How has your local area changed due to immigration?

If you don't even agree that the context of situation influences how your language is interpretted by others and can affect others then this debate is basically futile. This is such a basic principle of human communication and it's truly baffling that you don't even agree with that.

The immigration debate affects the lives of other people, both immigrants and non-immigrants. That includes what people say in threads like this (which are part of the debate). If you want to deliberately ignore that debate to give a inflammatory 'non-biased' remark that is correct only by semantic technicalities then I stand by what I said earlier, you simply do not care for others.

On the contrary, I find it baffling that, although I’ve been as clear as it is possible to be that my answer is not a commentary on the broader immigration debate, you think it is still appropriate to interpret it as a commentary on the broader immigration debate.
I disagree with your view that giving biased answers is the right way to care for others.

If you use the language of the immigration debate in a thread that's part of the immigration debate then, naturally, your language will contribute towards the immigration debate.

Just because you say it doesn't (or shouldn't) won't change that fact. Saying 'but I don't mean it like that' doesn't magically prevent or undo the impact of anything you say. This applies more broadly to any human action, not just speech.

Being mindful of the context and how your words can be interpretted is the right way to care for others

using inflammatory language and justifying it by saying 'but technically I'm correct!' isn't.

I disagree with your second paragraph. Saying “I don’t mean it like that” makes it clear, funnily enough, that you don’t mean it like that. Which means there’s no reason why it’s still appropriate for others to interpret the statement as if you do.
Yes, and way to do that is to be accurate and clear about what you mean. Not to provide biased responses.
If you find something inflammatory even though it’s correct, that’s your own issue to deal with. It won’t stop being correct just because someone doesn’t say it.

That's not how communication and human relationships work. Your words can still impact other people even if you claim that they shouldn't, 'I don't mean it like that' doesn't give you a free pass to say whatever you like.

Your 'unbiased' response pays no mind to the immigration debate (i.e. the context this thread exists in) so, no, it isn't the right way to care for others. The language you're using is not correct in this context, it creates a scapegoat out of immigration.

If you deliberately chose to ignore the immigration debate just so you can give a 'unbiased' answer for the sake of it then you are most definitely not showing any care for immigrants (or anyone else, really, given that the debate affects everyone).

Yet you’ve still been unable to demonstrate or explain exactly how my words are “impacting other people” (despite not even being about them), or why “caring about other people” must involve giving biased responses.
Just because you say it’s the case doesn’t mean it’s true.

I've explained that already, several times, but right now the problem is far deeper. You don't agree that, at a fundamental level, the context of a situation influences how language is interpretted and that saying something akin to 'I don't mean it like that' doesn't automatically absolve people of any impact their words (or actions) can have.

These are core components to human interaction, if you don't even agree with that then it's futile to discuss this particular case; I could make any argument and it wouldn't make a difference.

I don’t see you having “explained that several times already”. Just vague claims that “language affects other people” (even if you’re clearly not talking about them).

That's because you don't agree that context influences how language is interpretted and that saying 'I don't mean it like that' doesn't automatically absolve any impact your words can have. My explanation is founded upon these two principles.

You haven’t provided an explanation, you’ve just made vague unsubstantiated claims.
You’re also confusing “is” and “ought”. Obviously context can influence how language is interpreted, but that doesn’t mean it should be interpreted in a way that clearly isn’t what the speaker meant.

It is an explanation, you just can't see it because you don't agree with two core principles of communication.

If you think it's fine to completely ignore the context of a situation, say whatever you like and then defend yourself with 'I don't mean it like that!' when people push back then... sure? But that doesn't stop it from being bad communication and that can be harmful.

It’s not that I “can’t see it”, you haven’t provided it. Just saying “that can be harmful” doesn’t spell out how it is harmful.