Comment by wyager

There are a lot of different ways to measure democracy but most of the established ones (my own selection based on a quick glance at the “Democracy Ranking” Wikipedia page) ranks Sweden as more democratic than the U.S. so I guess more direct government control and more directly elected officials doesn’t necessarily translate to more democratic system of government.

No, the same way it isn't more democratic if all branches of government all tie the same party line.

Modern democracy is based on the separation of powers and, in the vast majority of countries, a constitution or charter(s) that can't be overturned by a simple majority vote. For example, a party can't suspend Habeas Corpus on a whim, even if said party won the presidency, the Congress and the Senate.

But just ask the Supreme Court who carved an exception for the FED and not other government agencies...

I wouldn't necessarily say that the U.S. federal administration is in a super healthy state right now. The Swedish administration model has its roots in the seventeenth century and is thus older than the Swedish democracy. It has generally worked well, Swedish authorities are trusted in a high degree in general and the authorities can work independently and professionally without too much direct meddling from the government.

Hows that working out for the US?

Hence, I understand a severe reaction to any country heading in the same direction.

It is widely viewed as obviously corrupt, including in the U.S. What other 'civilized' countries do it?

That generally suggests a lack of empathy on your part. If there are an organised group of people who you don't agree with it should generally be easy enough to state what ideas they believe, why it is wrong and some plausible explanation for why people believe what they do despite being wrong (that goes beyond "well they're just inexplicably stupid").

I think actually the whole idea behind obtaining a citizenship is so it cant be taken away from you since its essential to modern life.

Surely, if the individual breaks rules or laws, they should be held accountable legally as any other citizen born with the same citizenship. Taking it away from you shouldn't be an option.

>Obtaining citizenship shouldn't give you the right to impose your foreign culture and habits that are alien to the country which allowed you to stay in

This is plain wrong. Obtaining citizenship literally means "our system decided that you assimilated enough". If that's not the case -- don't grant it.

Otherwise you're making citizenship useless as a concept.

Only if natives-born citizens who don't assimilate appropriately are also ejected from the country.

No, that is controversial. Nothing you said is based in reality. And we all know the part you're not saying out loud.

"And remember: Service Guarantees Citizenship!" [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO1vWxUqpFI

Everyone draws the line somewhere, including you.

Citizenship is a promise. It would be one thing if they wanted to screen more aggressively for assimilation before granting citizenship (which I would still disagree with) but it's quite alarming to campaign on breaking that promise.

The assumption being made of course cultures must only change from external forces and that they cannot change internally. It comes from an ancient caste based world view where people are defined by their birthright and do not change from this, that we know now is foolish to believe in.

It's a fringe party with fringe opinions. It got 0.59% of votes in the last election despite the huge funds provided by the Mullvad co-founder.

A citizen is a citizen. You don't create second class citizen, who can see their rights revoked at any time, whereas the other class never has to fear anything like that. That's basic democracy 101.

It goes against the principles of classical liberalism: rule of law, civil liberties, and limited government. I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and say that it's fine if some countries want to strip rights from people on the basis of race or economic class.

> Not every country wants

This phrase is problematic and dangerous:

A country doesn't want anything; it's not a person. People use this phrasing to claim some authority (always for what that individual wants, of course) over others who disagree - 'the country wants, and I speak for the country'.

More importantly, humans have fundamental individual rights, including freedom - again, not countries but individuals. The rights are no less because some other people don't like the individual - immunity to the majority's desires almost defines rights in a practical sense; otherwise they aren't generally needed. You can't force people to leave or to do anything else because you don't like them.

It's dangerous because it's often used to violate rights and rationalize cruelties.

Thinking it's atrocious to take away someone's citizenship just because of where they previously came from is in no way a uniquely American thought. In fact it's shared by most people around the world who have a bit of empathy, compassion, and aren't racist.

Stripping citizenship for a reason that doesn’t involve a crime goes a bit beyond not wanting cultural diversity.

I know the word is used in cases where it’s hyperbole or just not accurate but there in fact people where the term racist is perfectly applicable.