Donald Trump Is Wrong on Immigration, Sanctuary Cities, and Refugees. Here Are the Facts.

A selection of Reason TV videos.


The shocking ascent of Donald Trump to the head of the GOP field began with a single, audacious, visually arresting campaign promise: To build a giant wall along the U.S. southern border and force Mexico to pay for it.

Trump didn't get to that "big, beautiful wall" until week four of the campaign, but he demonized Mexican immigrants when announcing his candidacy:

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. …. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

In later speeches, Trump compared Mexican immigration to the Mariel boatlift, in which Castro intentionally released criminals from Cuba's prisons and sent them to South Florida along with refugees escaping communism.

In the video below, professor Joel Fetzer explains why the comparison isn't apt, pointing out that migration from Mexico has been on a downward slope since at least 2005. Fetzer also debunks a number of other immigration myths: that immigrants increase unemployment among natives; that they increase the violent crime rate; and that they're a drain on public resources.

Trump cashed in on an emotion-laden issue that most Americans, including Republicans, didn't prioritize until he entered the race. To do so, he capitalized on a couple of tragedies that bolstered his case.

The first was the shooting of Kate Steinle on San Francisco's Pier 14, allegedly by an illegal Mexican immigrant named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. The shooting occured on July 1, less than a month after Trump began his campaign. The timing couldn't have been better, and Trump doubled down on the issue—though he didn't bother to personally call Steinle's family and offer condolonces or support until Steinle's brother called him out in the media.

Watch the video below to learn why Trump is wrong to use a young woman's tragic death to criticize sanctuary-city policies. New immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are less likely to commit violent or property crimes than U.S. citizens, and there's little evidence that crime rates are higher in sanctuary cities than in non-sanctuary cities.

Trump seized another political opportunity in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris by declaring that he'd put a halt to all Muslim immigration "until we figure out what's going on."

Again, Trump is wrong because the U.S. government does indeed have a pretty good idea about "what's going on." For a glimpse at the multi-tiered bureaucracy refugees must navigate to arrive here, take a look at this next video.

Refugees in general, and Syrian refugees in particular, already are among the most intensely scrutinized immigrants to enter the U.S. Despite Trump's proclamation that the refugee migration might be "the greatest Trojan horse of all time," the fact is that terrorist attacks in the U.S. by and large have been carried out not by refugees but by people here on student visas or naturalized American citizens.

The facts contained in these videos may be unpopular, as indicated by the overwhelmingly negative feedback in the YouTube comments sections. And they probably won't sway the views of Trump supporters willing to stick with him even when he openly admits he doesn't really believe what he's saying.

But in a country that relies on immigrants to maintain a vibrant, dynamic economy, and a healthy voting populace that can act as a bulwark against the rise of authoritarian strongmen, a clear and constant repetition of the facts can at the very least provide solid ground to retreat to when the hazardous muck of Trumpism starts to sink away.

NEXT: Will Texas' Use of 'Safety Regulations' to Close Abortion Clinics Be Declared Unconstitutional?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Abortion, then immigration and Trump. Trying to get that weekend traffic up I see

    1. They are holding back the big “Sarah Palin endorses Donald Trump’s plan to ban uber and deny immigrants abortions” post for a Memorial Day blow out.

      1. While polling millennials over a meal of deep dish pizza?

        1. Notorious,

          When reading your comment I envisioned a number of du-jour dressed/prepped young people tied to (Bugs Bunny style) turning poles.

          1. One Milennial cracks an ironic ‘what’s up Doc?’

            The rest go into a tizzy about the ‘racist Looney Tunes Caricatures from WWII and how Bug Bunny is, literally, the worst’.

    2. I heard Trump’s giant hog is not circumcised.

      1. I hear he wants to require circumcision to enter the country.

        1. Er, he’s not all that fond of Muslims.

          1. He seems to be rather fond of Jews, however.

            1. Wasn’t there a willing Christian or two around he could’ve fondled instead?

              What? Nobody thinks this but me?

              /asking for a Jewish friend’s mother, not that she asks an approximately equal number of questions as does Judge Nap, of course.

