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

quote:

---

The wall was controversial and much opposed a decade before Trump

---

Trump’s wall wasn’t. If you want to talk about some other proposed wall you’ll have to give far more than that. Who objected to it? Why?

quote:

---

Stenny Hoyar said Pelosi called all walls racist and immoral.

---

Did he? Let’s see the actual quote.

quote:

---

So you are wrong

---

A mere assertion from somebody with a long history of misrepresentation is not proof.

quote:

---

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was what built "The Wall" before Trump.
138 members of Congress, most Democrats opposed it.

---

90 Democrats supported it CBS News. Including Obama, Hilary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.

quote:

---

Democrats who voted for the 2006 wall law said it was something done to avoid more draconian anti immigration laws. A pragmatic vote for a bad thing.

---

All of them? This certainly doesn’t seem as unified as the opposition to Trump’s wall. Nor have we seen any inherent objection to walls.

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.

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.

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,

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 ?

quote:

---

You never asked me about the details of an immigration increase. The tax idea was my idea, but it had to do with a hyporhetical big immigration increase. It was am idea that was based on taxes on future immigrants, and I would prefer at least 2 million more immigrants per year. A tripling of levels.

---

You also said that it was to get public support for immigration. So presumably the tax would be enacted first and then the increase in immigration levels would follow - if the public support materialised. What if the public support did not materialise?

quote:

---

I would urge you to understand that Democrats acrually do not support increasing the yearly immigration levels, in this poll. Or any other. They seem to max out at 47%.

---

To put that in context that is much higher than the figure Cato found for Republicans (11%) or Independents (21%).

quote:

---

New ground was broken in the last 2 Gallup polls. 34% supported an increase, them 33% in the last one.

​

This Cato poll has the nation at 29% and Democrats at 47%.

​

So the political winds are not blowing in favor of a yearly increase.

---

Increasing anti-immigration rhetoric from the Right may be the cause.
Looking at the line graph supplied by Cato for their polls, the figure for Democrats may be only a “blip” - the trend is still upwards (and the decrease on last year’s high is small). This is not so for Republicans who have a small downward trend. Independents have a lower upward trend than Democrats, but the decrease on last year is much more severe.

quote:

---

There needs to be a big idea to get a humane number of immigrants the chance to immigrate.

---

What makes you think that an extra tax on 1st generation immigrants is that idea?

quote:

---

Do you know it is almost impossible for a poor person to immigrate here?

---

That doesn’t make an extra tax sound like a good idea. The poor are those who can least afford an extra financial burden.

quote:

---

Do you know how few refugees get to immigrate here?

---

I don’t think your proposed tax would have any effect on support for refugees. It’s shameful but the opponents of refugees won’t think of them as paying taxes anyway.

quote:

---

But Democrats refuse to budge on allowing the total numbers above 1 million, combined, pet year.

---

If their own partisans don’t support the idea - and the uncommitted are even more negative about it - that would seem to be sound politics, especially in these days of electoral uncertainty. It’s no use increasing immigration figures if the Republicans come in and reverse it in a few years time.