I am sorry. The way you worded it though it seems absurd to try to compare the two philosophically. I am of the opinion something needs to be done to make immigration attainable for people to whatever extent makes sense. But that it needs to be done legally. The only way I can think of doing that is through employers first and foremost. Building a physical wall in 2018 is dummmmnbbb. If you would like spend your free time comparing that to what China was doing 2000+ years ago. Have at it.
I do not follow him in the sense that I agree with him positions, but he is the leader of this country, just see what he is doing right now in the white house. How good of a leader he is, we can debate.
I am not in disagreement with you. I have no problem with immigrants. I just would like to make them legal. When people are here illegally, why do we not crack down on those who employ them? It's broken on that end, too.
Fair enough, then. FWIW...I generally disagree with most of his silliness, and agree with some of the things he's done, disagree with others. So, given your definition, I would not say I am a follower of his. More of an interested bystander. The wall in particular I am neutral on. I think we do need help in enforcing immigration, not sure the wall is it, or that it's worth the cost. Not sure that its not, either, though. I would like to see more analysis before reaching a conclusion. Immigration, in general, strikes me as something that should be non partisan, but isn't. Both sides seem to want to play politics with it, rather than actual solve any of the problems. I think if the right people from both sides huddled in a hotel for a weekend or two, they could come out with a workable plan, and we'd be done with it. But..that doesn't generate campaign contributions, does it. :-( Quite the opposite, likely.
