"Newt on Trump's coalition" Topic

Gingrich is a shrewd observer. Hope this is correct.

"After spending this week reviewing the Iranian war I am now convinced President Trump is on the edge of an historic victory. The real breakthrough for me came as I reviewed President Trump's decisions and maneuvers not from the standpoint of American unilateralism but from the standpoint of the leader of a remarkable historic coalition, the largest coalition ever put together in the modern Middle East.

Everyone understands that Israel is an important ally. What is little discussed is the depth of support from the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region. It has to be sobering for the Iranian dictatorship to realize that it does not have a single ally willing to challenge the American naval blockade. Slowly, gradually, timidly, our European allies are lining up to help with the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

A great deal of President Trump's maneuvers against Iran make sense once he is seen as a coalition leader and not just as a unilateral American President. I spent a lot of the last couple weeks reviewing kinetic options including wining the battle of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz and if necessary using the shocking and shattering level of force President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger used against Hanoi and Haiphong in Christmas 1972 (which both leaders believed convinced the North Vietnamese to agree to a truce and the freeing of American POWs).

If this were a unilateral American campaign I could enthusiastically support a more aggressive kinetic campaign. However it is also clear it would shatter the coalition because our Arab allies are convinced Iran could still do enormous damage to their oil fields and infrastructure. Coalitions are inherently slower than unilateral campaigns. However coalitions ultimately bring vastly more power to the fight.

I am as frustrated as everyone else by the pace of talking with the dictatorship but having reviewed the correlation of forces and the options available to the coalition on one side and the Iranian religiously motivated dictatorship on the other I am prepared to assert that President Trump's coalition leadership (something almost none of his critics want to acknowledge) is within reach of an enormous historic victory. And if the Iranian dictatorship ultimately proves it is hopelessly committed to a suicidal position there will be plenty of time for a kinetic campaign of enormous power and effectiveness. Either way we are on the edge of an astonishing victory for our values and for a safer Middle East."

No American President was more unilateral than this one. I am sure there has been some regional support. The role of Israel is ignored here, an omission more problematic than giving credit to Qatar, IMO, and it hurts Newt's credibility in my mind. Think about the ME and its history, religious and cultural traditions, values. Coalitions? With a US president? Not impossible, but not currently probable, IMO.

But imagine if we the people had continued a national commitment to western values to lead a coalition of western powers with clear goals in a united front. Gotten past the petty politics and derision. Ships and aircraft from an array of nations telling the world that enough is enough re the many proponents of terrorism warfare. Or an international coalition of long term covert operations supporting containment and regime change.

I agree that whatever happens now, it will be historic….

and the Abraham Accords?

@doc

don't let facts get in the way of a good whine

CFeicht +1

The problem is Tort that you're expecting Europe to uphold Western values….that's just not happening anymore, particularly in places of our strongest traditional allies, UK and France.

Europe has a significant "Islam" problem: 10+ percent of their populations are now from Islamic areas of the world, radical, fundamentalist (of the most violent and anti-Western/liberal values) Islamic norms and values have made significant in-roads into common law and practice, fundamentalist friendly politicians and the bureaucrats they've installed have outsized influence in both local and national governments, "threats" to Islamic ideals are crushed by those governments while the reverse are handled with kid gloves, Islamic fundamentalism is openly preached, without censure, in the public square while traditional European values are actively discouraged-often at the point of a legal "gun." Europeans are jailed for speaking out against rampaging criminality from those Islamic communities while those criminals are given near no-sentences for the gravest of crimes; the victims being often native born nationals.

Hence, there will be no "willing coalitions of Western liberal value countries;" they are too afraid of the fundamentalist that they allowed to boat to their shores and are now the next door neighbor.

Trump HAS built a coalition in the ME. The more advanced nations are coming to realize that Israel is "here to stay," Islamic fundamentalism don't make money and does not encourage economic growth, China's economic expansionism is a much more bitter pill to swallow than American braggadocio (because money flows when the US shows up, the Chinese extract more than they give).

Whether you agree with the strategy or not, Trump, and Trump alone, has smacked the ME into an evolving order-unseen in the last 50 years- where Iran and fundamentalism are seen for what it is: absolute crap.

The above post is built around sweeping generalisations that don't really survive contact with the facts.

