Donald Trump

Trump and the Myth of Immigrant Crime

Numbers about those who come to America show they aren't the source of trouble.

|

Credit: Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

Donald Trump sees himself as a martyr to the truth. All he did was point out that among the foreigners who have come to this country are some who do not scrupulously abide by all our criminal laws—only to be pilloried for his honesty. 

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said when he announced his presidential campaign. "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." 

For this unvarnished assessment, he has paid a price: Univision and NBC severed their ties with him. Macy's said it is dropping his line of clothing. Mattress maker Serta won't sell Trump Home products anymore. 

But the King of Candor did not retreat. "NBC is weak, and like everybody else is trying to be politically correct," he said after the network dropped his Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants. He told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly he wouldn't retract his charge about Mexican immigrants because "it's totally accurate." 

Asked about it in a session with The Chicago Tribune editorial board on Monday, Trump brandished a sheaf of newspaper articles to confirm his point. But he didn't read them very carefully beforehand. One story, he noted, said that 80 percent of Central American women are raped on their way to the United States. 

Does this mean the victims were accompanied here by rapists who have crossed into America and are now dwelling among us? Not quite. The Huffington Post story he cited said the victims are usually raped before they get here—by bandits, human traffickers or government officials (including, presumably, corrupt police) in Mexico. "Migrants being raped" does not equal "rapists migrating." 

Trump had other articles, including a couple reporting deadly crimes committed by people who have come here without permission. But anecdotes can be misleading. Out of any group of people—Episcopalians, West Virginians, tennis fans, legal immigrants from Canada—you can find some criminals. That doesn't mean the bad guys are representative of the whole. 

The outrages cited by Trump are outside the norm, to say the least. U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, pointed out last year, "The murder rate is actually higher in Washington, D.C., where I work, than in my hometown of Laredo, Texas, or other cities on the border like McAllen." 

In 2011, El Paso, Texas, had the lowest crime rate ranking of any city with 500,000 or more residents. That is despite being just across the Rio Grande from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico—which in 2011 had the second highest murder rate of any city on Earth. 

The same pattern shows up away from the border as well. In his extensive research on Chicago—a city Trump cited for its violent crime—Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has found "a significantly lower rate of violence among Mexican-Americans compared to blacks and whites." 

Here, he says, "increases in immigration and language diversity over the decade of the 1990s predicted decreases in neighborhood homicide rates in the late '90s and up to 2006." If Trump wants to avoid rapists, here's some advice: Head for areas with lots of residents who were born in Mexico. 

Sampson thinks it is no coincidence that crime rates nationwide have plunged over the past two decades just as immigrants, authorized and unauthorized, were arriving in record numbers. 

In the first place, these newcomers are generally less prone to break the law than native-born Americans. Most Mexicans who undertake the risks and sacrifices required to come here want to work at honest jobs and provide for their families, not rape and kill. Mexicans who want to rape and kill, after all, can find plenty of suitable targets without leaving home. 

In the second place, the influx of foreigners, particularly from Mexico, has helped revive many blighted communities. They have generated economic activity and filled vacant buildings, both of which tend to curb crime. What's true of Chicago, Sampson notes, is also true of New York and Los Angeles, where crime has subsided fastest in the neighborhoods with the highest immigrant concentrations. 

Trump regards the backlash as a product of spineless pandering to groups that vigorously suppress any information they find inconvenient. But he has only managed to prove something his own admirers strive to forget: Just because a statement is politically incorrect doesn't mean it's true.

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Jurassic Pigeon

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Where is the data to support anything in this article. In my research Hispanics are counted as Whites in the FBI crime data. I’m curious where Reason is getting any data on Mexican crime. Please provide a source.

    1. The source is explicitly stated in the article.

      1. The data isn’t cited, only the conclusion of the author of a study limited in scope to the city of Chicago. Any data on immigrant crime rates is necessarily an estimate. Space is correct to note that neither immigration status nor national origin are among the demographic data collected when compiling such records. Chapman calls out Trump for generalizing from anecdote only to supply his own anecdotes and then generalize from them.

        1. Articles in news magazines arent research papers.

          1. So it’s made up bullshit?

            1. Nah.

              “They wouldn’t print it if it wasn’t true.”

          2. You’re correct, although it doesn’t actually have anything to do with anything you or I posted previously, so it’s an odd sort of non-sequitur.

            1. Pretty sure his point is that forming a generalization from anecdotes from newspaper stories about this or that crime and forming a generalization from a few (supposedly) rigorous studies albeit of non-national samples are not equally reliable.

              1. I should clarify a bit. This is a news magazine. It is exceedingly rare for newspapers or news magazines to contain footnotes or to collect “demographic data”. I am not saying that there are not problems that arise as a result, but that is the style and has been for a long time in news outlets of all manner of ideological leanings. Alternatively, readers can seek out for example peer reviewed publications that publish research if that is what is desired – there are many of them. The Federal government also makes quite a bit of demographic data available.

                What I dont understand is the purpose of reading a news magazine and complaining about a lack of footnotes. Similarly, I would be baffled by someone reading a demogrqphic study and complaining that it lacked an editorial.

                1. When your editorial consists of shaming someone for generalizing from 2nd hand anecdotes, it’s helpful to cite at least snippets of the data to support the counter argument if you don’t want to open yourself up to a tu quoque. Or else don’t make the counter argument and just leave your editorial as a piece of bare criticism for lazy sourcing. I don’t think Trump’s citations are valuable for drawing any broad conclusions. But Chapman’s aren’t really any better. He didn’t need to provide tables and footnotes, but quoting a Harvard professor’s executive summary of a local study and unreferenced crime data for El Paso does not a rebuttal make. “Trump is a blowhard making unsubstantiated claims” doesn’t need any help as an argument.

                2. What I dont understand is the purpose of reading a news magazine and complaining about a lack of footnotes.

                  I’m sorry, but this is BS.

                  Anyone attempting to make an argument based on data should be expected to provide a source for that data. It’s as easy as linking to the source when you introduce it. Many, many, many news establishments, and especially ones providing political opinion pieces have performed this service in the past (including on Reason), and so it is absolutely acceptable to expect the same from Chapman.

                  This article is making a rather bold claim about crime rates among immigrants that challenges a commonly held notion. People aren’t going to take it at face value, so anyone wanting to persuade the public should expect to be called on the data.

                  1. “This article is making a rather bold claim about crime rates among immigrants that challenges a commonly held notion”

                    Did you just refer to anything in Donald Trump’s head as a commonly held notion?

