In September, Maria Malmer Stenergard, the former migration minister in Sweden and now the current external affairs minister, made several controversial and, more or less, bigoted statements about immigration and immigrants.

She said, among other things, that "some groups are harder to integrate than others," referring to men from the Middle East and North Africa area. She also stated that Swedes are more similar to certain groups, such as Finland, due to the geographical distance. One of the many problems with such a statement is that, historically, several cases have shown opposite behaviors and developments.

Andreas Johansson Heinoe, a political scientist active in the market-liberal think-tank Timbro and, in my view, one of the most influential liberal opinion-makers in the country, is often writing about topics such as regarding nationalism, immigration, and democracy. In his response to the minister, Heinoe wrote in October in the daily social-liberal paper Dagens Nyheter (Today's News) that in the case of Sweden, many men who immigrated from Finland during the 1960s and 1970s were seen as problematic regarding values and behaviors. Including where many Finnish men were seen as rude, violent, and alcoholics.

"The violent Finnish men"

The Finnish labor migrants in Sweden during the 1970s were initially welcomed to meet Sweden's industrial workforce demands. It was also part of the contemporary discussions and ideas about having a free movement system within the Nordics (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland). At the same time, Finnish men were often portrayed in stereotypical and discriminatory ways. Many were subject to sweeping generalizations about being persons prone to violence and socially problematic. Despite their "cultural closeness" to Sweden, these stereotypes persisted for years, revealing that integration challenges are not merely about cultural differences but also societal biases, individual beliefs, and structural problems.

This historical example demonstrates that even groups perceived as "culturally similar" are not immune to stigmatization. Heinoe uses this case to caution against romanticizing the past or using it as a benchmark for assessing contemporary migration. The rhetoric of some current Swedish politicians, as in the government, who nostalgically compare Finnish migrants as better to modern migrants (or citizens) from the Middle East and North Africa, is, therefore, very flawed and ahistorical.

The "Ghetto Law" in Denmark: A Misguided Approach

Another factor Heinoe criticizes regarding the Swedish government is the political rhetoric about how "Sweden should become more like Denmark" regarding Denmark's "ghetto law." The law categorizes areas based on the proportion of "non-Western" residents and imposes restrictions to break segregation. While the law claims to address segregation, Heinoe finds its methodology deeply problematic since by institutionalizing the division between "Western" and "non-Western" cultures, the law perpetuates an exclusionary framework that undermines integration efforts.

Heinoe acknowledges the legitimate goal of reducing segregation but argues that policies based on cultural categorization are very problematic and risk deepening societal divisions rather than bridging them. Such measures, he argues, contradict the principles of inclusion and equality that should underpin liberal democracies. Rather than fostering cohesion, they legitimize prejudice and reinforce harmful stereotypes, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of alienation and marginalization.

Nationalism: A Double-Edged Sword

Nationalism is another recurring theme in Heinö's work, including writings about immigration, integration, culture, identification, etc. While recognizing that not all nationalism is inherently destructive—some forms can promote civic unity and shared identity—he warns against its divisive tendencies. Nationalism, because of its construction as a political idea, creates boundaries between "us" and "them," often at the expense of broader human solidarity and universal values. Because overemphasis on a national identity often separates people from the global interconnectedness needed to address shared challenges and problems.

Thanks for reading. Please follow my blog and write your feedback.