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

Robert Farley, of fact check, Jan 18. 2019 is my sourceHe said the wall was not built in 1993It was started in 2008It came from the Secure Fence Act of 2006

Bush was trying to get comprehensive immigration reform, which was a way to offer a pathway to citizenship for illegals, in 2006 ( politically speaking, the public would never have allowed a line-item stand alone amnesty bill, but as part of a "comphrensive" package, it was possible).It backfired.The country got the unpopular wall/fence shoved down its throat, but not much else.As an American, I remember when the only fence/wall was the one in San Diego (not saying that I was totally correct. But I remember thinking, in 1997, that the only wall-type structure was the fence in San Diego)

quote:

---

Dont imitate Percy, AzPaul, and PaulK

---

I’m going to guess that you’ve singled us out as effective critics.

quote:

---

PaulK started(post 31) by ignoring Percy's pro wall sentences in one post, and he selectively quoted 10% of the words in another post.

---

This is a hypocritical lie. Compare the quotes in Message 32 with those offered by LNA in Message 31. The quotes I offer are more complete - and I include additional quotes to better reflect Percy’s position. And unlike LNA I provided links to the posts.

quote:

---

He then said that I called the Democratic party an amnesty party.

---

I said that LNA “was also trying to argue that the Democratic Party was calling for full amnesty for all illegal immigrants.”
LNA has admitted that there is an amount of truth in that. He asserts - without evidence so far - that the condemnation of Trump’s wall as “racist” was aimed at all border barriers and that the Democratic Party was therefore calling for open borders. I’ll accept correction this far. Note also that I refer only to “calling for” i.e. public rhetoric, not the party’s actual position.The “selective quotes” were my attempts to find quotes relating to LNA’s assertion that Percy had denied that Hilary Clinton was in favour of deportation in the 2014 crisis in the two posts he had referenced. See Message 37. If I had selectively quoted, LNA was free to provide quotes of his own. He did not.

quote:

---

Then he claims I somehow am calling immigrants offensive names.

---

This is a complete invention.

quote:

---

HIS bizarre "evidence" is built around 2 lame, dubious pieces of logic:

​

First is that I simply said "immigrants are deported" instead of "illegal immigrants are deported", so therefore I consider all immigrants to be "illegal".

​

Yup. That is the extent of his first piece of evidence.

---

This is a distortion. I asserted that LNA was using the term “immigrants” when he meant only illegal immigrants. As supporting evidence I mentioned the fact that he seemed to class all those affected as “vulnerable to deportation”. Which obviously applies to illegal immigrants but should not apply to legal immigrants (or at least not those fully accepted as immigrants).

quote:

---

Second piece of PaulK's evidence was my argument with him that poll questions about immigration will always include ALL immigrants, unless otherwise stated. By telling him that Americans understand "immigration" to include ALL immigrants, including illegal immigrants, then I am saying all immigrants are illegal immigrants.

---

Let us correct this gross misrepresentation.When LNA tried to “correct me” - by falsely asserting that I did not think that illegal immigrants were included - I pointed out that I had never said that illegal immigrants were excluded. Seriously LNA’s evidence is that when he lied about me I dared to disagree with him!LNA you may feel this site is a joke because people dare to contradict your misrepresentations - but the problem is with you, not the site.

I note that none of what you say addresses the nature of the objections to the fences.I also note that the Fence Act was the first part of an intended package of reforms - I grant that Democrats may have voted for it in the hope of getting the future reforms - but vote for it they did. There was never a guarantee of actually getting further reform if the Act passed.This page from the White House Archives is relevant.This is what it says about a “path to citizenship” Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I only read up to your repeated lie that I was somehow giving the Democrats credit ffg or supporting open borders. Then I stopped readingI never thought Democrats made any implications for open borders while attacking the wall policy of Trump.I never thought most people, including Democrats, felt that a wall being absent equates to open borders.What was I saying?I was saying it was hypocritical to attack the wall while still deporting immigrants.What truth is there to your claim that I was genuinely seeing any day of sunshine in the historically anti-immigration Democratic party?Any truth to your lies?The only (very very slight) truth is that I was wondering just how sincere the opposition to deportation of children was. Hillary Clinton was probably just making a one time campaign lie, to Jorge Ramos, in 2016. Sanders might have been telling the truth when he promised to never deport children, but raw political pressure, from the majority of Americans, would surely make the battle (if Democrats embarked on a real fight for real rights) very very difficult.(Percy said Hillary never intended to say children would have the right to remain here forever)(Percy already was watering the day of sunshine down)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

PaulK is selectively quoting Percy's selective (not as bad as PaulK's selectivity, however) quotes, from my posts 2768 to 2772, in the old thread.PaulK keeps quoting Percy's post 2774.I was so clearly saying Democrats were not going to support immigrant children's right to remain in the United States, that this is really only a discussion literally ONLY ABOUT HOW IDIOTIC PAULK TRUELY IS.See posts 2768 to 2772.God this is obvious.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I only read up to your repeated lie that I was somehow giving the Democrats credit ffg or supporting open borders. Then I stopped reading

---

But that is not a lie.

quote:

---

I never thought Democrats made any implications for open borders while attacking the wall policy of Trump

---

Really? That’s not the way it looks to me. Message 2770

quote:

---

What truth is there to your claim that I was genuinely seeing any day of sunshine in the historically anti-immigration Democratic party?

