Trump's Somali Insults Are a Disgrace
A welfare fraud scandal in Minnesota is the Trump administration's latest excuse for demonizing immigrants and refugees.
After Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said he was proud that his city had the largest Somali community in the United States, President Donald Trump unleashed a vicious rant during a press conference ostensibly about the auto industry: "I wouldn't be proud to have the largest Somalian―look at their nation. Look how bad their nation is. It's not even a nation. It's just people walking around killing each other…They have destroyed Minnesota."
Trump also penned a social-media post claiming Somali gangs have taken over Minnesota and "are roving the streets looking for 'prey' as our wonderful people stay locked in their apartments and houses." The Hennepin County District Attorney's Office, which is the top law-enforcement agency overseeing the Minneapolis area, released a video debunking those claims. Nearly 90 percent of Somalis there are legal residents, with 58 percent of them having been born in the United States.
"They contribute nothing…I don't want them in our country," Trump added, as he has pushed forward a plan to reduce the nation's refugee-acceptance program by 90 percent. Somalis actually have revived some downtrodden Minneapolis neighborhoods as they mostly pursue the American dream, but why pick nits? The bulk of the new refugees will be white South Africans, but I'm sure race has absolutely nothing to do with his latest immigration-related tirades and decisions.
It's seems hardly a coincidence that Trump also has directed ire at Haitian immigrants in Ohio whom he falsely accused of eating pets. His decision to eliminate free-entry days at national parks on the Juneteenth holiday commemorating the end of slavery and Martin Luther King Jr. Day also don't seem like coincidences. In reality, the only roving gangs that Twin-Cities residents need to worry about are the masked ICE patrols Trump has sent to the region, but that's apparently the point.
Trump is maligning "garbage," as he referred to a Somali member of Congress and her "friends," to justify efforts to quash immigration from non-white countries. Can the GOP stop pretending otherwise?
Conservative media are focusing on Minnesota's social programs, with City Journal's Christopher Rufo explaining that "fraud has allegedly been perpetrated by members of Minnesota's sizeable Somali community" with "millions of dollars in stolen funds have been sent back to Somalia, where they ultimately landed in the hands of the terror group Al-Shabaab." Minnesota's Democratic politicians and media have been loath to "connect the dots" because of their "progressive pieties," Rufo added.
That may be true and any fraud is appalling, but perhaps one reason for the lack of dot-connecting is Minnesota officials' fear that the administration and its supporters would react as they have, by blaming the entire Somali community for the criminal acts of a few and using the scandal to justify heavy-handed immigration policies.
There are two schools of conservative immigration thought. The first, to which I subscribe, acknowledges immigrants often flee countries ravaged by crime, tyranny and disorder. That's why many people come to the United States. Our nation's settlers fled persecution. My father escaped Nazi Germany, which was literally putting people in ovens (although many Republicans lately have struggled with their views on such horrors). Under this long-standing view, Americans should welcome immigrants, but promote E Pluribus Unum.
The other conservative view, which is clearly embraced by national conservatives and populists, is that America is fundamentally a white, Christian nation and that immigration, to whatever limited degree we allow it, should align with those demographics. Some conservatives still tout the, "we're only against illegal immigration" canard, but that's not what's going on here. Trump's policies—along with much of the anti-immigration rhetoric on the right these days—are about limiting immigration in general. Minnesota's Somalis and Springfield's Haitians are, after all, primarily legal.
No one disputes that law-enforcement should clamp down on government fraud. The root problem is the government freebies themselves, which often are overly generous and lacking in oversight. But it's not like fraud scandals are confined to immigrant and minority communities. One can find similar scandals involving any ethnic group (including native-born Americans).
The president always doubles down. Following the brouhaha over his comments, Trump said to supporters: "Why is it we only take people from sh**hole countries, right, why can't we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few…We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, dirty, filthy, disgusting, ridden with crime." It's clear what he's saying.
By contrast, in his last presidential speech, Ronald Reagan said, "We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength—from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation." Reagan was right. Trump is wrong. Americans shouldn't be ashamed that our nation is a beacon to the tired, poor, huddled masses, but we have reason to be ashamed of him.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Many people don't share trump's view on immigration or greenhut's. Trump's anti-immigrant schtick was idiotic back before his first term. However, after the open borders progressives in the last administration let in 10 million + immigrants from predominantly low trust countries (yes they do exist) people are tired of the empty virtue signaling and naïveté.
