Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Crusade

If the first year of being an immigrant is bad, surely 400 years of being an immigrant is way worse.

No, you're hung up on a wider definition of "immigrant" than was ever intended by definition plus legislated statutory law. You are insisting that "migrant" and "immigrant" mean the same thing. Not in any non-woke definition are these words identical by definition.

Remember: woke is dead. It should have never been alive.

Which whites are supreme? Russians? Polish?

Definitely not Brits, Americans, or Canadians. Those whites are trash.

You are trying to engage ex post facto law, which is illegal by the Constitution [Article I, section 9, clause 3], which is an attempted statute that retroactively changes the legal consequences of an action, usually by criminalizing an act that was legal when it was done, or by increasing the punishment for a crime after it was already committed. Nope, can't do that here, which is also the reason why the Democrat effort of reparations is illegal. Ny6 the way, it is also potentially a part of Trump's appeal against his NY conviction, because part of the charges go back to 2014, before the addition that the NY legislature added to NY law 175.10 making a felony of what was a misdemeanor, but the law's change did not happen until 2015. Can't make retroactive law [that's ex post facto]. Apparently, the whacko judge in that trial screwed up his explanation of the law to the jury. Very convenient. Also really dumb.

Federal "Russians" are a broad Eurasian mix.

Poles a sort of Baltic-Carpathian mish mash.

Perhaps Western European North Sea types were once briefly supremely white as dictated to a large extent by the Northern limits of the Roman empire.

Pre-Rome it's difficult to say because most European proto-types are considered to be of Indo-European origin.

Perhaps like the Celts, supreme whiteness is something of a myth....Especially as we all originated from Africa 300,000 years ago.

And even with traces of Neanderthal, I'm not sure that there is any greater residue of supremacy.

Mid Wales then?

Hate is not the only response available to people who break the law merely by stepping over a line without following the law in doing so. No, I do not hate. That is not the only available emotion. I know woke has a singular feeling, but woke is dead. let alone past tense. How about fully living in the present?

Definitely not Mid-Wales. It's way too close to the Scottish white trash who taught American Negroes after the scottish trash invaded southern parts of the USA to speak like "dis" and "dem" and "axe" you a question, creating black trash all over the USA, whom even black africans shun. And the black Africans, being the lords of slavery, would know trash when they see it. In fact: historically, African warlords would ONLY sell to white trash. The best thing about Wales is that every road eventually leads out of it. Welsch are masters of sheep and rubbish; therefore: white trash. Welch is so bad their country's name became a verb for not paying your debts.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5721150/epstein-scientists-physics-virgin-islands-conference

read it SEE WHAT THEY DO

"hate" is not in my vocabulary. Get it? Yet? I say what I mean, mean what I say. Get it? Yet?

Not if they were born in the US. A descendant or child of migrants who has never been outside the US is native to the US. Can't really be native to a place you've never been. If you go back far enough, the Native Americans are from elsewhere too.

When did I say I oppose migrants?

I mean I agree with your overall point about migrants, I just don't think everyone other than a Native American in the US is a migrant. And not sure why Native Americans would be an exception cause they came to the Americas at some point.

Migrants = (this equals) offspring of migrants in USA

No migrants = No offspring of migrants in USA

Sure, I agree with this.

Native Americans are exception if they came there first.

A good chunk of them took land from each other. With how much they were moving around I'd say most living natives had migration somewhere in their past/ancestry by the time the Europeans arrived.

Once again, you use definitions that do not apply to the words used. An immigrant is one who goes to another country from the country in which they have been a member with the intent to become legally part of the new nation's society. This is not done by breaking that new society's law by stepping across the border without proper or legal behavior [checking in with a border agent]. A migrant is someone who crosses the border without the required behavior.

Where there is no official behavior required, such as was the case in 1625 on the shore of what is now MA, my ancestor was properly an immigrant. Today, there is official behavior required, and has been since the 1870s or 1880s. So today, the people for whom you want amnesty without a proper legal process are migrants. Get it?

So just allow people to come in legally, 

No sovereign country in the world today allows foreigners to enter completely unannounced and without some form of identity document or notification.

In 1625, MA was not a sovereign country, but, England did have laws to prevent destitute newcomers to colonies even then. My ancestor was not destitute, but came with sufficient funds to build and operate an iron foundry. Therefore, he was accepted as an immigrant, not an illegal migrant.

Migrants claim and build. Immigrants are forced to comply with assimilation or be deported by the original migrants.

Personally, I'm not against countries screening who enters and leaves. That said, I think right of movement is a prima facie right for a few reasons. For example, I think people should be allowed to trade with each other unless there's some utilitarian gain from preventing the trade (and even then, the ends might not justify the means). Freedom of association is also impossible if two neighboring countries each refuse to let their citizens enter the other. Additionally, I think allowing foreigners to enter one's property is probably a natural right, and I'd need to see a utilitarian gain before I would consider that to be justified. (This seems intuitive, since they seem like rights someone should probably have in the absence of government, and we probably wouldn't see it as justified for a government to define citizenship in a way that restricts these rights to most of its members.) We can go more in depth on this, but I think that it would be difficult to not consider freedom of movement a natural right without throwing a lot of other natural rights under the bus as well. So I'd support restricting violent criminals from entering and background checking people, but not worker caps like we see today.

Since immigration restrictions restrict freedom in a lot of ways and I really don't see them being a utilitarian gain, hence I would not consider them to be ethically justified. In an ideal world, legal immigration would be scaled up and illegal migration would be bad. But since we live in a less-than-ideal world where immigration laws violate natural rights, I could see it being justified to illegally migrate under certain conditions. For example, if you are living in poverty and illegally move to another country to work because you wouldn't be legally allowed to enter, I'd see that as justified. A bit akin to illegally protesting if freedom of speech were banned or illegally worshiping if freedom of religion were restricted.

Elon Musk is a good example of why immigration works in America. So is Melania trump a Slovenian model gets to marry Trump of German ancestry.

Elon had to assimilate to US crony capitalism while Melania had to assimilate to Trump.