A Fact-Based Analysis of Key Pro‑Trump Arguments

Introduction: This report addresses several core arguments often made by loyal supporters of President Donald Trump. Using data from nonpartisan sources, government agencies, and reputable research, it examines claims on immigration, the economy, crime, election integrity, disinformation, and systemic inequality. The goal is to present accurate evidence and context – acknowledging legitimate concerns where valid – in a clear, neutral tone. Each section below lays out common claims alongside factual counterpoints, with citations to official data and expert analyses.

1. Immigration: Myths vs. Facts

Claim: “Undocumented immigrants are causing a crime wave and stealing jobs, justifying hardline measures (mass deportations, border crackdowns, even invoking the Alien Enemies Act).”

Facts: Multiple studies and law enforcement data show that immigrants – including undocumented immigrants – commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans, and there is no evidence of an “immigrant crime wave.” On the contrary, higher immigration tends to correlate with lower or unchanged crime rates. For example:

A comprehensive analysis of Texas Department of Public Safety data (2013–2022) found that the homicide conviction rate for undocumented immigrants was 2.2 per 100,000 people, compared to 3.0 per 100,000 for native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had an even lower rate (1.2). In other words, in Texas, U.S.-born citizens were more likely to commit murder than either undocumented or legal immigrants in that period. This Texas finding aligns with national research: in 2020, immigrants were 60% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born residents. Across the country, numerous studies (including by the National Academy of Sciences and independent researchers) have found no link between higher immigration and higher crime, and some even find the opposite – areas with more immigrants often experience lower rates of violent crime.

The FBI and other data underscore that overall U.S. violent crime has trended downward for decades as the immigrant population grew. There was a one-year homicide spike in 2020 (during the pandemic), but that affected both “red” and “blue” areas and was not linked by any evidence to immigration. In short, the notion of an “immigrant crime wave” is not supported by data – if anything, immigrants are under-represented in crime statistics.

Undocumented immigrants are contributors to the economy, not just “job takers.” Economists overwhelmingly conclude that immigrants do not cause broad job losses or wage declines for native-born workers. A Brookings survey of the literature found that on average immigrants slightly increase the wages and opportunities of U.S.-born workers. One reason is that immigrants often complement U.S. workers rather than directly compete: for example, low-skilled immigrant farmworkers or laborers enable farms and construction companies to expand operations, which creates additional jobs for supervisors, truck drivers, and other roles often filled by U.S.-born workers. As the Hamilton Project economists put it, immigrants “increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans” and have small but positive impacts on overall wages. Some lower-skilled Americans may face modest competition in certain sectors, but other groups see wage gains; overall impacts on wages are very small and spread out over time. Meanwhile, undocumented immigrants contribute significantly through taxes and labor: in 2022, undocumented workers paid an estimated $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes. This includes $25.7 billion in Social Security payroll taxes (plus $6.4B to Medicare) that they are ineligible to get back in benefits. Far from being a net drain, unauthorized immigrants often pay into systems like Social Security without drawing benefits. They also comprise roughly 5% of the U.S. labor force, filling vital roles in agriculture, construction, hospitality, and care work. Major economic analyses (from the National Academy of Sciences, Pew Research, and others) conclude there is no evidence of immigrants “stealing jobs” on a large scale. Instead, immigration tends to boost overall economic growth modestly by expanding the labor pool, encouraging business formation, and improving productivity through complementary skills.


Claim: “Hardline border policies (family separations, mass deportations, travel bans) are necessary to keep out gangs, terrorists, and criminals. We’re facing an ‘invasion’ of dangerous foreigners.”

Facts: Violent gang members or terrorists make up only a tiny fraction of those seeking entry, and broad-brush “invasion” claims are not supported by evidence. President Trump often highlighted heinous crimes by MS-13 gang members or talked about terrorists crossing the border to imply that many migrants pose such threats. In reality, such cases are exceedingly rare relative to the hundreds of thousands of migrants arriving:

Gang infiltration: Career homeland security officials under Trump stated there was no evidence of any large-scale gang “invasion” from abroad. The vast majority of migrants are families, asylum-seekers, or workers with no ties to organized crime. For example, of the 100,000+ people apprehended at the southern border in a typical month of 2019–2020, only a minute percentage were flagged as gang members. A 2020 DOJ/DHS report found almost no known cases of international terrorists sneaking across the Mexico border – most terrorism cases involve U.S. citizens or people who came on visas, not people slipping through the southern border. In short, the data do not show an “invasion” of MS-13 or terrorists. Targeted law enforcement against the actual bad actors is important, but portraying all undocumented migrants as potential gangsters or extremists is factually wrong and fuels unfounded fear.

