Certain stricter conditions for family immigration and limited opportunities for residence permits on humanitarian grounds

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has in recent years had extensive immigration which, in combination with a lack of integration, has contributed to Sweden having major problems with a growing exclusion and shadow society and everything that follows in its wake.

To break and reverse the negative development, a number of measures need to be taken, and the moderately-led government is now implementing the paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy that we received the voters' mandate for last year.

We already see that the number of asylum seekers to Sweden has decreased since the government began its work. But Sweden still receives more asylum seekers per capita than several other countries in Europe, including Sweden's Nordic neighbors. More must therefore be done.

In the summer of 2021, the then Social Democratic-led government proposed changes to the Aliens Act which, according to them, would result in a long-term sustainable migration policy. For us Moderates, it was obvious that the changes proposed were not far-reaching enough and were anything but long-term sustainable.

That is why we, together with Sverigedemokraterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna, already then submitted today's proposal as sharp counter-proposals in the Riksdag. At that time, we did not reach all the way because S, MP, C and V voted against the proposals. Now the Moderate-led government is submitting the proposals again.

The proposals that the government is now placing before the Riksdag will contribute to reducing the number of asylum seekers who seek to come to Sweden so that we can get the integration and the reception of those who come here in order, as well as reduce the growing exclusion.

It is pleasing that the Social Democrats are now also choosing to stand behind the proposals, but these are proposals that the Social Democrats voted against just a couple of years ago. All of the Social Democrats' coalition partners also continue to say no. How credible, then, is the Social Democrats' rhetoric regarding a strict migration policy?

Two things become obvious to me. For the first: A vote for the Social Democrats also risks, in the next election, becoming a vote for the Green Party's, the Left Party's, or the Center Party's migration policy. For the second: A Moderate-led government is required to reduce immigration, get integration in order, and combat the shadow society.

As part of the government's paradigm shift, the bill proposes legislative changes that tighten the conditions for family immigration in certain respects and also limit the possibility of being granted residence permits on humanitarian grounds.

With the bill, we are now adjusting the requirement for a person with a temporary residence permit so that it matches the wording in the family reunification directive, that is to say that a person of attachment must have well-founded prospects of obtaining a permanent residence permit to be entitled to family reunification. In order to maintain a restrictive migration policy, it is important that the Swedish regulatory framework is not more generous than what is required according to EU law and international conventions.

The Migration Committee considered, just as we did, that the requirement should be formulated in that way. But the then S-MP government chose to change it to well-founded prospects of being granted a residence permit. With that wording, it can therefore not be ruled out that the requirements will be lower than if the requirement is formulated in the way that stems from the family reunification directive.

The proposition further proposes that the age limit for when a residence permit based on family ties may be refused for a spouse or cohabitant should be raised. Today, a residence permit may be refused if either of the spouses or cohabitants is under 18 years of age. The Government proposes that this age limit be raised to 21 years. The fact that girls have just reached the age of majority should not function as a loophole for forced marriages to be given a haven in Sweden. The proposal that young adults should also be covered should therefore mean that more forced marriages can be prevented and that fewer young adults are forced to live in already entered forced marriages.

In the proposition, it is also proposed that the maintenance requirement that applies as a general rule in family immigration shall be applied in more cases when the relatives are alternatively in need of protection compared to today. We Moderates consider it a reasonable starting point that the person who wishes to be reunited with their relatives can also support them.

A subsistence requirement is also judged to be able to increase the incentives for the persons being linked to come into work and become self-sufficient, as well as to arrange a home for the family. That the subsistence requirement should apply in more cases should be able to lead to integration being promoted both for the person being linked and for the relatives who wish to be reunited.

In the proposition, it is also proposed that the current special regulation, stating that the three-month deadline for subsistence requirements for quota refugees shall be counted from entry into Sweden, should be removed. There is no requirement according to EU law that the time limit should be counted in a different way for quota refugees compared to other refugees.

The proposition also contains proposals that mean the possibilities of being granted residence permits on the grounds of particularly compassionate circumstances are removed. It is proposed instead that children and adults shall be able to be granted residence permits if the circumstances are extremely compassionate. For children, however, it shall not be required that the circumstances that emerge have the same seriousness and weight as is required for permits to be granted to adults.

This was the order according to the Aliens Act until 2014 and what the Migration Committee 2021 proposed would apply. But even there, the S-MP government chose to move forward with a different provision which meant greater opportunities for residence permits on humanitarian grounds.

The proposal that we have now submitted to the Riksdag should, in the long run, be able to contribute to a more uniform and predictable application of the law. For a long-term sustainable migration policy, it is reasonable that those who no longer have grounds for their residence permit return to their home country. A clearer regulation should also reduce the risk that certain individuals choose to stay in Sweden without a residence permit in the hope of still obtaining permission one day.

I am glad that we now have a majority in the Riksdag to implement these decisions, which I believe are important steps in the paradigm shift in the migration policy that Sweden needs. Step by step, the Moderate-led government is tightening migration so that Sweden can manage the integration, reduce exclusion, and give the people who come here and have grounds for protection a dignified reception and reasonable chances to enter society. That has not been the case during the past years.

Madam Speaker! I would therefore move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It can only be stated that the government and the Sweden Democrats have presented a bill which, with a number of proposals, will undermine and violate children's rights to an enormous extent. These are deteriorations for children but also deteriorations for equality, deteriorations for the health of newcomers and deteriorations for integration.

We see a worrying pattern in the government. It is always restrictions and deteriorations for those seeking protection and security in Sweden. But it is also deteriorations in society at large regarding welfare, school, healthcare, housing construction and so on.

At the same time, the government wants fewer people to seek asylum in Sweden in order to improve integration by introducing a number of measures that we know with absolute certainty lead to worse integration. It is a very difficult and hopeless conflict that is impossible to solve.

It is difficult to imagine in what way the austerity measures we are to vote on today would improve integration. Making it harder for children and parents to be reunited or making it more difficult for children who have lived the majority of their lives in Sweden to stay involves rather a worsening of the opportunities for a secure and long-term integration.

All knowledge shows that temporary residence permits, livelihood requirements and family separation - that is, what this government wants to see more of - lead to worsened integration.

Therefore, I must ask the Moderates: In what way does integration improve by violating children's rights, as is done with the bill? In what way does integration improve by keeping children and parents separated?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tony Haddou, for the question! I think there is some superfluity used in Tony Haddou's statement, but I can still try to address the points being put forward.

I do not mean that children are violated by these proposals. On the contrary, special circumstances continue to exist which, in several cases, shall apply specifically for the assessment of children. Children's circumstances are taken into special consideration there.

It is the government's firm opinion that the proposals we are presenting are fully in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and all other relevant conventions. Just as has been established previously, it is not a criterion in itself alone to simply be a child, but it is a factor that is weighed in. It is therefore not enough to be a child to receive a residence permit, but it must be weighed in, as an example.

I think that the government now taking measures to ensure that people do not come here through forced marriages and other oppressive circumstances is precisely about considering that equality which Tony Haddou now claims is being questioned.

In response to the question of how integration is created, I can say that I mean that it is, among other things, through drivers to enter Swedish society and to achieve self-sufficiency. To place that type of requirement on people in order for them to be reunited with their families is an integration policy tool.

It is obvious, according to what Tony Haddou describes, that there is a fair amount of satisfaction from the Left Party's side regarding how migration and integration have functioned so far. We are not. The Swedish people do not seem to be either, and that is why the government has received the mandate to implement a paradigm shift within migration policy.

Sweden cannot continue to take such a disproportionately large responsibility for immigration to Europe; more countries must take the responsibility. But above all, it is time for Sweden to go down to levels that allow us to manage to integrate people into our society. It has been a complete failure from previous governments.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! These are somewhat perverse arguments. It is the seriously ill children who will, to a greater extent, risk being deported from Sweden when the humanitarian protection ground is tightened. It is also primarily those children who have lived here for very many years, who have a strong connection and who have established roots, who risk being deported with the proposal that we are deciding on today.

If one understands integration for what it is, namely that people who come to Sweden from other countries approach the majority population in terms of, for example, income, working conditions, and housing situation, one sees that the Moderaterna consistently have a very strong policy to increase what we call segregation and decrease what we call integration.

It is clear that we have a government that is making segregation worse and making integration less possible with such proposals as those being put forward today. The people who have come to Sweden will not approach the majority population in terms of work, economic conditions, or housing situation with your policy. That is the core of your policy. It will result in increased gaps for people who live here, and it will result in increased gaps for people who come to Sweden. They will find it much more difficult. The obstacles are crystal clear.

The insecurity of not knowing how long one is allowed to stay in the new country and whether one will be reunited with one's family—if one even knows where they are or if they are alive while one is in flight—obviously makes integration much more difficult. It is difficult to learn the new language. It is difficult to meet the subsistence requirements. All these pieces cause one to be sidelined. That is the policy you are driving. You keep people further out instead of letting them enter society.

Again: In what way does integration improve by keeping children and parents separated? That is what you are doing. On the one hand, you violate children's rights when you tighten the humanitarian basis for them, and on the other hand, you keep children and parents separated.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker and Tony Haddou! If Tony Haddou does not want to see segregation and exclusion, I suggest he closes his eyes, because that is exactly how society looks around us today. It is the society that the Left Party has supported by supporting the previous government.

We are trying to reverse the development, because the situation is completely unsustainable. I can only regret that Vänsterpartiet does not seem to have woken up to that realization yet. Most of Sweden's parliamentary parties have done so, and that is why we hopefully have a majority for the proposals today.

I mean that we have had a catastrophic situation where the people who come to Sweden do not even have a reasonable chance to be integrated. It is not a dignified reception. Hand on heart, does Tony Haddou really think that people who come here have good chances of being integrated? Most indicators seem to indicate the opposite, so something should probably be done differently compared to what has been done during the past eight years.

It is my full conviction that, among other things, requirements for subsistence, the incentive to become a part of Swedish society, and achieving self-sufficiency is a factor. Then, in many of the proposals that are now on the Riksdag's table, there are valves for special circumstances where individual assessments can be made. But the main rule in several of these cases should be that it is tightened so that one has self-sufficiency if one brings relatives here. It should also not be sufficient to have merely been in Sweden for a number of years to then be able to claim that one should be allowed to stay; one must have grounds for protection fundamentally.

These are important tightenings that are part of achieving a sustainable migration policy in order to ultimately manage integration. I hope that Vänsterpartiet too will one day wake up to that realization.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates' total turnaround in migration policy is becoming increasingly clear and larger. The children's perspective is completely missing in the proposed legislation that is currently on the floor of the Riksdag.

Limited opportunity for family reunification and a much, much narrower humanitarian basis is the ultimate proof that the government is not on the children's side. Children are children, and children are always particularly vulnerable. Severely ill children risk being deported from Sweden and having to leave the safety and the healthcare that we can offer.

I understand that this is about integration for the Moderates. I therefore have a simple question: How does integration in Sweden become better, and how does exclusion decrease, by having seriously ill children deported?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jonny Cato, for the question! Jonny Cato seems surprised that migration policy has a connection to integration policy.

I think these two questions are intimately connected, and I also think that the proposals that the government is now placing before the Riksdag are parts of a necessary reorganization of our migration policy. It is necessary to ensure that those people who have grounds for protection and come to this country can be able to stay in Sweden and also receive a dignified reception. In the same way, it means that if one does not have grounds for protection, one should return to their home country.

Then there continue to be possibilities to be granted a residence permit under special circumstances. But we are tightening the possibility so that it is not all too generous. So yes, there will remain possibilities to stay on grounds other than regular grounds for protection, but it is reasonable that this possibility is not too expansive. The people whom we welcome to Sweden should have grounds for protection.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! It would be ridiculous to say that the Centre Party does not understand that integration and migration are linked. Of course we understand that. But we do not draw the same conclusions regarding how they affect one another.

When I hear the members, it feels like the Moderaterna are still living in 2015-2016. A lot has happened in Swedish reception. A lot has happened in Swedish migration policy. If we look at how it looks now in Europe, we can state that it is not primarily Sweden but other parts of Europe that one comes to. Much has, therefore, already happened.

I still want to linger on this regarding integration and migration. Research says that the most important thing for being able to integrate is that one feels safe in Sweden. In that case, for example, one needs to have one's family here. Before one has the possibility of family reunification, it is considerably harder to feel safe, and if one does not feel safe, it is considerably harder to learn the Swedish language, establish oneself on the labor market, and enter and become a part of our common Sweden.

But when we talk about integration, I wonder again how difficultly sick children – an 11, 12, 13, or 14-year-old – can cause so much damage to integration and increase exclusion so much that they should be deported. I want an answer to my question: How does integration become better by us deporting seriously ill children?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Jonny Cato says that we are not living in 2015 anymore. No, that is correct. On the other hand, it seems that many other countries in Europe are, because they have not learned Sweden's lesson. At a time when we see that the migration flows to Sweden are decreasing, they are increasing to Europe. We see how countries such as Germany and others suffer under heavy pressure and are now talking about how they will introduce a more restrictive migration policy.

Why does it look the way it does in Sweden right now, that is to say, that the pressure is decreasing? Yes, because we have redirected parts of the policy. But there is still more to be done. As I began by saying in my speech, we are still receiving more per capita than many other European countries, including the Nordic neighboring countries. Much has therefore been done, but not everything is done.

I mean that I have already answered Jonny Cato's question. The starting point for being allowed to stay in Sweden should be that you have grounds for protection. If you do not have grounds for protection, you should, as a general rule, leave the country. It is also completely obvious that if we are to have a regulated migration policy, we should focus on helping those with grounds for protection.

However, there still remains a possibility of being granted a residence permit if you have particularly compelling circumstances. In that case, the assessment will also be more generous, specifically regarding children. For children, the situation does not need to be as serious as for adults; instead, one is more generous in the assessment.

