How the Red-Green Opposition Sabotages the Fight Against the Shadow Society

Parts of the Tidö government’s proposal for stricter rules on migration detention may be postponed for at least a year. On Monday, a parliamentary minority voted through what is known as a ‘suspensive declaration’, an unusual parliamentary tool used when a legislative proposal is considered to potentially impact fundamental freedoms and rights.

The initiative came from the Green Party and the Centre Party, who were supported by the Social Democrats and the Left Party in the vote. This achieved the minority required to request that the bill be examined under the rules of the Swedish Constitution.

The dispute concerns parts of the government’s proposed amendments to the Aliens Act. The opposition is mainly critical of provisions allowing children to be held in detention for longer than today, and provisions that would allow children in some cases to be separated from their parents during detention.

Green Party group leader Annika Hirvonen justified the initiative prior to the parliamentary debate by stating that the constitution is there for situations where a minority needs to be able to stop encroachments on fundamental freedoms and rights. She told DN that the suspensive declaration is an opportunity to “pull the emergency brake” if the government goes too far.

After the vote, Hirvonen emphasized in a comment to SVT above all the importance for the children affected by the bill.

– But above all, it is important for the children concerned. Being locked up and separated from their parents is very traumatic and can leave marks for the rest of their lives, she told SVT.

Den här cirkusen handlar om förlängd tidsgräns för förvar av barn från 3 till 6 dygn plus en förlängning för tonåringar som utgör säkerhetshot. Vilka partier tror ni röstade för gränsen på 3 dygn? För vänstern är 3 dygn helt ok medan 6 är omänsklig rasism. Halva riksdagen är????er. pic.twitter.com/knuQeSLvCU

— Ludvig Aspling (@AsplingLudvig) June 15, 2026

Crucial to Fighting the Shadow Society

The Centre Party has also defended the initiative. The party’s migration policy spokesperson Niels Paarup told DN before the debate that the opposition seized the opportunity to stop those parts of the proposal that would allow children who have not committed any crimes to be deprived of their liberty.

The government, on the other hand, argues that the legislative changes are necessary to conduct a strict and effective migration policy. Minister for Migration Johan Forssell (M) wrote to DN that expanded use of detention is “crucial” to combating the shadow society and argued that the opposition’s actions show that the left makes it harder to maintain a regulated migration policy.

In a later comment to SVT, Forssell emphasized that it is rare for children to be placed in detention and that such decisions are surrounded by thorough controls. He was also critical of the opposition’s actions.

“I would also like to emphasize that the opposition’s actions in parliament mean it will be harder to use detention where the police assess that there is a risk the person will commit crimes in Sweden,” Forssell wrote to SVT.

To Be Decided by the Constitutional Committee

The issue has not yet been finally decided. The matter now goes to the Constitutional Committee, which will assess if the requirements for a suspensive declaration under the Swedish Constitution have been met. Only then will it be decided whether the relevant parts of the bill are actually postponed.

Facts: Suspensive Declaration

A suspensive declaration is a specific provision in the Swedish Constitution that makes it possible for a parliamentary minority to delay consideration of legislative proposals affecting fundamental freedoms and rights.

If at least one-sixth of the members of parliament support such a request, the proposal can be postponed for twelve months.

The provision is very rarely used. According to political scientist Tommy Möller, who spoke to DN, the rules are surrounded by complicated legalities and the tool has only been used on a handful of occasions.

The main rule is that the postponement takes effect if enough members make the request, but parliament in some cases can still proceed if five-sixths of the members support the proposal.