That's not my assumption, but thanks for offering. > framing the argument in general terms is clearly specious. No. It is a general argument because it applie

That's not my assumption, but thanks for offering. > framing the argument in general terms is clearly specious. No. It is a general argument because it applies to everyone, everywhere, no matter your skin color or country. If you had two potential immigrants, identical, and from the same country, would you not pick the one with a solid work history? Would you not pick the one saying "I'm looking forward to a great new life in <Your Country>" as opposed to the one bad-mouthing it? Which one would you assume would get the most value out of being there, someone who hated it, or someone who loved it? > a thinly veiled and obvious proxy argument against Muslim and Indian immigration into Europe, itself a proxy argument about maintaining white racial and ethnic homogeneity. No. You obviously just watch the USA news about Europe. For one, the actual racists aren't concerned with Indians. So you're just out of touch. There is racism, but ... it's complex and interwoven and generally more about the countries you traditionally fought against rather than some simplistic color spectrum. The USA is odd in that almost all racial strife comes from the Indian wars and slavery, both populations of which are internal and visible. In Europe you have silliness like Greeks hating Turks and vice versa, but being essentially indistinguishable by others. But there is a huge "invisible" backlash against unrestricted Muslim refugees. Invisible because it's not the far-right narrative you hear. It's progressive people. For gay marriage, racial equity, etc. And they don't want religion bans or anything, but they do want ideology tests. For instance, there's near 100% support for asking "Do you respect women as the full equal of men, and could you follow the orders of a female police officer?" or such. The recent terrorists would have been blocked by such a screening. There is an obligation to take in refugees, but not to do so blindly. If you do take in a known criminal, perhaps jail them while they await the chance to return to their home country... Your attitude is insultingly out of touch to, for instance, the victims and families of the UK child sex scandal. It's not a happy fact, but it is a fact, that 97% of those arrested were Pakistani. If you call that racist you crap on the victims, and you crap on all the non-rapists who should have priority over the criminals. Similarly, to pretend that Europe hates Muslims craps on all Muslims (the vast majority) who don't chop off the heads of people they disagree with.