This is just an ad hominem, to prove it, I shall call you ignorant too.

Next:

The right wing sees second order effects and acts on them.

I need white people on the right to testify honestly that a Mexican took their job or out-bid them on a rental or real estate. So I would need millions of them to say "Hey I went for this job at Costco, but some cheaper Venezuelan got it". Or, "Hey I wanted an apartment, but since there are so many Mexicans, they all just gobbled it up". So, what I need is testimonies of this.

The reason we don't get such testimonies is because the truth is nastier. The truth is, "hmm, its a little too brown and dirty and all crime-like in my neighborhood now days". This they will never testify to.

You've clearly only paid attention to ragebait. Because "integrated members of our society" is exactly what the right wing is interested in. But this is not what happened in recent years. The entire reason for the deportations is because they are not becoming "integrated members of our society" - it instead became "all crime-like" in places it wasn't before, and the correlation with the alien imports is just too obvious. It happened too fast and too much, and now the correction is just as hard.

"They are simply sick" and you're...... proving my point.

It’s hard to take this one at good faith. The right wing is very publicly melting down the CDC for glue while the second order effects of a preventable measles epidemic spreads through the country. Is there a more targeted claim you want to make?

I suspect that you merely dislike the authoritarian things the government is currently doing; I dislike that the government is authoritarian. We are not the same.

Slavery, segregation, women’s suffrage, child labor protections, labor rights, Social Security, interracial marriage, homosexuality, civil rights legislation, same-sex marriage, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, prohibition, environmental protections, public education expansion, healthcare reform, voting rights expansion, immigration rights, disability rights, reproductive rights, minimum wage laws, workers’ compensation laws.

> considered unspeakably cruel

You're not disagreeing on any pragmatic basis, just the emotional one. Like I said.

They could have said things like 'reproductive rights leads to X goods for the populace' or 'prohibition was a net positive in Y ways' or 'minimum wage laws are shown to improve GDP by Z amt on average' - but they didn't. They used an emotional argument. Like I said they would.

And 'wrong side of history' (bandwagon fallacy) and references to 'cruelty' (appeal to emotions) is really, really bad epistemology.

The Republican party traded logic for populism long ago.