Not if you have to wait and see whether the Democrat will be more worthy of your support than the white supremacist.
Typical wishy-washy, winks at replacement theory without articulating it right out. In other words, all of the asshole and none of the balls.
Sounds pretty fucking racist, which it is, considering where government financial aid is actually spent in this country. This country was populated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by immigrants who found their own ways. And by the way, there is “institutional support for assimilation”, as shitty a word as “assimilation” is in this context.
If you’d like to debate whether we should change where government financial aid is spent, and how much, then I am of course amenable.
Uh, okay.
…good?
Big loud referee whistles.
Just so we’re clear, I think most folks would agree there needs to be open and honest discussion about immigration policies.
Now to get to the original premise of this post;
Do you agree that the document linked above is a document that uses white supremacist themes and language ("Anglo saxon architecture?) in order to appeal to white supremacists?
Or will you continue to alter the language in the document to make it more palatable, and ignore the bits (large chunks) that are obviously racist?
You seem to be taking an odious document, and trying to change it into a reasonable discussion of policy platforms. Admirable of you to be sure.
I stopped being surprised quite some time ago. I fully expected this. Within five years it’ll be most of the party. By 2030 the Republican Party will be openly and unapologetically fascist and white supremacist.
All of this would be fine except for, well, the fact that
- It’s all bullshit
- You cannot exclude the “Anglo-Saxon” part, and
- If you apply even the tiniest sliver of thought to looking at context, it’s obviously an open call for white supremacy.
The reason it’s all bullshit it that literally no one is calling for borders to be done away with, or for people to be “imported en masse,” or for people to not assimilate. Anyone with an IQ above single digits can see this for what it is.
The platform is appallingly stupid and evil. Try opening your eyes.
I would.
Well, look, if someone proposes a policy I disagree with, and proposes a policy I agree with, and uses language to appeal to white supremacists before rattling off three or four positions I disagree with and then mentioning one I agree with, I’ll gladly express disagreement if I’m asked about the parts I disagree with, but I’ll express agreement whenever if I’m asked about the parts I agree with.
Heck, if you and I disagreed about literally every topic except the right to a jury trial, and someone asked me about your position on the right to a jury trial, I’d say, well, yeah; I’m not going to abandon that just because he’s in favor of it. I’m not inclined to abandon any position I hold just because someone else says the same.
Wait: literally no one? Are you just exaggerating for effect, or is this your point?
This is not an accurate reflection of the America First Caucus’s position.
They value the Anglo-Saxon culture part at least as much as than the positive contribution part.
As such, America’s legal immigration system should be curtailed to those that can contribute not only economically, but have demonstrated respect for this nation’s culture and rule of law.
While certain economic and financial interest groups benefit immensely from mass immigration, legal as well as illegal, and the aggregate output of the country increases, the reality of large segments of our society as well as the long-term existential future of America as a unique country with a unique culture and a unique identity being put at unnecessary risk is something our leaders can afford to ignore no longer.
Even if legal immigrants can contribute economically and increase GDP, that’s not good enough for them.
It’s racist bullshit through and through and your (@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper) argument that it seems sensible ignores the America First Caucus’s core values.
They are not sensible. They are racists who are barely even trying to cover their racism with drips and drabs of ‘sensible’ rhetoric.
Exaggerating for effect. This is not a serious policy position held by the Democratic Party or any member of it of any public note. I am sure that there is some second year student at a liberal arts college somewhere who, when halfway through the blunt, says “Let’s, like, not have any COUNTRIES, maaaan” but d’ya think that’s who the Republican Fascist Caucus is talking about?
No but that’s the one they’ll quote and hold up as an example of the entire Democratic Party.
You do realize that’s not what exists now, right?
And what are your criteria for deciding whether “they” can benefit “us”?
“Anglo-Saxon architecture?” Somebody want to tell Texas these people don’t want the Alamo? And can I watch while you do?
Wait, she’s Beowulf? I thought for sure she was Grendel’s mother.
Grendel wishes you wouldn’t spread such ugly rumors.
Yeah, the current system isn’t my ideal; if you’d like, we can discuss how you think it should be changed, and how I think it should be changed — and we can even cover your criteria as well as mine for the following:
Personally, I’d start with the idea of evaluating an applicant on whether they can reasonably be expected to cost us less money than they’ll make for us: if there’s evidence that a given applicant will be a law-abiding citizen who’ll wind up paying a big enough chunk of taxes for us to come out ahead, great. Oh, sure, sometimes we’ll turn out to have gotten it wrong, and the costs will outweigh the benefits after all; but I figure we can get it right often enough, and learn from our mistakes on review to tweak specifics.
This is not good enough for the America First Caucus. For them legal immigration requires demonstrated respect for this nation’s Anglo-Saxon culture.
Well, I did say “law-abiding citizen” right when I was talking about whether they pay enough taxes to count, minus the costs, as contributing positively to the country. What, specifically, do these folks ask of would-be immigrants other than contributing positively to the country and obeying the law of the land?
I would say the first critical thinking problem here that you have is taking the statement that “immigrants are being imported en masse” at face value, with absolutely no facts or data to back it up — nothing more than your visceral impression of ( and reactions to) pictures of crowds of dark skinned people at the border.
Unless you can prove that statement, and prove that Americans are allowing in more immigrants than they have previously — you’ve got nothing.
Here’s an exaggerated example. Suppose I make the statement that
“If it is proven that face coverings cause cancer, the Democrat’s insistence on mask mandates constitutes the greatest public health failure in history. Their ignorance and suppression of scientific data is criminal and the individuals that enabled this should be prosecuted. A commission needs to evaluate the role of the CDC and consider disbanding it. We also need to explore any political conflicts of interest that enabled this travesty”.
This entire paragraph rest on the truth of the first sentence. If it is demonstrably false, it totally and completely negates the rest of the paragraph and there would be absolutely no justification for the suspicions and actions laid out after the first sentence.
This is a common tactic of people trying to sell bad ideas, and it frequently works, especially if the argument and evidence is long-winded. I saw this in action IRL when I watched and discussed a documentary about the evils of dairy products. The author laid out some fallacious arguments about how dairy, not sugars or processed foods or anything else, was the true cause of the societal epidemic of obesity and heart disease. Then the documentary attempted to find conspiracies by outlining Dannon’s record of giving to charities fighting cancer and heart disease.
In the discussion afterwards, the participants saw through and dismissed the medical “evidence”. But some of them still thought there was something fishy about Dannon’s corporate giving, and I had to point out that if the first argument (that yogurt was a health scourge and the manufacturers were engaged in a cover-up) was false, then there was absolutely nothing nothing suspicious or untoward about Dannon giving money to the American Heart Association and the Susan Komen Foundation.
I would also add that you seem to have preconceptions about immigrants, the kind of false preconceptions held by people that haven’t met many immigrants. I would go so far as to say that if Republicans met most of the immigrants I know, they’d be welcoming them with open arms…in general they are pro-capitalist, anti-welfare and really big on the philosophy of personal responsibility.