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

There is a "credible fear" interview conducted at the border that determines whether or not the asylum applicant is to be held in detention pending adjudication of the claim for asylum. If a credible fear of persecution is shown, the applicant is free to come on in while the asylum claim wends its way through the backlogged system.

The success rate for passing that interview was once above 90%. When, under Trump, that rate started to plummet, a lawsuit was swiftly brought and an injunction obtained. (NY Times, Jul. 2, 2018.)

So, at present, our asylum system offers near-automatic entry into the country, pending proceedings likely to last years, with basically a 50% chance of a green card at the end of that process. Obviously a lot of people find that worth the gamble, and there is always the chance that immigration policy could be liberalized during the long pendency of one's asylum proceedings.

(10-31-2018 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Well, that's why I was asking if you were advocating for that. You seem very concerned with people abusing the system and entering the US on false pretenses. And I'm not sure any specific solution would stop that 100% of the time.

So what are your thoughts on changes that need to be made? You obviously seem concerned that these caravan may take advantage of our current process.

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

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

There is a "credible fear" interview conducted at the border that determines whether or not the asylum applicant is to be held in detention pending adjudication of the claim for asylum. If a credible fear of persecution is shown, the applicant is free to come on in while the asylum claim wends its way through the backlogged system.

The success rate for passing that interview was once above 90%. When, under Trump, that rate started to plummet, a lawsuit was swiftly brought and an injunction obtained. (NY Times, Jul. 2, 2018.)

So, at present, our asylum system offers near-automatic entry into the country, pending proceedings likely to last years, with basically a 50% chance of a green card at the end of that process. Obviously a lot of people find that worth the gamble, and there is always the chance that immigration policy could be liberalized during the long pendency of one's asylum proceedings.

Thanks - I didn't look for that information in particular, and it's pretty helpful.

So since it seems that the general asylum request is granted (in terms of receiving an application and temporary "housing") the question becomes how quickly those cases are decided, and how well the asylum seekers are documented and monitored. If it's slow and we lose people, we need to do better at speeding up the process and monitoring individuals so they do not slip through the cracks and abuse the asylum program.

I think giving asylum to people in actual danger is a good thing. I think abusing that system is a bad thing. I think politicians advocating that abuse for political ends is a really bad thing.

(10-31-2018 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

There is a "credible fear" interview conducted at the border that determines whether or not the asylum applicant is to be held in detention pending adjudication of the claim for asylum. If a credible fear of persecution is shown, the applicant is free to come on in while the asylum claim wends its way through the backlogged system.

The success rate for passing that interview was once above 90%. When, under Trump, that rate started to plummet, a lawsuit was swiftly brought and an injunction obtained. (NY Times, Jul. 2, 2018.)

So, at present, our asylum system offers near-automatic entry into the country, pending proceedings likely to last years, with basically a 50% chance of a green card at the end of that process. Obviously a lot of people find that worth the gamble, and there is always the chance that immigration policy could be liberalized during the long pendency of one's asylum proceedings.

Thanks - I didn't look for that information in particular, and it's pretty helpful.

So since it seems that the general asylum request is granted (in terms of receiving an application and temporary "housing") the question becomes how quickly those cases are decided, and how well the asylum seekers are documented and monitored. If it's slow and we lose people, we need to do better at speeding up the process and monitoring individuals so they do not slip through the cracks and abuse the asylum program.

A lot of them are abusing it when they apply for asylum. I am sure most of the people in the caravan have been coached by now to claim asylum, even though we have their own testimony through interviews that they just want jobs and training.

(10-31-2018 02:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think giving asylum to people in actual danger is a good thing. I think abusing that system is a bad thing. I think politicians advocating that abuse for political ends is a really bad thing.

Who is advocating that abuse? Who is saying that people should lie on their asylum application in order to gain entry to the US?

(10-31-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think giving asylum to people in actual danger is a good thing. I think abusing that system is a bad thing. I think politicians advocating that abuse for political ends is a really bad thing.

Who is advocating that abuse? Who is saying that people should lie on their asylum application in order to gain entry to the US?

Anybody who wants them to successfully enter the US.

Head in the sand.

We know there are activists with the caravan.

(10-31-2018 02:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think giving asylum to people in actual danger is a good thing. I think abusing that system is a bad thing. I think politicians advocating that abuse for political ends is a really bad thing.

