In my forums, we've had unjust persecution most notably of blacks, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, and I seek to enforce the rules against that evenly.

You are right that uneven enforcement is a significant problem, and you are free to report any cases where you think I may have employed a double standard. Your present comment contains many different slurs so I bypass them all categorically rather than chastise any at the expense of others.

Remember, every single jew is a hypocrite

I see no evidence of this. I offered to help you work with no-racism forums because you implied you wanted to, but if you don't want to then it's your choice either way.

Since you ask, "Jew" is an ethnonym, but "white" and "black" are descriptive adjectives. Ethnonyms like Caucasian, Aryan, European, or African are obviously capitalized, but Caucasians don't seem to prefer those words for some reason, nor do Jews prefer olive or brown. As to words that various groups find offensive, I generally use equal treatment as shown objectively by dictionaries: both pejorative use and offensiveness of "jew" has far outranked either pejorative use or offensiveness of "white", and that's just a linguistic fact.

What I've admitted and accepted as true is that every nation has the right to self-determine its citizenship and ethnicity rules. We might say that whites have led the way in mercifulness to prospective citizens, even to the point of self-sacrifice (sometimes unrequited); so whites have not chosen to enforce tight citizenship and ethnicity rules lately. As a Constitutionist I've pointed out that our supreme law treats whites, blacks, and natives very differently, and that is still reflected when amendments are applied. It also seems that we've had the best methodology this year out of 250 years in terms of achieving better citizenship rules, so we might do best to press that advantage (even though we all know much more must be done). If you have a specific implementable proposal that's better than what we're doing right now, I'm all ears (obviously we know what your administration would do, I'm talking about what Trump's administration might reasonably be persuaded to do as a public servant being instructed by us sovereigns who operate via group consensus).

Add: Since you also pinged me in ConPro, you get the comment I drafted there without realizing you'd pinged me from where I was banned:

1. Racism is judging the innocent with the guilty, which is done when you defame Jews as a group.

2. Chosen by God involves two things: chosen for salvation means Christian, blood-bought; chosen for group blessings and/or cursings means a member of a group that has a demographic positive or negative tendency. In the second category, Jews, Israelis, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs, Jordanians are all "chosen" for various blessings and cursings traceable in Scripture.

So, yes, it mischaracterizes.

open dialogue about whether Supreme White Christians should allow Christ's killers into our nations

Let's have the open dialogue, without the illogical insertion of racism such as by charging people with specific Christ-killing who didn't contribute to his death (in any other way than we all did). Calling for open dialogue and poisoning the well at the same time is contradictory.

The [Conspiracies] forum rule is no attack, violence, or abuse. We can also have the meta dialogue about what those rules mean and how much they should be applied, I recall trying to start that dialogue last month but I don't recall you being very interested. If you think racism should be allowed under those rules, that's a different dialogue than discussing immigration.

not disqualify one side of the debate before the debate has hashed out all the evidence. We've already proven that mass migration invasion is jewish.

Rejection of well-poisoning, followed by well-poisoning. If you had stated it objectively as "26 Jewish/Israeli orgs support mass migration" instead of "mass migration invasion is jewish" (with loaded word "invasion", lowercase of ethnonym, presumptive close, and neglect of all other migration orgs in the world), that wouldn't have been well-poisoning.

The Jews didn't say what they'd do in the Protocols, that was Gentiles satirizing what they thought they saw the Jews preparing to do. Another presumptive close.

Having gotten past all the logic problems (which I point out in the fond hope that you actually want to be logical), you get to the core question of what reasonably implementable policy would be better than what Trump is already doing, for which I refer you to my previous comment [above].