The idea of a single "Islam problem" in Europe doesn't reflect how European societies actually look. Muslim populations across countries like the UK and France are highly diverse, overwhelmingly law-abiding and made up of citizens and long-established communities. They aren't a unified political or ideological bloc and treating them as such isn't analytically sound.

Likewise, claims of legal or political "capture" don't match reality. European states remain governed by secular legal systems and plural democratic politics. Debates about integration, policing, and civil liberties exist—often intensely—but they are normal features of any diverse society, not evidence of systemic takeover or collapse. I would point out to you, from the outside, a badly informed observer might think the US is highly fractured and beyond hope….& he would be wrong too.

There are certainly real policy challenges around integration, security, and social cohesion in parts of Europe and those deserve serious discussion. But they're being worked through within mainstream institutions, not through the breakdown of "Western values."

Finally, the broader geopolitical framing—of a coherent US-led reshaping of the Middle East and a unified ideological shift against "Islamic fundamentalism"—overstates how orderly and directional a very fragmented region actually is. Middle Eastern politics are still driven by competing state interests, shifting alliances, and local dynamics rather than any single overarching design.

In short, the above post is a narrative that mixes, perhaps, legitimate concerns with broad, unsupported generalisations that don't reflect the complexity on the ground.

Maggot, have you ever been to Europe?

Britain seems on the edge of losing its liberty and identity.

I'm with Maggot.

Yeah -- I've been multiple times. One memorable trip. I went to the UK to visit relatives and muck about, we went to the National Gallery in London, wonderful museum. Trafalgar Square? Not so wonderful. A large islamist rally filled the Square -- islamic banners in green and black. Most of the men had face coverings, the few women in head to toe chadour…the speakers were yelling angrily in Arabic and then they and the crowd would pump their fists and scream Allahu Akbar! So much anger. So much hate. And this was 20 years ago -- it's far worse today. Last few trips spent little time there, went to see relatives in other areas. Down to Portsmouth, over to Wales (gotta see Harlech Castle), and so on. Anyways, it was a green and pleasant land, once.

"I'm with Maggot."

Then both of you are wrong.

The reality of the UK is very different to the presentation of the UK on Fox News. As for the rallies in Trafalgar Square:

The 2006 rally -About 5,000 UK mainstream Muslims joined a protest in London's Trafalgar Square against controversial cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
There had been fears the rally may have been disrupted by extremists, but it proved to be a trouble-free afternoon.
Protesters waved banners calling for unity against Islamophobia.
The event aimed to explain the views of moderate Muslims towards cartoons published in a Danish newspaper which led to worldwide protests.

Now there were some much smaller rallies in 2002 that has some extremist elements, but they were clamped down on.

Since 2006 there has been an annual festival held by muslims to celebrate the end of Ramadan. These are a major cultural event that are attended by thousands from different faiths.

There have also been islamic prayer events on am number of occasions.

So since 2002 there has been no extremist muslim events in Trafalgar Square and the one in 2002 drew only 600 people and this number includes a significant number of counterprotestors. Clashes did occur between the two sides which were quickly brought under control by the police.

I live in the UK part time. You don't come to know it via vacation time, IMO. Britain is diverse but its identity is pretty safe, as far as a part timer can see. It evolves like any other nation.

Ahem…Israel???? You think looking like you are doing Netanyahu's bidding means you are leading an Arab coalition?? Why do you think Newt left that part out? And we see that the Abraham Accords, mainly a series of business agreements, left out the essential and most difficult question in the ME…what to do about Palestine and Israel.

Maggot, you may be right. Maybe I am asking too much of Europe. But maybe I am asking too much of the US right now as well.

Ochoin, Tort,
Yes, I've both vacationed, and LIVED and worked for MANY years, over the span of two decades, in Europe; so sorry, you can't claim that I draw all my info from so called "conservative" news. Everything I've related I've seen, with my own eyes, read in your own news (often in your own language) and seen enacted in practice. I can only assume that my travels were wider and far more diverse than yours-and I assume, you've lived there your whole lives. Additionally, my experiences were from many years ago…I continue to follow European news sources from a broad array of ideological sources, so I can only imagine (well, your own news sources now report) the issues that exist now, with some of the largest mass movements of immigration from the Third World, likely in human history.

