“We feel we have an obligation For our taxpayers to question the rules because they are taxpayers that can be distributed in a much better way to immigrant people who are actually living in Sweden.” That’s what Administrators in the insurance fund write in an internal report like freelance journalist Joakim Lamotte pay attention to Tuesday
In short, the report is based on the fact that people who once immigrated to Sweden, and then returned for the children to study, receive “huge sums” in child support.
‘ we are aware that the subject is politically sensitive, but we want to bring it up to the surface so that it is discussed, objectively and without accusations of discrimination or xenophobia. It is highly likely that behind the rules there was a good idea and political ambition. But in reality, it doesn’t always work the way it was supposed to, and it doesn’t help to put your head in the sand.”
‘we feel that we have a duty to taxpayers to question the rules because it is about tax money that can be distributed much better on immigrant people who are actually living in Sweden’.
” Does Sweden really have an obligation to assist with the payment of benefits for persons residing abroad and are not resident in Sweden?”
The study was carried out in the spring of 2017 and includes a review of barnbidragsärenden registered in the social monitoring system from 2008 onwards. The selection was in cases where the reason for follow-up was related to schooling abroad. Of 22000 Cases, a random sample of 100 cases was selected.
The result was that the social insurance fund during the children’s skolperiod abroad paid sek 22 400 000 to the families of these 100 cases. In many of these cases, one or both of them were in the country they once fled, together with their children.
According to the authors, case handlers have been instructed not to follow up on these cases because it can be considered discriminatory, although a condition for child benefit is that the parents remain in the country.
One problem is that children are often sent abroad and are reported to live with relatives instead of a parent, mean authors.
” in this way, we are powerless and paying subsidies continue, even though we may have suspicions that the child lives with the other parent abroad.”
The report gives a concrete example:
” a kenyan woman is insured for resident benefits in Autumn 2015. She is single and has come to Sweden as a refugee with her eight children. Benefits such as child benefit, paternity allowance and housing allowance start to be paid to the mother, because the father is likely to remain in the home country. In Spring 2016, the social security agency receives information that all eight children have travelled to Somalia for schooling and the mother is alone in Sweden. According to the mother, the children live with relatives in Somalia. Still the question of where the father is. The Social Insurance fund continues to pay the benefits to the mother.”
When I contact the social press service, I am told that the report is a private initiative from two employees, and that it is unclear whether there will be any action on the basis of what the report reveals. More information than that, they can’t give me at this point.
The report has been sent to me by people who work at the health insurance fund who say that this problem has increased dramatically in recent years.