Centre Party of Sweden wants free immigration

Yes that's right people, total, free, no-national borders, (*)(*)(*)(*) our culture, (*)(*)(*)(*) our wages, make us black as fast as possible please, immigration! Hurray! Only in Sweden!

The Centre Party of Sweden (C), part of the current ruling coalition, the Alliance for Sweden (iirc), has proposed free immigration as part of it's platform. C was founded as an agrarian and economically liberal party, representing the intrests of the farmers and loggers and whomevers else is out in the country. But recently they have, as all other establishment parties, moved towards embracing multiculturalism. C seems determined to win the race to kill of Sweden once and for all, and they're in the lead now I think although the Environmental Party (read eco-communists) that have been talking about world citizenship previously will soon catch up.

This new proposal is probably an attempt of the party to survive; They've fallen in the polls for quite some time now due to the fact that their new party leader is annoying and smiles scarily all the time, and because they've really abandoned all they ever stood for in the name of multiculti. So they're hoping to attract the hordes of oikophobes by being the most radical immigration party in sweden, and that's really saying something.

I'll give you the whole article from aftonbladet but it's in swedish i'm afraid. I'll translate and summarize what I see as the best parts for you though:

"All that wish to come to Sweden are welcome"
"aftonbladet reports that the centre party is proposing free immigration to it's party platform"
"All laws limiting immigration should be abolished"
"Sweden has a future of a population of 40 million" (the current pop is 'round 10. it will be because of immigration needless to say)
"people who are tolerant and believe in all people's equal worth will like this proposal"

All people's equal worth and tolerance.. Ah yes, that's used to justify nearly everything in sweden these days. I could tell you, but you wouldn't believe me, how many times this phrase has been used by politicians of all colours.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article15937853.ab

also, google annie lööf and you'll see the monstrosity of a party leader tey have.

 

If it's any consolation, imposition of this policy will most likely result in a massive backlash within a few years.

Plenty of countries in Europe have implemented less radical plans for open immigration, and the results have often been more conservative parties entering power afterwards.

 

If this was happening here, Liberals would be calling us racist.

Europe closing its borders:France and Italy in call to close EU borders in fear of Arab invasion


Sarkozy and Berlusconi are demanding European deportation pacts with the countries of revolutionary north Africa to send migrants home. Photograph: Alessandro Di Meo/EPA


France and Italy have thrown down the gauntlet over Europe’s system of passport-free travel, saying a crisis of immigration sparked by the Arab spring was calling into question the borderless regime enjoyed by more than 400 million people in 25 countries.

Challenging one of the biggest achievements of European integration of recent decades, Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi also launched a joint effort to stem immigration and demanded European deportation pacts with the countries of revolutionary north Africa to send new arrivals packing.

The French president and the Italian prime minister, at a summit in Rome, opted to pile the pressure on Brussels and the governments of the other 25 EU states, demanding an “in-depth revision” of European law regulating the passport-free travel that takes in almost all of the EU with the exception of Britain and Ireland.

Prompted by the influx to Italy of almost 30,000 immigrants, mainly from Tunisia, in recent months, the two leaders warned that the upheavals in north Africa “could swiftly become an out-and-out crisis capable of undermining the trust our fellow citizens place in the free circulation within the Schengen area”.

The passport-free travel system known as the Schengen regime was agreed by a handful of countries in 1985 and put into practice in 1995. Since then it has been embraced by 22 EU countries as well as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, but spurned by Britain and Ireland. It is widely seen, along with the euro single currency, as Europe’s signature unification project of recent decades.

But like the euro, fighting its biggest crisis over the past year, the Schengen regime is being tested amid mounting populism and the renationalisation of politics across the EU.

In other setbacks to borderless Europe, Germany, France and other countries have been blocking the admission of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen in recent months, while the arrival of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants in Greece has fed exasperation with Athens’s inability to control the EU’s southern border.

The Franco-Italian move, following weeks of bad-tempered exchanges between Paris and Rome over how to deal with the Tunisian influx, is the biggest threat yet to the Schengen regime.

“For the treaty to stay alive, it must be reformed,” Sarkozy said. Berlusconi added: “We both believe that in exceptional circumstances there should be variations to the Schengen treaty.”

They sent a joint letter to the European commission and European council chiefs, José Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy, urging proposals from Brussels and agreement on a new system at an EU summit of government heads in June.

