CATO Institute had a big IMMIGRATION AND NATIONAL IDENTITY survey, April 27, 2021

Much of the property was taken and there was a large amount of initial site preparation done. Dirt roads for future construction were created including cutting into several of the dike structures needed to minimize flooding during our brief but severe rains. A small amount of actual fencing was installed but since nowhere were any of the sections joined up the result has been pointless destruction and lots of erosion with absolutely no positive benefits.The costs to remedy the damage already done will equal or exceed what was spent already.As mentioned above lots of the damage will take decades to recover; the damage done to the environment is real and unfortunately we will not know the full extent of damage for several years if not decades.AbE:Also, the whole stupid border wall fiasco diverted funding where it really might have helped by increasing the capacities of the current border crossings as well as increasing the services available to handle people bypassing the overloaded current infrastructure.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

I think your "point" is already sufficiently cluttered and confused.

Perhaps we should spend the whole thread on responding to lies?That is what I have had to do.He said I was saying Democrats were in favor of amnesty.The Trump Presidency thread was full of Percy and me arguing, and I was attacking Democrats for being a deportation party.PaulK is a dishonest disruptor.I ask that he be removed from the discussion.

quote:

---

You keep on bringing up dishonest irrelevancies to clutter and confuse the point

---

That more accurately describes your behaviour.

quote:

---

(You started participating in the thread, by simply quoting Percy's dishonest evasions of my evidence, in The Trump Presidency Thread. I quoted Hillary Clinton telling Christiane Amanpour, in 2014, that she would d er port the children held in custody. But Percy continued to lie)

---

I entered the thread to correct your misrepresentation of Percy’s post, providing links and placing the quotes in context. This is a fine example of a “dishonest irrelevancy”.

quote:

---

You lied by claiming I was attacking Hillary Clinton's new political position AGAINST DEPORTATION, in the 2016 Univision debate. I was not against her ultimate position against deportation, but Ramos had to beat it out of her. You said I was using her campaign position to smear Democrats as "amnesty" supporters. Percy did not lie to the level you did)

---

I think you mean that I caught you lying about what Percy had said. That’s the only references to Clinton in my posts - and those are quotes from Percy’s post.

quote:

---

This last discussion has do with you saying that I I conflated illegal and illegal immigration…

---

Which you certainly did.

quote:

---

… You say that I put all under the term "immigrant"…

---

Not true. I said that you seem to count all immigrants as illegal. You even defended that by asserting that many Americans see no difference.

quote:

---

…and you linked to the 2021 poll, and said you saw nothing in the text that should cause us to consider the term "immigration", in the questions, to invlude illegal immigration

---

I certainly did not. I said that the poll was largely about legal immigration. “Largely” does not mean “entirely”, and I even provided examples - none of which you disputed.

So now I call all immigrants, illegal immigrants?Plus I call Democrats an amnesty party?Get the hell out of this thread!

quote:

---

Perhaps we should spend the whole thread on responding to lies?

---

I keep telling you that if you want me to stop responding lying about me is not the way to do it.

quote:

---

That is what I have had to do.

---

Really,no. I’ve been doing it a lot.

quote:

---

He said I was saying Democrats were in favor of amnesty.

---

You certainly argued that calling the wall racist meant opposing borders. Message 2770
Of course that isn’t true - the motivation for Trump’s wall was clearly racist, for one thing.

quote:

---

PaulK is a dishonest disruptor.

---

And you aren’t? You have told far more lies than I have.

quote:

---

I ask that he be removed from the discussion

---

Because your constant lying failed to drive me away?

quote:

---

So now I call all immigrants, illegal immigrants?

---

Now? It’s not a new point. You use the general word “immigrants” when you seem to be only talking about illegals.When you said that the Democratic Party was not doing enough to help immigrants you said nothing about legal immigrants - it was all about illegals (Message 34). When you said that the Democrats “threw 1st generation immigrants under the bus” you’ve never explained how that applies to legal immigrants (Message 35)- and the use of “vulnerable to deportation” certainly makes it seem as if you only meant illegals.

