patrick.net

marcus says

What should I say ? Maybe you're right ? Maybe he won't be a fascist dictator ? It's worth the risk ?

Fascist is overused. No fascist leader ever emerged internally to a country that wasn't a lifelong "activist" or military officer.

Trump simply doesn't have any of the characteristics of a Fascist Ideologue.

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

he ticks off most of those. One thing missed is the requirement that with fascists, enjoying their monopoly on the Truth, what was said yesterday must be forgotten today.

Back in September, at the height of the Trump/Cruz alliance, Trump now famously said of Cruz’s eligibility, “I hear it was checked out by every attorney and every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape.”

i.e. we have always been at war with EastAsia.

Bellingham Bill says

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

This list is wayyy to broad.

Dr. Lawrence Britt is not apparently not a Professor, but some retired Businessman who wrote a fiction novel about a President "very much like" Dubya in 2004 taking over America, and had this piece about Fascism published in some Secular Humanist Journal. The only places I find this article is repeated at largely fringe websites like Rense, or in forums referencing random websites.

It is no doubt too wide and broad and made to fit with "Mr." Britt's bugaboo, Dubya.

Here is Orwell's criticism of Fascist as Insult, the cheapening of the word:

...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

Salazar and Sukharto are better described as old fashioned Despot Paternal Autocrats.

My own definition is that Fascism is a mixture of Old European Reactionary thought, combined with a surrender to the modern idea that Hereditary Monarchs are obsolete, but instead of sloppy democracy or even Oligarchy of Nobles/Betters, a CEO/General/Maximum Leader is empowered to make or overrule any decision in the name of the Folk. It is very much rooted in 19th Century Religious Syndicalism for it's Economics, which is also where it's anti-semitism comes from.

thunderlips11 says

Trump simply doesn't have any of the characteristics of a Fascist Ideologue

Are you sure ?
http://imgur.com/gallery/jNxTe5L

Borrring.

Where is Trumps tens of thousands strong streetfighters - every fascist group/nation had them.
Where is the "America Nationalist Syndicalist Party for Purity" Radio Stations, Printing Presses, etc. located at?
Why did he let Ivanka marry outside the race and religion?
Why does he welcome Blacks and Jews on the stage and seek their endorsement?
Where is his use of medieval/classic greatness, like Barbarossa or the Roman Empire?
Where is his syndicalist economic policy?
Where is his open disdain for democracy? Every fascist openly disdained democracy, Hitler did so in Mein Kampf.

That immigrants should speak the language and be restricted for the benefit of the general interest of society is about as dully 40s-60s great consensus mainstream as you can get. Non controversial. The Unions is this Country and the UK were the biggest opponents to the Open Doors policies initiated in the 70s. Neither the British nor American working classes were in favor of immigration, right until the elites foistered it on everybody in the 70s anyway.

The only Anglic nation to reverse immigration policy in the recent past was Australia. Is Australia on the verge of becoming a fascist state?

thunderlips11 says

Borrring.

Where is Trumps tens of thousands strong streetfighters - every fascist group/nation had them.

Right. Because every fascist dictator of the future has to be exactly like the ones you consider representative from the past.

Funny thing is earlier, you were the one saying that fitting a pattern doesn't mean he's a fascist.

thunderlips11 says

Hillary: Uses racism to rise to Power.

Obama: Definitely used racism to rise to power.

Now your argument is that he doesn't fit the pattern. Make up your mind, which aregument are you going to convince yourself with best ?

thunderlips11 says

Where is the "America Nationalist Syndicalist Party for Purity" Radio Stations, Printing Presses, etc. located at?

Give him time.

thunderlips11 says

Why does he welcome Blacks and Jews on the stage and seek their endorsement?

Why doesn't he have any Muslims or Mexicans on stage endorsing him. He doesn't have to scapegoat everyone that's different to fit the pattern.

thunderlips11 says

Where is his open disdain for democracy? Every fascist openly disdained democracy, Hitler did so in Mein Kampf.

Again, give him time. He has to get the power first.

marcus says

Give him time.

No, every fascist leader in history was preceded by a Fascist Movement, which attracted not only a segment of the general population, but Elite support. For Hitler, it was the Prussian Junkers and Rheinland Industrialists.