      2. So two random Democrats? Are you serious?

    2. We all know that White Males cause most crime, just look at the Texas Most Wanted list, 9 out of 10 are White Males and the other a White Female

      http://www.dps.texas.gov/Texas…..tives.aspx

      1. that’s not true – its just that white people go big or go home. White pow . . . no wait, that didn’t come out right.

        1. But seriously, one of Texas’ ‘most wanted’ fugitive is wanted for ‘failure to register as a sex offender’.

          Somehow stemming from:

          Failure to Register as a Sex Offender, Probation Violation (Original Offenses: Possession of a Controlled Substance; Resisting, Evading or Obstructing an Officer)

          4 others for kiddy-fiddling, which, while its own form of horrible, is not exactly something that Texans should be quaking in their boots over.

          1. Basically – keep your children away from the Mexicans and you should be fine.

          2. Duty on Striking Fixture/Highway Landscape

            This sounds pretty heinous. I think it means he hit a guardrail and didn’t pay for it.

    3. I’m guessing this is the source of the data:

      http://www.law.yale.edu/docume…..ntexts.pdf

    4. Reason is not showing any reasonable figures.

  2. According to BJS about 1% of Hispanic males are incarcerated compared with 0.5% of white males.

    While immigrant crime rates are comparatively low, the rate for second-generation Hispanics soars, as California’s prisons would attest. The second-gen attainment in education is also abysmal.

    This is more troubling than illegal immigration itself. If illegals eventually settled down to lives of productivity, it’s a problem (illegal immigration) that can be dealt with. But the data show that the problem actually worsens over time as criminality increases along with dependence on the state for income assistance.

    1. Amd no prizes for guessing who people with low educational outcomes and increased social pathologies eventually vote for.

      These votes – secured for generations – are the real reason the Dems have erased the border. The Democrats are very smart, in their own nation-destroying way.

      1. The darn Dems only care about their brief reign not about the USA’s future.

      2. What?

        You think that criminals vote?

        Illegals?

        How about some stats on what demographic actually votes.

    2. Can you clarify? It really sounds like you are saying that the problem isnt immigration, it is hispanics. Im going to provide the benefit of the doubt, though and assume I misunderstood your point.

      1. Why would I need the benefit of your doubt?

        The data are clear. Second-gen Hispanic immigrants do really poorly at school and are over represented in prison.

        I don’t know why this is so hard for some people. There is thing called culture, which is a system of beliefs and habits that dictate behavior. As such, some cultures do really well in modern society – ie, Asian immigrants – while others kind of suck.

        If America wants to be more like Mexico you bring in more people who cling to Mexican culture. If you want America to benefit from the Korean work ethic, you increase green cards for that.

        Worst case scenario: erase the border with a failed state, adopt a policy of multiculturalism at the expense of assimilation and then cement a bond between statist politicians and struggling immigrants in which votes are exchange for debt (cough) I meant fair redistribution of wealth.

        1. Oh I see. Youre a bigot. Nevermind.

          1. Oh, I see. When you can’t sustain your argument start with the name calling!

          2. Lol. So no intelligent response from Jay. Got it.

        2. “There is thing called culture”

          And is that static? These same kinds of charges were made about the Irish in the past. Their culture was a ruinous one given only to blind faith in the Pope (which made them incompatible for republican government), drunkeness (which led to their inevitable poverty), belligerence (which led to their inevitable high crime rates), etc. But the Irish seem able to participate in politics, take care of themselves and stay out of trouble to me.

          1. These same kinds of charges were made about the Irish in the past.

            To be fair, the biggest contribution of Irish assimilation to American politics has been JFK, so make of that what you will.

            (that’s sarcasm, btw before you get your full Salon on and start screaming RACISS!)

            (also I’m 50% Irish so I can say whatever I want about Irish people)

            (also my 3 nearest Irish ancestors were hopeless alcoholics)

            1. I’m part Irish myself, so no worries.

            2. I don’t know if I count as Irish, since my most recent Irish ancestor landed in this country in the late 1840s (probably a potato famine refugee, sadly). We might have dumped the pope and the bottle, but belligerence is still with us.

              1. If Elizabeth Warren can be a Native American, you can be the King of Ireland.

            3. (also I’m 50% Irish so I can say whatever I want about Irish people)

              (also my 3 nearest Irish ancestors were hopeless alcoholics)

              Not PC! No can do. Membership does not entitle one to a pass.

        3. 1. Mexico isn’t a failed state. And as far as the worst of the shittiness in Mexico – that’s directly caused by the incentives we’ve placed on people in Northern Mexico to become monsters (drug war bullshit). If Mexico *does* become a failed state, its going to be because of *us* and we’ll have a moral duty to take in refugees.

          2. Immigration ruins nations? Tell that to the Irish and Italian settlers. Both came over in mass waves, both we decried in their day for doing exactly what you claim the Mexicans will do now.

          1. Immigration did a number on Hawai’i, and that’s the most bloodless example off the top of my head of Immigration ruining a nation.

            1. The last time I looked, Hawaii was not a nation.

          2. I’m sorry but the fact that roughly 10% of Mexico’s population now lives in the United States suggests strongly that Mexico is in fact a failed state.

            Has far as immigration ruining nations I guess that depends on who you ask. The native Romano-British might have had a different opinion then an Anglo-Saxon at the time when Saxons and Angles came to the British Isles to do the job that the natives wouldn’t do.

            And how often do I have to hear people whine about the poor Indians?

            1. I’m sorry, it only means that Mexico is not a *successful* state and that Mexicans have easy access to better opportunities across the border.

              1. When 10% of your population says “It sucks here” to the point where they are willing to risk their lives getting smuggled here by criminal coyotes, it’s not a failed state? I mean how bad does your life have to suck in Mexico in order for you to risk getting raped, while being smuggled across the border just in hopes that you might be able to make minimum wage scrubbing toilets?

                Your right “failed state” was putting it mildly. Mexico is a shithole.

                1. About as bad as the *Phillipines* – oh, except we don’t have the ruinously small quota for Filipina maids that we have for Mexican ones, and you can’t swim in from Manilla.

                  I mean, if you’re going to say that people leaving your country for better pastures elsewhere is a measure of a failed state, then that describes most of the world – including parts of Europe.

              2. Key element:

                “easy access to better opportunities across the border”

                Now ask yourself, “Why is that?”

                Could it be, more free shit than one would ever see in a lifetime in XXX?

            2. “the fact that roughly 10% of Mexico’s population now lives in the United States suggests strongly that Mexico is in fact a failed state.”

