promise: Here you can end your flight, here you are safe and here you can build up your life. I believe that one of the absolute best integration processes is that people get to know that they are welcome to stay here.

The absolute biggest integration obstacle we have in Sweden is the Sweden Democrats. We have heard that throughout the entire debate here today.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Member from the Left Party is mixing up quite a lot of different things.

Firstly: I never said that those who need protection should go home. One seeks protection in Sweden. An assessment is carried out. If one has a need for protection, one may stay. If one does not have a need for protection, one is deported. That is how regulated immigration works.

It is not the case that everyone who comes to Sweden and seeks protection gets to stay here. It is shocking that the member expresses themselves in that way. Here we have a party that wants free immigration, and this party is to function as some kind of government basis for the Social Democrats. It is indeed shocking.

Secondly: The Member of Parliament said that everyone who comes to Sweden and receives a residence permit shall receive a permanent residence permit. This shall be the main rule. And this party shall be some kind of government support for the Social Democrats and have influence over the migration policy.

What do the members think would happen if everyone who came to Sweden received permanent residence permits? What do the members think would happen if everyone who received a residence permit in Sweden received a permanent residence permit from the start? Everyone would start coming to Sweden. People from many third countries, from the Middle East and from Africa, would pass through several European countries and arrive in Sweden. We would have the same migration crisis as we had in 2015, with all the sacrifices that it entailed.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It would be good if the member listened to my answer instead of being in a completely different galaxy. That was not even what I was answering from the beginning.

The reason is that the member wants people to go home. I think that people who have built their lives here, who have educated themselves here and work here and have their family and their whole life here, should get a chance to stay. That is the difference between us.

That is why I believe that a permanent residence permit is a promise: Here you can end your flight, here you can stay and here you can build your life and your future. The Sweden Democrats do not think so.

The Speaker was also involved in the question about those who receive a "no" should go home and so on. There, I hope we can have a constructive debate, because many receive a "no" but cannot go home. You in the Tidö parties may think that is a problem. But it is possible to do as the Swedish Migration Agency has done several times and say: "This entire group may stay." I have no problem with that. This applies, for example, to Iran. People who have received a "no" cannot be deported there.

Since then, we have had situations where people actually get a yes. The girls and women from Afghanistan were given a no for many years. Then the assessment was made that they are allowed to stay. A no became a yes.

I hope we can have a constructive debate about this, but it is difficult with the Sverigedemokraterna who only want to deport people.

A final question from the Sweden Democrats was what happens if people come here. Yes, we received 50,000 Ukrainians when Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. I have no problem with us receiving 50,000 Ukrainians because I know that Sweden can take care of them, just as we received many Syrians. Then people stepped up and took care of them.

Fewer are coming here because Nima says so. Fewer are coming here because the EU has closed its borders.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin the debate by moving to approve the committee majority's proposal to support the bill and thereby reject the motion requests made within this report, which concern the phasing out of permanent residence permits and the adaptation of Swedish law to the EU's Migration and Asylum Pact.

The Christian Democrats, together with the other coalition parties in the blue and yellow team, have charted the new and necessary path that Sweden needs to follow to address the problems rooted in the fact that asylum migration to Sweden has been extensive for a long time and that previous governments have not made sufficient efforts to address it. The previous large-scale immigration, in combination with a lack of integration, has contributed to the fact that Sweden still faces major challenges with those who have come to our country and that there is a great risk of a growing exclusion.

To break and reverse that development, the Christian Democrats, together with the other parties in the government base, are therefore implementing a paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy with the goal of significantly reducing the number of asylum seekers who seek out Sweden.

Since the Tidö government took office, the number of asylum seekers has decreased, but our assessment is that more measures need to be taken to further reduce the number of asylum applications and keep them at a low level. The starting point should, in our opinion, be that the Swedish regulations shall not be more generous than what EU law and other international commitments require. Therefore, there are reasons to review the current rules on permanent residence permits granted on the grounds of protection needs and other asylum-related grounds.

The change is naturally also made in relation to the fact that the EU's Migration and Asylum Pact has been adopted. It is a comprehensive framework consisting of ten legal acts aimed at establishing a common and harmonized system for asylum and migration within the EU. The framework is based on four main areas: secure external borders, fast and efficient procedures, solidarity and responsibility sharing between Member States, as well as deepened cooperation with countries outside the EU.

Madam Speaker! The changes we are now debating are based on the premise that asylum-related residence permits shall be time-limited and lead to Swedish citizenship, repatriation, or return. To limit asylum immigration, it is, as said, important that we adapt the rules to the EU's legal minimum level to the greatest extent possible.