Who is advocating that abuse? Who is saying that people should lie on their asylum application in order to gain entry to the US?

Anybody who wants them to successfully enter the US.

Head in the sand.

We know there are activists with the caravan.

A few things to unpack here.

First, how do we know there are activists in the caravan? I'll admit I have not read much about the caravan so I really have no idea how we know what sort of support structure there is.

Second, anyone who wants these migrants to successfully enter the US does not necessarily mean they want these migrants to abuse the current asylum system. They could believe that we should expand the asylum process. They could believe that we should increase our non-asylum legal immigration process in a way that allows them to enter legally, and so on. I haven't seen express advocacy the abuse of the current system, but again, like I said, I'm not super well versed on the caravan thing.

It sounds like you could provide me a lot of relevant articles/reports that support your claims though. Could you send them my way?

(10-31-2018 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Well, that's why I was asking if you were advocating for that. You seem very concerned with people abusing the system and entering the US on false pretenses. And I'm not sure any specific solution would stop that 100% of the time.

So what are your thoughts on changes that need to be made? You obviously seem concerned that these caravan may take advantage of our current process.

Yet there is no issue about a system that lets in on a temporary basis at the very least 80 - 90 per cent of those who simply 'claim' an issue.

(10-31-2018 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think giving asylum to people in actual danger is a good thing. I think abusing that system is a bad thing. I think politicians advocating that abuse for political ends is a really bad thing.

Who is advocating that abuse? Who is saying that people should lie on their asylum application in order to gain entry to the US?

Anybody who wants them to successfully enter the US.

Head in the sand.

We know there are activists with the caravan.

A few things to unpack here.

First, how do we know there are activists in the caravan? I'll admit I have not read much about the caravan so I really have no idea how we know what sort of support structure there is.

Second, anyone who wants these migrants to successfully enter the US does not necessarily mean they want these migrants to abuse the current asylum system. They could believe that we should expand the asylum process. They could believe that we should increase our non-asylum legal immigration process in a way that allows them to enter legally, and so on. I haven't seen express advocacy the abuse of the current system, but again, like I said, I'm not super well versed on the caravan thing.

It sounds like you could provide me a lot of relevant articles/reports that support your claims though. Could you send them my way?

Lad.... seriously think of doing some CASA work or something. I find it interesting that the loudest voices in stating that the system isnt being gamed are the people with zero real world experience in it.

To your second point: if you go down and volunteer you will actually meet people who state just that. It happened with other policies 20 years ago. When DACA came down the pike and Flores was decided, you saw a several hundred percent increase in kids being carted along. I guess that was just 'chance', right?

You go to any left-wing based 'immigrant' group, the current buzzword is 'claim amnesty, --- just like the DACA surge 7 years ago. There are hundreds of groups both in the United States and elsewhere that are wholly committed to loosening of our borders in every aspect.

Less than 5 weeks ago at a pro-bono clinic, one of the lobby speakers was fing coaching the assembled people to get word back to the audience home and 'schooling' (literally) the audience on *how* precisely to answer the questions after the claim of asylum.

I mean, good god, what sort of bubble do you live in?

The caravan is just the end result of all this. And the Flores decision. And the decision that illini posted.

(10-31-2018 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think giving asylum to people in actual danger is a good thing. I think abusing that system is a bad thing. I think politicians advocating that abuse for political ends is a really bad thing.

Who is advocating that abuse? Who is saying that people should lie on their asylum application in order to gain entry to the US?

Anybody who wants them to successfully enter the US.

Head in the sand.

We know there are activists with the caravan.

A few things to unpack here.

First, how do we know there are activists in the caravan? I'll admit I have not read much about the caravan so I really have no idea how we know what sort of support structure there is.

Second, anyone who wants these migrants to successfully enter the US does not necessarily mean they want these migrants to abuse the current asylum system. They could believe that we should expand the asylum process. They could believe that we should increase our non-asylum legal immigration process in a way that allows them to enter legally, and so on. I haven't seen express advocacy the abuse of the current system, but again, like I said, I'm not super well versed on the caravan thing.

It sounds like you could provide me a lot of relevant articles/reports that support your claims though. Could you send them my way?

Lad.... seriously think of doing some CASA work or something. I find it interesting that the loudest voices in stating that the system isnt being gamed are the people with zero real world experience in it.

