You’ve got that exactly backwards: I’m saying that we shouldn’t, upon hearing someone say something we agree with on one point — say, dogs — give them any extra credence on another point — say, Nazism. Or to put it the other way around: it’s like, upon hearing that a Nazi likes dogs, saying that, oh, well, then, now you no longer like dogs.
I trust you wouldn’t do that, as I’d hope you’d instead reason that one has nothing to do with the other.
Why then, are you ignoring the openly racist garbage as spewed by the “Anglo Saxon political tradition” caucus?
This is the WHOLE POINT of this thread. I mean, kudos to you for hoping to open a logical discussion of immigration policy. But the racist spew in the “Anglo Saxon political tradition” caucus is not a good starting point IMO.
But you seem to keep skating around that.
Once they reveal themselves to be white supremacists, then ISTM we should seek to expel them from decent and polite society. Apparently there’s no white supremacist red-line for you, which says a lot about you. If I’m wrong, please let us know.
Metaphor:
Someone finds a gigantic stinky pile of dog turds on their lawn. Laid there by a neighbor’s dog. They are disgusted and call us over to comment.
One dude bends over and claims to have found a chocolate chip in the fetid pile. “ohhh look” he says, “There is some yummy goodness in this pile after all!”.
“No” we reply, “we don’t think we should eat it.”
“But don’t you like a nice chocolate chip? There are different recipies for cookies we could discuss.”
“No, we’re discussing the pile of dog shit put there by some asshole”
“Why don’t you like chocolate chips? A good recipie is to use butter and the right kind of flour”
Boebert’s married name is Dutch. Gosar’s last name is Slavic. They aren’t Anglo Saxon.
Well, yeah, because they aren’t using the word in any historical sense. They’re using it like it’s used in WASP.
Hmmmm… What could it be that they are referencing with the “Anglo Saxon” term then? That’s a real puzzle.
They just mean non-Hispanic, non-Middle Eastern, non-Jewish White.
I love how they claim that America is the only true Anglo Saxon country. I wonder what that makes England.
Well, I do agree with that.
I am so stealing this.
Does that mean that nobody, whether or not already a citizen, can bring their grandmother, or their child with medical conditions?
How about if the person with medical conditions is an excellent poet (not a field that generally makes money)?
– I could go on; but I agree that this seems to be a distraction from the main issue in this thread.
Define “respect for this nation’s culture”.
It seems to me that the people claiming our culture is “uniquely Anglo-Saxon” are the ones who are failing to demonstrate respect for this nation’s culture.
Why should that be the question?
If somebody’s a willing torturer, murderer, and kicker of puppies, they’re a terrible person. If they’re hanging around with other terrible people, that doesn’t make them less so.
(Aside from everything that’s been said elsewhere in this thread about being unable or unwilling to tell poison from anchovies.)
Most kids will agree that anti-freeze tastes better than broccoli.
I just noticed that my editing got totally screwed up.
Should have been within quotes to indicate that it came from the Screed, it is definitely not from me.
Since Chicken Tikka Masala became England’s national dish, I suppose the Racist Pig-Fuckers Caucus considers them…tainted.
Are you serious? Culture and the rule of law are clearly two different things in that line. Why pretend that they solely care about the rule of law? What do you get out of that?
If they just wanted legal immigrants who contributed economically and respected the rule of law, why do they reference culture over and over?
There’s a difference between, “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,” and “America’s legal immigration system should be curtailed to those that can contribute not only economically, but have demonstrated respect for the rule of law.” That difference is important and you are posting as if the second when they clearly said the first.
“It’s not too racist if you ignore the racist stuff,” is one (incredibly ignorant) way to look at this, I guess.
Look, all I’m saying is that Hitler doesn’t think that Jews have a place here. I don’t think that Jews have a place here, either. So, maybe we should listen to what else he has to say.
Furthermore, basically no one, in either party, wants legal immigrants who don’t respect the rule of law. Basically no one, in either party, wants legal immigrants who don’t contribute economically (with the exception of dependents of those who contribute economically). The only difference between the America First Caucus and everyone else is they want demonstrated respect for Anglo-Saxon culture to be required for legal immigration.
It’s straightforwardly racist (if you don’t ignore the racist parts).
How are current immigrants any different than past immigrants?
One group of immigrants was a danger to the lives and culture of those already living here, and engaged in massive amount of human trafficking.
The other group is looking for a job.