The same applies to people who say they support freedom but are then opposed to immigration because their concept of freedom is tied to wealth, privileges, and the preservation of those things. But that has little to do with freedom. We are only free when everyone is free.
The primary financier of a political party that calls immigrants "parasites" does not support open borders.
Claming otherwise is at a minimum disengious, but with absolutly no clarification from Daniel directly, it just reads like you are lying about his stances for PR.
I can't find the link youre referring to in the vague chaos of this thread, but based on his current donations to a virulently anti immigrant party, it sure seems like your partners feelings have changed about open boarders since it was written. Why is he unable to speak for himself on this matter?
If open boarders are only acceptable when you can refuse immigration based on ethnicity, then no, you do not support open borders. When you work to forcably eject not only first but second generation immigrants, people born in Sweden, based on their ethnicity, you do not support open borders.
The above looks to be a core tenat of Daniel's prefered political party based on their own statements, so its extremely disengious to discuss some old article about supporting free movement while he's actively donating to people who want to brutalize hundred of thousands of Swedish residents because they are the "wrong type" of people.
