The following is written by @therealpolina, and compiled by GoneNovaAU/Dark Futures for easier reading. Any added emphasis is mine.
Or does “Alt Right” mean “White People Will Not Give Up Our Power to Define What Is and What Isn’t American”?
As opposed to what? The masses of foreign nationals who willingly violated the border that is the majority of illegals? The same people low enough to have brought their children or had children once inside the country hoping to use them either as a legal loophole for claiming benefits through, or an empathetic argument in order to remain?
As opposed to what? The citizen has no right to determine who is a citizen and who is not but the non-citizen should. Fallacious self-importance built off horrible historical meta-narratives. Unless you wish to apply this to all. But that makes your statements about whites hypocritical from your own perspective. Unless it’s just dishonest bargaining in a bid to tie up and halt any argument with a non-point. Hypocrisy or intentional stalling in non-argument?
Unless you’re arguing for a reconquesta your statements have no purpose. Even if you are you’re arguing it, that only holds up within a specific time frame that you have decided arbitrarily. A view harder to maintain in the face of modern identities, unless you wish to argue the very recent creation of the countries south of the US are not just that or because of the mixed race of so many that they get precedence.
And again, as opposed to what exactly? People who did not know of the Enlightenment? The European philosophies upon which the country is based? People who had little advanced concept of a state? People who did not conquer and build a US themselves? I’m a mixed. An early settlers family, heretics from Europe, and a recent immigrant family from Mexico. You want precedence by chronological snobbery and cherry picking? Then I claim superior precedence. And you do not want to go that route.
Strange argument. Arguing against ethnicity as a decider while arguing for ethnicity as a decider.
Sum total null.
Arguing against citizenship as a decider while arguing for foreign citizenship as a decider.
If the borders do not exist then the country is rendered but a suggestion afforded by the indifference or kindness of others. And the more my indifference and kindness run out, the less I care about “the exceptions”. Not our fault peoples parents thought so little of them as to use them as legal and emotional heft for their benefit. You want an argument of shortsightedness? Arguing against the definitions of the country while claiming to be trying to gain citizenship, you know, while trying to render it totally null as meaning anything. Self-interest masked as a caring attitude for others, the empathetic argument, is the most disgusting and dubious of positions.