Use of the Alien Enemies Act: The Trump administration controversially invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (a law historically used in wartime, e.g. to intern Japanese-Americans in WWII) to summarily expel certain groups of migrants, such as a purported Venezuelan gang (Tren de Aragua), framing it as a response to an “invasion.” Legal experts across the spectrum condemned this as an abuse of authority – noting that declaring a non-military “invasion” to use wartime powers has no basis in modern law. Civil rights organizations like the ACLU and Amnesty International blasted the move, pointing out that the administration presented no credible evidence that the targeted migrants were terrorists or gang members. Federal courts halted some of these measures for overreaching. In short, broad-brush war powers were used without proof of the kind of threat those powers are meant for, raising serious rule-of-law concerns.

“Invasion” rhetoric vs reality: The language of “invasion” has real consequences. In 2019, a mass shooter in El Paso, Texas explicitly described his attack as a response to a “Hispanic invasion” – language that mirrored President Trump’s own words about immigrants. (Trump had repeatedly referred to migrants from Central America as an “invasion” in tweets and speeches.) While the El Paso shooter said his hatred “predated” Trump, the overlap in vocabulary was striking and widely noted. Former DHS officials and extremism experts have warned that demonizing immigrants as an invading force can incite violent extremists. Indeed, the FBI recorded a sharp increase in hate crimes against Hispanic Americans around 2017–2018, reaching the highest levels in a decade – an uptick that many observers linked, at least in part, to heated anti-immigrant rhetoric. (The El Paso attack in 2019 was the deadliest anti-Latino hate crime in U.S. history.) The bottom line is that legitimate border security concerns can be addressed without resorting to fearmongering language that paints all migrants as existential threats.


Facts (continued): Hardline enforcement tactics under Trump often swept up many harmless individuals and violated rights, without clear public safety benefits. While Trump said he only wanted to deport “bad hombres,” in practice the policies cast a very wide net:

Internal data showed that a large proportion of those deported had no criminal record at all. In 2017–2018, ICE greatly expanded arrests of non-criminal undocumented immigrants. One analysis found about 75% of deportees to certain countries in that period had zero criminal convictions – they were deported solely for immigration violations (e.g. having no visa), not for violent or property crimes. Raids by ICE under “zero tolerance” directives frequently detained the wrong people, including U.S. citizens and legal residents mistaken for undocumented persons. There were multiple high-profile incidents of American citizens being held in detention for days or weeks due to aggressive sweeps.

The “family separation” policy in 2018 – implemented as a deliberate deterrent – led to over 5,400 children being forcibly separated from their asylum-seeking parents at the border. Infants, toddlers, and young kids were taken from parents with no clear tracking system. A federal court later halted the policy, calling it illegal and inhumane, and ordered the government to reunite families. Years later, hundreds of children were still separated because poor records made reunification difficult. The Department of Justice’s Inspector General and other watchdogs documented that this policy caused lasting trauma to children and was implemented despite warnings from child welfare experts that it would be cruel. In the end, it did not stop migrant families from coming (numbers initially dropped in fear, then rebounded) – but it inflicted lasting humanitarian damage.

Conditions and due process: Government inspectors and outside observers found harsh conditions in many detention facilities during the Trump years (e.g. severe overcrowding, lack of basic hygiene and medical care in some Border Patrol holding cells in 2019). Asylum seekers often did not receive fair hearings under expedited removal policies; some were deported without a meaningful chance to present their case (in violation of U.S. asylum law and international agreements). The administration’s rush to deport and its quota-driven enforcement led to corners being cut. In one case, an ICU nurse and U.S. military wife was nearly deported due to a paperwork error. Such stories were not isolated – they underscored that broad-brush crackdowns can and did ensnare people who pose no threat.


