This post provides extremely important illegal alien crime statistics. Reading it will require special attention to details.

 

Unveiling The Hidden Truth About Illegal Aliens And Crime

The Democrats have done their best to hide the data, but it is possible to use available information to extrapolate just how bad illegal alien crime is.

Allan J. Feifer | April 9, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

The Democrats have done their best to hide the data, but it is possible to use available information to extrapolate just how bad illegal alien crime is.

Every day, all over America, illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and naturalized Americans from a rogue’s list of countries to our South and from the Middle East kill, rape, rob, and defraud us, almost with impunity. Yet, if you try to prove it by citing reliable government statistics, you can’t. The left works hard—it may be its most important job—to ensure you can’t find out exactly how bad things really are across America.

The bottom line: almost no states or the federal government track crimes using reliable indicators of someone’s country of origin, immigration status, or citizenship status. To the extent that states do, information is spotty and irregular. Only one state, Texas, keeps comprehensive records...only one! (Thank you, Governor Abbott!)

And, if you guessed that blue states not only don’t collect such data, but have created laws to ensure that information is not collected, you would be correct. Several Democrat-led states and localities have laws or official policies that restrict asking for, collecting, or sharing immigration or national-origin information for most public, state, and local government purposes. Notable examples include California’s SB 54 (the California Values Act), New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust/Privacy Protection laws, and statewide/local guidance in New York; many other blue states have statutory or policy limits on participation in federal immigration programs.

Recently, moments after being sworn in as Governor, Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger’s first act was to reverse all policies that former Governor Glenn Youngkin had enacted on a range of immigration and cooperation subjects. Her statements were masterclasses in duplicity, promising to enforce the law, even while making it impossible for Virginia law enforcement to do so because ICE detainers are administrative, not judicial:

I have full confidence that Virginia law enforcement agents are keeping Virginia safer when exercising their authority under Virginia law.

[snip]

And, importantly, any time there is a judicial warrant in hand, state and local law enforcement should be, and the expectation is, they should be cooperating with any other law enforcement agencies that might need their assistance.

By stating this and through other Executive Orders, Spanberger wasted no time in returning Virginia to its status as an aggressive and repressive sanctuary state, effectively favoring non-citizens over citizens. Recent high-visibility incidents in Virginia that involve illegal aliens include Old Dominion, the Fairfax bus stop stabbing, the stabbing death of a 3-month-old, and a machete murder. There are more, but it’s hard to dig most of them up due to the limitations previously mentioned.

But, what if there were a way to tabulate an approximation, imperfect, but a starting point to achieve a national number? Obviously, the left wants to ignore this possibility because it would likely drive people into the streets in a furious demand that the carnage stop by reversing policies that are intended to obscure data and encourage the veritable war on traditional America.

We’ll extrapolate official Texas numbers and see where that takes us—Data and Assumptions:

• Texas population (July 1, 2024): 31,290,831.
• U.S. population (2024 estimate): 340,110,988.
• Texas share of the US population: 31,290,831/340,110,988\approx 9.20% of the country.
• Texas DPS cumulative DHS-matched counts (June 1, 2011–Feb 28, 2026): homicide 1,123; assault 78,122; robbery 3,394; sexual assault 7,629. These are charges tied to DHS-identified non-citizens.
• Time window length used: June 1, 2011 → Feb 28, 2026 ≈ 14.75 years.
• Calculations (method: proportional extrapolation)
• Sum Texas violent charges used: 1,123+78,122+3,394+7,629=90,268.
• Extrapolate to the US by population share: 90,268/0.09197\approx 981,500 total extrapolated US charges over the same period.
• Per-year estimate: 981,500/14.75\approx 66,600 violent-offense charges per year nationwide (DHS-matched non-citizen charges, estimated).
• Category breakdown (rounded)—Offense Texas cumulative Extrapolated US cumulative Estimated per year: Homicide 1,123 ~12,200 ~828 / year Assault 78,122 ~849,300 ~57,600 / year Robbery 3,394 ~36,900 ~2,500 / year Sexual assault 7,629 ~83,000 ~5,600 / year (Totals match rounded to ~66,600 violent, non-citizen crimes per year nationwide

Of course, some states will have lower illegal alien crime rates (e.g., Vermont) but that will be offset by those that have high rates, such as California, New York, etc.

