(10-27-2018 02:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 01:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Just open up any liberal bent media and you are sure to find any number of stories of using legal process (both of jailing and suing) against the Kochs.

I see you are still stuck on Trump doing this. Tell us when you find the marrow in that bone.

He's just repeating what he has been told. Give him a break.

I've seen this trope repeated ad infinitum on CNN and MSNPC in the last couple of days.

Oooooohhhh...... orange man bad..... orange man be scolded..... there are a lot of things that are easier to point to, but the 'lock xxxx up' seems to be the trope du jour now.

Thank god I dont have a toothache right now. Would have to find a way to blame orange man.....

All bad things flow from him, Evil personified, the leader of the Republican mob.

If you have any doubts, just turn on "The All-Trump, All the Time channel", AKA CNN.

I watch CNN more hours/week than I watch Fox. No doubt they are out to get him.

I specifically said I didn’t like how Schumer and spells I responded, and agreed that it fed directly into the cycle that I’m complaining about. Someone needs to be an adult and their response did not fit that bill.

All bad things don’t flow from Trump, but he does enough bad things that it may seem that way...

And I’ll agree with you that CNN has jumped the shark in Trump coverage and needs to pry themselves back from the precipice if they can. I understand that he is POTUS and thus a news maker, but they really should find some other topics to cover. It gets old (but apparently, they think it gets ratings).

Well, it's called playing to their base. Fox draws from conservatives. CNN draws from Trump-haters. Everybody gets to hear what they like to hear.

I watch both (and others) to try and get a balance. CNN is my broccoli.

I think most of the bad things trump does are in manner, not substance. it will be fun to watch CNN when Putin visits, and listen to the calls for impeachment.

so we have adandoned the make illegals legal debate? I wonder if OONH will come back in a few weeks when the caravan hits the border?

If you get a chance, take a look at the people in the caravan and ask yourself how many you think have a skill or the education to make it here. Seems to be mostly young men 15-25 and mothers with toddlers. I doubt there are any engineers or dentists walking that road.

Surprised I haven’t seen many Jade Helm-type conspiracy theories as Trump mobilizes military troops to Texas. Anyone think Abbott will pipe up this time?

(10-31-2018 08:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Surprised I haven’t seen many Jade Helm-type conspiracy theories as Trump mobilizes military troops to Texas. Anyone think Abbott will pipe up this time?

No, because I'm betting that this time Abbott has been told what's going on.

From what I've seen, there appear to be a lot of Corps of Engineers types going down there. Maybe they're there to build facilities to handle the crush, wen it comes. I doubt what's there now is adequate.

(10-27-2018 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If you get a chance, take a look at the people in the caravan and ask yourself how many you think have a skill or the education to make it here. Seems to be mostly young men 15-25 and mothers with toddlers. I doubt there are any engineers or dentists walking that road.

But this gets back to the real problem. We don't have a comprehensive legal immigration policy. We need one. It needs to be compassionate but realistic. Since Trudeau has been so vocal about condemning us, we could even start with Canada's, although I don't agree with them on anchor babies.

(10-31-2018 08:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Surprised I haven’t seen many Jade Helm-type conspiracy theories as Trump mobilizes military troops to Texas. Anyone think Abbott will pipe up this time?

No, because I'm betting that this time Abbott has been told what's going on.

From what I've seen, there appear to be a lot of Corps of Engineers types going down there. Maybe they're there to build facilities to handle the crush, wen it comes. I doubt what's there now is adequate.

Yeah, that's the exact reason Abbott is on board. Nothing to do with politics...

Per the WSJ:

Quote: Under the new plans, about 1,800 troops will go to Texas, 1,700 to Arizona and 1,500 to California. The troops will be drawn from about 10 U.S. Army installations and consist largely of military police and engineers, officials said. U.S. Marines also will be deployed, officials said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-to...1540820650

The local paper from Fort Bragg goes into more detail.

Quote:“By the end of this week we will deploy over 5,200 soldiers to the Southwest border,” he said. “That is just the start of this operation. We will continue to adjust the numbers and inform you of those.”

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will work with “three combat engineer battalions with expertise in building temporary barriers and fencing. The battalions will bring their heavy equipment,” already being hauled to Texas, O’Shaughnessy said.