So, not only am I not wrong, I can only say that it saddens me to see those who call those places home be willfully blind to the slow, but steady and painfully obvious changes to your communities, your laws and culture. Your own politicians (many of whom come from these very newcomer communities with ties to Islamic fundamentalism) seek the approval of some of the most radical Islamic leaders in your countries, nay, they are in power often exclusively because of that support, hence there is a genuflection and hesitation to act in your governments caused by those changes, and it affects how your countries now interact with the world around you.

Ochoin, you are indeed correct that many newcomers have adjusted and integrated, but just as in the US, in the span of just a few decades of back and forth travel and living to Europe, I've seen entire communities change, not often for the better. I've seen the no-go zones, seen the change in safety/security, seen the change in values and norms and employment. I've seen, and read in YOUR news, the explosions in crime, the hesitancy, nay willful refusal to act against those newcomers because of "racism," and as your own news calls it, the "two-tier" systems that in effect, have become anti-native, government supported structural racism used to curb dissent to the radical and quite frankly, suicidal actions of your left leaning governments.

Your response may be that these changes " only happened in a small area, at this point in time," and my response would be "why was it allowed to happen at all, and why is it still happening in now, new places?"

So, in sum, there will be no "coalition of liberal Western value states" because your governments no longer have the will to act against radicalism; they are in bed with it.

I wish you peace, gentlemen

Maggot +1

Seems a strange argument to make that Islam is bad when the majority religions of the same allies in the ME is also Islam.

Indeed, yes. "Gentlemen may cry "Peace! peace!' but there is no peace."

"For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying Peace, peace, when there is no peace." Jeremiah.

kiltboy, as with Christians, it depends on which ones. What they believe and how they behave.

Kiltboy,
No one here is making that argument despite your claim.

So I'll ask you: is Islam "bad?" I'm going to go out on a limb and look at the largest Islamic country on the planet, Indonesia and ask "when's the last time a Indonesian cleric, backed by his government and a large minority of "his" people, called for the violent destruction of non-believers? When is the last time a Indonesian Islamic group stormed into another country and went on a medieval rampage of rape and murder? When is the last time an Indonesian Islamic terrorist(s) ran over school children at a German Christmas market? When is the last time Indonesia was looking for a nuclear bomb in order to start the end times?"

The answer of course is "statistically zero/never." Much, if not most of the practitioners of Islam (as with Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism) have moved beyond the sixth century.

Fundamentalist Islam on the other hand, with its roots in the Middle East, and its core in Iran with tentacles in much of the Arab world and parts of North Africa and the South Asian world (primarily Pakistan/Afghanistan) are the overwhelming source of religious terrorism in the world today. Those same areas are also, again, the overwhelming source of illegal/legal immigrants to Europe. Hence, the importation of fundamentalist Islam, stuck in a 6th century viewpoint of history, into Western Europe. Add into that a good dose of leftist guilt and a warped view of human history, and bam, you now have a problem.

But I suppose you already know this.

But of course I have to state the answer to all our questions on this site, and accept my guilt in the practice:

What's this have to do with toy soldiers?

Maggot +1

Yes, same I here from those I know in Ireland and England.

The media and European politicians refuse to report on it.

A story out of Ireland from a source most refuse to read:

1 (3 paragraph) example out of it:

"And the violence is unprecedented. Yousef Palani who came here from Iraq not only murdered two gay men, Aidan Moffitt and Michael Snee, in Co Sligo in April 2022, he decapitated one of them. One of the men had 43 stab wounds, while another was stabbed 25 times mainly to the head, neck and chest. Both Mr Moffitt and Michael Snee, were believed to have been contacted by Palani on the gay dating app, Grindr. He targeted them – and had 12 men on a kill list altogether."

Yet the media tried to bury the most horrific aspects of the story by insisting this was just an example of Irish homophobia. In the same way, they tried to blame Irish men and misogyny for the terrible murder of teacher Ashling Murphy, killed by a Slovak Romani – and then attacked her boyfriend Ryan Casey when he said that Ireland didn't feel safe any more.

They distracted the country with pictures of rioters and endless fearmongering about the "far-right" after terrified children had been slashed and almost killed by a foreign national when coming out of a primary school in Parnell Square."

Subject: Clifden: How much more imported violence are we meant to ignore? – Gript


link

Sorry Maggot, I was not referring to you re knowledge of the UK. Nor do I want the US to fail.

Still no response about Newt ignoring Israel.