The closest to a fascist movement in the US is the Alt-Right, who are totally fringe and largely confined to a few fuckless Nerds and Ultra Traditionalists, and even they're not fascist, but reactionary and want a return to 19th Century States like Austria under Metternich.

marcus says

Again, give him time. He has to get the power first.

Again, the disdain for democracy is open and widely disseminated amongst the followers before the Fascist takes power. It is not concealed or hidden. The NSDAP justified itself running for offices as a tactical move, but that it would replace democracy if it could - which it did.

The great weapon of the Elites is to keep the Establishment going by claiming that every powerful movement against them is Populist (which of course it is, since their policies make things worse for a large segment of the population, in this case Blue Collar Whites), which could end up in Fascism, the French Revolution, etc.

Okay, so by your definition, every fascist in the future will will look exactly identical to every one in the past. It's the stupidest thing I've heard today, but I get that it's your story and you're sticking to it.

thunderlips11 says

Again, the disdain for democracy is open and widely disseminated amongst the followers before the Fascist takes power

Their disdain is for our government, and they're sold on the idea of having him as dictator, to fix it. I'm not suggesting that it's automatic. Or that he will succeed. But it's what he wants. It's his personality. It's what many of his followers want.

marcus says

Okay, so by your definition, every fascist in the future will will look exactly identical to every one in the past. It's the stupidest thing I've heard today, but I get that it's your story and you're sticking to it.

There hasn't been a new fascist government since the WW1-WW2 period, which ended around 3/4 of a century years ago, so you have nothing to base this on.

My contention is that Fascism was a particular mixture of ideas that had been perculating for the century prior to Fascism, which due to totally different conditions is unlikely to arise again today.

Just like you're not likely to see Anabaptist Communes of Knipperdollings arise in the Germany of 2015.

Okay, how about if I say this. IF and when fascism happens in the future, it will not be identical in every way to Hitler or Mussolini. In fact that's the one and only thing I can guarantee about future fascism.

Trump certainly attracts the fascist phalange of the right.

Everybody but them are idiots and/or traitors.

Trump taps right into that id and gives these people what they want.

Trump is 50% playing at this I think, but it's a dangerous game.

Well, stupid mostly since as Romney showed last time the more brutal the primary, the less effective the candidate is in the general.

Trump is saying he's a winner and he's going to personally make America win again.

This is Fascism 101, the cult of personality and the StrongMan Leader setting things straight again.

I believe the Germans had a catchy word for "Leader" back in the 30s, umlauted and everything.

Bellingham Bill says

Trump certainly attracts the fascist phalange of the right.

Everybody but them are idiots and/or traitors.

I don't know BB, I find Cruz supporters are closer to that line of thinking. Please, folks, please read the comments of conservative sites like Breitbart. It's the Trump supporters who don't give a shit about abortion, don't care that he was a Democrat ("So was Reagan"), etc.

It's the Cruzbots who maintain Cruz is the Holy Anti-Abortion True Conservative Savior (ignoring his pleas for donations from Wealthy Gay Power Couples, Goldman Sachs connections, etc.) That the Cultural Marxists are taking over, Trump isn't going to imprison the sodomites, etc.

Bellingham Bill says

This is Fascism 101, the cult of personality and the StrongMan Leader setting things straight again.

FDR was accused of all these things by his opponents. Including Rose Wilder-Lane of Little House on the Prairie. Ironically many of them dedicated their lives to destroying the New Deal and lived to see it in the 80s.

so if candidates claim they're going to make the country great they are fascist. wow.

FDR is probably the greatest example of a Strong President lambasted for being a potential dictator from before the election unto his death.

You should see the shit that was produced in the 1930s. Yeah, some folks thought "Dubya" was on his way, but this wasn't marginal activists making these accusations, but a range of powerful individuals from ex-President Hoover who gave a thunderous speeches throughout the 30s all but calling FDR a dictator-in-fact, famous Pilot Charles Lindbergh, and the American Liberty League which contained people such as Alfred P. Sloan, J. Howard Pew, Irenee du Pont, etc.

All names most Americans have heard of today.

