Donald Trump

Donald Trump's Border Ad Shows Chaotic Morocco, Not Boring America

This is not what the U.S.-Mexico border looks like, either today or tomorrow

|

Trump has been very strong on Spain-Morocco issues. ||| Donald Trump, who approves this message
Donald Trump, who approves this message

You know how the border scene in Republican frontrunner Donald Trump's they-keep-coming ad looks all chaotic and Third Worldy? That's because it's lifted from footage of the chaotic Third World.  

Politifact becomes the second fact-checking outfit to do some tip-top work today by identifying that the video used at around the 0:22-0:25 mark—when the narrator is busy reassuring us that Trump will "stop illegal immigration by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for"—is actually 18-month old Italian television footage of

Moroccans crossing the border into Melilla, one of two enclaves on the Moroccan coast that are held by Spain. Migrants who cross the border there are essentially entering territory held by a European Union nation, even though they are still on the African continent. (It can also be seen posted by a YouTube user here.)

You can understand why Trump's ad people had to reach out 5,000 miles to find suitably alarming footage. As the anti-Trumpian Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-El Paso) told me in a recent interview, one of the great misconceptions about the U.S.-Mexico border is that it's crawling with humanity away from the official entry points:

reason: […] What has the growth of the Border Patrol since the mid-'90s actually changed at the border?

O'Rourke: In the El Paso sector, which I think is, in terms of manpower if not size, the largest Border Patrol sector, last year there were four and a half apprehensions for the entire year on average per agent.

reason: Wow.

O'Rourke: This goes back to the diminishing returns that we were talking about. And nationally it may be like three, maybe three and a half times that; I don't think it's above 15 nationally. That's for the whole year. When I'm talking about this with people they say, "You mean a month? A week?" No, it's for the whole year.

Whole O'Rourke interview here.

Meanwhile, Katy Tur of NBC News is attributing this quote to Trump's campaign manager: "No shit its not the Mexican border but thats what our country is going to look like if we don't do anything." That's not exactly true, either, but truth to the Trump campaign is a bit like apostrophes.

NEXT: The First Amendment, the right of publicity, video games and the Supreme Court

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. If you care about it, then there is something horribly wrong with it. There must be.

          1. I’m fully aware of my own horribleness. Thank you very much.

      2. You probably care about facts and logic too. It’s cute but irrelevant these days.

  1. That’s because it’s lifted from footage of the chaotic Third World.

    The chaotic Third World eyesore of Mexico is what Trump is trying to wall off. And they’re interchangeable.

    1. The chaotic Third World eyesore of Mexico

      What’s Cleveland? Chopped liver?

      1. Full of voters, unfortunately.

        1. This is why I support voter ID. If you’re from Cleveland, you don’t get to.

    2. The first time I ever saw real poverty was in Mexico. I was with my parents at some resort we were staying at and we took a drive somewhere and I was just looking out the window taking in everything, as usual. We drove through this little village and it looked like something out of the apocalypse to me. It really made an impression on me as I had never seen anything like that before.

  2. How exactly is it that you know this, Matt? You been sitting down by the border watching? What does the border look like? You let them Mexicans in, next thing you know they’re raking someone’s lawn, you can’t trust them.

    1. #Makinglawnsgreatagain

    2. Hmm, my lawn needs taking…

  3. Aaaaaaaand Tony is flogging the birth control thread…

    1. At least he waited until everyone else was gone.

      1. Sort of like Cytotoxic in the other Trump thread.

        1. He must not know that he’s needed here right now to tell us how open borders are supposed to work in tandem with bombing the shit out of everyone on the planet.

          1. But there are still dozens of comments in the other thread that he hasn’t responded to with evidence-free assertions yet!

