Certain amendments to the regulations on security matters according to the Aliens Act

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! The security situation in the world has deteriorated significantly through Russia's ruthless invasion of Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East, and intensive influence campaigns from foreign powers. Sweden's security situation has also deteriorated over a longer period. We have painfully experienced the tragedies on Drottninggatan in 2017 and in Brussels in 2023. Both acts were committed by persons who should have left Sweden and Belgium respectively in accordance with the authorities' decisions. We are all probably in agreement that these are events that we never want to experience again.

The threat of terrorism against Sweden has increased. In August last year, the Swedish Security Service raised its assessment of the terror threat level in Sweden from three to four on a five-point scale. The Swedish Security Service assesses that Sweden has moved from being viewed as a legitimate target to a prioritized target for actors in the Islamist environment. This is very serious. The Moderate-led government sees it as a top priority to take measures to prevent threats to Sweden's security and thereby protect our country and our citizens.

Security issues are also important within migration policy. Many who seek asylum in Sweden want to become part of the Swedish community. These are people who work hard, learn the language, and behave correctly. At the same time, we see that a record number of people are denied Swedish citizenship as a result of the Security Service considering them too dangerous and capable of posing a threat to Sweden's security.

Against this background, the government presents proposals to increase security in Sweden and strengthen our ability to deport persons who wish to harm our society. With the proposal that we are debating today, we expand the grounds for revocation of residence permits, so that more foreigners who may come to engage in security-threatening activities will not have the opportunity to remain in the country. It concerns persons who can be assumed to come to engage in state-controlled corporate espionage or activities with links to terrorism.

Today, it is not possible to revoke a residence permit in all types of security-threatening activities if the person has stayed in Sweden for more than three years. The Government therefore also proposes that the time limit be extended and, in some cases, removed. Furthermore, it is proposed that the handling of foreign passports be tightened and that such passports should more easily be able to be revoked due to security threats.

It is important that authorities are given the opportunity to act at an early stage against activities that may threaten security in Sweden. Being able to revoke a residence permit is an important measure to be able to act against those who engage in security-threatening activities.

Madam Speaker! Revoking residence permits is in itself a major issue and an important task that was totally disregarded by the Social Democratic government. An alarming report from the Swedish National Audit Office shows that the Social Democratic government did not give the Swedish Migration Agency any goals, assignments, or reporting requirements regarding the revocation of residence permits.

The result was that 9,000 people who had been registered as having moved out of Sweden in 2019 or earlier still had their permanent residence permits at the end of 2020. Several hundred million kronor have disappeared from the taxpayers when benefits have continued to be paid out to persons who have had, or should have had, their residence permits revoked.

The National Audit Office also points out that confidentiality barriers between authorities constitute a very large problem. Other authorities may hold important information that they are not allowed to provide to the Swedish Migration Agency. This can result in residence permits that should be revoked not being revoked.

Madam Speaker! Now the Social Democratic government's lethargy is over. The Moderate-led government is acting powerfully. Already in December 2022, the government tasked the Swedish Migration Agency with prioritizing the revocation of residence permits. Since then, the Swedish Migration Agency has restructured its work and established new departments focusing on exactly that: revocation. We are already seeing results. In 2023, twice as many residence permits were revoked as the year before.

Furthermore, the government is carrying out offensive work to break down secrecy barriers between authorities. The starting point shall be, in contrast to today, that authorities are allowed to share information with one another to prevent and combat crime.

We have only managed to see the beginning of how the Moderate-led government is step by step strengthening security in the migration policy and getting order in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Government considers terrorism to be one of the most serious threats to democracy, the enjoyment of individual human rights, and economic and social development. The Government has therefore recently developed a new unified national strategy against violent extremism and terrorism with four strategic areas: preventing violent extremism and terrorism, preventing terrorist attacks and other ideologically motivated crimes, protecting society's people and functions, and managing the situation during and after an attack.

With this strategy, the government wants our entire society together to effectively combat terrorism and violent extremism and thereby safeguard the safety and security of individuals and families and defend our free and open society. With this as the basis and with the sharp proposals we will vote through today here in the Swedish Riksdag, we make Sweden safer and ensure that people who in different ways constitute a security threat leave the country.

Madam Speaker! The proposals that we hopefully vote through today were presented in an investigation as early as the beginning of 2020. But the Social Democratic government did not submit these proposals to the Riksdag. From what I understand, the Social Democrats intend to vote yes to the proposals today. We thus see once again evidence that the Social Democrats are only in favor of a strict migration policy when they are in opposition. The Social Democrats' claim that they have always been in favor of a strict migration policy is a preposterous falsification of history. Why, in that case, did they do nothing about, for example, just these proposals?

I also note, again, that all of the Social Democrats' coalition partners systematically say no to the cornerstone of these proposals. They do not want a strict migration policy. They want completely different things. And the history in this area is usually clear: If the Social Democrats do get power, they bow to their coalition partners and compromise away their own policy.

I hope that these proposals remain regardless of who wins the next election. But three is more than one, and it is obvious that the Social Democrats' coalition partners want something completely different.

Madam Speaker! A Moderate-led government is required for Sweden to have a strict migration policy and a policy that safeguards Sweden's security.

I hereby move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

In this speech, Caroline Högström (M) agreed.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The Government proposes, among other things, that it should be possible to revoke residence permits for persons who can be assumed to have links to terrorism. I do not know what the division of labor looks like within the right-wing nationalist government and the Sverigedemokraterna, but together with the Socialdemokraterna, they are at least in agreement that such serious parts of the legislation should be based on assumptions.

The Council on Legislation cuts this part of the proposal and considers that it should not be implemented. The evidentiary requirement "may be assumed" is hardly an evidentiary requirement, and it opens the door to arbitrariness and decisions that lack legal certainty. It is not serious.

Furthermore, the Council on Legislation points out that the terrorist crime law is already very extensive today. It is not only participation in or association with a terrorist organization, financing of terrorism, and recruitment that is punishable. Also, involvement in such crime in the form of instigation, aiding and abetting, attempt, or preparation is punishable. Already today, in accordance with the new law on special control of certain foreigners, a deportation can be decided if someone can be assumed to be guilty of or involved in terrorist crimes.

One asks the question, just as the Council on Legislation does, what, alongside the very extensive criminalization according to the Terrorist Crime Act, can constitute activity with a connection to terrorism and what is actually missing today. The laws we have cover what concerns terrorism, but the government wants that one should be able to proceed on assumptions that someone has a connection to terrorism.

Madam Speaker! This is completely absurd. Does the government think it is a good democratic order to deliberately undermine the rule of law? Is it a good democratic order to make decisions based on assumptions without requirements for evidence?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet should probably have disqualified itself for all time from referring to the Council on Legislation regarding any views on legislation. The ultimate example is the upper secondary school law which Vänsterpartiet supported while the Council on Legislation stated that that legislation had reached the limit of what is acceptable in terms of how legislation can be designed. Perhaps the member should have a lower tone when it comes to just that aspect.

The Government has carefully considered the Council for Legislation's views, but our assessment remains. According to the Swedish Security Service, it is an important measure to be able to revoke residence permits in order to act against those who engage in security-threatening activities with links to terrorism. Therefore, in line with the investigation, the Government makes the assessment that this is an important proposal so that authorities can act forcefully and at an early stage.

In Sweden, we have in modern times a tradition of ignoring and closing our eyes to problems as long as it only works until they suddenly become completely obvious and the damage has already been done. This applies, for example, to the unsustainable migration policy or that one did not act in time against the gross gang criminality on our streets. These are problems that politics turned a blind eye to until they became a fact. Then politics turned 180 degrees.

This government wants to work proactively and, for example, ensure that terrorist attacks do not occur on our streets at all and eliminate security threats before they become a reality. We move forward with this legislation because it is the state's ultimate task to ensure the safety and security of its citizens.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that Sweden is a democracy and that in a constitutional state, there is an important relationship between the state and the individual. I believe that it should take place in good democratic order and not be built on assumptions, as this government wants. One needs to follow important democratic principles, and one of them is the requirement of evidence.

I think we should have a strong, democratic justice system that does not compromise legal certainty, as this proposal does. It more or less abolishes the requirement of evidence and threatens the legal certainty for the individual. The Council on Legislation argues that it cannot be ruled out that this leads to implementation problems. Do the Moderates see this?

