Sweden’s government on Tuesday said it would put forward a bill introducing a requirement for migrants to adhere to an “honest living” or face deportation.
Good that they are no longer turning a blind eye to those who abuse the system. It’s really infuriating to migrants who are just normal residents and citizens.
I’ll have to speak in general terms because I cant know every specific scenario.
What purpose would deportation of a citizen serve? One of the defining things about citizenship is the right to live in the place you have citizenship. Typically countries cannot leave persons stateless so deportation would be pointless, at most they pay for an air fare back, assuming there’s somewhere you can deport them to.
You’re right, fines should be levied equally if that’s the appropriate punishment. Putting someone in jail is expensive, it would seem counter to the point if the punishment for “abusing the system” was to further extract funds from the system to pay for someone’s housing and food would it not?
I understood them, but I’d argue it’s utterly asinine. If you strip citizenship you’ve created a stateless person, which is mostly avoided where possible - but let’s imagine for a second this was the case. What do you do with a stateless person? They don’t have the right to reside anywhere, every country has the right to refuse entry to them. How do you deport someone when no-one will accept them? Just leave them on runways around the world?
How long before they’re put on a return flight? How long before everyone closes borders with your country because you’re leaving 1000s of criminals on runways around the world?
What purpose would deportation of a citizen serve?
Presumably the same purpose (if any) the deportation of a noncitizen would serve.
One of the defining things about citizenship is the right to live in the place you have citizenship. Typically countries cannot leave persons stateless so deportation would be pointless, at most they pay for an air fare back, assuming there’s somewhere you can deport them to.
You’re right, fines should be levied equally if that’s the appropriate punishment. Putting someone in jail is expensive, it would seem counter to the point if the punishment for “abusing the system” was to further extract funds from the system to pay for someone’s housing and food would it not?
So why not take away those rights of citizens, if deportation is so beneficial?
Presumably the same purpose (if any) the deportation of a noncitizen would serve.
Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don’t. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.
So why not take away those rights of citizens,
Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can’t or won’t do that you’ve now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.
So when you show up with a plane full of ex Swedes at some airport the receiving country will go “oh those people have no right to be here, entry denied.” At which point you can either take them back to Sweden or leave them on the runway. I’d imagine it wouldn’t take long for most countries to deny entry to any transport leaving Sweden.
if deportation is so beneficial
I don’t believe I’ve said it was beneficial at all.
Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don’t. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.
Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away. There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia, and in the interbellum period several European governments opted to take away the rights of those citizens viewed as a threat to public order. Even if citizens aren’t deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.
Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can’t or won’t do that you’ve now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.
Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all. Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn’t have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn’t have different rights than brunettes.
Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away.
In theory, yes, in practice any government that seriously suggested it would likely not last long enough to enact the policy.
There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia
Penal colonies? No citizenship was lost that I’m aware of and they had the right to return on emancipation. It’s just jail but really really far away. I’m also not entirely sure we should be taking cues from 1700s Britain.
Even if citizens aren’t deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.
So prison then, only maybe worse? I’m not sure what your point here is.
Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all.
Seems a bit of a jump from any conversation we’ve had here. Given it fundamentally governs the relationship between government and people it’s hard to get away from.
Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn’t have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn’t have different rights than brunettes.
Comparing citizenship to hair colour is indeed radical, foolish would perhaps be a better word.
Because laws and governance focusing on citizenship, ethnicity etc is wildly against the sentiment of equal treatment and value of humans. It’s unlawful as well.
We don’t want an apartheid system.
Good that they are no longer turning a blind eye to those who abuse the system. It’s really infuriating to migrants who are just normal residents and citizens.
Why should they “turn a blind eye” to non-migrants who do not follow an “honest living”?
They shouldn’t. With regards non-migrants who only have Swedish citizenship deportation isn’t an option, but jail or fines presumably is.
Why isn’t deportation an option? And if jails or fines are a sufficient deterrent for citizens, why not for non-citizens?
I’ll have to speak in general terms because I cant know every specific scenario.
What purpose would deportation of a citizen serve? One of the defining things about citizenship is the right to live in the place you have citizenship. Typically countries cannot leave persons stateless so deportation would be pointless, at most they pay for an air fare back, assuming there’s somewhere you can deport them to.
You’re right, fines should be levied equally if that’s the appropriate punishment. Putting someone in jail is expensive, it would seem counter to the point if the punishment for “abusing the system” was to further extract funds from the system to pay for someone’s housing and food would it not?
Tom Hanks has tried to leave the chat but is stuck living in the airport terminal.
This one is interesting, because they are proposing to revoke the citizenship and deport them.
I understood them, but I’d argue it’s utterly asinine. If you strip citizenship you’ve created a stateless person, which is mostly avoided where possible - but let’s imagine for a second this was the case. What do you do with a stateless person? They don’t have the right to reside anywhere, every country has the right to refuse entry to them. How do you deport someone when no-one will accept them? Just leave them on runways around the world?
How long before they’re put on a return flight? How long before everyone closes borders with your country because you’re leaving 1000s of criminals on runways around the world?
Presumably the same purpose (if any) the deportation of a noncitizen would serve.
So why not take away those rights of citizens, if deportation is so beneficial?
Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don’t. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.
Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can’t or won’t do that you’ve now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.
So when you show up with a plane full of ex Swedes at some airport the receiving country will go “oh those people have no right to be here, entry denied.” At which point you can either take them back to Sweden or leave them on the runway. I’d imagine it wouldn’t take long for most countries to deny entry to any transport leaving Sweden.
I don’t believe I’ve said it was beneficial at all.
Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away. There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia, and in the interbellum period several European governments opted to take away the rights of those citizens viewed as a threat to public order. Even if citizens aren’t deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.
Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all. Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn’t have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn’t have different rights than brunettes.
In theory, yes, in practice any government that seriously suggested it would likely not last long enough to enact the policy.
Penal colonies? No citizenship was lost that I’m aware of and they had the right to return on emancipation. It’s just jail but really really far away. I’m also not entirely sure we should be taking cues from 1700s Britain.
So prison then, only maybe worse? I’m not sure what your point here is.
Seems a bit of a jump from any conversation we’ve had here. Given it fundamentally governs the relationship between government and people it’s hard to get away from.
Comparing citizenship to hair colour is indeed radical, foolish would perhaps be a better word.
To be fair, prisons in Europe are about rehabilitation and not punishment. Why should Swedish taxpayers pay for the rehabilitation of a non-swede?
Edit: I am talking about citizenship specifically
Because laws and governance focusing on citizenship, ethnicity etc is wildly against the sentiment of equal treatment and value of humans. It’s unlawful as well. We don’t want an apartheid system.
I see how my comment could be seen otherwise, but I am only speaking of citizenship.
Deportations of Non-Citizen criminals is legal in most countries.
(I’m guessing your apartheid comment was based on the assumption of me meaning ethnicity.)
Why should Swedish taxpayers pay for the rehabilitation of a Swede?
Why wouldn’t they? That’s like asking why would they pay for their fellow citizens healthcare.
How on earth did you glean that from the article?
I didn’t; I gleaned it from your comment and your seeming endorsement of this double standard.