Border wall

Crime Did Fall, So We Don't Need a Wall

The president's latest Twitter scare tactic to drum up support takes moments to disprove.

|

President Donald Trump this morning on Twitter hit at his typical theme that his pet border wall is vital to fighting crime and protecting national security. Can you spot the flaw with this argument?

We blog about crime stats enough here at Reason that this is an easy one: Crime has been going down steadily (with a few recent bumps) since the 1990s. Here's a nice handy selection of charts from Pew Research Center showing the actual truth:

Crime stats
Pew Research

If crime has been going down steadily throughout much of America without this wall, isn't that evidence we actually don't need it? Or evidence that whatever influences crime rates, it's most certainly not illegal immigration numbers? The illegal immigration population in America actually increased as the crime rate was dropping (now both crime rates and illegal immigration numbers are dropping slightly):

Illegal immigrant numbers
Pew Research

Trump is both a reflection of and a contributing factor to a common attitude among Americans: People think there's much more crime than there actually is. In polling, huge numbers of Americans—we're talking more than 50 percent of those who were polled—believe that crime is up over previous years' numbers even when the exact opposite is true:

Crime polling
Pew Research

So, in that sense, Trump's tweets are wildly out of step with the facts, yet also likely compelling to a certain number of Americans, and that's frustrating. He's far from the first politician who uses fear as a way of selling bad policy prescriptions, and he won't be the last. But he's also completely and utterly wrong about crime and what's causing it.

NEXT: John McAfee Takes to the Seas, Fleeing a Feared Indictment; Intends to Pursue His Libertarian Presidential Race Via Masked Surrogates

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. Really? Starting the immigration graph with 1990 when crime was starting to fall?

    Why not show a graph starting in 1965 or 1979?

    It could be possible to have a serious debate about immigration, but not at Reason.com with ideologically committed Open Borders types.

    1. You can start the graph any where you damned please. That still does not refute the fact that crime has dropped over the last X number of years. C’mon man, I hope you’re smarter than that.

        1. The graph is nonetheless inaccurate, because it fails to adequately reflect the rise in criminal speech streaming through our electronic wires?speech that clearly endangers public safety but that often goes unreported. For a look at the tip of the iceberg, see the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          Clearly, the scourge of rank criminality festering in our nation’s websites at the direct cost of social cohesion calls for drastic, unpresidented action, beginning with the construction of a Digital Wall that will exclude anyone whose nationalities and identities are not documented, vetted, and confirmed by appropriate authorities.

      1. Really? You don’t think that a graph showing crime increasing in the late 60s, 70s and 80s plotted against increasing immigration is relevant. Note: I am NOT arguing that immigration is the reason for the increase in crime over that period. Obviously it’s a lot more complicated than that. Just as it’s a lot more complicated than saying immigration up in the 90s and 00s and crime is down.

  2. Your readers don’t care about decreasing illegal immigration. They care about Donald Trump getting a political win. Like good libertarians, their main concern is the poll numbers of a powerful politician.

    1. Yeh that’s totes what the community here wants.

      Don’t you have a teenager to go bully?

      1. “If I had a son, he’d look like MAGA boy.”

        1. False. I would never let my son walk around with that set of teeth.

          1. Crusty had some work done on his teeth, and he would do the same for his son. Specifically, he had himself implanted a set of wicked rodent incisors.

    2. Your misunderstanding of Koch / Reason libertarianism is getting frustrating.

      Once again ? I voted for Hillary Clinton just like you did. The last thing I want is to see Drumpf get a win. I’m as outraged as you are about his Supreme Court picks, his transgender military ban, his disastrous economic record, and his weak and irresponsible foreign policy.

      But most of all, I’m outraged at even the idea of building a wall.

    3. Tony is totally right. It is a sad state of affairs when commenters on a libertarian site are defending the most powerful politician in the world.

      1. You sure do defend Chairman Xi a lot.

  3. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    http://www.Mesalary.com

  4. It’s not what Sicario shows.

  5. You know we already miles and miles of walls / barriers / fencing / whatever you want to call it. Are you saying we should tear the existing barriers down as well?

