SD’s migration policy spokesperson Ludvig Aspling rejects criticism from five female union leaders against the proposal to, in certain cases, replace permanent residence permits with temporary ones. According to Aspling, the attacks are based on incorrect assumptions—both legally and economically—and completely miss which groups are actually affected.

When five major trade unions—all with female presidents—in a debate article in Aftonbladet attack a proposal to convert permanent residence permits into temporary ones, the Sweden Democrats respond that the criticism misses the mark.

In a reply, SD’s migration policy spokesperson Ludvig Aspling asserts that the proposal, which has been put forward together with the government parties, poses no threat to legal certainty or the Swedish labor market.

Dismisses allegations of breaches of higher law

The union leaders argue that the bill violates EU law, international conventions, and possibly even the constitution. But according to Aspling, there is no basis for these claims.

He points out that the government report was written by an administrative court judge and that a comprehensive section is devoted specifically to the issue of compatibility with higher law. According to SD, the critics have not addressed any of the legal conclusions drawn by the inquiry.

READ ALSO: Permanent residence permits revoked—made temporary

In his article, Aspling makes an ironic remark about how the term “international conventions” is often used in debate. It is portrayed, he writes, as a kind of “Santa Claus” that can deliver any conclusions one wants—a view he dismisses as unserious.

“Generous rules don’t yield better integration”

The union also warns that changing the rules would hinder integration and harm the economy. Aspling counters that reality points in the opposite direction.

READ ALSO: S opposes revocation of residence permits

According to him, Sweden already has among the world’s most generous residence permit rules, as reflected in international comparisons. Despite this, the country, he argues, still has significant disparities between native- and foreign-born when it comes to both school results and unemployment.

Aspling concludes that generous reception conditions do not automatically lead to better integration—if anything, the outcomes suggest the opposite.

Two groups—criminals and benefit recipients—in focus

According to SD, perhaps the most important objection to the unions’ criticism is that it targets the wrong group. The unions warn that assistant nurses, industrial workers, and other established professions risk being affected.

But Aspling claims these concerns are unfounded. People who have lived in Sweden for five years and can support themselves will still be covered by the right to permanent residence. Labor migrants will keep their permanent permits. According to him, the impact on the labor market is therefore “nonexistent.”

READ ALSO: Church of Sweden opposes government on revoked residence permits

Instead, he points to two other groups affected by the proposal: people who lack their own means of support and strong ties to Sweden, and foreigners who have been convicted of serious crimes but previously escaped deportation due to generous rules.

It is these groups, Aspling argues, that the debate should be about—not those who are already working and established. Why anyone would want to keep precisely these persons in the country is, according to him, the real question.

SD profile Mattias Karlsson wonders the same in a post on X:

SD: The criticism misses the core

In summary, the Sweden Democrats believe that the unions’ attacks are based on a misunderstanding of both the law and the real-life consequences. According to the party, the proposal is narrowly defined and targeted at specific problems—not at people who work, pay taxes, and are part of the labor market.