Ridiculous.

Do you mean people who speak English as a first language, or people that support the UK?

I don't understand what you're saying, do you mean that democrats would react differently if the families separated by trump were from Europe? Or are you asking if trump supporters would react differently?

Anglo: a white inhabitant of the U.S. of non-Hispanic descent

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anglo

Though that aptly answers your question, I will continue connecting the dots for you.

If you are a white inhabitant of the U.S. of non-Hispanic descent the likelihood is high that you or your ancestors originated from Europe. Heritage is a big part of our American identity, since we are a nation of immigrants. Many of us are proud of our bi-cultured backgrounds. Though, we have our feet in this country, we still have an ear open to hear diverse conversations and opinions. I find that ability remarkable, and it's what will keep us from becoming an isolated, protectionist country.

So, my question is, if you're an Anglo-leaning DUer who has an understanding of their ancestral cultures, what would be the response if Trump targeted your ancestral country and began massive deportations and child separations?

Don't understand the leaning part, but I think you mean any not Hispanic white folks. I don't think people would be more or less upset if the people were from Europe or from central america. It is horrible whether the people speak Spanish or English. Or Dutch or German for that matter. Or slavic or eastern European.

I think of Anglo as being English speaking people or people descended from the UK or great britain. But I think you just mean A general name for any non Hispanic white looking person.

A du er with an understanding of their ancestral culture might think of themselves as Celtic or Irish for example, and very much not anglo. So I think you question is if it was Irish immigrants being treated that way would the person who identifies as Irish feel differently? Or would Anglo identifying person feel differently if it was British immigrants? Maybe if they really identified strongly with it it might feel more personal to them. Or do you mean if it was any euopean? Like would the du er who identifies as Irish care more of it was Italian immigrants or German immigrants i slavic immigrants etc. than if it was central american? Because I don't think they would. I think they would be upset either way. You are asking people who are in d u, it would probably be a different answer if you were asking white supremacist somewhere.

that Anglo means white, non hispanic.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anglo

Today we have to learn how to step in each other's shoes.

I asked the question because I wondered if the outcry would be different. I think the answer was, that there would be a larger outcry, but it wouldn't change anything.

And a friend. I think it is. More complex word than that fwiw, just like Hispanic is a more complete word than a dictionary definition. And just like the word Hispanic is an American invention that doesn't have meaning outside the US, that particulAr definition of Anglo is specific to the US
-

Our fAmily story was always that we had a native American great grand mother, and also a native American in my father's side, too. But my wife and I did DNA tests and it didn't find any native American in me. But mine did have some Irish. From my family history in the south it couldn't have been the Ellis Island sort of Irish immigrants , it had to be earlier, but indent have any English at all. Not a drop. My wife had a bit of English but not any Irish at all. So I guess our children are Anglo leaning and Celtic leaning, lol.

But our family stories wouldn't tell it like that and we wouldn't even know it like that withe t the DNA, so unwound have thought I had a special place for native American people. That's why race is so messed up. It is all about what you think and what other people looking at you think, and that is what makes it real, not the biology. So there may be some people who would care more if the immigrants were from whatever race or ethnicity they identify with, but most lolled were not OK with it at all.

I usually call myself a latina, but I know that Merriam was grouping me up in the "Hispanic" term.

Yes, that's confusing.

I haven't done a DNA test, but I think I might in the future. I don't know about the limitations for privacy for those tests. A friend of mine took one and discovered that a perfect stranger had a 99% match. It turned out it was his son by an old girlfriend that never told him about him. I just don't know how it got to find out about the boy, when it turned out that the boy didn't want anything to do with him. Not because he was bitter, but because he played no part in his life, one way or another.

That is a crazy story to find out he had a child he didn't know about! For what it is worth I bet eventually that the boy will want to know about him because he was curious enough about his history to do the dna test in the first place. It was probably just too much at once...

I know a of people were worried about the privacy, but I wasn't really. You don't have to give them your real name if you don't want to.

just one subgroup of DUers, whoever "anglo-leaners" are.

My immediate ancestors are German and Dutch, and I also don't lean "anglo" in outlook, though I enjoyed watching the last royal wedding, so by any interpretation my response would warp the intended pool.

sense to me and this issue.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anglo

families from their children is a more than horrendous act. The only cases where that should be considered is in cases of our home-grown child abusers with careful investigation.

is that it appears that many people who are standing up to protest against Trump's immigration policy appear to be Anglo-Americans.

And that matters, because I believe that the rest of us have had our voices diluted.

all answers are responses, yet not all responses are answers.

Yours was certainly a reponse.

What was your observation about how that panned out?

was passed on JFK's death.

This is from the 1960 party platform.
Immigration
We shall adjust our immigration, nationality and refugee policies to eliminate discrimination and to enable members of scattered families abroad to be united with relatives already in our midst.

The national-origins quota system of limiting immigration contradicts the rounding principles of this nation. It is inconsistent with our belief in the rights of man. This system was instituted after World War I as a policy of deliberate discrimination by a Republican Administration and Congress.