    If walls are bad and unnecessary and racist, why should those currently standing stay up? Serious question.

    1. This comment about the wall is pretty banal.

    2. The other thing is how is stopping someone with a wall better or worse than stopping them by having the border patrol or ICE arrest them and throw them out of the country? We are already doing that every day. So, how does building a wall make it worse or any different?

      It doesn’t. The fact is that people like Shackford are lying. They know quite well that a wall would be effective and would make it harder to get into this country. Worse still, a wall is the one barrier to immigration that can’t be ignored by later Administrations. Even the most liberal President isn’t going to tear it down once it is there. Every other form of border control is only is good as the next President’s willingness to enforce the law. Shackford knows this and this is why he hates the wall so much. Everything he says is just whatever is convient to avoid having to admit that.

      1. ” They know quite well that a wall would be effective and would make it harder to get into this country.”

        Harder does not mean impossible.

        Harder is actually a fairly low hurdle here, it doesn’t necessarily mean that much.

        Impossible is what most of the wall’s supporters have been lead to expect.

        1. A border wall or fence doesn’t have to stop 100% of border crossers to be effective. Israel implemented an effective border fence that has diminished its suicide bomber infiltration to almost zero. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..ectiveness

          It is difficult to smuggle human beings compared to drugs, guns or contraband. They require food, water, air to breathe, have to relieve themselves periodically, can’t be kept in hidden compartments for days on end, weigh 130 lbs or more and take up a lot of space.

          There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal) and the average cost of this education is $11,000 per year (2014 figures). An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $132,000 to graduate from high school. This $132,000 of course becomes unavailable to educate the children of citizens and legal immigrants.

          So a $25 billion wall will pay for itself if it deters just 190,000 illegal aliens of child-bearing age from crossing the border illegally.

          If we can reduce the 500,00 illegal border crossers by 95% to (say) 25,000 per year, then the illegal immigration problem is greatly reduced. At that point, the public will be willing to be more generous with the illegals already in the country, especially if criminal aliens are deported.

          1. +100 KevinP

          2. Right, because we have a huge problem of illegal border crosser suicide-bombers.

            It’s almost like Israel’s concerns and our concerns are drastically different or something, thus necessitating different solutions.

          3. That is pretty much my argument. Immigration has been a major issue for so long that we need an actual solution to it. The wall might not necessarily be the answer, but we need something permanent that drastically limits the number of people entering and staying illegally. Once there is a solution that reasonably does that most people who can be described as border restrictionists are willing to negotiate on lowering immigration criteria and some sort of legalization for those currently here illegally

        2. That is bullshit. No one expects it to be perfect. That is just a strawman.

        3. Impossible is what most of the wall’s supporters have been lead to expect.
          That’s just stupid.
          You don’t speak for “most of the wall supporters” mostly because you aren’t one.
          No one expects it to become impossible to break our immigration laws. Everyone, who supports more walls, acknowledges that visa-overstays are a big problem, too. Walls won’t solve that.
          It is profound stupidity to make the argument that we shouldn’t take one action because it will not be a perfect solution, especially since it will have some effect.

      2. We are already doing that every day.

        And that’s what makes it right.

    3. If walls are bad and unnecessary and racist, why should those currently standing stay up?

      They shouldn’t. They should come down.

    4. People who want open borders know securing the border is more effective.

      Most open borders people are not concerned about government budgets, so the cost of a wall/fence/obstacles to secure the US-Mexico border is a drop in the bucket compared to $2.0 trillion in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other wasteful government programs.

    5. For fear of defending an argument I haven’t made and don’t support, we shouldn’t get rid of the existing fencing for the same reason we shouldn’t create a 30 ft high concrete barrier along the entire length: the theoretical benefits are not worth the actual cost.

