(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).