[saghm]

This doesn't really make sense to me, You're claiming that it's fine to hand-wave the issue of deporting the entire ethnic group as a whole rather than individuals because it has no high-skill members, but that doesn't really explain why you're so convinced that there are no individuals who might be able to contribute other than from assumptions about them based on them being a member of the ethnic group in the first place (e.g. "mass migration", taking up resources, disproportionately contributing to theft). That seems bizarrely at odds with the allusion to judging people by merit rather than bucketing them by shared ethnicity at the end of your comment.

[vikingly]

What makes Scandinavians responsible for judging merit of individuals in or even allowing a specific group in? All border control is group based.

It’s our country and we have no obligation to let anyone in, especially a group that culturally conflict with ours in ways that violate our social contract and ability to provide basic standards of living to our own kin.

[saghm]

> It’s our country and we have no obligation to let anyone in

But they're already in, legally, according to the laws you defined? It's hard to believe that you have such a well-defined social contract that literally everyone agrees that means you can't let in people of another ethnic group if the laws made by the people you suggest literally don't support mass deporting everyone who fits into the group you mention.

[vikingly]

A lot of it comes through EU laws, which was agreed to with the assumption of a different population mix in the Schengen free flow of people. Same with migrants brought in through exploited asylum laws which again assumed small numbers from neighboring countries with similar cultures.

Scandinavia is in a much better spot than the UK, which voted in favor of brexit to stop flow and instead received replacement migration.

[saghm]

At this point, it seems like you're just arguing "nobody in Scandanavia wanted them to come and we got tricked" as a universally agreed upon societal opinion. I guess it's possible, but it's impossible to distinguish from you projecting your own personal views across the entire society because you already strongly believe in the idea of everyone being on the same page about everything. Maybe it's my bias as someone from a society without that level of social cohesion, but I have trouble imagining literally everyone being in agreement on what's acceptable but somehow not managing to notice that something different was happening until too late rather than some people having exaggerating views of how much everyone else agreed with them, since the latter is something I've seen incredibly often, and the former is not something I've ever seen actually happen in practice.

[vikingly]

There is no collective opinion needed to interpret the historical use and context of the laws.

When Scandinavia entered Schengen it was all Western European countries that explicitly kept Eastern European countries out.

Asylums were rare, low in number and strictly enforced to known political refugees with very few arriving until the UN started funding migrant transports & EU started requiring quotas from the third world through EU at the risk of severe fines if you say no.

There was no vote on these changes to what was previously very strong borders.