Now that President Trump has condemned “white supremacy” for the 80th time in his first term, is it still okay to oppose the infinite numbers of unvetted migrants illegally crossing our southern border?

At the White House on Monday, Trump addressed the two mass shootings over the weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. The former was perpetrated by someone who was apparently obsessed with “unchecked corporations” engaged in a “takeover” of the U.S. government, the automation of jobs, and also an internet theory about a deliberate attempt to replace native-born white Americans with immigrants.

You’ll hear almost nothing from the news media about those first two prongs of the shooter’s deranged motivations because they can’t be explicitly tied to Trump. That third one about the immigrants, however, is everywhere and, naturally, is already being used by Democrats and liberals as a way to hush up anyone who objects to the United States functioning as a welfare net for all of Central America’s sick and poor.

Just look at the very first paragraph of a Washington Post story published Sunday evening about the El Paso shooting. Keep in mind that this is a news story, not an opinion piece:

President Trump has relentlessly used his bully pulpit to decry Latino migration as 'an invasion of our country.' He has demonized undocumented immigrants as 'thugs' and 'animals.' He has defended the detention of migrant children, hundreds of whom have been held in squalor. And he has warned that without a wall to prevent people from crossing the border from Mexico, America would no longer be America.

Three paragraphs later, the story, by Philip Rucker, says “the question surrounding the president is no longer whether he will respond as other presidents once did, but whether his words contributed to the carnage.”

Ah-ha! There it is. So the president’s legitimate warnings about hundreds of thousands of migrants dumping themselves in to our care, needing food and medicine, all courtesy of the American taxpayer, might be to blame for the nearly two dozen people shot dead by a maniac in El Paso.

That’s what the media have been pushing for years now. Somehow, it never pans out.

The guy wrote in what was allegedly his “manifesto” laying out his motives that his views on immigration and all the rest of his obsessions “predate Trump and his campaign for president.” He explicitly said that he blamed both Republicans and Democrats for mass immigration.

And yet the New York Times worked itself into a sticky mess attempting to link the shooter to the White House. The paper’s editorial board declared Sunday evening that the country has “a White nationalist Terrorist Problem." Even while acknowledging that the Trump connection was essentially nonexistent, the New York Times still put forth that “white nationalism has attained a new mainstream legitimacy during Mr. Trump’s time in office.”

How is that? Because, the paper said, Fox News hosts sometimes talk about problems caused by the obscene numbers of foreigners overwhelming our border. And remember, Trump sometimes watches Fox News! That's as strong as the argument gets.

Democrats and liberals want to shut down the immigration debate because it's not a winning topic for them. And what better reason to call it case-closed than a mass shooting by a lunatic preoccupied with automation, corporations, and immigrants?

Okay, well, Trump has said the magic words and, once again, condemned “white supremacists.”

"In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy,” he said at the White House.

Great, we’ve checked that box. There’s no reason now that normal people can’t continue opposing the influx of Central Americans bum-rushing the border.