              The latter is a Catholic, you know.
              Just sayin’.

                1. I created a double-layered response to your comments, HM, and the H&R squirrels seem to have eaten them.


                  Hopefully that transfers. You’re smart enough to know why I chose it.

            2. Oh my, Knauss looks like she started having plastic surgery to her face before she hit 30. Scary stuff

              1. But I’m assuming she wasn’t circumcised.

      2. But it is very short and vulgar.

    3. Zach Weissmueller is “wrong on immigration, sanctuary cities, and refugees. here are the facts.” according to this source:…..ns_do.html

      It looks like Trump is pretty much right according to the article above. By all means though, verify the above article if you wish. It appears to be more relevant to what Trump said though.

      Note to the author, in the future you should probably post the illegal immigrant crime rate within your article, not reference Pew research about legal immigrant crime passively like that.

      And since world crime rates for major crimes are reasonably ascertained, it is actually very easy to guess what crime rates would be if we had completely open borders. One would have to adjust for wealth, but the rate would probably regress closer to the world average (and you would have far less libertarian politicians), which would make us worse off.

  2. Woo-Hoo!!! back to Trump-a-pa-loosa

  3. So reason spends decades documenting how government fails at everything it does but now tells us that government is actually pretty good at screening and vetting refugees. Is this Reason it the Onion?

    1. For Reason, government incompetence is acceptable for fostering open borders. Ineptitude in this case is a feature, not a bug.

    2. I figured the refugees are pretty good a screening themselves.

      Lazy criminal types aren’t all that interested in the effort required to get here.

  4. At least Hitler Reagan is dead.

    1. Her and her cankles, amirite?

      1. Nice tie-in from earlier, gang.

      2. If they are in fact real, I would hope that they could be preserved for science.

  5. Now, this is a Trump-rant!

    1. Jeanine Pirro: still would. Must have been insanely hot back in the day.

    2. You have to admire the speed with which TV hacks for Fox have gone from being the PR-wing of the “Establishment” to being the proud defenders of the populist uprising against the “Elites” and the “Power Brokers”.

      All of a sudden you see these people who never made so much as a peep over the last decade about the shortcomings or weaknesses of the GOP, never bothering to highlight the perennial failure to reduce federal spending… the same news-people who derided critics of the NSA, or anyone who suggested military spending was anything less than ‘insufficient’… NOW, they’re all screeching like they’re born-again Tea Partiers who have spent their lives manning the barricades and are the vanguard of the Jacksonian Revolution, preparing to sweep aside any vestigate of the Old Order.

      The “establishment” is the establishment precisely because it knows exactly when to pretend its not, and can co-opt its own critics faster than people even recognize what’s going on.

      All i heard in that woman’s speech is, “I NEED TO KEEP MY JOB”

      1. Well said.

      2. I have no idea what Fox News channel you’re watching, but the only thing I heard all day on Super Tuesday when I was hopping between them and CNN was how Cruz should probably just go ahead and kill himself to make way for Rubio, who is literally the last great hope for the GOP. The judge’s sentiment definitely wasn’t the majority.

  6. OT: I once worked with a woman who thought that during their suicide charges Japanese soldiers would shout “bonsai bonsai bonsai!”

    She refused to believe different even when showed a history book (this was years before internet search engines).

    1. They don’t?! Everything I know is a lie…

    2. I can image being passionate about a hobby, but to die for it? “Miniature pruning shears and decades long patience for the Emperor!”

      1. imagine

      2. Given some 40K players I’ve known, dying for a hobby seems reasonable.

        1. From breathing solvents while painting miniatures? You ain’t taking over Manchuria that way.

          1. If you aren’t huffing fumes while painting them miniachures then how do you explain *this*


            1,240 Pounds Sterling = USD 1,763

            1. I remember when it was a squad-based skirmish game…

              1. The popularity of WarmaHordes has convinced GW that the reason for their lagging popularity is not that it costs $300 to *start* the game but because they have a dearth of giant mecha models to play with.

