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.
