Monday, March 27, 2017

Trump twists crime numbers to demonize immigrants


     The realm of integers — numbers such as 1, 2, 3, 4 — is perfectly divided between odd and even. There are as many even whole numbers as odd. That isn't my opinion. It's just a fact.
     Were you to respond, "Oh yeah, what about 13? Kinda blows your theory out of the water, Neil, don't it?" you would be a fool, because focusing on 13 does not change the larger situation. Were you to add, "And don't forget 15. And 17. And 19, 21, and 23. I rest my case," you would not be cementing your victory, but further illustrating your folly.
     Because evidence is not proof. This is easy to see in math, where emotion is at a minimum. In politics, however, as the Season of Trump illustrates to our daily amazement, emotion reigns supreme. People pretend to be analyzing when, in fact, they are buttressing their own rigid beliefs with cherry-picked data points.
     Regular readers might have noticed that I don't visit Trumpland much lately. For the simple reason that the media is turning a thousand spotlights on the flaming disaster, and my adding one more wouldn't provide additional light. Repetition becomes dull, and readers deserve regular relief from our national agony.
     However, some things are so horrible that every responsible American must point at them and scream "NO!" Such a pressing wrong is Trump's Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office, or "VOICE," a government agency designed to demonize undocumented immigrants by drawing attention to crimes committed by them, in an attempt to justify his anti-immigration policies. Trump highlighted VOICE in his address to a joint session of Congress Feb. 28.

To continue reading, click here.


  1. sound argument neil and well stated .

  2. But we must learn from past mistakes. As when we allowed all those Italians, with their predisposition for organized crime, into the country.

    Mona Charen, of all people, also had a good column the other day on the folly of demonizing immigrants. Her arguments were buttressed by statistics she got from that fount of liberal thought, the Cato Institute.


  3. Seems to me that Trump is still in campaign mode. He figured our how to win, which I must say was a pretty nifty trick, but playing the new kid on the block is getting a bit stale and if he pisses off any more conservatives, he's not going to have anyone rooting for him.


  4. When Syrian refugees were fleeing the civil war the question was posed to the Israeli foreign ministry about taking in refugees. And Israel did take some in but they made it very clear that they were not going to sacrifice the demographic character of their nation because of unfortunate circumstances surrounding the State. So if it's a good policy for Israel why isn't it good for the United States? After all Ehud Olmert is sitting in prison couldn't the Syrians help Israel economically and morally?

    1. Given the relative populations of Israel and the US, I don't think we're in too much danger of our intake of Syrian refugees affecting our demographic character. Do you?

    2. Not from Syria but certainly there's an argument that unchecked immigration South of the border could water down the conservative voting blocks and radically change the nation. Certainly you can agree with that, Coey?

    3. Sorry, I can't agree. It didn't happen at the peak of immigration from that area a number of years ago, so I'm not too worried that it will occur now that it's declined.

      To be honest, I don't actually know what you mean by "demographic character" when referring to the U.S. I'm sure my Irish and German ancestors encountered a similar mindset as yours.

    4. Coey, I think you know exactly what I mean by demographic character. And btw I don't fault Israel, one of the reasons there isn't peace and a two State solution is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State and give up on the 4 million refugees returning to their old homes. We all had a common European heritage whether we came from Wales or Athens or Moscow or Oslo. It's as politically incorrect as that.

    5. No, I don't know what you mean. There has never been a homogeneous U.S. demographic character, and that is part of our strength as a nation. A "common European heritage"? There's is no such thing that I'm aware of. Ask a European.

    6. We might have all had "a common European heritage" at one point, but that's gone by the wayside now. You'll be arguing for "blood and soil" next. It's bullshit, MF. Peddle it somewhere else.

  5. Mr. Franklin forgets that a fair slice of the population, from almost the earliest times, was made up of people brought here in European ships from Africa.


  6. I don't agree with MF, but I think the reference is to pre-Irish and latter day, European immigration to the nation, where before that time,many whites at least- were of Anglo Saxon/Prot background or Germanic.


Comments are vetted and posted at the discretion of the proprietor.