                1. I’d allow people to use my site to design and print out customizable counters that they could use to start out with and then they could buy minis as they went.

            2. I dunno. He rocked the highlights and plumbed the shadows?

                1. Well, that’s just stupid.

            3. What in the fuck is this shit?

              1. The colossal Mars pattern Warlord Titan is among the most ancient and feared of the Imperium’s war machines. Forged on the Red Planet itself, it is worshipped and venerated as the Omnissiah’s will incarnate, and each god-engine is encased in layered armour and powerful void shielding, and armed with weapons that are capable of reducing armies to ash.

                In addition to its ardex-defensor mauler bolt cannon and lascannon turrets, support weapons that would be considered main armaments on smaller war machines, the Warlord is commonly fitted with a pair of carapace-mounted triple-barrelled laser blasters and two Belicosa pattern Volcano cannon.

                1. What in the fuck is this shit?

                  1. *sigh*

                    You losers with your ‘wives’ and ‘families’ and ‘careers’.

    3. You can’t prove they didn’t!

    4. On the topic to the off-topic: This is really cool.

      1. Damn. That’s cool.

        It seems like the kind of thing you would see in a 70s sci-fi movie or TV show that was trying too hard to appear futuristic.

      2. Bonzai trees? Don’t give them swords. Or guns.

        1. Or rare earth magnets.

  7. The link under “less likely to commit violent crimes or property crimes” takes me to a pew research site but doesn’t load?

    Anyone else get it to work?

    1. looks fine to me. The chart here sums up the basic point of the article, which is that “first generation immigrants commit less crime than natives”… and second generation immigrants (are they really “immigrants” anymore?) are no different than natives (i.e. equally as prone to criminality)

      “”n: The crime rate among first-generation immigrants?those who came to this country from somewhere else?is significantly lower than the overall crime rate and that of the second generation. It’s even lower for those in their teens and early 20s, the age range when criminal involvement peaks.

      But just a generation later, the crime rate soars. In fact, it is virtually identical to the rate among native-born Americans across the most crime-prone years. As the accompanying chart taken from an earlier Bersani study shows, about a quarter of 16-year-old native-born and second-generation immigrants have committed a crime in the past year. In contrast, about 17% of the foreign-born 16-year olds have broken the law.”

    2. Never mind I got it to work but I don’t see that it supports the claim.

      1. What you probably get mixed up (which most do) is the distinction between “Hispanic” (which says nothing about immigration status, and is just an ethnic descriptor) and data on actual “immigrant-crime”

        “immigrants” commit less crime overall, and less of those specific (violent & property)crimes. of course, their offspring aren’t ‘immigrants’ anymore, and also tend to commit significantly more-crime… but that’s accounted for differently. The same study points some of this out.

        1. The part I don’t see is anything on illegal immigrant crime rates which is what Reason said it provided. It my be in the other referenced links in that link but I don’t feel like digging.

          1. You’re right in that there is no distinction between “illegal and legal” immigrant in the data they published.

            I’m not sure it exists. But even if it did, it would already be captured within the total-immigrant crime data, which is still significantly below native populations.

            And of course, if – as some ‘studies’ have – you count the crime of *being* an illegal immigrant a crime, then the ‘illegal immigrant’ population is 100% criminals to begin with.

            The problem with most of these data (aside from the big, boring generic stuff that BJS publishes) is that everyone who tries to dig any deeper generally has an axe to grind. Once you eliminate all the obvious bias in the way people approach the subject, the end result is generally the same = immigrant populations aren’t quite the violent, criminal parasites people would imagine.

            1. I’m not sure it exists. But even if it did, it would already be captured within the total-immigrant crime data, which is still significantly below native populations.

              Illegal immigration is a small subset of total immigration (something like 200k per year compared to about 1.1 million legal immigrants), and immigrating legally requires at least a minimal screening process that generally does a decent job of keeping out criminals. You would expect that legal immigrants would be less likely to be criminals on account of that process, and their larger numbers and lower rates of criminality could easily mask a higher crime rate among illegal immigrants (if one existed) when they are aggregated.