Maggot,

The problem with your argument is that it relies almost entirely on anecdote and generalisation.

You have travelled in Europe. Fine. Many of us actually live there. Individual experiences can be valuable, but they are not the same as evidence for continent-wide claims about "Islamification", "no-go zones", "two-tier justice", or governments being "in bed with radicalism".

Europe certainly faces challenges with immigration, integration, crime, social cohesion and religious extremism. Most Europeans would acknowledge that. But there is a vast difference between recognising problems and declaring that entire nations have surrendered their laws, culture and values.

You ask, "Why was it allowed to happen at all?" That question assumes every social change is inherently negative. History suggests otherwise. European societies have absorbed waves of migration, religious differences and cultural change for centuries. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The outcome is determined by policy, economics and civic institutions, not by apocalyptic predictions.

What strikes me most is the contradiction in your post. You acknowledge that many newcomers have integrated, yet you simultaneously portray hundreds of millions of people across dozens of countries as participants in a civilisational collapse. That is a conclusion far larger than the evidence presented.

Reasonable people can debate immigration levels, integration policies and public safety. What deserves scepticism is the claim that an entire continent is sleepwalking into oblivion while only a handful of commentators can see the truth.

Europe has problems. It also has democracies, functioning institutions, free elections and citizens perfectly capable of deciding their own future. That reality is considerably less dramatic than the one you describe.

docmcb -

Since we're trading scripture, Jeremiah's warning about false peace can be balanced by Christ's "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9), while the Qur'an states, "If they incline to peace, then incline to it also" (8:61). Religious texts contain warnings, but they also contain repeated injunctions toward peace, coexistence and restraint.

I would suggest that debating scripture with a Wee Free is a losing proposition.

Newt didn't exactly ignore Israel: "Everyone understands that Israel is an important ally. What is little discussed is "

"Important ally" seems true. He is just discussing something else.

So, ochoin, what does jihad mean?

So, docmcb, what does crusade mean?

"From the viewpoint of 11th-century European Christians, the Crusades were viewed as a necessary and defensive response. [1, 2]

* Territorial Losses: Following the rise of Islam in the 7th century, Muslim armies conquered significant Christian territories, including the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa. [1, 2]

* Byzantine Appeal: The immediate catalyst for the First Crusade (1095) was a formal plea for military aid from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. The Byzantine Empire was facing severe territorial losses in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) to the advancing Seljuk Turks. [1, 3, 4, 5]

* Protecting Pilgrims: Pope Urban II and contemporary church leaders also cited the harassment of Christian pilgrims visiting the Holy Land and the persecution of Eastern Christians as justifications for action."

…

"A Counterattack: Scholars often categorize the early Crusades as the first major Western Christian military counterattack following centuries of sustained Islamic expansion."

What the crusader "states" evolved into is irrelevant to the original "purpose" of the Crusades.

Jihadism

"Modern Extremist Interpretations (Jihadism)
In contrast to mainstream interpretations, radical extremist groups have distorted the concept into a violent political ideology known as Jihadism. For these groups, the purpose of jihad is to: [1, 2]

* Overthrow governments: Violently replacing secular or moderate regimes in Muslim-majority nations.

* Establish a Caliphate: Using unprovoked violence and terrorism to forge a totalitarian state governed exclusively by their strict interpretation of Sharia law.

* Wage a civilizational war: Justifying mass-casualty attacks against non-believers and other Muslims whom they declare to be apostates."

Actually sounds pretty much like original old Jihadism. 🤔

They didn't cross the world between 600 to roughly 1500 spreading Islam, giving away Girl Scout cookies and bon bons.

Since EU migration was brought up. Most European countries refuse to track crime by migration status, purposely. Sweden and Germany do.

Sex related crimes, which based on all I've read are on the increase.

