Read it and weep:
I figured that it was meant to guide off the stuff of the citizenship oath: isn’t the idea that, y’know, immigrants who come here legally renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which they’ve heretofore been a subject or citizen — instead vowing to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, as well as agreeing to perform work of national importance and thus and such? That strikes me as the stuff of political unity; and that’s why we can have societal trust in programs that can bail out our fellow citizens — such that enough millions of illegal aliens, having done the opposite of that, would make it that much harder to pitch solutions that wind up helping out folks other than our fellow citizens while they fail to contribute positively to the country they haven’t vowed to support and defend and et cetera.
Why do you think that millions of immigrants living in the US have “done the opposite” of protecting and upholding the Constitution?
Did they stage an attack on Congress in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election or something?
I’m sure there was at least one immigrant participating in the attack on Jan 6, someone will find that person and use that as an excuse to insist that we close our borders and deport anyone who looks swarthy.
The vast majority of immigrants, both documented and undocumented, would make as good or better Americans then the average American, by my experience. In general, immigrants are harder working, more entrepreneurial, and more devoted to the country - pretty much by definition. The majority had to go to serious effort and take major risks to get here. Welcoming most of them regardless of their documentation would make the country wealthier and stronger (meaning there should be borders and border controls and it should generally be relatively easy to immigrate, and rejections should generally only be based on criminal or terrorist behavior/sympathies or similar). The only reason, aside from butt dumb ignorance, to oppose this, would be the desire to keep America majority white.
That right there should be the totality of the US immigration policy. Borders and border controls to protect the country from actual threats, otherwise welcoming people.
Not using Franklin’s definition of ‘swarthy’ of course!
Oye como va mi ritmo
Bueno pa’ Gosar, ¡mulata! 
Here is a history of the term “Anglo-Saxon”, as used by racists in the US.
A “new message”?
WaPo quasi-humor columnist Alexandra Petri interviews the America First Caucus:
Opinion: We are the Anglo-Saxon caucus! Let us have maethlfrith! Let us have drihtinbeage!
“make America Geat again” is hands-down the best phrase in that article, or possibly in all of recorded journalism.
Apropos of which, Dr_Paprika, I’m a little disappointed that your article didn’t mention the recent quip “it’s not a dogwhistle, it’s an anglosaxophone”.
Would have been Aethelred, but he wasn’t ready.
What a bunch of Cnuts.
It’s an Anglo-Saxon Klaxon.
A kkklaxon.
I haven’t heard that, but it is funny.
I heard the price of pandemic tinder is three times higher than normal in Canada, so possibly more in the US. And it wasn’t cheap to build a mead-hall before… (hangs head)
Lood sing “Goddam!”.
If we’re going that route, may I suggest “Lhude sing cuccu” (“Loudly sing, cuckoo!”).
I don’t like this. It has the potential to make Lewis Carroll look racist.
Anglo-Saxon Attitudes - Wikipedia.
Carroll had his issues, but racism, as far as I know, wasn’t one of them