A note about my calculations:

Bad enough at over 66,000 violent non-citizen crimes annually, these numbers are likely greatly understated. Why? First, my numbers spanned 15 years. The Biden presidency greatly upped the tally of non-citizens, and we are naturally experiencing greater numbers of non-citizen violent crime today than 15 years ago. Second, the number of non-citizen crimes is understated because authorities cannot always confirm someone’s non-citizen status. Lastly, and this is a big one, these stats are based on arrests. A significant portion of criminals go undetected and unarrested.

Most reported violent offenses do not result in an arrest; nationally, roughly 60–65% of violent offenses are not cleared by arrest or exceptional means (i.e., not “cleared”) in recent years—about 63% not cleared in 2022 and 58% not cleared in 2020. If one adds that into the assumption, our 66,000 number rises to at least 150,000 murders, rapes, and violent assaults annually.

But wait, that’s not the end of this horror show guaranteed to make you ill! We are not even beginning to count the non-violent crimes, scams, thefts, and petty crimes committed. No one seems even to want to make a guess, but it’s got to be hundreds of thousands of crimes by non-citizens each year. Just look at Minneapolis and Los Angeles, where immigrant fraud is rife.

All of us are paying for this financially, socially, and personally, as every American reading this is a victim in some way, whether it’s the cost of credit due to fraud, higher taxes than they would otherwise be, the loss of someone close to us, or, for some, even being afraid to walk our streets.

One other group for which no statistics exist: naturalized Americans who go on to become (or already were) criminals. The numbers here are also staggering, and the fact that too many government agencies won’t collect the relevant data is a crime in itself.

Can you imagine the outcry if we really could quantify the cost in actual murders, economic destruction, and the resulting loss of emotional wellness due to non-citizen crime? It would force change almost overnight, as if waking up from a nightmare. The hue and cry for immediate reform would expose the leadership of every major city in America, leaving no room for misinterpretation about how bad non-citizen criminality has become. Spare me the fake numbers of crime having been vastly reduced. NYC cops don’t arrest violators anymore; they’re too afraid of Mamdani! Police are on defense, almost everywhere in America, afraid to do their jobs.

This could be the wake-up call for Americans to take to the streets demanding accountability and change.

God Bless America!

 

The manipulation of Federal immigration law including 'birthright citizenship' knows no ends. This insanity must end. The SCOTUS can and must do this!

 

Mid-Air Birth Flies Home How Stupid Birthright Citizenship Is

By: M.D. Kittle April 08, 2026 thefederalist.com

The extreme manipulation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause must end now if the republic is to survive.

To borrow from comedian Jeff Foxworthy’s famous redneck schtick, if you were born on a flight over U.S. air space, you might be a U.S. citizen. 

The latest birthplace debate underscores just how insanely stupid sweeping birthright citizenship has become in the modern age. And it’s another example of why the U.S. Supreme Court needs to fix a flawed 130-year-old interpretation of the Constitution. 

‘A Child Born on a Plane’

Multiple corporate outlets had some fun reporting on the “stork” story of a passenger who gave birth over the weekend during a flight from Jamaica to New York City.  The Caribbean Airlines flight “landed at New York’s John F. Kennedy international airport with one more person than it took off with,” the liberal Guardian guffawed.

As the cheeky piece explained, the citizenship status of the newborn remained up in the air because officials had yet to make clear the citizenship status of the parents — “and where the plane was at the exact moment the baby was born.” The child would, of course, automatically be a U.S. citizen if either parent is a U.S. citizen. If not, it depends on precisely where the birth occurred. If the answer is within 12 nautical miles of the U.S. coastline, the newborn just won the U.S. citizenship lottery. 

“… [A] child born on a plane in the United States or flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at birth,” the State Department’s rule states. 

All of this drives home the point that the expansive view of birthright citizenship is a bastardization of the law — and it needs to end. This Supreme Court has a chance to bring sanity to more than a century of manipulation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, twisted to appease myriad monied interests. 

‘Wherein They Reside’

Last week, the court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a challenge to President Donald Trump’s first-day-in-office executive order denying automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens or to “birth tourists” and others that have long gamed the system. 

As Hans Mahncke wrote this week in The Federalist, the question before the court is whether the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause extends to “every child born on American soil, no matter who the parents are or why they are in the United States.” And American waters and airways, as the ridiculous expanded interpretation goes. 