            2. I wouldn’t say including it with the legal crime rate is sufficient since much of the policy discussion involves slowing illegal immigration. Plus combining means we don’t have a clue what it is, it’s not even clear the numbers provided show illegal immigrants.

              It seems like it would really be quite easy to figure out. Look at the crime statistics, see how many are illegal immigrants. If the number of (for instance) violent crimes is 20% illegal immigrants and the population is 10% then they commit violent crime at a higher rate.

              You could break it down further on economic and racial lines though I’m not sure how meaningful it would be.

              1. It seems like it would really be quite easy to figure out. Look at the crime statistics, see how many are illegal immigrants.

                That data is not always (or even usually) collected. It’s actually not even legal for local cops to ask or investigate in most circumstances.

    1. That is not very deep.

    2. Wait, maxim is still in business? Next you’re going to tell me people still buy Playboy.

  8. Fetzer also debunks a number of other immigration myths: that immigrants increase unemployment among natives; that they increase the violent crime rate; and that they’re a drain on public resources.

    How does one debunk facts, anyway?

    1. I mean, I’m not going to watch to find out, but how many times does the word “illegal” come out of his mouth when he says these things?

  9. But in a country that relies on immigrants to maintain a vibrant, dynamic economy,

    Yeah, the 50s were such a fucking terrible time for this country’s economy. Moron.

    1. Because there was no immigration prior to 1960?

      1. We went through a 26 year period before 1950 where immigration was tightly controlled. The results were good.

        1. We went through a period in excess of 100 years where immigration wasn’t controlled at all – results were good.

          Plus you should ask your self how this magical 1950’s USA was able to ‘tightly control’ immigration but the 16960’s+ USA suddenly couldn’t.

          1. We went through a period in excess of 100 years where immigration wasn’t controlled at all


            Plus you should ask your self how this magical 1950’s USA was able to ‘tightly control’ immigration but the 16960’s+ USA suddenly couldn’t.

            We never stopped being able to. The government stopped wanting to.

            1. I mean, if you aren’t aware of the immigration acts of 1924 and 1965, shut the fuck up on this subject.

              1. So you mean all those Irish immigrants didn’t just walk off the boat, sign a register, and then go on to be productive citizens.

                The Italians didn’t? The Chinese?

                They faces strict immigration controls?

                That the US has had strict immigration controls from the time of its inception to what . . . 1924? I mean, if you aren’t aware that the US existed before 1924 then shut the fuck up.

                Or that whole time period before, during, and after the Civil War when there were almost no border controls between the US and Mexico?

                We’ve had ‘tight control’ over immigration in this country for significantly less than time than we had an open-border policy.

                You don’t have to agree that open-borders are good to understand the the push to build a wall is a relatively recent thing. Nor do you have to oppose it to see the historical record showing that *every* wave of immigration was opposed on the same grounds – displacement of natives, immorality of immigrants – and every wave has been successfully absorbed.

                  1. I mean, that only lasted from 1882 to 1943 though. But other than that, immigration was basically completely unfettered.

                1. Look, I already pointed out to you enough for even a dumbass to figure out the laws that were relevant in these time periods. You’re just doubling down on being an ignorant fool now.

                2. and every wave has been successfully absorbed.

                  Nope. You might want to check out the stats on third and fourth generation Mexicans. Not pretty.

                  1. I do check the stats on ‘third and fourth generation Mexicans’ I live in the part of the country that is filled with them.

                    1. So you’re saying you’re a liar, or what?

          2. Hart-Celler 1965

            1. Guess I should scroll down before posting…

              1. Agammamon does seem to revel in his ignorance.

                There are open borders advocates that know something about the facts of immigration, but you find very few of them around here

          3. Plus you should ask your self how this magical 1950’s USA was able to ‘tightly control’ immigration but the 16960’s+ USA suddenly couldn’t.

            Not to step into you guys’ pissing match, but the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 completely reformed the immigration system that was in place prior to that. In particular, it ended the national origin-based quota system that was in place previously. You can argue about the results, but actually having some idea as to the legal history involved wouldn’t be a bad place to start the discussion.