Look,clown.I was saying Democrats would flip flop.I was also attacking the idea of hard borders. The fact that some Democrats call the wall racist hardly says anything about the larger Democratic position.(Democrats attacked the Trump border wall, generally, but Biden wont take down any of it. He just says 'not another footEdited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Look,clown.
I was saying Democrats would flip flop.

---

That doesn’t really help you.

quote:

---

I was also attacking the idea of hard borders. The fact that some Democrats call the wall racist hardly says anything about the larger Democratic position.

---

As I’ve shown you equated the idea that the wall was racist with the idea that borders are racist. That isn’t necessarily true - the fact that Trump introduced his idea of a wall between the US and Mexico with a racist attack on Mexicans is a good reason for calling that wall racist.

quote:

---

(Democrats attacked the Trump border wall, generally, but Biden wont take down any of it. He just says 'not another foot

---

As I recall most of the wall actually built only replaced existing barriers. Why spend money taking it down if a barrier is wanted there?
(Wikipedia agrees: )

What I think no one would argue with is that you have a great deal of difficultly correctly interpreting what you read.--Percy

Democrats, including Pelosi, called the wall racist. Not all, or most, Democrats called it racist.But the vast majority of Democrats attacked the wall.You did not back up your claim that most of Trump's wall simply replaced existing barriers.Democrats flip flopped, but the attack on Trump was just a utilitarian political tactic.Concern for the immigrants was not directly tied to the wall. Defeating Trump was the motive for attacking his wall.The wall will escape being torn down, it seems

So where is your effort to back up your claim that I opposed benefits for immigrants?You took my analysis of public opinion ( with immigrants the decisive supporters, with an otherwise divided public) on a hypothetical & theoretical trade off scenario, and called me racist for a factual report.(The 58 to 41 public support for the hypothetical trade off was largely due to 67% immigrant support. Immigrants are 14% of the population)I was factually pointing out that Democrats never seem to budge above 47% support for increasing immigration levels, despite any hypothetical policy trade off.(And the trade off was a secondary issue, related to a fictional landmark immigration level increase, unlike the issue of support for benefits in a status quo situation)I was pointing out the fundamental political problem with increasing immigration.Your accusation of me is massively wrong, on every level.As for my comment about your support for walls, I will provide the quotes after work. Paulk only covered about 5% of what you said, despite his claims that he provided the context. He missed an entire paragraph in the first linked post, in the Trump Presidency Thread.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Democrats, including Pelosi, called the wall racist. Not all, or most, Democrats called it racist.

​

But the vast majority of Democrats attacked the wall.

---

That is not in question, is it? The question is what they meant by it. And you have provided no support at all for your claim that they meant that border security was inherently racist.

quote:

---

You did not back up your claim that most of Trump's wall simply replaced existing barriers.

---

You mean apart from the Wikipedia quote that indicated that only out of the 455 miles built, all but 49 replaced existing barriers.

quote:

---

Democrats flip flopped, but the attack on Trump was just a utilitarian political tactic.

---

If they meant what you said. If on the other hand they had the view that Percy and I attribute to them their opposition simply requires that building efforts halt. As they have done. So it comes down to you to support your claim.

quote:

---

Concern for the immigrants was not directly tied to the wall. Defeating Trump was the motive for attacking his wall.

---

Or objections to Trump’s racist speech, or to the waste of resources on a disruptive vanity project, or to the new barriers which were never built and which will not be built under Biden. Any and all of these are valid and do not require more action (indeed financial prudence would require keeping the sections where barriers are wanted rather than spending more money to tear it down and then build different barriers). And all seem more likely than an inherent objection to barriers at the border.

quote:

---

The wall will escape being torn down, it seems

---

The parts which were actually built - which do not include the most controversial sections.

The wall was controversial and much opposed a decade before Trump

Stenny Hoyar said Pelosi called all walls racist and immoral.So you are wrong