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.
Your context changes nothing: it's just one long "the ends justify the means" or "that's the way it is" and fails to address any of the ethics of the statements being made.
>> "When it comes to immigration policy, a nation has no obligation to discern incoming immigrants true views for compatibility."
Why? All immigration systems I know take the person's views into consideration (for obvious reasons).
>> "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."
They can't do that without disregarding the equality of all humans as a universal principle. And no, it very much is the fault of the nation/people making a discriminatory policy, not the fault of those being discriminated against because of that policy.
>> "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."
Is that an ethical/moral position? Does that conform with belief in universal human equality?
You just made a bunch of statements about what they can do and failed to address if the behavior is moral/ethical or otherwise... so it isn't even worth engaging with in a discussion since you just made a bunch of statements with no ethical rationale surrounding them.
All you're saying is "this is how it is or should be" which tells me nothing about whether those positions are discriminatory/ethical or not.