“While the administration stokes fear about Afghan immigrants, data paint another picture. A 2019 study from the Cato Institute showed that the incarceration rate for Afghans between 18 and 54 was 127 per 100,000, a stark comparison to the 1,477 per 100,000 for native-born Americans.
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) reported that, according to a 2024 Department of Health and Human Services study, refugees brought a $123.8 billion net fiscal benefit to the U.S. between 2005 and 2019, contributing $581 billion in taxes while receiving $457.1 billion in government support. This combats the Trump administration’s objections based on the net cost of admitting refugees to the U.S.
While refugees’ earnings may be limited on arrival, IRC says they “increase significantly” with time. A median household income of $30,500 in a refugee’s first five years in the U.S. becomes a median income of $71,400 after being here for 20 years. That number exceeds the national median income by nearly $4,000.
IRC also reported that more refugees become entrepreneurs (13 percent) than their U.S.-born counterparts (9 percent), benefitting their communities.
…
The administration is using an isolated act of violence to justify sweeping crackdowns on refugees and wartime allies who were already thoroughly vetted.”
The overwhelming share of shootings in the US are from arguments. They aren’t from people committing a crime, or people murdering for revenge, they are from heated arguments, and in the moment of escalation, someone shoots someone else.
Wealthy areas have much less shootings, but even between neighborhoods with similar socio-demographics, there are some with high shootings and some with low shootings.
Experiments that involve cleaning up vacant lots in neighborhoods, and teaching men how to respond to provocation, have found drastic reductions in violence.
The administration says they are targeting the worst of the worst in their illegal immigration crackdown, but the facts are, they are sweeping up lots of people whose only crime was illegally immigrating.
Mexican cartels are using drones to drop bombs on rival cartels and police, and to intimidate civilians. Criminal organizations in many countries are using drones and have gotten good at using them in advanced ways.
According to an Epstein email, Trump spent hours at Epstein’s house with a victim. This is where Epstein called Trump “that dog that hasn’t barked”.
In another email between Michael Wolff and Epstein, Wolf suggests that Trump has been on Epstein’s plane and at his house in such a way that Epstein could save Trump by keeping secret about it.
This is all in the context of Trump being uncharacteristically resistant to releasing files about Epstein, even pressuring Republican congress people to not do it; in the context where Trump openly said that Epstein likes them young; in the context where Trump has had many many sex scandals; and in the context where the Trump administration has moved Epstein’s coconspirator to a more comfortable prison.
It looks like Trump was either involved in Epstein’s crimes, or knew about them and kept silent when he should not have. It’s possible that Trump didn’t really do or know anything, and just doesn’t want Epstein or Maxwell to make him look bad.
“In a 2019 email to Wolff, Epstein wrote that “Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever. [O]f course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”
The message appears to reference Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club and Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted Epstein co-conspirator currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for crimes connected to Epstein.
The following year, Epstein and several associates received word that Reuters was readying a story about a lawsuit filed against the disgraced financier and Trump over an alleged sexual assault from 1994.
“Well, I guess if there’s anybody who can wave thus [sic] away, it’s Donald,” Wolff wrote. “Let me know if there’s anything I can do.”
These quotes seem too vague to draw strong conclusions from.
““In Portland, protests have endured for months, and the [Portland police have] been either unwilling or unable to respond to the disturbances,” the appeals judges wrote.
Nelson and Bade said Immergut relied too heavily on Trump’s social media commentary — calling Portland “war ravaged” — to conclude that his deployment was “untethered” from reality, noting that the unrest had required a surge of law enforcement from the Federal Protective Service to contain.
The 9th Circuit panel majority repeatedly cited a similar decision issued by three colleagues permitting Trump’s deployment of Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this year. In the ruling, the judges said Trump is owed great deference in determining whether civil unrest reaches a point in which the military may be called in for support.
The majority said Immergut used a faulty definition of rebellion in her decision, but the appeals judges did not address whether Trump had a valid claim that such unrest was underway when he sent in the Guard. (They did say they were not endorsing Trump’s description of Portland as a “war zone.”)
