Rape

Trump Cited False Sexual Assault Statistics to Justify His Wall. Sound Familiar?

The president isn't the only one to use misleading data to advance an illiberal policy agenda.

|

Trump
AdMedia/Newscom

In his State of the Union speech last night, President Trump cited routine sexual abuse of migrant women making the journey north as one reason to support reduced illegal immigration—by building a wall, or by other means.

"Tolerance for illegal immigration is not compassionate—it is cruel," said Trump. "One in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north."

This statistic is dubious. As The Washington Post explained, it comes from an unrepresentative sample of just 56 migrant women, 31 percent of whom said they were "sexually abused" during their journey. Just 10 percent said they experienced sexual violence. The study does not clarify the difference between "abuse" and "violence," but suggests that abuse is some lesser category of unpleasantness—nonconsensual sexual contact that does not rise to the level of violence, and trading sex for food, I would guess. In either case, this was a small number of victims.

Another statistic frequently cited by immigration hawks contends that 60 percent of migrant women suffer sexual violence as they make their way to the United States. This figure is even more seriously flawed, and is not based on anything current or reliable. It "comes from interviews conducted a quarter-century ago, making it irrelevant now," writes The Post's Glenn Kessler.

Trump is citing bad data in service of a bad cause, and people should be aware. But while we're on the subject of outdated statistics being used to advance an illiberal policy agenda, I can't help but notice some similarities between misleading claims about sexual assault among migrant women and misleading claims about sexual assault among campus women.

After all, many politicians, activists, and journalists have advanced the idea that as many as one-in-five female students will be victims of sexual assault while on campus—many of them at the hands of serial predators, who commit rape over and over again until they are apprehended. And while The Washington Post has been much more evenhanded and nuanced in its approach to campus rape reporting than other mainstream publications, a 2015 survey co-sponsored by the paper and the Kaiser Family Foundation that offered support for the one-in-five statistic failed to make distinctions between forced assault and nonconsensual touching—precisely the kind of error committed by Trump last night (assault vs. abuse).

Similarly, if we should be skeptical of the 60 percent rate of abuse for migrant women because the figure is 25 years out of date, we should also be skeptical of the data that undergirds the serial predator theory of campus sexual assaults, which was collected at a commuter school—the University of Massachusetts at Boston—during the 1990s.

Under the Obama administration, dubious sexual assault statistics were used to justify new policies that eviscerated due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct and also imperiled free expression. The new administration, to its credit, is working hard to undo these changes.

Trump is far from the only authority figure to cite bad data in order to guilt-trip the public into supporting his ill-conceived policy ideas. It's important to call out the president, but keep in mind that there are plenty of other "zombie statistics" in our midst.

NEXT: New York City Claims Veto Power Over Food Ingredients in CBD Ban

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. Q: What did socialists use before candles?

    A: Electricity!

    1. Q: What did socialists use before outhouses.

      A: Toilets.

      1. Q: What did socialists use before horse and buggies?

        A: Ladas.

        1. A man takes his new Lada back to the dealer and says “I want a new car, I live on a steep hill and this thing only gets to 45 going up it.”

          The deeler says “45 on a steep hill is pretty good”.

          The man responds, “But I live at number 60”

          1. A Lada might have made it. A Trabant or Wartburg wouldn’t.

            1. But Lada jokes are much better than Trabant jokes.

              Fun fact, the Lada is just a Soviet version of the Fiat 124. If you combine the total production of the Lada with the total production of the 124, the Lada is the most produced automobile in history, more than even the bug.

              1. How do you say “Fix it again, Tony” in Russian?

        2. Not bad, but this last one requires actual knowledge. Our modern socialist leaders here in the US have no clue what a Lada is, and don’t you dare mansplain it!

  2. nonconsensual sexual contact that does not rise to the level of violence..
    No such thing.

    1. Of course there is; they just invented it to call Trump a liar.

      “When I use a word,” the Media said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean?neither more nor less.”

    2. Groping outside clothing (e.g. while standing on a crowded subway) doesn’t usually leave marks. I’d say that was nonconsensual. Do you really think it can’t be nonconsensual if it doesn’t involve tackling to the ground or brusing? What is your definition of ‘violence’?

