Letter to the editor. Where is the resistance to the inhuman refugee policy?

Wednesday, March 12, 2025, will go to history as another black day for people seeking protection in our country.

Parliament Then voted through the abolition of the limitation period for asylum seekers, the opportunity that has existed to seek new examination for their asylum reasons without leaving the country. The new law means that a person must be outside the boundaries of the Schengen area for five years before can seek asylum again.

For many, it may seem obvious that « a no should be a no ». But a no after an asylum process without legal certainty, something as the State Office’s report « Many islands small » Clearly shows, is a disaster for everyone affected by the said deficiencies in legal certainty. A no is thus far from the same as being able to safely return to their country of origin.

The shadow community As the Riksdag says it wants to counteract come very likely to grow, not shrink, with this new legislation.

The consequences of the new law on abolished limitation period were confirmed during a parliamentary debate by Ola Möller (S) in A replica change with Annika Hirvonen (MP). Hirvonen asked the question: « Does Ola Möller really mean that the Social Democrats’ policy is that if you cannot return to his home country, then you should be able to live a full life at the Migration Board’s return center? » Möller’s brief answer was: « Mr President! The conclusion will be it, yes. »

Migration policy has been tightened in various ways since 2016. Yes, it was actually when it began when the then red -green government decided to impose severe restrictions on asylum seekers by introducing, among other things, temporary residence permits.

From having had A policy and rhetoric that talked about standing for people on the run, the politicians turned to talk about people on the run as a burden. In 2021, the severe legislation became permanent. After the 2022 election, the timer regulation, as is well known, has tightened the thumb screws even harder, with the good memory of the opposition.

The Social Democrats are wholehearted behind all the proposals in the area of ​​asylum and migration presented by the current government. The Center Party has also supported many of the proposals, while the Left Party and the Environment Party voted for a few proposals.

There is talk of resilience and concern around the world for what is now happening during Donald Trump’s government and Vladimir Putin’s progress. An upgrading of military and civil defense as well as physical infrastructure are some examples of What the politicians lift in these times of turmoil.

But where is the resistance Against the inhumane and xenophobic policy that is now being conducted? A policy that in itself and through how it seeks support among the population is a danger not only for asylum seekers and immigrants, but also for democracy, as our treatment of minorities is an important part of it.

The disclosure Of the Swedish Democrats’ magic factories should have had, but had no consequences at all. In the aftermath of the disclosure, Anders Lindberg wrote in Aftonbladet that he wanted a substantial debate about refugee policy. What has happened? Nothing more than continuing to meet SD, even though they know that their politics is based on pure lies.

Now Sweden wants enter into agreements With a neo -fascist government in Italy about a collaboration on migration – an Italy that drives for a refugee policy that can in principle be described as slave trade.

This and everything else As mentioned above, those who still carry some kind of decency should, but most of our parliamentary parties seem to be in whole or in part miss that will. In the example of the Social Democrats and Ola Möller above, it is clear that you are shopping for better knowledge. But how is it at other parties? Are you equally aware of the consequences or do you just choose to look away, or turn down?

Often there is talk of red lines in politics. Such must be drawn, especially against the inhuman, but not only in words but, also in action. It is not possible to say that one stands for humanity and a legally secure examination for asylum reasons and still be involved and push through proposals that weaken asylum rights. The red lines must have real content and offer a concrete resistance.

My question to the members of parliament and parties who really want to see another and more human refugee politics is therefore: Where is resistance and willingness to fight? Why do we not hear more express themselves in public about all the terrible consequences that both current and future legislation have received and will receive?

More about submitter: How do you write on submitter and answer

More submissions: dn.se/insandare