Bottom line: Undocumented immigration poses real policy challenges, but the common portrayal in pro-Trump circles of immigrants as a source of rampant crime or economic ruin is not borne out by facts. Immigrants overall have lower crime rates than natives and make significant economic contributions (including paying billions in taxes for services they can’t even use). Policies based on demonizing immigrants – rather than targeting actual dangerous individuals – led to widespread rights violations and humanitarian crises (like family separations) without clear public safety gains. It is reasonable to want secure borders and orderly immigration, and to deport serious criminals. However, solutions should be guided by data and due process, not exaggerated stereotypes of an “invasion” of criminals. The evidence suggests that a balanced approach (investing in smarter border security, legal immigration reforms, and targeted enforcement against felons) would address concerns far more effectively than blanket crackdowns fueled by fear.

2. Economy: Trump’s Record in Context

Claim: “President Trump built the greatest economy ever – far better than Obama’s – until the pandemic hit.”

Facts: The pre-pandemic U.S. economy under Trump was strong, but not historically unprecedented, and it was largely a continuation of trends already in motion. By late 2019/early 2020, there were positive indicators (low unemployment, a high stock market), but these represented the tail end of the longest economic expansion in U.S. history – an expansion that began in mid-2009 under President Obama. Key points:

Job growth and unemployment: The unemployment rate fell to 3.5% by February 2020 – the lowest since 1969. This was a notable achievement, but it did not occur suddenly; unemployment had been dropping for 9 years straight (from 10% in 2009 to 4.7% by January 2017, then continuing down to 3.5% by 2020). In other words, Trump inherited a labor market already in steady recovery and simply maintained that trajectory. Monthly job creation in 2017–2019 averaged ~180,000–200,000 jobs, very similar to the pace in Obama’s final years. In fact, Obama’s last two years saw slightly faster job growth than Trump’s first two (about 210k vs 206k per month on average). Overall, from 2013–2019 the employment growth line is nearly a straight line with no obvious “Trump bump” – as a PolitiFact review of 15 economic metrics concluded, virtually all continued on the same trajectory that they were on before.

GDP growth: The economy grew solidly under Trump, but again not off-the-charts. Real GDP growth averaged about 2.5% in 2017–2019, compared to ~2.3% in 2014–2016. There was a brief uptick to 2.9% in 2018 (helped by stimulus from tax cuts, discussed below), but by 2019 growth had slowed to 2.2% – the lowest since 2016. Notably, 2019 also saw the fewest new jobs (90% white). The implication couldn’t be clearer which immigrants he preferred.

He suggested a U.S.-born federal judge (of Mexican heritage) was unfit to preside over a Trump University fraud case “because he’s Mexican” and Trump had promised to build a wall – a blatant example of racial bias (assuming the judge couldn’t be impartial due to ethnicity).

He told four Congresswomen of color (AOC, Ilhan Omar, etc.) to “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places they came from,” despite three of the four being born in the U.S. (and the fourth a refugee brought as a child). This is a well-worn racist trope used against minorities and immigrants for ages.

After the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville (2017), where neo-Nazis chanted antisemitic and racist slogans and one murdered a counter-protester, Trump infamously said there were “very fine people on both sides.” While he later gave a tepid denunciation of neo-Nazis, his equivocal response was celebrated on far-right forums as validation. It left minority communities feeling that the President was giving hate groups a pass.

He consistently invoked “law and order” in contexts that painted Black Lives Matter protesters as villains, and characterized predominantly Black inner-city communities as dystopian (“rodent-infested mess” he called Baltimore, also attacking a Black Congressman Elijah Cummings).



These examples go beyond political incorrectness – they track with classic racist tropes (immigrants of color as criminals, Black neighborhoods as hellholes, nonwhite Americans as inherently foreign). White supremacist groups praised Trump’s words. David Duke, former KKK leader, publicly lauded Trump’s Charlottesville comments. The Daily Stormer (neo-N### website) called Trump’s 2016 campaign “glorious leader’s” movement. Trump of course disavowed the KKK formally, but he often hedged and was slow to condemn, creating a sense of ambiguity that hate groups exploited.

Civil rights rollbacks: In policy, Trump’s DOJ under Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr ended or dialed back Obama-era efforts to address systemic bias. The Obama DOJ had investigated several police departments for patterns of excessive force and bias, entering consent decrees to reform them. Trump’s DOJ halted almost all such investigations, effectively giving carte blanche to departments with histories of misconduct (like Chicago PD, which had a damning DOJ report in 2017 but Sessions stopped further action). Sessions also rescinded guidance on avoiding racial disparities in sentencing, and revived harsh charging for low-level drug offenses (which disproportionately affect Black and Latino Americans). In late 2020, Trump issued an order banning federal diversity training that discussed “critical race theory” or “white privilege,” calling such training “un-American” – which many saw as an attempt to whitewash issues of bias and prevent even discussion of systemic racism in government agencies. (Biden reversed this ban on taking office.)