  3. If it was true 25 years ago, why would it not be true now? What has changed that would cause you to think that statistic is no longer true? Just because a statistic is old doesn’t necessarily mean it is no longer true. It is only not true if circumstances have changed in the intervening time. I don’t see any reason to believe they have. Did human smugglers suddenly get some code of ethics and agree to stop raping the women who hire them?

    Even if the statistic isn’t true, is it reason’s position now that being smuggled across the border by some drug gang isn’t fraught with danger and generally a very bad experience for those who do it?

    1. It’s Reason, for gawd’s sake. Support for drugs and open borders excuse everything. What did you expect?

      1. The gist of this article seems to be “not many of them are raped, most are just molested, so whats the big deal?” Excuse everything is not hyperbole on your part.

    2. John, OT:

      Yesterday, an old, cantankerous, but likeable client came to my office. Sure, we talked about the Super Bowl. He really loves Belichick and he said that surely the Pats’ win should “shut up all those Shula idiots.”

      Being the natural contrarian, I asked him what about:

      Shula coached five different quarterbacks to the NFL championship game, Belichick just the one.

      Shula had three losing seasons in 33 years as a head coach, Belichick has had five in 24 years.

      Shula never had an 18 game skein where he went 5-13 as Belichick did in his first 18 games with the Pats.

      Shula coached the only team to beat the 85′ Bears.

      Shula, in first season as coach of the Dolphins in 1970, turned a 3-10-1 team into a 10-4 team. Nothing like that for the Hoodie.

      Shula can always point to 17-0. Can’t beat that.

      In addition, if the good Lord were to permit Bum Philips to come down an address the subject, I bet he would say something like, “If Belichick had Brady, he could his’n and beat you’rn, and if Belichick had Brady, he could take you’rn and beat his’n.”

      1. >>>Shula coached the only team to beat the 85′ Bears.

        that game was magnificent, and i wanted Bears to win.

        1. It was. And the fact that the Patriots deprived the world of a rematch in the Super Bowl by winning a game they had no business winning, is another reason to loath them.

      2. There is a lot to that. It is an interesting situation. The Bellicheck partisans will make those same points about Brady. Brady never played without Belichick as a coach and there is no way to know how he would have done in a different situation.

        I do think that this year does go some ways towards convincing me it is Bellicheck rather than Brady. Brady was a very average QB this year. He threw for less than 3,000 yards. And the Patriots were a mess until they adjusted and became a power running team and the defense somehow got its act together. And the Patriots’ still won the Super Bowl. I think maybe this year answered the question of whether Belichick could win a Super Bowl with an average QB. He can because that is all Brady is at this point in his carreer.

        1. So you’re saying that between Belichik and Bundchen, Brady is actually the Gamma male?

          1. He might be.

        2. Okay, but what gets me is people like my client, i.e., Patriot nation, don’t even want to listen to any arguments to the contrary. Believe me, they HATE Shula.

          My client told me that if Belichich was coach of the Dolphins during Marino’s career, the Dolphins would have won “at least 4 or 5 Super Bowls.” He really had no retort to the facts I presented. Sure, those things don’t mean that Shula was the better coach, but you can’t simply brush them aside and say they mean nothing.

          Ask yourself: Can you see Belichick coaching David Woodley to the Super Bowl? Can you see Belichick coaching a back-up to a perfect season (yes, I know that Griese went out in week 5 and came back in the AFC championship game in the second quarter)?

          1. I wish Brady would retire so we could settle this issue. I honestly think Bellichick wishes he would too. It has to drive him nuts not to get all the credit. I think next year is Brady’s last year. He really started to show his age this year and I think the league is none too keen on the Patriots being in another Super Bowl and will let teams start hitting him for a change.

            I think Brady retires after next year and Bellichick stays for two or three years after trying to prove he can win without him. Then, it will be onto the 2-14 Josh McDanial era.