"Sweden does not track ethnicity, but it explicitly tracks "foreign background" (defined as people born abroad or born in Sweden to two foreign-born parents). Because Sweden has high per-capita reporting rates for rape, academic studies utilize the official Swedish Crime Register to analyze these figures. [1, 2, 3, 4]

* The Conviction Rate: A peer-reviewed 21-year longitudinal study from Lund University published in Journal of Interpersonal Violence analyzed all individuals convicted of rape or attempted rape against women in Sweden. It revealed that 63.1% of convicted rapists had an immigrant background (first- or second-generation). [1, 2, 3]

* Foreign-Born vs. Swedish-Born: Out of the total convictions tracked over the multi-decade period, 50.6% were born entirely outside of Sweden, while 12.5% were born in Sweden to foreign parents. By comparison, Swedish-born individuals with two Swedish parents accounted for 36.9% of convictions. [1]

* Strangers vs. Acquaintances: Public broadcasting investigations (SVT) found that in cases where the victim and offender were complete strangers (assault rapes), the proportion of foreign-born offenders rose to over 80%. [1]

* Contextual Factors: The Lund University study noted that the overrepresentation remained statistically significant even after adjusting for socioeconomic variables. However, the risk of a migrant being convicted decreased sharply the longer they resided in Sweden. [1, 2]"

…
"Yes, that is correct. The data from both Sweden and Germany confirms that immigrants—specifically certain subgroups—are statistically overrepresented in violent and sexual crime statistics relative to their share of the total population."

Social liberals attempt to do studies trying to find "excuses" for this behavior by attempting to give other reasons for this violent behavior. But that is not new in the EU or the U.S. "Those committing the crimes are never "responsible" for their behavior, they are always "only victims"".

"Those committing the crimes are never "responsible" for their behavior, they are always "only victims"".

Kinda like the January 6 rioters who all got pardoned, right?

"Everybody understands" says nothing about the impact of Israel on the ME situation. A coalition of the moment may help get us out of there. Business may resume. Iran and all the fanatics and tribes across the region in endless struggle…and the Palestinians/Israelis, and newly energized resentment and hatred over the damage and casualties of this war, are not going to just go away. With the current leaders on all sides, it would take a miracle to achieve Newt's goal. I admire Trumps resolve, and if he could stop his style of talking so much he would have more support from home and abroad, IMO. But the ME is the ME.

Ochoin,
Anecdote? Generalization? I tend to hear/read these types of statements when someone wants to hide something.

I haven't just traveled to Europe, I've lived there, for multiple years at a time. Don't tell me my eyes and ears are lying to me.

These changes are fact driven, with your own governments, academia and news outlets finally realizing the deep schism that is currently underway in many European countries-directly because of the mass immigration from the Third World that your own governments REFUSE to stop. So, why is that when the following "anecdotes" are happening?

Imagine living in a country, that over the span of 40 years, basically ignores one of the largest underage sex trafficking rings in modern history because the government does not want to be seen as "racist." Why? 80% of the criminals are not native to the country. By the way, the low end estimate is over 200,000 rapes; 250,000 is the more accepted number. How many of your daughters, mothers and wives need that to happen for one to say "enough?" I guess in Europe it's more than 250,000 times.

Imagine a country that in the span of about 5 years saw the biggest increase in rape cases in modern history, but those that speak out or attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice are labeled "racists."

Imagine a country where one person can stand on a street corner and chant "death to the non-believer" while another gets arrested for saying "choose Christ." (Oh, and this one been repeated multiple times in just the last few years). Hell, I'm not even a religious person but I've seen this just WAY TOO OFTEN to believe "somthin' just ain't right."

Imagine a country that in the span of 1 decade, saw a 20% swing in population demographics, then went from having 5 murders a YEAR to five murders a month; where the hand grenade (yes, HAND GRENADES) are the weapon of choice?

Imagine a country that in 1 decade went from the lowest crime rates on the planet to one of the highest, per capita. It wasn't the result of natural disasters or wars, I'll tell you.

Imagine a country that allows multiple convicted teen rapists no jail time because the judge does not want to "further criminalize" that specific group of recent arrivals.

Imagine a European country that wins a soccer match, then the fans start rioting, where the most common chant of the rioter is not "our team is the best," but "Allah Akbar." That was last night, by the way.

Imagine living in a continent, that in the span of one generation, will see upwards of a quarter, likely more, of its population replaced by illegal immigration, with some countries closer to HALF.

Imagine a country, that in the span of 5 years, saw 90% of all new hired jobs for people under 25 years old, go to foreign born candidates.

Let's play match: you match the "anecdote" to the country. Your choices are: the UK, Germany, France and Sweden.

Ochoin, I'm not even trying here…try visiting a few Western German towns and tell me nothing is happening and it's a "generalization."

Peace, I'm out.