To phase out the possibility of granting permanent residence permits is an important step in this work. The EU's Migration and Asylum Pact consists of ten legal acts comprising regulations and a recast directive. An EU regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States but may mean that there is a need for and opportunities for supplementary provisions in national law.

In the proposition, the government makes the assessment that national provisions complementing the regulation need to be introduced in, among other things, the Aliens Act and that several existing provisions need to be phased out. Where there is room for Sweden to choose if and how provisions in the regulation shall be applied, we Christian Democrats, together with other parties in the government base, have stated that the Swedish regulation should not be more generous than what EU law requires.

Since the regulations in the migration and asylum pact will in all material respects be applied from June 12 this year, urgent adaptations of Swedish law are required.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, the government proposes that the possibility of granting permanent residence permits shall be phased out for certain groups.

The proposition also contains proposals for the adaptation of Swedish law to the legal acts under the EU's Migration and Asylum Pact. The proposals mean, among other things, that

the so-called border procedure for asylum is applied in more situations than those that are mandatory under EU law

The Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Migration Agency and the regions are responsible for the execution of the so-called screening procedure

The right to a public counsel during the processing of cases regarding international protection at the Swedish Migration Agency is restricted

the age limit for taking fingerprints and photographs in certain cases during the migration process is lowered to six years

the terminology and the system for the Swedish asylum procedure are changing.

The legislative changes are therefore proposed to enter into force on 12 June.

Madam Speaker! The Government is, as stated, implementing a paradigm shift within Swedish migration policy.

For those who come to Sweden and receive an asylum-related residence permit, there must be a clear path to citizenship. If one is in Sweden for a longer period, one should want to participate and contribute to the community. This requires a sustainable and strict migration policy, which we are now adapting to the EU's minimum level.

Asylum is about protection, and it is reasonable that permits are reviewed over time when conditions change. Those who want to become a part of Sweden shall learn the language, work, and take responsibility.

Madam Speaker! A presumption to appoint a public counsel in cases of deportation was introduced in Swedish law in 1978. The right to public counsel has since not undergone any significant changes, despite a number of major legislative amendments. It can be stated that the current Swedish rules extend far beyond what is required according to EU law.

The Christian Democrats consider, like the other Tidö parties, that the rules should be tightened and adapted to the EU's legal minimum level. Even though this means that certain rights that exist today will be restricted, we believe that the proposed order creates an effective and purposeful system with maintained legal certainty.

Madam Speaker! When the Tidö cooperation ensures the implementation of changes that create order and clarity in the reception in Sweden and provide greater conditions for integration, the opposition also stands aside in this matter, and as usual, it is significantly fragmented. Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet generally say no to the change and to stricter requirements and largely want to stick to the order that currently prevails without reflecting on what it has entailed or what need there is for measures.

In this matter, the Centre Party and the Social Democrats support certain parts of the proposal, but they reserve their position. It is now that one begins to sense the electoral tactical consensus that is being laid the foundation for with the Left Party and the Green Party. Especially the Social Democrats are drifting to the left, despite the fact that the talking points about there being a strict migration policy are repeated. In this context, these are becoming increasingly empty words.

Earlier during the parliamentary term, S has willingly voted yes to most of the government's proposals, but now a shift in position is being made towards the positions of Miljöpartiet and Vänstern.

That the Social Democrats cannot reflect on what they should have done differently during previous terms, and also do not mention that they were limited during their cooperation with the Green Party, is due to self-interest for natural reasons.

What the direction of a future government alternative implies for migration policy is not possible to discern or interpret. The only thing one can say with certainty is that many demands will be made by several of the smaller parties to return to previous arrangements in order for them to give their support. The strict line that the Social Democrats therefore think should apply in the future is, unfortunately, a utopian dream. Chaos and a long bench is a more realistic scenario for future potential government collaborations.

Madam Speaker! As I have often repeated in this chamber, Sweden continues to need a strict, fair, and responsible migration policy. We Kristdemokrater, together with other partners in the blue and yellow team, have shown that this can be delivered. We are prepared to take the continued responsibility, and that is the direction Sweden needs both now and in the next mandate period – not a red-green chaos government with red lines drawn across the paper all the time.

Madam Speaker! In summary, with the proposals we are debating today, Sweden will achieve a more organized asylum reception in line with the challenges that remain to be managed. This is something that benefits both the asylum seekers and Sweden as a country.

As I have previously stated, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and the government bill, and for the rejection of the motions.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not only the Social Democrats who have approached the Green Party's policy regarding the deportations. Amazingly, we did indeed get the entire government and the Sweden Democrats with us regarding stopping the deportation of teenagers and rolling back the deportations of 4,700 asylum seekers and their eight-month-old babies. After far too many years, the government has also promised a permanent solution so that those who fled the war in Ukraine will receive long-term security in Sweden.