      That said, a major problem with the “wall” has always been that for the stated objective (“reduce illegal immigration” and “reduce illegal drug imports”) is not a terribly effective, and certainly not cost-effective way to do so, especially when we have better options on the table to achieve those goals.

      1. Name a “better option” that is as permanent as a wall.
        In other words, one that can’t be reversed with a “pen and a phone”, when another open-borders administration appears, knowing that changing the electorate is their path to eternal power.
        By the way, all those other methods are ongoing, and would, in short order, if kept in place, become more expensive than this measly amount.

  6. Even if crime is falling, that says nothing about whether the wall is a good idea. If the wall would make crime fall more, it is still a good idea. This article is pure sophistry and not even good sophistry at that.

    What is the objection to the wall? Is it that it will prevent people from entering the country illegally and Shackford sees that as a bad thing? If so, then you have to admit that it likely will have some effect on crime since criminals can’t generally get into the country legally. Is it that it won’t be effective at all? If so, then why does it matter so much if it is built? It won’t cost much money in the scheme of things and agreeing for it to be built is a better compromise from the open borders point of view than agreeing to measures that actually would be effective.

    This article is another example of Reason refusing to take a realistic and consistent position. Basically, when it comes to immigration, Reason will adopt any position regardless of principles and consistency just so long as it somehow agrees with open borders.

    1. Posts about the wall make John squall and bawl!

      1. It is always nice to give you something to bitch and moan about and generally be a pain in the ass. Don’t ever say that I am not willing to do things for you. What would you do if you didn’t have me to bitch about and use as an excuse to make stupid and useless points?

        When you speak of me, please speak of me well.

        1. I’d fuck a doll and drink alcohol!

          1. That would be a more productive use of your time. Also, it would spare you the embarassment of displaying your imbecilities and others the pain of pitying you for it.

            1. Hey y’all, check out the gall of this screwball!

              1. Yeah, I liked that Andre the Giant character.

    2. I would guess that most of the objection to the wall is that he is talking ‘literally’ about a wall. To many people in the western world familiar with walls i.e the Berlin wall, the Iron Curtain etc., they have a bad connotation and are frequently associated with totalitarian regimes. Plus it’s fucking 2019 and there are much better/cheaper options that I think Trumpsters would get more traction from. Things like surveillance towers and drones patrolling the border would probably be better received. The wall will need to have those things anyway to be effective so why not start there and see if it helps? Unfortunately the king of the assholes has decided this is his hill to die on…..and it might be.

      1. People are well aware it is more than just a wall and is in various forms. Calling it by another name would make no difference. There is no border control people like Shackford would ever actually agree to. And they certainly would never agree to something perminant that can’t just be ignored by future Presidents.

        1. No…Trump pretty much just keeps talking about his big beautiful wall. If he actually abandoned the word “wall” and said he wanted to increase border security by erecting surveillance towers and drone patrols in problem areas he would get much farther, imo. The “wall” is his symbol and I’d guess he purposefully chose something divisive to be his rallying cry. I’d guess many people are opposed to the wall solely because it is an expensive solution to a relatively small problem ….that and people that grew up in the cold war have generally associate walls with totalitarianism.

          1. Politically speaking, he campaigned on it but he’s offering many of those things I think you mentioned.

            Just give him the wall and build it in parts where it’s needed most because from what I read some upgrades could be used. No? I thought this is what compromise means.

            Everyone wins and the shutdown is over.

            Why pretend it’s a ‘moral’ issue? Just give him the stupid wall and take the goodies that come with it and spare people the ‘it’s not who we are’ talk since Democrats wanted a damn fence.

            1. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. In my opinion, this issue is more about winning than border security. If the problem is that many people (maybe more than half the country) is opposed to building an actual physical wall, then why not use 21st technology to achieve the same ends for probably less money and more effectiveness? I’ll tell you why. Because this issue is not about border security. It’s about winning.

