Isak From (S) is a resident of Norsjö. He sits in both the Swedish Parliament and the Norsjö Municipal Council.
Many Norran readers have reacted to the report about the Norsjö family, who risk deportation from Sweden due to a legislative change. Sara Ghorbani, Farhood Masoudi, and their son Parham arrived in Sweden as asylum seekers in 2018. Although their applications were rejected, the parents' employment in Norsjö enabled them to switch tracks and obtain residence permits as labor immigrants.
Now, the law is changing, potentially forcing families like theirs to leave Sweden, despite their employment and tax contributions.
– We are not criminals. We have done everything we can to show that we want to stay in Sweden. But Sweden doesn’t want us to stay, says Farhood to Norran.
While the decision regarding the new law may appear hasty, it follows several years of investigative work. The initiative for this legislative change originated with the previous government, led by the Social Democrats.
When the law was passed in parliament on March 12, Norsjö resident Isak From (S) participated in the decision. Like every member of his party, he voted for the new legislation.
– We Social Democrats have always opposed the possibility of changing tracks. Labor immigration needs to be more regulated, he states.
What is your comment on families who work and pay taxes being negatively affected by this law?
– It’s not good. We Social Democrats in Västerbotten would have preferred transitional provisions to mitigate the short-term consequences. But that was not the outcome.
Why did you vote for this law if it was not satisfactory?
– This was the party's consensus. For detailed information, it's best to consult our members in the Social Insurance Committee.
Ola Möller, representing the Social Democrats in the parliamentary debate and serving on the Social Insurance Committee, explained the law change's rationale from the podium:
– The possibility of changing tracks has undermined the legitimacy of the migration system. If someone comes to Sweden seeking asylum, and it's determined they have no grounds to remain, it's unreasonable to allow them to pursue alternative residency options from within the country.
The new law was enacted with unanimous support from both the right and the left.
Farhood Masoudi and Sara Ghorbani Shamasbi, from Norsjö, are at risk of deportation following a new law that was passed in the Swedish Parliament on March 12.
The Social Democrats have consistently been critical of labour immigration. They maintain that the regulations have been overly lenient and that labour immigration should be restricted to highly skilled occupations facing shortages.
The Sweden Democrats, conversely, have grounded their arguments in their general critique of immigration. They contend that Sweden has admitted too many immigrants and that the option to transition to a work permit has allowed individuals who should have departed the country to remain.
The Moderates believe that labour immigration has fostered the development of a shadow economy, where individuals have secured residence permits in Sweden on false pretences. The possibility of changing tracks has also been perceived by the Moderates as an unjust form of special treatment.
Only the Centre Party (C), the Green Party (Mp), and the Left Party (V) voted against portions of the new legislation. This broad consensus explains the lack of public discourse preceding the decision. Very few members of parliament have expressed dissent.
Andreas Westerberg is the political editor at Norran.
From a Norrland perspective, the stringent immigration policy is detrimental. We witness this when Northvolt announces lay-offs, potentially forcing numerous employees to leave the country, despite their critical need in the Norrland labour market.
We also see this in the case of Sara and Farhood in Norsjö, who risk deportation. They are employed, and the local job market will struggle to find replacements. They are needed. This policy is harmful to them and to Norsjö. Yet, the town's sole member of parliament voted in favour of the legislation. This is really bad.