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

ResponsesIslamophobiaWhile the con does concede that Islam may be foreign to Sweden, he then claims that it is not xenophobic to dislike something that isn't native (ie something that is foreign) to one's own country. However, the definition provided by the con in round three would actually contradict this notion. What the con has effectively argued is that it is not xenophobic to be xenophobic. While it is not necessarily xenophobic to dislike Sharia law, if you dislike it specifically because it is foreign, that is xenophobic. Disliking sharia law because of aspects of the system, such as the lack of separation of church and state, the use of the death penalty, the repression of the rights of minorities, is not xenophobic, it is a legalistic point of view. A good comparison would be disliking Mexican food. If you dislike Mexican food because it tends to be spicy, and you don't like spicy foods, then this is not xenophobic. However, disliking Mexican food specifically because it is foreign, that is xenophobic. The con's comparison of disliking the death penalty to xenophobia is plainly nonsensical, as the death penalty is not a concept that is bound by cultural or national barriers and has been used by nearly every nation which has ever existed, and is again a legal concept. Anti-immigrantThe con again claims that it is not anti-immigrant to want strict controls on immigration, and then goes on to claim that Sweden has an immigration "problem". He does not, however, show any evidence or give any reasons as to his claims. He then responds to my argument in round 3, where I pointed out that crime in Sweden is related to poverty, not national origin, by first claiming immigrants in the US are "wealthier than the native population. " This claim is plainly false, as the poverty rate among immigrants in the US is 22%, while among native-born citizens it is 13% and the median household income is lower for immigrants than native-born citizens. He then claims that reducing the number of immigrants would solve the problem of poverty among immigrants as it would mean "only the most qualified would get in", because "the immigrants unable to make a decent wage would be excluded". This, however, does not make any logical sense as the Sweden Democrats are not basing their immigration policy on qualifications or skills, but on the level of "Swedishness" of the immigrants, and the fact that reducing immigration in no way means only the most qualified will be allowed to immigrate. The link simply does not existThe Con then claims that the Sweden Democrats are not anti-immigrant because the number of immigrants in Sweden is "extreme", however, there is no definition which says when immigration is "extreme" or not, and thus this argument is effectively meaningless. Furthermore, the Con does not address the other policies of the Sweden Democrats such as state funding for repatriation and the cultural requirements which would block most immigrants, and he does not address the rhetoric used by the party against immigrants. He then addresses the statements by Bjorn Soder, however, this was part of my xenophobia contention. Regardless, while the con does provide context, the articles cited earlier do not address this context and still lacks and evidence. He then claims the ban on early male circumscion proposed by Soder is not anti-Semitic because Reform Judaism does not require it, yet the article he cites from the Jewish Journal states that while circumcision is no needed for ADULT converts, it is still appropriate for babies, which Soder's legislation would have banned. The con has yey again been betrayed by his own sources. Additionally, the con only references reform Judaism, despite the fact that there are several other branches of Judaism, such as Conservative and Orthodox, which place much greater emphasis on the ritual. Immigrant Sweden Democrats The con again defends the policy of strict immigration controls as necessary, however, this does not actually address the resolution, as I have stated in previous rounds. He then says that the cultural requirements are not xenophobic, however, they are clearly meant to discriminate against cultures which are perceived as being extremely foreign, ie from Africa and Asia, and would really only allow in Europeans and North Americans. This is clearly xenophobia. The con claims that if the immigration policy of the Sweden Democrats were more like Mercantilism in trade, that would mean that they would not allow any immigrants. However such a policy would not be Protectionism or Mercantilism, but Autarky. Mercantilism promotes "profitable trade", and for the Sweden Democrats, profitable trade means assimilation and monoculturalism. XenophobiaThe con says the Sweden Democrats are not xenophobic because they want to encourage cultural unity, and that they have no problem with foreign cultures existing in other countries. This is the equivalent of saying "we do not dislike foreign cultures as long as they remain foreign and do not come here". The con then proceeds to attack multiculturalism but does not actually address any of the other issues that I have noted, with the exception of Bjorn Soder's comments and Islamophobia, which he mentioned in earlier responses. The con then yet again responds to the slogan "Keep Sweden Swedish", and yet again he changes his argument. This time, the Con claims that it is a "patriotic statement", and the claim that it is xenophobic is a false conclusion and an extreme interpretation. The con then yet again claims that "someone can support their cultural identity while supporting that other countries do that same". As I stated in the previous paragraph, this is the equivalent of saying "we do not dislike foreign cultures as long as they remain foreign and do not come here". While one can be proud of their culture, shouting "Keep Sweden Swedish" clearly implies that they do not want those from other cultures coming to Sweden, something the Con acknowledged in the last round. Shouting "God Save the Queen" or "Erin Go Bragh" or "Bharat Mata ki Jai" to express that they are proud of being British or Irish or Indian, however, these slogans do not in any way suggesting that if you are not Irish, or British or Indian you do not belong there. Saying Keep Sweden Swedish implies that if you are not Swedish, you should leave. ConclusionIn this debate, I have shown that the policies and rhetoric of the Sweden Democrats are clearly xenophobic and anti-immigrant. I have provided clear examples of policies supported by the Sweden Democrats, of statements made by their leaders and members which indicate a clear opposition to foreigners and immigrants. While the Con has argued that they are not opposed to immigration because they do not oppose the general concept, and that cultural unity is not necessarily xenophobic, he has made numerous contradictions in his arguments, including denying his own definitions of xenophobia, he has changed his arguments multiple times, dropped contentions after they were refuted, and relied on evidence which not only disagrees with his statements, but fully contradicts them. He has spent much of this debate arguing for the policies of the Sweden Democrats and against Multiculturalism and mass immigration, yet he has spent very little time attacking the premise of the resolution. He has dropped his argument about immigrant members of the Sweden Democrats, his argument about multiculturalism and Islamic influence and various other arguments, thread and contentions from throughout this debate. Throughout this debate, I have demonstrated with evidence that the Sweden Democrats are a party which is plainly and obviously xenophobic, and supports policies which are directed at blocking and deporting immigrants who do not meet their arbitrary definition of "Swedish". The Resolution is therefore affirmed.