The active-duty soldiers will join more than 2,000 National Guard troops already at the border as part of “Operation Guardian Support,” according to a Department of Defense news release.

“The troops that deploy with weapons will carry them,” O’Shaughnessy said, according to the DoD release.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/...45820.html

So there will be Corps of Engineers there, but still plenty of MPs and armed soldiers. I see no problem with this, and am glad the idiotic Jade Helm conspiracy theorists aren't up in arms about this event. As a comparison, Jade Helm was an exercise of 1,200 troops across 7 states.

(10-31-2018 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If you get a chance, take a look at the people in the caravan and ask yourself how many you think have a skill or the education to make it here. Seems to be mostly young men 15-25 and mothers with toddlers. I doubt there are any engineers or dentists walking that road.

But this gets back to the real problem. We don't have a comprehensive legal immigration policy. We need one. It needs to be compassionate but realistic. Since Trudeau has been so vocal about condemning us, we could even start with Canada's, although I don't agree with them on anchor babies.

Since these caravans are attempting to reach the US to claim asylum, what would a good solution be? Instead of making asylum seekers request asylum at a port of entry, allow them to do so at a consulate? Completely remove asylum from our immigration policy? Allow people to apply online?

This one is a tricky subject if one feels that the US has a responsibility to offer asylum seekers refuge.

(10-31-2018 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If you get a chance, take a look at the people in the caravan and ask yourself how many you think have a skill or the education to make it here. Seems to be mostly young men 15-25 and mothers with toddlers. I doubt there are any engineers or dentists walking that road.

But this gets back to the real problem. We don't have a comprehensive legal immigration policy. We need one. It needs to be compassionate but realistic. Since Trudeau has been so vocal about condemning us, we could even start with Canada's, although I don't agree with them on anchor babies.

Since these caravans are attempting to reach the US to claim asylum, what would a good solution be? Instead of making asylum seekers request asylum at a port of entry, allow them to do so at a consulate? Completely remove asylum from our immigration policy? Allow people to apply online?
This one is a tricky subject if one feels that the US has a responsibility to offer asylum seekers refuge.

Yes it is a tricky subject. Resolving it requires balancing some significant equities. I thought when Trump proposed the wall that he might be doing a Reaganesque compromise deal where he would ultimately give up the wall to get some things he wanted--merit-based immigration system, upgraded border enforcement, some resolution to the problem of illegals already here (I would support permanent guest worker status without path to citizenship, unless they go back and do it legally), end to birthright citizenship for children of illegals.

The consulate/embassy application is the way I believe Canada and most other developed countries handle it. You don't get through the port of entry until you get your visa.

(10-31-2018 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If you get a chance, take a look at the people in the caravan and ask yourself how many you think have a skill or the education to make it here. Seems to be mostly young men 15-25 and mothers with toddlers. I doubt there are any engineers or dentists walking that road.

But this gets back to the real problem. We don't have a comprehensive legal immigration policy. We need one. It needs to be compassionate but realistic. Since Trudeau has been so vocal about condemning us, we could even start with Canada's, although I don't agree with them on anchor babies.

Since these caravans are attempting to reach the US to claim asylum, what would a good solution be? Instead of making asylum seekers request asylum at a port of entry, allow them to do so at a consulate? Completely remove asylum from our immigration policy? Allow people to apply online?

This one is a tricky subject if one feels that the US has a responsibility to offer asylum seekers refuge.

From the interviews with people in the caravan, most are coming looking for jobs. A bad economy is not grounds for asylum. One man said he was coming because he hoped to get a pardon for attempted murder.

Online? I see nobody carrying laptops.

Yes, allow them to apply a consulate or whatever, but they still have to be vetted at the border. The word has spread about the right things to say to be admitted.

migrant caravan

"...an accusation that activists assisting the caravan said was false..."

What activists? Representing what/who? Where from?

"In his hometown of Pena Blanca, Isaac, the 12-year-old who sneaked out in the middle of the night, said he had been one of eight children in a house with plastic tarps for its walls and ceiling"

:Isaac borrowed 200 Honduran lempiras — about $8 — from his boss, a vegetable vendor. When he told his mother he wanted to join the caravan so he could become an electrician in the United States and build her a proper house in Pena Blanca, she laughed."