            1. And since then, we’ve had Great Society anti-poverty programs, a ballooning national debt, less need for unskilled labor, multiculturalism and identity politics, and a determination by Democrats that they can win more elections by “electing a new people.” All of that makes things very different than they were 100 years ago.

  10. Listen, immigration: it’s a real problem. A big problem. And we need some big solutions. These guys: they don’t think big. It’s all “blah blah blah amnesty blah blah blah path to citizenship.”

    We need something bigger than that. Now, I’m not a mean guy. Some of these people aren’t rapists. All I’m saying is, we need these immigrants to stop taking American jobs, and to assimilate.

    When I’m president, we’ll address this assimilation. We’ll call them camps. And we’ll concentrate the refugees and the immigrants there. Where they can work, but stay out of American jobs. Some kind of…. labor… concentration…camp.

    It’ll be yuge. You’ll love it.

    1. Can we build these camps into the giant wall? That would be most efficient. We can call it the Migrante Line as it’s the line they cannot pass.

      1. That’s were the wall goes: they come in, we put them to work building the camp right there on the border. You get the wall, you get the camp, they get the jobs, and Mexico supplies the labor. Bricks are cheap.

        See this guy, Warren? He gets it. America gets it. These guys: they don’t get it. They’ve never hired anyone in their lives. I build things. I employ people. I get it. Let’s go get it together. It’ll be great.


  11. If libertarians actually hated the state as much as they hate the nation, they might actually be good for something.

    1. I think it’s weird how libertarians hate government and love individualism, and then spend their time breathlessly watching the democratic process, wondering what come next.

      We’re like trainspotters who hate trains.

      1. We’re like trainspotters who hate trains.

        What’s the train transporting as it speeds through your town?

        1. Never ask what’s in the package.

      2. Because we’re just in it for the heroin.

        1. Not all of us take our Lou Reed fandom that far.

          1. I subscribe to Lou’s newsletter but it’s been quite a long time since he’s sent one out. I wonder what’s up.

            1. Bickering with John Cale over IP Law.

            2. He’s probably hanging out with Nancy Reagan.

    1. I thought we were now doing who compared Nancy Reagan to Hitler.

      1. Hitler had huge cankles.

      2. Yeah. How will I ever get a mention when they don’t even cover the topic.

  12. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. ?. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

    I spent a year living down in the Yucatan. You know, Mexico!

    I spent some time with the American expat community, there, and I have to tell ya–America isn’t sending its best.

    People don’t generally leave their families, homes, and countries behind because things are going great. It’s true with American expats, too. A lot of people who were divorced, couldn’t hack it during the recession, etc. And, Jesus, you should see the drunken debauchery that American send to Cancun during spring break.

    We’re sending Americans that have lots of problems down there–not our best. Americans bring drugs to Mexico. We bring crime to the Yucatan. And yes, especially during spring break, there are rapes.

    But some Americans, I assume, are good people.

    1. How do the Mexican immigration people treat those Americans?

      1. Pretty damn well.

        As an example – I’m white as Wonder Bread and when I cross from Mexico into the US I face an minor Inquisition. Got to show valid ID, got to answer questions on what I was doing outside the country, got to accept a metal detecting – sometimes an actual search.

        When I cross the border from the US into Mexico I get waved passed the lines of Mexicans having their bags searched and documents checked.

        The takeaway is that most governments treat their own citizens worse than they do foreigners – because their own citizens mostly can’t ‘exit’.

        1. “[Mexican immigration people treat Americans] Pretty damn well.”

          I question how you’d be treated if you made a mistake like carrying an empty 30-06 casing in your car. Would you be treated the same as a Mexican national? Or would you end up in a Mexican jail with little or no due process?

          “As an example – I’m white as Wonder Bread and when I cross from Mexico into the US I face an minor Inquisition”

          If that bothers you, you can always jump the fence. Why bother with the checkpoint? I thought there was no question as to where one country ends and the other begins.

      2. In the Yucatan, if you’re an American, you’re basically untouchable.

        Unless, you’re running around with a machete, chopping at people or something.