The proposal also leads to problems with legal certainty and insecurity for persons with residence permits in Sweden. "It goes without saying that if the proposal is implemented, further legal certainty problems can be foreseen," according to the Council on Legislation. But I note that the Moderaterna, according to their response, want to base the legislation on simple assumptions. This will have enormous consequences for democracy and legal certainty.

How does the government intend for this to happen in practice? Today, the Swedish Migration Agency refers cases to the Swedish Security Service, and the agencies cooperate regarding security matters. In practice, the Swedish Migration Agency routinely follows the Swedish Security Service's recommendations that if someone poses a threat to Sweden's security or public safety, they shall be deported.

If the Security Service is to proceed on such vague grounds as assuming that someone has a connection to terrorism – can't the Swedish Migration Agency just assume that themselves? There is no evidence requirement anymore. One simply has to assume things. What will be the difference then? Legal certainty is still compromised.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me emphasize that this matter of assuming that someone will engage in a certain activity is the evidentiary requirement that already applies today in the case of, for example, espionage or illegal intelligence activities. In that case, the evidentiary requirement does not differ from what applies in today's legislation.

I noted the rather sweeping criticism in the Left Party's follow-up motion. One naturally wonders if the Left Party also wants to abolish the grounds that already exist in today's legislation for revoking a residence permit. It is the same level of evidentiary requirements when it concerns someone being presumed to engage in something. Let me therefore emphasize that in that case, the evidentiary requirement is not changed.

Link to terrorism or so corporate-led espionage are two new grounds being introduced, but with the same wording that the person in question can be assumed to engage in this. Let me repeat that it is extremely important that authorities can act at an early stage against potential security threats and terrorism.

There is also a clear formulation that when it comes to terrorism, it concerns activities that can threaten security in Sweden. In those cases, a careful assessment must, of course, be made. There is good cooperation today between the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Security Service. They assist each other in making joint assessments.

Let me return to the fact that far too little has been done under the Social Democratic government, which the Left Party supported, to ensure the safety and security of our citizens. Now we move forward with proposals that should have become a reality as early as 2020 when the previous government had the chance, because we do not intend to wait for new acts or security threats to occur. We intend to prevent and be proactive in order to secure people's safety.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I intend to raise the question of what actions it is that, with the new bill, can lead to people living in Sweden and having residence permits here losing them. The bill intends to expand what types of actions or assumed actions can lead to these serious consequences.

I intend to ask the question that the Council on Legislation has raised in its opinion. They ask what, in addition to the very extensive criminalization according to the Terrorist Offences Act, can constitute activity "with a connection to terrorism." This applies particularly as the activity should then be of such a nature that it threatens the security of the country. What activity do the Moderates envision as threatening security in Sweden but which is not already criminalized today?

We in the Riksdag have expanded the criminalization of what can be a terrorist offense very significantly. What is left? What is this legislation aiming at? I ask at least against the background of what we have seen in our global environment, where authoritarian regimes have abused the concept of terrorism to imprison oppositionists, journalists, and others who criticize those in power. I would rather not see us in Sweden take steps in such a direction or open up for authoritarian leaders in the future to abuse such legislation.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! I can start by saying what I said to the Left Party. It is always interesting when the Green Party leans on the Council on Legislation's criticism when one, in a government position, was not so careful as to take the Council on Legislation's views into account. The Upper Secondary School Act, as was said, received grave criticism from the Council on Legislation for being completely unacceptable in terms of how legislation can be designed.

As I told Tony Haddou earlier, the government has looked closely at the Council on Legislation's criticism but still assesses that this is important to proceed with so that authorities can act early. Is there anything we know about terrorism or terrorist activities? It is that terrorists are creative when it comes to which methods they use to harm our society. I believe it is impossible to list exact activities - hence the wording "connection to terrorism".

It is also difficult for me to give exact examples of what it could be, but I know that in the preparatory works it is discussed that it could involve participation in an association that is not considered a terrorist organization in the meaning of the law but which, for example, engages in recruitment for terrorism. That could be an example, but this becomes, so to speak, a theoretical exercise. I do not believe, however, that it is I who am to list every activity explicitly.

In keeping with the fact that terrorists are becoming increasingly creative, it is important that the authorities have legislation and powers to be able to act against security threats when they occur. To ensure that the wording "connection to terrorism" does not become too vague, it is also, as mentioned, written that the activity must be of such a nature that it threatens the security of our country.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I actually think that a politician who submits a bill that some of the country's highest-ranking lawyers consider contributes to legal uncertainty, legal security problems, and a lack of legal security for a large group of people should be able to answer in which situation the law is intended to be used. What is it that is dangerous for Sweden and that is not considered already criminalized according to the terrorist crime act?

What the Council on Legislation notes is, in fact, that they cannot see situations where an activity would have a connection to terrorism and be dangerous for Sweden but not already be criminalized in the terror crime law. I therefore think that the Moderaterna should answer the question: What are the situations that can lead to one being deprived of their residence permit and the right to be in Sweden? Not least, this is important to know for all the people who are affected, so that they can be proactive and make decisions that do not lead to them arbitrarily losing their residence permits.

I think, therefore, that this responsibility actually rests heavily on the Moderaterna, who lead the government and the Ministry of Justice. We do not want a situation where people can randomly and arbitrarily be deprived of fundamental rights. In many countries, terrorist legislation is abused by authoritarian leaders to imprison oppositionists and journalists. Sweden shall not open up for that type of arbitrariness in the legislation, but rather we shall, through the terrorist crime law, criminalize acts that are dangerous to the realm and have a rule of law in our system.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen wants an example from the Moderaterna of activities that can constitute this type of activity with a connection to terrorism. I gave Annika Hirvonen an example, and I do not intend to give an additional 15 different examples. I gave an example of a situation where the legislation can be relevant, and beyond that, I maintain that one can stand and spout out ten exact activities, but the terrorists will always be more creative than that. I believe that it would be inappropriate.

This gives authorities the opportunity to act against security threats on our land at an early stage, and we in this chamber should actually be able to agree that it is a completely fundamental task for the Swedish state and our authorities to protect our citizens. The government presents proposals which, according to the commission's proposals and according to what the Swedish Security Service has said, are absolutely crucial in order to be able to eliminate security threats.

I do not think we should have random or arbitrary legislation. I think this will be a very good piece of legislation that gives further powers to the authorities and which allows the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Security Service to make careful assessments of what constitutes a security threat.

If there is anyone who wants a random and arbitrary migration policy, it is rather the Green Party, which instead wants to grant residence permits on just random and arbitrary conditions. The Upper Secondary School Act was perhaps the ultimate example of this from the previous parliamentary term. There, one completely departed from our regular asylum legislation and migration policy. I therefore think that one should have a slightly lower tone.

I believe that this will become an important tool for our authorities in the work of safeguarding the security of our citizens.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I was completely shocked when the Moderaterna, which is a government party, said at the end of the exchange that we should not have arbitrary legislation. That is precisely what is being created right now when one builds legislation on assumptions. I must say that it is completely absurd.

The Government, the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats want, among other things, that residence permits for foreigners should be able to be revoked for security reasons and that cases where the Security Service stipulates that a foreigner should not be granted a residence permit or that a foreigner's residence permit should be revoked shall constitute security cases according to the Aliens Act. Furthermore, it is proposed that it should be possible in certain cases to revoke a residence permit if it can be assumed that a foreigner will engage in state-controlled corporate espionage or activities linked to terrorism.

It is naturally reasonable to take measures to prevent threats to Sweden's security, but to present proposals to revoke residence permits if it can be assumed that someone, for example, is carrying out activities linked to terrorism, I must say is altogether too unserious in such a serious matter that one wonders if the government is even doing its job at the Ministry of Justice. That someone can be assumed to do something is hardly a standard of proof, and it opens the door to arbitrariness and decisions that lack legal certainty.

Vänsterpartiet has no confidence in the government, and one of the reasons is that it deliberately creates deficiencies in legal certainty and the democratic principles we consider important. They should be valued more highly than the government does.

Regarding the question of being able to revoke residence permits for security reasons, we believe that high standards of evidence must be set for persons to be deportable. We have previously, in connection with the consideration of the proposal for a new regulatory framework for qualified security cases in the Riksdag, raised our concern that the law will lead to more arbitrary deportations on unclear grounds. Now, this concern proves to be justified once again when the government chooses to proceed with this proposal, which, among other things, the Council on Legislation has criticized severely.

