[jhowell]

> I do think there's a gray area between immigration generating diversity and immigration serving the same ultimate purpose as invasion.

At what point did you stop being the invader and become the invaded? Conceivably, someone could have held the same sentiment about someone more vunerable in your lineage whose efforts leave you where you sit today. I favor giving that person a chance and not labeling them an invader. I believe that's what's outlined in the rulebook here (the United States for me).

> At some point you go from becoming diverse to being supplanted. Immigration rates high enough to drastically change the culture of a society within the lifespan of one human being can be catastrophic. It naturally creates division and strife.

This line of thinking, positioning and labeling I consistently find troubling as it leads to violence against minorities justified by often false, purposeful anecdotes without consideration of the policies and practices that cause inequality. That's catastrophic.

[betwixthewires]

>At what point did you stop being the invader and become the invaded? Conceivably, someone could have held the same sentiment about someone more vulnerable in your lineage whose efforts leave you where you sit today.

Yes. There are those in the US that still regard the mass migration onto the continent of the European settlers as an invasion.

>This line of thinking, positioning and labeling I consistently find troubling

I agree, but 1) this line of thinking will always occur, and has occurred in native populations in every instance of mass immigration, and 2) whether troubling or not, in at least some scenarios is the correct analysis of the state of affairs.

You cannot decide what people think no matter how hard you try, and you cannot ignore something if it might very well be true just because you find it troubling.