We can list them here and then over time add any suggested improvements. And of course we'll be looking for additions as well (please!). Those can be edited into the original post as they are put forward.
What we should end up with is a list of common opposition cliches and their suggested counters. What would be fantastic is an army of outraged SJWs turning up in the thread in person. But, sadly as we all know, that's extremely unlikely.
There is no particular order or hierarchy, I'll just start off with a few I can remember myself. And again, these are not precise, just the framework. These first few are ones that the other side obviously feel are show-stoppers, one can almost detect the smugness when one encounters them and it's all the more satisfying to see them fall flat on their faces afterwards.
(1) Original comment: I don't care what colour or race people/immigrants are, black, brown or whatever.
Response: Great, you'll have absolutely no objection to a whites-only immigration policy because, as you've said yourself: You don't care about colour. All black, all white, all [whatever] it's all the same to you.
- This one is a gift really because if you do get an answer it's going to be some kind of tacit admission of favouring non-whites over whites and explaining, somehow, that race is important after all and they do care what colour people are. In which case you are free to attack their hypocrisy without mercy and imply their backtracking as weakness.
(2) Original comment: We've always had immigration from [names of European nations] so I don't see why it matters if there are people from [names of non-European nations].
Response: So you're saying we already have diversity, why do we need anymore?
- This one is more slippery and open-ended but the first simple response may well shut them down straight away and it's meaning is clear. However if they're clever they may notice that their original statement never mentioned diversity at all in which case you'll have to work a little harder, but don't help them by pointing that out obviously. Now you can insist on discussing European diversity and it's they who will have to repudiate diversity in some sense. If they come back for more then most likely they will end up trapped in the impossible quagmire of trying to explain the benefits of a multiracial society or avoiding the minefield of IQ & human capital. Like that ever works.
Response: Good point, it's the mass immigration of hostile foreigners that dispossessed the Native Americans.
- Usually the initial response will have seen them off first time. I did once have somebody come back with the argument that the US was a nation of settlers but now it's a nation of immigrants. Of course now they've got to explain when the switch happened, how it's in the interests of the settlers descendants (our posterity) etc. Again they are right back to justifying the current mess.
(4) Original comment: Immigration from Asia and Africa is payback for Empire.
Response: Thanks for your refreshing honesty. No BS about enriching us with diversity or multiculturalism. Just an admission that mass immigration is an attack on the native white population.
- I'm not sure anyone has ever come back to me on that one, so far it's worked every time. They could start qualifying it in various ways but that's still putting them on the backfoot, undermining their own original comment. If they still want to claim that mass immigration is actually a benefit to us and is still payback then, reciprocity and all that, we can argue that imperialism was good for them. Then there all the examples of nations which didn't have Asian/African empires but still get the payback. And what about the Ottoman empire and it's European slaves, where's our payback
(5) Original comment: Muslim immigration from North Africa is payback to France for colonising North Africa.
Response: Who invaded North Africa first, the Muslims or the French?
- This is one is obviously a variant of (4) and it's fantastic, no easy way to come back from that.
(6) Original comment: Ted Kennedy, not the jews, opened up the borders of America, blame him.
Response: Kennedy was the front man for the bill. He was too drunk and dumb to have written anything of the sort. He was either threatened, bribed or blackmailed into being the face of the bill.
The bill was written by two Jews, Javits and Celler and then pushed by the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe.
The bill was written by Norbert Schlei who was Jewish, and its official name is the Hart-Cellar bill; Emmanuel Cellar spent his entire career in Congress as a leader in opposition to immigration restriction, beginning with his hostility to the 1924 law which enshrined quotas favoring Northwestern Europeans. One should also mention the role of Jacob Javits in the Senate. As soon as the bill was passed, Jewish organizations focused their efforts on increasing the numbers of immigrants. Ted Kennedy may not have lied when said the bill would not change America. But in conjunction with the later efforts of Jewish activists, demographic change was inevitable
(7) Original comment: There are no White countries
Response: What right do you have to deny people the right to their own lands? Land is finite – population size is not. Only White countries are being made to suffer your genocidal hatred against my race