The criticism concerns, among other things, that the decisions will be based on assumptions and that it opens up for application problems and legal certainty problems. It is not serious. The Council on Legislation considers that the proposal should not pass in the part concerning revocation due to activities linked to terrorism. The Council on Legislation notes that not only participation in a terrorist organization, association with a terrorist organization, financing of terrorism, and recruitment are already punishable without also involvement in such criminality in the form of instigation or aiding being punishable. It should be noted here that the responsibility for aiding and abetting a crime is very extensive according to Swedish law.

Furthermore, the Terrorist Crime Act largely prescribes criminal liability for attempted, preparatory, and labeling of the aforementioned types of crimes, as well as for complicity in attempted crimes. The Council on Legislation therefore poses the question of what, alongside the very extensive criminalization according to the Terrorist Crime Act, can constitute activity with a connection to terrorism. We do not consider it serious to sit and make one's own assumptions.

The Council on Legislation further argues that the connection to terrorism becomes diffuse and difficult to grasp. As the proposal is designed, there is a risk that the application of the provision will not have sufficiently clear boundaries and may instead appear arbitrary. If the proposal is implemented, further legal certainty problems can be foreseen, with accompanying legal insecurity for persons with residence permits in Sweden.

The Swedish Red Cross writes in its referral response that the low evidentiary requirement in combination with the expansion of the possibilities for revocation will entail a risk of an increase in the number of persons who have their residence permit revoked on grounds that are difficult to verify. This is a serious infringement of personal integrity and problematic from a legal certainty perspective, especially since it concerns persons who can stay in the country for a longer period.

Vänsterpartiet agrees with the views of the Red Cross and the Council on Legislation. We also note that the government is fully aware of the legal certainty issues that arise with the proposal. It is almost surrealist that the government knows about the problems regarding how much arbitrariness and what flaws in legal certainty it opens up for, yet chooses to push ahead anyway.

So that is how it has been so far with this government. Unfortunately, it often lets emotions, opinions, and pure populism lie as the basis for law enforcement proposals and does not take responsibility for the consequences it can entail. I move for approval of reservation 1, Madam Speaker.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Tony Haddou has now, in a couple of speeches, focused on the evidentiary requirement "can be assumed". I believe he has mentioned it over ten times so far in the debate. It is a lower evidentiary requirement than what applies otherwise. That is entirely correct. But it is not an evidentiary requirement that is in any way unique to the legislation that we are to make a decision on today, but it already exists today.

There are, among other things, provisions in the Act on Special Foreigner Control regarding qualified security cases. It is a different piece of legislation than the one we are discussing here today. The qualified security cases concern persons who can be assumed to be likely to commit terrorist crimes. I have a simple question for Tony Haddou, if it is the case that he thinks the standard of proof is so problematic. Is it the Left Party's position today that the Act on Special Foreigner Control should be abolished?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It is unserious to build on assumptions even in the Aliens Act. Regarding the legislation that is now being referred to, the Left Party was also critical of the proposal. I believe the member is aware that we had views then. We felt that one should not build legislation on assumptions.

One must also be aware that the Security Service makes an assessment of whether someone poses a threat to Sweden's security or public security. The Security Service shall prevent, deter, and detect criminal activity involving crimes against the state's security and terrorist crimes.

What we have concerns about is building the legislation in the Aliens Act on assumptions. It is totally insecure in terms of the rule of law. It is not serious. If one is to sit and assume things, I can ask exactly the same question as I asked the Moderaterna.

If one does not need to involve the Security Service, the Swedish Migration Agency can sit and make assumptions as diffuse as they can be. It is not serious. The legislation is being built on assumptions. It becomes arbitrary. That is what we see as a problem here.

That the government does not see it as a problem is nothing that shocks me very much. People experience that the government is threatening democracy in Sweden. It is eroding democracy. We are beginning to see a pattern in the proposals that the government puts forward. It is not in the democratic spirit we have had in Sweden. It is being spread out and creates arbitrary legal uncertainty in Sweden. I do not think that is serious.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Just so that Tony Haddou understands how the proposal is intended to work: The reason why the Security Service is still to be consulted in such cases is that it would be extremely inappropriate to let the Swedish Migration Agency have access to the type of information we are talking about here. This is especially true given the problems that the Swedish Migration Agency has had with staffing and so on previously. But that is another story.

However, I heard no answer to my very simple yes-or-no question. It is not such a small question. The Act on Special Foreigner Control is extremely important in Sweden. It concerns genuinely dangerous people who have no sensible reasons to be in Sweden at all, other than to in various ways try to undermine the country's security and try to constitute an active breeding ground for future terrorism. Should that law be abolished, Tony Haddou, yes or no?

I looked a bit in the Left Party's motion bank earlier today. I have not found any examples of the Left Party wanting to abolish the law, even though the standard of proof can be assumed to be deeply problematic according to Tony Haddou. I want an answer to a simple yes-or-no question. Does the Left Party today think that the law on special foreigner control should be abolished?

It is a question that is extremely important given future government formations and so on. What is the left bloc actually going to do? What madness will it come up with in the future if there is a government negotiation on that side?

Now it is time to give a simple yes or no answer, Tony Haddou. Should the law on special immigration control remain, or should it not remain?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not think the member heard what we considered regarding these questions. We have nothing against someone doing something when it concerns threats to Sweden's security. The Left Party's view is that the legislation is being built on assumptions. It is precisely the same criticism that the Council on Legislation has. It is not strange at all to put forward that criticism.

It is true that even today there is a possibility to revoke residence permits on equally vague grounds according to the first paragraph of the Aliens Act. Even today, the Terrorist Offences Act exists, which covers everything we are talking about today.

The problem is that one enters the Aliens Act and goes about shaking it up again. If one reads what the Council on Legislation says, one sees that they have exactly the same criticism as the Left Party. The Aliens Act has, year after year, undergone change after change that shows total deficiencies. It is as insecure in terms of the rule of law as it can be, and now the government continues with it.

We can look closer at the question. But what I believe the Sweden Democrats want answers to is how it should look by the next election. You will not get an answer to that here today. You will have to sit on that question for a while longer.

We want a system that ensures legal certainty. We want to hold democracy high in Sweden. I don't think that shocks anyone. That you want to erode democracy, I think people are aware of. But I see no problem at all in us wanting to strengthen democracy and ensure that these cases and matters are handled more seriously and with legal certainty.

It is about people receiving a fair trial in a constitutional state. People should still know that we hold it in high regard in Sweden. There must be a decent relationship between the state and the individual. That is not the case if one builds legislation on assumptions. It is completely absurd, Madam Speaker.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It is pleasing that we have once again received a product on the Riksdag's table that the Social Democratic government has produced. We also think it is positive that there is a very broad support in the chamber for that product. With that, I move for approval of the product.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ola Möller, for the speech!

One has to be quick to request a reply in these times. It is almost as if the total debate time for the Social Democratic representatives in migration policy is up to two minutes or something like that during the debates we have had so far. I think this is a serious issue that deserves a serious discussion and debate.

Ola Möller proudly said that it was legislation that the Social Democratic government put forward. It is true that an investigation was conducted during the Social Democrats' time. But it came in 2020. I actually want to direct a very straightforward and genuine question to the member. Why did the Social Democratic government not proceed with the proposals already then, if one thinks that these are important measures that need to be put in place?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Jessica Rosencrantz!

The reason was that a disease called covid emerged. It took a very large amount of resources from the government's work during that period. I myself sat in the Committee on Civil Affairs at that time, which also had the Ministry of Justice as the responsible department. A very large amount of the work that came in then had to be paused.

Then we also had during 2021, especially during the summer, a situation where, among others, the Moderaterna ousted the Löfven government. It also created a very large gap in the work during that period as there were new government negotiations, a new government was to be formed, and new collaborations were to enter into effect. And then came the invasion that Russia made of Ukraine, which also demanded a great deal of energy and effort.

I think it is positive that we now have a situation where Moderates and Social Democrats can agree on core parts of the migration policy, because Swedish history has shown that when our parties agree, there is quite a bit of order and clarity in the migration policy.

