[absolutelastone]

Indeed fraud certainly is lying. And sure they might also be rejected for other reasons like being a convicted criminal. In the US we also have "willful misrepresentation", which I will count with fraud informally. But my comment, again, specified economic migrants. They know they are economic migrants. The fraud is to claim otherwise on one's application in the name of "hoping optimistically" that this other story will suffice. It sure is hard to maintain focus on this point.

[rat87]

The vast majority of cases are not declined for fraud/wilful misrepresentation. They're declined because they don't meet standards for asylum (or at times because the judges are being pushed to deny regardless of what the law says or means) or because they didn't have proper representation or enough time to prepare and have to face a broken immigration system. Hell we don't even have enough interpreters. Many of those claiming asylum speak less common languages like Mayan languages

[absolutelastone]

Funny how you don't often hear this kind of argument made for estimating the prevalence of tax fraud. And there the risk vs reward calculation is much worse. I would trust more common sense arguments. People who respond to economic incentives are economically motivated.

[rat87]

You're getting this backwards. Claiming most asylum refusals are due to fraud without anyevidence is the opposite of common sense

Also having an economic as well as other reaspns to immigrate does not mean someone isnt a qualified refuge or or not facing persecution or are committing fraud.

Taxes are complicated just like our immigration system. Many people make innocent mistakes every year, most people don't want IRS to come down as hard as they can on every innocent mistake by treating it as fraud without any proof. They expect corrections and if necessary small fines.aw

[absolutelastone]

"Any evidence" is a low bar. Obviously there's evidence of many kinds. The point here regarding common sense is the evidence of human nature when it comes to lopsided risks versus rewards, and widespread knowledge of this imbalance. Legally proving fraud is obviously difficult in a world where there is almost no paperwork to go on (save what the applicant chooses to provide), and hardly worth the effort when the government can just stop investigating when it looks doubtful and reject the application for the same practical result. In the US most applicants are rejected and aside from obviously-suspicious ones who skip their hearing, the most common reason is literally that their fear isn't found to be credible. Also, a person who has multiple motivations but only lists the ones that would benefit them has lied by omission.