3 ms·
>they're pro-ethnical cleansing of people already living there source?
by anonym29 3mo ago
>they're pro-ethnical cleansing of people already living there
source?
- gpm 3mo agoFrom the wikipedia article linked above... > In 2026 ÖP party leader Markus Allard sparked controversy on several occasions. In a debate hosted by Studio3 with Liberal member of parliament Martin Melin, Allard asked: "why won't the Liberals push for deporting 100 000 social welfare-Somalis?" and in the same debate said that "Sweden belongs to the Swedes. We have to make sure that we take care of our own damn people and we must deport these damn parasites who sit and live at our expense."
- anonym29 3mo ago"ethnic cleansing" is an emotionally charged term that conjures genocide in the popular imagination. It is not a good descriptive term for what can rightly be described as regressive or ultra-nationalistic migration policy.
- gpm 3mo agoEthnic cleansing is an emotionally charged term, yes, because the crime against of humanity of deporting an entire population is absolutely horrific and a very close neighbour to genocide. The proposed policy here is squarely what Rome Statute, Article 7 (1)(d) is intended to prevent. Sweden is a party to the treaty.
- 10xDev 3mo agoYou are essentially calling for a civil war. Reason why Russia pushes these ideas under fake "patriot" accounts.
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo agoWould it be a civil war if it was a law passed by elected government?
- axus 3mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederat...
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo agoWasn't that secession? If part of Sweden decides to separate then we could discuss it in that context I guess.
- snackerblues 3mo ago[flagged]
- phs318u 3mo agoLeaving aside the fact you’re a white supremacist racist as some of your other flagged/dead comments make abundantly clear, I’ll nevertheless engage with your first point. > A country has the right to determine who lives within it. This is obviously true and every country has laws in place governing immigration and different laws in place governing handling of refugees. Given in most countries the ratio of immigrants to refugees is very high, what is it you’re objecting to? Countries can change their laws and often do, after a change in government. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with arguing for specific levels of immigration. But what you really shouldn’t do is retrospectively change the rules so that people who immigrated legally and settled in their adopted country are now threatened with expulsion. It seems to me that in a lot of the discussion around immigration there is a subtext of “I don’t like how they behave/think/choose to live.” Which would be fine if people were honest about what they want - in which case, feel free to agitate for laws governing citizens’ behaviour. Don’t be a bad sport however if such laws don’t get passed. Another thing that apparently worries some people is criminality (as if that’s a function of race). By definition, something is criminal if it’s against the law. So enforce the law. Laws are typically not racist and criminals come in all flavours.
- snackerblues 3mo ago[flagged]
- anonym29 3mo agoAre you trying to respond to a different comment? I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. P.S. Fuck Putin, Slava Ukraini!
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- teh64 3mo agoThis is the definition from wikipedia: "Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous." How does what Allard said not fit this definition?
- constantius 3mo agoI don't have a horse in this race, but all the quotes here were based on nationality, not on the characteristics listed in your quote: the party wants to deport illegal immigrants and immigrants who are not "economically integrated", because Swede is not an ethnicity. Being left and anti-immigration is not an oxymoron. Though I must say, based on some comments here, that people who are defending the party's ideology do seem to read it in terms of race...
- cherry_tree 3mo ago[flagged]
- constantius 3mo ago> Why do apologia for racism anyways? Weird stuff dude. Don't put words in my mouth. > No, a Somali who immigrated to Sweden is nationality wise Swedish and ethnicity wise Somali You seem to misunderstand the concepts of nationality and ethnicity, and how naturalisation operates.
- cherry_tree 3mo ago[flagged]
- constantius 3mo agoMy friend. If you ctrl f my username on this page, you'll find I'm arguing against racism and Islamophobia in another thread. Let me make an assumption: you're an American liberal. Like many American liberals, you talk without knowing much about anything, with the purpose of feeling righteous, and appearing pure to others. The world is more complex than what you read on the news. I suggest you read "How immigration really works", by Hein De Haan, a book that explains why immigration is not a left or right issue. I also suggest you search definitions for these terms: nationality, ethnicity, naturalised immigrant.
- microgpt 3mo ago[flagged]
- belorn 3mo agoThere aren't even 100 000 Somalians living in Sweden, so it would be quite hard to deport 100 000 social welfare-Somalis. People born in Somalia is the 7th largest group of immigrants, and makes up for the largest group if we only look at African nations. The real number is around half, 67000. Now if we assume social welfare-Somalis is a derogatory generalization of all kind of immigrates, including non-Somalis, then it is likely to be more than 100 000 immigrants that is on social welfare. They just won't all be Somalis, or even be the majority of them.
- bvcp 3mo agodid india ethnical cleanse out the british when they expelled even british indian born nationals?
- vrganj 3mo agoYes.