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.
Even if you scope it out to "everyone that's not a citizen or has the equivalent of a green card," is that so evil? If a country accepts immigrants they should be able to send them back at will unless they become citizens. That shouldn't be controversial. You can argue if it's a good or bad policy, of course, but it's not ethically wrong to do so. Yes, they'll be in more danger and have worse lives when they go back to wherever they came from, but again - a country should exist to serve its citizens, not the entire world. It's not sustainable.
Re-migration almost always targets children _born_ in the country.
In this thread a speaker of the party is quoted as talking about people who had Swedish passports i.e. citizens.
Would you not see it as ethically bad to split the citizens into "true" citizens who can't have their citizenship stripped and second tier citizens who can?
> Would you not see it as ethically bad to split the citizens into "true" citizens who can't have their citizenship stripped and second tier citizens who can?
Potentially. I'm not familiar enough with their system to have an opinion. In the US system, I feel like actual citizenship is the hard line. With everything else you're here at our convenience, though I'd say if we were to kick out greencard holders en masse (for some reason) it should just be that they don't get renewed, not immediately kicked out.
Yes, it is very much accepted and pretty uncontroversial that it is unethical to send someone away who’s made a new home in some country. Tearing them out of the local community and kicking them out against their will is immoral.
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.
It's incredible that someone can come to that conclusion when given direct evidence to the contrary. Which blurb is closer to Merriam-Webster? Or are they biased as well.
I just skimmed both Wikipedia and Grokipedia's articles on remigration. Wikipedia has effectively no positives or reasons why people would want remigration listed at all. Almost the entire page is criticism, including a large section of tenuous links to nazism. Grokipedia lists BOTH positives and criticisms of the policy. Which one is designed to push an agenda and which is there to inform and let people make up their own minds?
Larry Sanger (one of the Wikipedia cofounders) was just blocked by Wikipedia indefinitely for trying to balance the ideology back out.
