People are being rude because you're being a dumbass.

> My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910.

The question of birthright citizenship was settled law for 40 years by the 1910s, so this is - unsurprisingly - a lie.

My entire point in this thread has been that nobody actually cares about birthright citizenship itself and it is a vector to oppose demographic change, which itself is not an allowed discussion topic.

So, for me to hold the views of an American in 1910 on this topic, I would be opposed to non-Europeans becoming a majority in America. Where is the lie? I never said anything about being anti birthright citizenship. You sir are morally triggered and cannot think clearly in this area.

1910's America with Jim Crow segregation, pre-Womens suffrage, pretty much peak wealth inequality with robber barrons?

America had a pretty decent sized fascist movement in the early 1900s.

America had a pretty decent sized communist movement in the early 1900s.

“Average”, son. Was the average American a fascist in the early 1900s?

The fascist party in the early 1900s was a fringe party. It existed and was considered a legitimate opinion, fine, but don’t act like the average American was anywhere near fascist.

What in gods name would blood and soil even mean when you’ve got Italians living next to Irish living next to Poles living next to English? You haven’t got any blood to fascism about!

> You haven’t got any blood to fascism about!

Like that stops people. Hitler hardly matched his own Aryan ideal.

> Was the average American a fascist in the early 1900s? … The fascist party in the early 1900s was a fringe party.

That’s equally true about Germany. As the sibling comment notes, it’s the era of Jim Crow and the female half of the country can’t even vote.