              I’m not sure it suggests that. While there are a lot of messed up nations in this set, some examples of nations with higher emigrant rates than Mexico are Peru, Jamaica and Estonia, and I’m not sure I think those are ‘failed states.’

              1. It appears that 25% of Mexicans have moved to the USA.

            3. I’m sorry but the fact that roughly 10% of Mexico’s population now lives in the United States suggests strongly that Mexico is in fact a failed state.

              Spare me. I’m an American citizen living in Mexico permanently. There are significant problems as in many countries, but it’s not a failed state.

          3. Both came over in mass waves, both we decried in their day for doing exactly what you claim the Mexicans will do now.

            This is true. And I largely consider myself a supporter of open immigration policies. But, the comparison does tend to miss some major discrepancies.

            At the time of massive Irish, Italian, and don’t forget Jewish, immigration, there were active policies supporting their assimilation into the broader American culture (i.e. the “Melting Pot”). Those policies are not only not in place today, its fair to say that assimilation is actively discouraged in the name of multi-culturalism.

            1. “At the time of massive Irish, Italian, and don’t forget Jewish, immigration, there were active policies supporting their assimilation into the broader American culture”

              What were those policies? From Franklin to T.R. you have people loudly weighing in that there was not enough melting pot and too much mulitculturalism. That suggests to me that there was no real Golden Age of mass immigration coupled with some kind of policies ‘supporting assimilation.’

              1. Fuck off, Bo. No one cares what you think.

                1. Strange, I read that as, “I got nuthin'”.

              2. Policies weren’t in place to create assimilation per se (and would be a bit on the fascist side if they had), but there was no real accommodation for non-assimilation either, so it mostly just happened as a consequence of there being no alternative. The political and cultural environment is different now. Special snowflake-ism and cultural genocide theories and all that.

                1. The absence of accommodation is itself a policy.

                2. Policies weren’t in place to create assimilation per se

                  Only if you completely ignore public education.

              3. Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

                “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

                Theodore Roosevelt 1907

            2. At the time of the Irish/Jewish/Italian immigration waves, the ‘assimulation policy’ was to give them an ‘Americanized name’ and the send them on their way – where they congregated mostly in single ethnicity ghettos because the wider society didn’t want them around.

              *Eventually* they self-assimulated.

              And, unlike Muslim Arabs, there’s no policy of multi-cultural tolerance for Mexican (and Central/South American) immigrants.

              1. Well, there was the entire public school thing, wasn’t there?

                Pretty much one of the explicit purposes of its creation was the assimilation of immigrants’ children. And in that, for all of its myriad of shortcomings as an actual education, it was largely successful.

                However, multi-culturalism is explicitly being pushed within the educational establishment. It’s pretty difficult to say that you’re going to have a lot of success in continuing to assimilate populations if you presume they should retain their culture.

            3. assimilation is actively discouraged in the name of multi-culturalism.

              How do children of immigrants not assimilate today? Only by the third generation, the native language of the original immigrants is often lost. Sure there are Latinos who say they’re proud of being Latino and have a day dedicated to eating some tacos, but I don’t see how that’s much different than have a Black Student Union or bragging about your Irish roots. for example.

              1. Well, consider this and make of it what you will. Even as recently as the 1930s and 40s, people who didn’t fully assimilate into American culture were derided as “greenhorns”. Today, those who do assimilate are derided as “acting white”.

    3. “But the data”

      What data?

  3. Immigrants include Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese etc etc) and Muslims who commit the least amount of violent crimes. At the top of my head, whites and blacks commit the most violent crimes in this country, and those two groups are almost certainly “natives”.

    There’s no epidemic of violent crimes by immigrants. But there’s a decent amount of prostitution, human trafficking, sexual harassment, and workplace exploitation in parts of their community. Sex with underage teens is a thing in some Asian enclaves, I bet that’ll be the next “nail salon” expose in the near future.

    Trump obviously heard some horror stories about drug cartels, missing Mexican women and Latino street gangs and based on his opinion on immigration on that. He’s not a serious candidate. But let’s not ignore the fact that it’s easy for radical elements to come in here undetected. The FBI reportedly stopped a couple real bomb threats just before 4th of July. America’s immigration policy is 100 times more generous than my motherland. It’s what makes the country great, but also somewhat vulnerable.

    Truth be told, criminals that hit immigrant enclaves are usually Latinos or blacks. Lots of Asians (democrats) casually consider Hispanics are dangerous. I honestly think this kind of misconception is perpetuated by popular culture.

    1. At the top of my head, whites and blacks commit the most violent crimes in this country, and those two groups are almost certainly “natives”.

      Here again, immigration status or national origin are not recorded in crime data, and Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity independent of race. Hispanic/Latino ethnicity is also not part of FBI crime data (although it’s probably recorded at the local level in at least some localities). 5 racial groups are recorded in the national data (White, Black/African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native). A person in any of those racial categories could claim Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. And of course, there are immigrants of various national origin in every racial category (except I guess for American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian, since they are US citizens by definition). Anybody trying to tell you the crime rate of immigrants in general or of immigrants from any particular country, legal or illegal, is, at best, guessing, and probably trying to sell you something. Regardless of persuasion on immigration issues, it is wise to be careful not to mistake a preferred narrative for actual data. There is none.

      1. As long as the questions for race, Hispanic, and immigration status are separate ones then it should be possible to work out what you’re talking about.

        1. To repeat, immigration status and ethnicity are not included in national crime data – only race. If you have access to all of that information at a local level you could probably make some reasonable inferences, although they would be limited in scope to the locality under study.

          1. Is that true for ethnicity? I see federal crime data that has Hispanic as a category (though as you correctly point out it’s separate from race as Hispanics can be from whatever race). For example, this from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report Methodology page suggests they collect information on ethnicity that is separate from race:

            “In response to a directive by the U.S. Government’s Office of Management and Budget, the national UCR Program has expanded its data collection categories for race from four (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian or Other Pacific Islander) to five (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). Also, the ethnicity categories have changed from “Hispanic” to “Hispanic or Latino Origin” and from “Non-Hispanic” to “Not of Hispanic or Latino Origin.””

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/…..outucrmain

            1. Interesting. I didn’t realize that had changed (hadn’t looked into the data for a while). It looks like ethnicity data IS included in the overall crime and arrest tables for 2013, but wasn’t previously. 2013 is the latest year data is available.

              FWIW, according to the data, Hispanics are almost perfectly represented in arrests at 16.6% (2012 estimate places the total Hispanic population of the US at 17%).