Don't forget Father Coughlin - the one person who came closest to running a true, large, and powerful Fascist enterprise in the US - the National Union of Social Justice, which at one time had millions of members.

www.youtube.com/embed/uFDuGNCxyl0

landtof says

so if candidates claim they're going to make the country great they are fascist. wow.

Again, the Elites and their Clerisy attack any and all Populism as potentially leading to Fascism. They do this for the same reason they attack opposition to Mass Immigration as Xenophobic. They like things the way they are. Populists might put in a medicare-for-all plan, take away the MIC punchbowl by not constantly intervening everywhere, or destroy the low-wage/high-rent machine of Mass Immigration.

Where is all of the disgust about using children as props? I seem to remember that activity generated a huge pile of indignation in the past. Oh no - think of the children!

Yeah, Children as Props - absolutely horrible!

www.youtube.com/embed/-GzGAW7k2V8

From Hillary's Official Youtube.

Difference: The "Potty Mouth Children" and "Latino Kids hate Trump" are NOT official Campaign videos. Just a Trust Fund Baby SJW "Creative Type" asshole doing his own thing.

There's a big difference between teenyboppers going "Rah, Rah Trump" and little children saying "You are a Fuckin' Ray's Cyst!"

Yeah, the teenyboppers cheering on Trump are cheering on a racist demagogue who himself has a potty mouth. The others children themselves have a potty mouth. If I were concerned about curse words, I'd have stopped reading Pat.Net years ago. For me, the ideas matter much more, but I don't find either of those children videos offensive.

Trump is a brand expert (his businesses), a TV/media expert (his shows), and a popularity contest expert (his beauty pageants). In other words, his skill-set is tailor-made for winning an election, but useless for being the president. Even he knows that he can't sell himself based on his ability to be president, so he sells himself based on his ability to run a campaign (success in the polls). It' fucking hilarious, really.

He's taking advantage of the situation created by Lobbyists and the Media long before he ran.

Don't hate the Playa, hate the Game.

And again, not wanting mass immigration is a normal, bourgeois old liberal policy. Radically opening borders regardless of economic conditions is extremist neoliberalism. Most of the people for it, in the Clerisy and Owner classes, do not compete for low end housing and jobs and indeed benefit from crushing the wages of the bottom quartile in particular, plus higher rental incomes..

I agree on the effect that radically opening borders to low wage people would have on low wage Americans. Trade agreements have the same effect. I disagree that anyone in this country is calling for radically opening borders. For reference, the 10K refugees that Obama asked to let in is not radically opening borders.

The much bigger issues facing low wage Americans are trade, health care, and tax policy. If any low wage person wanted to vote their interest and vote for a sincere person, they'd vote for Sanders. If rich people want to vote their economic interest, they'll vote for Trump or similar, at least tax-wise. But Trump's policies are largely unknown, since he doesn't make a habit of discussing them and has no track record. Since he's a party outsider, a political outsider, and has the tact of a rotting elephant corpse, it's unclear whether he could accomplish anything even if he had a good idea. Sanders is a party outsider, and would have trouble achieving his agenda, but his problems in that regard are dwarfed by Trump's.

Big issues facing middle/upper-middle class are tax policy, education, and health care. Again, the democrats win from an economic stand-point.

The US is now a service-oriented economy, so immigration is an immediate pressing problem. If you look at the BLS reports, the overwhleming number of net new jobs aren't in Computers or Environmental Engineering, but in Home Health Aide, Pillow Fluffer, Fast Food Worker. Low end jobs.

So it's not about 10,000 more immigrants. It's about the millions of legal and illegal immigrants that have been flooding into the country over the past few years. Our immigration level is around early 20th Century levels - sky high! It's not like we're talking about slowing down moderate immigration, it's about slowing down extravagant CURRENT immigrant levels. Also unlike the early 20th Century, we're not building huge new steel mills and car factories every block these days.

The truth is the middle class is being hollowed out from a lack of manufacturing jobs. Only manufacturing jobs provide a stable, reasonable income to the vast majority of the population. Competition from businesses due to increasing manufacturing employment will actually cause service wages to go up, if we keep immigration reasonable and not wide open like it is today.

It's simply not possible for a nation of ~320M people to employ the vast bulk of the population as paralegals, biotech researchers, etc.

