March Madness

 

The recent and continuing strikes on Iran have the effect of becoming a kind of geopolitical Rorschach test: everyone involved sees what they want to see, while the inkblot itself is unmistakably dark, ugly, and poorly defined. The U.S.–Israeli operation has moved far beyond “surgical” and into the realm of regime‑shaping warfare, and Iran’s retaliation has turned the Persian Gulf into a live‑fire zone stretching from Doha to the Strait of Hormuz.

        Flash back to Operation Desert Storm, when, at Dick Cheney’s suggestion, Bush 41 eschewed “regime building.” Key advisors, most notably Joint Chiefs Chairman General Colin Powell and Sec Def Dick Cheney, urged President George H.W. Bush not to go to Baghdad or remove Saddam Hussein from power during the 1991 Gulf War. They advised that invading Baghdad would create a power vacuum, require massive troop commitments, lead to a "quagmire," and split the international coalition. Five weeks later it was over, Kuwait was freed and we came home, less about 300 fewer US soldiers.

H.W.’s more malleable son, encouraged by the revised opinion of then Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and amplified by fabricated tales of weapons of mass destruction, later initiated a regime change attempt in Iraq which resulted in over 8,000 dead US troops and 32,000 wounded.

In both cases, it was Coalition troops vs a Middle East state. In the current instance the conflict is not only The US vs Iran, but there is also a centuries old underlying theme of Islamic sectarian hatred/mutual disrespect between Sunni and Shiite adherents.  Sectarian identity is a regional political tool in much the same way as the Crusades were 900 years ago. Shia–Sunni divides are more than seven hundred years old, but in modern geopolitics they’re often used as branding, not belief. Governments invoke sectarian identity the way corporations invoke “family values” — loudly, selectively, and usually when they want something.

While Iran positions itself as the champion of Shia communities across the region, from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states cast themselves as defenders of Sunni order against Iranian influence.

Militias and political parties across the region use sectarian labels to secure funding, legitimacy, and weapons. This doesn’t mean the theological divide isn’t real — it is — but the political use of it is often opportunistic rather than doctrinal. The current kerfuffle fits that pattern.

The attacks on Iran and the subsequent regional escalation have revived old sectarian narratives, but in ways that reveal how flexible they are when power is at stake. Sunni-majority Gulf states are condemning Iran’s retaliation while simultaneously trying to avoid being dragged into a war they didn’t ask for. Shia communities in Iraq and Lebanon are split, as their populations’ sectarian tenets are. Some see Iran as a protector, others as a reckless actor endangering them as collateral damage. Militias aligned with Iran frame the conflict as resistance, while governments frame it as destabilization.

Meanwhile The Ayatollah Trump calls this the “last best chance” to deal with Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, which is the diplomatic equivalent of saying, “Trust me, I know what I’m doing,” right before he pulls the cord to start the chainsaw while holding the bar between his legs.  He’s already admitted the war may last longer than the four to five weeks he predicted—because of course it will. Wars are like home renovations: double the time, triple the cost, and someone always ends up bleeding. Meanwhile, Iran’s death toll is officially 787 and unofficially “much higher,” which is government‑speak for “we stopped counting when the numbers got depressing.”  

Israel has moved troops into Lebanon, Hezbollah is firing back, and the Gulf states are swatting missiles like mosquitoes. The U.S. has closed embassies, evacuated personnel, and warned Americans to leave 14 countries—because nothing says “regional stability” like telling your citizens to run for their lives.

George W. Bush’s legacy is now the Middle East’s version of the “Don’t stick your fork in the toaster” warning label. Everyone knows it’s there. Everyone ignores it. Why?

Bush toppled a regime with no plan for the day after, while   Trump has launched a region‑wide conflict with no plan for the day after lunch. Bush underestimated sectarian blowback, while Trump underestimated everything, including how many countries Iran can hit with missiles before breakfast. Bush said the mission was accomplished, Trump has said it would take “four to five weeks”. Both are shining examples of wishful thinking. It is, in the words of H.L Mencken, “The triumph of wishful thinking over experience.” On a more worldly note, the late George Carlin would call it “The same old shit with a new paint job.”