To your second point: if you go down and volunteer you will actually meet people who state just that. It happened with other policies 20 years ago. When DACA came down the pike and Flores was decided, you saw a several hundred percent increase in kids being carted along. I guess that was just 'chance', right?

You go to any left-wing based 'immigrant' group, the current buzzword is 'claim amnesty, --- just like the DACA surge 7 years ago. There are hundreds of groups both in the United States and elsewhere that are wholly committed to loosening of our borders in every aspect.

Less than 5 weeks ago at a pro-bono clinic, one of the lobby speakers was fing coaching the assembled people to get word back to the audience home and 'schooling' (literally) the audience on *how* precisely to answer the questions after the claim of asylum.

I mean, good god, what sort of bubble do you live in?

The caravan is just the end result of all this. And the Flores decision. And the decision that illini posted.

I'm not suggesting that people aren't trying to game the system - if you think I have, I'd like you to point out that post.

What I'm trying to understand is if those attempts are actually successful. If the normal year results in around 50% of all affirmative cases are rejected, I would imagine that a number of those are from people who are trying to game the system. It would be very informative to know how many of those who are trying to game the system get through - it sounds like it would be on the order of 100s, based on the statistics I presented earlier.

Your second point doesn't touch on what OO originally stated - what politicians are advocating for immigrants to abuse the system? I've seen them advocate for changing the system, but not lying to get through it. I should have been clearer that I was referring to politicians as OO said. I don't doubt that there are activists who don't care about the current law and are coaching people to work the system as you say. I just haven't seen politicians publicly say those things.

You ask what bubble I live in - I'm living in a bubble that is very skeptical of the claims that get y'all on the right riled up. I don't doubt that there are people gaming the system or attempting to help those do it (as I just stated). I'm just testing to see if the bubble y'all live in has thought through all of these talking points and figured out what the issues really are and what the magnitude of the issue really is.

For example, I didn't realize that we only approve asylum applications for less than 30,000 asylum seekers each year - that is approximately less than 0.01% of our population. Based on the uproar over asylum seekers on the southern border, I had assumed the acceptance rate/percent was much, much higher.

(10-31-2018 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  First, how do we know there are activists in the caravan? I'll admit I have not read much about the caravan so I really have no idea how we know what sort of support structure there is.

LINK in post 4950
I wonder who/what these activists work for.

Another link

“There’s no one in charge of this thing,” Alex Mensing, an organizer for Pueblo Sin Fronteras, an immigration rights group that organized a similar, smaller caravan in April, told USA TODAY. “It’s a mass exodus.

Rodrigo Abeja, a Pueblo Sin Fronteras activist traveling with the migrants, said there were concerns about timing the caravan’s arrival to the U.S. border at about the same time as the midterm elections. But he still felt a duty to help the migrants.

“It’s more important to accompany the caravan ... than worry about white voters, sitting in front of their TV’s drinking beer,” he told USA Today.

He pointed to Honduras' crushing poverty and gang violence as the main motivators for the caravan.

“The organizer of this caravan is number one hunger, two death,” he said

Quote:Second, anyone who wants these migrants to successfully enter the US does not necessarily mean they want these migrants to abuse the current asylum system. way?

If the only way to get those people into the US is to say they want asylum, I feel certain that is what they will be told to say.

Not everyone who wants them in the US advocates cheating. Everyone who advocates claiming asylum wants them in the US.

Lad, you seem to purposefully keep your head in the sand. Poor people wanting a better life will do what they need to do to get it, whether that be swimming a river or lying to a border guard. Do you think we need a printed manifesto before you will open your eyes? There is this thing called common sense. You have it, just need to use it.

(10-31-2018 04:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For example, I didn't realize that we only approve asylum applications for less than 30,000 asylum seekers each year - that is approximately less than 0.01% of our population. Based on the uproar over asylum seekers on the southern border, I had assumed the acceptance rate/percent was much, much higher.

30,000 is actually a pretty big number for asylum seekers. Remember, that's asylum seekers, a relatively small subset of total immigrants.

Quote:Second, anyone who wants these migrants to successfully enter the US does not necessarily mean they want these migrants to abuse the current asylum system.

Umm, as a practical matter, yes it does. If the only way for them to enter successfully is by abusing the system, then wanting them to enter successfully is wanting them to abuse the system.

(10-31-2018 04:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Who is advocating that abuse? Who is saying that people should lie on their asylum application in order to gain entry to the US?

Anybody who wants them to successfully enter the US.