The revision of immigration and nationality laws we seek will implement our belief that enlightened immigration, naturalization and refugee policies and humane administration of them are important aspects of our foreign policy.

These laws will bring greater skills to our land, reunite families, permit the United States to meet its fair share of world programs of rescue and rehabilitation, and take advantage of immigration as an important factor in the growth of the American economy.

In this World Refugee Year it is our hope to achieve admission of our fair share of refugees. We will institute policies to alleviate suffering among the homeless wherever we are able to extend our aid.

We must remove the distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens to assure full protection of our laws to all. There is no place in the United States for "second-class citizenship."

The protections provided by due process, right of appeal, and statutes of limitation, can be extended to non-citizens without hampering the security of our nation.

We commend the Democratic Congress for the initial steps that have recently been taken toward liberalizing changes in immigration law. However, this should not be a piecemeal project and we are confident that a Democratic President in cooperation with Democratic Congresses will again implant a humanitarian and liberal spirit in our nation's immigration and citizenship policies.

I.e., Europeans were brought in anyway - by the very "lottery" that Drumpf has now threatened to eliminate.

Here is yet another article -

always will.

The restrictions against non-Europeans were "lifted" in 1965, but then the rules were changed (per my series of links) to expand the total numbers of immigrants allowed visas while other fingers (those in Congress) were put on the scale to promote Europeans immigrant visas in the lotteries.

What HAS changed, as I noted in my earlier post, is that with the creation of the EU in the 1990s, there is more impetus (and convenience) for Europeans to immigrate to OTHER European countries (like powerhouse Germany, although Germany all but refuses to grant them citizenship) rather than to try to get into the U.S.

Similarly, Ireland made itself a tax haven, which allowed all sorts of U.S. corporations (notably pharmaceutical companies) to move their HQs there, which had helped stablize its economy (at least in the short term).

immigration ever since.

and the fact that what was the 1965 Immigration Act has been altered and will continue to be altered. This is 2018 now, not 1965. History has moved on and the "spirit" of what was done in 1965, has been undermined since.

where some who were here after major disasters like Haitians who suffered under the Duvaliers and that terrible earthquake, are being summarily deported.

Of course those are the ones who actually made it to land. Others were allowed to drown.

Except for a few trolls and lurkers, all the Anglos who post here are already horrified by what this administration is doing. It doesn't make any difference to us where the victims come from. If they were doing this to Europeans, we'd feel the same.

I wanted to see if there was something else that would be done, that isn't happening now. And, no, I'm not talking about a violent response. I was wondering if there would be more organized outcry between the ancestral country and Americans who lived here.

White Independents might get more agitated. A few white Republicans might express "concern".

But there is a core group of white nationalist Republicans who is up for anything Trump orders, so long as it's sufficiently cruel.

If Trump can convince his base that the Russians are good, he could certainly convince them that the Irish (or Polish, etc.) are terrible.

And as long as he holds on to his base, he effectively controls the entire Republican Party (and,for now, the Congress).

So, in sum, everything that can be done, is being done.

Thank you for your response.

the thought of them going after irish immigrants? there would be blood in the streets.
can you imagine? little ginger babies dragged away from their freckled mothers? it would be a nuclear level explosion.
all but the most hard core dittohead would erupt.

Ireland's immigration history is still very recent. The sores of discrimination are still raw.

I know a few. Here in San Francisco, we get a lot of Irish students every summer on J visas. Some of them don't quite make it back.

They don't seem to fear ICE in the way darker-skinned people do. They still try to be circumspect and out of the light, but the massive fear isn't there.

nearly impossible for dark-skinned people to communicate their experiences with discrimination.

Just nearly, because the black community does galvanize for political survival, and has done so successfully many times.

Quite a bit of hay is made over "No Irish Need Apply" in our history, but as a fifth generation Irish-American, I can safely say we're just plain white people these days.

These days, it feels like a crutch racists use. "Well, the Irish succeeded, so if they can . . ." Because that's so difficult when you look like everyone else. Nowadays, Asians are the favorite crutch. "Well, Asians are doing it right and succeeding!"

Yeah, about that . . . https://www.facebook.com/WellRoundedLifebyattn/posts/663030550695382/

they made it as cops because they could police their brethren.
and they made it as politicians because they could bring out their brethren there too.

Having a centralized religion made centralizing the population for maximum power much easier than for other groups. Whenever the Irish were getting unruly, "Talk to the bishop." And it's totally ironic, because the Irish were some of the most racist buggers ever when we first started coming over. They were rioting and lynching blacks on the regular during the Civil War. A lot of it had to do with labor competition for the low wage jobs in the North.

But that certainly wasn't all of it.

Very concise pov regarding Asian stereotypes.

tight knit community here.

I'm from there, and there are so very many. And you're correct. The community protects them fiercely.

protecting undocumented immigrants who are arriving from South of the border.

It really is hard to determine. It's something you don't want to delve too deeply into it, because you don't want to expose the underground railroad.

Where the protections are more limited to family and close friends rather than the community at large. Areas of strong Irish cultural identity like Chicago's Southwest Side are very geographically concentrated.

