You are calling me a racist and saying I'm somehow responsible for attacks on chinese people 100 years before I was born. It's so lazy and straw-man, you don't seem able to honestly engage with what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that if you can show that it is very likely that 99% of the people from Alabama are dumb (this is not true but for the sake of argument), and Bob is from Alabama, there's approximately a 99% chance that Bob is dumb if you don't know anything else about Bob to improve your estimate. This is just true, and it's obvious, and if you read what I said it's exactly how I framed it (he's very likely or almost certainly lying). This isn't because of class, or race, or age, or whether they are trans or whatever else.
One more time:
People come to the border or get caught in the US without a visa. If they say "I'm in danger" about 85% of them are allowed to stay in the US while their claim is processed. Of those people who stay, only 10% end up being approved. 10% are denied, and 80% don't show up for the interview, get arrested for something else, self deport, etc. So best case, if you trust our judges, half are not credible. Since the 20% that show up probably, on average, have the best cases it's a fairly safe bet that the 80% who don't show up wouldn't break 50/50, maybe more like 80/20. So 74% would be found not credible (10% who are denied with interview, and 80% of the 80% who don't show up), 26% credible. That's a pretty overwhelming majority who are not making an honest claim. But again, if we just go with the numbers we know, it's 50/50, half are lying (or if you prefer "making an incredible claim they are unable to support with plausible evidence").
No, I said that blanket judgements like you are making are what led to the US to write ahorant legislation against the Chinese, the closest parallel in our nation's history where language like yours have been used to talk about immigrants to reform the system, not some random strawman example. I'm have not said you support that. I said 'here is a very related example language similar to yours went down the slippery path I see your language could'. It's been nothing about you. Your pseudo-statistics are BS. We have immigrant courts/judges we don't use personal rough pseudo statistics to judge people as criminals (in this case criminal perjurer). Down your pseudo statistics path lies not only racism but vigilantism (citizens proving someone a criminal based on very weak premises) where the majority number of your 'statistics' zero actual finding is made only assumptions of guilt. I agree it's plausible that large numbers of asylum seekers are gaming the system. I agree the the Democrats probably facilitated abuse of the system because they can't get the immigration policies they want. I think it's bullshit and un-American to extend that to 'This random dude is a criminal perjeror' based on only that.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend my basic argument. I concede that there are incentives to lie and the system should account for that, but that we shouldn't label a class criminal perjurers because down that path lies nothing good. I've given you more response/good faith than you have me. You keep saying you haven't labeled this man anything but then call him a criminal perjurer and imply his grounds for being in the country are bullshit. But other than that, yeah, you haven't called him anything. All based on 'he sought asylum'.
You say 10% are approved, which matches Americas past 'We would rather 10 criminals go free than 1 innocent person imprisoned'. By your words it sounds like this is a part of America's thought about itself/it's character that you don't agree with. (Now talking about your personal judgement).
If half the people are lying, then half are criminal perjurers. I'm not labeling a class, I'm just believing what the numbers say.
You keep insisting that I'm making broad racist claims about a group of people, over and over.
You seem to think I have some secret agenda to support Trump or his policy, and you keep arguing as though arguing against that agenda is the same as arguing against what I'm saying. This is why I say you aren't honestly engaging and you are repeating talking points. I don't have a secret agenda, I'm a registered Democrat and I've never voted for a Republican as far as I can remember. I also think that most people claiming asylum are not being honest, because that's just what the information I have available clearly suggests.
You want to pick an arbitrarily impossible standard of evidence which is not reasonable and not even used in actual courts when evaluating whether testimony is credible or honest (that there is a criminal perjury conviction). People are caught lying in court every day, even when that's obvious and provable they are rarely (as in almost never) pursued for perjury charges.
Frankly at this point it's clear that you kindof agree with what I'm saying, that a lot of people lie in this process, and it's not the ground truth you are disputing but rather you want me to not say it because it might have consequences if we say things like this, but also you think the system needs to be reformed to address this problem, but also we shouldn't admit there's a problem.