While it seems inconceivable that the three liberals on the court would stand with Trump on doing away with the birthright citizenship, members of the conservative majority seemed skeptical of the government’s arguments. Perhaps that’s because, for reasons not entirely clear, Solicitor General D. John Sauer failed to press the jurisdictional language of the amendment. But the justices seemed to be missing the key point of a post-Civil War constitutional amendment meant to extend U.S. citizenship to former slaves, not to grant it to millions of children of noncitizens by virtue of being born within the boundaries of America. 

The Amendment declares:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/2039486882560852284

Ira Mehlman, director of media for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), contends the phrase that pays in the 14th— is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” 

“What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Does it simply mean that you’re here and you have to obey the laws like everybody else? Or does it mean something deeper,” Mehlman said this week on The Federalist Radio Hour. “We know that, for instance, children born to foreign diplomats in the United States are not U.S. citizens because they’re simply not subject to the jurisdiction of the country.” 

Mahncke wrote that the real argument turns on one word in the Citizenship Clause, which has largely escaped scrutiny: reside. 

“Perhaps because it comes at the end, it has been treated as an afterthought, but careful reading shows how central the term ‘reside’ is,” Mahncke asserts. “The clause does not say ‘are born,’  ‘are physically present,’ or ‘pass through on a tourist visa.’ Citizenship is granted only to those who actually ‘reside,’ establishing a precondition for the clause’s application…”

‘The Consequences Are Severe’

The justices on the highest court in the land may not get it, but most Americans do. 

A Rasmussen Reports national poll released Tuesday found 59 percent of likely U.S. voters support limiting automatic birthright citizenship to births where at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. That includes 39 percent who strongly support such limits. About one-third surveyed (34%) are opposed, including 23 who strongly oppose limitations.  

A Pew Research Center poll in June found Americans divided on automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents.  

Right on cue, corporate media outlets and liberal organizations have been pushing a narrative and polls that show overwhelming support for birthright citizenship. As always, in polling much depends on how the question is asked.

One thing is for certain, the crafters of the Citizenship Clause did not foresee the rise of “birth tourism,” which has, according to FAIR, “exploded into a coordinated global enterprise, with roughly 33,000 tourist-visa births per year and more than 70,000 total foreign births annually.”

“The consequences are severe: nearly 1.5 million U.S.-citizen children raised overseas with primary loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party, an explosion of chain migration, and more than $150 billion in annual net costs shifted onto American taxpayers,” the Federation reports. 

And it’s safe to say the denizens of 1868 did not envision babies born mid-air and the dividing line between citizen and noncitizen. For the real originalists on the court, and the liberal justices selectively claiming that space, the Citizenship Clause is more than location; it’s the intent of the time in which it was written.  

On that score, birthright citizenship should be blown out of the air. 

 

Legal or illegal immigration can and will make or break a Nation, depending on how its leaders implement it.

 

It’s High Time That America Be Selective About Who Can Become an American Citizen

 What do you have in common with New York City's Mayor Zohran Mamdani?

William Sullivan | April 8, 2026 americanthinker.com

The country has been on pins and needles in recent weeks, as the Supreme Court weighs a decision about birthright citizenship, which is a question that has persisted throughout every living American’s life, though it seems to me that it never should have been. 

First, let’s consider the framers’ intent. 

The Fourteenth Amendment is clearly directed toward ensuring that slaves born in America, whose forebears were of African origin, would be considered American citizens after the Civil War.  We know this to be a fact because many American Indians were also born on American soil, though they were not considered American citizens when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. 

None of this is rocket science, and, to put it bluntly, the idea that a foreigner could smuggle herself inside these United States’ borders and birth a child to ensure that the child would be rewarded with American citizenship is about the stupidest thing anyone could have ever argued. 

And yet, this stupid argument has been the supposed consensus for most living Americans’ lives.

To be clear, there would have been little “reward” for American citizenship in any years prior to the twentieth century.  There was no welfare state back then.  There was nothing in the way of public education, certainly no federally subsidized health care, no government assistance of any kind.

But, more importantly, what binds us as Americans is not the soil on which we are born – what binds us is the ideals to which we subscribe.  

Our first and arguably greatest president explains this clearly.

Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796 (which was published rather than spoken), is among the most timelessly applicable and accessible pieces of early American writing.  I would argue that the final two paragraphs stand out as a primary reason why this man, in his humility and refusal to become a king, is arguably the greatest American to have ever lived. 