YesYNot says

Trump is a brand expert (his businesses), a TV/media expert (his shows), and a popularity contest expert (his beauty pageants). In other words, his skill-set is tailor-made for winning an election, but useless for being the president. Even he knows that he can't sell himself based on his ability to be president, so he sells himself based on his ability to run a campaign (success in the polls). It' fucking hilarious, really.

Well framed, I agree completely.

thunderlips11 says

It's about the millions of legal and illegal immigrants that have been flooding into the country over the past few years.

2006 called and they want their statistics back.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

Maybe the real reason Trump wants to build a wall on the Mexican border is to make it harder for them to leave, as they have been. That's right, millions have actually left in the last few years.

oops

thunderlips11 says

millions of legal and illegal immigrants that have been flooding into the country over the past few years.

Let's see what contortions you have to go through on this one.

If we had a wall with an official gate, it would be impossible for illegals to leave as they have been, without admitting that they committed the crime of being here illegally. Hmmmm, this also might explains why Mexico would be willing to pay for the wall, becausethey must know that it's the rapists and criminals that are coming here. They don't want them back, right ?

In all seriousness, the Mexican immigrant issue sets up the democrat candidate very well. Not only did Obama put a lot more people on border patrol, he succeeded in making the immigration level go negative. Sure the economy was a factor. But they've been net leaving, and having a tougher time coming in.

In the debates the democrat candidate is going to kick ass on this topic. Although republicans are immune to facts and logic, so it might do little more than sway the few reality based citizens that aren't already voting against Trump.

marcus says

2006 called and they want their statistics back.

marcus says

Let's see what contortions you have to go through on this one.

#1 - It's still Millions, which is exactly what I claimed.

thunderlips11 says

So it's not about 10,000 more immigrants. It's about the millions of legal and illegal immigrants that have been flooding into the country over the past few years. Our immigration level is around early 20th Century levels - sky high! It's not like we're talking about slowing down moderate immigration, it's about slowing down extravagant CURRENT immigrant levels. Also unlike the early 20th Century, we're not building huge new steel mills and car factories every block these days.

Yes, we have MORE immigrants coming in the past decade than at the very all-time peak of US immigration in the early 20th century.

You'll also note that the 40s - 70s had far lower immigration than today.

thunderlips11 says

marcus says

2006 called and they want their statistics back.

#1 - It's still Millions, which is exactly what I claimed.

You referred to the last few years, but you're using a chart that ends with numbers for the decade of 2001 - 2010. And no, your statement clearly said legal and illegal immigrants have been flooding in. I showed a graph that showed 1.3 MILLION illegal Mexican immigrants leaving between '07 and '14. Yes that's only the Mexicans, but they were ones that are supposedly rapists, and the ones over which Trump wants to reward his construction pals with their biggest contract ever building a giant wall.

thunderlips11 says

#1 - It's still Millions, which is exactly what I claimed.

Well, it's been in the millions every decade since before 1900 except the WW2 decade (and right after). I thought you were actually trying to say something.

marcus says

You referred to the last few years

Only works if you take the sentence out of context with the next, which contrasts it:

thunderlips11 says

So it's not about 10,000 more immigrants. It's about the millions of legal and illegal immigrants that have been flooding into the country over the past few years. Our immigration level is around early 20th Century levels - sky high! It's not like we're talking about slowing down moderate immigration, it's about slowing down extravagant CURRENT immigrant levels. Also unlike the early 20th Century, we're not building huge new steel mills and car factories every block these days.

No, I think it's clear that my point was the current level of immigration is at levels only seen in the early 20th Century before. Current levels are not modest, but over the previous all time sky high.

BTW, early 20th C. not a time of a prospering working class, but slums and tenements.marcus says

thunderlips11 says

It's about the millions of legal and illegal immigrants that have been flooding into the country over the past few years.

2006 called and they want their statistics back.

BTW, I said millions of legal and illegal immigrants above. You only put up data on illegals (Unauthorized or Undocumented or whatever the misleading multi kult word is. "I'm an undocumented driver, officer. Not a joyriding kid without a D/L!")

Booger says

Other candidates are jealous of turnouts at Trump rallys.