          2. >>>My client told me that if Belichich was coach of the Dolphins during Marino’s career, the Dolphins would have won “at least 4 or 5 Super Bowls.”

            that kind of idiocy extends far beyond your client. Pats fans are a new breed of ring smoocher.

            1. Some of the idiocy is reflected in the hate for Shula. Sure, it is reflected in a lot of ways, but the Shula thing is a special kind of idiocy.

              To be fair, Shula does not like the Patriots organization nor does he like Belichick. Some of Shula’s dislike for the Pats pre-dates the Kraft era. See Snowplow game.

              1. oh i remember – John Smith and John Deere.

                1. My favorite part of that story is that the guy driving the plow was on a work release from the county jail. Who gets a work release to go to an NFL game?

                  1. Southies

      3. Belichick coached an 18-0 team

        1. That didn’t get a ring. 17-0 with a ring beats that every time.

          1. John, you gotta let it go. The Patriots are on of the all-time great dynasties.

    3. Here’s a 2014 study that shows even higher numbers:

      80% of migrant women crossing Mexico are raped there

      1. What reason is there to think that would not be true. The people doing the smuggling are criminals and gangsters. What kind of a dumb ass do you have to be to think they are not taking advantage of the situtation to rape women?

        1. Yup. This is the difference between the ridiculous campus stats and the coyote stats. One is a set of mostly middle class/upper class people from largely decent backgrounds… The other is a bunch of known criminals.

      2. No, it didn’t come from the Post. It can’t be true. It’s probably some far right lie.

  4. 2015 survey co-sponsored by the paper and the Kaiser Family Foundation that offered support for the one-in-five statistic failed to make distinctions between forced assault and nonconsensual touching?pr

    Yes, there is a differnce between holding someone down and molesting them and molesting them as they sleep or are passed out. But, that is in this context a distinction without difference. Sorry, but I don’t see how saying “not all of the woman are assualted, some of them get molested while they sleep” is a convincing argument for ignoring these numbers.

    1. Where exactly in the article did they say that “nonconsenual touching” = molesting people as they sleep or are passed out? Nonconsensual touching often means kissing someone without consent, grabbing a part of their body without consent, or something in that respect. Obviously this stuff is still bad, but it is not quite “molesting them as they sleep”. So in this context (assuming you are actually following the issues of the 1 in 5 statistic) there actually is a quite a big difference in these distinctions. This is precisely why the 1 in 5 statistic is such a problem…because it just ignores these distinctions and differences and essentially treats “going in for a kiss at the end of the date” with “raping”.

      And as far as your other comment about the numbers being 25 years old. So, you would expect that we should develop crime control policies based on our crime numbers from 25 years ago? That’s essentially the logic you are using here. From your standpoint it appears like you would argue that given that criminals haven’t really developed a new code of ethics or anything in the intervening 25 years, then there should be zero problem with basing crime control policies on numbers from 25 years ago (especially if they were based on an extremely small unrepresentative sample to boot).

      1. So, you would expect that we should develop crime control policies based on our crime numbers from 25 years ago?

        If you can’t tell me why anything has changed or why it would no longer be true, sure. To say that we automatically shouldn’t is to say that things must be different and better now. And that is just fucking nonsense. If they were being raped 25 years ago, there is no reason to think they are not being raped now.

        As far as the nonconsensual touching, the link is to an article about campus rape. So, Soave’s point is even worse than I portrayed it. Yes, the statistics on sexual assault on campus includes a bunch of stuff that isn’t sexual assault. That however says nothing about these statistics. Just becuase the statitistics are bad regarding campus rape is not evidence that they are bad here. One says nothing about the other. They were generated by different people at different times.

        1. In terms of your response to the rape statistics, respectfully, the argument you are making in your response is not the argument you made in your initial post. Your post states the 1 in 5 statistic, then explains that this a distinction with no difference and by extension that we really need to care about the 1 in 5 campus rape statistics, regardless of how terrible the numbers are. Nothing about that has anything to do with the immigration sexual assault statistics. I would agree with you that just because rape statistics are bad in terms of campus rape doesn’t say anything about whether the immigration rape stats are good or bad (although to be fair, that isn’t what Soave is arguing from my perspective).