Sometimes it is required for the Swedish people to roar out and say: "Stop! Not in our name!" This is what the Swedish people have now said about several points in the Christian Democrats' deportation policy. Today we hear Ingemar Kihlström deliver a eulogy to the EU's minimum level – as if there were an intrinsic value in landing on a certain minimum level.

What I still find a bit amusing in this context is that Ingemar Kihlström seems to have missed that the government has not settled on the EU's minimum level regarding specifically public legal aid. There, they have deliberately settled on a higher level, and they state legal certainty as the motive for this. What we see in the implementation, however, is worrying. There are no requirements that the Swedish Migration Agency shall withhold documents from the lawyers, but it still leans in that direction.

I want to ask Ingemar Kihlström how he views the fact that one does not make use of the simple means that already exist for sharing documents with assistants.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Hirvonen, for a historical reflection on the broad field of migration! We can state that Member Hirvonen represents a party that for seven or eight years could influence the situation we have in Sweden. We in the Tidö Agreement must now handle a situation with a lack of integration, with a large amount of exclusion, and with perhaps hundreds of thousands of people living in the so-called shadow society.

I can state that many of the victories that Miljöpartiet attributes to themselves were actually things that we in our government investigated and saw, because we naturally see that one must do things correctly and not just make decisions quickly. It is about the deportations of teenagers.

Regarding the matter we are debating today, we can now state that Sweden has had an approach, both regarding permanent residence permits and regarding the right to a public counsel, that has differed from a majority of corresponding countries within the EU.

I think it is good that the EU at an overarching level has agreed to take a collective responsibility for the refugee flows that will arise and that one shall maintain a sense of responsibility between countries. I believe, however, that it is also important to point out that we need to rectify the debt resulting from integration and migration policies that were mismanaged by many different governments – I can concede that even the government that we have participated in has made decisions in areas where we have now taken a different stance.

We need to correct this, and that is what we do in Kristdemokraterna. That is how we handle this issue. I am certain that with the decisions we put on the table from the Riksdag in this bill, we will create exactly a better situation both for the asylum seekers and for Sweden as a country.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The purpose of the government's bill is not to create a better situation for Sweden as a country or for the asylum seekers. The purpose is to, at all costs, settle on a minimum level regarding human rights for people on the run and for immigrants who receive protection in Sweden. This minimum level is desired even when it would be bad for integration and even when it becomes more expensive for the taxpayers. The minimum level itself is the purpose of the bill, and that in itself, I find to be remarkable.

If, instead of a minimum level, one had had the aim that we should have as good integration as possible or that the asylum process should be as cost-effective as possible, one would have landed on different solutions than those in the government bill.

My greatest concern, and the reason why we in Miljöpartiet vote no to the government's proposal, is the concern that the Council on Legislation summarizes as follows: "And what is worse: the risk that the system in some cases closes the border even for those who truly have a right to international protection is palpable." One risks, therefore, in conflict with the right to asylum, deporting people to persecution and death.

How do the Christian Democrats view the Council for Legislation's apprehension?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can state that Member Hirvonen's perception of reality differs from mine, and that is allowed in politics. We perform analyses and see what needs to be done, and we reach different conclusions. Then one argues for one's cause.

I can state that the Green Party, unfortunately, acts like the notorious ostrich: One sticks its head in the sand and does not see the problems we have in our society. We have a large sense of exclusion, we have a lack of integration capacity, and we have a shadow society. We can reflect on what has led to this, and we can find different causes for it. But I still believe it is important to analyze the situation: Here we are now, and what do we need to do to rectify the situation?

We in the Tidösamarbetet, and in many cases also the Socialdemokraterna, who are the Miljöpartiet's intended coalition partner, have indeed noted that we cannot have an asylum reception corresponding to the reception during 2015–2016 for the foreseeable future. That means we must settle on the minimum level. With the Miljöpartiet's reasoning, one can indeed note that in that case there is no legal certainty anywhere else in Europe because in many cases they are at the minimum level. That is, of course, not the case.

It is not that legal certainty is about the things we have historically done in Sweden. Naturally, we should reflect on legal certainty at every point in time, and there I and member Hirvonen have a common view regarding, for example, Christian converts. Legal certainty failed them both during the actual seven years that Miljöpartiet was in the government and during the eighth year. The Tidö parties have ensured to deliver on that point. One has not delivered sufficiently, in my eyes, but one has delivered.