Head in the sand.

We know there are activists with the caravan.

A few things to unpack here.

First, how do we know there are activists in the caravan? I'll admit I have not read much about the caravan so I really have no idea how we know what sort of support structure there is.

Second, anyone who wants these migrants to successfully enter the US does not necessarily mean they want these migrants to abuse the current asylum system. They could believe that we should expand the asylum process. They could believe that we should increase our non-asylum legal immigration process in a way that allows them to enter legally, and so on. I haven't seen express advocacy the abuse of the current system, but again, like I said, I'm not super well versed on the caravan thing.

It sounds like you could provide me a lot of relevant articles/reports that support your claims though. Could you send them my way?

Lad.... seriously think of doing some CASA work or something. I find it interesting that the loudest voices in stating that the system isnt being gamed are the people with zero real world experience in it.

To your second point: if you go down and volunteer you will actually meet people who state just that. It happened with other policies 20 years ago. When DACA came down the pike and Flores was decided, you saw a several hundred percent increase in kids being carted along. I guess that was just 'chance', right?

You go to any left-wing based 'immigrant' group, the current buzzword is 'claim amnesty, --- just like the DACA surge 7 years ago. There are hundreds of groups both in the United States and elsewhere that are wholly committed to loosening of our borders in every aspect.

Less than 5 weeks ago at a pro-bono clinic, one of the lobby speakers was fing coaching the assembled people to get word back to the audience home and 'schooling' (literally) the audience on *how* precisely to answer the questions after the claim of asylum.

I mean, good god, what sort of bubble do you live in?

The caravan is just the end result of all this. And the Flores decision. And the decision that illini posted.

I'm not suggesting that people aren't trying to game the system - if you think I have, I'd like you to point out that post.

What I'm trying to understand is if those attempts are actually successful. If the normal year results in around 50% of all affirmative cases are rejected, I would imagine that a number of those are from people who are trying to game the system. It would be very informative to know how many of those who are trying to game the system get through - it sounds like it would be on the order of 100s, based on the statistics I presented earlier.

Your second point doesn't touch on what OO originally stated - what politicians are advocating for immigrants to abuse the system? I've seen them advocate for changing the system, but not lying to get through it. I should have been clearer that I was referring to politicians as OO said. I don't doubt that there are activists who don't care about the current law and are coaching people to work the system as you say. I just haven't seen politicians publicly say those things.

You ask what bubble I live in - I'm living in a bubble that is very skeptical of the claims that get y'all on the right riled up. I don't doubt that there are people gaming the system or attempting to help those do it (as I just stated). I'm just testing to see if the bubble y'all live in has thought through all of these talking points and figured out what the issues really are and what the magnitude of the issue really is.

For example, I didn't realize that we only approve asylum applications for less than 30,000 asylum seekers each year - that is approximately less than 0.01% of our population. Based on the uproar over asylum seekers on the southern border, I had assumed the acceptance rate/percent was much, much higher.

The uproar isnt over the 'number of approved asylum seekers'. You utterly miss the point.

The point is that the 'scoop' is that *once* you get caught, insto presto you guarantee a stay in this country -- 90 per cent of the time. You do that you are practically guaranteed not to be put on the 6am bus to Oaxaca.

Odds are, the scoop says, that if caught you say the 'magic words'. No 6am bus. On top of that the big fight now is even holding illegal immigrants. So on top of the 'instant in', the authorities are now under immense pressure to release them. Essentially on recognizance.

Your statistic of 'only 30,000 granted' is an utterly meaningless statistic when you put your logic cap on. I dont care if the 'number granted' is 30 per cent, or 3 per cent, or .00003 per cent. Who cares. What does matter is that it disables the quich turnaround trip to Ensenada that used to be the norm, and puts out the ability to be part of the 'catch and release' that the progressives seem to want to make the norm.

It is a clear path and a clear way to game the system to both avoid the insta-deport express, *and* clears the way to actually being released on recognizance.

Your statistic about some small number actually granted has absolutely zero to do with the actual issue.

(10-31-2018 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Anybody who wants them to successfully enter the US.

Head in the sand.

We know there are activists with the caravan.

A few things to unpack here.

First, how do we know there are activists in the caravan? I'll admit I have not read much about the caravan so I really have no idea how we know what sort of support structure there is.