So yes, there will also continue to be certain opportunities to stay. Those opportunities should, however, not be of any size whatsoever. If we in Sweden are to manage integration, we must have a reasonable migration policy where fewer people seek out Sweden than it has been historically, because then we have not managed integration. We have had a growing exclusion and a growing shadow society in which very many people suffer greatly. I think that even Jonny Cato should take responsibility for this and actually vote for these proposals.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Unicef Sweden believes that these proposals are not compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

When the humanitarian protection ground for children is restricted, it means in reality that a child with a heart disease who has had their operation in Sweden risks being deported to the home country even if the child cannot receive the aftercare they need after their operation. When the humanitarian protection ground is reduced, it means that fewer children who are born and raised in Sweden will get an opportunity to stay. When the humanitarian protection ground is reduced, it means that we go against what over 70 percent of Swedes think, namely that very seriously ill people, including children, should be given the opportunity to obtain a residence permit in our country.

This change was made for a reason in 2014, namely that the very narrow exception that the government now wants to return to did not accommodate children's rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was, therefore, too narrow an exception for children in a very difficult and vulnerable situation, for example very seriously ill children, to be able to receive the protection that the majority of Swedes still agree is needed.

The humanitarian protection ground is needed. It also needs to be broader for children, because in Sweden the Convention on the Rights of the Child is law.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the question on a similar theme to that of the previous questioner!

To return to my previous answers to the same questions, we in Sweden have had an unreasonable migration policy which has meant that we have not succeeded with integration. This means that we need to change a part of the regulatory framework to ensure that those who truly have grounds for protection are the ones we receive in Sweden and that we can therefore also give them a dignified reception and reasonable chances for integration. That is not the case today. That has not been the case during the past eight years that Annika Hirvonen's party has been part of governing together with the Social Democrats.

We are now trying to reverse this development. Some of the many proposals that are now being submitted and will be submitted to the Riksdag involve reviewing also the part that Annika Hirvonen describes. As I answered the Center Party just recently, there will continue to be opportunities to stay on grounds other than having grounds for protection.

It is true, however, that we consider there has been too generous an application and too broad a basis for being granted residence permits on grounds other than grounds for protection. We believe that this should lead to a more legally secure and predictable application of the law, where one, therefore, cannot obtain a residence permit simply because one has stayed in Sweden, gone underground, or in other ways simply ignored the fact that when one no longer has grounds for protection, one should leave the country.

There will also be special circumstances that are assessed specifically regarding children. The severity is lower for children than for adults if one is to be assessed according to this category.

I mean that there continue to be opportunities to grant residence permits to both children and adults on grounds other than protection. It should, however, be tightened compared to today.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I fear that this change will lead to that children who are seriously ill and cannot receive care in their home country will still be deported back.

Jessica Rosencrantz says that this valve has been too wide. I do not think so. When we have children who are twelve years old, who are born and raised in Sweden and who still do not get protection, still do not get to stay here despite having lived with the Swedish Migration Agency their entire lives, it is an extremely narrow valve that you are making narrower.

The question is which children you want to deport. Is it the children that society has taken into care because the parents have abused them? Is it these children who are now more often to be sent to the home country with their violent parents? Is it children who have had surgery in Sweden and who cannot receive the aftercare they need in the home country? Or is it the children who are born and raised in Sweden and who have only lived here who are to find it even harder than it already is today to find a safe point in the world?

Madam Speaker! The proposals that are now on the Riksdag's table are about going straight against the rights of the most vulnerable children in conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Institute for Human Rights questions not only the compatibility with the Convention on the Rights of the Child but even the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The question is: Which children are it - seriously ill children, children whom society has taken in because the parents have abused them, or children who have never been anywhere else but have lived their entire lives here - that Jessica Rosencrantz thinks should be deported?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker and Annika Hirvonen! I want to put things into perspective; it is almost none of the proposals that the government puts forward to reduce immigration to Sweden that Miljöpartiet stands behind. It is completely obvious that Miljöpartiet and the Moderaterna with the rest of the government have drawn completely different conclusions. Miljöpartiet seems to be continued to be satisfied or would rather actually wish that we have even greater immigration to Sweden. I mean that it has been an unsustainable situation. Let us be honest that we have completely different starting points for this discussion and that Miljöpartiet votes no to in principle everything that we put on the Riksdag's table.

If one wants regulated immigration, that is to say not to have completely open borders because we do not live in a perfect world, one must also stand up for regulated immigration. In that case, it is not our task in the chamber to talk about the individual cases, but we shall talk about which regulatory frameworks we want.

I mean that the starting point and the basis for people being able to come to Sweden again should be that they have just protection grounds. There are many people in this world who have protection grounds, because the world in plain Swedish looks for damn well [bad] - excuse me! Then it is important that those who come here have just protection grounds and that it is them we give a dignified reception.

Then there shall be a valve, an opportunity to consider other circumstances. It will continue to exist. But it is to some extent undermining regulated immigration to say that those who have been here for a long time but still lack grounds for protection shall have the opportunity to stay. It should be a limited opportunity. It will continue to exist, especially for children where an individual assessment is made.

But I return to the core of the matter; this government believes that we need to change course for Swedish migration policy. It is obvious that Miljöpartiet does not share that assessment.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! This debate could have been about making Sweden a better place for the children and families seeking protection here. It could have been about a girl or boy who, after many years of waiting, finally gets reunited with their parents. It could have been about how we best ensure that children get to end their flight here in Sweden, in safety and with their siblings and families, and that children get more, not fewer, rights and opportunities in Sweden. It could have been about children being listened to better during the asylum process and that children best get to process their traumas after the horrors of war or a childhood in flight. But it does not, Madam Speaker. I regret that.

Instead, several parties here in the Riksdag have competed over who can treat people on the run the worst. We have seen the results in recent years. The policy has swung, and the migration legislation has undergone large, rapid, and legally insecure changes, not least with short, temporary residence permits and tightened requirements for family reunification, which mean profound deteriorations and gross restrictions for children on the run.

Madam Speaker! It is beyond all reason that this government continues, this time with surgical precision, to attack, undermine and violate children's rights with the proposals they have presented here today and which we shall vote on in a few hours.

We in Vänsterpartiet reserved ourselves against these proposals when they were in the Migration Committee. And we reserve ourselves against all proposals today. We believe that Sweden should have a humane refugee policy based on security, which is predictable and which ensures that one can conclude their flight here in Sweden. It should be based on children being allowed to be together with their family and being given the protection they are entitled to and a place to call home here in Sweden.

We reserved ourselves against the government's policy because we believe that there must be a possibility to obtain residence permits on humanitarian grounds without severe restrictions. We also believe that families must be able to be reunited in Sweden without these almost impossible requirements.

Now we are here. The Moderates, the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats, the so-called Liberals and the Social Democrats are violating children's rights and the right to reunification and family life in a somewhat appalling manner. It is in conflict with children's fundamental rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Sweden has signed and made into Swedish law. We strongly oppose the policy that has been presented here today.

Madam Speaker! War and conflicts turn the entire child's world upside down. Children very rarely choose to leave their country and, to a lesser extent than adults, can oversee the consequences of a flight.

In the debates here in the Riksdag, one has many times heard from the right-wing parties, in their mocking tone, that people are just fleeing, do not have grounds for protection, should not come here, and so on. But do you know what? People have never chosen flight. And a record few make it to Sweden. We are not living in 2015. The fact is that one waits until the last second. One is torn from one's roots as a last resort and flees from war, conflicts, and persecutions all around the world.

The parents who do it have a single task when they are fleeing. It is exactly the same as all other parents have. One does everything in one's power to protect one's children. No matter how terrified they are, how traumatized they are, how tired children on the run are, one does everything one can and more so that they can have some kind of safety and so that they can survive.

If one is separated from one's family, one is in a much more vulnerable, insecure, and uncertain life situation. It affects both the parents' and the children's well-being, life, and faith in the future. The most important protective factor for people in such situations is to be able to live together with their family. That is the most central point in what we are talking about here today. It is about children's opportunities to have a meaningful existence and to recover after war and flight, but it is also about the parents' opportunities to be close to their children in safety and to be able to establish themselves and plan for the future here in Sweden.

The decisions we make today, if family reunification is tightened in the way the government proposes, will not only complicate or delay the possibility of family reunification. It may also become impossible in many cases. The connection shall be tightened, and young parents shall be kept separated.

Those who have been granted status as alternatively needing protection and who have fled war and conflict will find it very difficult in this system. It is far from compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child as Swedish law, and it will again, just like with the migration legislation, hit hardest those who are most vulnerable: children, women, the elderly, illiterates, those on long-term sick leave, and persons with functional variations. They will have to fight much more, many times in vain, in a system of impossibilities, requirements, and obstacles to be close to their family and their children.

Furthermore, being reunited is often the only safe and legal possibility for children on the run to reach a safe country. We know that more children will be taken on illegal and dangerous journeys to seek asylum. This is already happening today because the right to be with one's family is many times restricted, both through legislation and through practical obstacles.

If more families with children fleeing were allowed to be reunited, it would mean that they could avoid taking the life-threatening route across the Mediterranean. You already know what the situation in the Mediterranean looks like for people fleeing. Many times, it is a choice between risking death on land or along the escape route. But to deliberately worsen the situation, to close off legal and safe routes, as this government is doing now, is indecent and irresponsible given how the world looks.

Madam Speaker! The decisions we make today risk, in practice, forcing families with children to live apart. But they also mean that children who have established themselves in Sweden or who are seriously ill are forced to leave the country. That is what the buttons here today mean: severe humanitarian consequences for many people and, above all, children. It is nothing other than a restrictive, loathsome, and deeply cynical extension of the Aliens Act we voted on two years ago.

I will never accept that the right to live with one's family, with those they love and with their children, shall be decided by how much one earns, what size of housing one manages to obtain, and so on. We cannot continue to force mothers or fathers to choose which of their children they shall be reunited with, if they are even given that opportunity.

The established line with set supply requirements that is now being expanded is an unpalatable class issue. It is not worthy of a country that has said it has high ambitions regarding children's rights.

Despite all the austerity measures that already exist, the humanitarian valve in the Swedish Aliens Act is also to be tightened. It exclusively affects asylum-seeking children, who will have to pay a high price. Even today, it is incredibly difficult for children to obtain a residence permit due to particularly distressing circumstances. The rules are already applied in a deeply restrictive manner today. But purely humanely, there needs to be a valve. I would have wished for more valves for children on the run and that they should be applied better so that the best interests of the child would sometime be placed at the center of an asylum process. But we are not there, and there is nothing that can justify actively tightening the humanitarian valve.

The children who have established themselves in Sweden or are seriously ill will be forced to leave the country to a much greater extent than is already happening today. It is nothing other than pure ill will and injustice, and it shall be rectified as soon as this government resigns.

The Social Democrats must seriously consider how they want things to be moving forward. To follow the Sweden Democrats and the right-wing nationalists in migration policy is a losing strategy that brings with it dreadful consequences. The Social Democrats must consider how they want things to be in the future, because this proposal must be rolled back.

We must have a future in Sweden that encompasses children's rights and their right to safety and family life. This must be protected and respected in the future.

Madam Speaker! When the Convention on the Rights of the Child became Swedish law, many families with children hoped they would be helped. Instead, they were disappointed when they realized that the Aliens Act still took priority over the Convention on the Rights of the Child and that Sweden's desire to limit immigration excluded their children from the rights Sweden has signed on to and legislated for.

I met Ahmed in Gothenburg last week. He had repeatedly and fruitlessly tried to be reunited with his two daughters and his wife who were in Gaza before the war broke out. When he finally fulfilled the high requirements, it was required that the family be interviewed at the consulate in Jerusalem. I do not need to tell about the situation in Gaza, because the whole world knows that it is impossible to leave the area - something Swedish legislation never takes into account when families are to be reunited. The obstacles have always remained. Then the bombs fell on Ahmed's family, and he lost them overnight.

I met Leila, who has done everything to meet her mother and her siblings who are in Afghanistan. I don't think I need to tell you about the situation in Afghanistan either. Even today, it is difficult to get the opportunity to be reunited. If it were to be made possible, the Swedish embassy over there is still closed, and then one would need to travel to Iran. There are already so many obstacles, not least for women and children, in a Taliban rule. It is shameful that we do not remove these obstacles. We have a government that ensures there are more and more obstacles. We should remove these.

I met Mahad in Tensta a few weeks ago. He has his three-year-old daughter in Somalia, whom he is unable to be reunited with. He meets all the requirements, but every time he tries, there are long waiting times and limited opportunities for entry. He does not know what to do. He is in contact with Migrationsverket almost every day. As a parent, I understand his desperation.

It is this that the entire debate is about: their life destinies, their lost children and their lives.

It is difficult to see what is humane in an order where people are forced to live separated from their children, siblings, and families. It is difficult to find even the slightest bit of humanity in the government's policy.

This bill does not live up to any ambitions at all of making Sweden a better country. Vänsterpartiet will repeatedly submit proposals to strengthen family reunification and children's rights. We want a Sweden where their lives and their future also matter. We will fight for a future Sweden that encompasses children's rights, security, and family life, and where all children—regardless of whether they have residence permits or not—get access to this. The Convention on the Rights of the Child must in the future be protected, respected, and complied with. It is not being done with the government Sweden has today, and I regret that.

I move for the rejection of the entire bill and for the approval of the Left Party's reservations 1 and 2.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Tony Haddou has, in a concise and engaged contribution, spoken a great deal about children's rights and opportunities. I am somewhat surprised that the Left Party does not look at all children's rights and opportunities.

I can state that in one of the Left Party's reservations, the issue regarding forced marriage is missing. That, if anything, is about protecting children's rights and opportunities to choose for themselves?

In the proposition that is now on the table, there is a proposal that has broad support. In addition to the government with its coalition partners, the Social Democrats and the Centre Party also support the proposal to raise the age limit for residence permits based on ties when it concerns spouses or cohabitants to 21 years.

One can calculate for oneself that if an 18-year-old is someone's husband or wife, the marriage took place before the person turned 18 and thus when they were a child. I can state that while Vänstern says there is no knowledge of what this measure would entail, I am quite sure that there is great knowledge about it. Out in our world, primarily young girls have been forced to marry, in many cases with significantly older men. They have been children. Vänsterpartiet is welcome to answer how one protects these young girls' rights by saying no to the proposal in the bill.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! There were many questions, but I will try to answer them in the order the Christian Democrats posed them.

Would we not care about everyone's children? You know what - that is exactly what we do. Just as I said in the speech, we believe that the Convention on the Rights of the Child should apply to everyone seeking asylum here, regardless of whether they have residence permits or not. You have now proven before we are to vote that you do not want that. You do not want these children to be covered by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That was my answer to the first question.

