Post #12660 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (164)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 5

I merely point to the WaPo editorial to buttress my point about the system being gamed.

But it doesn't. It merely points out - as I have - that asylum is granted in a minority of cases. That doesn't mean the system is being gamed - it simply means that a lot of people who don't eventually qualify for asylum end up spending a lot of time in the U.S. because the system takes so long. It doesn't mean their claims were faked, specious, or didn't deserve to get a hearing.

As long as it's a valid claim...and we place a limit on how many we accept.

Why? What's the justification for refusing to grant asylum for someone who is, in fact, a legitimate asylee?

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (164)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.