basically, we agree enough with each other, we believe that kompetensinvandring is important. We also agree with the historiography in which the law was tightened in 2014 and Migrationsöverdomstolens first judgments about how the new legislation would be interpreted come 2015. Then, we differ.
the Migration decision is often accused of being rättsosäkra, usually by the person who has received a negative reply. It is not a good measure of the rule of law. Better, then, to examine how decisions are to agree in court. If the courts agree with the authority’s assessments, it is on the contrary a sign of a fair legal process.
They say that the Swedish migration board must learn to distinguish between fraud and mistakes and it is easy to concur with it. The only problem is that this is a rough simplification, since every cheater says that it was a mistake when the error is discovered.
An authority is not required to follow what the instance says. When the migration court is restrictive in its interpretation of the law, we must follow it, and when the court is more generous in its interpretation we must follow it. Actually, it is only this authors describe in their article. They mean also that the Swedish migration board must learn to distinguish between fraud and mistakes and it is easy to concur with it. The only problem is that this is a rough simplification, since every cheater says that it was a mistake when the error is discovered.
We do not agree that employers who do not pay into insurance for their employees is a bagatellartat mistakes. If something happens, either the employee or the public bear the cost. It is our job to make sure that it does not happen.
It is also the case that if you apply again shortly after a rejection on the same grounds as they just got the rejection is often likely that the decision will be the same as before. It is important that equal cases be treated equally, it is also an important part of the rule of law. In order to obtain a uniform assessment, it may happen that different time limits occurs in the application in order to ensure consistency name. The risk is then that the individual assessment is lost. If it is so the Swedish migration board makes it systematically, it can not be inferred from the article as it is only a case cited therein. But we of the criticism, and will investigate if this is the case, however, with a little broader base.
one Sometimes gets the impression from the debate that the Swedish migration board is trying to deport as many as possible. In the years between 2015 and 2017 when the Migrationsöverdomstolens more restrictive practice was adopted, the Swedish migration board bifallsbeslut for over 40,000 people. The number of applications is increasing every year and when the year now coming to an end, we can conclude that around 70,000 people – more than ever – have applied for a work permit. Something that would be able to indicate that on Sweden’s attractiveness in spite of everything is increasing.