Two years ago, the Christian Democrats wanted subsistence requirements even for children. I wonder what kind of child labor you think children should perform. You can answer that in your reply.

When it comes to forced marriage, Sweden has an 18-year age limit. It is not more complicated than that. It must apply. The consequence of what you have presented is simply that children have to wait another three years.

It is good that we are having a debate on this. It is very good that the Christian Democrats say that they care about young girls - because it is exactly they who are being sacrificed. It is them that are sacrificed by deciding on the proposal we are debating today. Those who have established themselves here in Sweden will probably not be able to stay. Those who are severely ill will not be able to stay.

It is a logical mess that the Christian Democrats are making here. The last thing I would talk about now was children. You are undermining children's rights in the most egregious way through your decisions, but the only thing you are hanging up on is forced marriage. We have an 18-year limit in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind that all members always speak through the Speaker.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I notice that I stepped on a sore toe, as the majority of the contribution concerned what I did not ask about.

We can observe that there are valves to accommodate children's rights, just as Jessica Rosencrantz said. I will highlight those later.

In the proposal, it states that in the Family Reunification Directive, Article 4, point 5, it is specified that in order to guarantee better integration and prevent forced marriages, Member States may require that the person seeking reunification and their spouse shall have reached a certain age - at most 21 years - before the spouse can be reunited with the person seeking reunification.

I return to the question. Does Tony Haddou think it is right that a girl who is 18 years old should be reunited with her husband when it is obvious that a forced marriage took place when she was a child? Is that putting the child's perspective at the center?

It is nice to stand here and speak big words, but to delve into the specific question, I would like to hear how Tony Haddou views this. It is noted that it is in accordance with the family reunification directive to set this limit in order to counter these forced marriages. It is, of course, the case that here in Sweden, according to the law, one does not marry before the age of 18. But Tony Haddou does not, therefore, see the problems that exist with the young girls and perhaps also boys who have been forced to marry at an earlier age.

A majority in the committee sees that this is a problem that we can resolve by making an adjustment to 21 years. That was also the case in the law that applied in 2015. Please provide an answer, Tony Haddou, on how the Left Party views this from a child's perspective!

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It is no more difficult than the fact that an 18-year age limit applies in Sweden and that it is Sweden they have ties to and are coming to.

I answered your questions exactly earlier. In the directive you refer to, it states that this may be raised if there is an analysis and credible evidence. However, you have not produced any analysis in the bill. That is exactly what has been criticized. You have submitted a thin bill. You have completely ignored consequences and analyses, because you do not care about them. You just want to implement the Sweden Democrats' policy straight through, and so you do not produce analyses at all. Then you stand here and refer to a directive. That directive requires analysis. You are welcome to produce such an analysis.

There is an 18-year limit in Sweden. But then I can also ask you: If it is the case that one marries at the age of 17 in the home country, why do you then not raise it to 18 years? You want to push it to the limit. You have stated that you want to push everything to the EU's lowest limit for everything within migration policy when it comes to what EU law has for provisions. You do not care about analyses or anything, but you just push on without caring at all.

Then it is exactly as I said earlier: It is not that the member here cares about young girls. If that were the case, one would never have voted for the proposals being presented today.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I shall count the number of "you" that I hear in the debate.)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I promise to behave as well as possible.

I actually had not intended to argue about these issues in substance. I think we can agree that we do not agree. We can only state that it is a vanishingly small and probably decreasing part of Sweden's population that buys what Tony Haddou has to sell. But we leave the issue of substance aside.

What I was interested in asking about was the rather open government negotiation that we heard about in Tony Haddou's opening statement, where he directed what at least sounded like an ultimate demand to another party in this chamber regarding a future government negotiation. That party should think about how it wants to proceed if it wants to regain government power, I believe Tony Haddou said. It went a bit fast, so I say it with reservation as I may have heard incorrectly. I wonder if Tony Haddou would like to elaborate on this somewhat.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The member thought it went too fast. But this was undoubtedly the slowest speech I have given in the Riksdag.

This issue regarding what the majority of the Swedish population thinks was also raised by the Moderaterna. But over seven out of ten Swedes want children and parents to be reunited in Sweden - so we have surely clarified what the Swedish people think about children's rights. We have very high ambitions in Sweden when it comes to children's rights. Those rights stand very high, but it is them that you are undermining today. We will fight to ensure they stand much higher than they do when this government causes harm.

I believe Ludvig Aspling asked a question about the Social Democrats. I have not issued any ultimatum whatsoever. I said that the Social Democrats should think properly about how they want things to be moving forward. We, as the Left Party, absolutely want to roll back these proposals. I believe that other parties in the Riksdag, and indeed the Swedish people as well, also want that, so that one holds firmly to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It is primarily two things I want to emphasize. For the first, children must be reunited with their parents. This must be much stronger than it is today. For the second, the valve we are voting on today, the humanitarian basis, needs to be stronger. It is not more difficult than that. I have previously spoken about children who have rooted themselves in Sweden or are seriously ill but who are to be deported. Even today, this is applied very restrictively. We do not accept that at all. Then the Social Democrats must consider how they want it to be going forward.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was actually a rather clarifying answer in some respects.

Tony Haddou says that seven out of ten want us to have a more generous family immigration. This is probably based on some opinion poll, I would guess. But now it is the case that Sweden's Riksdag is appointed via general elections according to the Instrument of Government. Seven out of ten in these elections have not voted for Vänsterpartiet. I believe that Tony Haddou is aware of that. Had that been the case, this debate would have looked quite different. It is still in the Riksdag that we decide which laws shall govern Sweden and not via opinion polls, which we all know have their ups and downs.

So, it is not an ultimate requirement from the Left Party's side that one should tear up the quite decisive reforms that we are moving forward with in this situation. Okay! But then a question arises. Those were power words that Tony Haddou came up with: This is inhumane, it is degrading, we will be sending children to their deaths and so on. This is the worst thing that has happened since who knows when. Those were extremely strong expressions that Tony Haddou came up with in his speech. I do not doubt that this comes from a genuine feeling. That is certainly the case. On the other hand, one can wonder how Tony Haddou can express himself in that way and then say that the Left Party in a government negotiation is prepared to scrap all of this.

Tony Haddou has one point left. Could we not get a clarification? Is it an ultimate requirement or not? If it is not an ultimate requirement: How is it that you in Vänsterpartiet are prepared to compromise when you express yourselves in the way you do?

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! We absolutely want to roll back these proposals. It cannot be any clearer than that. We want a humane refugee policy in Sweden. But above all, these proposals that you have presented need to be rolled back. It won't get any clearer than that. Or yes – I can explain it even more clearly: We do not like this policy. It is very bad. Therefore, we want to roll it back.

The survey that you questioned comes from Novus, which you probably know about. They conducted this opinion poll after the election, and it was primarily focused on the government parties. You do not belong to the government parties. You are in opposition when you feel like it, and so they do as you wish. The opinion poll clearly showed that seven out of ten Swedes want children and parents to be reunited.

It is quite nice for Ludvig Aspling to stand there and take the floor and throw around words and so on. You do not take responsibility. You push forward your politics. You push forward three parties, and then they carry out exactly what you want. The only thing you have to come up with then is to blame immigrants. Right-wing parties do not ensure that schools get money. They do not ensure that welfare gets money. They roll out cuts across the entire country. Everyone is getting worse off. Nothing is being done about the households' economy. Prices just rise. I could continue for an hour. You are worsening Sweden so incredibly. Then it is very convenient for the Sverigedemokraterna to stand here and say that it is the immigration's fault and have three parrots behind them saying exactly the same thing. I understand that it is very convenient. But the fact is that it is these children who are sacrificed when it comes down to it. What is sacrificed are children and the entire Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has stood high in Sweden and which has ensured that we can protect children.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! The proposals addressed in the report are, in all material respects, in line with the Migration Committee's proposals. It is important that there is a safety valve, but it is also important that this safety valve is restrictive so that a good migration policy can be maintained.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! If I am to be completely honest, I am somewhat surprised that the Social Democrats have nothing more to say. In the migration policy of the Centre Party and the Social Democrats respectively, there is more that unites us than separates us – even if one cannot always believe it.

I am not particularly surprised but genuinely disappointed that the Social Democrats totally lack a children's perspective. Today we have heard that the Center Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party are using superlatives regarding the legislation on the table. But I do not think so. Much of what we vote on in Sweden's Riksdag are announcements and things that are not sharp legislation. But, friends, this is for real. We are talking about seriously ill children being deported and that people who are born and raised in Sweden shall no longer be allowed to stay here. We are talking about making it more difficult for children to be reunited with their parents.

I have three questions for Anders Ygeman regarding social democratic solidarity. Is it solidary to keep children separated from their parents? Is it solidary to deport severely ill children? Is it solidary to deport children who are born and raised in Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I think that exaggerations have been used in the debate. Previous debaters have claimed that this contravenes the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and yet it does not appear in any reservation. If one is so certain that it contravenes the Convention on the Rights of the Child, why is it not included in the reservations? I do not believe that this contravenes the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but should it do so, it will be revealed in the application of the law later.

Madam Speaker! With his questions, Jonny Cato wants to hide what this is actually about, namely what protection those who do not have grounds for asylum shall receive. We believe, in line with the Center Party, that there should be a safety valve in exceptional cases for those who do not have grounds for asylum. But if a strict migration policy is to be maintained, this safety valve must be narrow. Otherwise, there is a risk that the safety valve becomes larger than the asylum policy and that we then provide protection to people who lack a need for protection instead of to those who have a need for protection.

I could answer no to at least two of Jonny Cato's three questions. This does not obscure the fact that Jonny Cato is trying to score rhetorical points, and that is what I oppose.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I note that the Social Democrats are trying to downplay the issue. But let us remember how important this issue was for the Social Democrats in 2021 when we concluded the migration agreement. It was incredibly difficult to achieve both in the Migration Committee and in the negotiations afterwards. It is obviously an issue that makes a real difference.

I am not surprised that the Social Democrats do not stand up for the right to family reunification and the right for people who are born and raised here to stay. I am, however, genuinely surprised when it comes to the right for seriously ill children. Miljöpartiet gave an example that one can get high-quality healthcare here in the country but not aftercare. For me, this is hardly Social Democratic policy. It is about justice and about us helping our children. As I said earlier, children are particularly vulnerable, and even more so seriously ill children. I cannot understand how the Social Democrats cannot stand up for seriously ill children getting care in Sweden.

I also stand up for the fact that the right of asylum should apply. Those who have a rejection must be deported. But there must be a humanitarian valve, and the most important humanitarian valve must still be that for severely ill children.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I stand for both family reunification and seriously ill children. The overarching issue is about what the consequences will be, and here Jonny Cato and I have different views. I find it difficult to believe that one can arrive at the conclusion that one does not stand for family reunification which involves requirements for self-sufficiency, because it will ultimately determine under what conditions these families will live and what conditions we have in Swedish society. I hope and believe that the Center Party stands for children to have good upbringing conditions and that people should be able to support themselves through their own work.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I am shocked by the Social Democrats' handling of this. This is a serious and acute situation with these proposals. I deeply regret that the Social Democrats are joining forces with the government and the Sweden Democrats in the deterioration of family reunification and in the restrictions of humanitarian reasons and children's rights. Anders Ygeman uses big words, but it is these restrictions that we will see and that will make Sweden a much worse country.

The austerity measures we are voting on today largely affect children, especially severely ill children and children with a strong connection to Sweden. Despite this, the Social Democrats - a party that has stated it has high ambitions regarding children's rights in Sweden - intend to twist and tighten the humanitarian protection ground.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child in Swedish law requires that Sweden must, to a greater extent, ensure that the principle of the best interests of the child is clarified and respected in both legislation and practice. Now, the humanitarian basis for children is becoming narrower, which means significant deteriorations for children and their rights. If you, Anders Ygeman, are not satisfied with us saying that this violates children's rights, I can say that it violates the spirit and the purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Sweden's ambitions to have strong legislation for children's rights. I hope you are satisfied with that wording.

I clearly remember when the Social Democrats presented the proposal for a new Aliens Act two years ago. At that time, it sounded like this: Children should still be able to be granted residence permits if the circumstances are particularly moving. What is it that has made you change your mind now, two years later, Anders Ygeman? Why do you want to tighten this now? What is it that has happened that is so exceptional?

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Nothing exceptional has happened. We pursued this policy in the Committee on Migration. It could not have been a secret to the member.

There is something strange here. I do not share Tony Haddous's description of the consequences. I made that clear already in the previous turn of the debate. But there is also something strange about Tony Haddous's argumentation. He claimed in the previous turn of the debate that this violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Now he has changed his mind and argues that it does not.

It does not conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It conflicts with Tony Haddou's view of the spirit and purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Tony Haddou argues, therefore, that the Convention on the Rights of the Child should be used for something other than what it is actually intended for. According to him, it is a moral crime.

Tony Haddou can breathe in and breathe out and see that this actually is in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It does not conflict with it, which he also indirectly confirms himself. And if it were not in that way, the correct application of the law will change it. I do not think, however, that will happen. We will see that this will not have the draconian effects that Tony Haddou wants to make regarding.

Back to the main point: Everything we are talking about here today concerns people who do not have a need for protection according to our asylum legislation. The question is how wide that valve should be and how many should be allowed to stay in Sweden despite not having a need for protection according to the asylum legislation. Then Tony Haddou wants it to be some more, and I want it to be some fewer. It is not more difficult than that.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Anders Ygeman says that this is the Social Democrats' policy. It was not the outcome of the Migration Committee at all. In that debate, it was also very clear that you meant that the committee's outcome would apply, but two years later you claim that it should no longer apply.

Are there too many seriously ill children or too many children with a strong connection to Sweden who have been allowed to stay? Are there that many? The humanitarian protection ground, i.e., the safety valve for particularly compelling reasons that we are talking about, covers very few children who are ill and have a strong connection to Sweden. They are allowed to stay. Anders Ygeman thinks there are too many.

They are very few. It is deeply restrictive. This is applied very restrictively.

I am therefore very shocked by the tone. The government is pursuing this policy, and so the Social Democrats say: It is our policy! But that is how it was. The Social Democrats were, after all, first in migration policy.

