1. Yes, I am focused on those requesting asylum only. #24 is for everyone, not just asylum seekers.

2. #24 is also based on "Initial Case Completions (ICC)," which is not the final result, and those ICC in absentia rulings can be appealed and overturned (for example, if the person didn't get their appearance notification, had an emergency and couldn't attend, etc.). I don't have the time/energy to find the detailed data, but from what I have read, if you were to remove those overturned in absentia Initial Case Completions rulings, the in absentia rate you see in link #24 would be much lower.

3. Sure, it went from 5.8% to 11%, but that 5.8% was down from 12% 10 years ago. It varies from year to year but still has not been over 12.2% in the past 11 years.

4. What evidence do you have to suggest that the people requesting asylum now are less likely to have legitimate claims than past years? They won't have their day in court for a couple years, so how could you know that? To even get to the point of getting in line for an asylum hearing, they have to pass the credible fear test, present documentation that is checked for fraud for familial relationships, kids are under 18, etc., so it's not like anyone can just come in and hang out for a couple years until their hearing.

5. What specific part of the asylum process are you claiming they are "exploiting?" Can you point me to what are referring to regarding asylum seekers previously being vetted for 2 years before entry?

That's a whole bunch of if-if-ifs for you to be able to manipulate actual facts and data into a conclusion you want them to tell rather than what they actually tell.