"There are bad people here, too,” Jordy would say later.

Interesting speculation that the 'endgame' on the Mueller investigation is being played out 'sub rosa'.

Evidence that Mueller has subpoenaed Trump and a Fierce Fight is already happening

(10-31-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If you get a chance, take a look at the people in the caravan and ask yourself how many you think have a skill or the education to make it here. Seems to be mostly young men 15-25 and mothers with toddlers. I doubt there are any engineers or dentists walking that road.

But this gets back to the real problem. We don't have a comprehensive legal immigration policy. We need one. It needs to be compassionate but realistic. Since Trudeau has been so vocal about condemning us, we could even start with Canada's, although I don't agree with them on anchor babies.

Since these caravans are attempting to reach the US to claim asylum, what would a good solution be? Instead of making asylum seekers request asylum at a port of entry, allow them to do so at a consulate? Completely remove asylum from our immigration policy? Allow people to apply online?

This one is a tricky subject if one feels that the US has a responsibility to offer asylum seekers refuge.

From the interviews with people in the caravan, most are coming looking for jobs. A bad economy is not grounds for asylum. One man said he was coming because he hoped to get a pardon for attempted murder.

Online? I see nobody carrying laptops.

Yes, allow them to apply a consulate or whatever, but they still have to be vetted at the border. The word has spread about the right things to say to be admitted.

My point is that this caravan is actually attempting to do something legally - applying for asylum as a US port of entry. The validity of the claims is not really germane to that conversation.

They're obviously not trying to enter the country illegally - if they were, arriving in a 1,000+ person caravan isn't exactly the best way to slip into the country undetected.

So if we want to stop the caravan(s) we need to adjust our policies on asylum and how you apply for it.

Do you know how the vetting at the border for asylum seekers works? I don't, but it sounds like you're saying there is no vetting at the border or after it. Is that the case?

(10-31-2018 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If you get a chance, take a look at the people in the caravan and ask yourself how many you think have a skill or the education to make it here. Seems to be mostly young men 15-25 and mothers with toddlers. I doubt there are any engineers or dentists walking that road.

But this gets back to the real problem. We don't have a comprehensive legal immigration policy. We need one. It needs to be compassionate but realistic. Since Trudeau has been so vocal about condemning us, we could even start with Canada's, although I don't agree with them on anchor babies.

Since these caravans are attempting to reach the US to claim asylum, what would a good solution be? Instead of making asylum seekers request asylum at a port of entry, allow them to do so at a consulate? Completely remove asylum from our immigration policy? Allow people to apply online?

This one is a tricky subject if one feels that the US has a responsibility to offer asylum seekers refuge.

From the interviews with people in the caravan, most are coming looking for jobs. A bad economy is not grounds for asylum. One man said he was coming because he hoped to get a pardon for attempted murder.

Online? I see nobody carrying laptops.

Yes, allow them to apply a consulate or whatever, but they still have to be vetted at the border. The word has spread about the right things to say to be admitted.

My point is that this caravan is actually attempting to do something legally - applying for asylum as a US port of entry. The validity of the claims is not really germane to that conversation.

They're obviously not trying to enter the country illegally - if they were, arriving in a 1,000+ person caravan isn't exactly the best way to slip into the country undetected.

So if we want to stop the caravan(s) we need to adjust our policies on asylum and how you apply for it.

Do you know how the vetting at the border for asylum seekers works? I don't, but it sounds like you're saying there is no vetting at the border or after it. Is that the case?

Yes, there is vetting, and a howl every time an "asylum seeker" is rejected.

I am sure the people in the caravan have learned(maybe from those activists?) the best way to be accepted into the US is to claim to need asylum, even though the interviews on all sorts of media show that most of them are traveling for economic reasons.

Asylum from war is one thing; asylum from poverty another.

"They want to kill me" is a good asylum statement. "I want to be an electrician" is not. I bet that by the time they reach the border, that kid's story will have changed from the latter to the former.

It's only legal if they tell the truth about why they are applying for asylum, and it fits what we are willing to grant asylum for. Otherwise, it is just lying.

(10-31-2018 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But this gets back to the real problem. We don't have a comprehensive legal immigration policy. We need one. It needs to be compassionate but realistic. Since Trudeau has been so vocal about condemning us, we could even start with Canada's, although I don't agree with them on anchor babies.