In conclusion it is worth remembering that none of this was likely to happen if we had continued honoring The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed July 14, 2015.  It was a multilateral agreement between Iran and the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany plus the EU. It followed two years of negotiations and was designed to ensure Iran’s nuclear program remained exclusively peaceful. The agreement provided for key nuclear restrictions on Iran, including: Enrichment limits: Iran agreed to cap uranium enrichment far below weapons‑grade levels.

Stockpile limits: Iran drastically reduced the amount of enriched uranium it could possess.

Facility restrictions: Sensitive sites like Fordow and Natanz were placed under strict operational limits.

Centrifuge reductions: Iran removed or mothballed thousands of centrifuges.

Inspections: The IAEA was granted an unprecedented verification regime—continuous monitoring, access to declared sites, and oversight of the entire supply chain.

In return, Iran Got sanctions relief:  Nuclear‑related sanctions were lifted, allowing Iran access to frozen assets and international markets. Economic reintegration: Iran could sell oil, conduct banking, and rejoin global trade networks. In other words, resume normal relations and interact with the rest of the world, vice remaining isolated and angry.

President Obama framed the JCPOA as the most consequential foreign‑policy debate since the Iraq War. His argument was simple. Without a deal, Iran would continue enriching without oversight and with a deal, Iran’s pathways to a bomb would be blocked or slowed, and inspectors would have eyes everywhere. The White House at the time emphasized that the agreement “blocked every possible pathway” to a nuclear weapon while maintaining intrusive verification. It was a narrow, technocratic arms‑control agreement—and intentionally so.

And yet: In 2018, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the JCPOA, calling it a “bad deal” (don’t you love the man’s gift of language?) and arguing it didn’t address missiles or Iran’s regional activities. This withdrawal is widely cited as one of the most consequential foreign‑policy moves of his first term. After the withdrawal, Iran gradually resumed higher‑level enrichment, expanded stockpiles, and restarted activities previously frozen under the deal.

Why does this matter today? It matters because the current war is happening against the backdrop of a nuclear program that was once heavily constrained under the JCPOA but lost those constraints after the U.S. withdrawal. Since, then, Iran’s Nuclear facilities have survived multiple Israeli and U.S. strikes, and Iran still retains significant enriched uranium, according to the IAEA.

The Obama accords are now being invoked as the “road not taken”, and as a moment when diplomacy, not violence and death, temporarily froze the nuclear clock. It’s running once again.

We, and the world, deserve so much better.

Clean, Beautiful Coal???

                                     

               Clean, Beautiful Coal – Really?

In 2018, America’s chief executive, in his State of the Union address, assumed the missionary position for the energy lobby. His exact words? “We have ended the war on American Energy, and we have ended the war on beautiful clean coal. We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world.”  Being Donald Trump, he was lying. We didn’t become net exporters until a year later. There has never been “A war on American energy.” There have, however,  been differing opinions on what we should use to produce electrical power.

Recently, in an Oval Office meeting with a group of coal miners (inexplicably in their working clothes, as if the White House had become a themed attraction)), President Trump used the moment to spotlight his administration’s push to revive the coal industry, inviting them in as he signed an executive order aimed at boosting production and rolling back regulations. He also repeated his ludicrous “Clean, Beautiful, Coal” mantra. The event was staged as a celebration of coal’s future, even as federal regulators simultaneously moved to delay new miner‑safety rules designed to limit hazardous dust exposure — a juxtaposition that left critics noting the miners were present for the photo op, while the protections meant for their protection were quietly put on hold.

