To paraphrase an old rant from comedian Adam Carolla, for decades we’ve had laws that if you want to come to America, you have to come here legally — yet the second anyone says, “hey maybe we should actually enforce those laws,” the media says “OK Hitler, have any other bright ideas?” At no time in history has that observation been more true than when Donald Trump declared his campaign for presidency, making immigration a central issue. And that goes for the Hitler comparisons as well.
It’s impossible to deny the negative consequences of illegal immigration, which is why you’re more likely to hear someone blast Trump’s immigrant stance as “racist” than unfeasible or unnecessary. In fact, as the Daily Caller just reported: The Department of Homeland Security is allegedly refusing to release the results of an immigration study that could “help elect Donald Trump.”
As you can imagine, that’s because those findings would seem to support Trump’s anti-illegal immigration stance.
According to Fox News, the study was commissioned in 2015 by members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, “seeking to pinpoint the number of illegal immigrants who successfully sneak across the southern border.”
DHS claims that the study is still ongoing, yet sources close to the situation tell Fox News that it was actually completed in November 2015 and yielded results that would hurt the current administration’s immigration agenda. Fox’s sources claim that the study showed that 50 percent of the adults attempting to illegally enter the United States at its southern border succeed, resulting in roughly 250,000 successful border crossings a year, and is being withheld for “political reasons.”
According to DHS’ current, public statistics, only 20 percent of illegal border crossings succeed. “It would ‘look bad’ and ‘help elect Donald Trump,’” one source told Fox.
Naturally the DHS denies the allegations, but considering they’re headed by Jeh Johnson, one of Hillary’s fellow Democrats, would anyone be surprised if they are withholding information? If their study does prove what their critics say it does, I’m sure we won’t be hearing about it until after November 8th.
[Note: This post was written by The Analytical Economist]