Official: Illegal Immigrants Renting Children To Pose as Families at Border

ocean515 said:

It's a very simple statement I've made. You have given no facts outside your opinion to support your claim.

Simply stating something without a link to CBP policy, or any other official policy, that explicitly supports your claim about UAC's, means you have proven nothing.


You are welcome to have an opinion, but outside that explicit proof, that's all it is.

Click to expand...

“It's a very simple statement I've made. You have given no facts outside your opinion to support your claim.”

The facts I gave were what you supplied.

“Simply stating something without a link to CBP policy, or any other official policy, that explicitly supports your claim about UAC's, means you have proven nothing.”

I’m using the UAC definition of an unaccompanied alien minor or child that you posted. I’m using your evidence, which I said I agreed with. What’s your problem with agreeing to and using your evidence? If you disagree with your own evidence, post CBP definition if you think it’s different and helps your case, whatever your case is.

“You are welcome to have an opinion, but outside that explicit proof, that's all it is.”

Like I said, I gave you the proof. It was your own evidence you gave. Get a grip.

My claim was that not all of those 20,000 minors were “on their own” as you stated. There was often a family relative or friend of the family accompanying that child, which would still define that child as an “unaccompanied alien minor or child”, which was the UAC definition you yourself gave. The UAC definition is not limited to minors who were “on their own”. Your claim was proved wrong by the UAC definition. If you can’t see that, there’s no sense in going any further with this. Or, your can clarify yourself and say by “on their own” you meant the UAC definition of “unaccompanied alien minor or child”. Otherwise, you need help.

bluesmoke said:

“You have offered nothing but your opinion. Back it with proof from a credible outside source.”

I gave you as solid proof as could possibly be had. However, it’s not as you asked, which was for a credible outside source. Ya got me there. I gave you the inside source. The bill, AB 450, itself. Go to post #76. Now, all you have to do is reach out and click on the link and read wherein my post guides you to the pertinent language in the bill.

Click to expand...

You did provide a link to the ENTIRE legislation.

In response to your claims:

AB 450: California’s Law of Unintended Immigration Consequences | California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog



I could post far more facts. Hardly the brief few you have posted, which don't cover all of AB450. Therefore, it is just opinion.

bluesmoke said:

It's not uncommon for you to support a claim with unverifiable information without data nor validity.

Click to expand...

I'm sure some of these righties do nothing but spend their days scouring right-wing sources for sensationalist headlines to regale us with. That they seldom back anything up with well-sourced facts should be a clue that their only purpose in being here is to troll.

veritas1 said:

Yes, why isn't Congress doing its job which is protecting the American people and securing our border? It's rather pathetic when we have to have Mexico send troops to our common border because our own elected representatives either lack the sense of responsibility to do so or are actively opposed to doing so.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with abusing children? You think abusing children protects us?

Say this, out loud, to a person: "It's ok to abuse a child if their parent committed a misdemeanor." See if your internet opinion holds up.

Deuce said:

What does this have to do with abusing children? You think abusing children protects us?

Say this, out loud, to a person: "It's ok to abuse a child if their parent committed a misdemeanor." See if your internet opinion holds up.

Click to expand...

I said nothing about abusing children being OK but those children won't be here if we do the right thing to bring immigration back under control. But Democrats aren't interested in that. They simply see something to rail at Trump about on TV. If the immigration issue went away, what would they have left? Oh, I mean besides RUSSIA!!!!!:lol:

veritas1 said:

It's been an emergency for years. Or did you not notice that 12-20 million illegal immigrants are here and that probably 1 million more will get in this year? Congress has failed. Both parties have failed. Trump is trying to make a Herculean effort to fix it by himself while being opposed by the Dems, the Rinos, the courts and the media. The establishment wants the status quo. Only the average American taxpayer and Trump want to fix the problem.

Click to expand...

Illegal immigration from Mexico was declining when Trump first highlighted the issue. Reason given by analysts: Mexican economy had improved.

Illegal immigration from Central America has increased since. Reason given by observers: drug gang and other violence, thus declining economies.

Trump's Herculean solutions: build a wall that Mexico will pay for, separate children from parents, ignore US law and treaty, claim that Middle Easterners are traveling with the caravan, detain people in miserable conditions, ignore disturbing reports from his own administration and say everything is fine, change decades of precedent regarding asylum law, cut off aid to Central America. Reason given by Trump: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and some of his supporters wouldn't mind.

Of course he is right, and both parties, the courts and the media are all wrong. It's lonely at the top, especially for Hercules.

