EDITORIAL • Eight months before a parliamentary election, the news cycle is suddenly flooded by a single migration case presented as a moral crisis. An infant is said to be deported and a family is claimed to be split up by the state. Politicians are pressured to act, and the public is expected to respond emotionally. The problem is, that’s not what the decision is about. Instead, we’re witnessing a classic influence operation timed for the election.
It is not the child being deported. What is being assessed is the parents’ right to stay in Sweden. If they lack that right, they must leave the country, and the child accompanies its legal guardians — just as children normally do when parents move, regardless of the reason. What is called “family separation” only occurs if the parents themselves choose to stay without the child.
If a couple moves from Stockholm to Kiruna for a job and that job ends, and they get a job somewhere else — say in Skåne or perhaps even Switzerland — what happens then? They move, WITH their child. Entirely natural.
The same applies in these cases. Some who happen to be parents no longer have the right to be here. Some of them chose to remain illegally; others tried to game the system with so-called “track changes” or similar tactics. But regardless, it’s a decision directed at the parents, who, naturally, are not separated from their child.
Describing this as if authorities are separating children from parents is therefore a deceptive account of what the decision actually entails.
An Influence Operation, Not Just Reporting
Every year, families leave Sweden after being denied residence permits. This is a normal consequence of regulated immigration and almost never becomes national news. But certain cases are selected, repeated, and dramatized until they become symbols.
When a single case receives disproportionate attention just months before an election, it is no longer simply journalism. It’s an influence operation. By consistently framing an ordinary bureaucratic decision as a moral offense, the debate is shifted from law to feelings.
The aim is not to explain the rulebook but to create political pressure using a narrative that provokes intense reactions.
The Unspoken Demand
The reporting contains an implicit assumption: if a child is born in Sweden, the family should be allowed to stay. But that’s a far bigger deal than what is openly stated. It means that birth itself becomes a reason to stay.
Sweden has never had such a system. Residence permits are based on criteria being fulfilled, not the place of birth. If birth in the country were to outweigh the law’s criteria, it would, in practice, introduce a system where presence over time replaces formal decision-making. Then, it would be enough to stay long enough and have a child to create a new reason to stay.
This wouldn’t be an adjustment of migration policy — it would be an entirely different model.
“Done the Right Thing”
The fact that the parents are working is highlighted as crucial. But having a job does not automatically give you a permanent right to stay if you don’t meet the requirements for a residence permit. If they earn too little, that shows their basis for remaining in the country doesn’t exist. Sweden does not need a low-wage immigration. Temporary permits expire when the criteria are no longer met. To portray this as some sudden violation is to ignore the fact that the right to stay was always temporary.
It also ignores the parents’ own responsibility to stay informed about and respect our rules.
What the Real Issue Is
The real conflict isn’t about an infant or about a single decision. It’s about the media, through a misleading and emotionally charged narrative, trying to sway public opinion before an election. By framing a routine case as a moral crisis, they create pressure on politicians to change fundamental principles without openly debating those principles.
That’s why the story is presented as if a child is being deported, when in reality it concerns the parents’ right to stay. And that’s why it’s getting so much attention right now.
Because the media knows an election is coming — and they are doing everything they can to mount yet another massive influence operation. Yes, you know, the kind of influence operations they warn against when they supposedly come from the “wrong” side, if they even do. They’ve done it before (the fake “Troll Factory” from TV4). And they’re doing it again.
Don’t let yourselves be fooled.