It was later ceremoniously read by Congress in 1862 as a morale boost during the Civil War, and it’s not difficult to imagine why.  Washington’s argument in the Address goes hand in glove with the argument for the preservation of the Union made by Lincoln.  He clearly declares his desire that the “Union and brotherly affection may be perpetual.” 

“The name of American,” Washington writes, “which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.”

But the very next sentence clarifies the nature of the audience to whom Washington was speaking, whether they were from New York or Georgia:

With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.  You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together.  The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts – of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. 

Then, that was true.  But tell me, what do you have in common with Zohran Mamdani, for example?  He’s a Ugandan-born communist Muslim who was just elected as mayor of New York City.  And what do you have in common with the average New Yorker in New York City, for that matter, in which four in 10 denizens are foreign-born and roughly one in four cannot speak English?

The entire American experiment relies upon the notion that the people of this country might generally agree with the basic “political principles” asserted by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, documents which were written by and for the largely homogeneous society that Washington addresses.

Washington made an appeal to cohesion among the American people being reliant on the more substantive elements by which human beings identify – religion, manners, habits, and political principles.  Notably, he did not appeal to race, sex, economic class, or any other such thing that modern Democrats insist that Americans use as the most fundamental societal identifiers today.

In his book, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, Mark Steyn references Samuel Huntington and his thesis in The Clash of Civilizations.  Huntington’s conclusions are less appealing for most, Steyn argues, because they’re less sedating for the multi-culturalist cult.  He writes:

A man in a factory on the other side of the world may make parts for an electronic gizmo [NY Times’ columnist] Thomas Friedman plays with while waiting for the VIP lounge to call his flight, but that does not mean they share anything like the same worldview.  It seems sad to have to point out something so obvious.  Which, after all, is more central to a man’s identity?  The fact that he makes trinkets for Thomas Friedman? Or the fact that he’s an Indonesian Muslim?*     

Again, back to Mayor Mamdani in New York.  He is a Ugandan-born communist Muslim.  What is more central to his identity, after all?  That he now calls himself an American, or that he is a Ugandan-born communist Muslim who seems to hate everything about this country?

Even more to the quick, if we look to preserve the bond that Washington and Lincoln dreamed would exist in the future among Americans, does it not make sense to stop importing unvetted people from countries that hate us, and particularly to stop importing unvetted millions who will exploit the taxpayer-funded welfare systems that Democrats have legislated into existence in the past 100 years?

 

 

The 'mid terms' election cycle is by far, the most important election our once great Republic faces. Get educated, inspired, involved and participate to do your part!

 

GOP Leaders Must Embrace Mass Deportation to Win the Midterms

The emergence of the Mass Deportation Coalition marks a turning point in the national debate over immigration policy.

Joseph Ford Cotto | April 8, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

The emergence of the Mass Deportation Coalition marks a turning point in the national debate over immigration policy.

It is not merely another advocacy group issuing abstract demands. It is a disciplined, expert-driven effort to translate a clear voter mandate into actionable policy. It was formed by immigration law specialists, former law enforcement officials, and aligned policy organizations.

The coalition exists for one purpose: to ensure that the promise of large-scale deportations is not diluted, delayed, or quietly abandoned under political pressure.

From the outset, the coalition has understood something many in Washington prefer to ignore. Immigration control cannot stop at symbolic victories. Phase One, which focused on removing criminal aliens and national security threats, was necessary and effective. Yet it was never sufficient.

The United States is dealing with a population of deportable illegal aliens estimated between 18 million and 20 million. That reality demands a Phase Two that is broader, systematic, and relentless in execution.

The coalition’s March 30 playbook delivers exactly that.

It lays out a concrete roadmap to achieve at least one million formal interior removals of illegals this year, while building the infrastructure for even larger numbers in the years that follow. This is not guesswork. It is a structured plan built on existing law, measurable benchmarks, and operational realism.

Critically, the plan centers on worksite enforcement and visa overstays, two areas long neglected despite being the primary drivers of illegal presence.

The coalition correctly identifies employment as the central magnet for illegal immigration. Without eliminating that incentive, law enforcers will always be stymied. At the same time, visa overstays account for roughly 66 percent of recent illegal population growth, making them an unavoidable target for any serious policy.

The recommendations are extensive and practical.

They include expanding detention capacity through partnerships with states and use of federal facilities. That entails modernizing employment verification systems, increasing penalties for noncompliance, and coordinating across key federal agencies. The goal is simple: remove the incentives that sustain illegal presence while dramatically increasing the consequences for violating immigration law.