Nickyjo said:

Illegal immigration from Mexico was declining when Trump first highlighted the issue. Reason given by analysts: Mexican economy had improved.

Illegal immigration from Central America has increased since. Reason given by observers: drug gang and other violence, thus declining economies.

Trump's Herculean solutions: build a wall that Mexico will pay for, separate children from parents, ignore US law and treaty, claim that Middle Easterners are traveling with the caravan, detain people in miserable conditions, ignore disturbing reports from his own administration and say everything is fine, change decades of precedent regarding asylum law, cut off aid to Central America. Reason given by Trump: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and some of his supporters wouldn't mind.

Of course he is right, and both parties, the courts and the media are all wrong. It's lonely at the top, especially for Hercules.

Click to expand...

12-20 million illegal aliens says the system has failed. 100,000 apprehensions in a month says it has failed. Probably 1 million more successful crossings this year says it has failed. Illegal immigrants clogging our prisons and costing taxpayers billions says it has failed. Oh, and we ARE picking up people from the ME, Far East and Africa among the others coming over. Like I said, Democrats, big business and the MSM want the status quo. The average American citizen be damned. You did get one thing correct: Trump is right.

veritas1 said:

12-20 million illegal aliens says the system has failed. 100,000 apprehensions in a month says it has failed. Probably 1 million more successful crossings this year says it has failed. Illegal immigrants clogging our prisons and costing taxpayers billions says it has failed. Oh, and we ARE picking up people from the ME, Far East and Africa among the others coming over. Like I said, Democrats, big business and the MSM want the status quo. The average American citizen be damned. You did get one thing correct: Trump is right.

Click to expand...

Obvious from your response that he was right to say he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and some of his supporters wouldn't mind. Realize that you are saying that the media, both political parties, big business, all of society is somehow in a plot to create chaos. As if Trump's policies haven't.

Look, if you don't like the system, change it. This problem is not completely manageable, but if Trump had respect for the law and the treaties it wouldn't be nearly so severe. If he doesn't like the treaties, withdraw from them. There are three that cover this issue. If he doesn't like the law, introduce legislation to repeal it or change it. More fun to lie and be a demagogue. Viva Fifth Avenue!

Trump is part of a proud tradition that afflicts the country every few generations. The Know Nothings and their nativism of the 1850s mainly directed at the Irish were not much different from the anti-Italians of the early 1900s, or the groups that didn't want to take in Jews in the 1930s. Trump's Mexican rapists speech could have been lifted from the rhetoric aimed at the officials who sparked a mob in New Orleans that resulted in the largest mass lynching in the US. No, not of blacks, of southern Italians. People like my father and grandparents who immigrated.

This too will pass. But take heart. It will no doubt reappear.

veritas1 said:

Evidence? How about the millions of walls around homes, business, factories, power plants, military installations and on and on and on? Anybody arguing that walls don't work should also argue that the sun isn't bright.

Click to expand...

“Evidence? How about the millions of walls around homes, business, factories, power plants, military installations and on and on and on?”

How about the 5,000 mile-long, 16 – 26 feet high Great Wall of China? It never worked for but a short time. Drug smugglers, which Trump says the wall is also needed for, mostly get through legal ports of entry. Still, they tunnel under “the wall” to get drugs under the border. What makes you think that a tunnel won’t be built under the Great Wall of Trump (Trump’s label, not mine) for desperate, determined people fleeing death, starvation and poverty? Most undocumented immigrants are not from south of the border crossings but from visa overstays and they are not necessarily fleeing from the same thing. What’s to stop the “coyote” organization from converting the thousands per person they get for border crossings to forging papers and tourist visas for a jet ride to the US?

“Anybody arguing that walls don't work should also argue that the sun isn't bright.”

The sun, though, is not as bright as Donald Trump. Just ask Him.

Nickyjo said:

Obvious from your response that he was right to say he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and some of his supporters wouldn't mind. Realize that you are saying that the media, both political parties, big business, all of society is somehow in a plot to create chaos. As if Trump's policies haven't.

Look, if you don't like the system, change it. This problem is not completely manageable, but if Trump had respect for the law and the treaties it wouldn't be nearly so severe. If he doesn't like the treaties, withdraw from them. There are three that cover this issue. If he doesn't like the law, introduce legislation to repeal it or change it. More fun to lie and be a demagogue. Viva Fifth Avenue!

