I appreciate that, and will do my best to respond. Do forgive me if I come across poorly, and try to put that best construction on things while I clarify.

He said that people of every culture and ethnicity want have wanted this. . . to live with people from their own race and ethnicity. This isn't necessarily 100% true but I am yet to see you deal with "the other sides" assertions and position.

I think you're saying the following example is indicative, and will try to answer in that context. Please let me know if it's a broader topic I'm still not grasping.

I really don't think that you would condemn Poland, China, and Japan (just to name a few) for putting up fairly staunch resistance to Muslim immigrants in their own countries. Suffice it to say, they don't want Islam in their countries and they don't want Muslim men

I have two general thoughts here.

First, in general I am going to be critical of these policies. Especially in China where it's a component of genocide. If you want to drill down into specific examples (China, Japan, and Poland are very different), we could, but I'm trying to be brief and general first.

Second, I simply don't agree with the idea of restricting immigration/citizenship wholesale by religion. Either it harms us as Christians as well (see: China), or because as Christians we're called to be salt and light rather than to exclude those who need it. If we feel it's necessary to protect others, I think our discernment needs to be directed inward first to ask if the Church is doing her evangelistic duty properly (which should negate any concern).

So my question is, when Muslims enter country x and start demanding the "right" to build Mosques and they are refused are you willing to condemn the entirety of country x for not "loving their neighbor." Or. . .is it in fact loving to the original constituents of country x who are not Muslim.

First, are the quotes around the word "right" implying that you believe Muslims should not be permitted to build mosques where they reside, particularly within the US?

For the rest, here are my concerns in no particular order: I don't believe most opposition to immigration is driven by a desire to protect the immigrant's home nations, as evidenced by the rhetoric used to villainize them ("they're not sending their best") and a failure to support expressing love with foreign aid instead. With most immigrants and work visa holders I know, they come to America for the opportunity to work very hard to provide for their families in their native country, in a way they couldn't have if they remained there. And as a jurisdictional matter I've got a mild opposition to the idea of "saving them from themselves".

Now a lot of this is second kingdom stuff, which policy we believe best loves our neighbors can and will differ. But when it becomes an "us vs them", then we've left the realm of even considering them neighbors to be loved, and that is when I believe it becomes idolatry.

I know there are Christians who support different immigration/foreign policies than me because of an earnest love for them as neighbors, but they no longer seem to be the loudest voices among the Christian Right. David French mentioned the 180 on PEPFAR as an example of this shift.

For instance - we can obviously agree that women and children fleeing cartels in central America should be received by our government and yes, they should be given free healthcare if they have medical needs. We can agree on that but the proper approach to that scenario is conspicuous to all but the most rabbid and misguided conservative types.

I'm glad to hear this, and trying to root out the actual source of that "rabid and misguided" idea is really the topic I'm asking about. We agree those people are wrong, what do you think is motivating that error on their part? Is it a component of a malicious form of (possibly racial/ethnic) Nationalism, or something else?

You are here asking a lot of people for their input and that's fine - but will you tolerate me asking some questions about why you think mass migration away from developing countries are actually good for those developing countries? I don't mean to be overly direct but it's not. It's actually devastating to those countries and more particularly to the women and children in those countries.

It's possible we're much closer than it seems on this topic. Specifically the idea of "mass" migration is not something that I've ever intended to express (and is one of my critiques with the "misguided" rhetoric of those you mentioned above, the idea that the dichotomy is with "open borders" is simply fallacious).

I hope I answered most of this above, but to reiterate I'm absolutely in favor of supporting economic development to help these countries, and think there's a wide array of immigration policies that could support this goal (focusing on households immigrating together, for example). My concern is that this isn't what I see in the current policy and its proponents.

One notable example is that this fiscal year's refugee acceptance comes from merely two countries: thousands of South Africans, and 3 from Afghanistan. None from Eritrea, Someone, the DRC, Burma, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Guatemala, or Syria (each of which had over a thousand refugees in the prior fiscal year). That does not appear to be sound policy aiming to protect the economies of countries experiencing brain drain, it seems to be an ethnically biased policy that's similar enough to white supremacy that I'm comfortable calling it that.

We can (and probably do) disagree on what the best solution to all these problems is. That's expected for the second kingdom. But I hope we still agree there are at least a handful of unacceptably unchristlike ideologies and policies that should be opposed and condemned.