… as including only people like themselves and no others.
Very well said there @bump.
Really? I have used Happy Holidays for decades, including on line, sending many dozens of cards- both paper and emailed- and never a demur. That is old news, that idea occurred a couple decades ago with Jerry Falwell in 2005.
What does the “war on Christmas” have to do with the OP?
Did you somehow miss the post immediately preceding the one you’re quoting?
Agree with @LSLGuy that @bump expresses it will.
Again @crowmanyclouds no one here is arguing that there is no bigotry against a variety of groups in America, to different degrees in different ways. The discussion here was the contrast to many other nations.
Yes even some very insular groups are eventually mostly accepted as American, having enough “elements overlapping with the common whole” even if that element is just having been here for generations. These neighborhoods are not a change and change is what threatens many here. That is less tolerated in many other nations (with exceptions). Even if they are simultaneously shoving people into those relative ghettos.
Far from perfect here clearly. Jews, not even the ones under discussion, still get the “clannish” and “dual loyalty” tropes applied commonly. There were segments of voters who didn’t trust Romney based on his being a Mormon. JFK’s being Catholic and possibly at the Pope’s command was an issue. So on
Honestly while anti-Islam bigotry and hate exists, no question there, calls against hair being covered by Muslim women, or calls to prayer, are not mainstream, and objections to many conservative Orthodox Jewish practices are at least as prevalent.
ETA-
Jews, mostly well assimilated, and modestly of higher population numbers than Muslims, are the target of hate crimes 8 to 9 times as often as Muslims. I don’t think that is your sense of it.
A Tennessee state representative running for governor said he would work to ban mosques and what he described as “pagan religions” — including Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism — if elected, arguing the First Amendment does not prevent states from doing so.
Any sitting politicians currently running for office pledging to make Judaism illegal? Niemöller would understand this for what it’s foreshadowing.
Meh.
Unfortunately many who curry favor of those who praise Hitler and deny the Holocaust. But more to the point - Monty Fritts came in third of three in a Tennessee Republican primary, where anti-Islam sentiments are likely the highest. Not exactly mainstream.
Again, you have Trump normalizing Islamophobia, so there is no shortage of it out there. But no banning the religion is a fringe belief that comes in last even among Tennessee Republicans.
And realizing how far astray this is going. I’d apologize to the OP, but, well … 
LOL, good point.
Yeah, we should drop this.
There’s also a certain “Baghdad Bob” element where aspiring GOP politicians say absurd, unworkable, and obviously unlawful things that aren’t meant to be taken seriously, but rather are intended to rile up their base in a sort of “way things ought to be” sense.
I have some doubt that this guy really thought that he could legitimately ban “pagan religions” despite the fucking First Amendment saying it, and being the supreme law of the land, as defined through decades (centuries?) of case law and legal decisions that even though the wording says “Congress shall not…”, it doesn’t only bind Congress, but the entire Federal governments and the state governments as well.
But it plays well for him to say that nonsense, because he thinks his base believes pagan religions should be banned, solely for being non-Christian. (there’s an element of profound ignorance in a lot of evangelical circles about other religions and even other branches of Christianity, but that’s for another thread)
Now it looks like maybe he overestimated their ignorance, but nonetheless I don’t feel like it was a serious proposal.
Going back to read the whole thread soon, but getting my initial thoughts out there (as a pro-immigration person who thinks both major American parties are too oppressive and xenophobic on the subject).
I don’t think there’s a limit to how many should immigrate here, but on how. Specifically, individuals and families simply moving should never be illegal. I’d allow for some background checks maybe, to prevent fleeing (non-political) fugitives, or the rare quarantine during the worst pandemics. But otherwise let them come, spread about the country, and become our fellow Americans. As immigrants have done for centuries now.
My limit would be end-of-Rome style bands of thousands, or a hundred thousand, foreigners, many armed, and with their own political and military leaders, who carve out a little region of America for themselves. And of course, actual, real invading armies (which are arguably different than the Late Roman Gothic or German migrations, though with similar disastrous effects). No, a “caravan” of a few dozen poor folks from Guatemala doesn’t count.
Not only do humans migrate, as a basic part of our nature (you’d do as well to pass a law banning fish from swimming, or birds from flying), but it’s economically a very good thing too. More people increase our country’s pool of skilled workers, consumers, entrepreneurs, etc. And it’s good for the same reason free trade is good. In fact, trade isn’t free, if the most important economic resource, people, can’t freely move throughout the world themselves.
And while I’m no libertarian, there is a libertarian argument to be made too (though the self-labeled Libertarians would hate the idea for some reason). If I as a business owner want to hire someone, who the hell are you, unrelated third party, to tell me I can’t, simply because of where they were born? Similarly, if I want to sell or rent my home to someone, why should a bunch of strangers have the power to tell me I can’t, simply because of where the potential buyer or renter was born? It’s asinine and antithetical to a free country.
Precisely.
If a day’s work pays $200 in country A, and $50 in country B, equilibrium should quickly be reached: people will move from B to A to get those better-paying jobs, and the companies in B will either increase pay or go out of business, and the companies in A will pay less as their pool of applicants increases. That’s a free market at work!
But if you trap the workers in their own countries, then the companies in A will pay less or go out of business. Meanwhile, the companies in B will maintain their low prices, as workers can’t move to get the better jobs.
And if money can move across borders, companies will all just open businesses in B, closing down in A. Welcome, unionized factory worker, to your new job as a Walmart greeter!
Border control is a socialist marketplace for corporations.
You actually compare the MAGA method of mass round-ups, concentration camps, and denying pretty much all visas and green cards, with what the Democrats did - which was follow the law?
Not the actions, but their stated policies. Dems want to ban immigration and deport people too. They’re just not as violent and hateful about it, and prefer to follow written policies than sic roving bands of brownshirts to attack and apprehend anyone brown. Obviously the GOP is worse, but I don’t think “nicer, friendlier” mass deportations are a big improvement.
Not even Trump wants to ban immigration.
If I understand you correctly …
Said another way, the Overton window on electable immigration policies are more restrictive than you (or I) would prefer.
That still leaves a vast gulf between what the D party platform has been and is today versus what the R party platform has been and the MAGA platform is today.
The rest of the pile-on over your comments seems an unjustified knee-jerk to me.
No, they do not. (But yes, deport criminals)
While we wait for Congress to act, President Biden has used his authority to provide orderly,
legal immigration pathways for those fleeing violence, and decrease the number of illegal
border crossings. The Biden-Harris Administration established a humanitarian parole
process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV), which allows people
from these four countries who have a sponsor in the U.S. and who pass a background check
to come to the U.S. for a period of two years to live and work lawfully…As outlined in the U.S. Citizenship Act, Congress must act to increase the number of
family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visas that arCongress must pass legislation to provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers,
farmworkers, careworkers, and other long-term undocumented individuals who contribute
to this country, by paying taxes and contributing to their local economies, e available each fiscal year
so that people aren’t forced to wait decades for a visa…
Of course he does. What are they arresting people for, if not for immigrating when it is illegal? (In the best case scenario – I know they’ve arrested plenty of legal immigrants and even American citizens too.)
“Illegal immigration” = “banned immigration”.
That’s a very odd definition.
How would you change it?