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

Multiculturalism The Con claims that I have only attempted to invalidate his sources, however, if you go back and read my argument you will find I only invalidated one of his sources, which came from an unreliable source, this being the Speisa. This source releases fake reports and has been determined by media watchdogs to be untrustworthy, as I noted in Round 2. As for my comments on his other sources, I did not attempt to invalidate the sources, but rather point out that they do not support the conclusion by the Con. His second source never mentioned “no go zones", attacks on journalists or even crime, and thus does not support his conclusion. The Con claims the source does, in fact, mention these things, however, having searched the article for any mention of those phrases several times, I have yet to find these mentions. While the third source, the Daily Caller, does link to two other articles which support the claim that there are “No Go Zones”, the source that the Daily Caller references (which was also written by the author of the Daily Caller article) states “It should also be made clear that this report refers to criminal gangs seizing control; the kind of shariah-ruled, Muslim-only enclaves Steve Emerson was talking about...do not exist in Sweden" This statement alone should make it clear that the allegations of Sharia zones made by the Con do not hold weight. This is only furthered by the fact that the Daily Caller article itself only describes high levels of criminal activity, and never once mentions sharia law or radicalization. The article even mentions that these areas also suffer from low levels of education and high levels of unemployment. To say that these “No Go Zones” are the result of multiculturalism simply does not align with the claims of the Con’s own sources. As for the issue of the Australian 60 Minutes crew that was attacked, regardless of whether or not the attackers were of migrant background, to claim that the crew was attacked because the perpetrators were migrants who were upset about the topic the crew was filming about simply does not add up. Given the description pin both sources provided by the pro on this issue, and all the other articles about the high levels of gang violence in these neighborhoods, it is far more likely that the crew was attacked because they did not want a camera crew filming gang members or illegal activities they were committing. Regardless, none of this is relevant to the debate which we are having. This debate is about whether or not the Sweden Democrats are Xenophobic and Anti-Immigrant. It is not about whether or not multiculturalism is good for Sweden, or even if the policies of the Sweden Democrats are good or bad, it is about whether or not they are Xenophobic and Anti-Immigrant. Thus the contention by the Pro concerning multiculturalism is not in any way relevant to this debate. Immigrant Sweden Democrats The Con again claims that because the Sweden Democrats are supported by some immigrants the party is therefore not opposed to immigration. However, it does not matter if they Sweden Democrats are supported by some immigrants, because their policies, as I have argued, are Anti-Immigration and Anti-Immigrant. The con also downplays the immigration policies of the Sweden Democrats. While the Sweden Democrats do advocate controls on immigration, these are not minor controls simply to limit the overall number of immigrants, they want extremely strict controls and limits on immigration, and want to add new cultural requirements for immigrants, as I have already discussed and shown in previous rounds. These requirements include ensuring that all immigrants meet a certain level of Swedishness before being granted their visa. These requirements and controls would significantly curtail the number of immigrants allowed to come to Sweden. The party also supports state funding for repatriation of Immigrants already living in Sweden who fail to meet the required level of “Swedishness” or fail to assimilate in a timely manner. This would mean the mass deportation of thousands of immigrants from Sweden. To use the Con’s Trade analogy, these policies are not protectionism, but complete mercantilism. Xenophobia The Con states that “Jimmie Akesson and the Sweden Democrats have never stated anything about fearing or not fearing foreigners”, however, given the Con’s own definition, Xenophobia does not only have to do with fear but also dislike or hatred. He then claims that “there is nothing to refute and only arguments claiming they are xenophobic to refute. I have addressed Pro's claims about Sweden Democrat policies that can be attributed to xenophobia, and have proved that the policies are not xenophobic by explaining how.” This is simply a description of how a debate works, however sadly, this claim has not shown itself to be the case as much of the Con’s arguments have been arguments supporting the policies of the Sweden Democrats and attacks on multiculturalism, however none of these arguments actually show how the Sweden Democrats are not Xenophobic. The Con claims that the slogan “Keep Sweden Swedish” is not xenophobic, it only is an expression of not wanting foreign cultures to exist in Sweden. This is first and foremost a contradiction of the Con’s previous argument, which stated that the slogan is no longer used. The con further contradicts himself by saying the slogan is not xenophobic because “...it's only a statement to support cultural unity of Sweden and to reduce foreign influence.” This is the exact reason I gave, only in different words, as to why the slogan is xenophobic: It expresses a desire to rid Sweden of foreigners. The Con then claims that the Sweden Democrats do not support assimilation prior to immigrating to Sweden, however, this is a contraction of the argument the Con made in round 3, in which he stated that assimilation does not imply xenophobia. Furthermore, the Con does not provide any evidence to support his claim, and thus my contention, which I have given sources for, notably Jacobin and the Sweden Democrats own platform, stands. He then contradicts himself again in the next paragraph, saying the Sweden Democrats DO support assimilation. He then claims they are not Xenophobic because they are fine with foreign cultures as long as they remain foreign and do not come to Sweden. This is yet another contradiction. As to his final argument, I have already addressed these arguments in the previous rounds, and thus shall not address them further. And regardless of whether or not these examples are proof of an “Islamic invasion”, they simply do not have any relevance in this debate, as I have previously stated.SourcesAll sources used were either cited in earlier arguments or cited by the Con