I think it is better that we look forward and see that we are now in agreement instead of bickering about that it has not gone exactly as fast as everyone might have wished. I think it is positive that we are in agreement. It is good, Jessica Rosencrantz, that the government has now produced this.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ola Möller, for the answer! The answer is therefore that we had a government that only managed to handle one issue at a time. That is a good message to the Swedish people. Then I am glad that today we have a government that manages to both reform the migration policy, strengthen the efforts against gang violence, handle a problematic security situation in the world around us, bring Sweden into Nato and handle a number of other equally decisive and major issues.

It is only to be regretted that the Social Democrats did not manage to prioritize this issue as well. But all the better and more important is that we now have a government that really gets the measures in place.

The Social Democrats have made a big point of the fact that they have historically always been in favor of a strict migration policy. It is a laughable claim for most people except for the Social Democrats, regardless of what one thinks on the merits. We can state that the Social Democrats rather fought against several of the proposals that my party, among others, submitted to this Riksdag to precisely tighten migration policy.

Let us look forward, because I think that is more interesting both for us and for the Swedish people. Three of the Social Democrats' coalition parties consistently and systematically say no to virtually all proposals that we place on the Riksdag's table regarding tightening migration policy. We see the same pattern in today's matter. Three is, as is well known, more than one. Three coalition parties want a more generous migration policy. The Social Democrats claim they want something else.

Can Ola Möller promise the Swedish people that you will truly stand firm on a strict migration policy and that you will not take into account at all what Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet repeatedly put forward in the debates we have in the Swedish Riksdag? Can the Socialdemokraterna promise that these proposals will remain, but also that the strict migration policy will remain?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! We handled very many issues during our period. We got 100,000 more in welfare, we achieved a housing production that exceeded the projected needs, and we introduced 80 new sentencing increases within criminal law and 30 new laws. We produced the products where we also moved forward the positions regarding the terrorist issue, we began building up the defense, and we started two new police academies. So, it is not quite true that we could only focus on one issue.

But handling a global pandemic is a rather unique situation. Jessica Rosencrantz sat in the Riksdag during this period and was involved in voting on a number of extra supplementary budgets and the like. The picture and the tone become a bit dull - if one is to speak of tone, as Rosencrantz likes to do - when one says that we would have only taken care of one issue. We produced the product. As I have explained, there was a lot on the table, and time was short. Furthermore, a government was defeated during the period, so this is not so strange.

When it comes to the fact that three is more than one, it is not noticeable in the cooperation that exists in Rosenbad right now. There, it is one party that completely dictates the terms for the current government. That logic, therefore, fails a bit on its own premise.

Of course, we shall continue to maintain a strict migration policy. My party leader has been very clear about that. Then, it is of course the case that no legislation, regardless of which it is, remains fixed. It changes over time depending on what is needed. That is what we are prepared to do by changing the legislation to a stricter one, which we have also done.

I welcome that the Moderates want to reach an agreement with the Social Democrats on migration policy again, because the last time the Moderates made a major shift in it, it was with the Green Party that they reached an agreement. And it was this that laid the foundation for many of the problems we saw during the 2010s and even into the 2020s with permanent residence permits as the basis for the Syrian refugees, which led to major problems for the Swedish reception and the Swedish Migration Agency. I believe, therefore, that Jessica Rosencrantz should be a bit cautious.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Just as Ola Möller says, the report that we are debating today is based on an investigation commissioned by Mikael Damberg. It was delivered in March 2020, and was subsequently referred.

The very relevant question one can ask is: What happened next? This was approximately four years ago. Why did the investigation, after the referral, end up in a desk drawer somewhere in the Government Offices?

Ola Möller claims that it is due to the pandemic and that, among other things, the pandemic caused the government to be unable to handle the issue. It was the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine that caused this. I do not believe that this is true, or I know that it is not true.

With the limited insight I have into how the Government Offices function, I know that they have ample resources to handle a number of different matters simultaneously. This is furthermore an issue that could easily have been handled by a part of the Government Offices, either criminal law or migration law, which were not directly involved in handling, for example, the pandemic law or any of the other things that Ola Möller refers to. I therefore know that this is not true.

Another issue has come up in the debate that I think is even more important. It is the question of whether the Social Democrats now have any red lines that they could draw before a future government cooperation. In a previous exchange of remarks in the debate, the question of the Act on Special Foreigner Control came up. It is not exactly that law that we are changing today, but it is a similar rule that is fundamental for Sweden to be able to maintain national security. It is, therefore, about more or less acute terror threats and about Sweden's possibility of getting them out of the country.

The Left Party claims that they no longer support this rule, or that they perhaps never have supported it. They want the law on special immigration control to be abolished. Is this a red line for the Social Democrats? Can you say here and now that you will never let this happen?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I know, Ludvig Aspling, what is true because I sat in the building and worked with the legislation during this period. This concerned, among other things, the rental legislation, which Ludvig Aspling brought down a government on. This was, apart from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, one of the reasons why it became difficult for the government to work continuously with issues.

I know that there was enormous pressure on the Ministry of Justice. Many of the officials working in the department to produce a migration law were also sitting and working on the penal code. We increased 80 penalties and introduced 30 new criminal laws.

Ludvig Aspling's tone and his claim that he knows what is true is incorrect, because he was not there. As Ludvig Aspling himself says, he has limited insight into what it is like to govern a country, and I am very happy about that.

When it comes to red lines, I heard the discussion between Ludvig Aspling and Tony Haddou, and I can only state that these yes-or-no questions that Ludvig Aspling is trying to make it into, i.e., the have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife questions, are not really serious.

It is clear that one can make changes to a piece of legislation without abolishing it, but we do not intend to introduce legislation that increases the threat against Sweden. The Social Democrats have been clear during our period in government that we want to strengthen Sweden's security. That is why we produced this product, why we pivoted on the Nato issue, and so on. Social Democracy is a clear force to ensure that the security of Swedish citizens is protected.

I do not have the mandate to take a stand for the Social Democrats on the question of whether there is a red line to be drawn here. It is above my pay grade; Ludvig Aspling can be at ease about that. You may direct the question regarding exactly where our red lines are to our party leader and our party board.

I can state that what we have done during the previous parliamentary term and continue to do now is to take clear responsibility for Sweden's security.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! The only reason why Ola Möller thinks that yes-or-no questions are unserious is that he is deeply uncomfortable having to answer them. This is absolutely not an unserious question. This is, on the contrary, perhaps the most serious and important questions that the Social Democrats must give an answer to, and they will need to do so at least before the upcoming election campaign.

It is not only I who am eager to know what will happen with, for example, the Act on Special Immigration Control if the misfortune were to occur and Vänsterpartiet takes a place in a future government.

Ola Möller says that one can change and tinker a bit with the laws without removing them. No, Ola Möller! This is how it is: The Act on Special Foreigner Control is based on a few very simple principles. There should be a low burden of proof, and it should be a qualified threat. It should therefore be about a very dangerous person, and therefore a fairly low burden of proof should be required - "can be assumed" in this case, which Tony Haddou targeted in his speech.

My question remains. Is this a red line for the Social Democrats? I understand that Ola Möller cannot sign the party's firm, but that is not what I am asking about. What I am asking about is whether the Social Democrats have any principles. Are there any principles that the party adheres to? That is what I want to know.

So, is this a red line for the Social Democrats? Will the party contribute to the law on special immigration control, as it functions today, being worsened, removed, or rendered toothless in order to compromise with the Left Party? This is an extremely justified question, and it should not be very difficult to answer it. These are, after all, quite important matters.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I have been clear that it is certain that the law shall remain. Exactly how it will be in every detail I cannot answer, but we do not intend to contribute to increasing the security threat against Sweden. That is why I welcome the fact that there is a broad consensus regarding these laws here in the chamber. We have presented a product that the government is now moving forward with and which the Sverigedemokraterna also support.

Ludvig Aspling can be calm. We will not increase the threat against Sweden by not taking responsibility in these issues.

Ludvig Aspling asks about red lines. Yes, we have plenty of red lines. One is to withdraw permanent residence permits for people. That is a red line we have. We do not want to introduce reporting laws, which the government wants to do. We do not want to deport prostitutes, which one initially thought was a reasonable thing from the government and the Sverigedemokraterna in the Tidö Agreement.

