[AinderS]

As much as I appreciate the article trying to stem the tide of racism by pointing out the El Paso shooting, I don't think such arguments are fruitful.

Firstly, that shooting doesn't mean immigration is good for the US (or, let's be blunt, for whites in the US), just as the lack of such a shooting wouldn't mean immigration is bad.

Secondly, an opponent could simply point to (anecdotal) murders perpetrated by immigrants as a counter-argument (well, counter-ad-hominem, since the El Paso shooting isn't really an argument for or against immigration). And in fact many publications do just that - the Daily Mail, NY Post, and Fox News to a lesser extent.

In the end it boils down to who can shout the loudest, regardless of the underlying truth. This might not be the case if they used statistics, but they prefer emotionally-resonating anecdotes, which, in a country of 330 million, are meaningless - you can find anecdotes to fit any preconception.

So what I would suggest is using arguments where truth, not just volume, provides an advantage. Instead of merely calling replacement theory "false", substantiate that with demographic statistics, showing that nobody is being "replaced". Anything less is simply yelling "nu-uh" - completely unpersuasive, and much more ineffective than manipulating people with cherry-picked crimes.

Unfortunately journalists are notoriously allergic to statistics, so we have little hope of laying this "debate" to rest.