          As far as the first response. I don’t know if we have different numbers since 25 years ago, so I’m not sure if anything has changed on that front (i.e., the percentage of women that cross the border who are sexually victimized). However, lots of things have changed in the last 25 years: economy has changed, who is in the cartels have changed, border security has changed, presidents have changed, policies have changed, the amount of immigrants have changed, how they cross has changed, society has changed, tons and tons and tons of things have changed. There is no reason to assume that these numbers are still applicable or has remained unchanged.

        2. I’m not saying anything about whether something is different or better…I’m just saying these numbers are severely old (and highly suspect if you read the Kessler piece linked). My point here is that if someone is going to make an argument about what the current policy ought to be, then they should use current numbers (at the minimum) to justify that argument. But even if they don’t and they take your assumption that numbers haven’t changed at all in 25 years, the samples that produced those numbers are severely problematic: exceedingly small and non-representative. Public policy of all kinds and stripes are littered with ineffectual and/or bad policies that were propagated with such shoddy statistics. If you are going to push a policy, then have good numbers. If you don’t have good numbers, then don’t use shitty one’s to support your point. Find some other evidence to support your point.

          Moreover, if you read the Kessler article that Soave cites, the 60% number (assuming you can take Kessler’s word for it) comes from a document that talks about sexual experiences ranging “from rape or coerced sexual relations, to a lover.” In this respect, there actually does seem to be a striking similarity to how the 1 in 5 numbers are generated. It’s just more evidence that these numbers do not necessarily mean what people are saying they mean.

      2. The old numbers support John’s preferred narrative. Therefore we must use the new numbers!

        If new numbers don’t support John’s preferred narrative, he’ll just accuse the researchers of being lefty open border shills or something, and then he will still cling to the old numbers.

        So it doesn’t matter either way.

        1. There are no new numbers. What new numbers are you talking about. And the old numbers can’t be dismissed without a reason.

          You just don’t understand logic and argument do you?

          1. Psst it is Jeff. Of course he doesnt. He relies on feels and denial.

  5. The sex violence met by the illegal sub-humans is dished out, courtesy of YOUR taxes!

    Your taxes (among other destinations) go to ICE, and ICE uses them to pay sub-contractor prison-camp gulag-administrators, who then sexually abuse the illegal humans, and ICE cannot be bothered to slap the subcontractors down for that! Your taxes at work! WHY did The Donald not mention THAT aspect of things?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..93b2054628

    ICE Let Sexual Assault Reports Slide At Migrant Detention Centers Run By Contractors: Inspector General

    1. We could solve that problem very easily. Just stop detaining people and deport them immediately. They are only being detained because they are awaiting for a judge to decide if they should be deported. If having immigration hearings comes at the cost of creating Gulags with guard run rape gangs, then maybe we should stop having hearings and just immediately deport these people.

      1. Just stop detaining people and deport them immediately.

        So how do you know if a potential detainee deserves to be deported immediately or not? Let me guess, it involves demanding to see their papers…

        1. I don’t. But the only way I can find out is to detain them until they have a hearing. If detaining thme means mass rape, that isn’t a price that is worth paying. So just deport them. If you think that giving them a hearing is so important, then stop complaining about detaining them because you cannot have one without the other.

          1. And if US citizens accidentally get deported in your deport-them-immediately strategy? Oh well! Sucks to be them!

            Should the police have the authority to demand citizenship papers on everyone? If not, then you are going to have US citizens ‘accidentally’ deported just because they have the ‘wrong’ skin color. If so, then you are going to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. So which will it be, John?

            1. Again, if you think hearings are so important, then stop complaining about detention. Without detention, there is no way to ensure people show up at the hearing and no reason for them to. Indeed, if you get rid of detention and require a hearing before deportation, no one would ever be deported because all they would have to do is not show up for the hearing.

              If you are bothered so much by detention, too bad. It is a necessary consiquence of the policy you support.

              1. You’re dodging the question with your attempt at burden-shifting. You are the one proposing a change that would either result in deporting US citizens, or abridging the Fourth Amendment rights of everyone. Why do you hate liberty, John?