              1. Your point about immigration still stands.

  4. This article is crap. Just anecdotal nonsense. Trump as it right.

    1. Water seeks its own level, as granny used to say.

      1. My granny could best up your granny.

  5. I can’t say I’m surprised to see a bunch of support for Trump here. Try as some here might to deny it, this is just another enclave of a wing of the GOP, and libertarians expose their true motives when it comes to supporting an old, angry white guy who cares about libertopia as much as the libertopiots care about the poor. At least Anonymous doesn’t deny they wear masks.

      1. Not me, I just imagine more people are hearing all the quacks and making the same ascription.

        1. Well at least you’ll have a third dick to suck at the next Bo and Warty Reason Un-Libertarian Activities Committee meeting.

          1. So Warty’s included now too, huh. Wonderful.

    1. It’s 6:30 in the morning and 11 or so comments in. This topic comes up all the time and a large portion here argue against it. If you’ve been around, you would know that. Or you are just a liar.

      1. “this topic comes up all the time and a large portion here argue against it.”

        It’s about split consistently in the comments, though not among the writers. Curiously, this same dynamic can be seen on a few other issues, like abortion and gay rights. Yes, curious that…

        1. Nothing curious about it. It comes down to how we define certain core concepts in each case.

          Immigration – is a national border like a private property line. Its pretty consistent that the ones who oppose free immigration say yes while the rest of us say no.

          Abortion – is the fetus a *person* or not. Opponents say yes, supporters say no.

          Gay rights – is marriage a right, or a state-provided privilege. This is pretty much the only area where you need to be*very* specific. Because *all* of us support gay rights, but we don’t all see things like secular marriage and coercing businesses to serve to be part of those rights for *anyone*.

          1. What’s curious is how a consistent half of the commenters here ‘define core concepts’ in a way at odds with most libertarian writers but in line with most conservative writers.

            Imagine that a consistent half of the commenters here ‘defined core concepts’ in a way at odds with most libertarian writers but in line with most leftist writers. That anomaly would be decried by more than a few methinks.

            1. Those guys *are* – and then they’re chased out to take refuge at ‘Bleeding Heart Libertarians’.

              And those ‘core concepts’ are subject to dispute in libertarian circles. Just because its conservative doesn’t mean its not also (at least somewhat) libertarian. Its why we occasionally have something in common with the fuckers in the Republican Party than *anyone* in the democratic.

              The main difference between us an republicans is we don’t believe in using the power of the state to ban things just because we find them icky.

              1. “And those ‘core concepts’ are subject to dispute in libertarian circles.”

                I don’t know, I think people can try to make any ‘core concepts’ subject to dispute if they want it bad enough…

              2. I almost never find common ground with the R party, except in the area of cutting spending, which the republicans sometimes preach but never practice.

                Even leaving aside their ridiculous SoCon contingent, the Rs almost always support out-of-control cops, they promote an interventionist World Cop military, and they encourage domestic spying with the WoT and WoD. In its way, all of that is just as bad as crap that comes from the other side, like the SJW lunacy, constant attacks on free speech and free association, and the perversion of science in pursuit of socialist economics.

                I don’t see why libertarians should be associated with the GOP. Are some Republicans, like Rand Paul, “libertarian-leaning?” Sure, but I suppose anyone can be lean libertarian. Back in the old days, some left wing Dems used to lean libertarian too. (At least when Nixon was in office.)

                1. Which is infinity greater than the times I find myself in agreement with the democratic party.

                  Especially since the D’s *also* support out-of-control cops, promote interventionist World Cop military, encourage domestic spying with the WoT and WoD, have their own version of anti-free speech and anti-free association, and pervert science in the pursuit of socialist economics.

            2. Great. Bo’s back to let us know what the proper Libertarian position is on all things.

              1. He is the pope of libertarianism – just ask him.

            3. What’s curious is how a consistent half of the commenters here ‘define core concepts’ in a way at odds with most libertarian writers but in line with most conservative writers.

              I think you need to check your data for confirmation bias. There are a couple regular, pervasive commenters here that have openly admitted that they have libertarian leanings, but are not all in (c.f. John).

              I am not a pervasive commenter, but you can find my comments in numerous abortion threads where you will find that I am (generally) pro immigration and anti abortion. Interestingly, prior to spending time on this site, I was much more an immigration restrictionist (now I am a pro guest worker, citizenship restrictionist).

              And while myself as a single datapoint do not make a trend, it is noteworthy that many people taking the immigration restriction side on this thread are not common posters at this site.

        2. Bo is correct. A large portion here argue against it, but more argue in lockstep with the republicans on most issues. Extreme Repugnicans, that is… libertarians are more likely to take up for those with rhetoric like Trump or Cruz than they are for mainstream Repugs. Perhaps this is because they’re so historically wedded to the act of losing? Whatever the source, by any portion of your base NOT arguing against the wingnut that is the Don, both libertariots and Repugs show how out of sync they are not only with the majority of voters, academics, media, and business people, as well as reality itself. This ain’t 1950s America anymore, folks. If you want to talk that way, or support people who do, you will be politically, culturally, and socially ostracized. Crying that “only 25% of libertarianistas support Trump!” is about as safe a haven as your ilk would give a group that claimed “only 25% of our group are supporters of the KKK.” Nope, sorry, the world has left you aging, grasping, white men behind.

          1. Totally NOT the work of a leftist troll.

    2. Bullshit. Libertarian is completely different from the GOP. It rejects right as well as left in the desire to limit state power and maximize liberty. Yes it’s true that rethuglicans sometimes talk about “shrinking” government, but it’s just empty talk while they continue to grow its size and scope. The dumbcrats do the same when they talk about preserving privacy and liberty — yeah, only when people with Rs after their name are in charge. When it’s a D, they do all they can to erase liberty and privacy. A pox on both their houses. The two parties belong in an industrial machine for chipping extra hardy vegetable matter, if you catch my drift. (Disclaimer: the preceding is a hyperbolic remark and I do not actually wish injury on any representatives of either party, although I do have a notion such members are full of natural, sustainable, animal-sourced fertilizer.)

      1. Oh sure. It rejects right as well as left in theory, but in practice, 70% of this forum votes Repugnican. Take a survey, and if the practiced liars here are honest for once, you’ll see proof. They kick, scream, and cry Libertopia all the way to the voting booth, then picture a D in the office when they get there, and push the button for a Repug. Then, after patting themselves on the back for their stand for Liberty and Freedom and Truth and Justice and The American Way, they come back here and complain about how bad Progressives, Dems, and occasionally a Repug, are. Oh, and talk about Gary Johnson, as if he’s accomplished more than jack n shit in the political arena since 1972 or whenever he left office.

