And it's not a principled position on open borders nor open migration but instead part of a double standard. These same people probably cheer on the protests in Mexico City against white gringos in Condesa.
That's how I'd summarize the far left position. The far right one is probably that migrants are bad. And I suppose the middle position is that there's a problem when immigration rate outpaces cultural assimilation.
After some quick googling I can't find any groups that support that.
I did find a poll that shows 64% of Americans support creating some path for undocumented immigrants to get legal status. I'm not sure you could call 64% a far left position though.
"Both sides" is a euphemistic fig leaf of an argument at best.
The same way DHH can have opinions, one-man-companies forking the sponsorship momey can have some too. "We" didn't decide anything, a sponsor company decided to stop sponsoring (with no public commentary), that's all that happened.
More to the point, "platforming" is an active operation, I think anyone can decide who they want to promote and why. It's fundamentally different from censoring.
However, people that espouse intolerance of others based on the colour of their skin is just objectively bad. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong side to things. The problem is that some on the political-right seem to have aligned themselves with policy or viewpoints that stand for hatred.
And to be clear, you can discuss immigration policy without being racist. In the blog post in question DHH gives his support to a convicted criminal, who is also a former member of an explicitly fascist political party and founder of an islamophobic hate group. That's not 'right-leaning'. It's support for a racist criminal. I'm unsure whether DHH is actually a bigot or just completely engulfed in the rhetoric common on Twitter these days. Either way he's a fucking moron pontificating on something which he has no actual experience of. Maybe when the US invades Greenland and starts deporting the Danes from the US he'll discover empathy.
is he actually US citizen or dual or just Danish?
The question is, does that even matter to the current regime?
It's the same thing, because the motivation for the immigration policy, per the people implementing it, is to avoid demographic collapse.
Generally too many people can also reasonably be considered a problem, if the intended solution to the social services problem is endless exponential growth. Especially on an island.
> (whom he can tell by looking at them)
There are different ethnicities of "white people" who can be told apart by looking. So "he can tell by looking" does not mean that he is applying a racial standard.
Your argument depends on a notion that English, Italians, Germans etc. "all look the same". But last I checked, people who would say the same about, for example, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans would be called racist for that.
damn, you are really catching the straws here to defend a racist
It's obvious he meant brown people or anyone that isn't white/european looking.
There is no genetically pure or distinct native British phenotye to set apart other europeans.
Europeans have been mixing themselves for centuries, he obviously knew what he was talking about (non-whites)
> There is no genetically pure or distinct native British phenotye to set apart other europeans.
Nevertheless, such ancestry can be reliably determined by genetic testing, and Europeans do recognize it by sight. https://blog.23andme.com/articles/23andme-adds-more-detail-f....
I strongly believe that low fertility causes immigration backlash because some governments try to maintain their population by importing immigrants rather than fixing the fertility issue and a low fertility causes the domestic population to be insecure (e.g. "replacement theory") in the face of the immigrants. Some immigration combined with sustainable fertility is the solution.