So, there are plenty of red lines. The interesting thing is that the Sweden Democrats are standing there talking about red lines. One absolutely would not introduce any free rent setting in new production during the last parliamentary term. Now they have shifted on that issue. Sweden absolutely would not join Nato. Now we have both shifted on that issue. The EU issue was also a red line for the Sweden Democrats earlier, but the Sweden Democrats have shifted on that one.

Ludvig Aspling's constantly recurring "this-is-how-it-is" rhetoric is becoming a bit tedious, I would like to say. It is not always as simple, straight, and clear as Ludvig Aspling wants to make it.

As said: Ludvig Aspling can be completely calm. The Social Democrats do not intend to contribute to raising Sweden's threat level. On the other hand, the Sverigedemokraterna party leader and their chairman in the Committee on Justice have more or less made it a hobby to help raise the threat level against Swedish citizens, which also has devastating consequences for the Swedish people.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden and the world are in a new security situation, with wars both in our immediate vicinity and in far too many other places in the world. We also have an elevated security threat for several other reasons. Since August 2023, Sweden has been at terror threat level 4 on a 5-point scale, where we have moved from a legitimate to a prioritized target for terrorist attacks against Sweden and Swedish interests. This occurs in a situation where we also have an emerging grave organized crime with large amounts of violence capital and violent extremism.

We in the Centre Party have been in favor of almost all legislation so far during this parliamentary term regarding justice and security policy. We have been in favor of the new counter-terrorism legislation where both association with and participation in a terrorist organization is now punishable. We have been in favor of the new expanded secret measures that entered into force last year. We believe, in line with the government, that the work to prevent threats to Sweden's security is a high-priority issue.

We have here today to handle the regulatory framework for so-called security cases according to the Aliens Act. These are good and necessary proposals being put forward, and we from Centerpartiet stand behind most of the proposed rules. It is good that there is a possibility to revoke residence permits for such actions and deeds and such activities that normally involve great risks for our country, for Sweden. We have, however, felt compelled to reserve ourselves against one point, namely the proposal in Chapter 7, Section 3, first paragraph, 3 c.

Madam Speaker! One of the most important characteristics of legislation is that it is clear for everyone so that it becomes both general-preventive and normative, that is to say that the citizens and those who stay in Sweden know what applies and know how they should act so as not to be illegal.

Another equally important quality for new legislation is that it must be able to be used quickly and with force by our justice system. Our police, prosecutors, and judges are only as fast and strong as the legislation and its quality and construction allow. With vague, unclear, and complicated regulatory frameworks, the justice system does not become particularly strong, and there is a risk of arbitrariness and an application that is not at all in accordance with the legislator's will and intent.

Our reservation concerns the possibility of revoking a residence permit if it can be assumed that a foreigner will engage in activities linked to terrorism.

We have, as mentioned, in recent years introduced criminal liability for both participation in and association with a terrorist organization, which has made the scope of criminal liability relatively extensive. The Council on Legislation also writes in its opinion that it is difficult to point to cases intended by the expression "connection to terrorism" in the new legislation and that this in itself shows that the bill must be questioned. The proposal is neither accurate nor legally secure, but rather vague.

I became a bit thoughtful when it was given as an example earlier in the debate that recruitment to terrorism could be a reason. One only has to read Section 8 of the current terrorism law to see that it is already punishable today to recruit to terrorism. Today, it also constitutes grounds for deportation if this can be assumed, and in that case, the residence permit also expires.

The month or so that is gained by quickly enacting legislation and getting things in place by a certain date, with the argument that it must go fast, is lost in heaps of time when an overloaded Swedish justice system has to interpret unclear legislation and create and codify a practice. It can take years before we have precedents in place, and we do not have that time. In that case, it is better for the government to redo and do it right regarding this basis for revocation. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! The paradigm shift in migration policy contains both large, overarching changes and smaller rule changes of a more technical nature. These are rule changes that perhaps alone will not have an enormous impact, but which together will shape a more restrictive and modern regulatory framework. This bill is a prime example of the latter.

The proposals therefore concern security matters according to the Aliens Act. These are matters where the Security Service, for reasons concerning national security, recommends that a person's residence permit should be revoked or not granted, or that a couple of other measures should be able to be implemented.

What the coalition parties are doing today is that we are giving the Swedish Security Service and the Swedish Migration Agency new tools to handle this type of threat. On one hand, we ensure that such foreigners cannot be granted residence permits, i.e., a travel document that helps these persons travel internationally, on the other hand, already issued such residence permits can be revoked, and partly the grounds for when a residence permit or a travel document can be revoked will be expanded to also include persons who engage in state-controlled corporate espionage or activities linked to terrorism.

What this means, therefore, is that it will no longer be necessary to have a suspicion that the person themselves will commit an act that is punishable, but it will suffice that the person engages in activities that in themselves are not punishable but which nevertheless aim to in some way promote or support, for example, a terrorist organization.

Several debaters have previously entered into the question of the borderline between the requirements we introduce today, i.e., the connection to terrorism, and the punishable area according to the terror crime law. What is the difference? It is a very relevant question and, I would say, the actual core of this debate.

We do not have the type of casuistic legislation in Sweden where we, from the side of the Swedish Riksdag, will point out exactly which situations are covered by the new rules. But a scenario that I myself hope for is that persons who engage in, for example, religious preaching with clear elements of violence, but who do not meet the requirements in the incitement law, should be able to be covered by this rule. If one speculates a little, it could perhaps also involve fundraising activities where there is a suspicion that the end user of the funds is a terrorist organization or an organization that promotes that type of activity, but where the setup is too complicated to be handled according to the terror crime law. In that case, one should therefore be able to have an opportunity to intervene in terms of immigration law instead.

The answer to the question that three debaters have previously asked – where is the space between the terror crime law and these requirements? – is therefore that it exists approximately there. There is a space, and I think it is fully reasonable that Sweden has rules that utilize this space. In that part, it is also worth mentioning that these proposals border on other proposals regarding deportation due to lack of livelihood which are currently being prepared within the Government Offices. Another difference compared to the current order is that activities conducted outside Sweden's borders will now be covered by this rule.

We are also changing the so-called three-year rule. It is a rule that says that if a person has lived in Sweden with a residence permit for three years, the residence permit cannot be revoked on this basis. We are now extending that time limit to five years. We are also introducing a safety valve that allows residence permits to be revoked even after five years if there are compelling reasons, for example, if the case has been difficult to investigate, that it has taken a long time, and that the time limit has therefore been passed.

The Swedish Security Service will also be able to appeal the Swedish Migration Agency's decisions regarding alien passports and supervision in security cases in the same way as applies, for example, for detention under the current order.

Why was this then needed? It is no secret that previous governments have seen, to be generous, almost everything related to security in immigration matters as a lower priority. In practice, the Social Democrats in particular, but also previous center-right governments, have turned a blind eye to the fact that the uncontrolled mass immigration has transformed Sweden into a base for international terrorism and crime. Per capita, Sweden was one of the countries that supplied the Islamic State with the most soldiers, while the Swedish social security system in practice functioned as an ATM for those traveling for terror wars. If we look at what is happening right now within the Social Democrats, it is perhaps perfectly natural that they want to talk as little as possible about persons with links to terrorism.

Now this is over. Regardless of how much the opposition protests, the coalition partners will step by step dismantle the regulatory frameworks that have made Sweden particularly attractive for international terrorism and crime.

Madam Speaker! What does the opposition say about all this? It is a very relevant question. There is no unified opposition to speak of. Not on paper, at least; one does not know what they have said among themselves, naturally. But on paper, it looks very divided.

Three of the parties reject the proposal in rather sharp terms, while one of them pretends that they have actually always stood behind this proposal but perhaps just didn't have time to implement it when they themselves were in government. Perhaps it was the lack of conference rooms that haunted them – who knows?

The interesting thing, naturally, is what will happen if the opposition, God forbid, returns to government power after the next election. A good indication of what will happen is, of course, what happened last time.

The investigation on which this report is based was handed over to Mikael Damberg in March 2020, which is about four years ago. What happened since then requires some speculation, so we will simply have to speculate on what happened.

