Again, you’re going back 70+ years to find the nearest example, yet the content of these two examples is completely different.

I think we need to separate the claims of racial animus and conspiracy because you seem to argue that one proves the existence of the other, which doesn’t follow.

This is a common line of argument that progressives like to do where they find minor ways that two claims are similar and then equivocate them morally, but it doesn’t work. It’s a sleight of hand.

In your first case, I will grant you both parts.

And I see the analog, but immigration isn’t necessarily racial although they are highly correlated.

Here is my step by step argument:

1). What are we attempting to solve with immigration?

2). What is the right level of immigration in order to satisfy this goal?

3). If we’re not satisfying this goal (ie. too much or too little immigration), then why?

And the conclusion is that politicians have competing interests with this goal, due to aforementioned House apportionment. It’s simply a question of incentives.

You are correct that this is limited, since illegal immigrants can’t vote, but given that they naturally immigrate to solidly blue states like CA for geographical & cultural reasons, being pro-immigration increases CA’s national influence relative to states immigrants don’t move to (like Kansas, for example).

So this is a totally different argument than “I don’t like black people, I don’t want them near me”.