SD: Introduce Return Hubs – Remove Those Who Would Otherwise Remain

Sweden should urgently join the new migration policy emerging within the EU and introduce so-called return hubs. This is written by SD top politicians Charlie Weimers and Ludvig Aspling in an opinion piece where they call for a more consistent repatriation policy for Sweden.

The background is the new legislation recently passed in the European Parliament, where a majority voted for stricter rules regarding deportations. According to the two SD representatives, this is a necessary step to fix a system that, in their opinion, does not work in practice today.

They describe how a large proportion of people who receive deportation orders nevertheless remain within the EU, which they claim undermines the credibility of the entire system.

Today, the deportation decisions made within the EU are often just empty words on paper. Only one in five people who are ordered to leave the country actually do so in practice.

The opinion piece paints a picture of a system where poor cooperation with countries of origin and difficulties in establishing identity mean that many deportations are never carried out. They also argue that this creates incentives for abuse.

We have ended up in an absurd situation where it is, in practice, worthwhile to destroy one’s own ID documents because migrants exploit the fact that their home countries do not cooperate with enforcement. The rest remain—and ordinary citizens bear the consequences: in welfare, in schools, in healthcare. Insecurity is growing.

EU Opens Up to a New Model

The new line within the EU means, among other things, that member states will now have the opportunity to use return hubs—reception centers outside the borders of the Union where people can stay while awaiting return to their home countries.

The decision in the European Parliament passed with a clear majority: 389 votes in favor and 206 against.

According to Weimers and Aspling, this marks a shift in European migration policy, with several countries already ahead and working concretely on the issue.

EU countries can now finally build return hubs—centers outside the Union where people who have had their asylum applications rejected will wait to be sent home.

The SD leaders point out that both large and smaller member states are already engaged in the work.

Germany and the Netherlands are leading the work. Denmark, Austria, and Greece are participating. The goal is to have agreements in place already this year. Sweden should join this coalition without delay.

Stock photo deportation. Photo: The Swedish Prison and Probation Service

Call for Sweden to Act

Against this backdrop, the SD representatives argue that Sweden risks falling behind if it does not act quickly. They suggest that Sweden should either establish its own return hub or take the initiative for Nordic cooperation.

Once the legislation takes effect, we need to open our own return hub, or take the initiative for a joint Nordic solution. Anything else is to turn a blind eye to reality.

They also highlight that other countries have already taken concrete steps in this direction, and claim that Sweden is well placed to do the same.

Denmark already has legislation in place. Italy has agreements with Albania. We have the knowledge, experience, and contacts. A Swedish hub would show that we are serious about enforcing deportation decisions.

Criticism of the Social Democrats

The opinion piece also targets the Social Democrats, who according to SD leaders Weimers and Aspling did not support the new legislation at the EU level.

The Social Democrats refused to support the strengthened legislation. They abstained from voting in the European Parliament.

Weimers and Aspling say it remains to be seen how the party will act in the future, especially if return hubs prove to be effective.

The question is whether they will accept a Swedish return hub outside the EU if these prove to be an effective tool for deporting illegal immigrants. Or will they give in to the intended red-green coalition partners’ lack of realism?

In conclusion, Weimers and Aspling point out that, in their view, there is growing public support for a more consistent migration policy, and that decisions within the EU must now be followed by concrete action.

Citizens are tired of the chaos. The European Parliament has spoken. The right has decided on the instruments needed by the member states.

They emphasize that the issue is not about ideological toughness, but about upholding the decisions that have been made.

It’s not about being ‘tough’. It’s about being serious. About ensuring that those who do not have the right to be here actually leave the country.

The opinion piece concludes with a clear appeal that it’s not about being tough—it’s about being serious. About ensuring that those who do not have the right to be here actually leave the country. “Now is the time to enforce.”