Anti-racist stabs and talks about the equal worth of all

Criminal Iraqi with Swedish citizenship stabs train personnel for racism over ticket control, goes on to talk about the equal worth of all, and asks passengers if they are racists. Gets 8,5 years in prison but cannot be deported because of citizenship.

Anti-racist stabs and talks about the equal worth of all

I don't know if I support it or if it would even be feasible, but perhaps some countries should take a look at rescinding citizenship. It would have to be done very carefully to avoid civil rights violations, but there are some people (specifically among immigrants and their children) who do not deserve citizenship in Western countries. And for those countries who would like to re-establish themselves as ethnostates, this step is even more important.

Smitty wrote:I don't know if I support it or if it would even be feasible, but perhaps some countries should take a look at rescinding citizenship. It would have to be done very carefully to avoid civil rights violations, but there are some people (specifically among immigrants and their children) who do not deserve citizenship in Western countries. And for those countries who would like to re-establish themselves as ethnostates, this step is even more important.

I think citizenship is granted too quickly. It could be given sooner to applicants from nearby countries or from countries with ethno-cultural links to the host country, eg. Britain and the U.S. Certain immigrants could be given a lower rank of citizenship with fewer legal rights. They would know the deal.

Neon Knight wrote:
I think citizenship is granted too quickly. It could be given sooner to applicants from nearby countries or from countries with ethno-cultural links to the host country, eg. Britain and the U.S. Certain immigrants could be given a lower rank of citizenship with fewer legal rights. They would know the deal.

I agree that it is granted too quickly. (And nonetheless, leftists and conservatives alike are constantly harping on the "difficulty" of our immigration system here in the States and on the need for reform and streamlining.) Your idea of ranks is an interesting one. But what should be done about those who are already citizens? Even if the doors were to be barred now, most Western European nations have taken in too many undesirables to live with pleasantly. They're a minority on par with our African-Americans. And the US can vouch for the problems with that arrangement, slavery and Jim Crow notwithstanding.

I think that citizenship has been treated by legislators and policy makers in a way that fundamentally breaks people's rights and human rights. The original meaning of citizenship is lost entirely if we do not try to set the record straight. Aboriginal rights must be the heart of future policy making regarding citizenship. Citizenships that were given out on insufficient grounds must be canceled.

Gaut wrote:I think that citizenship has been treated by legislators and policy makers in a way that fundamentally breaks people's rights and human rights. The original meaning of citizenship is lost entirely if we do not try to set the record straight. Aboriginal rights must be the heart of future policy making regarding citizenship. Citizenships that were given out on insufficient grounds must be canceled.

Would you restrict it to ethnic Swedes? Europeans? What parameters would you choose if you had your druthers?

Would you restrict it to ethnic Swedes?

That should be the first guiding principle, should it not? Maybe the only one needed. What's your opinion?

Gaut wrote:
That should be the first guiding principle, should it not? Maybe the only one needed. What's your opinion?

That makes sense to me. I think too many people see immigration as a right - and that's no exaggeration. They believe anyone should be able to live anywhere in the world. (We're all humans, after all, right?) But I think it is the decision of the natives. Swedes should decide what is right for Sweden. If that is ethnic suicide, I suppose that's their right. But of course, I would favor a very ethnocentric policy. There's no reason I can see that non-European​s or even non-Swedes should be living there in any large numbers. Keep it the way it has always been.

Smitty wrote:

Gaut wrote:
That should be the first guiding principle, should it not? Maybe the only one needed. What's your opinion?

That makes sense to me. I think too many people see immigration as a right - and that's no exaggeration. They believe anyone should be able to live anywhere in the world. (We're all humans, after all, right?) But I think it is the decision of the natives. Swedes should decide what is right for Sweden. If that is ethnic suicide, I suppose that's their right. But of course, I would favor a very ethnocentric policy. There's no reason I can see that non-European​s or even non-Swedes should be living there in any large numbers. Keep it the way it has always been.

Ethnic suicide was never the choice of a majority of Swedes. On every occasion the opposition to it was greater than the support for it. Increased immigration also led to a stronger opposition. The most recent data shows that an absolute majority of 52% think that we receive too many refugees. Only 24% are opposed to a decrease.

More Swedes say that they want less refugees

The reason why democracy doesn't work out is because people do not know what their vote means in terms of actual policy.

I have said for long now that politicians who are against immigration need to be more "careless" with what they are saying. It's good if the media give bad publicity. It's good if other politicians get mad at you. I'm not saying that you can force any opinion you want, because it's a very oppressive society that we live in, but in terms of actually changing policies, the more clearly you make your point, the higher the likelihood of success. When Trump first talked about banning immigration of a certain religion during his campaign, even many of his supporters were saying that he crossed a line and that it was a mistake, and then they claimed - falsely - that he took it back. I said way to go! This is going to be liked and loved by a lot of voters.

It is quite nonsensical how citizenship is granted nowadays. Which is merely a side effect of political-correctness and universal bureaucracies/organizations that care more to undermine one's country for the sake of "humanitarianism." Which seems to be a sinister facade/scapegoat to divert attention away from the elite's own greed/plans for their own expansionist endeavors that is quite short-sighted in nature. Using one's country as a tool in their own game. Citizenship should only be granted with severely limited quotas with a select group of people in mind of the people's choice; that should maintain the homogeneity of the native population in question that should factor in what number of people it can sustain as a whole. Being picky with who can come in and who can't should be the right mentality because integration should be based upon like-minded populations who share similar values and so forth. Not differentiated, unskilled populations from the third world that seeks to undermine the majority with their own biased cultural values; who should be deported in the scenario.