They have rally envy.

thunderlips11 says

No, I think it's clear that my point was the current level of immigration is at levels only seen in the early 20th Century before. Current levels are not modest, but over the previous all time sky high.

I'm saying something very clear and succinct: Immigration of illegal Mexican immigrants is negative 1.3 million from 2007 to 2014.

Juxtapose that fact against the message that launched the rocket of Trump's candidacy.

I say it takes a retard (Trump) to know what the retards want to hear. No offense.

thunderlips11 says

BTW, I said millions of legal and illegal immigrants above. You only put up data on illegals (Unauthorized or Undocumented or whatever the misleading multi kult word is.

IF you say A and B are increasing by the millions, how am I supposed to know that what you really mean is, "hey maybe A is going up enough, or even more than enough, to counteract how fast B is decreasing, but I only have pre 2010 data, so I'm kinda talking out my ass anyway, even if I did refer to the last few years. "

marcus says

IF you say A and B are increasing by the millions, how am I supposed to know that what you really mean is, "hey maybe A is going up enough, or even more than enough, to counteract how fast B is decreasing, but I only have pre 2010 data, so I'm kinda talking out my ass anyway, even if I did refer to the last few years. "

Wow Marcus. Please, please stop beating on a strawman and go back and read my sentence:

thunderlips11 says

It's about the millions of legal and illegal immigrants that have been flooding into the country over the past few years.

Did millions of legal AND illegal immigrants not come into the country over the past few years? Yes. Did I flat out say immigration was increasing? No - I was worried about the numbers per year, not their direction which I did NOT mention. Was I ONLY talking about Mexican Illegals, which is what your chart shows? No. And did not my very next sentence contextualize it further:
thunderlips11 says

Our immigration level is around early 20th Century levels - sky high!

Whether your chart which shows illegal Mexican-only immigration only goes up or down a few hundred thousand per year over the course of nearly a decade is a drop in the bucket.

marcus says

I'm saying something very clear and succinct: Immigration of illegal Mexican immigrants is negative 1.3 million from 2007 to 2014.

Small Potatoes, there are still millions of them here. That isn't Government Action, but the aftermath of the housing crisis and "Mancession" of Blue Collar Jobs. And about half again as many other illegals - not that I give two shits WHERE immigrants are coming from. I don't care if they're Panamanian, Polish, or Portuguese.

This also doesn't count the way-to-high legal immigrants and skilled and unskilled various Visa grantees

I want ALL immigration to be less than a million per year, legal or illegal.

When Burger King is out on the street offering $12/hr to flip burgers, and 19-year old kids are demanding $15/hr to work in roofing, we can talk about the need for millions of unskilled immigrants.

thunderlips11 says

Please, please stop beating on a strawman and go back and read my sentence:

I'm not beating on a straw man. I'm making my point.

thunderlips11 says

Whether your chart which shows illegal Mexican-only immigration only goes up or down a few hundred thousand per year over the course of nearly a decade is a drop in the bucket.

Look, I'm not trying to argue whether the number of existing immigrants is so high that it adversely affects the wages of unskilled natural U.S. citizens.

What I'm saying is that I think it would be nice if you had the honesty to admit that Donald Trump is widely loved because he speaks the ( supposedly amazing non-PC) truth about how we need to build a giant wall on the border, to protect us from the nearly 20% of illegal Mexican immigrants who were in the U.S.that have gone back to Mexico in the past 8 years or so.

thunderlips11 says

Small Potatoes

What kind of idiot thinks that if the number of illegal Mexican immigrants in the US has dropped by 20% in recent years because of illegal immigrants crossing the border going the other way, means that we need to build a wall to stop them from coming in ?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

thunderlips11 says

Did millions of legal AND illegal immigrants not come into the country over the past few years? Yes.

Are you making that up ? OR do you have data from after 2010 ? OH wait, you said they did not come in. Yes, maybe. That is we don't know, or I don't. Maybe you can sift through the Homeland Security data to get some clean data on what's been happening since 2010.