If one is now prepared to make these deteriorations for children and this government will present more deteriorations for children during this mandate period, how far are the Social Democrats prepared to go? If they pretend that this is their own policy and then stand up and deliver a speech for four whole seconds, it is obvious that they either are ashamed of their policy or do not want to pursue this further.

I have no further questions but a tip. What we are voting on today will have terrible consequences for children and asylum seekers. My tip is that the Social Democrats should turn to parties that want to take a different path, who want the Convention on the Rights of the Child to be held in high regard in Sweden and have high ambitions when it comes to this. Otherwise, this will risk children's rights being undermined in Sweden. It is they who are sacrificed with this legislation.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I can only state that Tony Haddou is not defending his previous line on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Now he states that this is in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a good sobering up. I welcome it. I can also state that we disagree on two things, namely what consequences this will have and the importance of a reasonable and strict migration policy.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anders Ygeman, for the speech! We still seem to be partly in agreement on the analysis that Sweden has had an unsustainable migration policy that has led to extensive integration problems and that we must change course in Swedish migration policy. Therefore, it is pleasing that the Social Democrats today stand behind many of these proposals. That was not the case, however, two years ago, as several have noted here in the chamber, but then the Social Democrats voted against these proposals. You perhaps wanted to support some of them, but you gave in to the coalition partners.

In the chamber today, it is also evident that Miljöpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Vänsterpartiet – that is to say, all your political friends – are against these proposals. We hear huge outcry from these parties. It is said that it is very bad and inhumane policy, and that this should be rolled back, says Vänsterpartiet. It is evident that from the coalition parties, there is not at all seen a need for a different migration policy.

Then my question to the Social Democrats is: How is the Swedish people to know what policy they will get with the Social Democrats if you were to win the next election? Are you then prepared to give way again, or can you promise the voters that you will not tear up these proposals or other migration policy proposals that you stand behind in this chamber?

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I was Minister for Justice when the migration policy was restructured and when we made all the material changes in the migration policy. I can tell Jessica Rosencrantz which party it was that said one thing but failed to take responsibility in the chamber. It was the Moderaterna.

You reached an agreement with the government and the Social Democrats regarding the introduction of ID checks and the possibility of closing the Öresund Bridge. But the day after we had reached an agreement with you, you announced that you couldn't manage it. You were unable to take responsibility for Sweden in the position we were in then.

Should I tell you which party was able to take responsibility? Yes, it was Miljöpartiet, which in an extreme situation managed to actually reconsider its own policy and take responsibility for the country. Otherwise, we would have had a completely different situation now.

Even though we have different views on this issue, I am convinced that we will be able to take responsibility for the country when it matters, which is something the Moderaterna did not manage.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! I can tell Anders Ygeman that my view is not that the Swedish people are satisfied with the migration policy direction that the previous government had. My view is not that the S-MP government took responsibility so that we would have a sustainable migration policy. The integration problems that we have were largely built up during the past eight years, when you had the chance to wake up a bit earlier than you did.

So, two years ago you voted against these proposals. I note that I receive no answer but mist. You pressed the no button and voted no to these proposals because your coalition partners said no.

Then the question is who will govern the migration policy if the Social Democrats should, by some miracle, win the next election. It is a very simple question from my side: Will the Social Democrats stand up for this even after the next election, or will you give in to Tony Haddous, Jonny Catos and Annika Hirvonen's ultimate demands? Or, put differently: Is it the Social Democrats' voices and migration policy that will apply – can you promise the voters that you will not roll back these proposals?

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I can be very clear. If the Social Democrats win the election, social democratic migration policy will naturally be implemented. We will implement it together with other parties to obtain a majority in the Swedish Riksdag.

I have had the privilege of collaborating with Moderates, Centre Party members, Green Party members, and Left Party members. As I expressed, I have not been entirely impressed by collaborating with the Moderates in migration policy.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats choose to support our proposal in this committee report. I thank you for that. I actually think it feels like a certain message of strength.

We will during the mandate period have a number of reports where we will not be in agreement, so there will be many occasions to have, hopefully, lively debates regarding what is to come. But in the issue that we are now talking about we are in agreement, and I think that is good.

I must, however, ask a question to Anders Ygeman. It concerns the humanitarian protection ground, which is the main focus of today's debate. Many are interested in it.

The Social Democrats, therefore, had an opinion on this issue before the temporary law - 2015, during the migration crisis. They had a different opinion with the temporary law - it was a good rule change. They stood behind the Migration Committee's proposal, where they had yet another different opinion. Then they came forward with a different proposal in the bill. And now the Social Democrats, therefore, stand behind our proposal regarding this rule change.

This means that the Social Democrats have had five different opinions on the humanitarian protection ground since 2016, i.e., over seven years.

One has to ask: What is this due to? It is a bit strange, especially since the Social Democrats, if one is to be completely honest, have credibility problems in the migration issue. I wonder if Anders Ygeman could say something from the rostrum to convince his own voters that one is actually credible and will stand firm. How is it that one had five different positions over seven years, and how does one convince the voters that there will not be more flip-flopping regarding this?

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Ludvig Aspling is wrong. We have not had five different perceptions. It is a fabrication by Ludvig Aspling.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Anders Ygeman is allowed another reply. Then he might be able to repeat this. What humanitarian protection ground did they stand behind before the temporary law, and how did it change after that? I remember this. It became much better after the temporary law than it was before. It was definitely not the same.

The Migration Committee's proposal was changed further, and then a completely different proposal appeared in the bill. I wonder if Anders Ygeman really has no memory whatsoever of this. The rest of us remember it quite well. Most of us were here in the Riksdag. Furthermore, the rule is changed now when we vote on this bill today.

I wonder how Anders Ygeman can stand there and flatly deny that these changes have actually occurred. Does he mean that no change at all has occurred in the Social Democrats' position regarding the humanitarian protection ground since before the temporary law was introduced? Is that seriously what Anders Ygeman is standing there and saying?

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that Ludvig Aspling does not repeat his claim. That means that even he realizes that he was wrong. But it is true that the Social Democratic view has been expressed in different ways. The background to that is, of course, parliamentarism, that as a government one must seek support in parliament for one's view.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It has not yet been described in any particular detail what the proposals we are now debating concretely entail.

One of the proposals concerns what it could be like if a parent is granted asylum in Sweden and the children are in, for example, a refugee camp abroad. In that case, the children should no longer have the possibility to join the parent, who, for example, has been granted asylum because he or she has fled a war, until the parent has moved forward in the housing queue, received a sufficiently large apartment, and secured a permanent job with a sufficiently high salary.

Even though we, together with the Social Democrats, during our time in government almost halved the time it takes to establish oneself on the labor market and obtain employment, we are still talking about something that for the vast majority, even Swedes, takes several years.

All of us who have tried to secure a home on the Stockholm housing market can testify to what it is like. And for those who need both a job and a home, it is difficult to secure a home in any of the places in Sweden where there is no housing shortage, because it is very difficult to find a job there.

We in Miljöpartiet believe that a child's right to be reunited with their parents must be at the center, not only because it is a fundamental human right to live with one's family. It is actually also about us wanting what is best regarding integration. Families integrate better than single individuals.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I actually did not perceive any question from Annika Hirvonen. But what Annika Hirvonen expresses is correct. If one is to be reunited with a family member, one should have an income that allows one to support that family member and a home where that family member can live. On that, we are in complete agreement.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! One wonders whether Anders Ygeman takes this debate seriously or not. That is not what I said. We in Miljöpartiet believe that the right to be reunited with one's family should be paramount. We believe it is important that children get to come to their parents in Sweden as soon as possible and start school at an age as young as possible, and not wait in refugee camps for several years for the parents to move up in the housing queue. We believe that it is an inhuman policy. We move for its rejection in our reservation in this report.

We therefore do not agree with the Social Democrats that small children should be separated from their parents while waiting for the parents to move up in the housing queue and obtain steady jobs. We know that it is easier for children to succeed in Swedish school if they can enter at an age as young as possible and as soon as possible. We know that families integrate faster and better than single adults do. Therefore, it is also good for integration that families are reunited as soon as possible.

The proposal that the Social Democrats are now backing is a proposal that will worsen the opportunities for people to integrate.

This is not so damn hard. Imagine for yourselves how it is! How easy is it to take in a new language's grammar if you are lying awake at night and have a stomach ache because your child is in a dangerous place somewhere far away?

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! It is possible that Annika Hirvonen misunderstood me. I said that we were in agreement on the description. However, there is a difference here. I believe it is good for integration if one can support oneself and if one can support a family member. I believe it is good for integration if one has a home and if one has a home where the family member one is to be reunited with has enough space. I even believe that these are completely decisive grounds for one to be able to be integrated.

There we come to different conclusions - it is quite obvious. And we come to different conclusions when it comes to this proposal. The proposal is entirely about on what grounds those who do not have grounds for asylum shall be able to come to Sweden - it does not concern those who have grounds for protection according to the asylum legislation. In the argumentation from those who are against the proposal, it sometimes appears as if it were about people who have grounds for protection and their possibility to come to Sweden, but it is actually the opposite it is about. It is about those persons who lack their own grounds for asylum and on what grounds they shall be able to come to Sweden.

Then I mean that it is important, and I believe that Annika Hirvonen and I agree, that there is a safety valve even for those who lack their own grounds for protection. The question is how wide that safety valve should be. Miljöpartiet and Annika Hirvonen have concluded that it should be somewhat wider, while the Socialdemokraterna have concluded that it should be somewhat narrower. There we simply do not agree, and I believe that is an issue that will continue to be discussed.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 2.

The current government with the Sweden Democrats at the helm gives one a reason at times to wonder and reflect. One of the things that I sometimes reflect on is what Swedish values actually are.

When the Swedish people are asked in surveys to explain what they consider to be Swedish values, questions about equality and the equal rights and value of all people come to the top. Just behind that come values regarding democracy, freedom, and human rights.

It is also how I want to describe Swedish values. For me, Swedish values are equality and all people's equal rights and worth. It is democracy, freedom and human rights.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is not only the government's migration policy that is undergoing a paradigm shift, but it is our Swedish values and the view of people on the run that are undergoing a paradigm shift. We are moving from being an open, liberal, and generous Sweden to becoming a colder and more closed Sweden with a view of humanity that does not belong among Swedish values. The Tidö parties are taking large steps in the dismantling of the open Sweden, where all human lives are equally worthy, with the proposals for a narrower humanitarian basis and a significant complicating of family reunification.

In 2021, Sweden, as is known, received a new migration policy. It still applies, for a few more hours. In the Center Party's world, it was far from perfect, but it was good enough for us to stand behind it. The migration policy truly combined humanity and humanism with order and tidiness. We received a broad humanitarian foundation, and children were given the opportunity to be reunited with their parents while we approached other EU countries' migration policies. Among other things, we moved from permanent to temporary residence permits.

I had hoped that in 2021 we would reach a broad migration policy agreement. But unfortunately, the Moderaterna then refused to abandon their absolute demand on volume targets. Instead, Centerpartiet, together with Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, took responsibility and made difficult compromises so that Sweden would get a migration policy that approached the EU level, while at the same time we protected the most vulnerable, secured a broad humanitarian basis, and provided opportunities for family reunification. It is no secret that I think it is sad that Socialdemokraterna are now taking further steps in approaching the Sverigedemokraterna's migration policy.

It may be good to remind that the starting point generally, when it comes to family reunification, is already today that the relative in Sweden must be able to support the person who is to move here. There are several reasons why it is good that the support requirement is the starting point. It is partly because many other EU countries set requirements on support for family immigration, and partly because it is better for integration if the person whom the relative moves to in Sweden is established on the Swedish labor market.

But - there is, of course, a big but: To prevent families from being split up and forced to live apart, there are necessary exceptions from the maintenance requirement for persons who are granted asylum. The person who is granted asylum in Sweden is either granted status as a refugee or alternatively as a person in need of protection. The person who is granted refugee status has, according to current EU law, the right to be reunited with their family during the first three months after the residence permit is granted, without a maintenance requirement. This right cannot be restricted according to EU law. We should probably be very happy about that, because otherwise, the government would likely have removed even that right.

Those who are granted asylum and instead are granted alternative protection status are no longer proposed to have the right to an exemption from the maintenance requirement during the first three months. In practice, this means that families will be kept separated, in many cases for a very, very long time. This is not good for integration and is also not humane towards the families who are kept split. It is the opposite. It is poor integration, and it is directly inhumane.

Even though the family reunification directive does not apply to those in need of subsidiary protection and it is possible under EU law to remove the exception, it is important to remember in this debate that the Commission, in its guidelines, has expressed clear support for persons granted subsidiary protection status having the same right to international protection as refugees.

That is why the Commission urges, including the Member States, to grant the same rights to those in need of alternative protection as to refugees. Sweden did this in the legislation in 2021. At that time, we listened to the EU Commission. It would therefore be a direct step backward to now totally ignore the Commission's urging.

Sweden has genuinely large integration challenges. Integration needs to become better. We need to set requirements, as the Social Democrats pointed out. But a fundamental factor in integration is that one needs to feel safe and secure before being receptive to learning the Swedish language, establishing oneself on the labor market, and coming in and becoming a part of the common Sweden. The possibility and the right to be reunited with one's family is a large part of feeling that security. Family reunification is therefore many times not just an important piece of the puzzle but a necessity for a fast and successful integration.

Madam Speaker! As if that were not enough, it is not only the right to family reunification that we are dealing with here today. Sweden has, like many other EU countries, a possibility to grant residence permits to children and adults on humanitarian grounds. We in the Center Party think that is good. We stand, once again, behind the legislation introduced in 2021 which means that adults have the right to residence permits on humanitarian grounds if there are particularly compelling circumstances and that children have the right to residence permits and can stay if there are especially compelling reasons.

When we stand here in the rostrum and talk about the proposals on particularly distressing circumstances and so on, I understand that it sounds complex and can be difficult to understand. But what we are actually talking about are people's life destinies. That is what we are talking about when we talk about these many times incomprehensible concepts. This legislation and these difficult concepts give very vulnerable children, for example severely ill children or children who are born and raised in Sweden, a greater opportunity to stay. That is what those concepts aim for. We are, therefore, talking about severely ill children.