It is important to fight for legal certainty, and we have a legally certain system with Migrationsverket, Migrationsdomstolen, and Migrationsöverdomstolen.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! What I reacted to during the speech was that the Christian Democrats make the analysis that one maintains the rule of law. It is not many who agree with that. Neither the Council on Legislation, the Bar Association, organizations or the expertise agree. There also came a few questions from the Green Party regarding that.

I want to say this: If lawyers are not given access to a case, it is crystal clear that it affects legal certainty negatively. The Christian Democrats must still concede that. That is the first thing I want to bring up. It will not be a functioning and legally secure process.

Then the member took up converters. How will their situation improve?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can note that the Left Party, through Member Haddou, states that legal certainty is guaranteed by doing in the same way as one has always done. But that other countries in Europe have done it in a different way, does it mean for Member Haddou that there is no legal certainty in the rest of Europe? With this bill, we are positioning ourselves at a level that corresponds to the level in many of the countries that exist.

We have legal certainty in our country. We have, as mentioned, the Swedish Migration Agency, which handles cases. One has the possibility to appeal to the migration court and to the Migration Court of Appeal – and also to proceed to the EU level. But with Member Haddous's reasoning, it is precisely that system which stands out compared to other countries in Europe that is the only one that can guarantee legal certainty. I do not think so narrowly.

It can be noted that there is support. There is an opportunity for insight for legal counsel – naturally with a power of attorney. In that way, it is guaranteed that the support is given. We must also consider that the Swedish Migration Agency will provide support during the process itself. Both I and Member Haddou heard the Director General of the Swedish Migration Agency say at the meeting with the committee that this is a task that the agency has. It is about ensuring that the entire handling is legally secure.

I am confident in this. I understand that Member Tony Haddou has a completely different orientation and, like the Green Party, chooses to act like an ostrich and state that there is no problem with the system we have and that we should have unlimited asylum migration – despite the fact that two out of three who seek asylum in Sweden today do not receive asylum.

Regarding the converters, I can only state that we have given assignments in the Tidö Agreement and that the National Audit Office has investigated the issue. We have also given assignments in regulatory letters. It is significantly more than what the previous government did during eight years.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! This is not something that I or the Left Party are saying, but I referred to the Council on Legislation, the Bar Association, and absolutely all referral bodies with expertise in the field. But the government has pushed this through as an emergency. Almost all referral bodies have criticized the government because they have hardly had time to review the matter, and the government has hardly prepared the matter seriously itself.

I think one still has to ask how it can possibly become a more legally secure process when lawyers are not given insight into the case. Now, lawyers from Advokatsamfundet are saying that they will not take on these cases because it goes against their ethical principles as lawyers. I think it is quite cheeky of the government to not see that at all and pretend that we will have a legally secure asylum process after this. We obviously will not have that.

That the Swedish Migration Agency will provide the applicant with support is not the same thing. There is a very big difference compared to having a legal representative; the member must nevertheless acknowledge that. Receiving information is a completely different matter. Lawyers provide advice, help, and the support you need in a very complex process where things need to be presented, and that is nothing that the Migration Agency as a whole will help asylum seekers with.

I think it would be much better if the Christian Democrats, who have previously stood up for the right of asylum, actually acknowledged that this will not become a fully functioning and legally secure process. The right of asylum is supposed to ensure, on one hand, that people have the right to seek asylum, and on the other hand, that the process is legally secure. It becomes less legally secure with this government, and I can only regret that.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that Member Haddou and I live in two different worlds.

I can state that a majority of European countries have a system and a level similar to what we propose, even if it may not be exactly the same. Sweden has had a system that de facto has been significantly more extensive.

One could also consider the Swedish Bar Association's submission to be a party submission. Everyone naturally has the right to argue their case, but we can state that the EU's migration pact – which Member Haddous's party de facto voted against in the EU Parliament – is about distributing responsibility. It is about distributing the responsibility for the flow of migrants that will come to Europe.

We are settling on a level corresponding to what the EU directive specifies as the minimum level. This corresponds to the help and support one receives, and I actually have great confidence in the Swedish Migration Agency's ability to manage and guide. I have confidence that people can have their case reviewed and that the right to asylum applies. But it is de facto the case that two-thirds of those who seek asylum today do not have their application granted, even with legal aid.

It is de facto that many seek out our country, for many different reasons. We shall have an asylum right, but we also need to have a strict migration policy. It will be very interesting to see what red lines MP Haddous's party draws when the Social Democrats want to create their power base. I do not believe that they follow the necessary path for Sweden that we in the Tidö Government have charted. They will crash straight into the ditch.

Sweden must have a strict, restrained migration policy, and that is what we are implementing now.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report on the Phase-out of permanent residence permits and the adaptation of Swedish law to the EU's Migration and Asylum Pact. As you have heard from the debate so far, it is about chasing the minimum level – the minimum level for human rights for people who seek protection and flee to Europe and the minimum level for human rights for immigrants who live here.

