upvote
[flagged]
reply
> The majority of people to be remigrated if the party succeeds are not even citizens.

And what of the ones who are citizens?

reply
[flagged]
reply
Trivia: there is a country in America where people can be stripped of their nationality for "treason", which amounts to go agaisnt the government. This means people can be left without civil rights, and can't enter the country if they were abroad.

All born inside the country, born from both national parents or naturalized are elegible. This year they declared acquiring the nationality of another country also made you elegible to be barren from their native country.

Nicaragua is really something weird, but all humans are capable of dehumanizing other people.

reply
Why only the naturalized ones?
reply
Stripping of naturalization in the US is usually associated with immigration fraud.

Terrorist/Nazi Concentration Camp Guard lies on immigration forms, decades later is found out and gets the boot

reply
> The majority of people to be remigrated if the party succeeds are not even citizens

The fact that people can say this without immediately noticing the problem is absolutely mind-blowing.

reply
They know the problem. Never believe, even for a minute, that right wingers are unaware of the depravity of the things they say. They just want to pretend that it’s not a problem. And indeed you can see in their reply - they love the idea of a two tiered society where some people can be stripped of citizenship and rights arbitrarily.
reply
Because those people never should have received citizenship to begin with. The asylum system have been abused to no end. To get to Sweden you have to pass trough many many stable countries in which there is no war. Beggars can't be choosers, so if they are choosers and want the good stuff - they are not real beggars.

Look how the Gulf states deal with citizenship and they manage to control much bigger immigrant relative to the native populations.

The only real refugees in Europe are Ukrainians.

reply
[flagged]
reply
The immigrants they are specifically looking to remove are middle eastern and african. they certainly dont have canadians in mind when coming up with these policies.

the west is incredibly extractive of the rest of the world and the “mass migration” from the rest of the world is a result of that. want people to go back home? stop bombing their countries. stop stealing their resources. stop abducting and assassinating their leaders. stop propping up governments that sell out the country for a bag of cash with dollar signs on the side.

reply
I'm open to this argument. How much bombing and assassinating is Sweden actually doing?
reply
i dont think it’s that useful to think about it in terms of individual countries. like its a nice rhetorical trick to go “look at how innocent sweden is”, ignoring the fact they are indeed a nato member, but they are part of the greater western capitalist bloc aka “global north” that benefits from these actions. we suppress wages in the rest of the world to keep manufacturing cheap (and then wonder why there are no factory jobs anymore…), we install leaders who sell our companies natural resources for pennies on the dollar, we control the flow of global trade by mandating that goods need to trade in our currencies.

like let me put it to you this way - you buy a shirt made in vietnam. how much would that cost if it was made in sweden? well why shouldnt that money go to vietnam if it was rightly made there?

reply
It's not trick. We weren't before invoking collective responsibility. But if now we are, fine. (Leave it alone that Sweden has been in NATO for, what, 18 months? ) Two follow-up questions, then:

1. Does the "east" have the same responsibility, or should the "west" bear it all?

2. Are Middle Eastern and African countries that much more peaceful than western countries? If so, then I suppose you are right. If not, should we at least consider that as sort of an offset to the responsibility?

As far as the shirt made in Vietnam goes: I think that the manufacturer in Vietnam is getting paid for it. Am I wrong?

reply
Does Sweden have a single Canadian there under 'asylum' policies?

Yeah, sure, people probably wouldn't care if they were Canadian, because they wouldn't be committing crimes at far higher rates, wouldn't be pushing for more religious rule, and the majority wouldn't be on welfare. That's not what's happening though.

As for your second paragraph - do you really think the governments of the countries these people are coming from are any better? Should every US citizen that wants be able to immigrate to Afghanistan and take a good portion of their GDP as welfare? What about Japan? Should US and Chinese citizens be able to move there if they want and relatively quickly become the majority, right? They need the population, no?

I certainly don't agree with a lot of our Middle East policies, but that doesn't mean European governments should throw open their doors to mass migration. Governments are supposed to exist to help their own citizens. Sometimes that means bombing someone. Sometimes that's the right thing to do, sometimes it's not, but it's pretty damned clear mass migration from third world countries isn't helping their citizens.

reply
half or more of the governments are there because we put them there or they are the result of some mess we made.
reply
[flagged]
reply
To be fair arguably there is no other country in the world which benefited as much economically from its interactions with Nazi Germany and face so little consequences for it.
reply
Ah grokipedia, the fountain of unbiased knowledge.

It’s pretty radicle to remove people who have lived in your country for generations.

reply
[flagged]
reply
> Which one is less biased?

Wikipedia > Slopipedia.

xAI's Grokipedia is 100% more biased, given who controls it and its known tendency to manipulate results. Finally, there are lots of cases where it completely fails. And I didn't even get to the "porn" stuff. Hell, even it's creator says it's trash.

reply
Following your lead, I haven’t researched Örebro’s proposed policies. But I would find it surprising if “large scale remigration” really was scoped to an everyman’s definition of “few years”. I would expect that their targets for “large scale” exceed three or four years’ worth of immigration.
reply