Every Moderate, Christian Democrat, Liberal, and Social Democrat who votes yes to a narrower humanitarian basis also votes yes to making it harder for severely ill children to get the care they need.

Madam Speaker! The law also gives adults who have lived in Sweden for a very long time, who have lived lawfully, who have learned the Swedish language, who have a job and who have integrated the opportunity to be granted a residence permit. I honestly do not understand the problem with that.

The changes that are now on the Riksdag's table will mean that more families will be forced to live apart, that children will grow up without their parents, that parents will miss out on their children's upbringing. Today we vote to keep families apart, but we also vote for restrictions that mean that very seriously ill children will no longer be allowed to stay in Sweden. It is a matter of sick children who, not because of asylum but because of humanitarian circumstances, are today allowed to stay in our country.

I am proud that Sweden has been an open country that has helped people in flight. I am not as proud that we today are dismantling the open and free Sweden where all people are equally worthy.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would start by saying something about how the bill came to be and why it looks the way it does. The proposal is not some "Alexander-strike" that will drastically reduce migration to Sweden, but it is a few important pieces in a larger package of measures that we will implement during the mandate period.

The proposals concerned in substance are tightened requirements for bringing in family immigrants for certain persons, an increased age limit for refusing residence permits on the grounds of ties, fewer people covered by the exemption from the maintenance requirement in family immigration, and limited possibilities to grant residence permits for so-called humanitarian reasons.

The reason why the questions have been baked into a bill is that they have already to a large extent been investigated in the so-called Migration Committee's report. It was given the at least ironic name A long-term sustainable migration policy. This was naturally ironic because the report did not manage to become a bill before the Social Democrats began dismantling the proposals. So long-term it was.

The Tidö parties were, however, in agreement to introduce the changes we are talking about today already before the formation of the government. We had common reservations about this in previous reports, so it was easy to get the bill in place.

The proposals also roughly correspond to what the Social Democrats, with their usual capacity for honesty, tried to market as the EU's minimum level at one time. It was under the temporary law. On that point, it is important that we are clear, namely that the proposals do not take Sweden anywhere near any minimum level. The consideration does not correspond to 5 percent of the reforms that we will implement during the mandate period. To those debaters who are shedding crocodile tears during the debate, I can only say: You ain't seen nothing yet!

I shall, of course, say something about the material content of the proposals. Firstly, the requirement to be a sponsor—that is, to bring a relative when one has a temporary residence permit—is tightened. The current provision in Chapter 5, Section 3 and Section 3 a of the Aliens Act stipulates that such a person shall have well-founded prospects of being granted a residence permit for a longer period. This will be changed and instead refer to a permanent residence permit. The latter corresponds to the wording in the reunification directive. The purpose of this is that the Swedish law shall in that way more clearly follow European practice. That wording is less generous than the one that applies today.

Secondly, a new rule will be introduced which means that the Swedish Migration Agency will have the opportunity to refuse family reunification when the person coming to Sweden is under 21 years of age. As everyone understands, this is here to counter the extensive human trafficking that occurs primarily in the Middle East, where women are practically sold as merchandise and Sweden, due to migration from these areas, has become a part of this. The bill does not express it quite in that way, but it is our task in the debates to be straightforward and honest and say exactly what is happening.

For the third, persons who are alternatively in need of protection, that is to say persons who do not have any personal grounds for protection, will no longer be able to bypass the maintenance requirement when they want to bring a relative here by submitting an application within three months from the time they have received a residence permit. Here, we would naturally have wanted to see a total ban on family immigration for these categories, which EU law allows. But the Tidö agreement is a compromise between several parties, and we have not been completely in agreement on all points.

Last but not least, the possibility of residence permits on the grounds of particularly compassionate circumstances is removed and replaced with a rule on exceptionally compassionate circumstances, which means that significantly stronger grounds will be required to obtain a residence permit on that basis. Even on this point, it is a return to an order that has been applicable law in Sweden on and off for many years. The rule has been shaky, to say the least. But to those debaters who in previous speeches have said that the consequence analyses are lacking and that they do not know what the proposal will entail, I can say that there is practice to lean on when the rule has been applicable law. It even stands in the report.

Let me move on to the reservations. What does the opposition have to say about all of this? There are two reservations, that is, counter-proposals, from C, V and MP. There are some interesting things to read here in the usual order. We can start with the pure factual errors from V and MP, who in their reservation write that "family reunification is a fundamental right". This is therefore incorrect, and it is crystal clear in both the European Court of Human Rights' and the EU Court of Justice's practice that family reunification specifically is not a fundamental right. Sweden therefore has every right to set the maintenance requirements, as we do with the rule changes being implemented today. Furthermore, there is plenty of room within international law to further tighten the maintenance requirements, and there are investigators looking into this already.

A review of the practice is also on page 19 of the bill, and it is written in completely understandable Swedish. It is not at all difficult to read. There, we refer to a number of cases, including Konstatinov v. Netherlands, Haydarie et al. v. Netherlands and Mugenzi v. France – plenary cases that are always discussed regarding these rules. But as usual, it is perhaps asking too much that Vänstern and Miljöpartiet should read through the bill before they write their reservations. I don't know; it could be a tip for the future.

The second argument put forward against the proposal is that it will make integration more difficult. Here, I simply think we have to agree that we are not really in agreement. We interpret the concept of integration differently. Miljöpartiet's and Vänstern's view on integration is roughly that the more benefits, the more subsidies, the more relatives, the more migrants in general that a country receives, the better the integration is, and the opposite is that the fewer who come, the worse the integration is. Whether it leads to criminal clans being able to take over entire residential areas or whether there is an enormous cultural and economic exclusion with large-scale unemployment, subsidy dependency, and so on, does not matter. Integration is a measure of benefits, not a measure of personal effort or how well a person actually manages on the labor market. There, we simply have to agree to disagree.

Last but not least we have the Social Democrats. They are lying flat on the report and have no proposal of their own. I thank them for that. Very good! More of this!

What is a bit strange, however, is that the Social Democrats seem to have difficulty deciding what they actually think, for example regarding one of the rules that is being changed, namely the humanitarian protection ground. We have debated that extensively today. In that case, the Social Democrats have had five different positions since 2016. First, they had one opinion before 2016, that is, during the migration crisis. Then a clear improvement was implemented with the temporary law. I will absolutely not complain about that law, it was good. But it was a different position. Then S took a stand behind a proposal in the Migration Committee's report, and then they changed their minds again when the report was to become a government bill. Finally, they change their minds again by taking a stand behind our proposal today. Five different positions in seven years. I believe that is some kind of record in the Swedish Riksdag. Please correct me if there is a worse example!

Against that background, it is a bit strange. One can rightly ask what it is due to. What on earth is this? How is it to be interpreted?

The answer to that question is probably that the Social Democrats only have a migration policy when they are in opposition. But when they finally get the chance, they buy their support by handing over this issue to the Green Party and then passively watching while the Green Party causes total chaos in Sweden. It is, of course, that charade we will see more of during this mandate period. The Social Democrats are lying flat for the government now in anticipation of then lying flat for the Green Party if the left-wing parties, God forbid, were to win the next election.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In order to correct some factual errors in Ludvig Aspling's speech, I intended to read out a text from the Red Cross regarding a child's right to their parents and the right to a family life, which is established in international law:

"The principle of the unity of the family was first established in 1948 in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, it has been confirmed in several conventions that the family has the right to the protection of society and the state. The right to family life is protected, among other things, in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 8) and the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 7). International humanitarian law also emphasizes the states' obligation to preserve the unity of the family and to reunite families that have been split due to armed conflicts."

Madam Speaker! That is exactly what we are talking about today, families' right to be reunited when they have been split apart due to armed conflicts, because it is refugees from war that we are talking about today. It is their right to family reunification that is being weakened.

We move on and look at what the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is Swedish law, says about this. According to it, "applications from a child or its parents to enter or leave a Convention State for the purpose of family reunification shall be treated in a positive, humane and expeditious manner by the Convention States."

This today's proposal goes directly against that.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! One can argue in different ways. One can use emotions. Then one can argue de jure, that is, based on current law. I note that Annika Hirvonen is attempting the latter. Let me help her a little bit, Madam Speaker!

The Red Cross is not a source of law. The Red Cross is a referral body. It can submit referral responses, but it is not decisive in any court. Its opinions are not binding law in Sweden.

The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally binding and is not applied in Swedish courts.

The European Convention, however, is it. I note that Annika Hirvonen leans on the European Convention in her argument. She says that these proposals would conflict with the right to family life. I suspect she is referring to Article 8.

Let us then look at what the European Court of Human Rights, which interprets the European Convention, says about this. I suggest that Annika Hirvonen opens the bill that we are debating today. On page 19, the following states: "What the best interests of the child require cannot be solely decisive, but shall be a heavily weighing circumstance." The Government refers to the European Court of Human Rights' judgments in the cases Mugenzi v. France, M.A. v. Denmark and there also MIG 2018:20 as well as Konstantinov v. Netherlands and Haydarie et al. v. Netherlands.

We therefore cite four different cases that support our position that these rules are completely acceptable within the framework of the Council of Europe, the European Convention, and the European Court of Human Rights.

I must bounce this question back to Annika Hirvonen because she is still trying to argue de jure. Can she mention a single case from the European Court of Human Rights that says the proposals we are pushing through now would violate the European Convention? A single case?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, unfortunately, we will now probably see families where children are kept separated from their parents while the parents desperately try to find a home in the Sweden of housing shortages and secure a steady job with a high enough salary to once again live with their family.

To set such requirements as that one must first have made it forward in the housing queue before one's children can come to the safety of their mother or father in Sweden, it goes against the requirements of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that family reunification shall be treated expeditiously. We will probably see them who appeal this.

The Institute for Human Rights has commented on the proposal we are debating today. There are fears that the proposal will mean that Sweden will not even live up to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is truly to fall below a bottom level.

We already see today how children ask their parents: Don't you love me? Is that why I'm not allowed to come to you? The parents are forced to answer: No, it was because the Swedish Migration Agency thought it was too far between the job and the residence or that the residence was too small. Therefore, you must wait in the refugee camp until I have found a larger apartment.

You yourselves understand how absurd this regulatory framework is going to hit.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that Annika Hirvonen did not think before she made this remark. I asked for a legal source that supports what she says. I received nothing. On the other hand, she mentions the Institute for Human Rights.

Annika Hirvonen! The Institute for Human Rights is not a source of law. It is a referral body. They can express opinions on legislative proposals. That is perfectly okay, that is why they are consulted, but it is not the case that their output is legally binding.

This entire debate is based on the fact that some in this chamber do not have a clue how a rule of law is structured and who it is that actually interprets and decides what it is that makes something legally binding. It is completely incredible that we have so many members in this chamber who do not understand this. It is deeply regrettable, and it gives rise to a great deal of misunderstanding, a great deal of anxiety, and a great deal of nonsense arguments from many here.

We return to the matter. Annika Hirvonen says that there is a risk that these proposals conflict with the European Convention.

Yes, there is a potential risk that pretty much anything conflicts with the European Convention because we cannot know how case law will develop in the future, so we can leave that part aside.

We also know that we are in agreement within the Tidö cooperation to follow the European Court of Human Rights' practice, so if it were to turn out that Annika Hirvonen's fears are correct, we will adjust accordingly. We have already promised that.

But when we talk about current law today, Annika Hirvonen claims that these proposals conflict with current law. Then she must have a source for her claim. Where does this come from? Can Annika Hirvonen give me a case from the European Court of Human Rights that confirms her position that the proposals we are submitting conflict with the European Convention? A case?

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

This was the closing remark, so that case must be included in another exchange of remarks.

(LUDVIG ASPLING (SD): I await with anticipation!)

Before we proceed, I would like to generally remind all members that we do not say "you". We say "the member" or the name.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall read aloud from a story that has been recorded by Sociala Missionen, about Alam from Eritrea. She tells:

"It was impossible for me to live in Eritrea. I was faced with a dilemma. Should I flee alone or with my child? I was afraid. If one leaves Eritrea illegally, there is a risk of being killed. So I decided to leave him. I thought that if I do not survive, at least my son survives. In hindsight, I regret my decision."

Alam is one of those who have been affected by the consequences of the maintenance requirements for family reunification. Alam has secured a job and housing, but she still cannot be reunited with her son. The Migration Agency does not consider the housing, the salary, and the circumstances surrounding this to be sufficient. They have been separated for several years by this point.

Alam also expresses the dilemma that many will be faced with: Should I instead take the child with me on the life-threatening flight? The nightmare is that this is what the Tidö parties' proposal, which the Social Democrats also stand behind, will lead to: that more children will accompany life-threatening journeys in flight, instead of parents being able to trust that they can come in a legal and safe way through family reunification.

Madam Speaker! In the exchanges of remarks, I have already raised the question of what it means when we set requirements that one must have moved forward in the housing queue and secured that steady job with a sufficiently high salary. We know that this takes time for most of us. Even for those of us born in Sweden, it takes a few years.

Imagine for yourselves not being able to hold your child for several years – a small child who was then two years old and has now reached the age of four or five. Imagine following your own child's upbringing via FaceTime and video calls. Imagine the worry over how your child is doing in the refugee camp, perhaps in Jordan. Lying awake at night with worry about this facilitates no one's integration or learning of the Swedish language.

Of course, we all agree that people should do what they can to support themselves - if they can. And of course, we are for children not growing up in overcrowded conditions. But these proposals will lead to children instead growing up in refugee camps, for many more years.

It is argued that this would be good for integration. But we have very clear facts about, for example, children's ability to manage the Swedish school if they come to Sweden as immigrants. We know that those who arrive in first grade have very good chances of managing school and becoming eligible for upper secondary school. But if one arrives first in upper primary school, it becomes tougher. The earlier children are reunited with their parents in Sweden, the better chance they have to be integrated, manage school, and obtain a secondary school diploma – the ticket into the labor market in Sweden.

We also know that families integrate faster than single adults. Family reunification therefore also facilitates the integration of the one who arrives first.

One can also look at what these subsistence requirements do to people's decisions. If one is desperate, one takes the first available job, regardless of conditions. I have met people who chose to forgo studying to become doctors to take a job as a cleaner. In those cases, it wasn't even about family reunification, but it was for the sake of the permanent residence permit. Young, well-educated people take the first, simplest jobs, the jobs that one does not need to have come as far in their Swedish language instruction to get.

