Letter to the editor. Unreasonable grant of citizenship to Mohamed Ali

I have read with horror in DN, Expressen and SvD, among others, about the Member of Parliament Mohamed Ali (V) in Borlänge, who received Swedish citizenship in Sweden in February this year. This happened despite an ongoing debt settlement (in which he paid nothing because he had no income) and that he has also incurred additional debts. The debts concern, among other things, unpaid maintenance, fines to the police, taxes and also SEK 8,400 in fees to Greater Stockholm's Lokaltrafik (Expressen).

The new debts must be a claim of SEK 14,495 for an unpaid premium or traffic insurance fee (implies that he owns a car) and a payment order (Stockholm city), a case that was received by the Crown Bailiff as recently as October 2 this year for SEK 9,798 regarding the moving of a vehicle. My interpretation is that this person is not very diligent (note the type of debts!).

Citizenship should not be given to someone with debts or ongoing debt settlement, which thus happened anyway because Mohamed Ali claimed via proxy that he is debt-free, something that undeniably appears to be a lie. The collaboration between the Swedish Migration Agency and the Norwegian Kronofogden broke down and he got his citizenship, apparently on false grounds.

This is happening at the same time as well-behaved young people are being deported for turning 18, in some cases because the Migration Agency's slow processing has been affected by changed legislation. Equally well-mannered, working and contributing adults are expelled, sometimes because they do not reach a salary level that a Swedish assistant nurse in Dorotea can only dream of. In other cases, it may be because an employer missed some requirement in the employment (which does not count even after measures have been taken).

So now we have a "peak situation" where a person who has not supported himself and who appears to have lied to himself about citizenship should be given access to the corridors of power. With the small margin that exists between the blocs, he may use his mandate to influence and block decisions.

Is this really how it's supposed to go? Expulsion of people in whom we have invested, who are useful in our society and whom we need - and parliamentary posts to someone who has done the opposite?