How does one go about researching the number of "unauthorized Mexican immigrants" in the country? Skeptical of any data that requires someone to state that they're "unauthorized" to be somewhere. There's also the shaded grey area showing the low and high points of the "estimated 90% confidence interval." That's almost 1 million people out of a total 6 million on the high end. From high to low you're talking roughly 16% of fluctuation in the data. I don't have data to counter what you have presented. But let's put it this way, how many job applicants with felonies would in their good heart put that they're a felon on every job application? And how many "unauthorized immigrants" would freely share this information?

marcus says

What I'm saying is that I think it would be nice if you had the honesty to admit that Donald Trump is widely loved because he speaks the ( supposedly amazing non-PC) truth about how we need to build a giant wall on the border, to protect us from the nearly 20% of illegal Mexican immigrants who were in the U.S.that have gone back to Mexico in the past 8 years or so.

Also, I don't think I've heard or read anywhere that a wall wouldn't allow people to leave. Who cares if the net "unauthorized Mexican immigrants" has supposedly declined. People left that were here "unauthorized." And "unauthorized" people still came here. Net result may have been a decline. Could be an increase next year. Why are "unauthorized" people allowed to just enter a country? I don't get why this is even something to question or argue about. Build a wall or not. Vote for whoever. I just don't get why it is at all acceptable that some one enters a country illegally.

Do they have to be Mexican? I mean, most of the Latino illegals we get in the past ten years are from other central american countries. SO yah, less Mexicans, but more Guatemalans, Hondurans, Costa Ricans, etc etc. It still adds up to a lot of illegal immigration! Which is great for big business and terrible for American citizens in nearly every way. Which is why there's so much anger among native sons fueling the Trump Train...

Well they might have to go to smaller stadiums if Sarah Palin keeps talking. I just can't figure out how having the Sarah Palin endorsement of Trump is a good thing. I must admit... like many others, Trump was growing on me. Then Sarah Palin endorsed him. Is she a plant of the establishment GOP to reduce his numbers? I'm sorry, she's an idiot. I cannot imagine how her endorsement is going to help Trump. She's gotta be a plant.

And now Karl Rove's super PAC is running ads in support of Bernie.

This is going to be one entertaining election year.

But back to your original question regarding the pre-rally show... I don't know what that is. It's not cheerleading; it's not dance... It's reminds me of the kinds of performances you see at beauty pageants. Cheesy, high in flash, low in any actual skill...

turtledove says

Well they might have to go to smaller stadiums if Sarah Palin keeps talking. I just can't figure out how having the Sarah Palin endorsement of Trump is a good thing. I must admit... like many others, Trump was growing on me. Then Sarah Palin endorsed him. Is she a plant of the establishment GOP to reduce his numbers? I'm sorry, she's an idiot. I cannot imagine how her endorsement is going to help Trump. She's gotta be a plant.

Nah, It's just Trump using her to piss off the Cruz base that calls him "Not a Real Conservative". Same reason the John Wayne family came out for him recently.
Once he gets the nomination, he's gonna go to the center, and abortion will be the first thing you'll hear about.

marcus says

Look, I'm not trying to argue whether the number of existing immigrants is so high that it adversely affects the wages of unskilled natural U.S. citizens.

What I'm saying is that I think it would be nice if you had the honesty to admit that Donald Trump is widely loved because he speaks the ( supposedly amazing non-PC) truth about how we need to build a giant wall on the border, to protect us from the nearly 20% of illegal Mexican immigrants who were in the U.S.that have gone back to Mexico in the past 8 years or so.

Marcus, I care about immigration, both "legal and illegal", and made that abundantly clear using those three very words in quotes. I don't care how many are from Mexico, or from Indonesia, or from Botswana. Nor - and read this line carefully - if they are legal or illegal. Yes, there are just TOO MANY immigrants of all kinds. They are not needed, in fact they are hurting.

Do you see fast food restaurants around the country begging for workers and offering $12/hr? Neither do I. There is no shortage of workers. No magical job is conjured out of thin air the moment an immigrant (legal or illegal, I repeat YET AGAIN) crosses the border.

I do not care, nor claimed in any post above to be care, that illegals (and according to you Mexican illegals) are or aren't chosing to go back in relatively small numbers. You're playing GOTCHA! when there is no "gotcha" to be had.

I think Immigration GENERALLY, legal or illegal, is too damn high. As I made clear in my original post that started this attempt at strawmanning. We need to drop the overall higher-than-the-highest previous era of the 1910s-20s, level of immigration.