Second, anyone who wants these migrants to successfully enter the US does not necessarily mean they want these migrants to abuse the current asylum system. They could believe that we should expand the asylum process. They could believe that we should increase our non-asylum legal immigration process in a way that allows them to enter legally, and so on. I haven't seen express advocacy the abuse of the current system, but again, like I said, I'm not super well versed on the caravan thing.

It sounds like you could provide me a lot of relevant articles/reports that support your claims though. Could you send them my way?

Lad.... seriously think of doing some CASA work or something. I find it interesting that the loudest voices in stating that the system isnt being gamed are the people with zero real world experience in it.

To your second point: if you go down and volunteer you will actually meet people who state just that. It happened with other policies 20 years ago. When DACA came down the pike and Flores was decided, you saw a several hundred percent increase in kids being carted along. I guess that was just 'chance', right?

You go to any left-wing based 'immigrant' group, the current buzzword is 'claim amnesty, --- just like the DACA surge 7 years ago. There are hundreds of groups both in the United States and elsewhere that are wholly committed to loosening of our borders in every aspect.

Less than 5 weeks ago at a pro-bono clinic, one of the lobby speakers was fing coaching the assembled people to get word back to the audience home and 'schooling' (literally) the audience on *how* precisely to answer the questions after the claim of asylum.

I mean, good god, what sort of bubble do you live in?

The caravan is just the end result of all this. And the Flores decision. And the decision that illini posted.

I'm not suggesting that people aren't trying to game the system - if you think I have, I'd like you to point out that post.

What I'm trying to understand is if those attempts are actually successful. If the normal year results in around 50% of all affirmative cases are rejected, I would imagine that a number of those are from people who are trying to game the system. It would be very informative to know how many of those who are trying to game the system get through - it sounds like it would be on the order of 100s, based on the statistics I presented earlier.

Your second point doesn't touch on what OO originally stated - what politicians are advocating for immigrants to abuse the system? I've seen them advocate for changing the system, but not lying to get through it. I should have been clearer that I was referring to politicians as OO said. I don't doubt that there are activists who don't care about the current law and are coaching people to work the system as you say. I just haven't seen politicians publicly say those things.

You ask what bubble I live in - I'm living in a bubble that is very skeptical of the claims that get y'all on the right riled up. I don't doubt that there are people gaming the system or attempting to help those do it (as I just stated). I'm just testing to see if the bubble y'all live in has thought through all of these talking points and figured out what the issues really are and what the magnitude of the issue really is.

For example, I didn't realize that we only approve asylum applications for less than 30,000 asylum seekers each year - that is approximately less than 0.01% of our population. Based on the uproar over asylum seekers on the southern border, I had assumed the acceptance rate/percent was much, much higher.

The uproar isnt over the 'number of approved asylum seekers'. You utterly miss the point.

The point is that the 'scoop' is that *once* you get caught, insto presto you guarantee a stay in this country -- 90 per cent of the time. You do that you are practically guaranteed not to be put on the 6am bus to Oaxaca.

Odds are, the scoop says, that if caught you say the 'magic words'. No 6am bus. On top of that the big fight now is even holding illegal immigrants. So on top of the 'instant in', the authorities are now under immense pressure to release them. Essentially on recognizance.

Your statistic of 'only 30,000 granted' is an utterly meaningless statistic when you put your logic cap on. I dont care if the 'number granted' is 30 per cent, or 3 per cent, or .00003 per cent. Who cares. What does matter is that it disables the quich turnaround trip to Ensenada that used to be the norm, and puts out the ability to be part of the 'catch and release' that the progressives seem to want to make the norm.

It is a clear path and a clear way to game the system to both avoid the insta-deport express, *and* clears the way to actually being released on recognizance.

Your statistic about some small number actually granted has absolutely zero to do with the actual issue.

It is kind of like the statistic that only .5% of your food has bug parts in it.

Or like the statistic that only 1% of people executed under the death penalty are actually innocent.

Low percentages do not make it OK.

(11-01-2018 12:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A few things to unpack here.

First, how do we know there are activists in the caravan? I'll admit I have not read much about the caravan so I really have no idea how we know what sort of support structure there is.

Second, anyone who wants these migrants to successfully enter the US does not necessarily mean they want these migrants to abuse the current asylum system. They could believe that we should expand the asylum process. They could believe that we should increase our non-asylum legal immigration process in a way that allows them to enter legally, and so on. I haven't seen express advocacy the abuse of the current system, but again, like I said, I'm not super well versed on the caravan thing.