The Latino community is more divided on the issue. I think there's this feeling of community loyalty that many of us assume politically, but it doesn't really exist as monolithically as perceived. There are plenty of Latinos - and I have some in my own family - who resent undocumented immigrants. They feel they themselves worked hard, put in the time, learned English, and achieved citizenship. Undocumented immigrants "impugn" on their own achievements. They're getting the "easy" path, after they worked so hard.

If you look at the numbers from 2012 and 2016, Clinton lost 5% of the Latino vote. Trump's racist populism just didn't have any impact there.

And part of that is why.

I also suspect it may be regional. I think in places like California and big cities with large Latino populations, you'll see more avenues of protection for the undocumented. But in other areas, where Latinos have melted more into the societal pot, you see more of this resentment and unwillingness to protect. Part of it, I think, also has to do with labor competition. They worked hard to be here and struggle to find work, and now they're competing against others who they feel waltzed on in free and easy.

This dynamic hasn't been explored too much. I think it's partly because white liberals and Democrats have a kind of condescending/patronizing attitude of the situation out of ignorance. We just kind of assume all Latinos are in it together.

Eh, not so much.

As a latina who grew up on a diverse military base I can confirm that there is a mix of opinion between Americans with latino backgrounds. Black, too. I have spoken to many of my high school friends who, like me, do not have any white in their genetic make-up. Assimilation is a funny thing. When I talk to them, it's like talking to Alex Jones. They have completely assimilated to the Southern white culture. Crazy, stupid.

The ones that concern me the most are the ones that work in the DOD. Because it tells me that the source of this infection that never seems to go away, is deeply rooted in the marrow of our military agencies.

So far, at least in the articles I've read, if you look at the names of the officers accused of abuse at the detention centers, the last names have been Latino.

I think that speaks a bit towards what you're saying.

Here in Philly, there is apparently a big network of "sanctuary churches". Last week, I actually drove past one (I wish I could remember where), that had a big banner on the front lawn that announced that they were a "sanctuary church" for immigrants.

I found this link for one movement here (not sure if the church I saw was part of this or doing their own thing independently) - http://www.sanctuaryphiladelphia.org/

This is not unlike what the Quakers did here in Philly during slavery, via use of their residences, farms and their Friends Meeting Houses (i.e., the "Underground Railroad" ).

IriSh descendents would be more upset if it it was Irish immigrants? If so, I agree that I think they would identify more.

bait.

I think it's a mistake when people think that we can only come together if people are required to stifle their views. Maybe it's possible that you think that you know how this conversation is going to pan out, but that will keep you from reading the new points that might make our cohesion more solid.

papers. Skin color should be NO concern whatsoever.

First, our Constitution allows everyone to come to our borders asking for asylum, so your statement is not accurate. What everyone on the Right seemed to miss is that the majority of them were returned to their country.

Second, If you want to broadbrush Trump's immigration policy, why isn't he going after everyone else? This point is moot. He's obviously fluffing the racists on his side of the political spectrum by going after the dark skinned undocumented immigrant.

I don't think your first applies to what Beachbum said. He wants everyone to have to follow the documented legal process. Your first point was the right to seek asylum, which is part if that legal process. If they are seeking or received asylum, then they would have the documentation and legal status Beachbum wants.

For the second, are there significant numbers of undocumented immigrants from other ethnic or racial groups that are being ignored / 'given a pass?'

I don't want to defend the orange idiot but you seem to be making an argument that the immigration laws are being selectively enforced along racial lines. I don't think that is the case. I think it is more a case of immigration laws being broadly harshly enforced because of the racial composition of almost all those in violation of those laws. This might seem like splitting hairs, but the latter is far more difficult to prove in court.

I haven't seen the legal argument so I don't have the eye to see the difference.

the whole point of his immigration crap is to target people of color and muslims. he's never going to target norway, in fact he has specifically called norway out as a non-sh*thole nation we should find more immigrants from.


so what would my reaction be if he suddenly targeted england or italy? if would initially be baffled, then i would probably guess that he felt he needed a bit of a pretense to pretend that his overall immigration crap wasn't incredibly racist, so he sacrificed a few white people, reluctantly.

Trump will have his own reality show in prison, explaining what was going on in his mind. In the end, it probably comes down to taking bad advice from bad people. But he does it the Trump way. Going through life working his golf game while he only half listens to the conversations going on in his environment.

I never got the impression shrub was a nice guy, and he was certainly content to surround himself with scum. But I did get the sense that there was some decency and humanity in him that trying to find a way out.

Not with Donnie. I don't think it's bad advice from bad people, although I'm not denying that he gets bad advice and has bad people around him. But with Donnie, it's all him. He *is* bad people. And I most of his ideas are his and no one around him dares to point out his bad they are.

One of our daughters, who I guess is "Teutonic leaning," since despite being a US citizen since birth, was born in Germany to a German mother, and counts German as her native language, seems in no danger of being a target for deportation--so far anyway. Maybe her being "half-German" will make her a target of some future Republican terror pogrom, but since she is blonde, has an Anglo name, and speaks English without an accent, they'll have their work cut out for them identifying her.