Not surprisingly - I think the pushback against this immigration wave is no different from any other immigration wave in our history. So I don't see immigrants risking life and limb to come here illegally to earn day-laborer type wages as flipping the bird at anyone.

"We" haven't established that the word trickle is inaccurate - you have unilaterally done that. I strongly disagree. As I do with the notion that I am "hiding" behind %'s. Why am I using the US population instead of the world's? Because we're talking about immigration into the US. If you'd like, let's use the word "material" instead of "trickle" - then, I am just applying a concept I learned in Audit 101 in the Comm school. As an auditor you determine if something is "material" to financial statement presentation by determining how large the issue is compared with the relevant universe - that could be shareholder equity, or total assets or a specific measure, like an expense. Whether the item in question requires further investigation depends on whether it is "material" to the thing you're measuring - under 1% will tend to be immaterial every time. Thus, in this case, my use of the word "trickle". Stated differently - a cup of water poured into a quart container is significant. If you pour it into the James River, it is barely a trickle.

Breitbart's numbers are a cup being poured into the James River. And of course your whole rant ignored the biggest point - which is that total number of illegals in the country is estimated to have declined slightly over the past decade. So you can't have a significant net inflow.