> 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."
There 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.
"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.
Leaving 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.
It's about keeping people like you from letting people that can't maintain a competent society ruin our societies that have taken centuries or millennia to build.
> Laws are typically not racist
They explicitly are in every liberal shithole (Canada, UK) because the goal isn't equality it's letting brownoids shit up the place because you people are culturally suicidal.
The Muslims in the UK right now are not culturally compatible with the UK. They need to leave, they do not belong.
This 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?
I 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...
Well Allard does not see nationality and ethnicity how you believe it. One line further in wikipedia: "In a podcast segment about immigration and deportations Allard stated his opinion and said that "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish.""
Thanks for providing further context: as I mentioned, I was going off of the available quotes.
Given the party's other points', I'd still say he's not talking about Swedes as an ethnicity but as a nationality, similar to how other non-far-right, conservative parties express their beliefs. I checked the page, and that quote is provided without the context, and since Sweden does not have birthright citizenship, I don't know if he's talking about non-naturalised kids or naturalised people.
Further complications come from the fact that stripping "bad" immigrants of nationality is now an acceptable talking point for liberal parties the world over, and that position is very popular with people of all origins, not just the ethnic Europeans. I'd even argue it's less popular among ethnic Europeans than those of other ethbic backgrounds.
But I'll acknowledge that defending that party's position requires giving tons of benefit of the doubt...
Swede is ethnicity in same way as Dane is ethnicity, Swedish and Danish is nationalities. Ethnic Sámi, while living on their ancestors land can be Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish or even Russian in nationality.
No, a Somali who immigrated to Sweden is nationality wise Swedish and ethnicity wise Somali. The quote clearly says to expel Somalis and makes no distinction between ethnicity and nationality. Why do apologia for racism anyways? Weird stuff dude.
Well you are doing apologia for racism. I’m not putting words in your mouth in calling out your behavior.
Please go ahead and define nationality and ethnicity. I’m happy to allow you to entirely define the terms to your ends and make an argument within those bounds. Please also tell us how the quoted statement calls out “naturalization” and “nationality” because it’s critical to you “not” doing racist apologia that both your definitions and the quoted statement are coherent.
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.
My mistake. You definitely couldn’t be doing racist apologia if you’ve made statements against racism in the past. That’s convincing enough to me, an apparent American liberal!
Is Allard advocating for removing everyone from immigrant backgrounds? I got the impression that Allard only wanted to remove criminals and net tax recipients, e.g. not removing law abiding, tax-paying, assimilated members of Swedish society, regardless of ethnicity/race/background.
Ethnic 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.
Try radical populist left-economic-leaning nationalists
Nazbols then? Equally bad.
There are many flavors of national socialism, in reality nazis should be called hitlerians because of this.
>they're pro-ethnical cleansing of people already living there
source?
From 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."
There 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.
"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.
Kicking out an ethnicity from your country is ethnic cleansing. There is no other way to put it.
You are essentially calling for a civil war. Reason why Russia pushes these ideas under fake "patriot" accounts.
Would it be a civil war if it was a law passed by elected government?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederat...
Wasn't that secession? If part of Sweden decides to separate then we could discuss it in that context I guess.
Are 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!
[flagged]
Leaving 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.
It's about keeping people like you from letting people that can't maintain a competent society ruin our societies that have taken centuries or millennia to build.
> Laws are typically not racist
They explicitly are in every liberal shithole (Canada, UK) because the goal isn't equality it's letting brownoids shit up the place because you people are culturally suicidal.
The Muslims in the UK right now are not culturally compatible with the UK. They need to leave, they do not belong.
This 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?
I 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...
Well Allard does not see nationality and ethnicity how you believe it. One line further in wikipedia: "In a podcast segment about immigration and deportations Allard stated his opinion and said that "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish.""
Also Swedes are an ethnicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedes
Thanks for providing further context: as I mentioned, I was going off of the available quotes.
Given the party's other points', I'd still say he's not talking about Swedes as an ethnicity but as a nationality, similar to how other non-far-right, conservative parties express their beliefs. I checked the page, and that quote is provided without the context, and since Sweden does not have birthright citizenship, I don't know if he's talking about non-naturalised kids or naturalised people.
Further complications come from the fact that stripping "bad" immigrants of nationality is now an acceptable talking point for liberal parties the world over, and that position is very popular with people of all origins, not just the ethnic Europeans. I'd even argue it's less popular among ethnic Europeans than those of other ethbic backgrounds.
But I'll acknowledge that defending that party's position requires giving tons of benefit of the doubt...
Swede is ethnicity in same way as Dane is ethnicity, Swedish and Danish is nationalities. Ethnic Sámi, while living on their ancestors land can be Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish or even Russian in nationality.
No, a Somali who immigrated to Sweden is nationality wise Swedish and ethnicity wise Somali. The quote clearly says to expel Somalis and makes no distinction between ethnicity and nationality. Why do apologia for racism anyways? Weird stuff dude.
> 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.
Well you are doing apologia for racism. I’m not putting words in your mouth in calling out your behavior.
Please go ahead and define nationality and ethnicity. I’m happy to allow you to entirely define the terms to your ends and make an argument within those bounds. Please also tell us how the quoted statement calls out “naturalization” and “nationality” because it’s critical to you “not” doing racist apologia that both your definitions and the quoted statement are coherent.
My 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.
My mistake. You definitely couldn’t be doing racist apologia if you’ve made statements against racism in the past. That’s convincing enough to me, an apparent American liberal!
Is Allard advocating for removing everyone from immigrant backgrounds? I got the impression that Allard only wanted to remove criminals and net tax recipients, e.g. not removing law abiding, tax-paying, assimilated members of Swedish society, regardless of ethnicity/race/background.
Ethnic 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.
did india ethnical cleanse out the british when they expelled even british indian born nationals?
Yes.
[flagged]