> If that were the case, you'd see full support for a "wall". But a "wall" is topic non grata because it "is racist and xenophobic" and other choice epithets.

> If that were the case, you'd see full support for a "wall". But a "wall" is topic non grata because it "is racist and xenophobic" and other choice epithets. It's hard to argue agianst that when the politician driving the push for the wall wraps it not it policy, or evidence that a wall costing tens of billions of dollars would be effective in reducing migration, but instead racist and xenophobic language. To me the whole "discussion" about the wall is just to create a xenophobic and populist lightning rod, not to bring any serious policy debate to the table. Do any of the statements linked below, which were well reported on, seem like productive ways to discuss immigration? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-presidential-bid-trashing-mexico-mexicans-n376521 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-pr... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-don... http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting-on-immigration-1134990403518 http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-countr...