How is that not arbitrarily discriminatory on its face?
A nation discriminating against non-citizens is not arbitrary, it is the core feature of the citizen classification. What you are implying is that the concept of "citizen" is unjust, therefore the concept of countries and borders are unjust. Of course when its put into these words few people will cop to this viewpoint. That's why there's endless obfuscation in these discussions, to avoid articulating the plain truth of your views.
Do you believe that if a country can discriminate or harm non-citizens, then it should do that? Is it morally/ethically correct to treat non-citizens less than other persons?
Do you hold beliefs that apply to all people regardless of what group they come from or only your own tribe?
It really does simply boil down to whether or not you believe all humans should be afforded the same basic rights and considerations. The "citizenship" argument is essentially a legal loophole to claim that whatever the law says is the moral/ethical path, which it is not.
Laws can be (and often are) immortal/unethical, so grounding your argument in what is currently legal or not is a bad look (as it has always been); just ask former slave owners about the morality/ethics of the law, and see where that gets you.
So to be clear, you are admitting to the idea that the concept of citizen (and countries and borders) is unjust? That seems to be the inescapable conclusion of your points. At least have the courage to own the logical conclusion of your views.
>Do you believe that if a country can discriminate or harm non-citizens, then it should do that? Is it morally/ethically correct to treat non-citizens less than other persons?
It is morally correct to treat non-citizens as non-citizens. This doesn't mean they can/should be actively harmed. But this limits the obligation a nation has to non-citizens, i.e. in terms of active intervention to improve their lives.
>Do you hold beliefs that apply to all people regardless of what group they come from or only your own tribe?
My universal moral views are all in terms of negative rights, i.e. the right to self-determination, non-interference, free expression, etc.
The secondary local conversation is whether it is discriminatory to treat a whole group the same based on ideas held by some percentage of a subgroup of that group (and ignore individual differences/persons)?
I would call that discriminatory and unethical. What are your thoughts on that (regardless of what laws/citizenship of the persons)? I'm asking in the abstract as an ethical exercise.
Are these legal citizens of Sweden we're talking about? If not, then they have no right to stay in Sweden beyond whatever courtesy Swedes have decided.
>The secondary local conversation is whether it is discriminatory to treat a whole group the same based on ideas held by some percentage of a subgroup of that group
In isolation that would be unjust discrimination. When it comes to immigration policy, a nation has no obligation to discern incoming immigrants true views for compatibility. They can set whatever policy they want regarding who to let in. If the widespread views or cultural traits of some population renders immigration from that population more risk than reward, that is to no fault or demerit of the host nation. Immigration as policy is exclusively for the benefit of the existing citizens. Anything more is purely at the courtesy of the host nation, to be revoked at will.
>> "In isolation that would be unjust discrimination."
You could have just stopped there. It is unjust discrimination no matter how you try to justify it (legally, practically, ends support the means, or otherwise).
The discussion isn't about what a person or country CAN do, the discussion is about what is fair and ethical behavior.
Legally in Sweden does not mean citizens of Sweden.
>You could have just stopped there. It is unjust discrimination no matter how you try to justify it
This is just begging the question. Facts of context often alter the moral calculus. You just have to do the work to argue your point.