            1. Typically his response is something along the lines of ‘You’re stupid!’.

            2. And when no one responds to his posts. He rides off into the set, his work here being complete.

      2. He always does.

        I’m sure he tells himself that its because he’s not here for us as we’re too far gone for redemption, but for the stray lamb that wanders in his comments may be the deciding factor between a life of depravity and said lamb returning back to its ordained place in the Faufreluches

    2. I closed that tab a while ago.

  4. So what if it does? Reason is categorically against even the modest amount of border enforcement Obama does. If it looks like that in Morocco, why could it never look like that here, especially if we adopted Reason’s preferred policy of completely opening the border?

    The fact is that for many people in the world a life begging on the streets or even in prison in the US is better than what they have. Why would those people not come here if we would let them and how on earth would we deal with the second order effects of such a migration if they did?

    1. So we should completely kill the concept of freedom of movement and welcome a massive police state because someday, current facts be damned, it might be a problem if too many Mexicans try to come in?

      Sincere question John: why are you posting here and not at Breitbart or RedState or any other place where pants-shitting over hypotheticals is an acceptable reason for welcoming a trampling of civil liberties?

      1. This country owes you and everyone who lives here legally freedom of movement. It doesn’t owe people who don’t live here shit. Freedom of movement is your freedom to leave the country and go anywhere that will have you. No other country owe you the right to enter their country and the US doesn’t owe anyone not here the right to enter. They certainly can let you if they want. But the government of Mexico doesn’t owe you entry into their country. They just owe their own people exit, just like the US owes you the same.

        So spare me your sophistry about freedom of movement when talking about the US government and people who do not live here. If you think the US government owes Mexicans freedom of movement, what other rights do you think they owe Mexicans? Should the US go down and ensure them freedom of the press and due process? If not, why not, since you seem to think it is the job of the US government to protect the rights of the entire world.

        Seriously Jeff, either be honest enough to be an anarchist or take your week ass “we owe the world rights” elsewhere.

        1. This country owes you and everyone who lives here legally freedom of movement.

          Gee, I’ll be sure to tell the Border Patrol that if they stop me next time my girlfriend and I decide to take a scenic drive in that border zone south of Tucson. Maybe if I’m lucky they’ll only slash my tires and leave us stranded instead of killing me.

          There is zero libertarian justification for taking the Border Patrol and putting it on steroids to take on an imaginary problem.

          1. Gee, I’ll be sure to tell the Border Patrol that if they stop me next time my girlfriend and I decide to take a scenic drive in that border zone south of Tucson. Maybe if I’m lucky they’ll only slash my tires and leave us stranded instead of killing me.

            Cool story. And if you want to talk about border control tactics, sure. That of course has nothing to do with the larger issue of whether the government owes people from other country’s the guarantee of freedom of movement here.

            If you want to talk about that issue, please do. Otherwise, admit you have no response and move on.

        2. If you think the US government owes Mexicans freedom of movement, what other rights do you think they owe Mexicans? Should the US go down and ensure them freedom of the press and due process? If not, why not, since you seem to think it is the job of the US government to protect the rights of the entire world.

          I know you already know the answer to this, but in case others reading don’t…

          The US owes individuals the securing of their rights within its sovereign territory. Hence the US is obligated not to abrogate their freedom of movement into or within the US. But the US is in no way obligated to secure their rights outside of US sovereign territory.

          1. Hence the US is obligated not to abrogate their freedom of movement into or within the US.

            This reads to me like “no immigration controls whatsoever”, which practically no one really wants to say is their position.

            What controls would you support, and how do you square them with your position?

            1. I didn’t want to dilute my main point on where the US would be expected to guarantee individual rights, but I definitely am for reasonable immigration controls.

              In particular, immigration should be prohibited for individuals who are specifically proven to be a threat to the population, e.g., as terrorists, foreign agents, violent felons, or carriers of contagion.

              I believe in visas and background checks, but that they cannot be withheld solely to maintain some quota. A new visa class should be developed that is unlimited in number, duration, and employment restrictions. Holders of this visa are not on a citizenship track and cannot receive any targeted welfare, even for their citizen children. But holders of this visa can apply for other visas as their application requirements warrant. “Amnesty” is illegal immigrants applying for and receiving the unlimited visa.