Seven years ago, I wrote that coal was neither clean nor beautiful. At the time, I thought the point was obvious enough that the argument would age quietly, like an old reactor vessel—solid, inert, and unlikely to need revisiting. I underestimated the American talent for alchemy: the ability to turn political nonsense into a renewable resource.

In the years since, the chemistry hasn’t changed, the epidemiology hasn’t changed, and the physics certainly haven’t changed. What has changed is the rhetoric, which has grown even more baroque. We now have leaders praising coal with the enthusiasm of a late‑night infomercial while simultaneously loosening the safety rules meant to keep miners from coughing up half of Appalachia every morning. It’s Al Sleet the Hippy Dippy Weatherman reporting a forecast written by Jon Stewart: “Tonight’s outlook calls for particulate matter, fly ash, mercury, and a 100% chance of miners being treated like an expendable prop.”  So yes — this is the revised and emended edition. Not because the facts demanded it, but because the lunacy does.

“Clean, Beautiful Coal” In truth, these are three lies. Two are venal sins, one mortal. To begin with, there isn’t, and never has been, a “war” on American energy. That’s simply Republicanese for “any attempts to preserve the environment for posterity”, with the subtext of climate change denial. Also, in truth, while the US is now a net energy exporter, when it comes to individual energy sources, the U.S. status as a net exporter of coal, gas  and refined petroleum really means we are sending more coal abroad because until recently (the Biden years) some coal plants were being retired and not replaced with new ones, while a number of obsolete plants were/are being nursed along. The far more egregious lie was the use of the word “Clean” in any context with reference to coal.

        If coal is, in fact, “clean and beautiful” why is it that coal miners today have life expectancy about 3–5 years lower than the general U.S. population? Why?  Persistent black lung resurgence (due to thinner coal seams → more silica dust) and higher rates of COPD, cardiovascular disease, and lung cancer in Appalachia. Apparently, the assumptions of the corporate entities in New York (you didn’t really think they’d live in  Kentucky, did ya?) were:  a) “They’re poor and have no advocates” and/or b) “They’re also illiterate and don’t vote.”

        Accordingly, and since I have not only the time and the disdain for coal fiction, but also because I worked for decades in an industry which unlike coal is safe and clean – nuclear power, I have distilled relevant data from several reputable sources regarding “beautiful, clean coal.” 

        The American Lung Association (ALA) released a report on the dramatic health hazards surrounding coal-fired power plants.  The report, which was headlined “Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-Fired Power Plants,” revealed the dangers of air pollution emitted by coal plants.

Statements which leap off the page include:

“Particle pollution from power plants is estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year.”

“Coal-fired power plants that sell electricity to the grid produce more hazardous air pollution in the U.S. than any other industrial pollution sources.”

The report further details over 386,000 tons of air pollutants emitted from over 400 plants in the U.S. per year. Interestingly, while most of the power plants are physically located in the Midwest and Southeast, the entire nation is threatened by their toxic emissions.

A graph accompanying the report shows that while pollutants such as acid gases stay in the local area, metals such as lead and arsenic travel beyond state lines, and fine particulate matter has a global impact. In other words, while for some workers the pollution may be a tradeoff for employment at a plant, other regions don’t reap the same benefits but still pay for the costs to their health.

        One facet of this report is the connection of specific pollutants to the diseases with which they are associated.  According to the ALA study, 76% of U.S. acid gas emissions, which are known to irritate breathing passages, come from coal-fired power plants. Out of all industrial sources, these plants are also the biggest emitter of airborne mercury, which can become part of the human food chain through fish and wildlife — high mercury levels are linked to brain damage, birth defects, and damage to the nervous system. The three main pollutants from coal-fired power stations are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and invisible particulate matter known as PM2.5, 30 times thinner than a human hair. Collectively, these pollutants inflame the lungs, scar the airways, stunt children’s lung development, and  once the particles enter the bloodstream — trigger heart attacks and strokes.”

        Perhaps one of the most surprising coal related facts is:  Recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and independent energy trackers show that coal’s share of U.S. electricity generation has fallen to roughly 15–16%.