I am quite sure that Mikael Damberg went to Märta Stenevi or some other Miljöpartiet member and asked if one might perhaps be able to carry out this proposal, whereupon Märta Stenevi said "no, little friend, you can forget that." Märta Stenevi said so because she, just like all the rest of us, knows that it doesn't matter if Miljöpartiet has 4 percent and Socialdemokraterna 35 percent. It is completely irrelevant, because if Socialdemokraterna must choose between on one hand a ministerial pension, an ambassador's or governor's post or some other fine title with a high salary and on the other hand to do what is morally right for Sweden's security but then be forced to run over Miljöpartiet and risk their own economic gain, then Socialdemokraterna choose to favor themselves at every opportunity - without exception, without doubt.

That is what happened then, and that is what could happen again if the accident were to occur.

Among the parts of the opposition that actually have their own opinion on migration policy, there are two reservations. These say essentially the same thing but with slightly different nuances, and that is that there are elements of legal uncertainty regarding the requirement of a connection to terrorism in such a way that it will involve a degree of discretionary judgment.

It is entirely true that it will involve a degree of subjective judgment. That is completely correct, and it is a point in this report that many debaters have touched upon.

There are two reasons why one can, if not dismiss, at least address this objection. Firstly, there is a clear requirement in the same rule stating that the activity must be of such a nature that it threatens the country's security, which means that the connection to terrorism cannot be as loose as anything, but there must be a certain degree of concretization.

Partly, and perhaps more importantly, is the fact that this type of activity, which lies in the gray zone towards the punishable area according to the terror crime law, is difficult to capture. Therefore, a greater degree of discretionary judgment was needed from the authorities' side. As these crime structures develop and become harder to detect and investigate, the authorities need stronger tools to detect, investigate, and then execute this type of decision. It is that simple.

As the Council on Legislation expresses the matter in its opinion, it will be about actions that lie "in the periphery of what is meant by terrorism". That is hopefully correct, for it is already in the periphery that we must act if we seriously want to be able to intervene against this type of threat.

Naturally, the opposition understands this. The opposition to this proposal, especially regarding the parties behind reservation 1, is perhaps rather due to the fact that they do not really want Sweden to be able to intervene, as it risks affecting groups that they themselves have a somewhat strained relationship with, which I, of course, also hope they are right about.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the bill and thank you very much for the floor.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In this bill, several things are proposed, including that foreign residence permits can also be revoked for security reasons. It is proposed that cases where the Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) advises that a foreigner should not be granted a residence permit or that a foreigner's residence permit should be revoked shall constitute security cases according to the Aliens Act. It also becomes possible in certain cases to revoke a residence permit if it can be assumed that the foreigner will engage in "state-controlled corporate espionage or activities linked to terrorism."

Miljöpartiet agrees on the importance of preventing threats to Sweden's security. We agree with most parts of the proposal, but the part concerning the revocation of residence permits due to vague links to terrorism that do not constitute acts criminalized in the extensive terror crime law, which the Riksdag recently expanded to cover many acts, should not be implemented. It is simply not legislation that meets the requirements for legal certainty.

We note that the Council on Legislation, but also referral bodies such as the Swedish Red Cross, have raised this. And we are concerned about a development where the government once again proceeds with proposals that have serious flaws in the rule of law. This time it is happening in the name of counter-terrorism and in complete defiance of powerful criticism and rejection from the Council on Legislation.

When we debated the issue just now, I asked the Moderaterna if they could exemplify some situations that are not criminalized in the terrorist crime law today but which still threaten Sweden's security, which they should do so that the regulation can be used, and which have a connection to terrorism. The only example was linked to recruitment, and recruitment is already criminalized today.

Just now we heard the member from Sverigedemokraterna present a number of examples. For example, he raised religious sermons that do not contain criminalized statements. I think it is remarkable that a party not in government with freedom of speech can highlight examples of which actions can lead to one losing their residence permit and the right to stay in Sweden, but the government's own party representatives cannot do so. The examples are not highlighted in the bill, and it is the opening for different interpretations that we in Miljöpartiet warn against. How is a person supposed to relate to the risk of losing their residence permit? How is one supposed to know where the line is, for which actions can lead to the serious consequences, when not even the Moderaterna's own member of parliament can provide examples?

I ask the question again anyway: Does Jessica Rosencrantz share Sverigedemokraternas Ludvig Aspling's assessment that the examples he highlights are such that they will in the future lead to one losing their residence permit. This is important, it is real, and it affects people's lives and fundamental rights.

In the extension, the question of a legally secure and predictable legislation is one of the questions that we need to see in light of the fact that we are currently living in a world where fewer and fewer people live in democracies. Fewer countries are democracies today, and the strength of the democracies that exist is diminishing.

Just terrorist legislation is used by many authoritarian leaders in a way that is directly in conflict with democratic principles. They accuse opposition members or journalists of engaging in terrorist activities in order to silence legitimate political criticism. It is important that there is legislation that precisely targets actors who pose a threat to Sweden, and it is also important that there is a legally sound legislation that cannot be misused to, for example, silence critics whom one does not want to convey their messages.

We note that the terrorist crime law has recently been expanded in such a way that participation in a terrorist organization has become punishable. That proposal was implemented despite the Council on Legislation already warning at that time, because the security issue also lies in the other balance scale. But when the current criminalization of acts with some kind of connection to terrorism is already extensive, we wonder again what the more indirect connection to terrorism can consist of. It does not appear from the bill.

I have personally been involved in drafting the consent law. Believe me! We discussed various scenarios in detail, exactly how hands can be moved on bodies. Where is the line between a crime and what is not criminal? That is how one ensures legally sound legislation.

It is obvious that this has not been done, and it is obvious that there has been no concern for ensuring the legal certainty for people who have residence permits in Sweden. I am not surprised. The government is governed by the Sweden Democrats, who want to deport people not only because they have committed crimes but also because they have been law-abiding, worked and paid taxes in Sweden. From that perspective, it is of course understandable that one does not place weight on the aspects of legal certainty.

The government thus wants to make it possible to revoke a person's residence permit based on mere suspicion that there is a risk that the person may engage in activities with a connection to terrorism, that is to say, activities that are not criminal.

The acts are insufficiently defined and are not punishable under the terror crime law. It is highly problematic that this allows for arbitrary application. The Riksdag should therefore reject the proposal for a new point regarding the revocation of residence permits. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen hesitated somewhat at my exemplification of what I believe the law can result in. It is several debaters who have entered into the question of which concrete examples can be applied or which cases the law can be applied to.

In Sweden, there is no casuistic legislation in such a way that the preparatory works state exactly which situations or exactly which acts will be covered by a certain legal provision. That is not how Sweden works, and that is how it has never functioned as far as I know.

The question is why the example I highlighted is so problematic for Miljöpartiet. It is interesting. I highlighted individuals who engage in religious preaching with clear elements of promoting violence but who do not reach the threshold of the law on incitement to terrorist offenses. There is, therefore, a space under the law on incitement to terrorist offenses where one can still preach with clear elements of promoting violence without being held accountable.

Why should these people, Annika Hirvonen, be in Sweden at all?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I maintain my question regarding which actions this new paragraph targets. It is positive that someone in the chamber who is in favor of the proposal nevertheless provides an answer to the question. It is important that citizens know which actions can lead to the serious consequence of losing one's residence permit and thereby the right to stay in Sweden - and everything one has built up here. There may be family relationships and other things that one loses. It is important that people can foresee this.

I asked Jessica Rosencrantz whether the examples that Ludvig Aspling highlighted are such examples that the Moderaterna also believe the provision will affect.

We in Miljöpartiet think it is incredibly serious that not even Sweden's most skilled lawyers in the Council on Legislation can imagine the answer to such a central question in the legislation. It simply does not appear in the proposal.

I asked Jessica Rosencrantz during the exchange which situations this could affect. The only thing that was highlighted then was that one engages in recruitment via an organization that is not designated as a terrorist organization. But recruitment to terrorism is already criminalized today.

I thought it would be interesting for me to know if it is the case that Ludvig Aspling has participated in discussions also with the Ministry of Justice and with the Minister of Justice. Are those the examples that Ludvig Aspling highlights that this bill actually deals with? Why then does one not write out those examples?

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the question of whether I have participated in discussions, the answer is no, I have not done so. I was also clear in my statement that this is a situation that I hope will be covered.

The Swedish legal system works in such a way that it is not I or any other member of the Swedish Riksdag who decides how the law shall be applied in individual cases, but it will be up to the courts or, in this case, the Swedish Migration Agency in certain instances.