        1. It rejects right as well as left in theory, but in practice, 70% of this forum votes Repugnican.

          You have a short memory then.

          The fact is that Democrats have until very recently been the ones in most power over the last decade. Prior to that, when Bush was in office, you saw huge, huge anti GOP sentiment. When Obama and a Democrat Congress came to power, you saw most criticism of Democrats because they were the ones setting policy in this country.

          What I think you perceive is:
          1) The large number of articles critical of Dems (because they were the ones making policy) has also attracted some libertarian leaning conservatives.

          2) Some of the conservative posters are quite pervasive. There are dozens of less active posters (like myself) who do not agree with them, but do not fill threads with 10+ posts.

          I don’t think you can know what people are voting, and I don’t think it really matters. There are some libertarian purists who don’t vote at all or will always support the LP candidate. Others look at the raft of libertarian-leaning GOP members (c.f. Paul) and pragmatically think it is the lesser of two evils. That doesn’t make them republican shills. If the Democrats could offer up similar candidates, then you would see similar praise of those candidates.

        2. The last republican I voted for was Ronald Reagan.

      1. ^^^^ That’s just what I was thinking

    3. There’s no business like troll business like no business I know
      Everything about it is appealing, everything that traffic will allow
      Nowhere could you get that happy feeling when you are stealing that extra bow

  6. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  7. If you combine the black and white crime rate, that crime rate is higher than the Hispanic and Asian crime rate so the open borders people play games with the numbers.

    Also Anchor babies born to illegal alien parents are part of the gang violence.

    If you replaced the black population of the city of Detroit with Mexican illegals the reported violent crime rate might be less.

    Illegals report crime less than other demographics.

    Do utopian open borders people believe if you replaced every white person in Metro Detroit with a Mexican illegal the violent crime rate and corruption in Detroit would be the same or less?

    What about if you replaced every white person in Metro Atlanta with Mexican illegals. You believe the violent crime rate and corruption would be the same or less?

    1. Also Anchor babies born to illegal alien parents are part of the gang violence.

      Yep, gotta stop them anchor babies. next thing you know they’re all running meth in the hills. Oh waaaaaait. That’s *white people* in Indiana. No, they’re cool.

      1. Huh? Are white meth heads illegally immigrating now? I must be an absolute moron for not knowing that. OH WAAAAAAIT.

    2. If you combine the black and white crime rate, that crime rate is higher than the Hispanic and Asian crime rate

      Just to reiterate, the “Hispanic crime rate” at a national level is an unknown quantity – “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. It’s not part of the national crime rate data compiled by the government.

      1. Since there is no edit button, let me submit a correction. See my post above.

  8. I’d rather not collectivize. The article lacked hard data, but it’s besides the point. Crime in general is down, and it’s a poor excuse for what really does amount to nativism. I’m not going to say racism because I don’t believe it’s based on skin color as much as people don’t like when they can’t communicate with Hispanics, and there are certain areas you can barely find an English speaker. They tend not to be nice neighborhoods, either.

    But these are the same arguments put forth against immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I’m not going to collectivize Hispanics based on any crime data, and there isn’t hard data one way or the other on this issue that I’ve seen, anyway.

    The build a wall people are idiots.

    1. The article lacked hard data, but it’s besides the point.

      When hard data is hard to find, just support your feelz with whatever you can find, put it out there and hope that name calling will make your case.

  9. OT: Union denounces release of officer names in police shootings

    http://news.yahoo.com/union-de…..11716.html

    PHILADELPHIA (AP) ? The union representing Philadelphia police officers is challenging the department’s decision to make public the names of officers in police-involved shootings.

    Lodge 5 of the Fraternal Order of Police filed an unfair labor practice complaint Wednesday with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, saying the policy change was instituted without negotiating with the union, The Philadelphia Inquirer (http://bit.ly/1dED1VR ) reported.

  10. I’m sure that the victim of an illegal immigrant will be comforted by the fact that the rate is actually quite low.

    1. About as comforted as someone who is victimized by a native.

  11. Why are you freeper morons here?

    1. REMEMBER THE ALAMO

  12. so we’re quibbling over numbers. Never mind that crime committed by illegals is a reality, that a good number of cities provide these folks with sanctuary, and that the welfare state is also involved. No, let’s get caught up in Trump because that makes everything else okay.

    We have an immigration system that does not work. We also have a welfare system that contributes to that. I have little hope that either will be addressed in a substantive manner.

    1. Never mind that crime committed by drug users is a reality, that a good number of cities provide these folks with sanctuary, and that the welfare state is also involved.

      See how that works?

      1. then let’s just excuse the fact that illegals shouldn’t be here in the first place since crime occurs regardless. I’m sure some future inmate will wonder how that level of argumentation did not clear him.

        1. “illegals shouldn’t be here in the first place”

          Not if you believe in a few things called freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of association…

          1. those things are inconsistent with a welfare state. We’re not an open borders society. Perhaps you have noticed that.

            1. Huh? I’m not sure I follow you.

              My point is that if you’re going to say ‘hey, we need to restrict the freedom of people to move, the freedom of people to hire/work for and rent to/from who they want, etc., because some of those people moving, working, renting here will use welfare’ then you can say the same thing about drug use (or a lot of things). In fact, most public health nannyism from liberals is based on the idea ‘since we have a welfare state, and since smokers/transfat eaters/soda drinkers/ etc., can get welfare dollars, we have to restrict their freedom to smoke/eat transfats/drink soda/ etc.,

              1. It really is annoying how often this needs to be spelled out.

                1. My reply was to Bo, btw. Stupid threading.

              2. My point is that if you’re going to say ‘…

                then maybe you should wait for things to be said. They were not.

            2. Then get rid of the welfare state. Its an affront to liberty.

              But don’t use one affront to justify another.

              1. Ag,

                I am not the one you have to convince.

                1. That may be, but if you frame the issue in the way you did then you’re giving the initiative to the other side of the debate.

                  ‘We’re always going to have the welfare state’ simply doesn’t have to be true – and the first step in dismantling it is to get people to question that assumption.

        2. So, why not expand the numbers of work visas and allow them to come work temporarily and then go home for part of the year.

          These people want *money* and America is a very weird place to 1st generation Mexicans.

          A lot/most of them would be perfectly willing to come up here for a 4-6 month job stint and then take that money back home (where the cost of living is a fraction of what it is here).

          But we don’t allow that.

          So, just like with drug users, we’ve created a black market in immigration, with all that goes along with that – lack of oversight, violence, etc.