There will also be a minimum level of legal certainty. However, there will not be a minimum level for costs. Nor will the time for integration or the psychological suffering of refugees be minimized – on the contrary. The sole purpose is to give people on the run as few rights as possible. The purpose is not to improve the integration of those who come here, nor is it to ensure that one can trust the asylum process and that no one is deported to war and persecution.

I want to say a few words about the right of asylum. It was introduced after Europe's countries had seen the result of the Holocaust. They promised each other that they would never again deport people back to persecution and death in the way that many Jewish refugees were met when they tried to flee the Nazis. The right of asylum was established in the Geneva Convention and first applied to Europe and Europe's countries, to then be expanded to a global right.

The fundamental starting point of asylum law is precisely that no human being should ever be deported to persecution, oppression, and death. It is expressed by the fact that every human being has the right to seek protection and have their case examined, individually and in a legally secure manner.

When the Council on Legislation evaluates the government's proposal, they note that the risk is tangible that the system in some cases closes the border also for those who truly have a right to international protection. The government's proposal means that Sweden cannot live up to the right of asylum. That risk is tangible. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet choose to vote against this proposition and in favor of reservation 1.

One could reach a different conclusion, as the Council on Legislation has done: that it is impossible to vote for a rejection because the time is now too short before the EU pact enters into force. On June 12, the regulations begin to apply. From then on, they will also be applied in Sweden, apart from the fact that the government's bill does not enter into force until a month later.

We in Miljöpartiet will not let ourselves be taken hostage in this impossible choice. We urge the government to do over and do right. Come back with a proposal to the Riksdag that respects the right of asylum! It is, after all, the most fundamental when we speak about refugees.

Madam Speaker! One important reason why legal certainty is deteriorating is that the system of public counsel, often lawyers, who represent the asylum seekers is being fundamentally changed. They do not only explain the process but also help them to understand: What is it that I must tell so that Sweden will understand that I risk persecution? It is not easy for someone who has fled to know what of everything they carry with them is important.

Legal ethics now stand in the way of lawyers taking on these assignments. We have been able to read this in Dagens Nyheter and Dagens Juridik. They have a commitment according to their professional ethics, which cannot be fulfilled with the conditions that this proposal provides.

I would like to take this opportunity to address something that Kristdemokraternas Ingemar Kihlström said earlier. He said that we agreed that legal certainty is lacking for converts. But what we do not agree on is that this proposal would do anything better for converts. Overall, the government is worsening legal certainty for all asylum seekers, including the Christians who have converted and sought protection here.

I think it is serious that one is undermining legal certainty. Converts are a group that the UN has actually condemned Sweden for deportations of on repeated occasions. Sweden has been condemned by the UN's torture committee, among other things, for deporting a convert to the Taliban. It was not believed that his faith was genuine and he was deported, even though he had a cross tattooed on his neck and Jesus next to it, as if the Taliban would care whether he had made the tattoo because his faith was genuine or not. Honestly! That is today's asylum system. And it can happen in Sweden already before converts lose the right to public counsel in the asylum process at Migrationsverket.

Madam Speaker! Those who say that Sweden has the world's most legally secure asylum system and are now simultaneously dismantling several of the legal security guarantees that exist in the system probably need to take a moment to think and look at themselves in the mirror. Have they understood what it is they are deciding on today?

Another proposal that the EU is not forcing on Sweden at all, but which the government is proceeding with precisely because one is pursuing a minimum level of rights, is that no one shall longer be able to obtain a permanent residence permit. For me, who have met many people in flight, it is clear that it will harm Sweden and people's opportunity to integrate into our country.

For many, it is only when they receive their permanent residence permit that they feel they can end their flight, truly unpack their suitcases, breathe out, and begin to heal the traumas that many have carried with them after years, sometimes their entire lives, in flight.

Alex from Ukraine is one of those who has described in the clearest way what it means to live with short, temporary residence permits. She was a doctor in Ukraine. She told: ”It takes me two years to become a doctor in Sweden. But I only get a permit one year at a time. Is it even worth starting the training and the process of becoming a Swedish doctor when I don't know if I have to leave already in a year?” Instead, she worked an entirely unqualified cleaning job and did what she could to put food on the table for her five-year-old son.

I have also met those who treat torture victims and who tell that it is often only when one receives the permanent residence permit that it is possible to achieve that level of psychological safety required to heal the most severe of traumas.

The UN refugee agency UNHCR recommends that all the world's countries provide people on the move with permanent security, as it is best both for the person who has fled and for the receiving country. When people feel security in that they are allowed to stay in a place, they invest. They invest their time, take root, start companies, learn languages – even small ones – and build a future for themselves and their children.