•       The EIA projected coal’s share at 16.1% in 2024.

•       A 2025 update notes that coal’s share fell to “under 15%” in 2024, an all‑time low. So, the best current estimate is that: ≈15–16% of U.S. electricity now comes from coal‑fired plants.

Research estimates that 24 people die for every terawatt hour (TWh) of coal burnt. Children are at even higher risk from air pollution because they breathe more for their body weight than adults. Another report, authored by three University of Wisconsin researchers, was entitled “Estimating the Health Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants Receiving International Financing”

The authors summarized what is a large technical study thus: “Summary:  In addition to the environmental and human health harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, coal-fired power plants emit massive amounts of toxic air pollutants that result in significant numbers of deaths and disease. We estimate that between roughly 6000 and 10,700 annual deaths from heart ailments, respiratory disease and lung cancer can be attributed to the 88 coalfired power plants and companies receiving public international financing.”

        Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is also associated with other health outcomes, including infant deaths, asthma and other lung diseases.  Clean and beautiful, huh?

        Conclusions: “Coal-fired power plants were among the country's greatest sources of pollution. They are the biggest industrial emitters of mercury and arsenic into the air. They emit 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as posing a threat to human health and the environment.”

        “Coal-fired power plants also emit a menu of nasty materials:  • Heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel • Organic toxins: dioxins, furans, PAHs, benzene, toluene, xylene • Acid gases: hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride • Radionuclides: radium, thorium, uranium.  A separate study done years later actually estimates the radioactivity (defined as the total amount of radioactive material released) of coal fired plant smokestack fly ash as 50 times that of any operating US nuclear power plant!

        Coal-fired power plants account for 81 percent of the electric power industry's greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and climate change. The most significant greenhouse gas emitted by coal-fired power plants is carbon dioxide. They also emit smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. As stated earlier, The hazardous air emissions from coal-fired power plants also cause serious human health impacts. Arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium compounds, TCDD dioxin, formaldehyde, and nickel compounds are listed as carcinogens in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program. Furan and lead are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens.

        In summary, as shown above, hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants can, and, statistically, do cause a wide range of health effects, including heart and lung diseases, such as asthma. Exposure to these pollutants can damage the brain, eyes, skin, and breathing passages. It can also affect the kidneys, and nervous and respiratory systems. Exposure can also affect learning, memory, and behavior.

If, in the face of the above statistical data, you think coal is “clean” you are beyond either education or redemption.  Trump’s “Clean and Beautiful” belies the fact that in reality coal is by far the worst polluter of all the fossil fuels.

“Despite coal’s documented harms, critics often deflect by attacking renewable energy instead.” In point of fact: Trump frequently denounces wind production with rambling, and sometimes unintelligible, word salad garbage minimizing it’s contribution to clean energy efforts. Recently he publicly stated that China only made wind turbines to sell to the West and had no domestic wind power production. Trump is a world class fibber, but this one was a doozy. China actually has almost 650 gigawatts of wind produced electrical power. That is   more than double total US capacity and more than all of Europe’s combined.

 Another example was several years ago when Texas suffered abnormally cold conditions and wind turbines froze. Trump, Fox News talking heads, and the equally misinformed  Texas governor immediately blamed the wide-spread power outage on iced up wind turbines. Reality is that, in February 2021, wind supplied only about 24–25% of Texas’ electricity going into the storm. But there are two key points the haters omitted. Here’s the first: the largest generation losses came from natural gas, not wind. The drop in natural‑gas output was more than five times larger than the drop in wind generation. So even though wind was roughly a quarter of ERCOT’s generation capacity at the time, it was not the primary cause of the grid collapse.

Of equal significance is the fact that Texas “wind farmers” cut corners and opted not to have the optional freeze packages installed on their turbines.  For a mere .7 percent more of the original cost, they could have ensured the turbines continued operation to as low as minus 30 degrees. Think about it; North Dakota produces 40% of their power from wind. Their wind turbines never freeze, even with single digit temperatures.

