Responding to the Trump regime's false notions about immigrants
Trying (and failing) to persuade someone to stop demonizing all undocumented immigrants
I had a difficult conversation followed by an unsatisfying email exchange with a long-time colleague this week. The premise of his argument centered around a generalized view that “illegal immigrants are invading the US to steal free benefits from hardworking Americans and commit brutal crimes of violence.”
At the same time that he insisted he wasn’t a supporter of Trump, he echoed the typical arguments made by the regime, including several of the news articles you’ve probably seen about terrible crimes being committed by undocumented immigrants with criminal records who somehow have slipped through the law enforcement cracks.
I tried to the best of my ability to create a set of responses that did not rely on emotional appeals to demonize immigrants, which included facts about immigration that the Trump regime doesn’t want to acknowledge.
Needless to say, I couldn’t move him away from the sense that immigrants are evil and are here to take advantage of real Americans.
It’s just not true and deserves to be called out with a factual conversation. So here’s what I tried to get him to look at.
This post reflects the body of the email I sent him. I did make a few edits to remove identifying information so that this is just about the arguments, not about the person making them.
I welcome your thoughts about this approach and what I might have done better.
Immigrant Crime
To start, I want to address the idea that this selection of articles offers any kind of proof for the argument that undocumented immigrants as a group somehow deserve less in terms of their Constitutional rights because of crimes alleged to have been committed by some of them.
I understand why individual cases feel powerful — they’re tragic and deserve justice. But isolated incidents don’t prove a trend.
If we want to talk about public safety, we need to look at overall crime rates, not cherry-picked examples.
According to a 2024 analysis of Texas crime data by the Cato Institute, undocumented immigrants had a lower homicide conviction rate (3.1 per 100,000) than native-born Americans (4.9 per 100,000).
Legal immigrants had the lowest rate of all—1.8 per 100,000.
Stanford’s SIEPR study (2023) found immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born individuals.
An Invasion?
You seem to sympathize with the Trump regime’s terminology in a lot of your commentary, including referring to undocumented immigration as “an invasion.”
Calling immigration an “invasion” isn’t just inaccurate — it’s inflammatory. It turns vulnerable families into enemies and fuels fear instead of solutions.
Besides that, I get that the word “invasion” sounds dramatic, but legally and historically, it means something very specific — like an armed attack by a foreign military. Migration doesn’t fit that.
Constitutional scholars like Ilya Somin (George Mason University) explain that the Founders defined invasion as “an operation of war”, not peaceful migration.
Courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to label immigration as invasion. In California v. U.S. (1997), judges ruled that immigration is a political issue, not a military threat.
The Numbers Don’t Support the Rhetoric
If this were an invasion, you’d expect chaos and violence. But border crossings have actually declined — and most migrants are fleeing violence, not causing it.
As of early 2025, unauthorized border crossings are at their lowest levels since 2000, according to Customs and Border Protection data.
Most migrants are seeking asylum, which is a legal right under U.S. and international law—not an act of aggression.
Using “Invasion” Language Has Dangerous Consequences
Calling immigrants “invaders” isn’t just inaccurate — it’s harmful. That kind of language has been linked to real-world violence.
The Anti-Defamation League and America’s Voice have documented how “invasion” rhetoric has fueled hate crimes and mass shootings.
It’s also been used to justify extreme policies, like mass deportations and military involvement in domestic law enforcement.
Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said, “We must not confuse immigration with invasion. That’s not who we are.”
We can talk about policy without dehumanizing people
Let’s talk about border security, sure. But let’s do it with facts and compassion — not fear and conspiracy theories.
Let’s focus on solutions: visa reform, asylum processing, border technology.
Let’s not forget cherished American values: safety, compassion, rule of law, welcoming strangers.
The “invasion” rhetoric — describing immigrants as hostile invaders — has been directly linked to real-world violence, especially in the U.S. Here’s how:
The gunman in the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue attack in Pittsburgh killed 11 people after posting online that Jews were helping “invaders” enter the country.
In El Paso (2019), a shooter targeted Latinos, killing 23 people. His manifesto explicitly referenced a “Hispanic invasion of Texas”.
The Buffalo shooter (2022) who killed 10 Black Americans also cited “replacement” and “invasion” conspiracies.
These attackers didn’t just echo the rhetoric — they used it to justify their violence.
Mainstreaming the Language Fuels Extremism
Politicians and media figures have increasingly adopted “invasion” language, normalizing it in public discourse.
According to America’s Voice, this rhetoric was amplified 786 times in a single year on social media by elected officials and candidates.
This normalization makes violent ideologies seem more acceptable and even patriotic.
It Plays on Psychological Triggers
Social psychologists call this “threatoric” — language that paints outsiders as existential threats to justify violence.
It taps into fears about physical safety, cultural identity, and resource scarcity, making violence feel like self-defense.
Experts Warn of Its Lethal Consequences
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified in 2023 that invasion rhetoric “fuels the threat landscape” faced by law enforcement.