              1. Stop with the “less money” crap.
                In the first place you lefties have never worried about spending/throwing money at a problem.
                Secondly, all of the alternatives involve more personnel, the single most costly, and ongoing expense in any activity.
                I’d like to see a comparison of how much wall could be built, versus the cost of one of those “surveillance towers”, that would still have to be constantly manned to be effective to cover the expanse between them, with a back-up crew to do the apprehensions.

            2. Compromise doesn’t mean “we get nothing, and he gets a little less then he wants”.

              That said, they did try an actual compromise last year (you know, when Republicans controlled both House and Senate). In exchange for wall-funding, there was going to be some DREAMer stuff. Republicans ended up scuttling it because what they were exchanging something real (DREAMer stuff) for something symbolic and useless (the wall).

              Which is the real problem. The only person that wants the wall is Trump himself, and Republicans in congress aren’t willing to give up anything real in exchange for it.

              1. I don’t remember it that way.
                The wall in exchange for some DACAsses was offered but Trump wanted an end to chain migration and the visa lottery. It was the demoncraps, who put the kibosh on that.

      2. In the end, Trump and America will get our border fence, multiple wins against Lefties, save taxpayers tens of billions in shutdown operating cost savings, replace RBG, deport thousands of illegals….

        1. If all you want is a “border fence”, then you “won” a decade ago.

    3. “What is the objection to the wall?”

      Trump wants it, so it’s bad.

    4. Analogy:

      Your colleague Betty Lou has lost 50 pounds in the last six months and her best friend Ida is now jealous. Ida tells Betty Lou that as she has been losing weight she no longer needs to exercise and she can start having a daily pint of Ben & Jerry’s.

    5. John is correct. I didn’t RTFA but the headline is a logic fail.

    6. What is the objection to the wall?

      What’s the objection to the FBI rounding up everyone’s guns? You’re against it because you think it will be effective and it’ll make it harder for people to have illegal guns. If it’s not effective, then why does it matter if the FBI goes around confiscating people’s guns? Just let them do it if it won’t actually rid the country of all firearms.

      1. “What’s the objection to the FBI rounding up everyone’s guns? ”

        That it is explicitly illegal.

        1. So is using funds to build the wall at this point.

          1. No one is building this extra amount of wall.
            Trump is just saying “I won’t agree to your budget(?), as is my prerogative, unless you include money for this small thing”.
            If he declares an emergency – there is a legal way for that to happen, too.
            P.S. Confiscating all the guns is against the Supreme Law of the Land – so, there’s that.

    7. Correlation is not causation and if a single crime can be prevented…
      Keeping out illegals is something that we can try to do to protect our citizens, without violating the rights of any of them.

  7. How about we build a wall around New York and San Francisco so that liberal trash can’t escape and infect our population?

    1. Lay the first brick Crusty.

      Be an American not an American’t

  8. “crime” … spooky

  9. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    Tell Kate Steinle’s family that crime is falling.

    1. Tell Kate Steinle’s family that crime is falling.

      Sackfurd is a neanderthal!

  10. The Pew Research data you cite about illegal immigrants uses census data. Earlier today I was told this is illegal or something because feelings.

    If illegal immigrants didn’t fill the census out because they were scared, how can you trust these results? What will you use to justify your open borders once the census data isn’t collected?

  11. Under the current immigration laws the wall is needed. It does not have to be that way but because of congress (both parties) it is. At this time a person is in the US illegally that person is deported, will not really deported but taken to the border and put on a bus going back south. That same person then comes back into the US unauthorized (illegally). When that same person is caught it is not a felony because the first deportation was not technically deported. Now if the border security would do their job and deport these who enter the country illegally when that person comes back to the US again illegally the person would spend time in prison then be deported again and would no longer be able to come to the US.
    Now to do their job both ICE and Border Patrol would need a lot more resources which neither party is interested in providing because this would take illegal immigration out of the political fight to rally the party’s base.

    1. I’m not really cool with paying to house and feed them. That’s a non-starter.

      “the person would spend time in prison then be deported again and would no longer be able to come to the US.”

      ? Because magic? No, they would of course be able to come back. The stakes would be higher if caught, but crimes with high stakes happen all the time because the cost/benefit is worth it.

