how much fraud there is.

If a DA decides to prosecute and take an accused criminal to court, but is unable to convince the jury (or judge) that the alleged criminal is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean that the DA didn't have a legitimate claim to go to trial, or that the DA or the court/jury were committing fraud in not convicting the accused. No doubt there is fraud in our court systems, too, but you wouldn't default to an assumption that the majority of cases the prosecution loses are illegitimate or fraudulent.

Just the same, just because a judge decides an asylum seeker's case doesn't meet a threshold for being granted asylum doesn't mean that the claim was illegitimate or that the asylum seeker or judge are acting fraudulently.

I'm sure there is some fraud in there. How much? You're claiming it's significant, but have provided no evidence other than your assumption (that happens to fit your narrative).

I'm sorry to keep pushing on this, but my biggest frustration with the immigration debate is misinformation.

When I started spending hours and hours and hours researching all this a little over a year ago, it was because I was tired of so much conflicting information out there. I'm a data-driven, analytical person, who believes with all my being that the only real way to solve problems is to identify and understand their root causes so that solutions actually match/fix those root causes.

My only "agenda" in that research was finding the truth. I'll admit I had fallen for the propaganda - I believed what I'd been told that there was a crisis at the border, and my goal in doing research was to find out just how bad the crisis actually was.

My jaw hit the floor when I saw the data that southern border crossings were at their lowest levels in 45 years, and had been pretty steady at those levels since 2011. Not a single honest person would call that a "crisis." (Yes, things have changed since then.)

If rampant (and increasing) fraud is a legitimate problem, let's address that:

1. research ways to beef up the credible fear screening process within current law (or propose changes to the law)
2. hire more border agents to have the human resource capacity to handle the beefed up (takes longer) credible fear screening process
3. add temporary and/or permanent facilities at ports of entry (and possibly in between) to house workspace for the beefed up screening
4. etc.

But if we're going to put money/people/time/energy in that effort (especially if pulling away from, say, soap and toothbrushes for children), we need to be sure it's a legitimate problem and that the solution will fix it. Building a border wall wouldn't cut down on fraud rates. Detaining children in unsanitary and unsafe conditions won't cut down on fraud rates. We're dealing with a situation (across the political spectrum) of talking points and proposed solutions that wouldn't even fix the talking points, much less the reality of what's happening.

As I've said over and over, I am 100% open to being shown data and/or unbiased factual evidence on fraud rates, effectiveness of a border wall, or anything else - again, we have to be honest about the reality of the problem(s) if we're going to find solutions to fix them. But every time I ask you to provide such data or unbiased evidence to back up your claims, your replies are just assumptions that you "think you can safely conclude" that happen to tie to Republican talking points and support your narrative, as opposed to actual facts.