              1. Fair enough, but that all sounds inconsistent with “not abrogating freedom of movement.” You would be denying the right to freedom of movement into the US by immigration should be “individuals who are specifically proven to be a threat to the population”.

                Now, if you want to do so following what amounts to a full criminal trial, I’m OK with that, because that’s how we abrogate the freedom of movement of US citizens. But recognizing a right, and then denying it without due process, sounds kinda off to me.

                1. A little off, but not a lot off.

                  All the causes to prohibit entry into the US for a noncitizen could be applied in the service of compelling public interest to prohibit movement within the US for a US citizen. Quarantines, for example, are applied without trial-level due process. But there is some process and some mechanisms of oversight and appeal — and a complete understanding that rights are indeed being violated.

                  I don’t think it’s a conflict or trade off of rights. It’s the government plainly violating rights because the cost of not violating the rights is deemed too high. The more we recognize that most government action — even legitimate government action — is violation of rights, the more reluctant we should be about applying government power.

              2. So you’re perfectly fine letting in millions and millions of people who do NOT share your view of the rights and responsibilities, knowing that in short order they’ll be voting for MOAR GOVERNMENT?

                Look, I get the whole freedom of movement thing, but at some point we have to say “no, you don’t get to come up here and then tell us we have to change”.

                1. “Holders of this visa are not on a citizenship track…”

                  The US is obligated to secure only their unalienable rights …which include neither citizenship nor voting.

                  Those can be handed out based on whatever pragmatic standards the government desires. I myself would like to see holders of this unlimited visa eligible for citizenship only after 18 to 20 years. If their right to travel, reside, and work in the US is guaranteed, then citizenship and voting are trivial improvements on top of that.

          2. Yes, good answer.

            The US government doesn’t owe the rest of the world a guarantee of freedom of movement. But it is morally obliged to respect the rights of all, regardless of nationality, within the territory it controls.

        3. OK, what about my right to allow whomever I want onto my property?

    2. Thanks John, at least you’re reliable. I think the point is the image is meant to conjure up a certain fear in a particular voter. The ad lies. If you’re going to scare people at least use the truth which is scary enough. I guess these damn morals are why I will never Make America Great Again.

      1. Yeah because mass migrations that totally screw the quality of life in another area could never happen. I mean it is not like that is happening in Europe right now or anything.

        Thanks for stepping in here to confirm that yes open borders Libertarians are uniformly ignorant about the rest of the world and have no clue that anyone in the world is anything except just like them. Thank you. We always need someone around here to live up to the worst stereotypes, lest we forget those things are stereotypes because they are sometimes true.

        1. I do think that the open-borders crowd do take for granted many of the positive attributes of America.

          What if we do have open borders, and a bunch of Third Worlders come here and vote to make America an even more socialist state than it is now? All the polls suggest that Mexican and Central American immigrants are more liberal than your typical Reason.com reader.

          Wouldn’t it be prudent then to enforce borders now in order to forestall an even less libertarian outcome in the future?

          1. Most of them are actually pretty socially conservative compared to your average libertarian. The problem is that most of them also see the government as an entity that is there to take care of everyone. I know a lot of people from south of our border and I can tell you that this mentality about government is strong in them almost universally.

            1. Basically, “everyone should follow the rules and as a reward be taken care of”. Of course, the extent to which they actually follow the rules is laughably limited in practice.

              See also: Europe

            2. So, socially conservative and fiscally liberal, then?

              Sounds like a Libertarian Moment!

              1. Oh, I’m sure it is.

        2. My issue isn’t with open/closed borders. It is with the agitprop manner that it is presented. For the record I am not an open borders libertarian. I am a tapas cosmotarian with racist tendencies, thank you very much,

      2. Give Trump a break. He hasn’t been in power and has not had the time and resources to create real scary situations. So he has to make them up. What else can an aspiring politician do?

    3. So what if it does?

      Well, then it’s fundamentally dishonest, or at least misleading. It’s pretty clear that the image is intended to make the U.S./Mexico border look like its enduring this huge amount of traffic in illegal aliens. It’s presenting the problem in a way that makes immigration look like a lot bigger an issue than it really is.