Madam Speaker! Thank goodness we have, at least through joint efforts from many parts of society, stopped the government from withdrawing the promises of permanent security that Sweden has already given. The government is therefore not proceeding for the time being with removing all permanent residence permits that have already been granted to people. But the Sweden Democrats have given a promise: If they win the election, up to 180,000 people could see their security in Sweden destroyed. People who have received a promise from Sweden to be safe here and to see Sweden as their home can no longer trust the Riksdag.

I have compared this to being granted a building permit and building a house, only to be given a decision after 10–15 years that it is time to demolish the house because new winds are blowing in society and the politicians have changed their minds. That would be unreasonable. It is also unreasonable to force people to uproot their entire lives and everything they have built up and leave the country.

They pretend that it is about more people wanting to become citizens. At the same time, they do nothing to make this possible for the many groups who today cannot become citizens because they have incorrect ID documents or because the Swedish Migration Agency has changed their date of birth.

Madam Speaker! We will soon throw this policy out of the corridors of power. On September 13, there is an election in Sweden. Then you can vote for a different future, where we do not separate people into us and them and where no one hunts for the minimum possible human rights for any group, but where we instead invest in community and that which strengthens people and gets more people into society. On September 13, you can vote for the right to asylum.

I vote in favor of reservation 4.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Something I find difficult to understand in this debate is why certain parties are so eager for people to live permanently in Sweden as foreigners. If a person comes to Sweden, learns Swedish, works, supports themselves, follows our laws, and builds up their life here, there is already a path to permanent belonging. That path is Swedish citizenship, with all the rights and obligations that come with it. That is where the true community and the long-term connection to Sweden lie.

Miljöpartiet, however, seems to prefer a different order. They want people to be able to live here with permanent residence permits year after year without there being any clear endpoint. I mean that it is a strange view on integration. If a person has made Sweden their home, the goal should be to become a part of the Swedish community through citizenship. If a person, on the other hand, is only staying here because there is a need for protection in the person's home country, the residence permit should naturally be linked to that specific need for protection. When the need for protection ceases, the person shall return home to their home country.

I wonder why the member from Miljöpartiet considers that permanent residence permits are needed when the person who has had a residence permit in Sweden for a longer period will still be able to obtain Swedish citizenship.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The permanent residence permit provides security: "Here I can stay. Here I am safe. Here I can end my flight." Therefore, permanent residence permits are important. When people receive permanent residence permits and know that they will be able to stay long-term, we know that something also happens with the will to invest in Sweden and the belief that it will pay off. Therefore, permanent residence permits are needed.

When it comes to citizenship, it is we in Miljöpartiet who are driving a policy so that more people can become Swedish citizens. We want to tear down the obstacles that today prevent certain people from becoming Swedish citizens. Sverigedemokraterna and the government have not even provided an answer to the question of whether they want to solve the problem of people who have had their age changed by Migrationsverket being unable to become citizens. Just the other day, I was contacted by a person who has done everything correctly and meets all the requirements to become a Swedish citizen but who is not allowed to become one, because Migrationsverket has made a decision regarding a changed date for when they believe he was born. He comes from a country where he cannot obtain any ID document that convinces Migrationsverket.

I think the Sweden Democrats are misleading people. One talks about wanting more people to become Swedish citizens, but one is actually conducting a policy to deport as many as possible and make it harder to become a Swedish citizen. I think the Sweden Democrats should say it as it is.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to correct the member. The Sweden Democrats do not want more people to become Swedish citizens, but that those who meet the requirements should become Swedish citizens – no others.

The Green Party argues that permanent residence permits create conditions for integration – this is repeated all the time. In that case, I must ask a question. For a very long time, we had exactly the order that the Green Party advocates for, with permanent residence permits as the main rule. But it was during that same period that we in Sweden got the integration problems that we are still struggling with today. It was during that period that exclusion grew, segregation increased, and unemployment among foreign-born people became entrenched at high levels. It was during that period that we got the parallel societies that have established themselves in many parts of the country and the honor-oppression that has spread in Sweden.

If permanent residence permits are so crucial for integration now, why did we not see the positive results that the member speaks of at that time? What concrete results can Miljöpartiet point to that show that permanent residence permits have improved integration in Sweden?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! When people know that they can stay, are safe and can settle down, they invest more long-term in society. People who carry traumas have better opportunities to process them if they are given a basic security.

Then, of course, other measures are also required to achieve good integration. It is also naturally required that people get jobs and learn the Swedish language, that we have good Swedish teaching for immigrants and that people are not segregated in their residential areas. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet propose a long series of measures to improve integration. Even though we have halved the time it takes for newcomers to get jobs, we are not satisfied, but rather we pursue a policy that combats segregation, promotes integration and combats unemployment.

