Did Elsa Widding and Ambition Sweden commit political suicide?

This is a column. The writer is responsible for the opinions expressed in the text, not Freedom News. We allow all opinions to be expressed, even if they are uncomfortable. We stand for real freedom of expression.

Elsa Widding and Katja Nyberg from Ambition Sweden chose yesterday, April 29, to vote no to part of the government's proposal on stricter citizenship requirements. "This was the stupidest thing you could do if you want to get into parliament, and for me it is clear that you committed political suicide.

The decision has been met with a lot of criticism. I have never seen anything so criticized. Not a single person has defended the decision, as far as I have seen so far. The question is whether Ambition Sweden's plans to enter the Riksdag have just been completely scuppered because of this.

It is worth noting that Elsa Widding and Katja Nyberg voted in favor of the proposal in 7 out of 8 points. However, one voted against and thus aligned itself with the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Green Party and the Center Party.

Elsa Widding was quick to point out that defend her decision. But her defense did not go down well - not at all. When I read the justification, I was stunned. Every single comment was negative, and that is perfectly understandable.

Elsa Widding sides with the Legislative Council

In defense of his decision (located at the bottom of this text), Widding refers in particular to the criticism that the Legislative Council performed.

”On one of the eight points, Katja Nyberg and I therefore chose to listen to the Legislative Council's criticism and vote with the opposition.”

It is worth noting that the Legislative Council's criticism is an opinion - not a law. It should also be noted that the Legislative Council, like many other bodies, is filled with left-wing activists who oppose anything that goes against immigration and would stop the exchange of people.

Ambition Sweden: “Fairness and trust” for potential citizens

In his defense, Widding referred to things like “the rule of law”, “principles of equal treatment”, trust and justice.

“It is important that trust in our legal system is not eroded. Because legal certainty is not just about laws being in place - it's about them being perceived as stable, predictable and fair.”

In other words, Widding believes that it is more important that the laws are perceived as fair for 80,000 immigrants who are about to become citizens than to actually look after those who are already citizens. Our security, our country and our people come after people who are not even citizens yet. Because that is in practice what Widding means.

What is more important - concepts of goodness or stopping people-to-people exchanges?

I am not arguing that this particular proposal for stricter citizenship requirements would stop the exchange of people, or that they are strict enough. We need to stop handing out citizenship altogether, but this is much better than what we have had so far.

But instead of contributing to a small improvement with small consequences, Elsa Widding, Katja Nyberg and the whole of Ambition Sweden put themselves on a poorly constructed moral pedestal and try to show how good and fair they are.

Turning the tide requires courage and action

Sweden is in an existential crisis. Mass immigration is taking place at a rapid pace and population exchange has gone dangerously far. Reversing this trend will require backbone, courage and decisiveness.

We will step on people's toes, immigrants will feel they are being treated unfairly and principles will be broken. It is not a question of whether it will happen - it will definitely happen, and it is necessary.

If you don't even have the guts to do this in a decision as small as tightening citizenship requirements, I dare not trust that you have it when the important issues come up on the agenda.

It is worth noting that Elsa Widding's party, Ambition Sweden, in a interview with Freedom News could not recognize Swedes as a unique ethnic group and did not want a forced massive repatriation. That should have been enough for those who want to save Sweden.

I want to be clear that I do not support the SD. They are not the savior of Sweden, any more than the Moderates would be. And now Ambition Sweden showed that they are not either.

See also the analysis that I and Victor Eriksson made on Elsa Widdings' defense below:

Here is the full statement of Elsa Widding, party leader of Ambition Sweden, published on X:

Today I voted with the Tidö parties for a tighter migration policy. You can read what Ambition Sweden thinks about migration at http://ambitionsverige.se

However, we as a country cannot depart from the principles of the rule of law and therefore we cannot opt out of transitional rules either. On one of the eight points, Katja Nyberg and I therefore chose to listen to the Legislative Council's criticism and vote with the opposition.

It is about reasonable requirements of legal certainty and predictability. The main rule is that the administrative court must apply the law in force at the time of the review.

The approach of the Tidö parties, led by SD, risks violating the fundamental principles of equal treatment and objectivity in the Instrument of Government and EU law's protection against legitimate expectations.

Add to this the principle of the order of appeal, which means that the migration courts will be forced to send cases back to the Migration Agency and other authorities. According to the Council on Legislation, each case will be decided individually. There will be storms all over the sea and what SD hopes to achieve will only be even more administration for our authorities.

It is important that trust in our legal system is not eroded. Because legal certainty is not just about laws being in place - it's about them being perceived as stable, predictable and fair.

Do you also want to have an opinion piece published? Freedom News lets all voices be heard. Send your text to us at redaktionen@frihetsnytt.se