You are already poisoning the well before I answer, so I feel like my answer will not matter to you, but I will absolutely answer in good faith as I always do.
Not sure if you are American or not, but European migration policy seems especially harsh compared to yours, but we have our reasons. (2015 aware, wir shiffen das)
I voted for Moderaterna, to be clear. You can look them up.
>Let's even grant you the premise that these statistics are accurate.
BRÅ is a state beauru and they are accurate.
>What do you want to do about it?
Vote for the party that has policy on this I agree with.
>Deprive people of their rights extrajudicially because of where they come from?
Yes! We already do this. Everyone in the EU can freely migrate to another EU country in the Schengen zone. If you are outside EU you need Visa or Asylum. Thus, we treat people differently based on where they are from. We do not have "open borders", nor should we.
We see this also with the Ukraine war. Who do we feel closest to? Someone fleeing war in Somalia or Afghanistan or someone fleeing from Russia's invasion in Ukraine?
You know the answer even if you do not want to admit it, you maybe feel the same way.
Also, "rights" was never to be allowed to migrate anywhere. Never was, never will.
>Should we treat people from MENA differently before the law?
Yes! We already do. See above.
>What about a native Swede who is antisemitic?
That is bad and I reject any type of neo-nazi conspiracies. I also fight these online and there is a perplexing unity on neo-nazis and Hamas etc and their ilk on this. They always revert to "well jews control the media, usa etc". Ridicolous.
>Should they lose some rights?
Yes! We have a law called "hets mot folkgrupp". If convicted, you lose rights.
>Should we deport people based on place of origin?
No, we base it on behaviour such as crime etc. Then they should be deported.
The policy now is prevention also.
>Is that what the West is based on to you, increasingly arbitrary or national/ethnic access to rights vs a universalist conception of human rights?
Human rights does not mean to let everyone who wants in. It never did.
>Or would that be a "third world" degeneration?
That would be one of many criteria. See Pol Pot etc.
>What is the West?
Europe, with a line towards Russia, generally. Ukraine and Georgia I consider the west for example. This is based on behaviours. To the South, Mediterranian is a border. Greece Cyprus is part of the West, not Turkey.
UK is the West also. And Canada and USA. And Israel.
>Are Jewish people synonymous with the West?
Yes, Israel and its population have shown to be our steadfast partners.
>Was that always the case?
Sadly no, it was only Napoleon who started to let Jews in so to say.
>You talk about minority protections are Jewish people a majority in Sweden?
Yes!
The national minorities in Sweden have long historical ties to the country. In 2000, Sweden officially recognised the following minorities and minority languages: the Jews and Yiddish, the Roma and Romani Chib, the Sami and the Sami language, the Swedish Finns and Finnish, as well as the Tornedalians and Meänkieli (sometimes called Torne Valley Finnish).
https://sweden.se/life/equality/national-minorities-in-swede...>If not, why do you advocate protections for some minorities and not others?
See the official recognition above.
>Do you think Jewish people have suffered in the "first world" West?
Sadly yes. See my articles above. I also assume you mean Nazi Germany as some kind of "gotcha".
>Where does antisemitism come from?
Right now? MENA countries, see my articles above. Antisemitism has a long and sordid history.
ADL surveys consistently show antisemitic attitudes in the 74–97% range across much of the region. It's not fringe, its normal there. Nazi propaganda made it worse, but it didn't create it.
>Was the Weimar Republic the third world?
No? Nobody thinks this.
>How about the regime that followed?
No? Nobody thinks this. Antisemitism is not the only requirement to be third world.
>Should European antisemites be allowed into Sweden?
Yes! We are in Schengen after all.
>Maybe everyone who enters Sweden should have to pass an ideological test to prove they are sufficiently non antisemitic and appropriately Western?
There is no "test" for "entering Sweden". But there is one to be a Swedish citizen. And even before you are a Swedish citizen, you can now be deported based on your bad conduct.
Sweden has introduced or is in the process of implementing stricter requirements and assessments in migration law, particularly around good conduct ("god vandel"), self-sufficiency, and in some cases language/knowledge.
This allows the Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket) to deny entry, refuse a residence permit, or revoke/withdraw one based on a holistic assessment of the person's conduct.
"Bristande vandel" (poor/deficient conduct) includes:
Not following laws, court decisions, or authority orders (e.g., unpaid fines, ignored decisions).
Unwillingness to pay debts (to individuals or the state).
Repeated minor offenses.
Welfare system abuse (e.g., fraud).
Associations with criminal/extremist networks.
Serious addiction or a grossly irresponsible lifestyle.
This is not a moral philosophy test or quiz — it's a discretionary evaluation based on evidence (police records, debt registers, authority reports, etc.). It's broader than just criminal convictions.
For permanent residence or extensions in some categories, there are discussions of tightening rules (e.g., basic Swedish proficiency like A2/B1 level mentioned in policy contexts), but as of now, it's not a universal entry barrier.
For Swedish citizenship (medborgarskap), stricter rules are rolling out from June 2026:
Knowledge test in Swedish language (reading/listening comprehension at functional level) — planned start around October 2027.
Test on Swedish society/knowledge about Sweden.
Higher "hederligt levnadssätt" (honest way of life) requirement, similar to vandel.
Self-sufficiency requirement (no long-term welfare dependency).
>Or maybe you let them in but they have to walk around in special outfits or with a special lapel or label on them so we can be vigilant regarding their whereabouts?
I understand that you are trying to equivocate the current Swedish government to Nazi Germany, but the above is not done.
>Perhaps anyone who commits a crime in Sweden should be deported, as only an anti-western person would exhibit criminal behavior?
You have 2 parts here. We indeed should deport more foreign born criminals, and we are.
The new government have passed the "bristande vandel" or "poor conduct" addendum to the deportation law.
The concept was revived in the Tidö Agreement (2022). It called for investigating ways to deport or deny permits to non-citizens showing "bristande vandel," including things like association with criminal gangs, extremism, drug abuse, prostitution, or general non-compliance with rules.
It applies mainly to non-EU/EEA citizens and certain residence permits (not fully EU-law protected ones, though some security-based revocations are possible).
This does not directly apply to Swedish citizens (citizenship revocation has separate, stricter rules and constitutional hurdles).
>What do you want to do about it?
See above, all policy I voted for and agree with.
>Highlighting crime tells us nothing.
It does! It tells us who did it, who is responsible. And steps to avoid and correct it. Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ), continue to produce and release reports that analyze crime data by immigrant background or foreign background (typically defined by whether a person is born in Sweden to two Swedish-born parents, born in Sweden to one or two foreign-born parents, or born abroad). They did this in 1995, 2005 and again in 2025. If these stats offend you, maybe it says something about you.
>Every society deals with crime
Yes, but some more then others. Do you not want to live in a society with less crime or more crime? Every country has garbage and trash. Do you want less or more? Every country has electricity outages sometimes, do you want less or more?
>Most societies have minorities. What separates societies is how they deal with it.
Is that really the defining variable? It reads like something I'd have written in high school, the kind of line that sounds profound but dissolves under pressure. What about living conditions, quality of life, infrastructure, longevity, happiness? Those seem at least as relevant, if not more so.
>So tell us, warden of the West, what you seek to do.
See above, all policy I voted for and agree with.