                1. I am not dodging anythin. You make a good point about the necessity of due process before deporting someone. I agree with giving people a hearing. But, if you are going to give people hearings, then you have to also detain people or no one ever gets deported.

                  So whatever harms that result from people being in detention are a necessary consiquence to giving them due process. Now what about that isn’t penetrating your thick head?

      2. Just stop detaining people and deport them immediately.

        So how do you know if a potential detainee deserves to be deported immediately or not? Let me guess, it involves demanding to see their papers…

    2. who then sexually abuse the illegal humans

      This is disingenuous bordering on lying, but then everybody already realized you were citing The Huffington Post.

      First, your article states that “contractors ? including both private businesses and public operations, such as county jails ? failed to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement of sexual assaults and employee misconduct”. I don’t see anything indicating that the sexual assaults and/or employee misconduct are explicitly guard-on-detainee issues. Second, your article goes on to state “one facility, for example, was granted a waiver that allowed detainees with serious criminal histories to be held near those with nonviolent offenses”. And? No sexual assault occurred and if these detainees are that dangerous, one has to wonder what sort of border should be put between them and all the rest of us normies.

      I don’t like ICE, but this is exceptionally weak sauce and when you pile “Then ICE contractors sexually abuse the detainees.” it’s really undermining your credibility rather than objectively representing and dismantling ICE.

  6. Are you aware of the fact that just because a data set isn’t perfect for scholarly purposes, it doesn’t mean the data is bad? I think you can be a bit more understanding about the realities of collecting data on

    1. Exactly. The fact that evidence isn’t conclusive doesn’t mean it is necessarily untue or should be completely discounted. It is certainly possible that these numbers are correct. If Soave wants them ignored, he needs to come up with a reason why they should be and not just claim they are inperfect.

    2. on undocumented people who are not known nor easily accessible. We know for a fact that cartels engage in human trafficking. We also know many people have been murdered at or near the border. This isn’t an isolated instance. Why are you even asking? Is 1 in 10 not enough for you? Shouldn’t the question be if this is more than an isolated event?

      Also, Trump not satisfying your standard of evidence doesn’t mean there is none. The fact you make a relativist argument and use circular reasoning (there is bad/fake data for this unrelated subject, therefore this data is fake) is pathetic considering you’re arguing from the perspective of someone enlightened about statistics.

      1. Soave’s article is pure sophistry.

  7. It would be nice to see reliable data, rather than swatting away any data provided and just calling Trump a liar

    Also, if you think women are going to jump on the libertarian train after you say “not all those women actually got raped, it was just some form of sexual misconduct” you’re going to have a bad time

    1. Its not violence if she doesn’t put up a fight Ryan. That is actually what Soave is saying here. What the hell?

      1. Yeah, when questioning “Can two inebriated adults consensually rape each other?” you’re definitely going to wade into some nuance, but when you’re distinguishing between ‘coerced into having sex to avoid starvation’ and rape you’re really lost in the weeds.

        So, either Robby really, really likes to split hairs when it comes to rapists or he just wants to make sure that we don’t falsely label people extorting sex via starvation as rapists.

        1. The editors have no fucking clue what the third world is like. So much keyboard warrioring to defend prostitution for the few while ignoring thousands of sexual assaults

  8. Know what would be a great way to get data? Build a wall and force people to enter through places in which data can be collected.

  9. The alt-right might be evil, but they’re not always stupid. One of their most clever tactics is to present their agenda as if it serves the interests of marginalized groups. For example, they make the (obviously false) claim that Muslim immigration into Europe puts women there at greater risk of sexual assault. In other words they attempt to frame anti-immigrant white nationalism as the “pro-woman” position.

    So it’s not surprising that Drumpf is trying something similar in a desperate attempt to get his racist wall. It won’t work though. The alliance between #AbolishICE democratic socialists and Koch / Reason libertarians is convincing more and more voters that “border security” is inherently undesirable.

  10. >>>This statistic is dubious.

    *this* statistic is dubious?

  11. suggests that abuse is some lesser category of unpleasantness

    Yeah, well, that’s where we’re at now.

