In the context of the multicultural globalist experiment being imposed on Europe and its nations and peoples, Sweden is in many ways the canary in the coal mine. While the experiment began later in Sweden than in most other Western European countries, the nation has seen an exponential increase in the amount of immigrants admitted, culminating in the migrant crisis of 2015 – 2016 where Sweden took in more migrants per capita than any other EU country. Due to the social problems that have accompanied the mass immigration of recent decades (especially the influx of the last five years), the country has become something of a deterring example for nations who oppose the multicultural experiment, most notably the Visegrád countries.
If Sweden is in fact the canary in the coal mine when it comes to mass immigration and multiculturalism in Europe, then it is perhaps also the first place we should examine when looking for signs of a public backlash, or potential solutions being presented to try and resolve these problems – due to the sheer scale and untenability of the immigration problem there, if nothing else. These ideas and solutions could then be disseminated and adopted by patriots in other European countries as well.
Any sign of a backlash in Sweden would be in stark contrast to the assumptions of the complacent advocates of globalism, who have incorrectly assumed that countries like Sweden and the UK are somehow bastions of liberalism, wholly immune to public reactions against their noble and progressive plans.
The case in point is a couple of recent statements made by the prominent political journalist Ivar Arpi of the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. On 30th August, he wrote a series of tweets about the generally improved situation in Syria, questioning why this has seemingly no implications for Syrians who have been granted refugee status in Sweden. He then elaborated that it’s not just a question about Syria, but a general question – why do migrants not return to their home countries in greater numbers? Wouldn’t it be natural for asylum to mainly be granted on a temporary basis, rather than on a permanent basis? The tweets culminated in the suggestion that instead of setting annual goals for reducing immigration (which the centre-right Moderate party had recently proposed), we should perhaps instead set annual goals for remigration.
This received plenty of media attention, prompting the national populist party, the Sweden Democrats (SD), to call for the Swedish Migration Agency to “work more clearly with remigration” five days after Arpi’s tweets set off the debate. SD are currently the third-largest party in parliament, but are frequently second-largest in various opinion polls. It is often kept out of any political influence by means of coalitions between otherwise opposing parties, even though its representatives have gone to great lengths to improve its reputation and make it appear more acceptable as a coalition partner to the mainstream parties.
This isn’t the first time SD have been forced to address the topic of remigration after seeing others draw attention to it through successful metapolitical work. Remigration was the main issue addressed by the political party Alternative for Sweden (AfS) during its 2018 election campaign. After the AfS (which was only launched in February 2018) began to attract attention through its innovative activism and excellent optics, SD were compelled to proclaim that the next battle in Swedish politics would be around remigration.
In terms of policy proposals for remigration, AfS have already injected several ideas into the Swedish public debate, several of which are slowly growing in popularity. These include:
- Building a robust and effective infrastructure for remigration, with the capacity to repatriate all illegal immigrants currently living in Sweden. This would include replacing the heavily politicised Migration Agency with a new Remigration Agency
- Immediately detaining those who have had their asylum applications rejected, and keeping them detained until they are deported
- Criminalising the sheltering of illegal immigrants
- Deporting all immigrants with a criminal record
- Incentivising voluntary remigration, particularly for those who would be willing to renounce their Swedish citizenship (having failed to integrate into society)
- Revoking the asylum status for those who have gone on holiday to their supposedly unsafe country of origin
- Establishing agreements similar to the Australia-Cambodia refugee deal, whereby a third country (in the case of this particular agreement, Cambodia) would commit to accepting illegal immigrants e.g. from a specific background. Ideally, this group should be ethnically and culturally similar to the people in the country that admit them, so that they can be easily integrated into the host society and establish a good life there. 
In summary – as seen in the case of Sweden, remigration can enter the public debate through a combination of political and metapolitical activism, and with the help of courageous independent journalists and influencers. This should hopefully pressurise the country’s main national populist party (in the context of Western Europe) to start advocating for remigration, regardless of whether they are in power or in opposition. The party will then use some form of remigration as a condition for any future collaboration with its prospective coalition partners (as SD recently did towards the main conservative party in Sweden), at which point advocacy for remigration will more or less have become mainstream.
And there are already encouraging signs appearing in Sweden. A few weeks after the aforementioned debate flared up, authorities carried out the nation’s largest ever single deportation, in which 50 Afghan men, all over the age of 18, were repatriated – although it is of course highly likely that the timing of the deportation was coincidental. There are also signs of Identitarian vocabulary entering the public discourse, as shown by an integration official in Filipstad recently acknowledging the reality of replacement migration in that municipality when speaking to reporters from Sweden’s public service broadcaster.