Is it naivete or obfuscating stupidity to hide corrupt practices?
anti - illegal immigrant schtick
Why cant people get that right??
No doubt. That would be refreshing.
Most people don’t care to look up shit before they comment. Somalia is the penultimate most corrupt nation in the world. Their ppl are 100% scamming snakes. And this shows in their stats.
90% is Somalians are on welfare. Wow that’s a lot. For years everybody kept wondering how the Somalians had three times (at least) higher autism rates until a couple months ago they finally figured out there was a half billion dollar fraud regarding fake autism diagnoses. 1 in 10 have autism. Like, who would ever believe such a stat.
And they send the money all back home they don’t spend it here. When they get caught, they simply fly home.
9 billion or more in fraud in just a few years in one state.
At least tren de agua gives you a tangible product for your money.
"That may be true and any fraud is appalling, but perhaps one reason for the lack of dot-connecting is Minnesota officials' fear that the administration and its supporters would react as they have, by blaming the entire Somali community for the criminal acts of a few and using the scandal to justify heavy-handed immigration policies."
So the Minnesota authorities would rather turn a blind eye to massive criminal activity defrauding Minnesota and US taxpayers than the possibility that Trump might say mean things about Somalis? What misplaced priorities. It is the same rational that British authorities covered up the Muslim rape gangs for so many years which allowed many young women's rights to be abused. Also, it is quite more likely that Minnesota Democrats are beholden to the Somali immigrant community as a constituency and was tolerating the criminal activity on that basis. Furthermore, the nature of the fraud required widespread knowledge of and participation in by the Somali immigrant community.
That really is an infuriating rationalization for Minnesota law enforcement to ignore crimes against the American people.
Minnesota dems admitting they didnt go after Somalis as they are a large voting block for Democrats.
Greenbutt is a disengenuous imbecile. Most of this fraud happened under Biden. Mean Tweets were never part of any calculus.
It's like refusing to go after the mafia cause it would lead to prejudice against Italians.
There is no mafia!! J Edgar told us so
People are missing the picture: Democrats allow Somalis to steal from the government in return for a share of the loot in campaign cash. Especially since most of it comes from US taxpayers instead of Minnesotans. That includes Waltz (why did Harris pick him if not for his fund-raising ability), Hakim Jeffries and Omar.
Even CBS News is admitting this is an issue. Calling the now 18B in suspected fraud propagated by "fraud tourists."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minnesota-fraud-tourists-indictments/
Yet the open borders acolytes continue to push bullshit articles like this. Reasons claims of accountability and supporting audits is always undone in their pursuit of blind obedience to the religion of open borders.
There are two schools of conservative immigration thought.
You wrote a love letter to San Francisco. You openly, bragging, pretended to be your own contractor and went around counting the Mexicans standing outside Home Depot as a gauge of immigration. You primarily publish for a specific local-to-California audience.
Go fuck yourself with this "As an impartial connoisseur of conservative thought..." bullshit, Greenhut.
"By contrast, in his last presidential speech, Ronald Reagan said, "We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength—from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation.""
It is estimated some 42% of Somalis in America are officially on public assistance. I am not sure how much they are enriching the USA.
Reagan:
"No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution. We must share this responsibility with other countries.
...
At the same time, we must ensure adequate legal authority to establish control over immigration: to enable us, when sudden influxes of foreigners occur, to decide to whom we grant the status of refugee or asylee; to improve our border control; to expedite (consistent with fair procedures and our Constitution) return of those coming here illegally; to strengthen enforcement of our fair labor standards and laws; and to penalize those who would knowingly encourage violation of our laws.
....
At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.
...
We shall seek new ways to integrate refugees into our society without nurturing their dependence on welfare.
...
But the simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders, and no nation can do that and survive.
...
In 1992, the federal Government actually issued more work authorizations to immigrants and temporary foreign workers than the net number of new jobs created by our economy. Something is fundamentally wrong when we have millions of American citizens and legal residents begging for jobs, and yet we are admitting thousands and thousands of immigrants a year with virtually no consideration to our employment needs or their employment skills.
We have not lost control of our borders. Our governing class has deliberately given up control of our borders for their own reasons. There is a difference.
Was just adding to the quotes of Reagan Reason refuses to recognize as they cherry pick quotes for their open borders religion.