  12. I can’t help but notice some similarities between misleading claims about sexual assault among migrant women and misleading claims about sexual assault among campus women.

    Congratulations on being able to put 2 and 2 together to get 4.

    1. Other than Soave not liking them, the similarities remain a mystery. Just because the Campus rape statistics exaggerated the problem doesn’t mean every rape statistic in every context does. How does Soave write this stuff with a straight face?

      1. How does Soave write this stuff with a straight face?

        The same way you do, I suspect. When you believe what you’re saying it’s not hard to be earnest about it.

        1. No one believes this shit. I refuse to believe he does.

    2. Let’s see. A and B discuss the same matter that occurs among entirely different in entirely different places and situations and come to similar conclusions.

      If A is wrong, then B must be wrong also. WTF?

      Jaysus wept.

      1. entirely different people in entirely different places and situations.

    3. Congratulations on being able to put 2 and 2 together to get 4.

      I can’t help but notice that when Reason puts Robby “The Hammer’ Soave on the immigration beat, suddenly the problem seems so much like a nail.

  13. C’mon Robbie you know better. We are in a post-truth post-fact era. The rigorous validity of statistics don’t matter. All that matters is that the numbers are plausible enough in order to push an agenda.

    1. How is Robby being rigorous here? The entire article is one logical fallacy after another. If you want to claim that a statistic is not conclusive of an issue, fine. But it not being conclusive does not give you the right to dismiss it entirely and conclude the opposite must be true, which is what Soave is doing here.

      The 25 year old study is evidence. If you want to ignore it, you need to explain why. Why would women be getting raped in enormous numbers trying to cross the border in the late 1990s but not be raped today? Is that study conclusive proof for the exact percent it claims? No. Things may have changed some. They may have gotten worse. But without some compelling reason why women would no longer be raped by the criminals who smuggle them across the border, that study is still very strong evidence of their being a big problem. Moreover, unless you want to deny it happens at all, what percentage do you think is just no big deal? 10%, 20%? What percentage of women need to be raped before you and Robby think it is something worth worrying about?

      1. Yup just as I said. It doesn’t matter what the numbers say or don’t say. Even if one woman is raped, that is enough justification to you to build the wall.

        And spare me your crocodile tears about migrant women being raped. You are perfectly happy seeing them raped, as long as they are raped back in their shithole countries.

        1. Yup just as I said. It doesn’t matter what the numbers say or don’t say. Even if one woman is raped, that is enough justification to you to build the wall.

          That is not what I said at all. And that is not even close to being responsive to my point. You keep claiming there are new numbers but cannot provide any. Moreover, you keep saying these numbers are bad but then refuse to say what the numbers are or what is the threshold for this not being a problem. I think a large percentage of those woman are raped. Certainly over half and lots of horrible things happen to those people in addition to that. That fact along with all of the other harms that come with illegal immigration justify building the wall. No one is claiming “if even one woman is raped a wall is justified”. Your contention that anyone is is just you lying and refusing to have a rational discussion.

          So, if you don’t think the wall is justified, then explain how many women you think are being raped and why that number whatever it is is not significant enough to take any action to stop.

          1. I don’t know if there are new numbers. My point is that it doesn’t matter to people like you if there are new numbers or not. If new numbers support your narrative, you’ll use them. But if they don’t, you’ll just call the researchers a bunch of open-border librulz and continue to use the old numbers.

            Furthermore, the only reason whatsoever that you give a damn about migrant women being raped is to advance your support for the wall. That’s it. It certainly isn’t about the rights of the women themselves. If they are raped back in Guatemala, that is actually your preferred solution, rather than women being raped here.

            1. I don’t know if there are new numbers. My point is that it doesn’t matter to people like you if there are new numbers or not. If new numbers support your narrative, you’ll use them. But if they don’t, you’ll just call the researchers a bunch of open-border librulz and continue to use the old numbers.