  12. 100% of illegal aliens commit crimes. Build the wall, reduce the number of illegals, and crime goes down more.

    1. Repeal all immigration laws and you will certainly reduce illegal immigration 100%.

      1. Deport every illegal you find and you certainly reduce illegal immigration to acceptable amounts for Americans.

        1. What about amount of deportations that’s acceptable to “Americans”?

      2. Our elected representatives know that if they repealed all the immigration laws, and abrogated their responsibility under the Constitution, they would be committing political suicide.
        If the really believed all the bullshit “polls” they would have voted for amnesty, at least for the DACAsses, by now.
        Hmmm, wonder why they haven’t?

  13. If Shack is willing to listen I will explain why Trump’s hyperbolic rhetoric on immigration resonates with so many voters.

    Americans are rational enough to understand that most illegals don’t commit crime while they are here (other than the original crime of entering or staying in the US without authorization).

    It’s the fact that whatever crimes committed by them are completely preventable, and would not likely have happened had the federal government secured the border in the first place, that galls them.

    Then add in the aggravation of decades of broken promises by politicians of both parties to do something about it, and you can understand why people are willing to believe the worst about illegals.

    If the government would actually do its job and protect US sovereignity then you’d find Americans are far more accepting of immigrants. Right now all they see are people gaming the system with the help of the entire political establishment, and Trump is the only one trying to do something about it.

    1. Maybe some Americans are rational enough to recognize that Pedro’s continued presence here, is, itself, an on-going crime.

    2. It’s the fact that whatever crimes committed by them are completely preventable, and would not likely have happened had the federal government secured the border in the first place, that galls them.

      I understand what you are saying, but that is not true in any realistic sense. For example, heroin overdoses are “preventable”, in the sense that there are already laws against heroin use and if only the drug laws had been enforced harder, no one would have been able to get heroin, let alone die from overdosing on it. But that is utopian thinking, and the policies to create the type of enforcement needed to prevent every single drug overdose would bring about a police state not worth living in. It is the same idea with immigration restrictions. Yes, in a utopian way, every violent crime committed by an illegal immigrant is “preventable”, if only the laws were enforced harder. But there is no realistic way to get to that level of enforcement without preserving some semblance of liberty.

    3. Additionally, many Americans are sick of paying Congressmen $175,000+ per year to ignore their complaints.

      Many Americans are sick of non-Americans trying to run the USA, which is why many of them voted for Trump.

    4. Almost all illegal aliens commit crimes other than “the original crime of entering or staying in the US without authorization”.
      They have to, or else they can’t survive.
      They steal identities, with phony Social Security numbers, or they illegally obtain government assistance, that they aren’t entitled to, or they work, under the table, avoiding all our tax laws.
      There are dozens of laws enacted, that make the simple “original crime of entering or staying in the US without authorization” not the only ones they violate.
      But those are ignored, when pro-illegals make these claims of them not being criminals.

  14. If the glove don’t fit, you must aquit! Lol

  15. I agree that the wall likely will only increase crime and violence. Furthermore, most Americans agree that the the wall is a boondoggle. In fact we are now over a month in a government shutdown to prove that we will protect and defend our immigrants. We have made our sacrifice and proven that we love and care for them. Now it’s their turn to show some love back. Renounce welfare and declare support for full freedom and equal rights (without squishy exceptions). Then I can continue to oppose the wall that will be used to oppress you. And I say this as a bad hombre whose ‘homeland’ is Israel. I will be inducted into your ranks if the wall is built. #4isolovedmycountry

  16. Does everyone realize that the President doesn’t make immigration law?

      1. It’s funny how Congress always seems absent from these conversations except when Congress is complaining about the President enforcing their immigration laws.

  17. What possible reasons are there to oppose building a wall on the southern border.

    We have loads of people crossing illegally. Extending the walls would help with that.

    It says nothing about immigration policy. Even if we went to an open immigration policy, we’d still want to have a border and customs/immigration inspections that you have to go through.