        It isn’t like on the border, where the Policia are out to get you. They go out of their way to take care of gringos. The local economy depends on that tourism.

        Merida is an incredibly crime free city anyway. It’s where the cartels send their families to be safe.

        There were only a couple of murders there a year–cartel related. But, that’s in a city of a million people!

        Much safer than Los Angeles.

        Meanwhile, drinking in public isn’t a problem, people smoke out in certain cafes, the whorehouse is across the street from the police station . . . in a world like that, you have to try pretty hard to get in trouble.

        The only time things got weird for me was going back and forth across the Mexican border with Belize.

        Crossing the Hondo river. Creepiest. cops. ever. They started hassling me, so the bus driver left me behind.

        1. This is very interesting information.

  13. I just don’t know what any of this has to do with Donald Trump.

  14. There’s cutting edge research that shows immigrants cure cancer.

    1. If the immigrant had an MD or PhD, you’re right!


          Will see you now.

        2. And Patels in this country aren’t allowed to do anything but own hotels/motels.

      1. Why do we need an immigrant(s) to cure cancer if we already know the cure? Maybe we could task them with something more important – like a cure for ignorance.

        1. like a cure for ignorance.

          So you really do want immigrants to take American jobs…

  15. Has Reason covered this yet?

    “A man in southern Russia faces a potential jail sentence after he was charged with insulting the feelings of religious believers over an internet exchange in which he wrote that “there is no God”.

    “Viktor Krasnov, 38, who appeared in court Wednesday, is being prosecuted under a controversial 2013 law that was introduced after punk art group Pussy Riots was jailed for a performance in Moscow’s main cathedral, his lawyer Andrei Sabinin told AFP.”

    1. Its amazing how in the space of 20 years the Russians have gone from trying to destroy the churches to being staunch defenders of them.

      Its *almost* like there are no principles involved here, just whatever actions get you the most power.

      1. Hey, I’m old enough to remember when the US was the christian nation and the soviet union was the evil empire.

    2. Krasnov’s lawyer insisted to AFP that his client was “simply an atheist” and that he had taken aim at both “Halloween and Yiddish holidays” in the same exchange.

      Not making friends for your case, asshole.

  16. No, wait, I just don’t see what any of this has to do with abortion.

  17. Mad Lib time. Please give me a:
    1. Nationality
    2. Color
    3. Relative
    4. Crime
    5. Yoga position.
    *Mad lib to be posted later*

    1. Swabian



      Aggravated meandering

      The Flipping Bird

    2. German
      tax evading
      cow cat

    3. 1. Bolivian

      2. Mauve

      3. Great-great grandfather

      4. unlicensed snorkeling

      5. Berra

      1. Think you got 4 and 5 mixed up.

        1. I was making a Yogi Berra joke.

          1. I can observe a lot by watching.

            1. Nobody comes here any more, it’s too crowded.

    4. We must keep (1) rapists out of our country.
      They shoot their (2) loads all over our womenz.
      Eventually, money is sent to bring their (3)s to the country
      and they bring the (4) rampant in their home countries.
      You can vote for me, or expect 4 years of Hillary and VP Bernie
      performing the (5) at DC cocktail parties as we’re overrun.

    5. Fijian
      Hair braiding without a license

  18. I tried not to pay attention but in spite of my best effort I just learned that Trump won Louisiana.


    1. Wow, and Louisiana politics is usually so sane!


    3. He won through the early voters. Same day votes went mostly to Cruz.

  19. “The three decades . . . from the mid forties to the mid seventies, were the golden age of manual labor.” * * * Why were times so good for blue collar workers? To some extent they were helped by the state of the world economy. * * * They were also helped by a scarcity of labor created by the severe immigration restrictions imposed by the Immigration Act of 1924.”
    Paul Krugman, Conscience of a Liberal, Chapter 3 (pages 48-49)
    “Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! And so it was for the young adults of the fifties, those fortunate ones born in the low birth rate era of the 1930s.” Wordsworth, the Prelude; Richard Easterlin, Birth and Fortune, Chapter 2

