In the first place, no one cares who funds the wall. People are more than willing to pay for it entirely on our own. The thing about Mexico is a smart-ass answer to one of those spurious Democratic concerns about fiscal responsibility that only arise on questions of national security. If we can't get Mexico to pay for a sewer treatment plant for the Tijuana River that they themselves are fouling before it runs into California, we can't reasonably expect them to pay for a wall that might eventually force their government to deal with their own people.

And then there is your strawman argument on the deportation issue, raising nonsensical caveats to claim it is impossible. In the first place, no one gives a rat's ass whether or not the expulsion program is painless. Some might argue that a painful expulsion is even better. Pour encourager les autres, and so forth. And if expelling 11 million is impossible, so what? If we only manage to push 10,999,999 back into Mexico, do we have to take them back if we can't catch that 11 millionth guy? 1 wetback sent home is better than none, and even if we can only send back one or two million, that's much better than anything currently being done. This is not like we have to sift through an 11 million Mexican haystack to find a particular needle, we just have to get some of the hay out of our hair. More is better, but every little bit helps.

As opposed to all the detailed and specific and well-thought-out plans Clinton is proposing or Obama has proposed? Both of them are running entirely on the novelty of their respective sex or skin color, but since you think those are good things, because you like the idea of more Democratic voters in the US, and don't have to live by any Mexicans, you weigh Trump by an entirely different standard.

You guys cannot be this dumb, can you? "I know a guy in the Saar who consistently voted and demonstrated for pacifist causes throughout the 1920s, and was adamantly opposed to all military spending, but then, after the plebiscite, he joined the Nazi party, and volunteered for military service." It's because ultranationalism in one country seeks ends for which another country's leftwing policies are really helpful. The point the right has been making for decades now, is that there is a conflict between the interests of the east and west. The behavior of these people you are both describing supports that contention, in that they certainly seem to perceive as much, encouraging the fight in their homelands and discouraging resistance in other countries. Why did the USA sell armaments and other materiel to the UK & France in the early days of World War Two, but had an embargo against Japan? Because we favored one side over the other!