    The only down sides to a wall are aesthetics – they are really ugly – and the cost, which is not all that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Heck, it might even pay for itself in terms of reduced need for border patrols. (assuming that we were going to increase patrols to obtain a targeted rate of illegal border crossing)

    1. Extending the walls would help with that.

      So would repealing immigration laws.

      1. That is kind of my point. The wall is not relevant to the argument one way or the other. Building a wall does not increase or decrease the legal immigration quota. It simply makes enforcing current laws easier. It would also make enforcing future laws easier, whether those laws allowed for more immigration or less immigration.

        People seem to have gotten stuck in a mental trap. Those who are in favor of expanded immigration have conflated preventing illegal immigration with being in favor of expanding immigration rates. They have also conflated preventing people from coming here illegally with treating people who are already here illegally with some form of dignity.

        While not totally insane, these are not entirely rational positions either.

        But this phenomenon does help explain why bush failed in his attempt to expand legal immigration in order to combat the problem with illegal immigration. It was a complete non-starter for everyone, even though it addressed the concerns that everyone was claiming they had.

        1. It simply makes enforcing current laws easier.

          The current laws should be repealed.

          People seem to have gotten stuck in a mental trap. Those who are in favor of expanded immigration…

          I’m not sure I can decipher this paragraph, but immigration laws and walls limit the freedom of individuals to travel and associate. This is why I’m personally against them, not because I want more immigration or less of it. It’s not up to you or me to regulate the lives of others in this way.

          1. Yea, I mean, countries and governments don’t even really exist…

          2. It means that being in favor of freedom of travel doesn’t mean you have to be opposed to border security. Even in the EU, where you can travel freely, they have borders.

            It is a version of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Insisting that you have to win every unrelated battle isn’t good strategy.

            Both sides are doing this – for what I suspect are entirely partisan reasons.

            Building a wall is completely orthagonal to the question of immigration policy. Well, unless your immigration policy is that we should have as many illegal immigrants as possible. Then I suppose that opposition to border security is important.

            But being in favor of freedom of movement across borders is perfectly compatible with having perfect border security.

  18. I like that we know how many illegal immigrants we have each year.

    As if they stop at the border and say “I’m here to immigrate illegally. Don’t forget to mark it down on the “illegal immigration” tabulation.

    1. That’s pretty much how it works with the whole “Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives” data works, right?

      They poll all the murderers, apprehended and not, and most of them send back a poll with a check next to the ‘native-born citizen’ checkbox.

    2. Notice the source of the data, the census. You know, the thing Reason argued TODAY should not be able to ask about immigration status. Apparently it’s only reliable when it helps them prove a point.

      The stupid never stops

  19. Crime did fall but no reason to stop there build the wall and MAGA!!!!!

  20. I would prefer effective border security to interior enforcement activities.

    There is also the perverse effect that heightened border security makes it more likely that migrants will attempt to settle permanently, rather than simply come here, earn some money, and go home.

    The best way to reduce the drug trafficking is to legalize drugs.

    1. I think the true libertarian position is close to what you are hinting at.

      Increase opportunities for legal immigration of various sorts. Then you don’t have an imbalance in the labor market that smuggling people will solve.

      1. Increasing legal immigration and legalizing drugs is far too complicated – just build the fucking wall!

        1. I’m almost scared to ask but let’s say legal immigration is increased to, say for pure argument’s sake, 100 000 people. And there are 10 000 illegals coming in. You’re assuming the illegal figure will shift over to the legal and there will be less or no illegal immigration.

          But as noted, it’s an assumption. How does one know for sure the rate of illegal doesn’t stay constant (ie 10 000) or increases by the amount (inflates to 100k) that which legal immigration increased? So for example, the ‘we increased legal immigration!’ may signal people who had no plans to immigrate to do so and so you’re back to square one. So increasing may be beneficial for the society taking them in but how does it address illegal entry specifically?

          Hope this illustration makes sense.