It is of course good that people get jobs. But when those who could have taken more highly qualified jobs instead take the simple jobs, it becomes even harder for those who have come to Sweden and are a bit older and lack education to find any job at all. It is therefore not so smart to drive people who could educate themselves and take jobs that require higher qualifications to take the simplest jobs.

Madam Speaker! This proposal is about making it harder for war refugees to have the right to be reunited with their family. But it actually also makes it harder for the group of quota refugees.

The government argues that there should be equal conditions. But since the circumstances differ greatly for those who receive asylum once they are in Sweden and for quota refugees, who receive their decision while they are still abroad, the regulatory framework should be adapted accordingly. In the worst-case scenario, quota refugees may arrive in Sweden only after the three-month deadline has expired and then lose the possibility of family reunification without subsistence requirements. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet believe that this is the wrong way to go.

Madam Speaker! We have also spoken quite a bit in the replies about restrictions in the humanitarian protection ground. It concerns restrictions for severely ill children, children who have been taken into care by Swedish authorities because their parents have subjected them to violence, and children who have lived in Sweden up until their teens and are born here but for various reasons have still been unable to obtain the security that a residence permit entails.

Much has already been said about this, so I thought I would say a few words about something that has not been spoken about today, namely the humanitarian protection ground for adults, which is also being removed now. When time-limited residence permits became the main rule, we could suddenly find ourselves in situations where families were split up. We saw how 18-year-olds who were celebrating having just graduated at the same time received the notice that they now must leave Sweden because they have become adults.

The humanitarian protection ground, particularly compelling circumstances for persons who have developed a strong connection to Sweden, applies to these young people, among others. Family members who have had the right to be in Sweden because, for example, their parents have been granted asylum can lose that right if they become adults before they receive permanent residence permits. I wonder if there is actually anyone in this chamber who thinks this is so incredibly smart.

The new humanitarian protection ground for adults should remain, otherwise we will see many cases of family separation where children who have just turned 18 are sent back to their home country while the rest of the family remains in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! If we zoom out and look at what these proposals do collectively, we see that they make it harder for people to come to our country through safe and legal routes. We see a long series of proposals, both in Sweden and in the EU, which aim to make life as difficult, as hellish, as possible for people on the run. The hope is that fewer people will flee in the first place.

Until now, we have not seen those results. So desperate is the situation for many people in the world today. Despite the fact that every 50th person who has crossed the Mediterranean has either disappeared or drowned, people continue to take this risk. It says something about what it is that one is fleeing from. If we really want to reduce the number of people fleeing, we must address the root causes of why more people are fleeing today.

Today, however, we heard instead that the latest climate report from the UN indicates that the oil-producing countries plan to increase their climate emissions. The Swedish government has crippled Swedish climate policy and cut back significantly on aid to poor countries - countries where we need to strengthen human rights, peace and democracy, precisely so that people are not forced to flee.

We in Miljöpartiet want to see a real policy to reduce the number of people who are fleeing, and we want to stand up for human rights, for children's right to live with their mothers and fathers, and so that seriously ill children are not deported to countries where they cannot receive care. Therefore, I move for approval of Miljöpartiet's two reservations in the report.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! The most important reason why we need a new, strict asylum policy is that a very large part of the asylum immigration we have consists of a gigantic fraud. How do I know this? Well, because the fear of these home countries tends to disappear relatively quickly after these persons receive residence permits in Sweden.

An opinion poll from Novus from September last year shows that eight out of ten of those who sought asylum in Sweden have since gone on holiday in the country from which they sought asylum. In Norway, Aftenposten reported in 2018 that 24 percent of all migrants from Somalia, 40 percent of those from Afghanistan, 55 percent of those from Iran and 71 percent of those from Iraq visited their home countries regularly.

According to an internal memo from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 55,000 private individuals traveled from Sweden to Iraq, 31,000 to Iran and 22,000 to Somalia during 2021, at the same time as hundreds of thousands of people from these countries live in Sweden because they, according to their own statements, need protection from these countries. There are also similar investigations from, among others, Germany.

Annika Hirvonen has previously claimed that none of this is true and that everything I said now is a lie and things that I have made up. She has, however, never presented any source as to why these investigations are incorrect, despite the fact that they have been reported on in several credible publications that do not usually make things up.

I would therefore very much like to give Annika Hirvonen the chance to do just that. What source does she have that says that none of this is true? And does she have her own source saying that very few or none of these migrants go on holiday to their home country?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I read the investigation, and it does not show what Ludvig Aspling claims. I therefore recommend that Ludvig Aspling read it again.

Firstly, it is the case that if a person who is a refugee travels back to or seeks the protection of their former home country, there is reason to examine whether the refugee status should be revoked. This has occurred in a small number of cases. But the fact that persons from Sweden travel to, for example, Iraq is not the same as that it is persons who have protection as refugees from Iraq who make these travels.

One must also remember that if you received asylum a very long time ago in a country and that country has, for example, completely changed regimes and you now have a permanent residence permit or are a citizen of Sweden, then it might no longer be dangerous for you to travel back to your former home country. One must, therefore, keep many things in mind at the same time.

I recommend that Ludvig Aspling read the investigation he refers to once more.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is interesting; so now Annika Hirvonen has changed her position completely. From the beginning, I had only made up all these figures, and none of it was true. Now she makes a different interpretation: It is not people who have residence permits due to asylum from Iraq who are traveling from Sweden to Iraq, but it is the Persson family who skipped Thailand this year and instead chose sunny Baghdad for their winter vacation. Is that what Annika Hirvonen claims? It is complete madness.

It is completely obvious that those who travel from Sweden to Somalia, Iraq, Iran and so on, are in 99.99 percent of cases people who themselves have roots in those countries. Then it can, of course, be the case that they have been granted a permanent residence permit later. In that case, they have a protection against the revocation of the residence permit if they go back to their home country, to some extent. We are also in the process of changing those rules now, fortunately.

They may also have received a citizenship, and in that case, those rules do not apply at all. But that does not contradict my point here. My point is that it is unreasonable that those who travel from these countries to Sweden and seek protection say that they cannot stay in Iraq because Iraq is too dangerous for them, while at the same time thousands of people travel in the opposite direction and say that they can go to Iraq on vacation because it is not particularly dangerous.

Annika Hirvonen says here that it might be the regime that is seeking certain people but not other people and that the regime can change. No, Annika Hirvonen, that is not the case.

The vast majority, more than 90 percent, of these people are alternatively protection-needing and not refugees. This means that they do not have any personal grounds for protection, but that they have sought asylum in Sweden based on the starting point that their country is generally too dangerous to stay in, not that it perhaps has a regime that is after them. On that point, Annika Hirvonen has once again totally misunderstood the facts.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! If we take the example of Iraq, we can observe that there has been war there during a number of periods in history, for example 2003, when Iraq was invaded. For a long time, IS also occupied large parts and oppressed a large part of Iraq's population. These are two events that are therefore no longer current.

At the same time as there may be individuals who have individual grounds for protection today, there can therefore be individuals who fled from a war earlier and who do not face that risk today in their former home country.

It is therefore not at all illogical. There are refugee grounds, but one must also understand that for those with alternative protection needs, it can also be about individual grounds for protection, albeit different individual grounds for protection than those covered by the Refugee Convention.

One must also understand that circumstances in the world can change in a way that the person who is today a Swedish citizen and who fled here from, for example, Sarajevo when it was bombed there in the 90s, might not run any risk at all by traveling back to Bosnia today. This should be easy to understand for the vast majority.

The Sweden Democrats want to draw the conclusion instead that people lie and are fraudsters, but the reports do not support this. But if it is the case that there are people who do what Ludvig Aspling says, there is already a system in place today to handle this. It happens in a few cases, but we are not talking about the dimension of eight out of ten, as Ludvig Aspling incorrectly claims.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! For the Christian Democrats, it is central that migration policy is long-term responsible, legally secure, humane and manageable. The recent years have however shown the opposite. Sweden has received more asylum seekers than we have managed to integrate, and we have not taken action against the exploitation of the asylum system and the emergence of parallel societies. The Christian Democrats therefore want a stricter migration policy.

We Christian Democrats want a reception at a level consistent with our Nordic neighboring countries. At such a level, Sweden is given a migration policy that relates to our integration capacity and the space required to manage the integration debt that a poorly designed integration policy in combination with a large reception has created.

The extensive immigration of recent years, in combination with a lack of integration, has contributed to the fact that Sweden now faces major challenges with a growing sense of exclusion. To break this development, a number of measures need to be taken, and some of them are the proposals we are now debating. Today's proposals constitute part of the tightening being implemented within Swedish migration policy, which means that Sweden's policy is harmonized with what applies to both our Nordic neighbors and other EU countries.

The various announced changes will reduce immigration to Sweden to a level that provides the opportunity to integrate both those who arrive and the number who have arrived during previous years.

Madam Speaker! In the Tidö Agreement, the government and SD agreed to investigate and implement a number of changes, including stricter conditions for family immigration.

The bill and the legislative changes that we are debating today involve, among other things, that the age limit for denying a residence permit on the grounds of attachment is raised, that the possibilities for exceptions from the maintenance requirement in family immigration when the person of attachment is alternatively in need of protection are limited, and that the possibilities for children and certain adults to be granted a residence permit on the grounds of particularly compassionate circumstances are removed.

Madam Speaker! I would like to briefly highlight some of the different parts.

We Christian Democrats have long argued for measures that counteract forced marriage, which primarily affects children and young adults. In previous years, we have argued for a measure with legislation setting a 21-year age limit for family immigration. It is therefore pleasing for us that we now see in the bill that the proposed change is that residence permits based on family ties shall be refused if either of the spouses or cohabitants is under 21 years of age.

The proposal means that the age limit for when a residence permit for family reunification may be refused corresponds to the age limit specified in Article 4.5 of the Family Reunification Directive. The article states that, in order to guarantee better integration and prevent forced marriages, Member States may require that the person being reunited and their spouse have reached a certain minimum age, at most 21 years, before reunification with the person being reunited may take place.

The proposal that young adults should also be covered by the possibility to refuse a residence permit on the grounds of age should therefore mean, on one hand, that more forced marriages can be prevented, and on the other hand, that fewer young adults are forced to live in already entered forced marriages. This is positive in view of the objective to prevent forced marriages. It is important to say that this represents a possibility, not an obligation, to refuse a residence permit for persons under 21 years of age.

Madam Speaker! We also change the applicable requirements for the person of attachment with a limited residence permit. It now applies that one must have well-founded prospects of being granted a permanent residence permit.

It is important that the Swedish regulatory framework is not more generous than what is required according to EU law. By using the same concepts in the Swedish legal text, the conditions are increased for an application that does not go beyond what follows from the minimum level in the directive.

Madam Speaker! The proposal also suggests changes regarding maintenance requirements for family immigration. The Christian Democrats consider it a reasonable starting point that the person who wishes to be reunited with their relatives can also support them. The maintenance requirement introduced in the Aliens Act in 2010 is primarily aimed at strengthening integration.

As part of the work to address the current problems with lack of integration and growing exclusion, we therefore consider that maintenance requirements for family migration should apply in more cases than today. As mentioned earlier in the debate, it follows from the European Court of Human Rights' practice that it is, in principle, not unreasonable to set maintenance requirements as conditions for family reunification.

Madam Speaker! I can state that a large part of the committee shares the government's assessment that the proposed changes are needed for migration and integration to come into balance. The proposals in the bill are identical or in any case in line with what was proposed in the Migration Committee's investigation report, which in 2021 led to an announcement to the then government.

The preamble states that the changes are a prerequisite for the development that has followed in the wake of the lack of integration to be reversed, so that Sweden can introduce and, within a foreseeable time, maintain a restrictive migration policy.

The Swedish regulatory framework should not be more generous than what is required according to EU law and international conventions. The proposals submitted in the bill are, in my opinion, in line with what the committee has previously stated and an important step in this work.

I want to specifically highlight what I have mentioned: the proposal to raise the age limit for when a residence permit upon marriage can be refused on the grounds of age. It is a step to prevent forced marriages for children and young people.

Overall, the bill constitutes one of the steps and one of the pieces in shaping a sustainable migration policy. We Christian Democrats therefore move for approval of the bill.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! A fundamental and accepted view within immigration law is that families should be kept together, something that the Christian Democrats have previously advocated. If one visits the Christian Democrats' website, one also sees that they clearly write that families should be able to be reunited. I quote directly from the website: "We do not think it is reasonable that children and parents should be kept apart for a long time."

Just this makes the entire speech and the Christian Democrats' policy totally incomprehensible. One is now participating in a system that encourages family separation and which in practice will keep families apart. It is ice-cold from a party that has held children's rights in high regard.

The world has never had so many people fleeing, and it is a record few - one per mille or not even that - who have the possibility of making it to Sweden. Why do the Christian Democrats believe that it is the right time now to attack, undermine and violate children's rights and family reunification? It completely damages the integration that the Christian Democrats just expressed.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! That the importance of the family should be highlighted is wonderful to hear even from the left. We believe, in fact, that the family is important. The family is the building block that builds society.

At the same time, one can see that when we had a situation where the unaccompanied children were sent through Europe by their families, perhaps the children's perspective was not the primary one.

We must also consider that one of the prerequisites for successful integration is that one creates an appropriate situation where there is both livelihood and housing. This can provide a good basis for integration.

I can turn the question back to Tony Haddou as to whether he thinks that the migration we have had and the integration we have had and the results of them have led to a situation where children have been given the conditions to develop.

I can state that today we see children being drawn into activities that children should not be in. We know that children commit horrific acts. They are enticed to perform things that children should not have to perform.

We must also keep in mind that it is not we in Sweden who are splitting the family. The family has chosen to split the family, perhaps by one parent moving away to create better conditions. That we should then be without requirements, without stating what conditions there should be, is in my opinion not correct if we are to have the children's perspective at the center.

I can state that a prerequisite for succeeding with integration is that there is a livelihood and a home. I note that a majority in the committee also reach the same conclusion.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! It is exciting that the member brings up unaccompanied minors specifically. Those who arrived in 2015 have the same employment rate as Swedish youths of the same age. I call them true fighters. I think we should be proud of that.

