Concluding discussion

It is clear from this brief analysis of commentaries by Swedish organizations that the Swedish referral system offers an arena for engaging in value-based advocacy. It allows us to see ‘values in action.’ In fact, the organizations clearly use this arena as a space for articulating policy-related claims that are based on their norms and values. As we can see, they share a common base of values in the policy fields of migration and integration focusing on humanitarianism, hospitality', inclusion, and solidarity towards the migrants coming to Sweden. Further, they also share an understanding of the structural nature of inequality, underlining their conviction that most causes of the problems with integration are to be found in the Swedish society rather than in the individuals migrating to Sweden. This is emphasized by many organizations in the different consultation processes analyzed here. Hence, they strongly criticize the government’s attempt to justify policy changes that have a negative impact on migrants. Illustratively, they challenge the government's claim that restricted immigration is necessary for sustaining the general welfare system. They further oppose the government in its claim that poor integration results are the result of the individual migrants’ lack of motivation or skills.

The statements in which values are most discernible concern the drastic changes in the migration policy of 2016. While the policy change in 2009 introducing requirements for family reunification received strong criticism based on the apprehended negative consequences of the provision for migrants, the commentaries on the 2016 proposal signal a complete clash between the government’s position and the values and norms that the organizations stand for. The criticism of the 2016 legislative draft has been so strong that we also find a spill-over into the field of integration policy; for instance, the Red Cross’ argument that the restrictions on the possibilities to obtain a residence permit are not only a violation of human rights, but also an obstacle to successful integration of those migrants that manage to enter the country.

In the integration policy area, the criticism is significantly weaker, and the values are less explicitly expressed. The criticism is mostly based on the allegedly negative effects of the proposed provisions on the integration of newly arrived refugees, rather than on the values and norms implied. We see, however, that the organizations have expressed the need for a more structural perspective on integration. This was particularly visible in the consultation process of the Establishment Reform of 2009, and may be explained by the fact that it implied a strong shift away from the traditional, more structure-focused integration policy. The 2006-elected liberal-conservative government introduced ‘individual responsibility’ as a bearing concept, something the organizations reacted to by stressing the need to tackle structural problems, such as discrimination and socio-economic inequality, instead. It is interesting to notice that this criticism does not appear in the comments from 2016, except for when it comes to structural issues of gender inequality. It is also interesting to notice that the more critical the organizations are of a legislative draft, the more explicitly they ground their comments in their value-bases and ideology, for instance in Christian theology or human rights.

182 R. Scaramuzzino and B. Suter

Notes

• 1 All translations into English are the authors.
• 2 Integration provisions of language course and other educational activities.