      1. It’s fake but accurate. Because Lord knows John has never castigated a progressive cause for lying to serve a greater narrative.

      2. Again, so what? It still makes a larger point that is true. Reason just doesn’t like that point and lives in this fantasy world where it doesn’t exist. The reason why it being dishonest means something is because it paints an untruth. Clearly it doesn’t in the sense that without border controls that would happen here.

        1. It still makes a larger point that is true.

          What point is that? That the border will look like that if policies don’t change?

          You have a very low bar for “truth.”

        2. “So what if that frat at UVA didn’t actually gang rape Jackie? It’s still true we have a major campus rape epidemic on our hands.”

        3. Again, so what? It still makes a larger point that is true.

          No, it’s not. The degree of illegal immigration traffic is nothing like what is depicted in the video. The video is suggesting, not that it could happen (as you are suggesting), but that it is happening. But, this video isn’t happening on the U.S./Mexico border.

          If a proggie were to say that the Feds should crack down on the protesters in Oregon because they could decide to attack civilians and populated targets, you’d (rightfully) be all over them. But, that’s just the sort of argument you’re making to try to justify Trump’s bullshit.

      3. It’s pretty clear that the image is intended to make the U.S./Mexico border look like its enduring this huge amount of traffic in illegal aliens.

        Because that would be totally misleading.

        U.S. officials say there’s a notable increase in the number of unaccompanied minors and families crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, presenting worries of a possible new refugee influx.

        http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/…..der-spike/

        Actually, Mexican emigration is way down. Its mostly Central Americans now, but fewer than when it was mostly Mexicans, by quite a bit.

        1. I want to say I read were Mexican immigration has gone negative the last couple of years.

          1. A couple of things have happened:

            (1) Mexico has changed demographically and economically over the last 10 or 15 years. Better jobs + fewer big families = less emigration.

            (2) Our job market has sucked balls since 2008.

            1. A lot of new immigrants who are crossing the border now are not Mexicans. They’re from Central American and are crossing through Mexico, especially Honduras and El Salvador.

            2. (2) Our job market has sucked balls since 2008.

              Take that back! TAKE IT BACK!

              1. Well, the Lightbringer has cometh, so how could that be true, right?

    4. How did we ever deal with such immigration in the past? I mean this country was just *destroyed* by successive waves of dagos, micks, and chinks.

      1. Immigration in the age of sail isn’t exactly comparable to immigration in the age of airplanes. A flight over the pond takes sixteen hours where it once took months. You are also way less likely to die from starvation, bad weather, or disease while crossing the ocean in the modern era. Moving between countries has become cheaper, faster, and quicker than any other time in the past.

        Might not make a difference in the final conclusions, but it needs to be taken into account when comparing past results of immigration to expected future results.

        1. Immigration in the age of sail isn’t exactly comparable to immigration in the age of airplanes

          There also was not a massive welfare state offering free goodies to anyone that comes. You came, you worked hard, or your starved. You didn’t have too much time for making trouble.

          1. Are you kidding? The immigrants of the past made plenty of trouble. Crime and vagrancy were options back then too.

            1. Yeah, I know. I saw that film Gangs of New York.

      2. We had an empty continent. We also had huge slums and things that our society today would never tolerate. Also, it was a lot harder to get here then and the overall population of the world was much smaller. The world is different now and the circumstances make having true open borders much more difficult than it was then.

      3. I think the issue is a lot more complicated than open borders vs no more immigration. To have truly open borders and a massive welfare state at the same time sounds like a disaster to me. The US government ‘fixing’ immigration in anyway also sounds terrifying to me. I’m for the status quo, it’s working fine the way it is and no way can we hope for better because there is no one trustworthy to take on the issue and not make it worse. So my vote is that immigration is fine the way it is, don’t fuck with it either way.