Trump is part of a proud tradition that afflicts the country every few generations. The Know Nothings and their nativism of the 1850s mainly directed at the Irish were not much different from the anti-Italians of the early 1900s, or the groups that didn't want to take in Jews in the 1930s. Trump's Mexican rapists speech could have been lifted from the rhetoric aimed at the officials who sparked a mob in New Orleans that resulted in the largest mass lynching in the US. No, not of blacks, of southern Italians. People like my father and grandparents who immigrated.

This too will pass. But take heart. It will no doubt reappear.

Click to expand...

1. I said nothing about any conspiracy. I merely stated facts. Democrats see lots of future voters. Big business sees lots of cheap labor. The Congressional lackeys of the corporations do as they're told. Liberal judges uphold baseless lawsuits against Trump. The MSM sees endless opportunities to attack him. That is why this isn't being fixed nearly quickly enough. There is not only inertia on the part of these other groups, but active opposition and obstruction.

2. Trump can't introduce legislation. All he can do is sign legislation that comes out of Congress. That's how the system works. Only Congress can make laws and only Congress can provide funding. Congress has grossly failed our citizenry.

3. You might believe your last paragraph but it is nonsense. Hispanics aren't singled out for abuse in this country anymore than anyone else is. This is pure mythology. What the people who support Trump on this issue want is respect for the LAW, respect for our borders and respect for our sovereignty. We want a controlled and orderly immigration system, not the chaos currently existing. Sneaking into this country is a crime yet millions do it with no consequences. Not returning for hearings is a crime yet probably 95% of immigrants released into the country with these promises, never come back. Why should they when they know nobody will bother with them? It's a free ticket.

4. A majority of LEGAL immigrants also want this problem fixed. They did it the right way, regardless of how long it took. Why should others get to ignore the law and be allowed to stay? Are you suggesting that these legal immigrants are part of some racist, nativist movement as well? Oh, and in case you'd like to know my "credentials" on this issue, my mother was a first generation immigrant from Italy and I married a first generation immigrant from Latin America. So, I don't need people telling me how I'm part of some movement because I hate immigrants, especially certain kinds of immigrants. I want us to end the chaos, enforce the law, fix the mess and move on to other issues. Unfortunately, many others do not but they obfuscate this fact by calling the other side racists and the like.

bluesmoke said:

“Evidence? How about the millions of walls around homes, business, factories, power plants, military installations and on and on and on?”

How about the 5,000 mile-long, 16 – 26 feet high Great Wall of China? It never worked for but a short time. Drug smugglers, which Trump says the wall is also needed for, mostly get through legal ports of entry. Still, they tunnel under “the wall” to get drugs under the border. What makes you think that a tunnel won’t be built under the Great Wall of Trump (Trump’s label, not mine) for desperate, determined people fleeing death, starvation and poverty? Most undocumented immigrants are not from south of the border crossings but from visa overstays and they are not necessarily fleeing from the same thing. What’s to stop the “coyote” organization from converting the thousands per person they get for border crossings to forging papers and tourist visas for a jet ride to the US?

“Anybody arguing that walls don't work should also argue that the sun isn't bright.”

The sun, though, is not as bright as Donald Trump. Just ask Him.

Click to expand...

Walls work. Any argument to the contrary is silliness. Yes, a wall won't stop 100% of the people trying to get in here. Nothing will. However, that is hardly an argument for not having one. That's like saying that, because you have a leaky roof on your house, you may as well have no roof because some water still gets in.

As for visa overstays, we should be going after them aggressively as well. As I've been told a few times in here, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. All any of these things take is will. Yet, there are too few with the will because they like the status quo, no matter what they otherwise proclaim.

ocean515 said:

You did provide a link to the ENTIRE legislation.

In response to your claims:

AB 450: California’s Law of Unintended Immigration Consequences | California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog

The California legislature and Governor Jerry Brown have once again entered the immigration fray.

This foray is not about its Sanctuary State legislation, recently enacted, and promptly decried by U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as “unconscionable”, and by Thomas Homan, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as “[forcing his] hand,” and causing him to “quadruple workplace crackdowns


Refrain from waiving Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by:

granting voluntary consent to enter any non-public areas at a place of labor, except if presented with “a judicial warrant,” granting voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without “a subpoena or judicial warrant,” except if an “immigration agency” (most often, this would be Homeland Security Investigations [HSI], an agency of U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement [ICE]) issues a Notice of Inspection (NOI) of Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9s and other records required to be maintained under federal immigration regulations in order to verify employment eligibility;

Posted Notice of Worksite Inspection

Post a notice at the worksite in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information to employees, within 72 hours of receiving an NOI, communicating the following information to employees:​

I could post far more facts. Hardly the brief few you have posted, which don't cover all of AB450. Therefore, it is just opinion.