I could easily add a few dozen more.
That is fine. I just find this was not unintentional, it was deliberate.
Oh I agree it is intentional. Has been a decades long globalist design. They started the lies regarding Reagan right after amnesty as he calls out in the 92 speech.
Part of the long march and borg like adoption of open borders Marxists. Finding every useful idiot they can. Reason and CATO not being exceptions.
"But it's not like fraud scandals are confined to immigrant and minority communities. One can find similar scandals involving any ethnic group (including native-born Americans)."
One of the issues is that Somali culture perhaps does not consider this type of fraud to be wrongdoing. Trying to deflect attention elsewhere is lame. There seems to be fairly widespread issues among Somalis in the USA, that does not respect the wider culture and people. Something needs to change here, else there will be further crime.
He also ignores how widespread it was. Parents were all on the take while giving their children to be used.
It looks like ICE will be antagonists in a game of hide the Somali.
Nice one.
So much stupidity in one article, almost every sentence contains a lie!
For example juneteenth is is bs holiday. It celebrates the day the slaves in Texas heard about the emancipation proclamation. Don't worry slavery was still legal in delewar.
And yes Somalis are shit animals with a shit culture. They bring nothing to the table and can never integrate in western culture.
Letting in a large number of people without our values, from a place where corruption and graft are a way of life is not a sound policy.
Import 3rd world shithole population, import 3rd world shithole problems.
A few immigrants from anywhere can be incorporated into society, blended into the melting pot. Importing wholesale population groups that self-isolate into "communities", ethnically focused enclaves where they cling wholeheartedly to the ethos of their 3rd world shithole is NOT a recipe for success.
Let's not forget that a Somali clan feud basically decided the Minneapolis mayor race.
In addition, Greenhut is blocking the natural progression towards cooperation --where the immigrants must adapt to the new culture or face the repercussions.
He only wants the natives to adapt to the foreign culture. Otherwise, you are a "bad" person. But he needs to see himself as their protector. He ends up making it worse.
Cooperation is voluntary. This applies just as much to natives as to the immigrants.
The claim that all cultures are somehow equal is demonstrably untrue as Trump crudely but accurately articulates when talking about shithole countries. It's also anti libertarian. Libertarianism has it's roots in classical liberalism something that barely exists anymore, certainly not in Somalia or Europe or Australia for that matter. The bargain was always come and assimilate and enjoy the liberties that, for a while at least, existed in the US. Learn the language. Comply with our rules of law. Be honestly productive. Live well without aggression. Somalia is not a functioning nation state. It is an enclave of warring tribes and Somalians do not leave their tribal affiliations behind when they come here and get on the dole. There is nothing racist about pointing out the reality of Somalian immigrants. Every body can see it with there own lying eyes.
*That may be true and any fraud is appalling, but...*
The second you follow core libertarian principles with a "but", you reveal that you are neither libertarian nor principled. This hard-left rant is better suited to MSNBCNowBC than an ostensibly libertarian publication. And it's why I come here less and less.
Greenhut's takes are what pass for 'moderately conservative' in California. Which isn't libertarian either.
"are roving the streets looking for 'prey' as our wonderful people stay locked in their apartments and houses."
Nearly 90 percent of Somalis there are legal residents, with 58 percent of them having been born in the United States.
The later does not obviate the former.
All cultures and all people are equal. That is why every nation is equally free, safe, and prosperous.
If I wanted woke bullshit I would read the atlantic or huffington post.
#libertarians4magicsoil
I thought citing Mary Moriarty (that unnamed Hennepin County AG) was a lovely touch. Does Steve know her history? Too radical for the PUBLIC DEFENDERS office? Known to hand down blatantly racist verdicts?
No wonder this pseudo-male likes her.
Hint for Steve: She would NEVER have a finding of anything negative for any group outside of white males. Check her history.
"My father escaped Nazi Germany, which was literally putting people in ovens"
Fortunately, the sins of the son do not mean the father deserved a miserable fate.
"The bulk of the new refugees will be white South Africans, but I'm sure race has absolutely nothing to do with his latest immigration-related tirades and decisions."
Yeah, forgot. White folks never have problems and are never oppressed.
I want them here. They seem to WANT to be here. Somalis do not.
Don't think you should be telling Republicans how they think because obviously the only thing that comes out of it is your own racist prejudices and excuses for immigrant crime.