This is not radicalism.

It is governance. It is the application of laws already on the books, particularly those within the Immigration and Nationality Act, which have too often been ignored or selectively enforced. The coalition’s argument is straightforward: the true extremism lies in tolerating mass illegality indefinitely.

The Trump administration has already demonstrated that enforcement works. The results from its first year back in office are not theoretical. Nearly 3 million illegal aliens left the United States by Jan. 20, 2026. That figure includes approximately 2.2 million self-repatriations and more than 675,000 formal removals.

These outcomes were driven by a return to basic immigration law enforcement principles.

Catch-and-release was ended. Interior enforcement was expanded. Border security tightened dramatically. The results followed predictably. By December 2025, more than 2.5 million illegal aliens had departed, including more than 605,000 removals and 1.9 million self-deportations.

Even more striking, the country experienced net negative migration in 2025 for the first time in over 50 years. Estimates placed net migration between -10,000 and -295,000.

This is what immigration law enforcement looks like when it is taken seriously. It reduces inflows. It encourages voluntary departures. It restores order to a system that had been overwhelmed.

Yet early success creates a new challenge: complacency.

That is precisely what the Mass Deportation Coalition is working to prevent. Its playbook insists that momentum must not stall. Self-deportation only occurs at scale when credible law enforcement pressure exists. Remove that pressure, and the system reverts to dysfunction.

The political implications are just as clear as the policy ones. This is a midterm election year. The path to Republican victory does not run through a shrinking pool of undecided voters. It runs through the non-lefty base.

Polling data confirms this reality with precision.

A March 12 survey by McLaughlin & Associates found that 82 percent of 2024 Trump voters were more likely to support him because of his mass deportation pledge.

That is not passive approval. That is active motivation.

Even more telling, 74 percent of those voters said they would be more likely to support Republican congressional candidates if Trump’s administration exceeds one million deportations in 2026.

This is the electoral key. Deliver results, and the base turns out. Fail to deliver, and enthusiasm collapses. The intensity of support is undeniable. Among Trump voters, 86.7 percent support exceeding historical deportation efforts.

This is not a marginal issue. It is central to the identity of the modern Republican coalition.

Importantly, support extends beyond the base. The same polling shows that 66.1 percent of likely 2026 voters support deporting migrants who entered illegally. Meanwhile, 58 percent support evicting all deportable aliens, not just violent criminals.

That is a national majority. It reflects a public that understands the innumerable, horrid consequences of  illegal immigration. The lesson is unmistakable. Law enforcement is not politically perilous. It is politically astute.

Democrats, however, continue to obstruct, delay, and undermine enforcement efforts at every turn. Their opposition is not rooted in compassion. It is rooted in ideology and political calculation. They defend policies that have already produced real-world consequences: overwhelmed communities, distorted labor markets, and lethal breakdowns in the rule of law.

Their hypocrisy is glaring.

The same voices that demand strict law enforcement on climate issues suddenly embrace lawlessness when it comes to immigration. The same politicians who claim to represent working Americans support policies that harm those workers through unchecked labor competition. For starters.

This is not an abstract debate. It is a direct conflict between sovereignty and surrender.

The Mass Deportation Coalition offers a way forward grounded in clarity and competence. Its 21-point framework is not a wish list. It is an operational blueprint designed to scale enforcement to the level required by reality.

The Trump administration should take it with the utmost seriousness. Not as a political gesture, but as a governing necessity.

The stakes could not be higher.

They are about more than immigration policy. They are about whether the federal government is willing to enforce its own laws, for the sake of America remaining a first world superpower. They are about whether voter mandates mean anything once an election is over. If not, then history suggests that terrible, if not unspeakable, events are on the horizon.

Finally, in this midterm year, the stakes are about all-important voter turnout.

The Republican base, and especially the MAGA core, is not asking for rhetoric. It is demanding results. For these voters, among others, mass deportation is not only popular. It is held as a conviction, beyond partisan fads. It is necessary, so the GOP will prove itself worth supporting. It is politically decisive, so Republicans can keep control over Congress.

Like it or not, the path to victory in November runs straight through the minefields of immigration politics.

This is the election cycle that will define whether Americans still have a country they can recognize. Deliver on mass deportation, and the nation fully reclaims its sovereignty, its stability, its future. Fail, and the message is unmistakable: promises are empty, borders are optional, and decline is accepted.

The choice is stark, and history will not be forgiving of hesitation. At all.