It sounds like you could provide me a lot of relevant articles/reports that support your claims though. Could you send them my way?

Lad.... seriously think of doing some CASA work or something. I find it interesting that the loudest voices in stating that the system isnt being gamed are the people with zero real world experience in it.

To your second point: if you go down and volunteer you will actually meet people who state just that. It happened with other policies 20 years ago. When DACA came down the pike and Flores was decided, you saw a several hundred percent increase in kids being carted along. I guess that was just 'chance', right?

You go to any left-wing based 'immigrant' group, the current buzzword is 'claim amnesty, --- just like the DACA surge 7 years ago. There are hundreds of groups both in the United States and elsewhere that are wholly committed to loosening of our borders in every aspect.

Less than 5 weeks ago at a pro-bono clinic, one of the lobby speakers was fing coaching the assembled people to get word back to the audience home and 'schooling' (literally) the audience on *how* precisely to answer the questions after the claim of asylum.

I mean, good god, what sort of bubble do you live in?

The caravan is just the end result of all this. And the Flores decision. And the decision that illini posted.

I'm not suggesting that people aren't trying to game the system - if you think I have, I'd like you to point out that post.

What I'm trying to understand is if those attempts are actually successful. If the normal year results in around 50% of all affirmative cases are rejected, I would imagine that a number of those are from people who are trying to game the system. It would be very informative to know how many of those who are trying to game the system get through - it sounds like it would be on the order of 100s, based on the statistics I presented earlier.

Your second point doesn't touch on what OO originally stated - what politicians are advocating for immigrants to abuse the system? I've seen them advocate for changing the system, but not lying to get through it. I should have been clearer that I was referring to politicians as OO said. I don't doubt that there are activists who don't care about the current law and are coaching people to work the system as you say. I just haven't seen politicians publicly say those things.

You ask what bubble I live in - I'm living in a bubble that is very skeptical of the claims that get y'all on the right riled up. I don't doubt that there are people gaming the system or attempting to help those do it (as I just stated). I'm just testing to see if the bubble y'all live in has thought through all of these talking points and figured out what the issues really are and what the magnitude of the issue really is.

For example, I didn't realize that we only approve asylum applications for less than 30,000 asylum seekers each year - that is approximately less than 0.01% of our population. Based on the uproar over asylum seekers on the southern border, I had assumed the acceptance rate/percent was much, much higher.

The uproar isnt over the 'number of approved asylum seekers'. You utterly miss the point.

The point is that the 'scoop' is that *once* you get caught, insto presto you guarantee a stay in this country -- 90 per cent of the time. You do that you are practically guaranteed not to be put on the 6am bus to Oaxaca.

Odds are, the scoop says, that if caught you say the 'magic words'. No 6am bus. On top of that the big fight now is even holding illegal immigrants. So on top of the 'instant in', the authorities are now under immense pressure to release them. Essentially on recognizance.

Your statistic of 'only 30,000 granted' is an utterly meaningless statistic when you put your logic cap on. I dont care if the 'number granted' is 30 per cent, or 3 per cent, or .00003 per cent. Who cares. What does matter is that it disables the quich turnaround trip to Ensenada that used to be the norm, and puts out the ability to be part of the 'catch and release' that the progressives seem to want to make the norm.

It is a clear path and a clear way to game the system to both avoid the insta-deport express, *and* clears the way to actually being released on recognizance.

Your statistic about some small number actually granted has absolutely zero to do with the actual issue.

It is kind of like the statistic that only .5% of your food has bug parts in it.

Or like the statistic that only 1% of people executed under the death penalty are actually innocent.

Low percentages do not make it OK.

I’m trying to figure out the argument you’re trying to make here. So since X% of migrants are abusing the system, then we should...

My whole point is that the uproar over these caravans is overblown.

The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

(11-01-2018 06:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad.... seriously think of doing some CASA work or something. I find it interesting that the loudest voices in stating that the system isnt being gamed are the people with zero real world experience in it.

To your second point: if you go down and volunteer you will actually meet people who state just that. It happened with other policies 20 years ago. When DACA came down the pike and Flores was decided, you saw a several hundred percent increase in kids being carted along. I guess that was just 'chance', right?

You go to any left-wing based 'immigrant' group, the current buzzword is 'claim amnesty, --- just like the DACA surge 7 years ago. There are hundreds of groups both in the United States and elsewhere that are wholly committed to loosening of our borders in every aspect.