What I do, however, hope is that persons who engage in religious preaching with clear elements of hate and clear elements of violence promotion that do not reach the threshold of terror crime legislation, i.e., incitement to terrorist crimes, will nevertheless be covered by these immigration law rules and be forced to leave Sweden. That is what I hope for.

The interesting question here is why the Green Party is so horrified by this. Why does the Green Party want these individuals to promptly remain in Sweden and continue to undermine Sweden's security? Why? It is probably a fairly simple thing to answer. It cannot be so difficult to explain why one thinks it is so important that precisely individuals who constitute clear security threats, but who are smart enough to act in a way that does not reach the threshold of the terror crime law, should remain in Sweden instead of going home to their home countries.

Annika Hirvonen! Explain! Why do you have this position?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is typical of Ludvig Aspling to claim that other parties think things and then wonder why they think so. I have never said that I think anyone should engage in any kind of sermons of violence, neither here nor in any other country.

Now it is about legislation that Ludvig Aspling and the government have prepared where it is not clear who will be affected. I want an answer to the question of what actions that are not already criminalized in the terror crime law can lead to a person losing their residence permit. That is the question that the Council on Legislation has asked itself and finds no answers to, neither in the bill nor in any other way. People who are now walking around worried about their rights and wondering if they will continue to have the right to live in Sweden with their families and continue to work here actually deserve to be told where the line is drawn.

This legislation is not legally secure. It is too vague. Therefore, I demand answers, not only from Ludvig Aspling but also from the representatives of the government parties. We have not received them.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Given the current global situation, it is important that we as a country and we as decision-making politicians analyze the situation, assess risks and threats, and make decisions on legislative changes that increase security for us as a country but also for all citizens in Sweden.

It is obvious that there are individuals, organizations, but also states that in different ways want to both destabilize and, through various attacks, create unrest and also carry out various forms of terrorist actions. But it is also the case that we in Sweden are subjected to attacks and espionage aimed at gaining access to secret information regarding both state- and company-related information.

For the Christian Democrats, it is central that we do more in this area to increase security and increase the protection of our country. The proposals presented in the bill that we are now debating provide further opportunities for protection for both our country and our citizens, but also for the companies operating in Sweden.

The government that we have in Sweden today has a majority of the voters behind it and behind the direction we have for Sweden. We handle this issue like other issues with great respect for the citizens' rights, but we also see that additional measures need to be implemented to create the security that Sweden's inhabitants are worth.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats agree with the assessment that the regulatory framework for cases with security aspects needs to become more purposeful. It is important to give our authorities additional opportunities to prevent and counter threats to Sweden's security.

The proposed changes concern changed procedures for asylum processes and residence permits related to security reasons, espionage, and terrorism.

Regarding alien passes, the Christian Democrats share the assessment that the cases should be able to constitute security cases according to the Aliens Act, and that alien passes should also be able to be revoked for security reasons. Through this amendment, security aspects can be considered in these cases in the same way as already applies for cases regarding travel documents.

We also note that state-sponsored corporate espionage occurs in our country as well as in many other high-tech countries and that it can have serious consequences for Swedish companies, affect important Swedish societal interests and worsen the conditions to develop and maintain the protection of the country's security. We therefore see a need for the measure proposed in the bill, namely that a residence permit should be revocable if it can be assumed that a foreigner will engage in corporate espionage in Sweden or in any other Nordic country and it can be assumed that the crime does not lead to only fines. It is one of several measures to provide additional protection for information that is important for our country.

Madam Speaker! The bill also specifies a new possibility to revoke a residence permit if it can be assumed that a foreigner will engage in activities linked to terrorism. It is a fact that terrorism and acts of terrorism have been carried out in Sweden and within Europe, and that there are also non-European terrorist organizations that have issued direct threats against Sweden. It is evident that terrorism is one of the most serious threats to, among other things, democracy and human rights.

To avoid the risk of Sweden becoming a haven for potential terrorists by them being able to obtain residence permits that cannot subsequently be revoked, it should be possible to revoke a residence permit for a foreigner who entered the country if it can be assumed, due to previous activities or otherwise, that the foreigner will engage in activities linked to terrorism, regardless of in which country the activities can be assumed to be carried out.

We consider it important that authorities are given the opportunity to act at an early stage against activities that can threaten security in Sweden. Given that the activity must be of such a nature that it threatens the security of the country, the connection to terrorism is also strengthened, in our opinion.

I can state that the proposed standard of proof, that it can be assumed that a foreigner will engage in, for example, activities linked to terrorism, is the same as that which already applies today in the revocation of residence permits due to sabotage, espionage, or illegal intelligence activities.

In order to achieve security for our country and our citizens, we see the need for effective measures to be taken against foreigners who pose a threat to Sweden's security. It is precisely such measures that this bill proposes.

Madam Speaker! We also see that the deadline for the revocation of residence permits that applies today is not expedient because it normally takes a long time to detect and investigate, for example, espionage and illegal intelligence activities.

The government's proposal for a five-year time limit for revoking a residence permit is therefore a step in the right direction. But since there may be situations where a case takes an unusually long time due to its complexity and there are strong reasons to assume that the foreign national is engaged in activities that seriously threaten security in Sweden, a safety valve should be introduced. A residence permit should therefore be allowed to be revoked even after five years if there are compelling reasons.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is being subjected to threats and attacks from individuals, organizations, and states. We all have a responsibility to create a safe society for Sweden's citizens.

The bill that we are handling today has, fortunately, broad support in the committee and, as it looks, broad support for a decision in this chamber. It constitutes one of the steps and one of the pieces of the puzzle in providing the authorities with additional tools for increased security for Sweden.

We Christian Democrats therefore move for approval of the bill.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Earlier in the debate, I asked the representative of the Moderates for examples of actions that the government envisions the new legislation should target. What type of actions with a connection to terrorism, which are not already criminalized but which nevertheless threaten Sweden's security, is this bill about?

I received no answers from the Moderates. The only thing raised was recruitment, which is criminalized today. Ludvig Aspling from the Sverigedemokraterna, on the other hand, exemplified this by stating that it is hoped this can lead to a reduction in the space for what one can say in a religious sermon, that is to say, that persons who preach messages that are not criminalized today but in different ways, for example, endorse violence, can lose their residence permit. I want to ask Ingemar Kihlström from the Kristdemokraterna, who also represents one of the government parties, if the examples that Ludvig Aspling from SD raises are such as the Kristdemokraterna and the government also foresee will be affected.

Predictability is important. I hope that the debate can nevertheless provide some clarity because it is not possible to discern from the bill, and not even Sweden's most competent lawyers in the Council on Legislation can answer what scenarios it could involve.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the opportunity to speak on the matter!

I shall first say that I may disappoint Annika - I am also not sitting at the government's table discussing the issue in detail. I can, however, state that this is a proposition that has made a long journey. We have received a description of how long the journey was. The proposition started its journey four years ago. It has been handled by a Social Democratic government; we can discuss that handling. It has also gone through the current government's handling. We can see that a broad majority of the committee's parties find that there is grounds to expand the law in the way proposed: that there should be a possibility to revoke a residence permit even when it is assumed that there is a connection to terrorism.

I can express myself in the same way. I do not see it as my task as a politician to stand here in the rostrum and list various proposals. We know that our authorities, the Security Service and the Migration Agency, are currently working to ensure both a legally secure handling and to prevent the threats that exist in various ways against our country.

It is quite true that Ludvig raised a number of examples. I will not say either yes or no to them. This will be demonstrated in the future. We can, as I said in my opening remarks, state that there is a threat to Sweden in many different ways; it is also about terrorism. There are certainly occasions when there are reasons to assume that an action will lead to terrorism even if it is not about that right now.

I have, in any case, great confidence in the Security Service's work and will not, on this occasion, involve myself in providing any definition of exactly what it concerns.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have great understanding for the fact that Ingemar Kihlström cannot foresee how this legislation will be applied because it is so vague. When even the Council of Legislation, the country's most experienced jurists, cannot manage to foresee it, we have a legal certainty problem.

Then I ask a simpler question: Would Ingemar Kihlström think it would be good if this led to religious preachers losing their residence permits if they preach in a way that is not illegal but still, for example, encourages violence?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Annika Hirvonen, for the repeated question!

