There is something particularly bizarre about something that would normally be considered an outright invasion (mass immigration of various ethnic others into one's own territory) being perceived as so totally 'normal' to the extent that you're somehow the 'bad guy' for calling it out for what it is.

What's the use, for example, in the Irish opposing the Black and Tans just to submit to the blacks and browns? What's the use in becoming independent from a group who at least are similar to you, only to throw away that independence to various groups, whose very cultures and lifestyles are so different that their entrenchment necessitates destroying yours?

Leftists seem to sincerely believe that 'things are different' and that this once commonsensical logic no longer applies in our cosmopolitan era. What a joke. If the Irish ethnic group disappeared due to effectively being replaced by immigration, how is that morally any different from simply killing them outright? The outcome—the elimination of an entire people and culture—remains exactly the same. A different method was used to reach the same outcome, but it is that very outcome that is bad, not the method used to get there. That would be like Israelis claiming that large numbers of non-Jews moving into their country doesn't have the same effect that killing large numbers of Jews does. What's the difference? Israel wouldn't be a Jewish homeland either way. Ethnic minorities can be even more damaging than occupying armies or WMDs—Hiroshima went from a ruin into a city in the same time that Detroit went from a city into a ruin. Yet almost everyone would say that nukes are much worse than blacks.