Voting rights and representation: The Trump administration supported efforts that would effectively suppress minority votes. For example, they attempted to add a citizenship question to the Census (blocked by the Supreme Court) which experts said would result in an undercount in immigrant-heavy communities, affecting congressional representation and funding. In 2020, Trump baselessly attacked mail voting (which in normal times has higher usage among elderly and military, but also was crucial for minority voters during the pandemic). In some states, GOP lawyers (with Trump cheerleading) fought to invalidate ballots in heavily Black cities like Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit – a strategy that was called out by judges as overtly targeting minority votes (the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted the Trump campaign was specifically trying to throw out mail votes in Philly while not objecting to similar procedures in whiter counties). This pattern fits a long history of attempts to disenfranchise voters of color. Trump also gave moral support to GOP state legislatures passing more restrictive voting laws post-2020 (justified by the “fraud” lie) – laws which independent analysis shows disproportionately impact Black voters (e.g., cutting Sunday “Souls to the Polls” voting used by Black churches, reducing polling places in urban areas, stricter ID requirements that some elderly Black voters lack, etc.).

Economic inequality and health outcomes: Under Trump, there was no concerted effort to close racial wealth or health gaps. In fact, some policies likely widened them:

The TCJA tax cut’s benefits tilted to higher incomes, and since the racial wealth gap meant white households have higher incomes/assets on average, they reaped more of the tax cut, exacerbating disparities. By 2018, the Black–white median wealth gap remained staggering (~13 cents on the dollar).

Trump attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would have disproportionately hit minorities (who saw the largest gains in insurance under the ACA). He also cut outreach for ACA enrollment and allowed work requirements for Medicaid in some states, which studies showed led to eligible low-income people (again disproportionately people of color) losing coverage.

Cuts to food stamps (SNAP) and other safety nets were proposed – again, these would affect all races but in practice a lot of poor communities of color would bear the brunt.

His administration’s housing policies weakened enforcement of fair housing laws (intended to combat segregation). Trump explicitly sought to end an Obama rule that pushed suburbs to diversify housing (“AFFH” rule) and then bragged to (presumably white) “suburban housewives” that he protected them from low-income housing invading their neighborhood. This was a dog-whistle that harkened back to segregationist rhetoric.



Taken together, intentional or not, Trump’s approach consistently produced outcomes that disadvantaged or disrespected people of color:

Immigrant families of color were separated and banned.

Black and brown communities’ concerns (police brutality, etc.) were dismissed or met with more force.

White supremacists felt validated, while anti-racist voices were demonized.

Systemic issues (like unequal healthcare or policing) were not only ignored but sometimes aggravated.


Historians have drawn parallels between Trump’s style and earlier American demagogues who exploited racism: e.g., George Wallace in 1968 running on “law and order” and explicit segregationist appeals; Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” which used coded racial appeals about crime and welfare; even back to the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s which scapegoated Catholic immigrants. Trump tapped into a similar vein of resentment and fear of demographic change. For instance, his portrayal of Latino immigrants as diseased criminals echoes the rhetoric used to pass the 1924 immigration quotas (which heavily favored white Europeans). His talk of “heritage” and defending Confederate-named bases (he opposed renaming them) endeared him to those who view America’s increasing diversity as an attack on white identity.

A striking historical analogy: The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 came after decades of politicians stoking fear that Chinese laborers were taking jobs and bringing crime/disease – not unlike Trump’s language about Mexican and Central American migrants. It took until 2012 for Congress to formally apologize for Chinese Exclusion. We can foresee that in hindsight, policies like the Muslim Ban or family separation might be remembered as similarly shameful chapters.

Claim: “If Trump was so obviously racist, why do many people (including some minorities) not see it? This is just liberals playing the race card to smear him.”