        1. Its a long way from “fine the way it is”, but it could also be a hell of a lot worse.

          1. Well, that’s sort of what I was trying to say, R C, it’s not that good, but it’s probably the best we can hope for. Does anyone think that any attempt by lawmakers to fix it won’t actually create an unimaginable clusterfuck with massive waves of unintended consequences?

            1. We’re on the same page. “Comprehensive immigration reform” is up there with “common sense gun control” on my Do Not Want list.

              1. Unless they start repealing laws, everything they do is likely to fall into my ‘Do Not Want’ list.

      4. We now have a broke welfare state, Agammamon. And despite what the open borders types say, poor illegals and their children get more in welfare and other services than they pay in taxes.

        1. More than half of the nation’s immigrants receive some kind of government welfare, a figure that’s far higher than the native-born population’s, according to a report to be released Wednesday.

          http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../71517072/

        2. poor illegals and their children get more in welfare and other services than they pay in taxes.

          If you limit it to the poorest and children, that’s probably true. But what about illegal immigrants in general?

          1. True, I doubt if (e.g.) the average French visa over-stayer is a welfare burden.

    5. “Fake, but accurate”

  5. O’Rourke: In the El Paso sector, which I think is, in terms of manpower if not size, the largest Border Patrol sector, last year there were four and a half apprehensions for the entire year on average per agent.

    That’s not the point. I grew up in that area. The point is internal checkpoints that aren’t anywhere near a border where you get to be questioned as to your status, where you’re going, and even have your vehicle searched, because “your rights don’t matter here”.

    How many jet-skis, powerboats, new cars and flat screen TVs in the local economy have all those extra agents purchased? Multiplier effect, bitches.

  6. I’m sure this revelation will cause him to drop out of the race at a tearful news conference. Clearing the way, finally, for Jeb!

  7. Phew, I was concerned Reason had forgotten about Trump. And by “concerned”, I meant “hopeful”.

    1. And by hopeful, you mean “pre-disappointed”.

      1. Aw, is there any other kind?

  8. truth to the Trump campaign is a bit like apostrophes.

    Overused in inappropriate places?

    1. Whatever do you “mean”

  9. Serial question… why is Trump advertising on TV? Last I heard he was the only candidate that didn’t advertise on TV because it’s been repeatedly shown to be a big money hole. Or is this Reason’s clever way of making me watch TV?

    1. Has this ad actually been run in a paid placement? Or has he just announced it, and let the predictable media frenzy do the rest?

  10. You sound like someone who’s figured out what’s going on, Matt.

    1. He is asking the ToughQuestions and putting the videos on YouTube.

  11. Maybe Trump wants to recycle land mines from Morocco’s frontiers to the Tex Mex border ?

  12. Mexico and Morocco sound almost the same. Are you sure Morocco isn’t Mexican for West Mexico?

    1. Since when Moroccans where black? just take a look to the video all those guys are black people, they are from center Africa, running from war and hunger. They are allowed to be refugees in my country, but they don’t get much help since our country is not able to. So some of them try to seek the assulym on Europe, and you should wonder by they fight with Police to cross the border… isn’t that stupid? wouldn’t they put you go back anyway? the answer is no… if you passed the borders they don’t have the right to do, actually you will considered a refugee the moment you do.

      I saw a documentation when a center African guy lost his fingers while trying to run from Police on the border and he was happy after he crossed the border and said stuff like it doesn’t matter… it’s kind of like the Hunger Games or something like that, on the border you are their worst enemy so they try to kill you, you cross it and you are a victim of war and hunger in your country and you need help.

  13. Cosmos unite!

    And let the tears flow.

  14. When I think of immigration and borders, I am reminded of Galt’s Gulch in Atlas Shrugged.

    Why did John Galt only selectively invite potential residents of Galt’s Gulch to come and emigrate there? Why didn’t he just announce to the world “Here is this awesome place called Galt’s Gulch, you are all welcome to move here”? Because he knew that it would have been overrun with looters had he done so.

    It is the same with national borders. If we don’t selectively invite who we want into this country, it will just be overrun with looters.