Now, another one of the reflexive counters to the “facts of coal” argument is the mindless retort “Oh yeah, what about nuclear power.”  Let me lead off with two factual statements: Neither of the plant designs involved in the world’s (only) two reactor accidents which resulted in the release of measurable contaminants to the environment (Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi) could ever have been licensed to operate in the United States. “The U.S. regulatory framework simply does not permit the design flaws that caused those accidents.”

        And finally, not coal related, but as support for my assertion that nuclear power is a superior and light years safer alternative for electric power production: This final paragraph comes from a study which, in its long form, is entitled, “Cancer in populations living near nuclear facilities. A survey of mortality nationwide and incidence in two states.” It is long, data filled, and technical, so I’ll close with just the abstract.

Reports from the United Kingdom have described increases in leukemia and lymphoma among young persons living near certain nuclear installations. Because of concerns raised by these reports, a mortality survey was conducted in populations living near nuclear facilities in the United States. All facilities began service before 1982. Over 900,000 cancer deaths occurred from 1950 through 1984 in 107 counties with or near nuclear installations. Each study county was matched for comparison to three "control counties" in the same region. There were 1.8 million cancer deaths in the 292 control counties during the 35 years studied. Deaths due to leukemia or other cancers were not more frequent in the study counties than in the control counties. For childhood leukemia mortality, the relative risk comparing the study counties with their controls before plant start-up was 1.08, while after start-up it was 1.03. For leukemia mortality at all ages, the relative risks were 1.02 before start-up and 0.98 after. (ed. Note: this is actually a lower cancer incidence than before the plants went on line! It also is absent any of the coal associated contaminants). If any plant specific cancer risk was present in US counties with nuclear facilities, it was too small to be detected with the methods employed.

In Summary:  

Coal has never been clean, beautiful, or benign. It is the dirtiest fuel in the American energy portfolio, responsible for more toxic air pollution, more premature deaths, and more environmental damage than any other source of electricity. Every hour a coal plant runs, it vents a cocktail of heavy metals, carcinogens, acid gases, particulates, and even measurable radionuclides directly into the air the public breathes. That is not an energy policy — it is a slow‑motion and well documented public‑health disaster.

By contrast, a nuclear power station releases no particulate pollution, releases no heavy metals, releases no carcinogens. releases no radionuclides into the air during operation, and produces zero operational carbon emissions

All radioactive material is: sealed inside fuel pellets, inside fuel rods, inside a reactor vessel, inside a containment building. 

It’s four layers of engineered confinement.

        Coal has zero. Decades of epidemiological data show no increase in cancer rates around U.S. nuclear facilities — a fact that stands in stark contrast to the documented health impacts of coal‑fired generation.

So, the next time a politician tries to sell you “clean, beautiful coal,” call it what it is: marketing spin wrapped around a 19th‑century fuel source. And when someone reflexively invokes nuclear fear, remind them that the safest, cleanest, most reliable zero‑carbon electricity ever produced in this country has come from reactors — not from smokestacks.

And for those who say, “Oh yeah, but what about hydro power?” the response is: But — and this is the key — hydro is geographically constrained in a way nuclear is not. You can build a reactor anywhere you can pour concrete. You can only build hydro where geology, hydrology, and politics line up.  That’s why hydro is maxed out in most of the U.S. Nuclear isn’t.

Energy policy should be grounded in evidence, not nostalgia. Coal belongs in the history books. Nuclear belongs in the future. And your elected officials should know exactly where you stand on that distinction.

                         

 

              History Repeats (sort of)

“So, Greg Bovino, the most generously compensated Hobbit in government since Linda Hunt left NCIS, is being escorted back to California under the plain vanilla soothing euphemism of a ‘normal transition.’ Turns out that ignoring fatal shootings and child abuse, all while treating the Constitution like a suggestion box, isn’t disqualifying so much as… “mildly inconvenient.”

