The Sweden Democrats are xenophobic, racist, and anti-immigration

XenophobiaAs the definition of Xenophobia was provided at the start of this debate, I shall not be arguing on the definition of Xenophobia.While my opponent claims that the slogan "Keep Sweden Swedish" is not xenophobic, however, it is a blatant statement of opposition to foreigners in Sweden. My opponent also claims that the slogan is no longer used, however, the phrase, which in Swedish is "bevara sverige svenskt", can be heard at campaign rallies and events and in speeches by members of the Sweden Democrats. While not as common as it once was, to say the phrase is no longer used is simply false.In round one, I noted that the Sweden Democrats believe all immigrants must adopt Swedish culture upon immigrating and must meet certain levels of "Swedishness". Integration into a new society takes time, but the policy supported by the Sweden Democrats of requiring immediate assimilation, as opposed to integration, and requiring that all immigrants must meet a certain level of "Swedishness" before being allowed to immigrate is clearly discriminatory to foreigners. The argument given by the con as to why this is not xenophobic is that multiculturalism would be bad for Sweden. This does not, however, address the issue at hand, which is that the policy proposals by the Sweden Democrats are xenophobic. This debate is not about multiculturalism, but about whether or not the Sweden Democrats are xenophobic. The con then goes on to claim that Sweden is being "invaded by immigrants" and cites supposed examples of "Middle Eastern Islamic culture influencing Sweden". However these examples do not show how the Sweden Democrats are not Xenophobic, and some do not even support his claim of "Islamic influence watering down Swedish culture" or that these things are necessarily bad. Swimming pools are privately owned or owned by the community and are not being required to have these women only sessions, and the relationship between swimming pools and Swedish culture is non-existent. The issue of schools removing pork products from the school lunch menu, and making rules so that the meat is Halal, as cited by the Con's article, only took place at two schools. At these schools, 20% of the students are Muslim, which is a rather significant percentage the Student body. The school has a duty to provide affordable or free lunches to students, and if 20% of the students cannot eat the food, then the school is failing this mission. Removing pork from the menu does not in any way harm anyone and allows the school to fulfil this mission. The example of a library in Arvika offering Arabic courses is not so much an example of "Islamic influence", but rather an example of local residents being interested in learning a new language. The con argues that Islamophobia is not a form of xenophobia, however, given the definition the Con provided, this argument falls flat. The Con says that Islam is not a country and Muslims are not a nationality, however, Xenophobia is the fear or hatred of foreigners. Islam is not a religion which is native to Sweden, it is not a part of Traditional Swedish culture and the overwhelming majority of Swedish Muslims are immigrants or are directly related to immigrants, and is therefore considered to be foreign. Because of this, Islamophobia is, therefore, a form of Xenophobia.The con's defense of Bjorn Soder's comments states that these comments are out of context, however, the Con does not actually provide the context which he claimed was lacking, and does not address the statements made against the Sami people. The article cited by the Con actually only gives greater credence to the argument that Soder, and by extension the Sweden Democrats, are anti-Semitic, as the article notes that Soder proposed legislation to ban early male circumcision, an important practice in Judaism.Anti-ImmigrantSimilar to the Con's response to the Xenophobia contention, much of the argument is based on a general defense of the Sweden Democrat's policies, rather than contending that these policies are not anti-immigrant.The fact of the matter is that the Sweden Democrats want strict controls on immigration, and blame immigration for problems like crime and economic problem. The Con attempts to support the claims made by the Sweden Democrats but does not actually answer the contention. Furthermore, he claims that Immigrants and immigration are to blame for crime, namely rape, however, the evidence does not support this claim. A 2013 analysis found that the majority of the difference in crime rates between foreign-born and native Swedes is accounted for by Income and neighborhood, both of which are indicators of poverty. Therefore the issue at hand is not that the criminals in question are immigrants, but that they are poor. It also must be noted that the majority of the victims are also immigrants. Thus the claims that immigration is the problem is false.The con does not actually show any credible way how immigration is harmful to Sweden, other than crime statistics which are 100% attributable to class, and fails to actually address the issue at hand.SourcesCertain Sources carried over from previous rounds were used and shall be re-posted.https://www.jacobinmag.com...https://www.theguardian.com...http://www.timesofisrael.com...http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;http://www.theglobeandmail.com...