Told by leading Government politicians that they pose an "existential threat" to the West's way of life, that they are part of a "hurricane" of mass migration, that MPs feel "besieged by asylum seekers", and that asylum seekers are "invading" Britain.
We should reflect on what we say and what we do today before we exercise any moral entitlement to condemn the atrocities of the past.
The language we use today matters.

Transphobia and antitrans statements should not be treated as just another viewpoint that we should be free to express at the happy table of diversity. There cannot be a dialogue when some at the table are in effect (or intent on) arguing for the elimination of others at the table. When you have “dialogue or debate” with those who wish to eliminate you from the conversation (because they do not recognize what is necessary for your survival, or because they don’t even think your existence is possible), then “dialogue and debate” becomes a technique of elimination. A refusal to have some dialogues and some debates is thus a key tactic for survival.

We also believe that we should have the power to assist voluntary repatriation, that the dependents must be counted against the limits on numbers, and that the total should be further reduced. ... Without the measures outlined, those of us who have studied this question at close quarters are increasingly fearful that an intractable racial problem will be introduced into Britain and may become endemic if we are not careful. This, in our view, must not be allowed. Therefore it is time to bring this problem into the open and not be afraid to talk about it. Those who speak about it in a responsible way should not be charged with racial prejudice.

Because for all the back and forth of Washington, we have to remember that this debate is about something bigger. It’s about who we are as a country, and who we want to be for future generations. Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future? Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms? Or are we a nation that values families, and works together to keep them together? Are we a nation that educates the world’s best and brightest in our universities, only to send them home to create businesses in countries that compete against us? Or are we a nation that encourages them to stay and create jobs here, create businesses here, create industries right here in America? That’s what this debate is all about. We need more than politics as usual when it comes to immigration. We need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears.

I worry that this incredibly important and incredibly difficult conversation about race and policing has become focused entirely on the nature and character of law enforcement officers, when it should also be about something much harder to discuss. Debating the nature of policing is very important, but I worry that it has become an excuse, at times, to avoid doing something harder.

Some of our opponents cannot help putting ourselves in the extreme right corner in the immigration discussion just because we draw attention to the danger of parallel societies in connection with immigration. That, dear friends, is the pinnacle of mendacity, and one such hypocrisy will collapse like a house of cards in front of people. That is why we will continue to demand regulated control and limitation of immigration.

To be told that we ought not to agitate the question of Slavery, when it is that which is forever agitating us, is like telling a man with the fever and ague on him to stop shaking and he will be cured. The discussion of Slavery is said to be dangerous, but dangerous to what?...Discussion is the very life of free institutions, the fruitful mother of all political and moral enlightenment, and yet the question of all questions must be tabooed.

Immigration is everyone's business: it is one of the most important national issues. The idea that it is too dangerous to be debated is a mockery of democracy. It is too important not to debate.

Why project an alien [racial] discourse onto the distant Indian past?

On a more general level, the debate is about whether there is something in the nature of research about Indo-Europeans that makes it especially prone to ideological abuse-perhaps something related to the fact that for the past two centuries, the majority of scholars who have done research on the Indo-Europeans have considered themselves descendants of this mythical race (Arvidsson 2006, p.3).

I would dare say that today this species is facing a very real and true danger of extinction, and no one can be sure, listen to this well, no one can be sure that it will survive this danger. Well, the fact that the species would not survive was discussed about 2,000 years ago. I remember that when I was a student I heard of the Apocalypse, a book of prophesy in the Bible. Apparently, 2000 years ago someone realized that this weak species could one day disappear.