Reality: Recognizing systemic racism can be challenging, especially if one is not directly affected by it, and propaganda can cloud perceptions. Many of Trump’s supporters are not overtly racist individuals; they may genuinely believe they’re just patriotic or concerned about lawfulness. Trump insists “I’m the least racist person,” and he points to things like low Black unemployment pre-COVID as evidence he helped minorities. It’s true that Black unemployment hit a record low of 5.4% in 2019 – but context matters (it fell from ~16% in 2010 to 7.5% by 2016 under Obama, then continued downward to 5.4% – again a continuation, not a reversal). Trump took credit, but broader forces were at work. Regardless, those positive stats gave his supporters talking points to rebut racism accusations (“How can he be racist if Black incomes rose?”).

A key reason some don’t see Trump’s actions as racist is the use of race-neutral or coded language to achieve racially biased outcomes – often called “dog whistles.” Trump rarely used racial slurs publicly. Instead, he’d say “we must secure our border” or “America First” – which can sound reasonable in principle. The subtext and implementation, however, overwhelmingly targeted brown and Black immigrants. There were no ICE raids rounding up Irish or Canadian undocumented immigrants in suburbs; the crackdowns focused on Latinos. Many Americans, especially white Americans not accustomed to discrimination, might take Trump’s words at face value (“just enforcing the law”) and not perceive the racial dimension. Meanwhile, those in the affected communities did feel it. This disconnect often defines debates on systemic racism – if one defines racism only as explicit slurs or cross burnings, one might miss how policies function in practice.

Also, partisan polarization causes people to discount criticism as “just politics.” If you’re a Trump voter, being told “Trump’s policies are racist” can feel like a personal attack (implying you support racism), which makes one defensive and less receptive. Trump skillfully channeled grievances of some white working-class folks who felt left behind or even felt they were unfairly called privileged. He often flipped the script to claim his supporters were the real victims – of coastal elites, of “political correctness,” even of “reverse racism.” This inversion (portraying a predominantly white, non-college-educated base as the oppressed class) made his followers even more resistant to charges of racism – they felt they were being maligned and thus rallied to him more. In essence, many didn’t see the racism because Trump painted anyone talking about racism as the enemy, as people who “hate America” or hate his base.

Trump’s hyper-focus on culture wars (kneeling NFL players, banning “critical race theory” training, fear-mongering about an “invasion” of migrants, etc.) served as distractions that preyed on racial/cultural anxieties, while often glossing over issues like economic inequality that cut across race. This follows an old strategy: use racial division to prevent a multi-racial coalition of the working class. Historically, enslavers and later segregationists stoked racial fear among poorer whites to keep them from aligning with Black peers for better economic conditions – ultimately preserving elite power. Critics note Trump’s populism often “punches down” at immigrants or marginalized groups instead of “punching up” at the ultra-wealthy (despite populist rhetoric, his policies benefited billionaires more than coal miners). By keeping his base outraged at other groups, it arguably diverted attention from, say, his tax policy that benefited the rich over the working class.

Historical Parallels: Many have compared Trump’s rhetoric and tactics to past nativist or racist demagogues:

Know-Nothings (1850s): They exploited anti-Irish and anti-German immigrant sentiment. Their language about immigrants being criminals and disloyal Catholics echoes Trump’s language about Latino migrants or Muslim refugees.

Jim Crow-era politicians: Those who defended segregation often did so under the guise of “law and order” and “states’ rights,” claiming federal efforts at integration were attacks on their way of life. Similarly, Trump’s rhetoric around “heritage” and preserving Confederate monuments played to those themes.

George Wallace (1968): Wallace ran on openly racist appeals (standing in schoolhouse doors, etc.) but also portraying himself as the candidate of the “forgotten man” and against chaotic protest. Trump’s appeal to “the Suburban Housewives” in 2020 that Biden would bring low-income (read: minority) people to their neighborhoods was a direct nod to Wallace-style scare tactics.

Nixon’s Southern Strategy: After civil rights wins, Nixon sought to win white Southern Democrats by subtly invoking racial resentment (talk of crime, “welfare queens,” etc.). Trump’s constant refrains about inner-city crime and “Democrat cities” ruinous policies fit that mold. The difference is Trump was less subtle at times, but the mechanism was similar.


It’s important to remember that many of those historical movements (Chinese exclusion, the Red Scare, internment of Japanese-Americans, Jim Crow, etc.) were popular in their time among certain constituencies – but history now judges them harshly. At the time, proponents also said critics were just being hysterical or unpatriotic. It often takes hindsight for a society to fully acknowledge a wrong. Trump’s presidency did not invent racism, of course, but it gave new oxygen to racist ideas at a time when America’s diversifying demographics called for the opposite – unity and inclusion.

