By which I don't mean to say that I know everything an American would know, no doubt there's a very long list of things you could indeed teach me about America - but your post doesn't really seem to include any of those, as the only "lessons" in your post are highly debatable ones which plenty of Americans wouldn't accept as fact either.

I'm not sure by what logic it's better to prefer someone who is openly bad (in whatever regard), over others who you suspect are bad but don't know for sure. Even if you're a cynic who takes it for proven fact that all Trump's rivals, deep down, have precisely the same selfish priorities, at least they aren't as damaging for the image of the office they run for.

"The conservative position"? Before you accuse me of misinterpretation again, are you saying that Trump's position - or perhaps I should say, your position - on immigration is "the conservative position", and any other position, such as Rubio's, is not, per definition?

If that's your conclusion of that article, you're the one who's cherry-picking. There's a lot of conflicting info in there about crime rates among illegal immigrants, enough to support just about any argument in any direction (not uncommon on Wikipedia for controversial topics, as you end up getting a carefully negotiated compromise between various groups of editors). So I certainly wouldn't claim that as an authoritative source on anything that isn't clear-cut. But as for the numbers, conservative organizations like the CIS don't deviate far from Pew's or the DHS' estimates - and fyi, those estimates do in fact include estimates of the illegal immigrants who don't fill out the census. Whether those estimates are accurate or not, I hardly think either of us is in a position to say. So in conclusion, if you have serious sources indicating that the 11 million estimate is seriously off (by more than 1-2 million), I'd be interested to see them, but that seems to be the scientific consensus regardless of ideology.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are more than ten million people in the US that nobody knows about - except from their remittances? And have been for the last ten years? And I'm not sure which journalists or which numbers you're referring to, but the sources are rather unanimous that numbers stayed flat or declined for most of the past decade (though as per CIS, they started growing again in the last two years, their website says the number may now have reached 12 million).

Seems this whole rant is based on the first line, "half of the population of the California prison system is illegal immigrants". Care to provide a source for that? Because I'm seeing numbers of 17% foreign-born inmates in California (with no further breakdown into which share is illegal), even in perfectly respectable conservative publications (i.e., an opinion piece in the WSJ written by a Manhattan Institute fellow).

As for crime rates, the numbers I'm seeing on the FBI website have Hispanics at 20-21% of murder & rape arrests. On all crimes, they're at 16,6%, almost exactly their percentage of the population. Is that worse than whites - yes, though hardly "blowing out of the water" (keep in mind that the "white" statistics further to the left also include Hispanics, so for our purposes they're misleading). It's certainly nothing like the statistics of black Americans though.

I'm not the one who's making up anything here, merely criticizing the more outrageous claims in your posts. I don't try to twist the facts to fit my worldview; I try to determine what the real facts are, and (reluctantly) adjust my worldview if necessary.

And you keep using "Hispanic" and "Mexican" interchangeably, just like in the original "eleven million Mexicans" comment. It really doesn't help with taking your points seriously.

All Republican candidates are making clear that guarding the borders better and stopping the inflow of illegal immigrants (which, as per CIS, has been resuming after a long pause) are among their highest priorities. That's not where the real differences are, except perhaps that the empty rhetoric of some may have real world consequences by alienating the legal Hispanic community and the Mexican authorities, both of whose support would be very useful in the process. The real differences are in fact about those 11 (or 12) million already there and what will be done with them. So it's a perfectly valid question. Expecting them to have a full and detailed plan on how to deport 12 million people is perhaps unreasonable - certainly expecting them to present such a plan during an election campaign is. But considering the logistic nightmares involved, it's not unreasonable to expect that candidates have at least some basics of a plan, like a rough time scale and cost estimate.

If you're serious about taking all cases of rape equally seriously, you certainly won't hear me - or most American liberals - complaining about it. Besides that, like with nearly all of the numbers you cite, I'm unable to find sources confirming them - the numbers I see mention that child sexual abuse, like nearly all violent crime, is down significantly compared to a few decades ago. Of course, that's child sexual abuse on the whole. I do agree about likely under-reporting, if you see the statistics showing Hispanic women are raped less often than white ones.

Well, for starters you might've invaded one of the Arab countries from which the September 11 attackers actually came. Probably a good thing that that's not how the world works. At this point I think I've made the twin remarks about sources and not confusing Mexicans with Hispanics, or illegal immigrants with legal ones, often enough that I'm just going to let this and any further cases slide.

And here was me thinking American conservatives so prided themselves on living in "a republic, not a democracy", since their republic wasn't subject to the tyranny of the majority and respected minority rights.

I never said illegal immigration was "not a legitimate issue". Anyone can see that it's a very important issue, and among the main challenges which any presidential candidate needs to offer solutions for. That's all the more reason to discuss it in a serious way, with credible solutions and with language that is constructive and doesn't alienate people for no reason (it's probably unavoidable that some people will be alienated no matter what).

Fair enough on the first part, I suppose, me bringing up an irrelevant discussion in which I side with the Republicans didn't really contribute anything to this discussion. I've never heard of Lonegan and will have to take your word for it, but as for Kelly v Trump, I didn't even understand the "wherever" line the first time I read it, and I consider it a distraction from the main point honestly - that Trump is a sore loser who can't handle being asked critical questions.

Accusing Fox News of "screw the conservative" seems pretty rich, and your justification of how Trump can be a victim of "screw the conservative" without actually being conservative is rather amusing. It's also worth pointing out Kelly's original critical question had nothing whatsoever to do with illegal immigration, so your justification doesn't even apply to that.