Sammanfattning av publikation

Jonsson & Borg, 2006 🔗

Return: The Swedish Approach

År: 2006

Typ av text: Working paper

Publicerad av: Department of Eurasian Studies Uppsala University pÄ uppdrag av SCB efter bestÀllning frÄn European Migration Network (EMN) som Àr ett initiativ frÄn EU-kommissionen

SprÄk: Engelska

Författare: Anna Jonsson & Dominika Borg

Antal sidor: 98

TillgÀnglig pÄ: http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:131618/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Vad texten handlar om

Rapporten Àr deskriptiv. Den erbjuder en beskrivning av lagar och politik pÄ omrÄdet ÄtervÀndande. Fokus Àr pÄ lagar och regleringar, men vissa delar tar Àven upp politiska diskurser om ÄtervÀndande, civilsamhÀllets motstÄnd och engagemang i frÄgan samt migranters egna skÀl till varför de inte vill eller kan ÄtervÀnda. Av intresse Àr ocksÄ att de beskriver resonemangen bakom och grupperna som omfattades av flyktingamnestin 2005-2006.

Viktigaste resultat

“In conclusion, the Swedish approach to return rests on the foundation that return should be voluntary” (7)

“The main groups of asylum-seekers in Sweden originate from Serbia and Montenegro, Iraq, and Russia. They also constitute the main groups of rejected asylum applications.” (7)

“The MIV is to inform and prepare the alien for two different scenarios. [approval or rejection of asylum application] (6)

  • “ Hence, the process of return constitutes an integrated part of the asylum process” (6)
  • “In order for the two track system to fulfill the goals set by the Swedish state the awaiting period has to be significantly shortened. A decision should be rendered within six months but that time period is hardly ever met.” (6)
    • “One explanation to the long waiting period is the fact that the merits of a case and potential obstacles to executing the decision are tried in one and the same process. 
    • Yet another explanation can be the sometimes difficult process of establishing an applicant’s identity. 
    • In addition, as a main rule rejected applicants are not deported pending an appeal process.” (6)

“Traditionally, NGOs have been more active concerning voluntary return migration/repatriation and they have been hesitant to become involved in return assistance programs for rejected persons. This is however slowly changing and for example the Swedish Red Cross is providing counseling and information for applicants awaiting a decision and for rejected individuals.” (7)

“The number of persons who have been issued rejection or expulsion decisions, but whose removal orders have not been executed, is on the increase in Sweden, either due to obstacles to execution of the decision that are beyond the influence of the applicant or because the rejected applicant goes into hiding. In addition, there are problems with identification and travel documents. Many migrants either intentionally refuse(s) to produce documents or are, for various reasons, unable to do so. This, in turn, results in lengthy asylum processes. The longer a person remains in Sweden the stronger the presumption for that person to be entitled to stay. In Sweden this view eventually led to the adoption of a temporary law between November 15 2005 and March 31 2006 that allowed persons who had been residing in Sweden for longer periods to have their cases retried. This law only applied to persons who registered with the MIV. As a result, persons who had gone into hiding stepped forward and registered their cases with the MIV. (7)

Om flyktingamnestin 2005-2006

Reasoning about the danger of people living outside of society’s institutions:

  • Danger for the individual (labour market, education, health care)
  • Danger for society 
    • Segregation and discrimination
    • “ if the group of individuals residing illegally in the destination country continues to grown there is a risk that the very fundament of a democratic and open society becomes threatened”
    • “legitimacy of a democratic welfare state depends on the quality and extent of the care that is offered”
    • Social and political unrest
  • However,  it can in the long run undermine the respect for the migration policy of the EU and its member states if people stay even though they have been denied asylum (32)

“In part, the temporary law on asylum that allowed for a renewed review of rejection decisions or injunction decisions was an acknowledgement of this. This arrangement was aimed at rejected applicants who for various reasons have not left the country. The law entered into force on 15 November 2005 and remained in force until it was substituted by a new Aliens Act on 31 March 2006.” (33) 

“ Each case was to be assessed as to the degree of humanitarian urgency.” (33)

“Several factors, such as a child’s social situation, as well as its ties to Sweden and the risk of damage to its health if returned, were to be taken into consideration. One of the strongest prerequisites in favor of a positive decision was that the person had been residing in the country for a long period of time.” (33)

“The groups most affected by this temporary law were families with children, and persons whose removal orders have not been possible to implement for medical reasons or due to conditions in their country of origin.” (33)

“31 000 cases were tried and 17 000 residence permits granted, of which 13 000 were permanent and 4 000 temporary. The main reasons for granting temporary residence permits were that the identity of the applicant could not be established or that the grounds for not enforcing a rejection decision was only temporary.” (34)

“There is not yet a holistic analysis and evaluation of the impact of this law.” (80)

“There are for example no financial grants available for rejected asylum seekers. At the same time the cost for migrants registered with the MIV with un-enforced removal orders is extensive, and potentially greater than the costs associated with return programs.” (81)

“In order to develop an as efficient return policy as possible it is vital that the responsible Ministry receives adequate data and information. It is striking how fragmented the data is. It is provided by a large number of actors; national NGOs, IGO, the RPS, MIV, private entrepreneurs, local MIV and police offices, and Regeringskansliet itself. The evaluation process is made difficult due to the large amount of actors involved in the process and the lack of an overall evaluation of the Swedish approach to return is striking.” (81)

Perspektiv/teoretiska begrepp

Metoden för studien

Ev policy-rekommendationer

Ev förslag för vidare granskning

“Future research is especially needed concerning return incentives from the migrant’s perspective, what factors influence the choice of destination country, evaluations of various activities provided for asylum-seekers and their impact on return, effects on the Swedish two track system on both applicants and the MIV-staff, and finally the connection between Swedish migration policy and foreign aid in general and its impact on return in particular.” (81)

Josefins förslag: Titta nÀrmare pÄ de politiska övervÀganden som lÄg till grund för amnestin 2005-2006, och exempelvis jÀmföra det med dagens situation.

Summarised by: Josefin Åström