Conclusion: Donald Trump’s core arguments – on immigration, the economy, crime, election integrity, etc. – often rest on misinformation, fear appeals, and scapegoating rather than objective reality. We have provided data and citations from neutral sources (government datasets, independent fact-checkers, academic studies) to challenge those claims. This is not to say all of his supporters’ concerns are invalid:

Yes, border security is a legitimate issue; every nation needs to control its borders.

Yes, crime and safety are important; people deserve to feel secure in their communities.

Yes, there are areas of economic pain in America; many working-class folks feel left behind.

Yes, distrust in institutions has reasons (elites have failed segments of the population, etc.).


However, addressing those concerns effectively requires an accurate understanding of problems. The narrative Trump’s base has been given is, in many cases, distorted or outright false. By examining the evidence:

We found that immigration is not fueling a crime wave or bankrupting the economy. In fact, immigrants (even undocumented) commit fewer crimes than natives and contribute billions in taxes. Hardline policies based on the myth of immigrant criminality did more harm (to families, U.S. reputation) than good.

The U.S. economy under Trump was strong but not unprecedented, and his signature policies (tax cuts, deregulation) had mixed effects – a short-term boost and stock market highs, but also higher debt and little impact on long-term growth. The claim of “greatest ever” is not supported by data; other eras rival or exceed Trump’s on various metrics. Much of the success pre-COVID was a continuation of existing trends, and the COVID recession, while outside Trump’s control, was exacerbated by a faltering pandemic response.

Crime trends are complex and not simply dictated by a city’s partisan leadership. 2020’s spike was nationwide and had many causes. Red states often have higher violence rates than blue states, undermining the notion that one party “causes” crime. Demonizing one side (whether calling Democrats soft or ignoring red state issues) doesn’t solve anything. Effective crime reduction combines smart policing with addressing root causes like poverty and guns.

The 2020 election was, by all credible accounts, free and fair. The stolen election narrative is a dangerous lie justifiably rejected by courts and Trump’s own officials. Multiple audits in AZ, GA, WI, MI confirmed the results. We must trust the verified evidence: there was no widespread fraud. Undermining faith in elections without evidence damages democracy.

Disinformation tactics (calling everything “fake,” scapegoating minorities, inciting culture wars) were used extensively to manipulate public opinion. Recognizing these tactics helps inoculate against them. For instance, knowing that repeating a lie can make it “feel” true, one can be skeptical when a politician pounds a talking point without proof.

Systemic racism is a real phenomenon that Trump’s approach both exemplified and exacerbated. Even if cloaked in race-neutral terms, the patterns show one group was often targeted or harmed more. His presidency didn’t invent racism, but it emboldened it – from white nationalists being more brazen to everyday bigots feeling validated. This harmed national unity and ideals of equality.


Ultimately, good policy requires good information. Whether it’s immigration reform, economic strategy, crime reduction, or ensuring fair elections, the country is best served when decisions are driven by reality, not mythology. The evidence presented here aims to respectfully challenge misinformation and encourage a fact-based dialogue, even with those who passionately supported President Trump. The hope is that by seeing data from multiple reputable sources all converging, even skeptical readers will verify the truth for themselves.

Only by confronting false claims with truth can we find common ground and real solutions to the challenges America faces. The goal should be to solve problems – not to demonize groups or deny facts. In a healthy democracy, we can disagree on policies while still agreeing on basic reality. Rebuilding that shared reality is essential. This report is a step in that direction, providing well-sourced evidence to replace myths with facts.

Sources: (Nonpartisan and official sources have been used throughout this analysis. Key references include: crime data from the FBI and CDC, economic data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Congressional Budget Office, election security statements from CISA, court rulings and fact-check summaries, immigration research from the Cato Institute and Migration Policy Institute, tax and labor studies from Brookings, and investigative reporting from reputable outlets. Specific source citations are embedded above in the format 【source†lines】 for verification. Where multiple sources confirm a point, several citations are provided to show expert consensus.)

• 👍 1

  👍 1 ❤️ 0 😂 0 😁 0 ☹️ 0 😠 0 😮 0
• 0