          Once you’ve spent the money and endured the hardships to get across the Rio Grande, you’re not going to go back voluntarily to have to try it again the next year – you’re going to bring your family over.

          tl;dr

          Our immigration problem is completely due to our immigration *policy* and a wall is going to be as effective at stopping immigrants as it is in stopping drugs.

          1. Ag’s suggestion is probably the closest to my feeling. From a libertarian perspective, I don’t see us as having a right to restrict a person moving anywhere in the country to associate or contract with others. On the other hand, as a part owner of our government, I believe I have a right to (help) decide who ought to be allowed a franchise in that same government. And I really, really, don’t want people raised in countries with cradle to grave statism to be voting right now. So I would prefer us be extremely restrictionist on who gets citizenship, but completely open to people working and living here.

            The problem with my view is two fold. First, the constitution grants citizenship to people born here, which means my restrictions on citizenship will be heavily diluted. Second, the existence of a large population of guest workers will forever be a target for politicians that want to give them a franchise. They will continue to whip up class-warfare rhetoric increasing resentment among those people.

            None of those pragmatic problems changes the principles at the foundation of my view, so I still have to support it despite the problems that will result. And even a pragmatist must accept that we are never going to stop immigration and that the existing system is even worse.

            1. ,rights are for citizens and those here legally. There is no freedom of association or anything else for the illegal.

          2. I am all for free trade but why allow people in the country for unskilled labor jobs when we have millions of Americans with noi skills that should be FORCED to work…. Why does one class of people not to ever be productive and be supported by others? The whole systems is screwed up…. No sacrifice is requiered if you are part of the UNDERCLASS… My 10 years of night school to get through college and the four years I lived in my truck were a “sacrifice” it is about time we quit feeding the LAZY.

  13. I have several problems with this article;

    In the first place, the agenda of the current administration, and most of true media, is to continue the present immigration situation indefinitely; a bunch of badly written laws, selectively enforced, giving the Feds an excuse for all kinds of intrusive thuggery. This doesn’t seriously impede the flow of undocumented people into the country, but does reinforce the state of legal limbo they live in when they get here. So, I doubt the fundamental honesty of any statistics concerning the illegal immigrant population if they come from the government or the media.

    Furthermore, the people who Trump is playing to have some points. No matter how you spin it, if a creep who has been deported multiple times murders somebody in this country, it’s because he was back when he shouldn’t have been. Maybe it isn’t possible to keep him out, but answering the criticisms by telling people that illegal immigrants aren’t statistically any more criminal than other populations isn’t doing to convince anybody on the other side. After all, an illegal immigrant IS a criminal, by definition. So are most people who think for themselves these days. But the argument isn’t going to get any traction, and making it is likely to annoy the people you want to convince.

    Neither side of the debate, as it is now, actually makes a dime’s worth of sense, and they are talking past each-other.

    And I don’t think this article helped.

      1. My concern is that the present mess, which most of the political class in both parties has helped create, is that it fosters the growth of a large subculture of people who are living or trying to live below the radar. As such they are subject to harassment and outright blackmail, want no contact with The Authorities, and become a sea in which worse things can swim.

        Just letting them in, with no caveats, is not the answer – at least not if we want to avoid a Socialist State. Either these people have been voting for one all their lives (and will vote for what is familiar) or they have been selling their vote for one. I think there is a fair amount of evidence that the Democrats – or at least SOME Democrats – see the illegals as a large voting block ready-made for Liberal Statist politics. So, before we relax the borders completely, I want to see some stronger safeguards of the franchise in place. The Democrat Party may not be completely as criminal enterprise dedicated to defrauding the public, but it often acts like one. Doubtless for the very nest of reasons.

        *spit*

        And if we are going to let them in, no Amnesty. Amnesty is an excuse for not changing the laws. The laws are what made this mess in the first place. The effect may be the same, but the process matters.

        We either change the law and let them in, or we get serious about keeping them out, and thereby shrink the grey-market population. And if we can’t do the latter, we’d better do the former.

        1. The solution to your concern is to allow people in as guest workers, but to make it increasingly difficult to get a franchise.

          1. And if I saw a major political movement to do so, I might well join in. Instead we seem to have “Seal the borders and throw all the spics out” on one side and “let’s grant them amnesty, but not actually address any of the underlying problems (because we like having them to exploit)” on the other with a side order of “open borders (and let’s not look at any practical problems)” from the Libertarians.

  14. While I agree with the sentiment of the article. I believe he is conflating two subjects. One is the issue of immigrants as a whole and the other is that of illegal immigrants. The later is the subject Donald addressed and except for the females getting raped, does not equal, rapist are illegally migrating, he does not address the subject.

    As a culture Latinos avoid the police. If you suspect the police are corrupt you are reluctant to call the police when you are a victim of a crime. If you feel that they will hassle you or your family you tend not to involve the police. Case in point I read an article about how Phoenix has the second highest child abductions in the world. A large % of those involving Latinos. The article explains that there is evidence that a significant % of Latinos do not report an abduction. But that does not mean the crime did not happen. It just is not counted in the numbers.

    1. If you suspect the police are corrupt you are reluctant to call the police when you are a victim of a crime.

      Tell me about it.

  15. Really bad timing for this, what with that guy who was deported 5 times commiting that murder and all.

    1. Its not like a stricter policy would have stopped that.

      I’m fairly confident that after the first deportation he did not come back into the country with permission.

      1. Really? So you’re saying that if the US had tried harder to keep this guy out he’d still have gotten in and done what he did?

        Because that doesn’t seem likely.

        Our border problems stem from vacillitation epitomized in your earlier statement noting that when it comes to border issues some want to see the border as a property line. And some don’t.

        Our border policies try to follow both ideas, our citizenry wants to folow both ideas–and thus we get a system that respects neither idea.

        And we have this–an imported underclass that can be exploited at whim.

        1. Maybe that murdering illegal should have been flat out dead a LONG time ago.

  16. This guy is full of crap…. Any American stolen from or murdered by an illegal is to many…. feel fre to look at countries that enforce their borders and see how many illegals commit crimes..

    And I lived in California for 11 years and was twice had an Illegal with no insurance hit mmy car…. The Police did not do a thing and i was screwed… No license and no insurance and he drove away…

    1. On the other hand, feel free to examine other countries with a 2000 mile border that is a problem, and then tell me about how strongly they enforce their immigration policies, and how much it costs.

      Mexico’s souther border is slightly over half the length, and I believe it is more mountainous (which would make it easier to defend).