Click to expand...

You can’t specify which “facts” in this latest reply of yours counter exactly which facts of law I gave that refute your claim. That claim was, in your words:

“California made it illegal for employers to engage with Immigration officials in an attempt to make sure their employees are legal.”

To which I responded:

“Not true. An employer cannot legally allow an ICE agent into a nonpublic area place of labor without a warrant. Considerably more limited than what you claim.”

I further provided you the actual CA bill, AB450, and gave wording which refuted your claim as follows:

“Except as otherwise required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer or other person acting on the employer’s behalf from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter nonpublic areas of a place of labor unless the agent provides a judicial warrant, except as specified. Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer or other person acting on the employer’s behalf from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena or court order, subject to a specified exception.”

Your claim gives no exception for entry and would thus, according to what you say, not allow entry even with a judicial warrant, subpoena or court order, being the wording most pertinent in the bill that refute your claim. Nothing in your last reply counters my refutation of your claim. You can’t even juxtapose anything specific in your reply to counter what in the law I specified that refutes your claim.

Your claim and supporting evidence have been refuted without any successful counter refute from you. So, no further reply from me is necessary to your unfounded claim.

BTW, you never provided evidence to support the other claim you made along with this one. The one about “stolen identities”, etc. So, that claim falls unfounded, also.

snakestretcher said:

I'm sure some of these righties do nothing but spend their days scouring right-wing sources for sensationalist headlines to regale us with. That they seldom back anything up with well-sourced facts should be a clue that their only purpose in being here is to troll.

Click to expand...

speaking of facts: Contrary to the maxim “Don’t feed the troll”, I say “Feed the troll facts.” Though such a diet they will projectile vomit, at least those other readers with an open mind (willing to learn) get something from so otherwise failed an effort to educate the troll.

Renae said:

this is why the Asylum "Show up anywhere and you can apply, if you have kids to the front of the line" policy is ****ing stupid, leads to abuse. When a country loses control of its border, its sovereignty , bad **** happens.

Click to expand...

You have already been caught posting fake news on this topic. It really looks like you have gone down the rabbit hole. These people are not being sent to the front of any line, because they come with a kid... they are being separated and sent to a detainment camp. There is no benefit to come with a child. You're story makes no sense.

trixare4kids said:

Hopefully, anti-Trumpers will finally come to their senses and blame those who have put these children in harm's way to begin with...

Click to expand...

You are responsible for supporting Trump, and Trump is responsible for his policies. I am tired of seeing you people act like you have no responsibility in how America treats them while they are on American soil. You're looking for any excuse you can to blame anybody and everybody else.

Grand Mal said:

Protestations of helplessness wearing thin about now...

Yes, everyone blames the predators and scam artists exploiting children. But there's not much the US can do about that. Not much they can do until they have the children in hand. Then, the US COULD do something humanitarian to comfort and ease the troubles the children find themselves wrapped up in if the will was there. Could, in other words, be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Just curious- if there's a Republican in the White House, do you criticize anything the government does/doesn't do?

Click to expand...

They do tend to act like they don't trust government, and government makes everything worse. But when a Republican is in office, they are massive Nationalists and act as if they government can do no wrong. The really offensive and ignorant thing about all of them, is their failure to realize that the government always fails and abuses the most vulnerable and powerless in society. They are also the least represented groups in America, which naturally means minorities are most risk of government oppression and government failure.

veritas1 said:

Walls work. Any argument to the contrary is silliness. Yes, a wall won't stop 100% of the people trying to get in here. Nothing will. However, that is hardly an argument for not having one. That's like saying that, because you have a leaky roof on your house, you may as well have no roof because some water still gets in.

As for visa overstays, we should be going after them aggressively as well. As I've been told a few times in here, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. All any of these things take is will. Yet, there are too few with the will because they like the status quo, no matter what they otherwise proclaim.

Click to expand...

“Walls work. Any argument to the contrary is silliness. Yes, a wall won't stop 100% of the people trying to get in here. Nothing will. However, that is hardly an argument for not having one. That's like saying that, because you have a leaky roof on your house, you may as well have no roof because some water still gets in.”

