(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.