"The first, to which I subscribe, acknowledges immigrants often flee countries ravaged by crime, tyranny and disorder. That's why many people come to the United States."
Is that why 80% side with crime, tyranny and disorder once they get here?
You subscribe to your faulty belief because of your prejudices.
Where immigrants can't commit any crimes in ur mind because they're too *special*.
So special that their own sh*thole can't possibly be any fault of the citizens living there?
Their nation being a disaster was all just a big coincidence huh?
Though I will add. There is 20% truth to "flee countries ravaged by crime, tyranny and disorder" and filtering-out the 80% just looking for someone else's greener-pasture to conquer and consume/destroy is what border-control/filtering is all about.
It does no good to make *excuses* for the 80%.
You say your father escaped Nazi-German.
Well; How would you feel if the Nazi's ?escaped? to the same place?
If you side with [D]emocrat [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] that is exactly what you are doing.
...and that is exactly why the Nazi's were "putting people in ovens".
Blame-Shifting the faulty/faults of [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] which is entirely based on [WE] Identify-as w/'Guns' gets to STEAL from those 'icky' people.
...because 'Guns' don't make sh*t.
The Zero-Sum resources game ended along those tracks with "putting people in ovens" and trying to conquer and consume others greener-pastures (The World).
...because once again it was all about [WE] Identify-as gangster politics.
ASYMMETRY 1: GROUP VS. INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY
For Somali community:
"blaming the entire Somali community for the criminal acts of a few"
Standard: Individual accountability only. Can't infer anything about the group from subset behavior.
For GOP/Trump supporters:
"Can the GOP stop pretending otherwise?"
Standard: Entire party treated as unified in bad faith. Group accountability assumed.
The asymmetry: Somalis get individualized treatment; political opponents get generalized condemnation.
Or maybe the 80% getting excuses for their Individual Crimes and [Na]tional So[zi]alist ideology says it's far-more about Group above-the-law *special* dismissal assumed.
Not as-if all the endless excuses for breaking-in didn't cement that into stone.
Course that's what leftards do; They do, then they blame-shift what they do on their opponents.
ASYMMETRY 2: LEGITIMATE CONCERNS VS. PRESUMED RACISM
When fraud is raised:
"That may be true and any fraud is appalling, but perhaps one reason for the lack of dot-connecting is Minnesota officials' fear that the administration and its supporters would react as they have"
Translation: Even if concerns are legitimate, raising them is problematic because of how they'll be used.
For racism accusations:
No "but." No acknowledgment that concerns might be legitimate. No consideration that critics might have non-racial reasons.
The asymmetry: Fraud concerns require defensive framing. Racism accusations require no evidence beyond "it's clear what he's saying."
ASYMMETRY 3: BINARY FRAMING OF POSITIONS
The author's two "schools":
School 1 (Good): Welcome immigrants, E Pluribus Unum, Reagan's vision
School 2 (Racist): "America is fundamentally a white, Christian nation"
What's missing: Any middle ground:
Concerns about integration rates
Questions about social program capacity
Cultural compatibility considerations
Community impact assessments
Enforcement of existing laws
The effect: Only two positions exist - open welcome or racism. No legitimate restrictionist position is acknowledged.
ASYMMETRY 4: EVIDENCE STANDARDS
For fraud claims:
"fraud has allegedly been perpetrated" (hedged)
"That may be true" (conditional)
For racism claims:
"It's clear what he's saying"
"I'm sure race has absolutely nothing to do with" (sarcasm treating it as obvious)
The asymmetry:
Fraud requires careful qualification. Racism is self-evident and needs no proof beyond pattern-matching.
ASYMMETRY 5: MOTIVE ATTRIBUTION
For Somali immigrants:
"mostly pursue the American dream"
"revived some downtrodden Minneapolis neighborhoods"
Charitable interpretation of motives.
For Trump/critics:
Motives are presumed racial animus
No acknowledgment of legitimate policy concerns
"Canard" dismisses stated positions as pretextual
The asymmetry:
Immigrants get benefit of the doubt. Critics are assumed to be lying about their actual concerns.
Greenhut, what is a disgrace is your suicidal empathy and how these people - who you claim are fleeing death and so we must shelter - repaid our hospitality.
Great point.
