I’ve been careful not to, because the point isn’t to argue a side, it’s to discuss how valid political arguments might be suppressed due to wrongful accusations of, e.g. racism or alleged violations of terms / codes of conduct.

To be clear I agree with your first two paragraphs. It’s only the third which alleges that you’re correcting a belief I have, that I do take issue with.

So I think again you’re reading into what I wrote too much. Why beat a dead horse, but the point there is to recognize that e.g. “immigration policy” is necessarily going to impact populations that are predominantly of a certain race and/or national origin. But crucially, it’s not racist to think that a country should have a border or debate how set immigration policies are enforced along that border. It’s not racist to examine sub-populations which are moving illegally across the border, e.g. to examine the prevalence of drug running, human trafficking, or gang activity within that sub-population, or to examine the share of that sub-population that is currently charged or has been found guilty of committing a violent crime versus other populations such as legal immigrants or natural citizens. This is just basic sociology.

So that’s what I mean by “sensitive [political] topics” that happen to involve race and national origin.