I can state that it is heartening that we are moving into the area of religion and freedom of religion in a debate such as this. We are to have a great opportunity to express different things, whether it is in a church, in a mosque, or in some other religious context. But that does not mean that there is a right to express anything, anywhere. Regardless of who one is, one will naturally be evaluated based on one's actions.

I believe that the revocation of residence permits according to the law, in the same way as applies today when it concerns sabotage, espionage and illegal intelligence activities, which was mentioned in a previous post, is also relevant when it is assumed that there is a connection to terrorism. We can indeed see, both historically and in the current situation, that this is a threat to Sweden.

I am not standing here to answer yes or no to a specific question about what may be said by someone preaching in a religious context. I have full confidence in the assessments of the Swedish Security Service and the Swedish Migration Agency in each individual case when it comes to ensuring that we create a safer situation for our country.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! The German philosopher Hegel once said that the difficult thing is not to choose between good and evil, but to choose between good and good – between important and valuable principles that under certain circumstances can conflict with one another. That is what we in the political craft call prioritizing, and we do it all the time.

The bill we are debating today regarding certain amendments to the regulatory framework on security matters according to the Aliens Act is a prime example of this. In a vulnerable position, in the midst of a global conflict between democracies and various non-democratic forces and states, in the midst of a struggle where liberal democratic society is threatened both externally and internally, we are forced to prioritize our collective security over other valuable values. In the same way, we must today prioritize our defense even if its necessary reinforcement means that we have fewer resources to invest in such valuable and important things as our healthcare, our school, or our pensions.

Madam Speaker! In the case at hand, the government wishes to expand the grounds that can justify the revocation of a person's residence permit. This concerns, for example, state-sponsored corporate espionage, but it also concerns foreigners who can be assumed to be going to engage in activities with links to terrorism, regardless of in which country the activity can be assumed to be conducted. For this link to constitute a ground for revocation, it is required that the activity is of such a nature that it threatens the security of the country. In this way, it is ensured that the link to terrorism does not become too vague.

For recall according to the proposed provision, it shall not be required that the foreigner may be liable to commit an act according to the Terrorist Offences Act.

Even suspicions that he or she may engage in activities that are not punishable but which still have to do with terrorism can thus fall under the grounds for revocation. It is primarily these formulations regarding the connection to terrorism that have been questioned in the respective committee motions from Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet and in the Council on Legislation's opinion on the government's bill. It is considered that the bill should be rejected because it does not fulfill the high requirements for evidence, legal certainty, and predictability that should be demanded in this context.

Madam Speaker! It concerns important objections, but we Liberals will nevertheless vote for the committee's proposal that the Riksdag should adopt the government's legislative proposal. We do so because we are convinced that the terror threats against our country and its citizens are so great that this outweighs any potential shortcomings in the government's legislative proposal. We also believe that there is no time to lose in this regard, and therefore it is important that the government's proposal enters into force as early as March 1, 2024.

Here, we and the parties that form the government's parliamentary basis make an assessment that differs from the opposition's. Nor do the Social Democrats share the opposition's assessment. That is to say, there is a large majority in this chamber behind the committee's proposal.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time when terrorism is one of the most serious threats to democracy, the enjoyment of individual human rights, and economic and social development. This is something we who defend the liberal, democratic society must take into account.

The fight against terrorism is a fundamental part of our defense of freedom. It is important that Sweden does not become a haven for presumptive terrorists by them being able to obtain residence permits that then cannot be revoked. This is the explanation for why it is our collective security that is prioritized by the parliamentary majority in this case over other desirable goals.

This is not a simple question, but it belongs to the painful essence of politics that, to return to Hegel, one often needs to choose between the good and the good.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Mauricio Rojas and I can probably agree with each other that it is important to maintain the security of the realm.

There is a strongly increased concern for democracy after the Tidö Agreement, shows a fairly recent survey conducted by Novus on behalf of Civil Rights Defenders. More and more Swedes are worried that Sweden is moving in an undemocratic direction, and more and more people experience that our democratic basic principles are being threatened. According to the survey, the concern has increased by a full 25 percent in one year.

People are worried that we are moving in an undemocratic direction. That is the summary of the survey, and it is naturally not strange. We see a pattern and a totality in the government's policy. It can be anything from visitation zones, secret wiretaps, reporting laws, and more internal border controls to this with lack of lifestyle and rapid investigations that threaten legal certainty and so on. It is primarily the totality that is worrying.

When the Tidö Agreement was written, the Liberals were to be democracy's watchdog, they said. But then they stopped barking. Now they are presenting proposals and could not care less about the criticism from the Council on Legislation, which states that it is insecure regarding the rule of law to present the proposal to revoke residence permits for persons who may be suspected of having links to terrorism and that legislation against terror crimes already exists.

These assumptions ultimately become unserious. It fundamentally changes the relationship between the state and the individual in legal cases. Rule of law is deliberately scrapped and assumptions are relied upon instead of serious evidentiary requirements.

I have two questions for the Liberals: Do the Liberals believe that Sweden has a surplus of democracy? Do you take the public's concern seriously when more and more people in the survey express that we are moving in an undemocratic direction?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for important questions!

It is in this chamber, in the Riksdag, that there are people who represent the Swedish people. It is democracy in its essence, its very nature. In this chamber, there is a very large majority for the proposals that we are debating today. I do not know how democracy can be threatened by such a situation, where such a large majority of the Swedish people's elected representatives stand behind something.

What can, however, threaten the spirit of democracy is when small parties, due to their ability to condition how a government is formed, can make demands that go directly against what a majority actually wants. That is what we have had in Sweden, and that is what we must avoid.

I do not want a situation after the next election where small fringe parties can cause the large governing party - it has almost always been about the Social Democrats - to be forced to do things that do not align with what the majority wants. This is a threat to the essence of democracy. It would be interesting if the member from Vänsterpartiet could say something about this.

But fundamentally, I trust that the Swedish Security Service makes a reasonable assessment of the threat situation. It is not we, I myself, or anyone here in the chamber who is to make that assessment, but we have an authority that does it, and I trust it.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I received the answer that the member does not know how democracy is being threatened. The Liberals themselves are involved in undermining legal certainty with the proposal that we are to vote on today! The Council on Legislation states this very clearly. It leads to implementation problems, legal certainty problems, and legal insecurity for persons with residence permits in Sweden. There are already signs that the individual's legal certainty is at risk because of this ill-considered proposal. It jeopardizes the individual's legal certainty. I hope this answers the Liberals' own question when they say that they do not know how democracy is being threatened.

Earlier in the debate, not many have been able to exemplify assumptions about links to terrorism and so on, except for the Sweden Democrats, who threw out perhaps the most arbitrary example here. It was so arbitrary that it shows they are not interested in democracy, for that matter. They have given the state power to the Liberals. Hence my questions.

Can the Liberal here exemplify the assumptions that the legislation is built on? The Swedish Security Service will not be able to clarify this or have anything clarified when we vote on it. They will be building on assumptions. It is the same with the Swedish Migration Agency. They will be proceeding on assumptions.

The Council on Legislation, which criticizes the proposal, absolutely cannot say what it is about when one is to "assume" that someone has a connection to terrorism. Despite the fact that we already have terrorism legislation, they want to build a legislation based on assumptions. But the member here, whose party has been involved in preparing the bill and is going to vote for this legislation, perhaps can tell me how one is to make these assumptions. Is one to stick out their finger and put it in the air, or how is one to make these assumptions?

Certain amendments to the regulations on security matters according to the Aliens Act

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! I am convinced that the Swedish Security Service does not make arbitrary and completely strange assessments of the security situation. It is not I or anyone else here in the chamber who is to make them. We have an agency that is specialized in looking at the security situation and assessing various threats from persons, movements, or organizations. I want it to continue to be so.

Member of Parliament Aspling mentioned some potential examples that could fall under this legislation. The first example sounds reasonable. It is not for me to make that assessment, but it sounds reasonable that a person who does not commit an act that falls under the terror crime act can still pose a threat to the country.

There may be other examples. One can discuss a great deal. One can, for example, discuss the Hamas conference held in May 2023 where even a member of Parliament, member Jamal El-Haj, participated and where there were people with very strong connections to Hamas - a terrorist organization - who today are convicted of financing and who are in Holland. There may be situations that the Security Police assess constitute a threat to the country's security, and I let the Security Police make that assessment - with full confidence.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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