The commission said it was drawing up new proposals, tinkering with the current system, to be unveiled next week. But it has resisted, with the support of most EU governments, intense Italian pressure to label the arrivals from north Africa an emergency.

Under European law the border-free regime can be suspended only for reasons of national security, routinely invoked in recent years by member states hosting major international sporting events such as the World Cup or the European football championships, where individual countries contend with a huge, one-off influx of foreigners.

Sarkozy and Berlusconi insisted the rules be changed to allow more restrictions on freedom of travel. A new deal was “indispensable”, they said. The June summit should “examine the possibility of temporarily re-establishing internal frontier controls in case of exceptional difficulty in the management of the [EU's] common external frontiers”.

This, however, would clearly not be in the interests of Italy, which fears an end to the hostilities in Libya could spark an even bigger exodus. In that event, the letter said, the EU should provide “mechanisms of specific solidarity” including the distribution of immigrants among member states.

This will prove extremely divisive and will be rejected by countries such as Germany and Sweden, which have much higher numbers of asylum seekers than Italy, less restrictive immigration policies, and little sympathy for Italy’s plight.

http://talesfromthelou.wordpress.co...to-close-eu-borders-in-fear-of-arab-invasion/

 

Yes probably. that's what's happening to all of the establishment parties; even the most conservative of them would still be regarded as radicals compared to parties in any other country. The only big party that want decreased immigration, the sweden democrats, have grown by 200%, from 4% to 12%, since the last elections and they keep on growing. However, they can still do some damage. and they already have.

 

Your bigoted and racist commentary isn't worth seriously considering.

 

And braindead lefties' comments aren't usually worth replying to. But what part of what you quoted do you have a problem with and why?

 

Okay. Suit yourself.

 

We could skip the ad hominems you know and just discuss things. Why is it for example, that you so gladly want to make europe black?

 

Why are you so racist to believe that?

And, are not you liberal? Don't you know that all liberals defended the free immigration and emigration, that everyone could move everywhere without problems. But looks that the more liberals are the lefties, eh

Do you want liberalism, then eat liberalism. That is liberalism, or you want a mix of liberalism and protectionism?

And why is bad the immigration, and even if you open the frontiers your number of immigration will be much lower than the countries of the south, for example.

PS: There are ways to reduce immigration, no one wants to leave behind the beloved people.

 

He quoted me writing "makes us all black..." so I assumed he wants sweden to be black.

I am a liberal among other things. The complete description would probably be something along the lines of a liberal conservative nationalist. Note that the two first are descriptive of teh last, I am a nationalist first and foremost. Not all liberals want free migration, that's more typically anarchist or communist in my view. Friedman for example didn't support it. Now to clarify, I mean classical liberalism or libertarianism when I say liberalism, not american progressivism. Also liberals wouldn't support such an extensive welfare system as we have, and they certainly wouldn't allow free access to it to all people around the world.

I'm liberal on both social and economic issues with a few exceptions. I'm an economic protectionist: I see no value in having a free market if that means we'll lose our manufactoring jobs to the chinese even if it means cheaper goods. It's a net loss, and a country should look to what's good for the country. The free market is good because of it's results, it's not a goal in itself and it should/can be limited to serve the intrests of the nation. In the domestic economic matters I want the state to set up regulations for healthy, safe, and environmental goods and working conditions; the unions and corporations can handle the rest without government. Socially I'm very free imho. see I have these habit of wanting to conserve lot's of things in society and as long as whatever people do socially don't interfere with that I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). Homosexuality for example doesn't pose a threat to any of this, therefore I don't care about them at all. Whilst abortion can potentially; I don't want a negative birth rate and abortions doesn't help with that.

Why Immigration is bad? Because we already have high unemployment, because it will change the cultural and racial make up of the country, because it costs lots of money. If a country needs to resort to immigration that's a sign of a defect in that society. I say that we fix that instead of switching our population.

 

First of all, big multicultural kudos to Johnny-C for calling you a racist for being mildly uncomfortable at the idea of your culture and nation being utterly transformed beyond recognition!

Secondly, for a non native English speaker, congrats on using a word that I actually had to look up: Oikophobes. Heh! Good one.



I would hope that if this does become law, some effort is made to record and preserve Swedish culture and language for future scholars. In the US we have a third of Mexico that has moved to our country, but our population base is so much larger that English is in no danger of being swamped. Sweden is in a much different position. If a third of Mexico moved to Sweden, Swedish would become a minority language.