His move out of Minnesota comes after two fatal shootings, a public‑relations crater, and a weekend where his claim that an ICU nurse planned to “massacre” agents collapsed under witness accounts and unassailable video evidence. Under his phantom control, ICE became a street gang empowered by a complete lack of conscience and concern at the top. One is almost surprised that Kristi Noem didn’t volunteer to pick up the homicidal slack on her weekends off. CNN’s sources called Bovino’s exit a “mutual decision,” which in Washington is code for: “Everyone agreed he should leave, especially the people who actually make decisions.”  Supposedly Administration officials were allegedly “deeply frustrated” with his handling of the Pretti shooting and the messaging meltdown that followed.

While the Minnesota violence had continued for weeks, and the death of Renee Good had been all but swept under the asphalt, Bovino’s weekend assertion that Alex Pretti intended to “massacre” agents — offered without evidence — became the accelerant on an already raging fire. Witnesses and video clearly contradicted him, and suddenly the administration’s “face of the operation” became the “please just shut up” guy.

News outlets, based on such actual information as is reasonably accurate, report that he’s headed back to his old post in California’s El Centro sector — the bureaucratic equivalent of “Go to your room, young man and think about what you’ve done.”  There has been speculation regarding the possibility of retirement, though DHS publicly denied he’d been relieved.

This current debacle and overreach is all new to those who forget their High School history class, but something similar happened 93 years ago in the nation’s capital. And you know I’m gonna tell you about it because there are sad similarities

    Back in 1932, Washington, D.C. played host to the Bonus Army — a ragtag force of World War I veterans who made the tactical error of believing that the government might honor a promise. WWI veterans' bonuses were initially enacted into law on May 19, 1924, (“roaring 20s” economy) through the World War Adjusted Compensation Act (or Bonus Act). This act promised compensation for lost wages, but payments were structured as certificates not payable until 1945. 

    However, the stock market crash and subsequent Depression left many WWI vets jobless and without the means to feed themselves or their families.  The 1932 Bonus March was a non-violent protest by roughly 20,000 to 45,000 WWI veterans, known as the "Bonus Expeditionary Force," who camped in Washington, D.C., to demand early payment of bonuses promised for their service.

        The group, consisting of men, women and children, camped in tents and shanties (called by the press “Hoovervilles” after then President Herbert Hoover) on the Anacostia flats. At first, Hoover, a fiscal conservative, acknowledged the reality, that they were largely honest, struggling veterans. While opposing their demand for early bonus payments due to budget concerns, he allowed them to assemble and even ordered the military to provide tents, cots, and rations.  As the camp grew to tens of thousands and remained after Congress rejected their bill, Hoover became irritated, viewing them as a chaotic, lawless element that needed to leave Washington. It is noteworthy that there were no contemporary reports of violence on the part of the veterans. Until…

         On July 28, 1932) Capitol police attempted to          remove the veterans and used force. After a violent confrontation between police and veterans left two veterans dead, Hoover, ever the humanitarian, responded to the sight of starving veterans and their families by calling in the U.S. Army — because, apparently, nothing says “thank you for your service” like cavalry charges and tear gas.

        Enter Army Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur, a man who never met a situation he couldn’t escalate. He rolled into Anacostia Flats with tanks, infantry, and even some cavalry, and the kind of self‑importance that requires its own railcar (This ego would later get him removed from command during the Korean war). His mission: remove the veterans. His method: remove the veterans and their encampments and any lingering public sympathy Hoover might have had left. The result was a national spectacle in which decorated soldiers were gassed, beaten, and burned out of makeshift shelters, many of them, while wearing their old uniforms. It was the only time in American history when the Army attacked its own veterans and then tried to spin it as “maintaining order.” Sound familiar? 