In another country, perhaps a mother has given up her child. In Afghanistan, for example, we know that the Taliban took over many years ago. Therefore, people have given up their children so that they could have a better future. I think that Sweden should be a safe haven for these children. It is not more difficult than that. There we obviously differ completely. I am proud of the reception we have had.

When it comes to integration, the member here talks about housing and so on. This government does not want to build housing that ordinary people can afford. There is no labor market policy at all. They are pushing through harsh cuts in schools all over the country.

Then the member suddenly moves on to gang crime. What do you think the member thinks will happen to the children? They are being exploited for the adult world when they do not receive a good education when you cut back on schools all over the country. And you are not investing in healthcare at all across the country. This will result in us having missing investments in the country. But it is also this government's project that when people see that the entire society is being destroyed and when they see that things are going badly in the entire local area - the school is doing poorly, healthcare doesn't work, and so on - then the government stands completely without responsibility and says that it is the immigrants' fault. Despite the fact that hardly anyone is coming to Sweden anymore, the government can do nothing other than blame the immigration and the integration when they have set up obstacles for just that.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is always a bit exciting to experience, in an exchange of remarks, that one is tasked with bearing the responsibility for eight years of governing from the other political side. This government had, during many periods, support from Vänsterpartiet.

I can also observe that the budgets that Vänsterpartiet has presented have not resulted in the economy balancing. I guess that Vänsterpartiet is in power in many of the municipalities that have also been responsible for integration. And it would perhaps be appropriate to reflect on what we could have done differently.

I will point out that we should have done things differently if we go back further than eight years. But I also think one should reflect on what level of migration we can have. We can, of course, stand with open arms, as the Left Party advocates, and receive many. But at the same time, we must truly commit to receiving those who need help. Just as previous speakers have touched upon, one can reflect on whether we have had a level of migration such that Sweden has been able to manage to integrate people. My answer is no. The Left Party's answer is yes. They say that we have had a level where we have been able to integrate people, that they want to continue with the same level, and that this problem shall be solved.

I see another solution. The Swedish people have seen parties that want to see another solution. And we can state that we in the committee have a majority to make tightenings. Even the Social Democrats have seen that these proposals are reasonable and proportionate. They meet opposing conventions and also provide an opportunity to integrate people to create opportunities for families to be families and for children to be children. I will carry that forward. I know that we do not have the same opinions. We can respect that. But I still believe that this direction is the right one.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! It is hardly a surprise that I also want to speak about family and family reunification.

In a debate earlier in the term, I asked the member of KD if they want to keep families separated. At that time, I received the answer that we should await the investigation and see what the Tidö parties agree on. Now we have received the answer: Families shall be kept separated. Not all families are worth as much.

I had intended to ask why the Christian Democrats want to keep families separated. But I must say that it was a remarkable exchange of remarks that we just heard. It sounds from the member that it is parents who split families. That is not the case. It is war and oppression that split families. Atrocities occurring all around the world cause people to have to flee. That is what splits families. It sounds from the member that parents choose to abandon their children. That is not what this is about. It is about war and oppression. That is why families are split.

When the member receives a question about family reunification, we get a lecture on gang crime. In my world, integration would improve and alienation would decrease if one has their family close by as a safety net.

I therefore want to give the member the opportunity to correct their statement, and I wonder if the member seriously thinks that family reunification contributes to gang crime.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I was a bit taken aback and became a bit quiet. It is a rhetorical trick to throw out a question. It is roughly like asking if one has stopped beating his wife. There is no yes or no to that question.

I can state that the Centre Party is generous. They want to continue to have a high level. They do not want to impose all requirements. I heard how the member in their statement said just that the subsistence requirement is good in some cases and that it is also good that one has a sufficiently large home.

Does Jonny Cato also think that it might be appropriate for some families to wait but not for other families? Jonny Cato therefore thinks that it is good with families who have to wait and that it will be good for integration.

I can state that with the level of migration we have had, we have not succeeded in achieving integration, regardless of whether it is a question of children, families or single individuals, but we have created a situation where we have a growing exclusion.

In this bill, rules are proposed for, for example, subsistence requirements. I believe that it creates a basis for a family to be able to establish themselves well and integrate into a country and that, in turn, it leads to a happy development.

I would like to turn the question back to Jonny Cato. Does Jonny Cato think that the previous requirements for family reunification – that is, the missing requirements – led to good integration and that it is some other factor that has created the integration problems we have?

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! It is remarkable if there is no simple answer, that is, a yes or a no, to the question of whether family reunification contributes to gang crime. I think that is remarkable. It also sounds to the member as if families live more happily if they are separated.

Then there is the whole issue of integration. One might think it is a pity – and this is something I actually share the Christian Democrats' opinion on – that migration and integration are not handled by the same committee. But if one looks for proposals on integration on the government's list of bills for the coming autumn, one sees that it is as empty as the blank paper I am now holding up. There is not a single proposal. The only proposal that will be placed on the Riksdag's table during the autumn and which, according to the government parties, has to do with integration is that we should keep families separated. Seriously: Surely no one believes that is enough to fix integration! It is truly embarrassing.

I am upset. One could say that I sometimes become emotional and that others do too, but I think it is right to become emotional when a party that says it wants to protect the family is to keep families separated and says that it is because we need to fix integration – and then does not present a single proposal in the area of integration policy throughout the entire autumn. The only proposal we will decide on that has to do with integration is the one we decide on here today, that is to say, the proposal on family reunification. It is not just remarkable – it is embarrassing.

(Applause)

In this speech, Annika Hirvonen (MP) agreed.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for an engaged and emotional contribution, Jonny Cato! However, I missed an answer to the question of whether it is good to have a livelihood requirement. I noted, in fact, that Jonny Cato himself said that it is relevant. It is strange that one pits families against families in that way.

I can state that we have the family in focus. In the same way, I can state that there is a possibility to set subsistence requirements according to the practice that exists in the European Court of Human Rights. Jonny Cato does not have the opportunity to answer, but he can reflect on the following: If one is so emotional, one can indeed wonder if the European Court of Human Rights is wrong.

We can observe that a majority sees that we need to take measures in migration policy. We naturally need to do a great deal regarding integration as well. Now, I am not responsible for that, and I am not in that committee, so I must remain silent on that. But I will, of course, pass the question forward.

We will always put the family at the center, but at the same time it is important to ensure that we create an opportunity for all of Sweden's families to live securely. We can state that results for migration and integration have not been achieved under the government that C very generously supported for eight years. We choose a different path, and I believe that path is the right one.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! When I sat on the municipal board in Sundbyberg ten years ago, it was the Christian Democrats who often circulated appeals for the protection of people on the run. A lot has happened in ten years, not least regarding the Christian Democrats' view on refugees' rights. Now we have reached a point where the party, which usually speaks warmly about the importance of the family, presents legislative proposals that are intended to keep small children away from their mothers and fathers for several years.

It is said that it is for the children's best and that it would improve integration. It is a new language where words can mean almost anything. What we know is that children who are kept separated from their parents suffer severe traumas that they carry with them for the rest of their lives. What we also know from the testimonies we have seen is that parents regret that they did not risk their children's lives by taking them along on the life-threatening flight to Sweden - because the subsistence requirements have made it impossible to be reunited in Sweden.

A large majority of Swedes think that small children should be reunited with their parents in Sweden. The Christian Democrats think that this can only happen first when the parents have reached the front of the housing queue and secured a sufficiently high salary and a permanent job. We in the Green Party believe that the child's right to their family must be put first.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that our party has made a journey. If one were to listen to one of our representatives here in the Riksdag ten years ago, that representative would certainly sound different - but I believe representatives for many other parties would also have done so.

I still believe that what is best for the family in the long perspective - and that is what applies to many of the family reunifications we have in Sweden - is that one has a relevant livelihood and the possibility of housing. I still believe that it is a basis for creating good integration and a family situation that creates calm and counteracts what we can see in Sweden today. We can state that Annika Hirvonen's party is one of the responsible parties when it comes to the migration and integration that has not reached such a result as we would wish. Now we need to do something different.

I can also take the opportunity to reflect on where the child's perspective is when it comes to forced marriage. The 17-year-old, 16-year-old, or 15-year-old girl who was forced to marry an older man should, according to the Green Party's child philosophy, have the opportunity to go with the man if she has just passed the 18-year-old limit. In that perspective, I think it is more correct to create the opportunity for children to be children and young adults to be young adults through that adjustment of the age limit to 21, which should be possible to choose if one fears that it involves a forced marriage.

I would like to ask if Miljöpartiet does not see that risk and why they reserve themselves against this change.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! No, I do not believe that proposal will counteract forced marriage. If I thought it would, I might have landed differently.

What I do know is that the proposal will lead to fewer women being able to get here in a safe and legal way from, for example, refugee camps or other places in the world that are dangerous for them. Family reunification is the most important legal and safe way for women to flee. For a woman to flee along the Mediterranean route or other routes often means the same as risking rape, assault, and other exploitation. That is why many women start taking birth control pills shortly before they set off on their flight.

Madam Speaker! It is very important that we do a lot to counteract the problems that exist in society and to improve integration. For example, one could re-establish the systematic work against segregation that the Delegation against Segregation carried out and which the Kristdemokraterna scrapped first thing they did when they took over government power.

Integration will not be solved by keeping small children in refugee camps instead of letting them come to their parents in Sweden. It will only worsen these children's opportunity to integrate. It will lead to trauma and to them starting in Swedish school at a higher age. It will also lead to parents ending up in a situation where they ultimately must choose between either risking family separation or taking their children on life-threatening escape routes to reach safety here.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen and I do not share the same opinion here, just as I have said. We have slightly different views on it. I still consider it a reasonable starting point that those who wish to be reunited with their relatives should also be able to support them.

I think it is remarkable that Miljöpartiet is not taking the chance. One can always argue back and forth, but an 18-year-old girl who comes here might have been forced into marriage at the age of 15 if Miljöpartiet had had its proposal passed – it probably will not be so; we are voting in a little while. It is not the case that she marries on her 18th birthday if she comes here now.

In the family reunification directive, it is stated that member states, in order to guarantee better integration and prevent forced marriages, may require that the person seeking reunification and their spouse shall have reached a certain age - at most 21 years. We will settle on that. I believe that this is a measure that will counteract some forced marriages. For me, every forced marriage is wrong. If we, with this legislative change, can prevent a child, a youth, or a girl - as it is in many cases - from being subjected to this, it is worth doing.

I think this is putting the children's perspective in focus, and I can state that a majority in the committee share that view. I think that is good.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! The Government's bill on stricter conditions for family immigration and limited opportunities for residence permits on humanitarian grounds is based on the premise that the large immigration that Sweden has had during the last decades, in combination with a lack of integration, has contributed to the emergence of an extensive and very problematic exclusion. This is the basic premise that must first and foremost be analyzed. Then we can discuss the reasonableness of the measures that the Government proposes in order to reverse the negative development. This, Madam Speaker, is what I will do in my speech.

Already at the beginning of the 00s, we in the Liberals pointed out the impossibility of conducting a generous migration policy if integration was insufficient. Unfortunately, there were not many who wanted to listen then. The problem only grew over time, not least in connection with a record-breaking immigration. Marginalization was eventually transformed into full-fledged parallel societies where various separatist forces – clans, Islamists, and criminal gangs – and an unmitigated honor oppression have been allowed to rule. Now, the consequences of this inexcusable blindness are painfully clear. The rule of law and everyone's safety are at stake. Therefore, we are convinced that a paradigm shift is needed both within integration and migration policy as well as in many other areas.

Madam Speaker! Let me present some facts that support the diagnosis justifying the government's proposal in the bill that we are debating today. I will begin with immigration.

Between the years 2000 and 2022, 2.2 million people immigrated to Sweden. This immigration resulted in a net increase in the number of foreign-born persons residing in our country from 1 million to 2.15 million. Three-quarters of this increase consisted of persons born in Asia and Africa. This group today constitutes just over 10 percent of the country's population and more than half of all foreign-born persons living in Sweden.

A significant contribution to this increase comes from refugee-related immigration. Nearly 620,000 people were granted residence permits as refugees or relatives of refugees during these years. It was an exceptionally high figure in relation to our population – it was around five times above the average for the European Union.

This extensive refugee-related immigration was part of a dramatic demographic change of Sweden. Today, the proportion of persons who are born abroad or who at least have a parent who is, amounts to 35 percent of Sweden's population. It concerns a revolutionary change of a country that until not so long ago was very homogeneous in ethnic and cultural terms.

Madam Speaker! I do not think we need to delve further into this aspect to confirm that part of the government's diagnosis. We can move on and look at the other aspect of the government's diagnosis, namely the lack of integration and the emergence of a widespread and ever-deepening exclusion.

In this context, it is important to point out that these are problems that have a long history behind them; they stretch back to at least the 1980s. Even then, it could be stated that there were areas and population groups, not least with an immigrant background, who fell behind in the midst of a very strong economic boom. These early tendencies were reinforced in a decisive way during the prolonged recession of the 1990s.

This process was mapped in the Folkpartiet's so-called Map of Exclusion from December 2004. By combining statistical data regarding employment, school results, and voter turnout, we found that what was defined as exclusion areas had increased from 3 in the year 1990 to 136 in the year 2002.

The primary reason for the rapid growth of exclusion was an outright employment collapse in Sweden's most vulnerable residential areas. According to Statistics Sweden, in 1990 there were nine local areas where less than half of the residents between 20 and 64 years old were employed. In 2002, twelve years later, there were 91 such areas. In 1990, there were 24 residential areas that had an employment rate below 60 percent. In 2002, the number was 252.

The process of marginalization that was mapped out in Utanförskapets karta has continued to act since then, albeit at a slightly slower pace. The foundation Den Nya Välfärden stated in its follow-up of Utanförskapets karta that in 2012 there were 186 areas of exclusion with a total population of around 566,000 people. It is a figure that lies very close to the estimates from both the Delegation against segregation, Delmos, and the police.

Madam Speaker! This is the breeding ground for many extremely concerning phenomena that we have witnessed recently. The exclusion that we warned about as early as the beginning of the 2000s has now developed into system-threatening structures – or counter-societies, if I may use Emmanuel Macron's striking term – which are slowly but surely Latin Americanizing Swedish society. The wave of violence that has washed over Sweden, with recurring riots, car fires, shootings, and explosions, speaks its clear language in this regard.