Instead, the government pursues a deportation policy. Almost no propositions at all are submitted regarding combating unemployment.

We see that requirements are being placed on language tests, but where are the investments in learning the language? It is very clear to me that the government's goal is not integration. If that were the case, this proposal would have looked different. The government's goal is more deportations, and a minimum level for human rights for refugees and other immigrants to Sweden.

I am very happy that the election is soon. I am very grateful that the Swedish people, even before the election, forced the Sweden Democrats and the government to change their minds regarding teenage deportations and other deportation proposals.

(Applause)

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! The Migration Pact must become Swedish law. Therefore, the Centre Party votes for the proposal in today's referral. But it is not without significant reservations.

Instead of adopting the migration pact, the government is going directly against the very purpose of the pact, namely to level the differences in migration legislation between Europe's countries.

At the same time, the government takes the opportunity to once again undermine the rule of law in Sweden and to once again show that the government's overall purpose is that people who have come here should never feel safe in Sweden.

Let us take it step by step. The Centre Party considers it positive with an increased alignment of migration policy within the EU. Therefore, the Centre Party has been driving the effort to achieve a European migration pact. But the government goes further than the common pact.

The so-called border procedure for asylum shall, for example, be applied in more situations than those that are mandatory in EU law. It is not to work for a common policy in the EU, as the government otherwise says it wants to do.

Madam Speaker! There is nothing in this government's migration policy that concerns anything other than achieving the minimum level of what is permitted under EU law. It is not about what is good or what is legally secure.

That is why we have had teenage deportations and competence deportations. That is why two speeding fines lead to entrepreneurs and employees being denied residence permits. That is why we see everything from courts to police, universities and lawyers criticizing the government at a level we have never seen before.

The criticism consistently concerns the lack of legal certainty. The report we are debating today is an excellent example of the government's indifference toward the rule of law.

The Migration Agency says that they can no longer know how they should decide after July 12. They have pointed out that they do not have the resources they need to implement the government's opaque policy in a reasonable way. But the government refuses to give them the resources they need. That says a lot about the government's hidden agenda.

At the same time as complexity increases, the government is now also limiting the right to a public counsel as much as possible. The Council on Legislation, just like the Centerpartiet, criticizes the proposed regulation and considers that there are limits to how far the minimum line may be pushed in the individual case, not least when it concerns children. But the government is indifferent, because less legal certainty leads to more deportations, and then the Tidö government is satisfied.

Then it concerns the phasing out of permanent residence permits. The Centre Party does not want to phase out permanent residence permits, not least because it is a proposal that hits quota refugees particularly hard. If permanent residence permits are removed, there should at least be longer temporary residence permits. But the government also says no to that.

I conclude by moving for the approval of reservations 3 and 4.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! As the member said, the Center Party is against phasing out permanent residence permits. I must nevertheless ask a question. If a person comes to Sweden because he or she needs protection, why should Sweden provide longer protection than that person needs?

No one questions that the person should receive protection. But if the need for protection ceases, the starting point must still be that the person shall return to their home country. Is this not something that Centerpartiet agrees with?

The proposition also means that those groups who will no longer be able to obtain permanent residence permits will still be able to become Swedish citizens if they meet the requirements of the Citizenship Act and have well-founded prospects of being granted permanent residence permits.

If one intends to stay in Sweden permanently, and if the law enforcement authority assesses that the stay in Sweden will be permanent, one can obtain citizenship if one fulfills all the other requirements that a foreigner needs to fulfill to obtain Swedish citizenship.

Then the question is why permanent residence permits are needed. If a foreigner no longer has grounds to stay in Sweden, and has also not been here long enough to become a citizen, what is the reason for that person to remain?

Permanent residence becomes a strange intermediate position, and the Center Party should explain why it was needed at all.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question! Now I can finally leave the prescribed script and take some more turns.

Madam Speaker! I have a counter-question for Nima Gholam Ali Pour. Has it become safer in Syria or in Afghanistan, or in other conflict areas from which we have seen large migration flows over the last 10–15 years?

I certainly have not seen that happen. On the contrary, we see in some parts, for example in Afghanistan, that young girls can no longer go to school. It is a regime that the Tidögänget chooses to legitimize.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are hiding behind technicalities. But point by point, they are making it increasingly difficult for people to establish themselves in Sweden, to want to be in Sweden, and to want to be part of and contribute to Swedish society.