Since these caravans are attempting to reach the US to claim asylum, what would a good solution be? Instead of making asylum seekers request asylum at a port of entry, allow them to do so at a consulate? Completely remove asylum from our immigration policy? Allow people to apply online?

This one is a tricky subject if one feels that the US has a responsibility to offer asylum seekers refuge.

From the interviews with people in the caravan, most are coming looking for jobs. A bad economy is not grounds for asylum. One man said he was coming because he hoped to get a pardon for attempted murder.

Online? I see nobody carrying laptops.

Yes, allow them to apply a consulate or whatever, but they still have to be vetted at the border. The word has spread about the right things to say to be admitted.

My point is that this caravan is actually attempting to do something legally - applying for asylum as a US port of entry. The validity of the claims is not really germane to that conversation.

They're obviously not trying to enter the country illegally - if they were, arriving in a 1,000+ person caravan isn't exactly the best way to slip into the country undetected.

So if we want to stop the caravan(s) we need to adjust our policies on asylum and how you apply for it.

Do you know how the vetting at the border for asylum seekers works? I don't, but it sounds like you're saying there is no vetting at the border or after it. Is that the case?

Yes, there is vetting, and a howl every time an "asylum seeker" is rejected.

I am sure the people in the caravan have learned(maybe from those activists?) the best way to be accepted into the US is to claim to need asylum, even though the interviews on all sorts of media show that most of them are traveling for economic reasons.

Asylum from war is one thing; asylum from poverty another.

"They want to kill me" is a good asylum statement. "I want to be an electrician" is not. I bet that by the time they reach the border, that kid's story will have changed from the latter to the former.

It's only legal if they tell the truth about why they are applying for asylum, and it fits what we are willing to grant asylum for. Otherwise, it is just lying.

You're right - seeking asylum for economic reasons isn't valid. Is there evidence that people are being granted asylum for those reasons?

USCIS list the valid reasons for asylum as being people eeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

Race
Religion
Nationality
Membership in a particular social group
Political opinion

So it sounds like you think people are lying about the items above, when there real goal is to just increase their income through higher paying jobs. Is there evidence that these lies are actually allowing people to gain asylum?

And to go further, do you have any idea how many individuals are granted asylum each year? Hint: it's probably a lot fewer than you think (at least, it was to me). Also, what about the denial rate? That was also a lot higher than I expected.

(10-31-2018 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Since these caravans are attempting to reach the US to claim asylum, what would a good solution be? Instead of making asylum seekers request asylum at a port of entry, allow them to do so at a consulate? Completely remove asylum from our immigration policy? Allow people to apply online?

This one is a tricky subject if one feels that the US has a responsibility to offer asylum seekers refuge.

From the interviews with people in the caravan, most are coming looking for jobs. A bad economy is not grounds for asylum. One man said he was coming because he hoped to get a pardon for attempted murder.

Online? I see nobody carrying laptops.

Yes, allow them to apply a consulate or whatever, but they still have to be vetted at the border. The word has spread about the right things to say to be admitted.

My point is that this caravan is actually attempting to do something legally - applying for asylum as a US port of entry. The validity of the claims is not really germane to that conversation.

They're obviously not trying to enter the country illegally - if they were, arriving in a 1,000+ person caravan isn't exactly the best way to slip into the country undetected.

So if we want to stop the caravan(s) we need to adjust our policies on asylum and how you apply for it.

Do you know how the vetting at the border for asylum seekers works? I don't, but it sounds like you're saying there is no vetting at the border or after it. Is that the case?

Yes, there is vetting, and a howl every time an "asylum seeker" is rejected.

I am sure the people in the caravan have learned(maybe from those activists?) the best way to be accepted into the US is to claim to need asylum, even though the interviews on all sorts of media show that most of them are traveling for economic reasons.

Asylum from war is one thing; asylum from poverty another.

"They want to kill me" is a good asylum statement. "I want to be an electrician" is not. I bet that by the time they reach the border, that kid's story will have changed from the latter to the former.

It's only legal if they tell the truth about why they are applying for asylum, and it fits what we are willing to grant asylum for. Otherwise, it is just lying.