        Hoover insisted it was all necessary. MacArthur insisted it was all glorious. Major Dwight Eisenhower, who was there under MacArthur’s command, later reflected on how he had hated the event.  The American public insisted Hoover pack his things. And by that November, they made that insistence official. (Coda: Enter FDR, who treated those that were left humanely, authorizing food, shelter and CCC jobs.)

      There are too many similarities to overlook between ICE bullies’ actions in 2025 and the Army’s in 1932. In both cases the rights of citizens were and have been ignored and any violence in response is reaction to the initial violent acts of government agents. 

These brutal actions in the current free for all are frequently “justified” by many, from Donald Trump to the dumbest MAGA marginally literate nose picker, by claims that undocumented immigrants (and many of them really mean any immigrant at all), are rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc. They imply that eliminating these folks would greatly reduce the incidence of such heinous crimes. 

Sadly, you’ll never hear Trump, Noem or any red hatted simpleton ever admit the truth of the matter. In Trump’s case, it’s simply his inveterate lying to people dumb enough to believe him. In many more, it’s simply refusing to consider data which doesn’t fit their bias. So, you ask …what is the data? Read on, children.

Those claims aren’t supported by any credible data. Federal and state statistics consistently show that undocumented immigrants are much less likely to commit violent or sexual crimes than native‑born Americans. Texas — the only state that tracks immigration status at arrest and conviction — finds lower rates for rape, child molestation, and violent offenses among undocumented immigrants. The stereotype isn’t based on evidence; it’s based on isolated anecdotes and political rhetoric.”

The numbers: What the Data Actually Shows

1. Incarceration Rates: Immigrants vs. Native‑Born: Multiple years of analysis using U.S. Census and American Community Survey data show:

Native‑born Americans have the highest incarceration rate:            1,221 per 100,000 natives (2023).

Undocumented immigrants have a much lower incarceration rate:613 per 100,000 undocumented immigrants. Conclusion: Undocumented immigrants are about half as likely to be incarcerated as native‑born Americans.

2. Sexual Offenses: Actual Conviction Numbers

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) tracks convictions among individuals apprehended at the border who already had criminal histories. Sexual offense convictions among undocumented immigrants apprehended by CBP in recent years are very low relative to total apprehensions:

For FY2025 (through June): 89 sexual offense convictions nationwide.  FY2024: 284    FY2023: 365   FY2022: 488

These numbers represent convictions among people already apprehended, not the entire undocumented population—and still remain extremely small. Conclusion: There is no statistical basis for the claim that undocumented immigrants disproportionately commit rape or child molestation.

3. Violent Crime Convictions

For FY2025 (through June): 469 violent crime convictions among undocumented immigrants apprehended by federal authorities. This includes assault, domestic violence, and other violent offenses. Again, this is a tiny fraction of the millions of undocumented people living in the U.S.

4. Broader Criminality Research

Independent criminological studies consistently find: Immigrants (legal and undocumented) are less likely to be arrested, convicted, or incarcerated than native‑born Americans. Immigrants do not increase crime rates in communities and often correlate with lower crime rates.

Bottom Line: The claim that undocumented immigrants are disproportionately “rapists and child molesters” is demonstrably false when compared to actual federal data. Every major dataset—CBP, ICE, FBI-linked analyses, and independent research—shows lower criminality, including sexual offenses, among undocumented immigrants relative to native‑born Americans.

So, why does the myth (because that’s what it is) persist? There are a few reasons, none of them based on reality. First: anecdotes overshadow statistics. A single horrific case gets amplified far more than millions of peaceful lives. Sadly, racial bias plays a part. Also, political rhetoric often frames immigration through the lens of crime so it becomes a partisan issue. And yet ICE, enabled by Trump, is treating people, whose status they don’t even know or haven’t even tried to determine, and whose proof of citizenship they ignore, with total disregard for legal rights, Constitutional rights and basic human decency. It is an American tragedy.