Imagine, open immigration to a first world country; if you can get there, you are in. The price of a ticket leads to a lifetime of ample social services. Sounds like a relative bargain. In a world of over 6 billion where the vast majority of the population live in relative poverty compared to Sweden, how many people would want to make that flight? I billion? 2 billion? I foresee an ample construction boom in Sweden. At least for a while until things fall apart.

 

Get your sh__ straight; I did not call him a racist. I absolutely assailed his commentary though and I surely meant to.

Secondly, I don't care if he's "uncomfortable"; grow a pair and get used to the reality that demographics in this world CHANGE over time. It's one thing if we didn't know that because we were all living in the 1700's... but we are all living in 2012.

There is no excuse for the racist, bigoted BS human beings spew as they have their fits. I say, HEAL your fracking self of such affliction... then join the rest of respectable and reasonable human beings.

 

I don't think it will be law, yet. Even the other parties think this is extreme and crazy. You know, things might actually go in the right direction. iirc, we've had people proposing such controverial things as a swedish language requirement for citizenship, to actually deport criminal foreigners, to require visum from balkan gypsies etc. And really, these things are controversial in sweden. They'll ramble on and on about equality, tolerance, justice, multiculturalism.. we deserve this in a way.

And yeah, swedes are only round 9 million so opening our borders would mean our doom in about 5 minutes. And before I forget, you know what C calls these MENA immigrants? a name that reveals their motives all to well: settlers. atleast that's what I think the english word is.

 

people die all the time, does that mean we shouldn't try to prevent it? Also, what part of what I said was racist? and if it was, what was so bad about it? That I said black or what?

 

I hope you can figure it out yourself.

Best wishes.

 

Id est, nescio hmm?

 

I am from Europe, and I knew that I was talking to an European, so I didn't use adjectives to clarify to what kind of liberalism I was refering. And we talked in the same language, we understand for Liberalism the same thing, and I was talking about classical liberalism, based in the ideas defended by Adam Smith, Humboldt....

If you have high unemployment rates I don't know what Spain has But, immigration is not bad neither good. It depends on how immigrant people is adapted, and for what I've seen in the North, in the neighbour country, Finland, all immigrants had their own business, or they worked in different areas, they were really integrated, so I don't see the problem at all.

PS: I've not been in Sweeden, so I don't know much of it, but I believe that the social problems would be really similar to the ones of Finland.

 

How lovely. Now, not to be rude or pushy, would you please give me your views on my stances? It took some time to write you see.

 

Well, I would hope that you someday understand what I'm getting at. If not,
ita fiat, esto.

 

intellego, at explanere enumeram volo.

which means, I understand but I want you to explain your stance more detailed. And jesus christ, I need to get better at latin.

 

Ok, my view is that you call yourself liberal, however you are more conservative leading, any liberal would throw on you on the jugular for what you've been defending. Most of the liberals that I've met(European) they are quite globalizationists, and not really nationalists, however they are quite nationalists. However it is true that many of them, in their hipocresy, from my point of view, share your vision in immigration and it is needed to be regulated. I disagree, immigration is cause of the system, the inequalities, and it is normal that people want to go to other places to live better, so the rich countries that in most part we are the cause of the poverty of that countries we have to do all the things that are in our hands to help them, solidarity, and if they come to the places where we live, they must have the same rights as the rest of inhabitants of the territory. Obviously also the same the obligations.

And, the immigration also contributes to the wealth of the country, they work, they produce wealth, they pay taxes coming from the force of labour or coming from consumption. Therefore, immigrants also need to receive the same services as the natives of the country. That is my position. And I think that commenting my position I am answering your position.

Adopting a statist and really moderate stance of my ideology, and renouncing to many goals, I could agree with you in some way with the part of health,work regulations...

And about your conclusion of immigration, countries, people change, and it does not have to affect to the working of the country.

 

What you said was:

So yes, you called his commentary racist, not him personally! A distinction with no difference.

It's such a knee jerk reaction for the left to throw the old racism charge at everything that you don't even think about it, do you?

 

Sympathies, man. Sweden is a place of rich culture and history. It's slowly going by the wayside, but Sefin' USA might be right.

 

Open borders, great idea!

IF

We do away with all welfare, healthcare, pensions, social programs - user pays for everything
Say bye bye min wage and unions
Oh and course we'll need guns, lots of guns. Poverty will be so bad we'll need to defend our belongings/ life.