You're right - seeking asylum for economic reasons isn't valid. Is there evidence that people are being granted asylum for those reasons?

USCIS list the valid reasons for asylum as being people eeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

Race
Religion
Nationality
Membership in a particular social group
Political opinion

So it sounds like you think people are lying about the items above, when there real goal is to just increase their income through higher paying jobs. Is there evidence that these lies are actually allowing people to gain asylum?

And to go further, do you have any idea how many individuals are granted asylum each year? Hint: it's probably a lot fewer than you think (at least, it was to me). Also, what about the denial rate? That was also a lot higher than I expected.

Ah, he denial rate. That shows that there IS vetting.

You bet I think people are lying about it. Do you think none are? Why do you think that? People lie all the time in their own self-interest. Ever been stopped by a traffic cop? Ever been audited? Ever had a wife? Ever apply for something?

Which of the above reasons would make a person afraid of a cartel? You might be in fear, but is it because of your religion?

So, what are the numbers, and how do they apply to this caravan?

(10-31-2018 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But this gets back to the real problem. We don't have a comprehensive legal immigration policy. We need one. It needs to be compassionate but realistic. Since Trudeau has been so vocal about condemning us, we could even start with Canada's, although I don't agree with them on anchor babies.

Perhaps our policy could be to be have rail cars waiting at our southern border to swiftly transport all of the caravan to Canada. Surely Trudeau would be supportive, no?

(10-31-2018 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  From the interviews with people in the caravan, most are coming looking for jobs. A bad economy is not grounds for asylum. One man said he was coming because he hoped to get a pardon for attempted murder.

Online? I see nobody carrying laptops.

Yes, allow them to apply a consulate or whatever, but they still have to be vetted at the border. The word has spread about the right things to say to be admitted.

My point is that this caravan is actually attempting to do something legally - applying for asylum as a US port of entry. The validity of the claims is not really germane to that conversation.

They're obviously not trying to enter the country illegally - if they were, arriving in a 1,000+ person caravan isn't exactly the best way to slip into the country undetected.

So if we want to stop the caravan(s) we need to adjust our policies on asylum and how you apply for it.

Do you know how the vetting at the border for asylum seekers works? I don't, but it sounds like you're saying there is no vetting at the border or after it. Is that the case?

Yes, there is vetting, and a howl every time an "asylum seeker" is rejected.

I am sure the people in the caravan have learned(maybe from those activists?) the best way to be accepted into the US is to claim to need asylum, even though the interviews on all sorts of media show that most of them are traveling for economic reasons.

Asylum from war is one thing; asylum from poverty another.

"They want to kill me" is a good asylum statement. "I want to be an electrician" is not. I bet that by the time they reach the border, that kid's story will have changed from the latter to the former.

It's only legal if they tell the truth about why they are applying for asylum, and it fits what we are willing to grant asylum for. Otherwise, it is just lying.

You're right - seeking asylum for economic reasons isn't valid. Is there evidence that people are being granted asylum for those reasons?

USCIS list the valid reasons for asylum as being people eeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

Race
Religion
Nationality
Membership in a particular social group
Political opinion

So it sounds like you think people are lying about the items above, when there real goal is to just increase their income through higher paying jobs. Is there evidence that these lies are actually allowing people to gain asylum?

And to go further, do you have any idea how many individuals are granted asylum each year? Hint: it's probably a lot fewer than you think (at least, it was to me). Also, what about the denial rate? That was also a lot higher than I expected.

Ah, he denial rate. That shows that there IS vetting.

You bet I think people are lying about it. Do you think none are? Why do you think that? People lie all the time in their own self-interest. Ever been stopped by a traffic cop? Ever been audited? Ever had a wife? Ever apply for something?

Which of the above reasons would make a person afraid of a cartel? You might be in fear, but is it because of your religion?

So, what are the numbers, and how do they apply to this caravan?

Yes there is vetting - anyone who thinks there isn't hasn't done their homework.

I didn't ask whether you thought people were lying, I was asking whether you thought those lies translated into granted asylum status.

