[ad_1]
Many environmentalists have been angry at the Center Party in recent weeks. You can understand green anger. In April, Jonny Cato, a spokesman for the center’s immigration policy, proposed easing maintenance requirements in the Upper Secondary Schools Act for Unaccompanied Minors due to the pandemic.
But when the red-green government proposed this fall, C said no. On Wednesday, it finally became clear that there will be no relief.
The environmentalists, however, managed to provoke themselves unnecessarily. Less than a day after the decisive parliamentary vote, it became clear that the Center Party only wanted to find another legal technical solution for unaccompanied minors to stay.
“Apply a new humanitarian base to unaccompanied minors,” was the headline of a discussion article by leader C Annie Lööf and Cato. A more appropriate headline would have been: “There will be no new high school team, it will be something even worse.”
The Center Party’s argument is that it is wrong to patch and fix a temporary set of rules. Instead, they want to increase opportunities for migrants who have no protective reasons to stay for humanitarian reasons. This should apply, for example, to people with serious illnesses. But C also wants it to include unaccompanied minors who have had a residence permit in Sweden.
Annie Lööf is not entirely clear if the exemption should only apply to young people who arrived during the refugee crisis or if it should also cover those who come to Sweden in the future.
Immigration policy will be more of a legally uncertain popularity contest.
If it only affects unaccompanied minors as of 2015, initiative C is in principle an amnesty. The solemn order to avoid arbitrary upper secondary school law comes down to the fact that C wants to move the temporary regulations to a new place in the law book.
If the rules are to apply to all of them, which is very likely, it is a fundamental blow to the principles behind future immigration legislation.
The main rule is that refugees and other people in need of protection will receive temporary residence permits in the future, according to the proposal of the Committee on Migration Policy. Only those who learn Swedish and support themselves receive a permanent residence permit. Others are implicitly expected to return to their home country when conditions permit. However, that rule is meaningless if in practice it is enough to have lived in Sweden for a few years and have a “special connection” to be able to stay.
Migration policy then becomes a legally uncertain popularity contest, entirely in line with the way environmental parties highlight Swedish activists’ ties to individual unaccompanied minors as reasons why they should be allowed to stay.
The Government clearly defends that the basis of humanitarian protection should be applied in the future. This is clear from the complementary proposals for the Migration Commission report that the government sent for consultation last week.
The Minister of Migration, Morgan Johansson, S, has previously wanted to give the impression that these are only minor changes. But the rules that the government now wants to reintroduce were a major reason why Sweden received 40 percent of all unaccompanied minors who arrived in the EU in 2015. When it comes to adults, the exceptions are even more generous than they have been in two decades.
Sweden’s regulations will once again stand out in the EU circle with the risks involved should Turkey start allowing migrants in large numbers again.
When work began on the new legislation, it was said that migration policy would be long-term and sustainable.
Now the Center Party is making the beds instead of the fall 2015 crisis repeating itself.
