I am fine with the true asylum seeker facing oppression and death at home, help as many of them as you can. Our protection could reach more of them if we didn't have to sieve through so many non qualifiers to find them.

But it sounds like you are supportive of as many economic migrants as want to, have a right to do so, taking their shot as you call it. Are there no limits on how many or at what rate we must accept them?

NO, Mike, as I've stated before we can't take everyone. Who knows what these people have been told or what their understanding is when they start the journey North? Do I think they actually know the requirements to get an approved asylum grant at that last and final hearing?

It's telling to me that only 1/3 get turned away at the initial screening interview, and that 40% of those who pass the interview are finally accepted. That means 26% of those that request to stay for asylum actually have a worthwhile claim. But what about the 74% that trecked to the border and ultimately were turned away? Were they evil? Is it possible some of those cases weren't just quite good enough, but they were in danger or persecuted? I'm willing to think that 10-15% were frauds, but that leaves 85-90% who weren't good enough, had a poor misunderstanding of the requirements, and some people who took a shot at improving their lives and lost. Are they bad people for doing that? No.

I actually think we do take some economic migrants but not under an asylum application.

You can read a couple of migrant stories here:
nytimes.com - Darien gap china immigration

P.S. I've been to the Darien - those who trek through that deserve to be considered.