There was an uptick in 2017, but from 2008 to 2016, total asylum decisions (rejections and acceptances) hovered around 25k to 20k per year, and the denial rate between 60% and 45%. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/491/

I believe that reporting only accounts for affirmative cases, and not defensive cases. If you look at the total of those, I've found numbers for the total number of granted cases, and those have ranged from between 20,000 and 30,000 per year from 2008 to 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_...0-2016.png

How do these numbers apply to the caravan? My guess is it will be similar to what we saw in 2017 - an increase in applications and a subsequent increase in the denial rate.

(10-31-2018 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I didn't ask whether you thought people were lying, I was asking whether you thought those lies translated into granted asylum status.

Yes, of course it does. There is always some percentage of deceptions that succeeds in its deception, whether it is people lying about their taxes or their speeding.

If a young man comes before you with no documents and a story that he is afraid for his life, how do you tell if he is lying, for 100% CERTAINTY?

I wasn't relying on research to know there was vetting - I was relying on personal knowledge - what you call anecdotal evidence.

(10-31-2018 01:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I didn't ask whether you thought people were lying, I was asking whether you thought those lies translated into granted asylum status.

Yes, of course it does. There is always some percentage of deceptions that succeeds in its deception, whether it is people lying about their taxes or their speeding.

If a young man comes before you with no documents and a story that he is afraid for his life, how do you tell if he is lying, for 100% CERTAINTY?

I wasn't relying on research to know there was vetting - I was relying on personal knowledge - what you call anecdotal evidence.

So are you advocating that we stop the asylum process because there may be a few bad actors that get through? I think I’m missing something here.

(10-31-2018 01:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 01:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I didn't ask whether you thought people were lying, I was asking whether you thought those lies translated into granted asylum status.

Yes, of course it does. There is always some percentage of deceptions that succeeds in its deception, whether it is people lying about their taxes or their speeding.

If a young man comes before you with no documents and a story that he is afraid for his life, how do you tell if he is lying, for 100% CERTAINTY?

I wasn't relying on research to know there was vetting - I was relying on personal knowledge - what you call anecdotal evidence.

So are you advocating that we stop the asylum process because there may be a few bad actors that get through? I think I’m missing something here.

I find it interesting that the person who characterizes a 'caravan' seeking asylum (as opposed to any individual, and fairly well admits the problem when using the term 'a caravan seeking asylum')

Quote:this caravan is actually attempting to do something legally

doesnt seem to see a problem with the excuse being used a serious catch all phrase to forestall deportation at this point.

Yes, when the 'legal thing' is being abused to forestall or avoid the consequences of it being used in that 'forestalling manner', you fundamentally need to restrict it.

I think that at this point the main problem is the burden of proof, so to speak. Currently, once someone utters 'asylum' and puts together any mamby pamby 'excuse' --- insto presto it introduces the issue of that 'having to be investigated' and insto presto an automatic stay of deportation.

Why not reverse that burden? Make it where the mere utterance doesnt bring everything to the instant delay and stop. Make a burden of proof for 'at the time of application'. So you say that you want asylum and have zero backing for it? Okay, sorry charlie, onto the bus for you.

Right now the mere application makes everything grind to a gd halt.

And no, its not because 'a few bad actors get through'. Nice try on the sympathy thingy. Its because it is wrong to obstruct for 6 mos a deportation of what would be an illegal act. I would hazard to guess less than 2 per cent of the 'caravan' actually could properly have even a proper claim for asylum.

By your standard, you seemingly reverse the proportion. By my standard, 98 per cent of the people are by definition 'bad actors' in the sense they will be committing an illegal act. You seemingly think it OK to throw everything into a standstill state to make sure that 2 per cent isnt overshadowed by the rest of the "I am Spartacus" players. But that is pretty much par for the course for most of the open border types.

(10-31-2018 01:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 01:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I didn't ask whether you thought people were lying, I was asking whether you thought those lies translated into granted asylum status.

Yes, of course it does. There is always some percentage of deceptions that succeeds in its deception, whether it is people lying about their taxes or their speeding.

If a young man comes before you with no documents and a story that he is afraid for his life, how do you tell if he is lying, for 100% CERTAINTY?

I wasn't relying on research to know there was vetting - I was relying on personal knowledge - what you call anecdotal evidence.

So are you advocating that we stop the asylum process because there may be a few bad actors that get through? I think I’m missing something here.

You are most assuredly missing something here, and it is the part where I advocated stopping the asylum process.