    “A small generation, presumably, would do well if it arrived on the labor market when demand was high. The catch here is unrestricted immigration.
    * * *
    . . . the bright prospects of a small cohort were swamped by competitors from abroad.” Richard Easterlin, Birth and Fortune, Chapter 2, page 33

    The secret sauce of your generation is that when you came of age, the population density was relatively low, thanks to a restrictive immigration law of the 1920s. See Richard Easterlin, Birth and Fortune; also see Krugman, Conscience of a Liberal

  20. terrorist attacks in the U.S. by and large have been carried out not by refugees but by people here on student visas or naturalized American citizens

    My impression was that most terrorist attacks in the US have been carried out by white Christian citizens.

    1. It would be shocking if 2/3 of the country committed more terrorism than 1/100

  21. For a publication with the name like Reason, the empty propaganda contained in Weissmueller’s screed is rather audacious. Rather than refute the whole piece. Let us just examine the final piece of drivel. “… country that relies on immigrants to maintain a vibrant, dynamic economy, and a healthy voting populace that can act as a bulwark against the rise of authoritarian strongmen.” That is hysterical! Somehow I can’t quite understand how endless waves of uneducated, unskilled, illiterates in their native language contribute to our decidedly non-dynamic economy. As for authoritarian strongmen. The most authoritarian President of the last 50 years was elected with massive assistance from immigrants. Free immigration is an admirable goal, but conditions must be right and as Frieman pointed out, open borders and welfare states are fundamentally incompatible.

  22. I have yet to come across a pro-open borders argument that takes into account the fact that they’re committing a crime by just being in the US. I always hear this questionable, and poorly sourced, position that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates. I am 100% sure their illegal entry is not counting toward that total.

    I also haven’t heard a compelling plan from Reason as to how it’s going to work long term. If we’re going to be one big borderless country with Mexico, whose laws apply? Who is in charge? To whom am I paying taxes? Oh, no…wait…never mind.

    Talk about inviting large, distant, unaccountable government…the very thing that is supposedly anathema to libertarians.

    1. Yeah, and I’ve never heard an anti-prohibition argument that takes into account the fact that drug-users are committing a crime by using drugs.

      I’ve never heard an abolitionist’s argument that takes into account the fact that these people are slaves.

      Blah, blah, blah – is that all you hear whenever someone comes around to debate the ‘pro’ side of immigration.

      1. Stop making it so difficult to get into the country legally and, like ending Prohibition, you won’t have so many ‘criminals’. You don’t even have to open the border. Just remove the quotas on ‘unskilled’ work visas and issue temporary residency permits. Take the 600 k Border Patrol agents and reassign them to background check on applicants.

      2. Not having a wall between countries doesn’t mean there’s going to be any doubt about ‘who’s in charge’. We don’t have jack shit between us and Canada and no one is uncertain where Canada ends and the US starts. The *whole EU* is an open borders area – the law specifically prohibits member nations from restricting intra-EU travel inside the Schengen Area, the only border controls are at airports and shipping ports, not on the roads between nations – and no one there is uncertain when they cross from one nation to another.

      1. “Stop making it so difficult to get into the country legally and, like ending Prohibition, you won’t have so many ‘criminals’.”

        I agree on that point. Where I disagree is that you don’t ignore laws when they’re inconvenient. You work to change them. Otherwise, people will rightfully ask why they can’t just walk into their neighbor’s house and help themselves to anything in the refrigerator. That is what legal citizens are being asked to swallow here. Nobody with even one firing neuron believes the Democrats won’t use OUR money to buy their votes with benefits.

        There are a lot of leftists who think the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments are a white man’s trick. Should we allow them to violate those until we can come to some kind of agreement?

        “We don’t have jack shit between us and Canada and no one is uncertain where Canada ends and the US starts.”

        That’s a specious argument. Canadians like their country and generally respect immigration rules. Obviously that’s not the case with the Mexican illegals.

  23. cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing j0bs 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 $8894 a month. I’ve started this j0b 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…..


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.