Saying “Any argument to the contrary is silliness” as evidence to support the effectiveness of “the wall” is not positive evidence. You don’t even define what you think should be the construct of the wall that would be what you believe effective. Trump promised a concrete wall at least 30 feet high. For years, a bipartisan Congress has funded “fencing” of various kind along the border. You should at least say what you mean by “wall”

“As for visa overstays, we should be going after them aggressively as well. As I've been told a few times in here, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. All any of these things take is will. Yet, there are too few with the will because they like the status quo, no matter what they otherwise proclaim.”

People who illegally cross the border are thrown in detention centers. Do you think the same should be done with visa (tourist, etc.) overstays? Or what?

I can only refer you back to post #73, that you’ve yet to provide evidence to support your claims, claims which remain unfounded.

bluesmoke said:

“Walls work. Any argument to the contrary is silliness. Yes, a wall won't stop 100% of the people trying to get in here. Nothing will. However, that is hardly an argument for not having one. That's like saying that, because you have a leaky roof on your house, you may as well have no roof because some water still gets in.”

Saying “Any argument to the contrary is silliness” as evidence to support the effectiveness of “the wall” is not positive evidence. You don’t even define what you think should be the construct of the wall that would be what you believe effective. Trump promised a concrete wall at least 30 feet high. For years, a bipartisan Congress has funded “fencing” of various kind along the border. You should at least say what you mean by “wall”

“As for visa overstays, we should be going after them aggressively as well. As I've been told a few times in here, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. All any of these things take is will. Yet, there are too few with the will because they like the status quo, no matter what they otherwise proclaim.”

People who illegally cross the border are thrown in detention centers. Do you think the same should be done with visa (tourist, etc.) overstays? Or what?

I can only refer you back to post #73, that you’ve yet to provide evidence to support your claims, claims which remain unfounded.

Click to expand...

A wall is a wall. Yes, a substantial barrier 30' feet high. If people feel like calling it a fence to soothe themselves, that's OK. As for Visa overstays, they should be deported when we catch them.

veritas1 said:

A wall is a wall. Yes, a substantial barrier 30' feet high. If people feel like calling it a fence to soothe themselves, that's OK. As for Visa overstays, they should be deported when we catch them.

Click to expand...

“A wall is a wall. Yes, a substantial barrier 30' feet high. If people feel like calling it a fence to soothe themselves, that's OK.”

Thanks for the definition. At least now we’re talking about the same thing. Now all you have to do is come up with the evidence to back up what you say.

“As for Visa overstays, they should be deported when we catch them.”

At least that’s equal treatment. Except, that’s not what we’re doing. I mean, is the US going after visa overstays much at all?

BTW, how much would 1,952 miles of 30-foot tall concrete wall cost? Once you’ve got that and the evidence how well the wall will work, then you might be able to figure out the cost efficacy of the wall.

I guess we’ll just have to leave this debate at you having no evidence to support your claim and thus an assertion, yours, made without evidence, which you’ve not produced, can be dismissed with no need to debate any further. I really don’t think you’re interested in a straight-forward, serious debate.

bluesmoke said:

“A wall is a wall. Yes, a substantial barrier 30' feet high. If people feel like calling it a fence to soothe themselves, that's OK.”

Thanks for the definition. At least now we’re talking about the same thing. Now all you have to do is come up with the evidence to back up what you say.

“As for Visa overstays, they should be deported when we catch them.”

At least that’s equal treatment. Except, that’s not what we’re doing. I mean, is the US going after visa overstays much at all?

BTW, how much would 1,952 miles of 30-foot tall concrete wall cost? Once you’ve got that and the evidence how well the wall will work, then you might be able to figure out the cost efficacy of the wall.

I guess we’ll just have to leave this debate at you having no evidence to support your claim and thus an assertion, yours, made without evidence, which you’ve not produced, can be dismissed with no need to debate any further. I really don’t think you’re interested in a straight-forward, serious debate.

Click to expand...

I don't know what they're doing about visa overstays but obviously it's not enough. This again, falls at the feet of Congress. Also, nobody is talking about 1,900 miles of wall but, even if they were, we'd save billions in the long run when weighed against the cost of illegal aliens in border enforcement, law enforcement, social services, incarceration, etc. BTW, what evidence do you want that walls work? Isn't the fact that they are built everywhere evidence of this?