Advocacy groups like Bend the Arc and Human Rights First have called on leaders to explicitly reject this language due to its violent impact.
It’s also helpful to remember that, despite the heated and polarizing rhetoric from the government and others, detention is supposed to be civil, not criminal.
Immigration detention is not a criminal punishment — it's a civil administrative process. Yet many ICE facilities operate like prisons, with punitive conditions that violate constitutional and international law.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process to all persons in the U.S., including immigrants. Arbitrary detention without individualized assessment undermines this protection.
Detention conditions are harmful and often inhumane
A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found high rates of medical emergencies in ICE facilities, including mental health crises and pregnancy-related emergencies, often without adequate response.
ICE’s own data showed more than 14,000 instances of solitary confinement between 2018 and 2023, with some lasting over a year — well beyond the UN’s 15-day threshold for torture.
Solitary confinement has been linked to lasting psychological damage, especially for vulnerable populations like asylum seekers and survivors of trauma.
Private detention profits from human suffering
Don’t forget that virtually all of these detention camps are being operated by for-profit companies with contracts from ICE.
As of July 2023, 90% of ICE detainees were held in for-profit facilities, which have been repeatedly criticized for poor oversight and abuse.
These facilities often prioritize cost-cutting over care, leading to medical neglect, unsafe conditions, and lack of accountability.
Detention is ineffective and unnecessary
Most immigrants, especially asylum seekers, pose no threat to public safety and attend their court hearings when released under supervision or community-based programs.
Alternatives to detention — like case management — are more humane, cost-effective, and have high compliance rates.
Historical and Ethical Parallels Matter
I’m especially sensitive to the creation of detention camps in the US, outside the normal standards of Constitutional law and accountability for civil rights and humane treatment of the people who are being put there.
This country has a shameful history of incarcerating people for what can only be described as racist reasons – the Japanese-American detentions during World War II being the most obvious example.
Treatment of Black Americans and indigenous people also are not among shining moments in US history.
Scholars have drawn comparisons between ICE detention centers and historical concentration camps—not to equate them, but to highlight patterns of dehumanization and indifference.
As Elie Wiesel Center director Michael Zank put it: “Indifference allowed Jews to be systematically deprived of their rights… Worse than hatred is indifference”.
Confirmation Bias Is Real
Editor’s note: I’m redacting some information here to keep this conversation generic.
[A professional certification program that I once participated in] spends a lot of study time teaching candidates about the importance of conducting unbiased survey research, and understanding the biases that can influence interpretation of the results. The same is true for the anti-immigrant rhetoric that currently pollutes our national discourse.
If someone believes immigrants are dangerous, they’ll notice every crime involving one. But they’ll ignore the thousands of crimes committed by native-born citizens every day.
This is a classic case of availability bias—where dramatic examples distort our perception of reality.
Policy Should Be Based on Patterns, Not Exceptions
We shouldn’t build policy around the worst-case scenario. We should build it around what’s most likely to happen.
Just as we don’t ban all drivers because some cause accidents, we shouldn’t generalize about millions of immigrants based on a few tragic cases.
One of the most comprehensive studies comes from Stanford economist Ran Abramitzky and colleagues, published in a 2023 working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research. They analyzed 170 years of U.S. Census data and found that immigrants are significantly less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born individuals.
Here’s the key finding:
“Today, immigrants are 30% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born white individuals, and 60% less likely than the broader U.S.-born population when including Black Americans.”
This study debunks the myth by showing that, across generations and regions, immigrants have consistently had equal or lower incarceration rates than native-born Americans. It also corrects for common data issues—like conflating immigration-related detention with criminal incarceration.
California Minimum Wage
You cited a story critical of California’s new minimum wage. Here’s a broader perspective on the issue.
While it’s true that some fast-food businesses have reported job losses — like the 18,000 estimated by NBER — other analyses paint a more complex picture.
UC Berkeley’s research shows no significant decline in overall employment, and they highlight an 18% wage increase for workers with only modest price changes.
Meanwhile, the Economic Policy Institute found that similar wage hikes nationwide could inject $86 billion into the economy, benefiting nearly 28 million workers. Job losses, where they occur, often reflect deeper trends like automation and shifting market dynamics — not simply the wage law itself.
It’s worth asking how we can design labor policies that uplift workers without stifling innovation.
I really do think that framing immigration as an “invasion” not only misrepresents the reality on the ground, but also runs the real risk of fueling real-world violence.
It may not be the way you look at things, but most migrants are seeking protection, not posing a threat — and I do believe inflammatory and anecdotal news stories distract us from genuine policy solutions.
I hope this provides a helpful lens for moving the conversation forward with compassion and clarity.
well thought out, logical and makes sense...to everyone, I'm sure, except those who drank the Kool-Aid. I get so tired of trying to have logical discussions with people who have abandoned logic and science for hysteria and made-up stories. But you did some good stuff there. Keep it up.