The appeals panel’s dissenting judge, Clinton appointee Susan Graber, called the majority’s decision ”absurd,” pleaded with her 9th Circuit colleagues to quickly reverse it and urged the public to “retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.”
“We have come to expect a dose of political theater in the political branches, drama designed to rally the base or to rile or intimidate political opponents. We also may expect there a measure of bending—sometimes breaking—the truth,” Graber wrote. “By design of the Founders, the judicial branch stands apart. We rule on facts, not on supposition or conjecture, and certainly not on fabrication or propaganda.”
Graber emphasized that even though there had been unruly protests in Portland in June, they had largely subsided and by September routinely featured 30 or fewer demonstrators and virtually no violence or requests for local police assistance.”
““All of this is unprecedented,” John Sandweg, a former acting ICE director, tells POLITICO Magazine. “I don’t think we’ve ever seen a nationwide immigration enforcement effort like this.”
…
he noted the Trump administration has revved up the agency’s raid strategy, leading to broad and indiscriminate sweeps to maximize arrests — regardless of people’s criminal record.
…
What we have seen is that immigration enforcement has become probably the central priority for all U.S. law enforcement, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense. This executive order has elevated this to the highest priority. I’ve never seen a whole government effort focused like this, even in the State Department. As a result of that, we’ve never seen an immigration enforcement effort like this. And that manifests itself in a lot of different ways, really quickly.
When you’re at ICE, of course you can run down to a Home Depot parking lot. Any administration could have done this: round the Home Depot parking lot, stop a bunch of day laborers and ID them. In car washes, in places where low-wage workers work, places like that. The reason that historically hasn’t been done, is you just don’t find criminals there. Once in a blue moon you find someone, and we see that the administration highlights when they get someone who has some criminal history. But by and large, your really serious criminal threats don’t do shifts at the local car wash for minimum wage. They’re out making their money, making a living as a criminal.
And so ICE has always focused our operations on getting those individuals — that takes more time, though. You’re taking lists of people who are criminally convicted and you’re identifying them, and then once you identify them, you’re doing research on addresses, and then you’re building a dossier and sending a team out to get them. The Obama administration deported a large number of people, but generally, a very high percentage of them were people who either just crossed the border or people with a serious criminal history.
This administration, though, is taking a different tack. This administration has repurposed the way they’ve operationalized ICE — to go out and get as many people as possible, and that’s why we’re seeing these raids on the car washes and on the Home Depot parking lots. They know they can make a large number of arrests there, and they don’t seem to care whether or not those people pose a threat to public safety. They just say, “If you’re undocumented, you’re a fair target.”
…
This administration is going to want to get as many of these new agents out in the field as quickly as possible. Normally, to hire this many people, it would take the agency three, four years.
The problem is that the agency only has the capacity to do so many background checks at once, to interview so many people at once. The training academy can only train so many people at once. It would take years to fully deploy these agents. This administration clearly doesn’t want to wait.
…
I spent five years at DHS working on ICE issues. It just wasn’t an issue. None of the officers felt the need to wear masks. I think it’s an unfortunate byproduct of the administration’s policies. This is a very contentious area of law, this idea that we’re not going to discern the difference between migrants who might be committing serious crimes and those who might have real long-term presence in the United States, young children and family members and things of that nature.
I hate that the agents are wearing the masks. I think it is hurting the reputation of the agency, and feeding a lot of these narratives about the agency. But I’m also sympathetic to the agents themselves, who need to protect themselves and their families. Like we just talked about, there are these upticks, these massive upticks in assaults on the agents. These threats against the agents are real, and there’s, unfortunately, a lot of people out there who can’t discern the difference between the administration and the policymakers and the agents themselves. And as a result of that, these agents feel compelled to take steps to protect themselves and their family, and I’m sympathetic to it.
…
What’s different is who they’re targeting. Under Obama, under Biden and even to a certain extent, under the first Trump administration, there were priorities. The agents were told, “Focus first on the worst. Worst first. Get the worst bad guys off the street first, we’ll deal with everything else later.” Those rules are gone.”