              If you have new numbers, they absolutely would matter. I never said they wouldn’t. And you claiming that I would dismiss them is just you accusing me of bad faith because you can’t win the argument. The fact is that we do have numbers and they are stark. If you have new numbers or some reason to believe things have changed and gotten better, provide it. Without that, there is no reason not to find the numbers we do have convincing. The fact that you refuse to without any reason to think they are wrong is proof that you are exactly what you are claiming I am and will not believe anything that doesn’t fit your narrative.

              Furthermore, the only reason whatsoever that you give a damn about migrant women being raped is to advance your support for the wall. T

              That is just you attributing bad motives to anyone who disagrees with you. Moroever, even if it were true, it would not make the rapes any better or give you the right to ignore them. You just ranting and hurling insults at this point.

              1. If you have new numbers, they absolutely would matter. I never said they wouldn’t.

                Oh bullshit. Do you think I was born yesterday? We all know what would happen – you’ll ignore the numbers that don’t fit your narrative.

                And you claiming that I would dismiss them is just you accusing me of bad faith because you can’t win the argument. I can draw patterns from your previous comments

                there, FIFY

            2. “I don’t know if there are new numbers. My point is that it doesn’t matter to people like you if there are new numbers or not. If new numbers support your narrative, you’ll use them. But if they don’t, you’ll just call the researchers a bunch of open-border librulz and continue to use the old numbers.”

              This, along with the rest of your post, is ENTIRELY your imagination.
              You constantly assert hypotheticals as if they are facts.
              That shit is psychotic.

              1. Huh. So I guess it is just a coincidence that the ONLY time that any of you all express any sort of concern for the well-being of migrants is when you see an opportunity to use that concern as a wedge to push for immigration resrictionist policies.

                “Oh those poor illegal immigrants working under the table and being exploited by unscrupulous employers. Better to deport them so as to stop the exploitation.”

                “Oh those poor migrant children dying in the desert trying to come here. Better to build a wall so that they won’t die during the trip.”

                Etc. etc. It is cynical, crass and wrong. The truth is, you don’t give two shits about these migrants. You are absolutely fine with migrants being exploited, raped and killed, as long as they are exploited, raped and killed over there, and not here.

                Even when I point out that migrants sending remittances back home are a form of purely voluntary foreign aid to make their home countries better – as you demand that they do – you still object and want to tax and/or ban those remittances, and/or deport the migrants so that the remittances cease.

                If I’m wrong, then name one thing that you would support, *completely unconnected to border security*, that would actually make migrant lives better. Just one.

                1. How many times do I have to tell you?
                  I DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT MIGRANTS
                  You think this proves a point because you’re arguing against voices in your psychotic head.
                  I care about my country, its sovereignty, and its integrity.
                  There are 7.5 billion people in the world, most of them poor. What would you have us sacrifice for them?
                  Not our responsibility, and our government making it so is a disservice to citizens.
                  You want to do something about it yourself with your own resources? Cool. Go for it. I’m guessing you don’t do Jack shit in accordance with your pretend morals. No, you just pose on the internet.

                  All your arguments are based in fantasy. You can’t help but assume you know what’s in other people’s hearts and minds because, if you didn’t, your fantasy of yourself as morally superior would fall apart.
                  Fuck off or grow up

            3. So you admit there’s no data, and then proceed to mind read

              Nicely done

  14. “Tolerance for illegal immigration is not compassionate?it is cruel,” said Trump. “One in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north.”

    Arresting them at the border and deporting them back to square one after they’ve been raped is more compassionate than allowing entry.

    1. If you deport them, they don’t come. It is called a moral hazard. If we open our borders to anyone who wants in, a whole lot of people are going to take off for our border and a lot of bad things are going to happen to them before they get here. If you think that is a price worth paying for letting them in or think that that is not our concern since they chose to make the trip, fine. But understand that is a forseable and necessary consiquence of opening the border.

    2. Arresting them at the border and deporting them back to square one after they’ve been raped is more compassionate than allowing entry.

      So do we afford them all trials, adjudicating crimes that didn’t take place on American soil and co-opting their native legal systems, or let them and their presumably innocent rapists in? If we’re lucky, their lack of access to birth control along the journey means we get to support them, their rapist, and their rapist’s baby compassionately together!

