Rick B., I can't be absolutely sure; but, I believe ecbuck is trying to deflect, distract, and derail the discussion to prevent the assignment of guilt to anyone he supports and he is trying to do that by reminding us that those "cages" were built and used by previous administrations, which is true.

However, first, I actually took care in my comment to avoid mentioning the Trump Administration because I wanted the focus to be on the need for all of us to be thorough, consistent, and honest in our own responses to the concerns, including the humanitarian and human rights concerns that ecbuck himself brought up in his reference to Mexican women and children being trafficked.  I consciously avoided getting into current politics because this is no longer the time for that and because we now need to recognize and work to resolve what has become a humanitarian tragedy, as well as a genuine environmental disaster, along our southern border.

Second, while those "cages" were built and used by previous administrations, they were used as holding cells to detain adolescents and adults awaiting initial immigration reviews.  They were not used as part of a deliberate program designed to dismember family units, not used to "cage" toddlers and pre-teen children, and not used as part of a deliberate program designed to terrorize and punish parents who dared to seek asylum in America.  I'm sure that ecbuck would be one of the first to declare that guns don't kill people, people kill people.  In that case, he can and readily does differentiate between the instrument and the crime.  But, he doesn't apply that same line of reasoning to border holding cells.  When used to detain adolescents and adults, they are a lawful means of temporary detention.  When used to "cage" toddlers and pre-teen children, they can be construed as instruments used in crimes against humanity.

And, third, it's that lawful part you and Rebecca Latson bring up that permeates this discussion.  It's not hard to see why Ms Latson is annoyed.  She's a photographer and she lives for and thrives on the beauty of places like Quitobaquito, where the construction of a draconian abomination of wall with funds lawlessly misappropriated from our military has caused so much damage.  It's not hard to see why you're annoyed.  You have a demonstrated interest in conserving native plants and wildlife and, to quote the NPCA, "the damage that has been done to our national parks and public lands" has been a direct hit on your interests.  And, it's not hard to see why the attorneys at the NPCA and I are annoyed.  We just don't like the childish and cavalier lawlessness that has peremeated the past few years and we want it to stop.  It has to stop.

Well, ecbuck, you're actually not being entirely honest with your "It was others that took this off into the tangent of walls and immigration" defense.  Yes, you're correct that Rebecca Latson did say she "would much rather give my tax dollars to NPCA than to pay for a freaking border wall" in her response to your initial comment and she was therefore the first to insert "the tangent of walls" into the string.  That much is true.  However, in your own response to her, you chose to "mention the women and children trafficed [sic] over the border" and letting "Mexican women be sold as sex slaves" and, technically, that was what actually forced open the discussion of immigration.

This might seem to be a trivial point and you and your friends on the very extreme right edge of the spectrum might condemn me for belaboring it.  But, the truth is that so many of us have grown so tired and so disgusted by the chronic and continuing rightwing mendacity that we have endured over the past couple of decades that we are now cautious about allowing any further prevarication or obfuscation on your part to go unanswered for fear that it would only serve as enabling behavior.