National borders are made up, mostly for convenience (for example, the administration of social systems). Brexit is a rejection of that philosophy in favor of nationalism. As a result, this British guy needs to leave. It’s not complicated.
Borders contain a social system. Like one country decides to fund healthcare (more) and the other doesn’t. Would be unfair and unsustainable if people who fall sick are now suddendly migrating to a healthcare system they didnt fund. That’s why EU open borders require future member states to implement the similar ruleset first.
It’s not complicated; it’s just ghoulish and inhumane. Why should the British voting public’s opinions affect the life of this person who hasn’t lived in Britain for decades? This isn’t even that novel of an idea; clearly essentially all EU countries other than Sweden understand this, hence Sweden being the only EU country with a two-digit percentage Brexit deportation rate. I mean hell, if Bulgaria can only deport 5 people out of 16 thousand then it’s clearly not “not complicated.”
Why should the British voting public’s opinions affect the life of this person who hasn’t lived in Britain for decades?
It shouldn’t in a perfect world. Unfortunately, national borders exist (because of things like Brexit). So keeping him in Sweden requires an individual exception.
There’s no reason to grant someone who in 20 years never applied for Swedish citizenship an exception.
So keeping him in Sweden requires an individual exception.
I won’t address the value problem of “then why not give that exception.” Instead I’ll say: No it doesn’t; the Brexit withdrawal agreement has provisions specifically for British people living in the EU at the time of implementation. This is factually wrong, as seen by the behavior of literally every other EU member state.
There’s no reason to grant someone who in 20 years never applied for Swedish citizenship an exception.
Setting aside the value problem of “the right to live in one’s home isn’t something to be granted,” see above. Again this isn’t an exception; it’s the rule as set in the withdrawal agreement. Also this is your third time moving the goalposts and I’d really rather you commit to one line of argument or admit that you’re defending the indefensible.
First you’re talking about rules and exceptions, now you’re arguing the Swedish government can do whatever it wants and rules don’t matter. I hope you can see the contraction here.
Um, the Swedish people are following the law, which says that Sweden can remove foreigners who aren’t refugees. If you think there was an illegality here (a contradiction) please explain.
I see you moving the goalposts there, but fine. In that case: Sweden’s “right” to autonomy (countries don’t have rights; people do, in this case the right to self-determination) doesn’t override the rights of people living in Sweden. Your argument can be used to justify literally anything any government does, but I rather doubt you’d justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine via Russia’s “right” (see above) to autonomy.
I never moved the goalposts, you’re just having trouble understanding me. Rules apply to everyone equally. You’re requesting an exception. As the judge said, I just don’t see why such an exception should be granted. The guy is British. He belongs in Britain. If he wanted to be Swedish, he can apply for Swedish citizenship. Yes, maybe he’d get rejected. Alas, those are the rules.
I personally don’t respect nationality, and I don’t care about citizenship. Everyone else does.
Sweden’s “right” to autonomy doesn’t override the rights of people living *in* Sweden
Um, it should go without saying that the right of Swedish people to determine which foreigners reside within their borders is not overridden by the convenience of those foreigners.
Okay I’m not sure if you’re aware of this (if not you should do some introspection), but your argument is nothing more than window-dressing for your authoritarian values and disregard for human rights. In particular, your assumption that rules have some kind of sanctity that trumps personal liberty is frankly the kind of authoritarian bullshit that props up authoritarian regimes. How you assume rules that just so happen to justify the actions of authority figures is very telling; for context the actual rules here are the Brexit withdrawal agreement, under which British residents of the EU at the time of signing are to get residency in their host countries if they apply for it. I hope you become a better person; this conversation is over.
At which stage are the human rights of this entitled British guy violated?
Like you, I don’t like borders. I think the world is made of small communities and individuals and larger communities. I resent the very idea of a nation state. None of this moral idealism matters in this case, since we don’t live in my hopes and dreams.
National borders are made up, mostly for convenience (for example, the administration of social systems). Brexit is a rejection of that philosophy in favor of nationalism. As a result, this British guy needs to leave. It’s not complicated.
Borders contain a social system. Like one country decides to fund healthcare (more) and the other doesn’t. Would be unfair and unsustainable if people who fall sick are now suddendly migrating to a healthcare system they didnt fund. That’s why EU open borders require future member states to implement the similar ruleset first.
This would be the convenience I mentioned.
It’s not complicated; it’s just ghoulish and inhumane. Why should the British voting public’s opinions affect the life of this person who hasn’t lived in Britain for decades? This isn’t even that novel of an idea; clearly essentially all EU countries other than Sweden understand this, hence Sweden being the only EU country with a two-digit percentage Brexit deportation rate. I mean hell, if Bulgaria can only deport 5 people out of 16 thousand then it’s clearly not “not complicated.”
I won’t address the value problem of “then why not give that exception.” Instead I’ll say: No it doesn’t; the Brexit withdrawal agreement has provisions specifically for British people living in the EU at the time of implementation. This is factually wrong, as seen by the behavior of literally every other EU member state.
Setting aside the value problem of “the right to live in one’s home isn’t something to be granted,” see above. Again this isn’t an exception; it’s the rule as set in the withdrawal agreement. Also this is your third time moving the goalposts and I’d really rather you commit to one line of argument or admit that you’re defending the indefensible.
None of this matters. He isn’t Swedish. If they want him out, and he’s not a refugee, he’s out. That’s their sovereign right.
First you’re talking about rules and exceptions, now you’re arguing the Swedish government can do whatever it wants and rules don’t matter. I hope you can see the contraction here.
Um, the Swedish people are following the law, which says that Sweden can remove foreigners who aren’t refugees. If you think there was an illegality here (a contradiction) please explain.
If he wants to be Swedish, he should have applied for citizenship anytime over the last 20 years.
First, that has nothing to do with anything I said. Second, I somehow doubt applying for citizenship would’ve gone better than applying for residency.
Then he doesn’t belong there. Sweden has a right to its autonomy independent of whatever British people want.
I see you moving the goalposts there, but fine. In that case: Sweden’s “right” to autonomy (countries don’t have rights; people do, in this case the right to self-determination) doesn’t override the rights of people living in Sweden. Your argument can be used to justify literally anything any government does, but I rather doubt you’d justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine via Russia’s “right” (see above) to autonomy.
I never moved the goalposts, you’re just having trouble understanding me. Rules apply to everyone equally. You’re requesting an exception. As the judge said, I just don’t see why such an exception should be granted. The guy is British. He belongs in Britain. If he wanted to be Swedish, he can apply for Swedish citizenship. Yes, maybe he’d get rejected. Alas, those are the rules.
I personally don’t respect nationality, and I don’t care about citizenship. Everyone else does.
Um, it should go without saying that the right of Swedish people to determine which foreigners reside within their borders is not overridden by the convenience of those foreigners.
Okay I’m not sure if you’re aware of this (if not you should do some introspection), but your argument is nothing more than window-dressing for your authoritarian values and disregard for human rights. In particular, your assumption that rules have some kind of sanctity that trumps personal liberty is frankly the kind of authoritarian bullshit that props up authoritarian regimes. How you assume rules that just so happen to justify the actions of authority figures is very telling; for context the actual rules here are the Brexit withdrawal agreement, under which British residents of the EU at the time of signing are to get residency in their host countries if they apply for it. I hope you become a better person; this conversation is over.
At which stage are the human rights of this entitled British guy violated?
Like you, I don’t like borders. I think the world is made of small communities and individuals and larger communities. I resent the very idea of a nation state. None of this moral idealism matters in this case, since we don’t live in my hopes and dreams.