HOW THIS BLOCKS COOPERATION
The author's framework creates an impossible situation:
Raising concerns = racism
Any criticism of non-white immigrant groups is presumptively racist
Even legitimate issues (fraud) can't be discussed without being weaponized
Stated positions are dismissed
"We're only against illegal immigration" called a "canard"
No engagement with actual arguments, just assertion of hidden motives
Only one acceptable position
Full welcome of all immigrants
Any restriction = racist motivation assumed
No path to middle ground
You're either Reagan (good) or Trump (racist)
No legitimate restrictionist position exists
Result: One side cannot participate in dialogue without being morally condemned. That's not a framework for cooperation—it's a framework for domination.
The status quo of many years of democrat policies and agenda.
—it's a framework for domination.
We'll ignore how widespread this fraud was and the large percentage of Somalis that were assisting it's perpetuation.
And that MN government has admitted that they were afraid to crack down because other Somalis would have protected the fraudsters.
THE SELF-DEFEATING LOGIC
The author admits:
"perhaps one reason for the lack of dot-connecting is Minnesota officials' fear that the administration and its supporters would react as they have"
Translation: Officials won't address fraud because they fear criticism will be used to justify broader policies.
But notice: The author blames the critics for this dynamic, not the framework that makes any criticism presumptively racist.
If the author's framework didn't exist:
Officials could address fraud as fraud
Critics could raise concerns without being called racist
Policy could be debated on merits
Cooperation might be possible
Because the author's framework exists:
Officials can't address problems (fear of being weaponized)
Critics can't raise concerns (presumed racist)
No honest discussion possible
Everyone retreats to tribal positions
THE COOPERATION-BLOCKING MECHANISM
Define terms so one position is morally untenable
Immigration restriction = racism
Equity concerns = caring about people
Make criticism impossible
Can't question immigration without being racist
Can't question equity without being heartless
Foreclose dialogue
Only acceptable position is the author's
Opposition is morally condemned, not argued with
Ensure no cooperation
One side can't participate without self-condemnation
Only options: surrender or fight
At the risk of calling a spade a spade, if 90% of La Cosa Nostra are Italian and 90% of their enablers are Democrat politicians it doesn't make much sense to scrutinize 4th generation Norwegians. If 90% of fraud in Minnesota is committed by Somalians and enabled by Democrat politicians maybe just maybe they deserve a little scrutiny. As others have pointed out, in the case of the autism scam a whole lot of legal Somalians suddenly realized that their kids were autistic and got a sweet monthly payment. Looks to me like fraud in the Somalian community is not just a tiny fraction of the population.
THE POLICY PROBLEM
The author admits:
"perhaps one reason for the lack of dot-connecting is Minnesota officials' fear"
Translation: Officials won't address the problem because acknowledging it would support restrictionist arguments.
But this creates a worse outcome:
Fraud continues (not addressed)
Honest community members harmed (associated with fraud they didn't commit)
Programs become unsustainable (losses mount)
Backlash builds (problem ignored until it explodes)
Trust erodes (officials seen as covering up)
Addressing the problem honestly would be better for everyone, including honest Somalis who are now tarred by association with fraud the officials refused to confront.
THE COOPERATION PATH
A constructive framework would say:
Acknowledge the pattern if it exists - Don't pretend concentrated fraud is "a few individuals" if evidence says otherwise
Investigate the mechanism - Why did this spread? Program design flaws? Inadequate oversight? Deliberate targeting?
Focus on actual participants - Prosecute those who committed fraud, not the community generally
Fix the system - Address whatever made fraud possible and attractive
Separate policy questions - Fraud prosecution is different from immigration policy; don't conflate them
But the author's framework can't do this because:
Acknowledging concentrated fraud = "blaming the entire community"
Investigating the pattern = racism
Any community-level observation is forbidden
I personally have no animosity for Somalians. Not aware that there is a significant population around here but if I interact with any individual I don't really care about their ancestry. But what we've seen in Minnesota and other places is a concentration of political power of particular ethnic groups and with that power comes the ability to impose their culture on others. Dearborn for instance has had a large Arab population for many decades. But they were mostly Lebanese Catholics. They brought their food but they didn't impose their culture on the Polish immigrants that came before. The political power is now in the hands of Muslim Arabs and city government now broadcasts the Muslim call to prayer five times a day. The point being, these people do not seek assimilation. They seek power and advantage to their tribe. State government in Minnesota has found it to their advantage to allow billions in corruption to maintain their voter base. We don't have to speculate. They openly admit it.
