Post #11320 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (66)

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

No. of Recommendations: 8

Are we talking past each other. I am saying the 60% that are eligible for parole but ultimately are ineligible for asylum are evidence of the inadequacy of the vetting process at the border.

How? The "vetting" takes place at the trial. People are entitled to a hearing on their asylum claims, in front of a judge. Not in front of a Border Patrol agent. The initial review isn't intended to be a final adjudication of their claims, just whether they're presenting enough of a claim to warrant actually going to the trial.

Honestly, with a success rate of 40% by the time you get to trial, it's probably evidence that the initial vetting is too strict, rather than too lose. If claimants are winning nearly half the time when they get to court, it means that the claimant population in general has pretty strong arguments for asylum.

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

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (66)

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.