> But you're making yourself the arbiter of what can and cannot be debated.
No I’m not. I’m saying there are topics which are disenfranchising which may offend or threaten a person. If I am offended by such speech (either personally or through a friend or family member) I may react appropriately. My goal may certainly be to silence this speech, but that does not make me an arbitrator does it?
[dead]
You misunderstand (or perhaps I am the one that misunderstands). I don’t have the authority to silence speech I find offensive or hurtful. I can only speak out and hope the other person takes the hint. That’s not really how arbitration works is it? (unless I’m misunderstanding what an arbiter is).
Imagine if Trump announced tomorrow that debates on workers rights were off-limits because they were a threat to the very existence of job creators. And then he tried to even make it illegal, to create a culture where anyone who talked about unions positively was immediately fired? Would the left recognise that as a legit strategy and go, oh ok, I guess if he says shutting down debate in that case is legitimate then it must be?
Of course not. You may not rule your pet topics off-limits for debate. Ever. On anything. Countries that try that in even mild ways have endless problems, though they may not immediately become apparent.
debating the rights of disenfranchised people
Look, I am an immigrant. I have been for 15 years. And I know that until I become a citizen I am a guest. Not a "disenfranchised person", a guest in another people's homeland. Until they make me one of them via citizenship, I have to respect that and act like a guest.
Your (genuinely) devil's advocacy on immigration is that there should be no limits on it, at all. This has become a common theme on the modern left, but why? It's the same as arguing that if a guest is invited into someone's home, then they can immediately turn around and invite whoever else they like to stay in that home as well, whilst expecting the hosts to accomodate everyone without limit. It's not physically or financially possible but it's also morally wrong and a bizarre attack on the very notion of guesthood.
If your stance is really brutal you shouldn’t be surprised if some people—who may have their or loved once lives threatened by that stance—want to “cancel you”.
But nobody is having the lives of their loved ones "threatened" by any of the stances you outlined, which is why people react so badly to this kind of rhetoric. Not being invited to live in a new place is not a "threat", it's not even taking any action at all - it is passive. And for those who ignored the laws and principles of immigration, being deported is only a "threat" in the same sense that society saying you will go to prison for fraud is a "threat" - we use different languages for the consequences of lawbreaking because of the different context in which such "threats" happen.