Asymmetric application of rules:
Group A (Somali/Muslim):
Allowed to organize around ethnic/religious identity ✓
Concentrate political power ✓
Use government to impose culture (call to prayer broadcast by city) ✓
Use political power to protect group interests (fraud tolerated) ✓
Called "pursuing American dream"
Group B (Native-born/European descent):
Organizing around identity = racism
Concentrating political power = white supremacy
Using government to reflect their culture = oppression
Protecting group interests = bigotry
Called "deplorable"
The asymmetry is not subtle.
THE FORCE ELEMENT
"State government in Minnesota has found it to their advantage to allow billions in corruption to maintain their voter base"
Translation: Government power captured to benefit one group at expense of others.
This violates the core rule:
"No group can capture enforcement for exclusive benefit"
What we see instead:
Fraud enforcement suspended for favored group
Cultural imposition via government (call to prayer)
Immigration policy shaped to grow favored voting bloc
Criticism of this arrangement labeled racism
Force is being used:
Legal force (selective enforcement)
Social force (racism accusations silence opposition)
Political force (voting bloc maintained through benefits)
THE PREDICTABLE RESULT
When cooperation rules are asymmetric:
Disadvantaged group notices - They see the double standard
Resentment builds - "Why can they organize but we can't?"
Trust erodes - System seen as rigged
Cooperation breaks down - Why cooperate with system that disadvantages you?
Counter-organization emerges - Trump, populism, nationalism
Conflict escalates - Both sides now organizing tribally
The author of the Reason article then says: "See? They're racist!"
But the racism accusation caused the problem - It prevented symmetric rules, which forces tribal counter-organization.
WHAT SYMMETRIC RULES WOULD LOOK LIKE
Option 1: No group identity in governance
No group can use government for cultural expression
No selective enforcement based on group membership
Individual treatment only
All groups can organize privately but not capture government
Option 2: All groups can compete
Any group can organize around identity
Any group can seek political power
Competition determines outcomes
No group labeled illegitimate for organizing
Current system: Neither
Some groups can organize and capture government
Other groups condemned for trying
Asymmetric rules maintained by force
Resentment and conflict result
"Individual treatment only"
As many have said; The US Constitution & USA is based on Individualism.
It's still okay for me to be racist against Frenchmen, though, right?
Only the men.
I only eat Freedom Fries. Does that make me racist?
I'm just gonna leaves this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOHUC5Vz7ws
https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/half-or-more-of-18-billion-billed-through-state-programs-tied-to-fraud/
Another 9 billion of fraud by Somalis - but sure, its not all of them, therefore its none of them.
>No one disputes that law-enforcement should clamp down on government fraud. The root problem is the government freebies themselves, which often are overly generous and lacking in oversight. But it's not like fraud scandals are confined to immigrant and minority communities. One can find similar scandals involving any ethnic group (including native-born Americans).
You're like the governments that sued Kia because people were stealing their cars - but refused to blame the thieves.
>My father escaped Nazi Germany, which was literally putting people in ovens (although many Republicans lately have struggled with their views on such horrors).
No Democrats struggle with their views on the Holocaust - they're pretty open about thinking it was a good thing.
That they 'revitalized' some run-down neighborhoods on the other side of the country with money stolen from me is not a 'net benefit'.
“although many Republicans lately have struggled with their views on such horrors”
I think you meant some. It’s nowhere near “many”.
Though most of the ones I’ve seen like Candace Owen and the idiots that post on Reddit are more run of the mill “The Jews control everything!” And less the “From the River to the Sea!” You get from the Democrats
“From the river to the sea” is more threatening to Israelis than Americans. “Jews control everything” is threatening to all Jewish people.
100% of the Somali community are not fraudsters even thought a significant number of fraudsters were found in that community. Not all Italians in Los Vegas were Mafia 20 years ago although there was a big community of Italian mobsters.
Perhaps Somalia is a shitty country. There are lots of Somali Americans who don’t deserve to be called names and harassed.
If 90% of the fraudsters are Somali, you cannot say that 100% of Somalis are not fraudsters.
I don't think that's what you intended to say, I think your phrasing was off. You meant 'not ALL Somalis are fraudsters, right?' That's probably true.
We can still make some pretty unfavorable assumptions about their culture generally based on the observable and recorded data.