The party is “pushing” for something that is already law. Re-migration, at least in a Swedish context, aims to let people VOLUNTARILY return to their home country but with the intensive to get some cash to start up their new lifes there.
Örebro Party leader Markus Allard goes to the election on expulsions. He opens to withdraw citizenship and also expel second generation of immigrants – even if they were born in Sweden.
“I’m prepared to cross corpses,” he said.
One suggestion that he has is that citizenship and permanent residence permits can be torn up – with reference to “Sweden is the country of Swedes”.
In a section of Yoshi’s Podcast, Allard develops his view on expulsions and explains that he prepared to “go over corpses” to bring home unwanted immigrants.
The host notes that there will be no beautiful sight when, for example, immigrant mothers who have been on maternity leave for 15 years are to be deported together with their children.
“It’s not going to be pretty to send these people home,” he said.
Markus Allard agrees, but says:
I think you can handle that optics.
Even the children will need to be deported, he explains.
He further explains that many of the problems relate to second-generation immigrants.
They are going out too. Even if they were born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedes. They have not become Swedes. It says Sweden in the passport, but they have not been interested in becoming part of Sweden. There’s a difference. It’s a qualitative difference," Allard said.
Yes soo the article you sent now has more info, and more to grab at. I don’t know why fria tider made him sound way more harsh that he actually is in the interview. But if you check the clip they have linked he is clearly talking about people who does not want to be part of Swedish society and/or criminals. I do not feel that it is a fascist view to want to throw out non-citizens that commit crimes.
In many if not all countries in Europe this has been standard since like, forever. There is no logical reason why you should keep criminals within your borders.
I still wouldn’t support it and would probably pull my money from someone who is actively promoting it. Often this kind of sentiment is a soft pedaled version of more ugly policies, and I just don’t agree with it in the first place. I think nationalism is generally an ignorant position and the lesson of the 20th century should be that trying to maintain homogeneous states nearly always leads to genocide in the worst cases and apartheid states in the best of times. So this doesn’t assuage me much.
You are of course free to do what you want with your money! :)
Nationalism is about believing and wanting the concepts of nations/borders. And with that the analysis of the ethnicities within or outside those borders (by ethnicity I mean cultural not race), and that a nation should be a collection of people that work together to make that nation better. So blaming apartheid and genocide, is like blaming a hammer because it can be used to kill someone.
Perhaps, but one could argue it happens so often that the hammer lends itself to hammering this particular nail, and so often devolves into that. The Balkans are this experiment played out, attempting to carve out ethno states, and we’ve seen how that’s gone. Once you start saying things like “this country should only be (or primarily be) for X people”, you almost necessarily have to engage in some degree of genocide (in the wider sense of removing a people and culture that doesn’t fit the paradigm), or apartheid, otherwise the statement ends up a bit vacuous, no?
Israel is, in my view, a very clear example of this; once you’ve decided “this is a Jewish state”, anyone not Jewish by definition become second class citizens.
If we’re just talking general assimilation, that’s more nuanced… I don’t oppose calls for more assimilation, but I think governments have done a very poor job in using more stick than carrot. They tend to not put any effort in helping people integrate, which is, from experience, very difficult. One could argue it isn’t their responsibility, but I think such framings for state action is silly… either the state has an interest in a thing being done or it doesn’t, and in this case I think they very much do. Most immigrants that form insular communities do so not out of any inherent pull to, but because they’re already being somewhat ostracized. In the US, Chinatowns arose as a direct result of ostracization and discrimination.
I do think there is a danger of assimilation programs overzealously wiping out culture… the Sami have faced multiple attempts in the past at trying to stamp out their culture, the US and Australia religiously forced the elimination of many native cultures in the name of assimilation. It is also a fine line to walk. But there is undoubtedly a state interest (and immigrant interest!) in assimilating into society.
I’d argue the binding culture that should be assimilated shouldn’t be things as fuzzy as ethnicity… the culture that binds should be the values of that nation. Which doesn’t really have anything to do with ethnicity.
The party is “pushing” for something that is already law. Re-migration, at least in a Swedish context, aims to let people VOLUNTARILY return to their home country but with the intensive to get some cash to start up their new lifes there.
Sources…
https://www.migrationsverket.se/du-har-tillstand-i-sverige/internationellt-skydd-asyl/atervandringsbidrag.html
https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2025/10/ett-kraftigt-hojt-atervandringsbidrag
Totally already legal to cross corpses to remove the “fake Swedes.” Sweden is for Swedes after all.
https://www.friatider.se/markus-allard-om-andra-generationens-invandrare-de-ska-ocksa-ut
Yes soo the article you sent now has more info, and more to grab at. I don’t know why fria tider made him sound way more harsh that he actually is in the interview. But if you check the clip they have linked he is clearly talking about people who does not want to be part of Swedish society and/or criminals. I do not feel that it is a fascist view to want to throw out non-citizens that commit crimes.
In many if not all countries in Europe this has been standard since like, forever. There is no logical reason why you should keep criminals within your borders.
I still wouldn’t support it and would probably pull my money from someone who is actively promoting it. Often this kind of sentiment is a soft pedaled version of more ugly policies, and I just don’t agree with it in the first place. I think nationalism is generally an ignorant position and the lesson of the 20th century should be that trying to maintain homogeneous states nearly always leads to genocide in the worst cases and apartheid states in the best of times. So this doesn’t assuage me much.
That said, extra context is always welcome.
You are of course free to do what you want with your money! :)
Nationalism is about believing and wanting the concepts of nations/borders. And with that the analysis of the ethnicities within or outside those borders (by ethnicity I mean cultural not race), and that a nation should be a collection of people that work together to make that nation better. So blaming apartheid and genocide, is like blaming a hammer because it can be used to kill someone.
Perhaps, but one could argue it happens so often that the hammer lends itself to hammering this particular nail, and so often devolves into that. The Balkans are this experiment played out, attempting to carve out ethno states, and we’ve seen how that’s gone. Once you start saying things like “this country should only be (or primarily be) for X people”, you almost necessarily have to engage in some degree of genocide (in the wider sense of removing a people and culture that doesn’t fit the paradigm), or apartheid, otherwise the statement ends up a bit vacuous, no?
Israel is, in my view, a very clear example of this; once you’ve decided “this is a Jewish state”, anyone not Jewish by definition become second class citizens.
If we’re just talking general assimilation, that’s more nuanced… I don’t oppose calls for more assimilation, but I think governments have done a very poor job in using more stick than carrot. They tend to not put any effort in helping people integrate, which is, from experience, very difficult. One could argue it isn’t their responsibility, but I think such framings for state action is silly… either the state has an interest in a thing being done or it doesn’t, and in this case I think they very much do. Most immigrants that form insular communities do so not out of any inherent pull to, but because they’re already being somewhat ostracized. In the US, Chinatowns arose as a direct result of ostracization and discrimination.
I do think there is a danger of assimilation programs overzealously wiping out culture… the Sami have faced multiple attempts in the past at trying to stamp out their culture, the US and Australia religiously forced the elimination of many native cultures in the name of assimilation. It is also a fine line to walk. But there is undoubtedly a state interest (and immigrant interest!) in assimilating into society.
I’d argue the binding culture that should be assimilated shouldn’t be things as fuzzy as ethnicity… the culture that binds should be the values of that nation. Which doesn’t really have anything to do with ethnicity.