As for the border, where new walls have been built, such as near SD, illegal immigration has been greatly reduced. What I find amazing is people quibbling over dollars when billions are wasted on nonsense while this is a grave matter of our security and sovereignty. They continually come up with arguments for why we should do nothing or make useless token efforts that really don't solve the problem. I wonder why that is. Our laws need to be revised and the wall needs to be funded, whatever length might be required. The onus is on Congress but, with Democrats in control, the possibility of anything happening is zero. Shame the spineless GOP failed to deliver in Trump's first two years.

veritas1 said:

I don't know what they're doing about visa overstays but obviously it's not enough. This again, falls at the feet of Congress. Also, nobody is talking about 1,900 miles of wall but, even if they were, we'd save billions in the long run when weighed against the cost of illegal aliens in border enforcement, law enforcement, social services, incarceration, etc. BTW, what evidence do you want that walls work? Isn't the fact that they are built everywhere evidence of this?

As for the border, where new walls have been built, such as near SD, illegal immigration has been greatly reduced. What I find amazing is people quibbling over dollars when billions are wasted on nonsense while this is a grave matter of our security and sovereignty. They continually come up with arguments for why we should do nothing or make useless token efforts that really don't solve the problem. I wonder why that is. Our laws need to be revised and the wall needs to be funded, whatever length might be required. The onus is on Congress but, with Democrats in control, the possibility of anything happening is zero. Shame the spineless GOP failed to deliver in Trump's first two years.

Click to expand...

“This is rather funny. In the first instance, I gave you links from both NBC and WSJ concerning Hunter Biden's activities. Your argument amounts to thinking your links are better than mine. Maybe you need to take it up with NBC and the WSJ.”

What's funny, though not to you, is that you said Hunter “…lent his name to a bond scheme which scammed some native Americans.” I proved your lie by stating that directly beneath the headline of the article you linked it was said that Hunter’s name “was invoked—without his knowledge, his lawyer says—in bid to drum up business". Hunter did not “lend his name”. You didn’t and can’t prove that. Now, you continue to lie. You find that funny?

“In the second instance, I answered your questions, diversionary as they were, in the immediately following post.”

You didn’t answer with any evidence to support your claims as I delineated in post #73. All you said was “what evidence do you want that walls work? Isn't the fact that they are built everywhere evidence of this?”, which does nothing more than state another, diversionary, falsehood, that walls are built everywhere being evidence that they work when the actual fact, not as you falsely claim again, is that walls are not built everywhere and obviously they are not working. Again, you can’t backup your claims. You just make another false statement. YOU are the diversionary, disingenuous one.

You also never responded to the cost efficacy of “The Wall”. What you say is simply unfounded.

“So, no, you don't have anything and are simply wasting my time.”

You’re the one wasting time with your continued disingenuity and prevarication. So, no, you don’t backup what you say by providing evidence. You being a waste of time, there is no sense in continuing this thread with you. See you on another thread.

bluesmoke said:

“This is rather funny. In the first instance, I gave you links from both NBC and WSJ concerning Hunter Biden's activities. Your argument amounts to thinking your links are better than mine. Maybe you need to take it up with NBC and the WSJ.”

What's funny, though not to you, is that you said Hunter “…lent his name to a bond scheme which scammed some native Americans.” I proved your lie by stating that directly beneath the headline of the article you linked it was said that Hunter’s name “was invoked—without his knowledge, his lawyer says—in bid to drum up business". Hunter did not “lend his name”. You didn’t and can’t prove that. Now, you continue to lie. You find that funny?

“In the second instance, I answered your questions, diversionary as they were, in the immediately following post.”

You didn’t answer with any evidence to support your claims as I delineated in post #73. All you said was “what evidence do you want that walls work? Isn't the fact that they are built everywhere evidence of this?”, which does nothing more than state another, diversionary, falsehood, that walls are built everywhere being evidence that they work when the actual fact, not as you falsely claim again, is that walls are not built everywhere and obviously they are not working. Again, you can’t backup your claims. You just make another false statement. YOU are the diversionary, disingenuous one.

You also never responded to the cost efficacy of “The Wall”. What you say is simply unfounded.

“So, no, you don't have anything and are simply wasting my time.”

You’re the one wasting time with your continued disingenuity and prevarication. So, no, you don’t backup what you say by providing evidence. You being a waste of time, there is no sense in continuing this thread with you. See you on another thread.

Click to expand...

If you want to claim that walls don't work, haven't worked for centuries and aren't being built every single day, go ahead. Far be it from me to keep you from bleating such idiocy. As for Hunter Biden, if you don't think the information in my link is accurate, and we only have his lawyer's assertion of it, then go take it up with its authors. I provide links but that's not "evidence" because you don't like what they say. You also have an extraordinarily difficult time figuring out the difference between facts and opinions. I'll take your personal attacks for what they are, a substitute for having to make any rational argument.