Less than 5 weeks ago at a pro-bono clinic, one of the lobby speakers was fing coaching the assembled people to get word back to the audience home and 'schooling' (literally) the audience on *how* precisely to answer the questions after the claim of asylum.

I mean, good god, what sort of bubble do you live in?

The caravan is just the end result of all this. And the Flores decision. And the decision that illini posted.

I'm not suggesting that people aren't trying to game the system - if you think I have, I'd like you to point out that post.

What I'm trying to understand is if those attempts are actually successful. If the normal year results in around 50% of all affirmative cases are rejected, I would imagine that a number of those are from people who are trying to game the system. It would be very informative to know how many of those who are trying to game the system get through - it sounds like it would be on the order of 100s, based on the statistics I presented earlier.

Your second point doesn't touch on what OO originally stated - what politicians are advocating for immigrants to abuse the system? I've seen them advocate for changing the system, but not lying to get through it. I should have been clearer that I was referring to politicians as OO said. I don't doubt that there are activists who don't care about the current law and are coaching people to work the system as you say. I just haven't seen politicians publicly say those things.

You ask what bubble I live in - I'm living in a bubble that is very skeptical of the claims that get y'all on the right riled up. I don't doubt that there are people gaming the system or attempting to help those do it (as I just stated). I'm just testing to see if the bubble y'all live in has thought through all of these talking points and figured out what the issues really are and what the magnitude of the issue really is.

For example, I didn't realize that we only approve asylum applications for less than 30,000 asylum seekers each year - that is approximately less than 0.01% of our population. Based on the uproar over asylum seekers on the southern border, I had assumed the acceptance rate/percent was much, much higher.

The uproar isnt over the 'number of approved asylum seekers'. You utterly miss the point.

The point is that the 'scoop' is that *once* you get caught, insto presto you guarantee a stay in this country -- 90 per cent of the time. You do that you are practically guaranteed not to be put on the 6am bus to Oaxaca.

Odds are, the scoop says, that if caught you say the 'magic words'. No 6am bus. On top of that the big fight now is even holding illegal immigrants. So on top of the 'instant in', the authorities are now under immense pressure to release them. Essentially on recognizance.

Your statistic of 'only 30,000 granted' is an utterly meaningless statistic when you put your logic cap on. I dont care if the 'number granted' is 30 per cent, or 3 per cent, or .00003 per cent. Who cares. What does matter is that it disables the quich turnaround trip to Ensenada that used to be the norm, and puts out the ability to be part of the 'catch and release' that the progressives seem to want to make the norm.

It is a clear path and a clear way to game the system to both avoid the insta-deport express, *and* clears the way to actually being released on recognizance.

Your statistic about some small number actually granted has absolutely zero to do with the actual issue.

It is kind of like the statistic that only .5% of your food has bug parts in it.

Or like the statistic that only 1% of people executed under the death penalty are actually innocent.

Low percentages do not make it OK.

I’m trying to figure out the argument you’re trying to make here. So since X% of migrants are abusing the system, then we should...

My whole point is that the uproar over these caravans is overblown.

Looks like that is YOUR argument, based on the bolded part. I was pointing out to you the fallacy of your percentage argument.
WHOOSH

If you think THIS is overblown, then you must agree with me that the BLM furor over a dozen or so incidents is overblown. Do you?

If you think THIS is overblown, then you must think the furor over stop and frisk is overblown, since it affects less than .00001% of the population.

You will probably then also agree that the Mueller investigation is overblown, since less than 20 americans out of 350 million were allegedly involved. What is that percentage?

THAT is why I made fun of your "logic"

The caravan is not inconsequential. If they are welcomed with open arms, do you think maybe more will be coming? And more? and More? How many people can we hold, how many can we service? Can we take half the population of Honduras, and Salvador, and Venezuela, and Costa Rica, and mexico? And when we reach that limit, what will be your argument for the next caravan after that?

(11-01-2018 09:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 06:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not suggesting that people aren't trying to game the system - if you think I have, I'd like you to point out that post.

What I'm trying to understand is if those attempts are actually successful. If the normal year results in around 50% of all affirmative cases are rejected, I would imagine that a number of those are from people who are trying to game the system. It would be very informative to know how many of those who are trying to game the system get through - it sounds like it would be on the order of 100s, based on the statistics I presented earlier.

