By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Department of Justice webpage detailing a study on undocumented immigrants in Texas has been removed. The study, funded by the National Institute of Justice, found that undocumented immigrants had significantly lower arrest rates for violent and property crimes than U.S. citizens. This contradicts the Trump administration’s frequent portrayal of undocumented immigrants as violent criminals. The study’s findings align with broader research indicating lower crime rates among immigrants compared to native-born citizens. The removal of the webpage raises questions about transparency and the administration’s messaging on immigration.
Read the original article here
Trump’s Department of Justice deleted a link to a study demonstrating that undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens. This action speaks volumes about the administration’s approach to information control and its willingness to suppress data that contradicts its narrative. The removal of this link isn’t just a simple oversight; it represents a deliberate attempt to manipulate public perception and control the flow of information.
The study itself, readily available before its removal, presented compelling evidence that challenged the prevailing, often-xenophobic, rhetoric surrounding immigration and crime. The data clearly indicated a lower crime rate among undocumented immigrants compared to their U.S. citizen counterparts. This directly contradicted the administration’s frequent portrayals of undocumented immigrants as inherently criminal.
This suppression of information is particularly concerning given the implications for public policy. Informed decision-making on issues as significant as immigration requires access to accurate and unbiased data. The deliberate removal of this study demonstrates a disregard for evidence-based policymaking and a preference for narrative over fact. The administration’s actions undermine the public’s ability to engage in informed discourse on this critical issue.
The removal of the study is also symptomatic of a broader trend of information control and censorship. This action echoes historical examples of authoritarian regimes manipulating information to maintain power. By suppressing dissenting viewpoints and controlling access to information, the administration seeks to shape public opinion and stifle any potential for challenge. This echoes the classic manipulative adage, “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.”
The attempt to hide this research, however, is ultimately futile. The internet serves as a vast archive of information, and attempts to erase evidence only serve to highlight the administration’s desperation. The digital footprint of the study remains, and its findings continue to circulate among those committed to truth and transparency. The very act of removal itself is a tacit acknowledgement of the study’s credibility and the administration’s inability to successfully refute its findings.
The fact that the study also showed that undocumented immigrants contribute positively to the economy, starting businesses and paying taxes, further underscores the severity of the administration’s actions. This economic contribution highlights the broader societal benefit of immigration, again contradicting the administration’s portrayal of immigrants as a burden. The suppression of this research, therefore, serves not only to manipulate perceptions about crime but also to hinder the understanding of immigrants’ positive economic contributions.
The administration’s actions raise serious questions about transparency and accountability. Suppression of factual data is not just unethical but also represents a betrayal of public trust. The public deserves access to accurate information to make informed decisions, and the administration’s attempt to control the narrative undermines democratic processes. This illustrates a disregard for the principles of open government and an unwillingness to engage in honest dialogue.
This situation isn’t simply about a study’s removal; it’s about the deeper issue of information control within a government. The very act of removing such a study—a study that counters a harmful and pervasive narrative—is a form of political manipulation. The administration’s actions should be seen as a blatant attempt to control the flow of information and manipulate public opinion, thereby highlighting a critical breakdown in the mechanisms of accountability and transparency that are essential for a healthy democracy. The persistence of this kind of behavior casts a shadow of suspicion over the legitimacy of other government-sanctioned information.
The consequences of this action extend beyond the specific study. It sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations, potentially emboldening them to suppress any research that challenges their agendas. The normalization of such behavior undermines the very foundations of evidence-based policy and informed public discourse, leaving citizens vulnerable to manipulation and misinformation. The implications of this event for the future of transparent government are profound and alarming.