      Personally, if I had any confidence that the justice system was more interested in getting it right than in collecting scalps, I would lean toward a policy that would have had us put a bullet behind the ear of the clown who just murdered somebody, sometime like the third time we caught him sneaking back. But i’m a grouch.

      1. Mexico’s souther border is slightly over half the length, and I believe it is more mountainous (which would make it easier to defend).

        That actually makes it harder to defend. See, e.g., the US chasing Taliban and AQ around the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The terrain makes hiding much easier.

  17. In 2011, El Paso, Texas, had the lowest crime rate ranking of any city with 500,000 or more residents. That is despite being just across the Rio Grande from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico?which in 2011 had the second highest murder rate of any city on Earth.

    Sounds like a good argument for making sure the people of Cuidad Jaurez don’t get into El Paso.

    In the second place, the influx of foreigners, particularly from Mexico, has helped revive many blighted communities. They have generated economic activity and filled vacant buildings, both of which tend to curb crime. What’s true of Chicago, Sampson notes, is also true of New York and Los Angeles, where crime has subsided fastest in the neighborhoods with the highest immigrant concentrations.

    I’m pretty sure Victor Davis Hanson would take exception to the idea that immigrants have “revived” his community. Anecdotally, this just doesn’t seem to pass the sniff test for anyone I know who has lived in an area with a big Hispanic influx. It’s certainly not true in the area where my rental properties are located.

    Part of the effect may be that Hispanics drive out Blacks, and blacks have much higher criminality than Hispanics, so the crime in those areas had nowhere to go but down.

    1. In the second place, the influx of foreigners, particularly from Mexico, has helped revive many blighted communities.

      Oh, fer fuck’s sake. Any place with enough of a concentration of illegals from Latin America is unlikely to be a community that you would call “revived”. From what I have seen, illegals tend to concentrate in poorer neighborhoods (because they are poor, themselves) where they can live with others from the old country (see, also, “human nature”). The best of them, the hard workers, are here to send money back to the old country, not spend it in this country. Which is fine, I have no beef with that.

      But what you wind up with is ghettos, to use an old term, where the people who do have jobs are sending as much money home as possible, not spending it here on things like rent, etc. that would actually revive a community.

      This dynamic is undoubtedly ramped up by our idiot immigration policies, but as a factual matter I think its pretty misleading to paint communities of illegals as “revived” or thriving or any kind of improvement.

      1. This is why I think it is so important to allow people to immigrate more freely. If it wasn’t so difficult for a male to get here illegally, he’d bring his family and the money would be spent in his community.

      2. If we just kept the illegals out then there would be no need to argue about them.

  18. Rich Lowry finally finds his balls:
    Sorry, Donald Trump Has A Point

  19. of course the stats ignore how often illegals are not prosecuted because they never show up for court or live in cities like San Fran which harbors illegals and won’t report them as illegals.

  20. None of the sources cited in this article can be counted upon as complete. The author does say that Trump did not read the news clippings he had, so I’m assuming the research for this piece is equivalent to Trumps, except for citing a few, “experts” whose objectivity should invite skepticism.

    Fair enough.

    The hard fact is that Mexicans (and other illegal immigrants) don’t want to interact with the police. They drive slow. And they don’t report crime in some jurisdictions. So can we assume that crime might not be reported due to fears of deportation? Where is the research data on that? Hard to come by as it would require a level of trust most university scholars cannot achieve due to te fact that they are not connected to the communities on a daily basis. This is a limiting factor for most sociological research.

    In the end, Trump doesn’t have anything to back up, “They’re rapists.” If he had said, “There are rapists.” he would have a defensible position.

  21. Doing a quick search I am seeing that 25% of California’s prison population are illegal aliens. That would not represent an insignificant amount of crime.

    1. So 75% of their criminals are legal Americans? I knew I couldn’t trust those bastards!

    2. Considering illegals are around 7 – 8% of the California population, that’s a pretty serious over-representation in prison.

  22. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  23. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,”

    Probably. But we may or may not need their best either; what we need is the people who are most efficient at what they do, and for farm labor, that’s a lot of cheap labor.

    The real question is how many immigrants come for government handouts. That’s really hard to determine. If social welfare spending were privatized and based on what people pay in, then the entire discussion would be off the table: people could migrate in with few restrictions and thrive if they are productive.

    1. The real question is how many immigrants come for government handouts

      The single men/women, who don’t bring families? Probably very few.

      The ones who do bring their families? Every single one, because every one of those kids is sucking up tax dollars in school, at a minimum, and quite possibly other forms of welfare (like government-paid health care, which varies by state). And that assumes they aren’t using their fake IDs to get other kinds of welfare that shows up as welfare for a citizen, and so it isn’t counted as going to an illegal.

    2. Ah so it’s ok for them to break our laws as long as they don’t take a gov’t handout.

  24. Links to citations would be helpful.

  25. “Trump Tells Iowa Dairy Farmers He Has Cows 500 Times Bigger Than Theirs “:

    “Appearing at a campaign event in the early primary state, real estate mogul and presidential candidate Donald Trump told an assembled group of dairy farmers Monday that his cows were 500 times bigger than theirs. “Your cows are small and scrawny, and you should be embarrassed to milk them,” said Trump, adding that each of his cows was the size of “at least” a dozen Cadillacs and had “udders that’ll make your head spin.” “No one raises dairy cows as gigantic or successful as I do; everyone knows that. My cattle are winners, and you people would be lucky to have them graze here.” Chatting with patrons at a diner later in the day, Trump reportedly said the apple pie was a disgrace and that his pies were a mile wide, with a perfect crust that made all the losers jealous.”

    http://www.theonion.com/articl…..-tim-50792

    Regards, onebornfree.

    The Freedom Network
    http://www.freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com

  26. The 50 million invaders(Univision boasted) violated US Code to get in here..

    This writer is a flat out OPEN BORDERS ANARCHIST…

    These invaders are affecting the USA in many ways…..dropping babies, taking jobs,
    collecting Welfare and Social Security etc etc etc

    This writer is the product of the state run media…….

  27. Wrong! 90% of those in California prisons are Mexicans.

  28. I am really starting to hate the phrase “politically correct.” I feel like the number of people who use it to mock and deride anyone as weak who shows even an acceptable human level of sensitivity in the face of outright trolling, is rapidly catching up to the number of people who we perceive to be overly sensitive to the point of censorship or policing of speech.

    It’s one of those cases where the people complaining about it are pretty much just as bad as the people they think they’re complaining about.

    I guess if you’re a middle of the road decent person, you don’t have any reason to bring up the topic of political correctness one way or another. You’ve got better things to do.