      Shit in one hand and be compassionate in the other and see which one gets full first.

      1. No. Their pregnancies get aborted and the parts sold out for a profit by planned parenthood. It is quite a racket when you put it all together.

  15. C’mon Robby – tell us how illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than natives

  16. All I know is Trump trolled those idiot commies in white and told socialists and socialism to fuck right off.

    It needed to be said.

  17. False? FALSE???

    For crying out loud, this article is FALSE! FAKE NEWS!!!

    You could have said “Trump cited statistic based on sample that could be unrepresentative.” Or, “Trump cited valid statistic, but let me remind you that sexual abuse is NO BIG DEAL – could include circumstances that are not necessarily violent!”

  18. “I can’t help but notice some similarities between misleading claims about sexual assault among migrant women and misleading claims about sexual assault among campus women.”

    Campus activists: Make college free for everyone! You will probably be raped but we can use that to spread awareness about rape culture

    Open borders activists: Make everyone a US citizen! You will probably be molested but we can use that as ammo against Trump

  19. Trumps statement was far more accurate than this hit piece. Reason is becoming little more than fake news shill.

  20. It really doesn’t matter because this is a classic Trumpian troll argument. He does not care about the women making the journey. Many of them are making the journey because their lives stink back in their hometowns, including getting assaulted. But more to the point, Trump threw that line in there to co-opt the Dems arguments. It’s purely cynical and vile the way he does it. Next thing he will do is say that migrants do not have access to abortion services and thus, we should build a wall. Or he will say, how can we provide adequate non-abstinence-only sex education if those migrants are always on the move? That’s Trump for you though. Absolutely no governing. He’s just a troll for the oligarchs.

    1. People think they can get into the country so they try and get here. They get raped and abused in all kinds of ways during the trip. The more people think they can get in, the more people come and the more this happens.

      Trump’s sollution to that is to build a wall so they won’t have a reason to come. What is your sollution to that? As far as I can tell you have no sollution really. You just view the humanitarian ciris that results from the US encouraging people to come as a price worth paying for open borders.

      That is one position. But, if you want to take it, you have no right to accuse anyone of being callous or cynical. You don’t give a shit what happens to those people. You just want to feel smug.

      1. Trump’s sollution to that is to build a wall so they won’t have a reason to come.

        How would a wall change the reasons for why desperate migrants want to come here? Would it alleviate the poverty or violence that they experience? No? Oh. So, wall or no wall, desperate migrants will still try to migrate here in order to escape the squalid conditions back home. That is why your argument is full of crap.

        1. “Would it alleviate the poverty or violence that they experience? No?”

          Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo cares?

          I know, you do. You love your imaginary ideal of the noble savage, and the nobility of your white man’s burden perspective.
          Too bad.
          The harder you make something, the more it discourages people from attempting.
          You’d understand this if you had one shred of real world experience with real people.
          Move to Guatemala

      2. They get raped and abused in all kinds of ways in their lousy home villages.

        To close off the border with a wall the government would have to grab all kinds of private property.

  21. Pathetic hit piece. Trumps statistics are supported by the available data. Not a good look Reason.

  22. So what ARE the statistics? My supposition is that we have no such statistics current because it would first require intercepting and polling all illegal border crossers.

    If we could do such a thing, what do you think you would find? My guess, the numbers would be slightly better but still appalling.

    The author is a dolt, criticizing POSSIBLY less than perfect statistics as if that means the President’s overall point was misleading. His point was it is appalling, and he is most likely right. The author is therefore an apologist for open borders propagandists – a pot calling the kettle black, except that he is on the wrong side of the issue.

  23. It’s not unreasonable to expect that a self selected group of CRIMINALS would molest/outright rape chicks, in vulnerable positions, directly under their power, at rates far higher than normal situations. Whether it’s 30%, 60% or 10% it is a LOT higher than just going to the grocery store.

    Frankly, I don’t give 2 shits about these broads getting raped… But I don’t want them, or any of these other low education 3rd worlders being let into my country. We have far too many already, and every extra one we let in will just fuck this nation up even more.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.