> Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Absolutely. Few things to note here: 1. The topic of immigration is a valid political discussion

> Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Absolutely. Few things to note here: 1. The topic of immigration is a valid political discussion with a large amount of studies done from the perspectives of science, economics, and even ethics and philosophy. Taking a stance in it is a political stance and that conversation is crucial to progress. 2. That said, it's not a valid comparison to what was actually being mentioned in my comment which was religious or non scientific views getting a free pass to masquerade as political stances. Those were the ones I said that don't deserve a seat at the table 3. To expand on the discussion of what's valid to be at the table though, immigration is a valid topic. "No people of a certain ethnicity should be allowed to immigrate because they are bad people" is not a political stance. That's a baseless bigoted view that pretends to be a political stance. That can be shown out of the room. 4. One last thing on above. There are close but grey line topics related to the above statements that should be part of discourse. Eg - people from certain areas of the world have a higher risk of being radicalized than others prior to immigration. Statistically provable. Good science. Worthy of discussion. Making the outcome of that "ban everyone of the given ethnicity from that area" though is the kind of discussion we really need to stop these days.