What what about citizens who don't have those things? There are plenty of homeless and/or destitute people around.

That's why this is a class issue.

And then look at the racial make-up of those on the lower rungs of the class system.

That's why this is a race issue.

He’s talking about people who are outside the system - who don’t have access to banks, don’t have a permanent address, internet access, or a phone. Some combination thereof, and which prevents them from fully participating in society, as well as making it difficult to receive a stimulus check.

> Yes it will have a strong racial bias in it's outcome but does that make it racist?

Functionally, yes absolutely?

If racially biased outcomes just somehow keep happening, "racist" is absolutely a correct English word for that phenomenon.

The most common meaning of "racism" in conversation is "acting based on the race of some person / group of people".

Immigration policies can (should) be discussed without taking into account people's race, and still lead to racially-biased outcomes, simply because the majority of immigration-seekers have a race that's different from the majority of people in the target country.

What's your opinion on Israel only allowing ethnic jews to immigrate? That would meet your definition of racism.

It is racism, textbook racism. They're deciding who to let in based solely on race, that makes it racist...

If that were true I'd agree that is racism.

I don't think this is the case. I don't think the US bases immigration policy even partially on race.

Some nations leaders are a threat and their people are going to have a harder time but that is not a race issue. For example a North Korean would have a harder time than a South Korean yet they are the same race.

Isn't there some value in having terms that differentiate between policies design to hurt a given race and policies that hurt a given race as a by product?

To me it seems similar to the difference between murder and manslaughter. Intent seems to make the crime more morally wrong. Neither are good but they are seen as very different things.

Perhaps my understanding of the word is wrong but if it is I feel that English is missing the ability to express an important nuance if that's the case.

If it's racist to treat people differently in a way that affects people of some races, than anything less than open borders (allowing anyone to immigrate for any reason) is racist. If you don't support open boarders, you're either a racist, or that definition of racism is too broad.