  29. On July 5, 2015 at San Francisco’s Pier 14, a tourist attraction, a young pregnant woman was randomly murdered by a gunshot fired by an illegal alien from Mexico. He has 7 elony convictions and was deported from the USA on 5 occasions.

    The SF authorities stated they had no legal grounds to hold him for ICE the last time he was arrested in April because there was no outstanding warrant for him. If SF were not a “Sanctuary City” he would have been held by the County Sheriff and turned over to ICE,,, but he wasn’t and now an innocent victim is dead.

    I’d say the Donald is on to something.

  30. Except that every, single one of the illegals has committed, and continues to commit, the crime of being here without permission.
    Hence the label “illegal”.
    Starting off your stay with a crime isn’t, exactly being law-abiding.

  31. Steve Chapman needs to Google: “LAPD Most Wanted All” (without quotes) so that he gets the entire list of 220 thugs. Reads like the Tijuana telephone directory. He also needs to search for “CA ethnic cleansing Mexican black” (without quotes) and read how Mexican gangs have “cleansed” black neighborhoods with violence. But even if every illegal immigrant were law-abiding, they still vote overwhelmingly Democrat. How would it serve the cause of liberty to give the Democrats 20-30 (est.) million new voters and turn the entire country into California?

  32. Tell that to the father of Kate Steinle, and the families of the hundreds of others that have been killed since 2008 by Illegal Aliens.

  33. Of those who enter the country illegally, 100% have broken our law and of those some go on to break even more laws. Facts, while sometimes NOT what we want to accept still remain as facts.
    Thank you Donald, but I still wouldn’t vote for you.

  34. I ain’t buying it,Trump is mostly right & I would guess 1/2 the adults are packing drugs for resale.

  35. Here it is again: Reason and the Myth of Illegal Alien Virtuosity.

    As someone else posted, the first sure thing we know about illegals is their active disregard for law abidance.

    Reason, you either support the protection of citizens from lawbreakers, or you support anarchy. On this, there really is no middle ground.

    Seriously, could you please stop making the general public believe libertarians are all anarchists? Thanks.

    (At least we can all agree Trump is a real douche-nozzle).

  36. Not a shred of evidence presented anywhere in this article. Just more of the libertarian fetish for “free” in this case the free movement of people.

  37. WTF? Did I accidentally log into Politico or the Daily Beast? The crime stats cited are total bullshit. Sorry but I live in Texas, I know what is happening on the border and it is far from safe. Sure cities in the north may have higher “crime rates” but the murder rates along the border are out of control. Trying to separate Laredo from Nuevo Laredo is like trying to separate conjoined twins. Mexico is a country out of control, run by corrupt politicians controlled by the cartels. They are attempting to take control of the Southwest by sending thousands of illegals to make trafficking in drugs easier. The irony of the entire situation is if you enter Mexico illegally, they throw your ass in prison for 5 years, no questions asked, but then attack us for sending the people who enter the US illegally back to Mexico. This author like so many others is an idiot who has no freaking idea what the reality is along the border. Gee a Democratic form the House of Reps is pushing the lie illegal immigration is not a problem,,, I am so surprised. I read read a lot of bullshit on the subject but this takes the cake. you calls this site “REASON”, seriously. You need to change it to something more appropriate like TOTAL CRAP.

  38. While I am generally sympathetic to people’s desire to migrate here to improve their lot in life, I can say with certainty that it is no myth that these illegals are disproportionately involved in criminal activity. I live in Houston, a Sanctuary City, and there are large numbers of illegal immigrants here. I live in an area that has been gentrified, and approximately 100% of the property crime around here is committed by these folks. People’s security cameras reveal this reality. I think we need to improve our ability to legally process people at the border and crack down on illegal migration to address this. I suspect that majorities of the people that come here are honest and hardworking, but there is also no question that a lot of the people that come over are people we would prefer to keep outside our borders….

    1. What we need to realize is that this is war, and there there is only a military solution.

  39. his main problem was in how he said it. if he had simply said “illegal immigration is a problem for reasons up to and including the fact that some of them commit crimes once here, including violent crimes”, he would’ve been fine. but he made it sound like the criminals were the typical immigrant. not to mention he said it in the non nonchalant, arrogant way that only trump can.

    1. If he made it sound like “criminals were the typical immigrant”, aside from those who go through the immigration process, Trump is 100% correct. They become criminals as soon as they illegally cross the border.

      Many (on the order of 100,000 or more) per year go on to commit other serious crimes.

      The point is, those 100,000 crimes should be ZERO. If there were no criminal aliens in the US, then by definition, no criminal aliens would be committing serious crimes – rape, murder, robbery, burglary – in America.

      They have no right to be here. If even ONE commits a violent crime, it’s one too many.

  40. “Migrants being raped” does not equal “rapists migrating.”

    True.

    Nor does “migrants” aptly describe the criminal invaders streaming across our southern border.

    They’re all criminals. Every… single… one.

    Shoot them at the border. Give them 6 months to leave – then fine any employer or landlord to employs them or rents them property $1000/day.

    Solve the problem.

  41. this article is bullshit, go to a sanctuary city and check out the immigration status of the felons in jail, the illegals are well represented, much more than their percentage of the population.

    Hey Chapman, how do you explain this:

    Top 5 Districts for Criminal Cases in U.S. District Court Are on Mexican Border
    http://www.cnsnews.com/comment…..ico-border

    1. Right after this article came out, Drudge started posting stories showing how high Mexican/Hispanic illegal immigrant crime is as a proportion of all federal crime. The stats are starting to come out and the lefties at Reason are looking more ignorant to the reality by the day.

      If you carefully parse Reason’s articles you will find they usually attempt to distort the illegal immigration picture by including all immigrants, legal and illegal together, and in this case they use the generic term immigrant even though Donald Trump was talking specifically about illegal Mexican and Hispanic immigrants. They need to generalize in order to make their case about open borders and unfettered immigration because specific data about individual groups screws up their argument and is purposely more difficult to glean because it makes people uncomfortable so it is hidden or obscured for PC reasons.

  42. I think the author lost me when he cited the Huffington Post . Sorry that online rag is about as reliable as Iran. The fact no one wants to talk about is that regardless the ratio of crime illegals commit they still are committing crimes in country they don’t belong in. This woman would never have been killed like this had this POS hadn’t been allowed to run back into the USA.

  43. A bit off-topic but I spotted this comment at http://www.unz.com/isteve/ta-n…..nt-1002018

    No need to think how Al Sharpton might react. 😉
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyu2jAD6sdo

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.