          1. The supposition is that illegal immigration is primarily economically driven. In other words, people are coming here to get jobs. If those jobs are already taken by people who did not come here illegally, then you don’t come here.

            1. Illegal immigrants want to come for the racist and homophobic American’s jokes.

          2. You’re ignoring the deceitful way the left does things. They just want start down the slippery slope.
            If we increase legal immigration but it doesn’t stop illegal immigration, the the leftists will always go to, “lets increase legal immigration, more”, until their desire of open borders is realized.
            You can’t trust a thing any lefty promises.

  21. Does anyone believe that crimes perpetuated against illegal immigrants are fully reported by same? A friend of mine wondered if, say, Anne Frank’s family, would have reported a burglary or mugging?

    1. This is part of the rationale for “sanctuary cities” that the Right complains so much about. If, every time an illegal immigrant was the victim of a crime, that immigrant knew that if he/she went to the police, that he/she faced the risk of deportation, then they would be far less likely to report those crimes, and illegal immigrant neighborhoods would just be an open season hunting ground for criminals. So city governments decided that if they want to prevent crime overall, victims of crime shouldn’t be put in the position of self-incrimination just by reporting a crime.

      1. Every illegal needs to be reported and deported for being the criminals that they are.

        I do my part. I wait for my neighbor farmers to collect illegals and then dial the ICE hotline. I laugh and laugh as ICE comes to round up the illegals and deport their asses.

        1. It’s the libertarian way.

        2. Get it on video and post it to YouTube (or failing that, Live Leaks or Porn Hub). Give us a link.

      2. That has to be one of the biggest loads of crap any lefty has tried to feed the low-infos.
        Here’s an idea: Get rid of all the illegals and the worry of them not wanting to report crimes is eliminated.
        Now, there’s a complete solution to a problem.

  22. The Pew data seems to indicate that today there are 1.5 million fewer people here illegally then in 2008? So did all illegal immigration stop? Was there an plague that only killed off illegal immigrants? Did we grant green cards to that many people?

    That doesn’t even pass the smell test. And considering (as someone above pointed out) that the Pew graph is from US Census data, this doesn’t even make sense.

  23. Funny how open border ignore that illegals have a 100% crime rate.

    Every year, illegals have a 100% crime rate.

  24. The threat of the wall would be built after trump was elected resulted in lower illegal immigration.

    Build the fence!

    1. The threat of the wall would be built after trump was elected resulted in lower illegal immigration.
      And, as soon as it became clear that Congress would not let him follow through, illegal immigration went back up.

  25. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come…. http://www.mesalary.com

  26. How will crime fall Trump? The illegals are still here. The wall won’t change that. Its not like they come over and commit one crime and . . . that’s it. That’s their quota. After that they’re law-abiding for the rest of their lives.

  27. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……

    http://www.geosalary.com

  28. As is often the case with Trump, he gets the policy right. He just gets mixed up on how he arrived at the policy. The statistics in which illegal immigrants commit less crime per capita seems to be a lie. A trip to our local courthouse in Western Colorado belies this myth. The VAST majority of people with court dates on the docket cannot speak English. Most are Hispanic illegal immigrants. But the true reason we cannot keep taking in all of Central Americas unhappy citizens is that we don’t really need them. They stress our local labor markets. They stress our school systems and social services. They stress our health services.They stress our natural resources. And we already have a great enough population. We don’t need a nation of a billion (mostly unskilled) people such as China or India have. Better that we do what we can to help them fix their domestic economies than take them in as illegal immigrants.

  29. People who are stopped at the borders (by wall, border patrol, etc) can’t enter the country to commit crime. Meanwhile we can’t deport inner city American kids in Chicago who commit all the crime.

    They say patrol now stops 200 people a day in some part of the border. Imagine if if only 1% of them are violent crime. It would add up.

    Do illegal aliens actually in the country commit more crime than natives? Probably not. But most of them flew in here by plane, and probably a chunk of that are Asians, the demo least likely to commit violent crimes. The border situation is a different issue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.