I don’t think you can handwave that away by calling it “odd”. They very deliberately chose the word “imported”, because their warped ideas include the theory that “lefties” are deliberately bringing in more dirty NON white people on purpose, in order to deliberately destroy pure good white culture.
That’s their premise. You can’t just wave away the idiocy in that statement by calling it “odd” and ignoring it.
The whole document is FULL of stupid racist shit like that. You have managed to cherry pick a few nuggets out of a giant pile of festering shit so you can say “see!! There are some delicious cherries in here, so this pile is very tasty!”
::shrugs:: Every time I’ve gone to vote, one candidate has said some stuff I agree with and some I disagree with, and the other candidate has — done likewise; I don’t recall ever seeing a party platform that I could 100% agree with, there’s always a clause here and a clause there or whatever. If you think that makes me an apologist for both sides, so be it.
Once part of what someone is saying is very obviously racist, it makes no sense to interpret that stuff that could be racist as not racist.
You correctly note that the Anglo-Saxon culture line is not accurate. But you miss the next step: why do they believe it is accurate? The only place that sort of thing is taught is among white supremacists, and it is a very common white supremacist dogwhistle to avoid saying “white culture.”
If you can come up with an example of someone in modern times pushing for “Anglo Saxon culture” that is not a white supremacist, I will consider your argument. But, as is, it just looks like another example of the special pleading that often accompanies talk of racism.
Any other time, we say “where there is smoke, there is fire.” But, often with racism, we see the smoke and the people running and the debris and still claim it’s wrong to even suspect a fire.
Also, it doesn’t help that you were pushing the whole victimhood narrative. Before it was just some of your friends who was Republican. But now you were sure that comments about Republicans were referring to you.
::shrugs:: I’m curious to see what you’re on about: what would you have me say against them? Or do against them? List some specifics; let’s see if you’re right.
You seem to shrug off the wording when it’s problematic, yet make no mistake: this is carefully crafted. When it says “imported,” it means imported. And it’s not a quibble.
Similarly, “particularly without institutional support for assimilation” is NOT referring to illegal immigrants, unless you think this caucus is suddenly all for illegal immigration as long as there’s “institutional support” for assimilation." That would be a bizarre interpretation indeed.
There’s been plenty of research on this. I’m surprised you haven’t looked into any of it. Do you think people crossing the border without proper documentation are taking away American jobs? Let’s take migrant farm workers and the ironic twist that has them classified as essential workers but still subject to deportation:
Like legions of immigrant farmworkers, Nancy Silva for years has done the grueling work of picking fresh fruit that Americans savor, all the while afraid that one day she could lose her livelihood because she is in the country illegally.
But the widening coronavirus pandemic has brought an unusual kind of recognition: Her job as a field worker has been deemed by the federal government as “essential” to the country.
…
It is an open secret that the vast majority of people who harvest America’s food are undocumented immigrants, mainly from Mexico, many of them decades-long residents of the United States. Often the parents of American-born children, they have lived for years with the cloud of deportation hanging over their households.
The “essential work” letters that many now carry are not a free pass from immigration authorities, who could still deport Ms. Silva and other undocumented field workers at any time.
So they’re essential workers. But they could still be deported. Is that the “institutional support” for assimilation the caucus is for and that you seem to champion? If so, please explain.
You’re misremembering, of course. But, as it happens, that discussion is what prompted me to speak on my own behalf: at the time, I made true remarks about a Republican I know — and, man, did I ever get pushback from people who didn’t seem to believe it. Which goes nowhere; it sidetracks a potential debate about issues to instead bucket about claims that can’t be proven true. And so I figured, hey, wouldn’t it be more useful to relay my own beliefs going forward?
That they’re fucking unAmerican idiots who spread bullshit conspiracy theories and shouldn’t be trusted to make milkshakes, much less legislation in Congress.
So you agree with the statement, as long as you can add and subtract words to make it mean what you imagine it means? You think these are ‘quibbles’?
“foreign citizens are being imported en-masse” is the same phrase as “illegal immigrants are arriving en-masse”? The difference in wording that you’ve introduced is immaterial to the intent of the speaker?
Also, I’m struggling to understand what you find “sensible” about this paragraph. Still trying to understand the following:
That strikes me as an odd question; I certainly wouldn’t say that all of them are, but I wouldn’t say that none of them are.
The institutional support I have in mind has nothing to do with illegal immigration; it’d be part of the process of legal immigration. A would-be legal immigrant would (a) acquire citizenship via a path involving assorted institutional processes — you know, with testing and safeguards and et cetera, in hopes that they‘ok make the case that they’ll contribute positively to the country — or, y’know, (b) get turned away.
You seem to be equating their white supremacy with a policy position, as if it were on the same footing as “we support reducing the corporate tax rates.” These are white supremacists. You cannot support them, no matter how much you might agree with, say, their stance on infrastructure.
No claim was made that ALL of the people crossing the border are taking away American jobs. Thanks for clarifying that you don’t agree with a claim that was never made.
Do you think that the number of jobs being “taken away” by these immigrants constitutes a problem? Because that is how policy is discussed, by looking at the pro’s and con’s, and not thinking in terms of “ALL” or “ONE”
What again?
How much more open could it be?
In other recent news, Lincoln shot at Ford’s Theatre.
I heard it was actually Antifa that formed the openly racist caucus.
Again, show me a piece of legislation one of them puts forward, and I’ll tell you whether I think it should be rejected; but if you show me one I like, I’ll shrug and say actually, that one seems unobjectionable. And, hey, mention a conspiracy theory and I’ll tell you whether I think it’s bullshit; or ask me how I feel about someone who advocates for race-based discrimination, and I’ll tell you whether I think that’s as, er, unAmerican as advocating for open borders.
As “legal” immigrants we really aren’t interested in the types of people we need - people like migrant farm workers. The America First crowd is carving out a place for “good” immigrants - the educated. But America is one of the most educated places on the planet…we have plenty of people who are educated. What we don’t have is a lot of people willing to pick fruit or clean bathrooms. That’s been proven over and over again - “we” don’t want those jobs, someone needs to do those jobs, and then we demonize the people doing those jobs.
America isn’t the only place to have this problem, by the way. Its part of the problem with Brexit - many service workers in London were not British…despite there being a lot of British in need of jobs. And Germany’s Turkish worker problem is big as well.
Nations historically don’t REALLY want educated immigrants, because we really want immigrants who will do our shit work for little pay - leaving both good jobs and welfare benefits for “those that deserve it” - i.e. native born citizens, preferably with a few generations under their belts, that look like us.
Well, they should; any time I’ve voted for a Democrat, I’ve said the same thing I’ve said when voting for a Republican: Hey, look, I disagree with what they said about A and B — but I agree with them on X and Y and Z, and so here’s my reasoning.