    1. “Why did John Galt only selectively invite potential residents of Galt’s Gulch to come and emigrate there?”

      Because then it would have been just like everywhere else. The third world isnt cursed geography full of George Washingtons and Thomas Edisons struggling to get out. It is a shithole because it is full of shit.

    2. Sorry to tell you, it’s too late. We’ve already been overrun with looters and they mostly identify as Republicans and Democrats, especially the latter.

      1. Well, true. But that doesn’t mean we have to import *more* looters.

        1. What is with people saying “import” when talking about immigrants. Immigrants import themselves. You are thinking of refugees or asylum seekers. If you go on a trip to Europe, do you say that the EU has imported you?

      2. Yeah, I don’t see how being a US citizen gives you any extra special right to steal from US citizens. I’m far more concerned about the hugely larger number of Americans looting the place than I am about a few million immigrants.

  15. Trump is doing this because he needs to be dishonest to elevate what really is a relatively minor issue to be the centerpiece of his campaign. In terms of the long-term interests of the republic, border security/immigration isn’t what’s going to make us or break us. It’s just not that important. The issues that do matter, on the other hand, are usually complicated and risk alienating lots of voters.

  16. Hurray for my side. Down with everyone else.

    That is what I get out of these discussions.

    For open borders advocates there are only immigrants. No distinction is made between motives or cultures. I am pro immigration…for people who will better the country. To say that any and everyone who would come here or be brought here will better the country isnt just dumb, it is dishonest at best or worse, insane.

    As for the border with Mexico, thirty years ago we would wander around in southern Arizona shooting our pistols. It was nearly impossible to find evidence of humans anywhere. Sometimes we would realize we had wandered over the border into Mexico. No one cared because there was no one there.

    I understand things are different now. What a fuckin’ shame.

    1. I too am pro-immigrant, but anti-looter. (Where “looter” is understood in the Atlas Shrugged sense.)

    2. Preach it, Suthen. That’s pretty much where I am.

      The borderlands with Mexico are now pretty not a place you would want to be without good reason, mostly because of the drug smugglers. Even the people smugglers steer clear of them,because (a) the drug smugglers see everyone as a nail, and they have a bunch of hammers, and (b) there are few places on earth where it is easier for a body to just disappear than the Sonoran desert.

      1. mostly because of the drug smugglers

        Who are there (as you of course know) because of the border enforcement and war on drugs.

    3. For open borders advocates there are only immigrants.

      It would be more accurate to say that for libertarian open borders advocates, there are only people. Their national origin is not relevant to what rights they have.

      That said, almost no non-anarchists are really for open borders. The editors of Reason mostly aren’t.

      In principle, I’m pretty close to it, I don’t think anyone has a right to stop anyone traveling to a place where someone is willing to have them. I think a reasonable compromise would be to let in anyone who has a job or a place to stay lined up.

      1. I can’t really argue with that Zeb. That is pretty much where I am. Wanna work? Come and knock yourself out.

        National origin, skin color, language, etc aren’t really important. Culture is. As has been said before, if you want to come here because you like what you see in America and want an American life then please do come.

        If you want welfare or to cut off your daughter’s clit and spread the one true religion then keep your worthless ass in Dumbfuckistan.

  17. Articles that cover the recent net reduction in Mexican immigration to the United States commonly cite the economic downturn and the beefed up border security as the cause. In the olden days Mexicans could apparently walk right past certain spots of the border and earn money at American diners and return home to Mexico.

    What we’re doing at the border mostly works. That’s the best argument against building more walls. Reasons pretends to be shocked apprehension rate per agent but apparently forgot about the recent massive migration from South America. Border agents “deport” thousands of freshly caught illegals near or at the border.

    1. Articles that cover the recent net reduction in Mexican immigration to the United States commonly cite the economic downturn and the beefed up border security as the cause.

      They’re leaving out two of the more important causes: Mexico’s changing demography, and improving economy.

  18. If you watch the original clip you also get to see how effective a “wall” would be

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.