Your second point doesn't touch on what OO originally stated - what politicians are advocating for immigrants to abuse the system? I've seen them advocate for changing the system, but not lying to get through it. I should have been clearer that I was referring to politicians as OO said. I don't doubt that there are activists who don't care about the current law and are coaching people to work the system as you say. I just haven't seen politicians publicly say those things.

You ask what bubble I live in - I'm living in a bubble that is very skeptical of the claims that get y'all on the right riled up. I don't doubt that there are people gaming the system or attempting to help those do it (as I just stated). I'm just testing to see if the bubble y'all live in has thought through all of these talking points and figured out what the issues really are and what the magnitude of the issue really is.

For example, I didn't realize that we only approve asylum applications for less than 30,000 asylum seekers each year - that is approximately less than 0.01% of our population. Based on the uproar over asylum seekers on the southern border, I had assumed the acceptance rate/percent was much, much higher.

The uproar isnt over the 'number of approved asylum seekers'. You utterly miss the point.

The point is that the 'scoop' is that *once* you get caught, insto presto you guarantee a stay in this country -- 90 per cent of the time. You do that you are practically guaranteed not to be put on the 6am bus to Oaxaca.

Odds are, the scoop says, that if caught you say the 'magic words'. No 6am bus. On top of that the big fight now is even holding illegal immigrants. So on top of the 'instant in', the authorities are now under immense pressure to release them. Essentially on recognizance.

Your statistic of 'only 30,000 granted' is an utterly meaningless statistic when you put your logic cap on. I dont care if the 'number granted' is 30 per cent, or 3 per cent, or .00003 per cent. Who cares. What does matter is that it disables the quich turnaround trip to Ensenada that used to be the norm, and puts out the ability to be part of the 'catch and release' that the progressives seem to want to make the norm.

It is a clear path and a clear way to game the system to both avoid the insta-deport express, *and* clears the way to actually being released on recognizance.

Your statistic about some small number actually granted has absolutely zero to do with the actual issue.

It is kind of like the statistic that only .5% of your food has bug parts in it.

Or like the statistic that only 1% of people executed under the death penalty are actually innocent.

Low percentages do not make it OK.

I’m trying to figure out the argument you’re trying to make here. So since X% of migrants are abusing the system, then we should...

My whole point is that the uproar over these caravans is overblown.

Looks like that is YOUR argument, based on the bolded part. I was pointing out to you the fallacy of your percentage argument.
WHOOSH

If you think THIS is overblown, then you must agree with me that the BLM furor over a dozen or so incidents is overblown. Do you?

If you think THIS is overblown, then you must think the furor over stop and frisk is overblown, since it affects less than .00001% of the population.

You will probably then also agree that the Mueller investigation is overblown, since less than 20 americans out of 350 million were allegedly involved. What is that percentage?

THAT is why I made fun of your "logic"

The caravan is not inconsequential. If they are welcomed with open arms, do you think maybe more will be coming? And more? and More? How many people can we hold, how many can we service? Can we take half the population of Honduras, and Salvador, and Venezuela, and Costa Rica, and mexico? And when we reach that limit, what will be your argument for the next caravan after that?

My view point is not that the small number of asylum seekers compared to the population makes the issue meaningless - again, I stated that I was surprised at how few asylum seekers were granted legal status based on the furor over these caravans. We shouldn't let the number of occurrences of an action completely inform what our reaction should be.

But I don't think ignoring the rate of any action is a good idea in informing our reaction. Doing either of those extremes would be silly. But I now see that you do care about the number of migrants seeking asylum status, and not just that some may be lying to get in. I thought you previously only cared that some were taking advantage of the system?

It sounds like you don't like offering asylum, period, if you're worried about the number of migrants that might claim it.

I could pick apart each of your supposed comebacks and explain why they're silly - let me know if you want to. But I wonder, have you never argued that passing gun legislation to restrict a certain type of firearm wouldn't be wise because it would not effect a significant number of gun crimes?

edit: OO, I'll try and clarify. The furor that I hear (not necessarily from you or this board) is about the number of immigrants trying to get asylum. I don't really see the nuanced argument that tanq and you have tried to make that we have a system that can be taken advantage of, but rather that X number of migrants are trying to enter the country "illegally" through he caravan (ironically missing the point that seeking asylum is a legal path to immigration in the US).