I am going to tell a poorly hidden secret to my Sweden Democrat colleague. Nearly half of Sweden's population has a foreign connection today. There is a danger in creating division between people in a society. We have not yet seen the consequences of your politics.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member asked if it had become safer in Syria and Afghanistan. No, it has not become safer in Syria and Afghanistan. But I hope that the member and his party understand that the world's problems are not just Sweden's responsibility.

We cannot receive hundreds of thousands of people because different countries are at war. We have a certain capacity, and we have a welfare state. We have a certain number of homes. We need security in this country for our own inhabitants. We obviously cannot bring over all of Afghanistan and Syria.

If the member had read the bill, he would know that the concept of the first safe country is stated there. It means that when one reaches a first safe country and can seek asylum there, one should not travel further to Sweden. If one travels from Afghanistan and arrives in a country such as Turkey or, let us say, Bulgaria or somewhere else in Eastern Europe – why does one then travel further to Sweden? In that case, one is not an asylum seeker, but rather an economic migrant who has already received asylum but chooses to proceed further.

When it comes to establishing oneself in Sweden, I would say that we have carried out the largest integration reform in modern times by requiring those who are to become Swedish citizens to learn Swedish and be able to support themselves. They shall simply become a part of this country and establish themselves before they receive their citizenship.

When it comes to those born abroad, they themselves understand that Sweden cannot take in the whole world. Those born abroad understand that mass immigration is not compatible with a functioning welfare state.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the honesty! The Sweden Democrats therefore see a development where people are not welcome in the Sweden Democrat Sweden.

This is the same society that once, one day, received both me and the Sweden Democrat member, who is currently standing and advocating for tougher measures against people who have come from countries where they are oppressed or subjected to war and other things.

What scares me, Madam Speaker, is that the Sweden Democrats change their rhetoric at regular intervals. Previously, it was called "helping them into place." There was a great focus on that. But when the Sweden Democrats get the opportunity, they slaughter the aid pot. When the Sweden Democrats come to power, they speak of a historical investment in integration, but we have not seen a trace of the investments that the member of parliament claims to have carried out.

The worst thing is that the member sows division among all those people who wake up every morning, who go to their jobs and who contribute so enormously much to Sweden's prosperity. That the member has the nerve to stand here in the speaker's chair and not see the enormous contribution that these people provide to our common country – it is a mystery to me, Madam Speaker.

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

Daniel Riazat (-)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of motion 2025/26:4170, proposals 1–4.

26 years ago, when I was nine years old, I came to Sweden as a refugee child. After having lived in this country, which I call my homeland, for three years, we were told that we had to leave Sweden. We had to leave Sweden and go to a country that most in this chamber call a dictatorship, namely Iran.

This policy has continued over the last 26 years and has become even worse and even less humane. Many, including myself, would say that a racist migration policy is being conducted in Sweden today. But perhaps it is not so surprising because we have a racist government.

We find ourselves in a situation where permanent residence permits are being revoked, where families are being torn apart and where workplaces are being destroyed – because of what? Well, it is ideological racist blinkers that make people simply want to throw out as many people as possible of those who look like me and some others in this chamber. This is nothing that I am going to stand behind.

Today we have a debate where the Swedish Riksdag 2026 is to stand behind an even less humane asylum and refugee policy, and six of the Riksdag's eight parties agree to this. With all respect to certain members who have had views on some details in the proposal; we also know that it is not only the racist government that will vote for these inhumane legislative proposals, but the Center Party and the Social Democrats will also do so.

On the other hand, there are, outside this chamber, thousands of people demonstrating in streets and squares week after week to demand something else. They demand that Sweden shall once again become a country that stands up for human values and for the right to asylum. This is something that this government crushes with these proposals.

To limit the right to public counsel is something one does in dictatorships, not in democracies. To talk about children who have been here since they were 13 or 14 years old but who have now turned 21 having to leave the country is not something one does in a country that calls itself a humane democratic country.

Once again, it is about a racist migration policy that unfortunately has moved from those founded by Nazis to others, who call themselves liberals or moderates. This harms our country.

I know it is uncomfortable, but I will raise this during the last three months in the Riksdag. I will also, by getting into the Stockholm City Council, together with the Stockholm Left Alliance, ensure that the city of Stockholm refuses to agree to these legislative proposals, which are inhumane and racist and which divide people.

Remember that today we have paintings in the Swedish Riksdag that honor Harald Edelstam, who went against the law when he printed passes for Chileans and other Latin Americans who were to flee from the dictatorship! Remember that we honor different types of representatives such as Raoul Wallenberg and others, who broke the laws of the time to protect people on the run!

We want to be some of those people who will go against this inhumane policy, just like those who hid me when I was undocumented. We will do the same. No human is illegal. Down with this racist government!

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 9 June.)

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