Integration has failed for significant groups of immigrants and likewise for their children. To claim otherwise would be pure and utter escapism.

Not acting with force here and now can lead to a negative development that can no longer be reversed. That is not what the current government intends to do.

Madam Speaker! This description of reality constitutes the basis for the restrictive migration policy that the government is pushing forward. The bill that we are discussing today is an important component of this necessary tightening within the migration area. Of course, much more is required than this to get order in Sweden, but without that step, everything else would be hopeless.

In this context, I want to point out that we Liberals wish that it would be possible to maintain a less restrictive refugee and migration policy. But we make the assessment that is not the case in the current situation, unfortunately.

Madam Speaker! There are hundreds of millions of people in our world who would like and, on very good grounds, would like to come to us to seek protection or better living conditions. The United Nations estimated that over 100 million people were fleeing in 2022, a figure that unfortunately is growing continuously. Each one of these fellow human beings is worthy of our care and solidarity. The decisive question is how we act in the face of such a great human tragedy.

For us Liberals, this is binding. But we do not believe that we help by worsening the critical situation in which Sweden finds itself today. That path does not lead to a better world but to a worse Sweden for everyone.

Madam Speaker! For us Liberals, both migration and a growing ethnic and cultural diversity can contribute to a very positive development. But that presupposes a functioning integration and, not least, an immigration volume that does not exceed our integration capacities.

All this shall take place within the framework of a society that both clearly marks and forcefully upholds the boundaries of the diversity that can be accepted in an open, democratic and equal society. This I really want to emphasize so that our current position is not misinterpreted.

With that said, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all reservations.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! For three hours we have sat and listened to the representatives for the Tidö parties. One held out hope for the liberal watchdog, Liberalerna. This is what we got, a liberal who stands before the Sweden Democrats' migration policy.

Not a single word was said about the Liberals' own responsibility in migration and integration policy. If one listens to the member, it sounds as if the Liberals have pursued a completely different integration policy since 2002. Let me then remind the member that from 2006-2014 it was the Liberals who were in charge of integration policy and held the position of Minister for Integration in Sweden.

In these debates, I am trying to genuinely understand the Liberals' integration policy. A while ago, I had another debate in a committee with a Moderate who said: This is not our policy. It is a compromise in the Tidö Agreement. That is what I would have liked to hear from the member today.

Let me quote the Liberals' website: "We believe that parents who have moved should be able to be reunited with their children." Then my question is: Have the Liberals changed their migration policy, or is this a compromise?

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

We do not deny the right to be reunited. What we are saying is that one must have means of support and a home that makes it possible to be reunited under reasonable conditions. That is what we are saying.

As for the responsibility, we governed together then. It is a bit of shared guilt. But it is true that we were not capable of pushing through the integration and migration policy that we proposed already in the beginning of the 00s.

The worst enemy to us doing it was the Center Party. It was your party leader who did everything possible to prevent us from pushing through a proper integration policy. It also affected me personally, but that is another story.

History can be told in many different ways, member. But the important thing is that we have a situation in Sweden where we cannot manage to add more and more. It is already critical enough to say: Now we need to brake.

That is why we are pushing forward the restrictive migration policy. We do not do so because we do not wish that we could receive many more people, and gladly everyone who wanted to come. But we must realize that there is a limit and a reality.

We cannot drive on the exclusion. We have seen enough explosions, shootings and much more. Furthermore, it is many children who are doing things that we are truly horrified by.

Therefore, the member, we must today put our house in order in order to be able to get more people to come here, but under dignified and good circumstances.

(Applause)

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Madam Speaker! It is perhaps again that one can deny that the Tidö Agreement is the Sweden Democrats' migration policy. Now we have just heard that the migration policy that exists in the Tidö Agreement has been driven by the Liberals since 2002. In any case, it surprises me that the Liberals have had the Sweden Democrats' migration policy for 20 years.

We are talking about explosions and shootings. The proposal we are talking about here today is, for example, that seriously ill children should be allowed to stay in Sweden. Please, explain to me how seriously ill children contribute to more explosions, increased gang crime, and increased social exclusion. In any case, I do not understand that connection.

It is about how someone who has received emergency care in Sweden is then not allowed to receive follow-up care here but is instead to be deported. Explain to me how the four-year-old contributes to increased gang crime and an increased number of shootings.

The government spokespeople are talking about that these proposals will not make family reunification any more difficult at all. That is exactly what they do. The exceptions are, in practice, the only real possibility for family reunification.

We can state that all liberals here in the chamber today will vote for three things.

It will become harder for children to be reunited with their parents.

Severely ill children shall leave Sweden.

The young person who has grown up in Sweden and had their entire life here shall be deported.

It is a lot, friends. But it is not a liberal policy. My question is: Where is the liberal watchdog?

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! The liberal watchdog is very awake. It sees reality and tries to understand it. It is something that I do not believe the member does, at least not in the same way.

We are very concerned. Most Swedes - it doesn't matter if you have an immigrant background or a Swedish background - are very concerned. The bombs detonate, the shootings occur, the riots arise, and the exclusion exists. Then we must see how we are to handle this. Can we handle it with increased immigration, as Centerpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet want? I really do not believe so.

I believe that we need to brake so that we can fix the house before it burns for everyone. That is what is about to happen. If it happens, the political development that we would then get would not favor liberal political decisions at all. It would instead become very aggressive and very different from what we would want to see.

One more thing: Do not say that in 2002 we tried to conduct the Sweden Democrats' migration policy or integration policy, as the member said something about! We tried to drive a policy that would prevent the riots that subsequently occurred and everything that happened thereafter.

Therefore, we mapped out the exclusion and said: Look at how it has gone! Now we must do something! We said that so that Sweden could maintain a generous migration policy. Nothing worth mentioning was done today. Therefore, we unfortunately must also brake regarding migration today. It is something that we as liberals obviously regret.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by clarifying some things that the Centre Party also touched upon. The proposals are about a nearly strangled family reunification in Sweden. It is primarily seriously ill children who are affected when we throttle the valve for humanitarian reasons. Seriously ill children and children who have established themselves in Sweden – they are the ones who risk being deported when we have pressed these buttons.

It is completely incomprehensible that the Liberals stand and talk about seriously ill children as an integration problem because one fails to manage to create measures in Sweden, for example, to invest in welfare or at least have an active labor market policy and ensure that we get the world's best school. One absolves oneself of all this, and then blames seriously ill children or children who have rooted themselves in Sweden. It is completely incomprehensible.

I need to clarify more things. An opinion poll from Novus conducted after the election shows that a clear majority of the Swedish people want children and parents who have been separated as refugees to be able to be reunited in Sweden. A majority also believe that parents and children who have moved to Sweden and are very seriously ill should be able to receive care in Sweden and stay here.

When you break down the figures, it becomes very interesting when you get to the Liberals. The survey shows, in fact, that 80 percent of the Liberals' sympathizers believe that children and adults who have been forced to flee should be able to seek protection in Sweden. 76 percent of the Liberals' sympathizers believe that children and parents who have been separated should be reunited here. 75 percent of the sympathizers believe that children who have moved to Sweden and who are very seriously ill should stay here.

I understand that the Liberals do not have many voters left, but given what your own sympathizers think about family reunification, I wonder why you completely oppose this liberal will. What, for example, is liberal about the proposals for austerity measures that you want to vote through today? What is liberal about violating children's rights most of all, as you are doing here today in the Swedish Riksdag?

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! What the member says is interesting, because the Left Party is the party that openly and clearly wants to increase immigration to Sweden. The committee motion that you presented 2022/23 is clear. You even want to open the embassies so that people can apply for visas to come and seek asylum in Sweden. It is truly staggering. One wonders in what world our friends from the Left Party live. It is at least not in the one that most Swedes seem to live in.

No, we do not blame sick children and others. We blame your politics. We blame all those who have made it possible to have a very large immigration, which we cannot manage. For that is the grim reality: We have taken on a task that we cannot manage. We must fix this, because no one will benefit if it continues to be shot, blown up and killed and if riots continue to occur - no one.

We must put the house in order before we say that we are opening the door, which we Liberals want to do. Don't think otherwise! That is why I pointed out in my speech that we are for immigration. We are for a multicultural society. We think the mixture is good – when integration works and when what is currently happening in Sweden does not happen. It is about our entire country and our rule of law. All that we all like is at stake today, Madam Speaker, and we must do something about it.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Can the members seriously take responsibility and answer the question? You are in the government. Answer the question! Severely ill children and children who have settled in Sweden - how is that an integration problem? It is incomprehensible. Can you answer that? That is what the bill is about. We are to deport severely ill children. The humanitarian valve for children is being closed. How is that an integration problem? Take responsibility!

I think that these changes and what we hear the members expressing is the worst form of symbolic politics. It aims to gloss over the government's inability to build a robust welfare state, to level inequalities, to ensure that children get a good school, and to ensure that we get an active labor market policy.

Everything is blamed on people who have sought protection here in Sweden from the horrors of war and ensured that Sweden has become a better country. It is completely irresponsible that the member here expresses something else: that seriously ill children should be deported and that this is what addresses Sweden's integration problems.

We can have the debate on integration. There is no problem with having an integration debate in the Riksdag. But you bring it into a debate that is about seriously ill children being deported. You turn these children into a problem, and then you cannot even take responsibility when the Centerpartiet has asked questions and when I ask questions. It is a shame, Madam Speaker. It is a shame that liberals only express less freedom here in the Riksdag.

I ask again: What is the freedom in this bill, which violates children's rights in the strongest sense? What is the freedom when severely ill children and children who have rooted themselves in Sweden and who have no other homeland are to be deported? These are children whose connection is to Sweden, and they have lived here for eight, twelve, or fifteen years. In what way are they an integration problem? Please answer, and take responsibility for once!

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! The member wanted me to say something about freedom. Freedom is being able to go out in one's residential area without fearing that someone will blow up a house or shoot a child. Freedom is being able to live in a society where we feel safe.

We are all on the verge of losing this freedom in Sweden, and we must take that seriously here and now. If we lose that freedom, we have lost much more than migration policy and integration policy. Then we have lost the entire meaning of living in a civilized democratic society. And unfortunately, this is what is about to happen. The rule of law is at stake today in Sweden.

Don't come here with that this is about children who are sick or anything of the sort! This is about migration policy, the volume of migration, and the possibility of managing this. We have not had the capacity to manage the people who have come here. We have seen the results. We must brake.

You do not want to slow down. For you, it doesn't matter. One only has to read your committee motion, where it can be seen that you want more and more people in queues around the world to seek asylum in Sweden and so on. We believe that that policy leads to a worse Sweden and not to a better world.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This bill is about making it harder for severely ill children to stay in Sweden. A child who, for example, has a heart condition and has received an operation in our country risks being deported to a country where the child cannot receive the required aftercare. That is what the narrowed humanitarian protection ground for children is about, not gang criminals.

This bill is about children who are in a refugee camp in Jordan having to wait there until the mother in Sweden moves up in the housing queue so that the apartment meets the new requirements, or until one finds a permanent job with a sufficiently high income before they can hug their children again.

The subsistence requirements for family reunification have led to mothers and fathers being forced to watch their children grow up through FaceTime. Imagine yourselves integrating and learning a new language while lying awake at night, terrified by the worry for your children's safety in the home country!

This bill is about forcing parents to face the choice of taking their children on the life-threatening journey of flight or risking not seeing them again if they do not find a sufficiently well-paid job.

This bill does not solve any shootings and explosions. This bill causes deep wounds and trauma in children who lose the right to their families.

(Applause)

In this speech, Leila Ali Elmi, Janine Alm Ericson, Rebecka Le Moine, Jan Riise and Jacob Risberg (all MP) concurred.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! There are many parents in Sweden who are awake at night, honorable member, because they fear that their children will not come back home. You know that. We must fix this. We must rectify it so that we can tell everyone who wants to come: Now there are good conditions here. Now we can open the door - not completely, because we know that it won't hold, but a little more. That is what the bill is about: to give us the room to be able to rectify what must be rectified.

The member also knows that there is a safety valve. We must let the migration courts examine this. Where is the limit for the severely ill child? Are there sufficient grounds or not? The migration court shall decide. I believe that neither the member nor I is capable of saying where that limit lies.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There was a reason why our parties together made this extremely narrow valve a little wider in 2014. It was because we saw that it was too small to meet the requirements of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

To be able to live with one's family is completely fundamental. Today we are voting on proposals that will deny some of the world's most vulnerable children, children fleeing, the opportunity to be reunited with their parents in Sweden. This does not solve the problems that exist with gang crime. I have friends myself who are afraid for their children's lives as a result of this conflict. This does not solve that problem.

Come back with solutions that stop the recruitment of children into criminal gangs! Come back with proposals that solve the enormous problem of people on the run today! Come back with a climate policy that reaches the climate goals! Come back with an aid policy that restores Sweden's role as a humanitarian superpower where we build peace and security globally and strengthen democracy and human rights!

Higher walls only drive desperate people into the hands of human smugglers. It solves neither the crime in Sweden nor the situation for the people who are fleeing in the world today.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rebecka Le Moine, Jan Riise and Jacob Risberg (all MP) concurred.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! This thing about a humanitarian superpower is fine. But before we are a superpower, we must be a small power here at home that upholds the rule of law, safety, and the possibility of living together in a civilized way. Before we preach to the world and take on that role, as we have done many times, we must take on a role that is perhaps much smaller, which may not suit people with great ambitions but which is very important for Sweden.

What this and many other proposals that the government will present aim to do is to limit migration. We have said that in many different ways. We are succeeding in doing so. We know that there is a very large migration pressure in many European countries. In Sweden, we do not have that. There is something that works. It is signal politics, that is true, but the signals are very important. We are signaling that Sweden cannot receive as many people as before. That is important for us.

How it will affect children, adults, or families we shall see. The Migration Court shall also be allowed to say its piece. One thing, however, is important: The people who need to receive support and a home for their children are fighting diligently to get it, and we should help them meet the requirements. That would make things much better for them and for everyone. But to continue to accumulate people who go directly into exclusion in areas where the police today cannot work solves no problems, neither in Sweden nor in the world.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 5.)

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