​

Any truth to your lies?

---

All your assertions that the Democrats would “flip flop” indicates at the least that you thought that what they were saying was good. And it is what they were saying that is at issue - as I pointed out.Now by your own admission you read far enough to see that my “selective” quotations of Percy were fuller than yours. But you don’t address that, let alone support your other accusations against me.

If you actually read my post 2770, then you are telling a blatant lie about my supposed views.I was saying Democrats were going to offer amnesty to illegal immigrants?I was saying Democrats were supporting open borders?You are a liar.Posts 2768 to 2772 were very clear, and you are very much a disruptor.

quote:

---

PaulK is selectively quoting Percy's selective (not as bad as PaulK's selectivity, however) quotes, from my posts 2768 to 2772, in the old thread.

---

Perhaps you would like to back up that accusation It would make a change.

quote:

---

I was so clearly saying Democrats were not going to support immigrant children's right to remain in the United States,

---

So you presumably your idea of “selective quoting” is quoting the parts you don’t want people to know about.

quote:

---

….that this is really only a discussion literally ONLY ABOUT HOW IDIOTIC PAULK TRUELY IS.

---

Oh so it’s all about how you crush opposition with the Satanic peower of your lies. Funny, I don’t feel crushed. I just feel that you’re a nasty little shit who deserves all the opposition. He gets,

Read post 2768 to 2772I was attacking Democrats and saying they would not oppose deportation of child migrants.You want to defend your post 31, in this thread, which claimed I was saying Democrats were a party supportive of amnesty.You are a dishonest troll.If this site had any real moderation, then you would and should be banned.Lies serve no purpose but to ruin a discussion (the site is packed with dishonest people, so you will surely get away with totally disruptive behavior)Read post 2768 to 2772.(Only an obvious troll could say that I was calling Democrats a party supportive of amnesty and open borders)Read posts 2768 to 2772Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

PaulK is a disgraceful troll.He told provable lies in his post 32.And keeps repeating the same lies.(He said I called the Democratic party a party of amnesty and open borders)(He is still saying such)Do something that stops obvious lies. This is easy.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Read post 2768 to 2772
I was attacking Democrats and saying they would not oppose deportation of child migrants.

---

Where did I deny that you said that?

quote:

---

You want to defend your post 31, in this thread, which claimed I was saying Democrats were a party supportive of amnesty.

​

You are a dishonest troll.

---

I have already honestly answered that accusation. And let us note that you have repeatedly lied about me.

quote:

---

If this site had any real moderation, then you would and should be banned.

​

Lies serve no purpose but to ruin a discussion (the site is packed with dishonest people, so you will surely get away with totally disruptive behavior)

---

So basically you are saying that everybody who opposes you should be banned because otherwise you’ll lie about them and “ruin the conversation”. Charming. Why shouldn’t you be banned when you’re the liar ?

The reason is quite simple.The only folks I have ever seen or read so laser-focused on this one issue have been racists.You know, like the duck thing. If it does duck things and like that then it's probably somewhat ducky. And ducks are some of the biggest racists. If you're not one of them then look out. They get all violent.

And you wonder why this site is down to 9 regular posters (to inflate the numbers of remnants with the strong stomachs).Truely disgusting conduct.When Percy quoted my post 6, his only quote was my FACTUAL report that immigration levels were capable of getting broad public support for a yearly increase with a requirement that immigrants prove they wont use welfare.(The old public charge issue)I then went on to express support for immigration increases and no public charge requirements (moratorium on whatever benefits are presently available ).Percy called me a racist based on my factual analysis of public opinion.I responded, saying that I was not against benefit moratoriums.You responded to my factual post 12, calling me racist.The only line in post 12 that was am opinion was my support for public welfare benefits for immigrants.You are a repulsive disgrace. You are a very reason why this site is practically dead.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Wow. I really do have that much power?Percy never told me I was that influential. L'il ol' me.Ok, the rest of you get on getting on with more of that We-ain't-takin-yer-shit attitude. A directive from the top, this is.