Nevertheless, if one can clean out all the toxic corruption and political correctness in politics/government positions; the better in the long term for the country in question. As well as dismantling centralized, oppressive organizations that overrule a country's own authority. As well as stimulating a country's own infrastructure with a severe/reasonable limit on foreign banking and foreign goods being imported.

de Burgh wrote:Citizenship should only be granted with severely limited quotas with a select group of people in mind of the people's choice; that should maintain the homogeneity of the native population in question that should factor in what number of people it can sustain as a whole. Being picky with who can come in and who can't should be the right mentality because integration should be based upon like-minded populations who share similar values and so forth.

I would say that immigration can be tolerated at a low level as long as you make sure that it's not a security threat. And I would add that we don't have to give them citizenship. It's probably better to let them take care of themselves, without giving them the same rights as citizens, and without letting them vote.

Smitty wrote:

Neon Knight wrote:
I think citizenship is granted too quickly. It could be given sooner to applicants from nearby countries or from countries with ethno-cultural links to the host country, eg. Britain and the U.S. Certain immigrants could be given a lower rank of citizenship with fewer legal rights. They would know the deal.

I agree that it is granted too quickly. (And nonetheless, leftists and conservatives alike are constantly harping on the "difficulty" of our immigration system here in the States and on the need for reform and streamlining.) Your idea of ranks is an interesting one. But what should be done about those who are already citizens? Even if the doors were to be barred now, most Western European nations have taken in too many undesirables to live with pleasantly. They're a minority on par with our African-Americans. And the US can vouch for the problems with that arrangement, slavery and Jim Crow notwithstanding.

It would be a hell of a thing to take away a person's citizenship once it had been granted. Morally, that's a darker shade of grey. I think the key to restoring the make-up of populations to what they used to be is to restrict certain rights without banishing anyone.

Gaut wrote:I would say that immigration can be tolerated at a low level as long as you make sure that it's not a security threat. And I would add that we don't have to give them citizenship. It's probably better to let them take care of themselves, without giving them the same rights as citizens, and without letting them vote.

Just wanted to say that is a very good point you mentioned that is often overlooked from an objective point of view. Second-class citizenry should be implemented in its own right to protect a country's own borders and the internal economy itself. To ensure that a country is governed more efficiently in order to decipher a native citizen from outsiders who seek to undermine the country. That acts as a form of  "checks and balances" that ensures foreign groups are kept in check and don't find a way to abuse the democratic system for their own benefits. Hypothetical example being Islamic populations coveting their own Islamic organizations for their own selfish inquiries to only benefit their own desires that seeks to undermine a foreign country's own culture in question. In this case/crude scenario should include nationwide deportation of any foreign practitioners/enablers who seek to undermine the country's dominant culture.

Gaut wrote:
Ethnic suicide was never the choice of a majority of Swedes. On every occasion the opposition to it was greater than the support for it. Increased immigration also led to a stronger opposition. The most recent data shows that an absolute majority of 52% think that we receive too many refugees. Only 24% are opposed to a decrease.

More Swedes say that they want less refugees

The reason why democracy doesn't work out is because people do not know what their vote means in terms of actual policy.

I have said for long now that politicians who are against immigration need to be more "careless" with what they are saying. It's good if the media give bad publicity. It's good if other politicians get mad at you. I'm not saying that you can force any opinion you want, because it's a very oppressive society that we live in, but in terms of actually changing policies, the more clearly you make your point, the higher the likelihood of success. When Trump first talked about banning immigration of a certain religion during his campaign, even many of his supporters were saying that he crossed a line and that it was a mistake, and then they claimed - falsely - that he took it back. I said way to go! This is going to be liked and loved by a lot of voters.

I hope you're right. But the polls, not only in Sweden but elsewhere, don't encourage me. 52% is a bare majority. It's worrying that so many still see no issue with immigration. Of course, polls aren't very reliable, and we can take solace in that. But still...

Neon Knight wrote:

Smitty wrote:

Neon Knight wrote:
I think citizenship is granted too quickly. It could be given sooner to applicants from nearby countries or from countries with ethno-cultural links to the host country, eg. Britain and the U.S. Certain immigrants could be given a lower rank of citizenship with fewer legal rights. They would know the deal.

I agree that it is granted too quickly. (And nonetheless, leftists and conservatives alike are constantly harping on the "difficulty" of our immigration system here in the States and on the need for reform and streamlining.) Your idea of ranks is an interesting one. But what should be done about those who are already citizens? Even if the doors were to be barred now, most Western European nations have taken in too many undesirables to live with pleasantly. They're a minority on par with our African-Americans. And the US can vouch for the problems with that arrangement, slavery and Jim Crow notwithstanding.

It would be a hell of a thing to take away a person's citizenship once it had been granted. Morally, that's a darker shade of grey. I think the key to restoring the make-up of populations to what they used to be is to restrict certain rights without banishing anyone.

You're probably right. But in this case, I think most of us are doomed either to a merging of populations (fundamentally changing who we are) or an indefinite multiculturalism. Third World immigrants with citizenship are a sizable voting bloc, and our interests must now include or make room for their interests.