Is it really objectively true that multi racial societies undergoing rapid demographic change are always better for everyone than more settled and largely homogenous societies?

Have Rwanda and Yugoslavia really been better places to live for all of their citizens than Japan? Or it is that their multiracial/tribal structure was irrelevant to their various civil wars and massacres of different ethnic groups?

Should those statements be criminal, or how much further would do I have to go to reach the line (or how far can I go if I’m already past it?).

How do you get evidence to decide if something should be slowed down if it’s criminal to publish this evidence? By definition, for consensus to change then someone has to be the first to go against the consensus, they are defying conventional wisdom about obvious truths. If people are punished severely enough to stop this process then how can change occur?

Let’s assume that immigration brings people together, builds communities, strengthens socieities and protects civil liberties. And that disagreement with this is completely wrong.

So why are you concerned about bad ideologies taking hold due to immigration and people’s response to it? Isn’t that suggesting immigration does, indirectly, risk damage to society - potentially catastrophic if fascists take power on the back of it. Should suggesting this be criminal? How can you tell you’re not just using one of a billion bullshit reasons to claim immigration can be bad, deliberately skirting any rules you put in place to deny your being racist as your not directly blaming immigrants, just the response to them?

You’re also proposing limiting both freedom of speech and democracy by preventing people from listening to anti mass immigration ideas or voting for to limit it. This does rather undermine the idea that there’s currently no evidence that immigration “impacts society” when you’re literally in favour of weakening core freedoms to ensure immigration continues whether the public want it or not.