OK ... and it's clear that at least some of the folks on this thread are of the same opinion, so the comparison at least sticks to them on that point.
I want the F@CKING law enforced.
OK, fine -- so do I -- but the question for you is: if you think it does not pose a danger to the US, why would you want/need laws about it in the first place? And if you do think it poses a danger, what separates you from the Know-Nothings in that particular regard?
No...I've seen no person on this thread say that we should have no immigration, period; that was the position of the know-nothings. My position on immigration is that I'm against unlimited and uncontrolled immigration, which is what we have now.
Surely you do not advocate unlimited and uncontrolled immigration, do you?
Anything done to nonsensical excess is harmful. If we can agree that unlimited immigration is undesirable, we can then discuss how much immigration is desirable. Tony's article stifles intelligent discussion, it doesn't promote it. It's a bad faith effort. When Tony uses the phrase know-nothing, he gives credibility to those who say he doesn't distinguish between illegal immigration and legal immigration.
To the degree you echo his argument, the same is true of you.