the Government stresses that the framework is not a legally binding agreement, but 23 of the guiding principles to create a safer, and better, orderly, regular migration. On the government's website declares that the document does not entail increased costs for Sweden, and that there are no Swedish laws need to be changed. Not, write to the government, means the framework someone the right to migrate.
Sweden has been careful to ensure that there is a clear difference between the regular and irregulära migrants, for example around the right to the enjoyment of the welfare system. Where there have been different preferences between countries in the north and the south, " says Lars Westbratt, secretary of state at the department of justice, about the negotiation process until the final document.
Sweden has also worked for the sharper formulations of countries ' obligations to accept returned migrants, and the added weight to the framework is not legally binding.
– Migration in the global context has been impossible to agree upon, especially in the UN, but now it has begun to change. It is important that the questions are in the UN context, they cannot be solved nationally. You may think that migrationsramverket is unclear, but it is still 180 countries that stand behind it. It provides a good point of departure forward.
A detail in the final document has become controversial. In milestones 17 says that one should stop the public support to the media as ”systematically promotes intolerance, xenophobia and racism”. The wording has raised concerns that it can be used to restrict freedom of expression. The Swedish union of journalists is critical, and I think all of that open for interpretation is risky.
But Lars Westbratt is not worried:
– The milestones where the wording is in there, deep down, is about political commitment, with strong wording on the freedom of expression, and to promote an evidence-based public conversation.
the parliamentary parties broadly support the adoption of the framework. The sweden democrats, however, is negative, and the SD's immigration policy spokesperson, Paula Bieler says to Expressen that it is fuzzy.
the Conservatives have been hesitant, and after a discussion in the foreign affairs committee on 29 november wanted M to make a quick assessment of what the framework means for Sweden.
– There are a number of questions, not least around the wording on the independence of the media. The government believe that it does not mean anything, but something, surely it is mean – for it is there? says the Conservatives migrationspolitiske spokesperson Johan Forssell.
would be well drastically of, M, and Johan Forssell stresses that much of it is positive, and that the Conservatives believe in international cooperation.
Among the migrationskritiska movement is a resistance against the framework. The group ”Residents for a sovereign Sweden” demonstrated in the beginning of december outside the parliament, and gathered a few hundred participants.
Lars Westbratt says that the debate in some countries has occurred is often irrelevant and deliberately misunderstand the intent of the document.