Maggot

Portland, Chicago, Dearborn, Columbus, Minneapolis? Ahh Europe. 😉 +1

Actually you are addressing an Aussie above and not a full time European. I believe he only visits family in the old country now.

BigFootLover,

Nailed it!!!!

Notice what has happened here.

You began by objecting to the word "generalisation," then proceeded to present a list of crimes, riots, court cases, demographic changes, employment statistics, political grievances and social controversies from multiple countries over multiple decades, and use them to reach a single conclusion about hundreds of millions of people.

That is the very definition of a generalisation.

No serious person denies that Britain, France, Germany and Sweden have experienced problems with immigration, integration, crime, extremism or social cohesion. The question is whether those problems justify the sweeping civilisational conclusions you draw from them.

You cite the worst scandals, the worst crimes, the worst decisions and the worst neighbourhoods. Fine. Every country has them. But selecting only the worst examples and treating them as representative of an entire continent is not analysis; it is cherry-picking.

What's missing from your post is comparison. Compared to what? Compared to thirty years ago? Compared to other developed countries? Compared to historical crime rates? Compared to periods when immigration was lower? Those are the questions that have to be answered before one can move from outrage to evidence.

Most importantly, your examples come from different countries with different laws, governments, demographics and histories. Yet somehow every road leads to the same predetermined conclusion. That should raise a red flag.

Europe has challenges. Europe also remains one of the safest, wealthiest and most stable regions on Earth. Both statements can be true at the same time.

The fact that problems exist does not prove the apocalypse.

I know facts are wasted on some.

Again, "MOST" Western European nations go out of their way, NOT to identify crimes as being perpetuated by foreign nationals.

I've already posted a few examples of such. Only Sweden and Germany do now.

"The PKS data makes political debates more intense. In states like Bavaria, Berlin, and Baden-Württemberg, non-German nationals make up about half of all violent crime suspects.

The gap is largest in Bavaria. Data from the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) shows that Syrians have a crime rate 16 times higher than German citizens. Afghan nationals have a rate 14 times higher.

Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said that this happens because of "high levels of immigration in recent years." He pointed specifically to people seeking asylum and those living in the country without legal status.

Numbers on sexual violence add to the pressure. Police counted 13,920 rape cases in 2025. This is a 9% increase from 12,771 cases in 2024. In 2018, there were 8,106 cases.

Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig wants tougher laws for using date rape drugs. People who disagree said that this ignores why the trend is happening.

Hesse's Interior Minister Roman Poseck said that suspects with a migration background are "significantly overrepresented," linking the pattern in part to differing social norms and attitudes toward women."

Subject: 1 in 4 Germans is an Immigrant — And Crime Data is Surging


link

Some more information

"In Germany, the average fertility rate is 1.35 children per woman. Non-Muslim women have a birth rate of 1.23 to 1.4 children per woman. In comparison, Muslim women in Germany have a notably higher birth rate, estimated at 1.8 to 2.4 children per woman."

"In the UK, the estimated fertility rate for Muslim women is 2.35 to 2.9 children per woman, whereas the fertility rate for non-Muslim women stands at approximately 1.54 children per woman."

"France has the largest absolute Muslim population in the European Union.Muslim Fertility Rate: Estimated at 2.9 children per woman.Non-Muslim Fertility Rate: Estimated at 1.8 to 1.9 children per woman."

"Sweden has experienced a significant demographic shift, with some projections showing its Muslim population could comprise over 20% to 30% of the country by 2050 under medium-to-high migration scenarios.Muslim Fertility Rate: Estimated at 2.6 to 2.8 children per woman.Non-Muslim Fertility Rate: Estimated at 1.6 to 1.8 children per woman."

I would believe, even the blind can see the eventual outcome. But hey! Must of us should be dead… so not our problem. Right? 🤔

We are more than ever at the mercy of politicized information.
Data may not be reliable, cherry-picked, slanted, omitted, etc.

Crime stats in the US depend on local police for reporting to a national data base. Even this process may not be accurate or timely but it is what it is.

But trends do become apparent over time. A study based on Texas criminal records from 2012 to 2018 shows that US born citizens are more likely to commit crimes than immigrants, both documented and illegal. The NYC police commissioner echoed this trend for his city about 4 years ago, in that illegals try to stay under the radar. This was my experience as well working in high crime urban areas. I never saw any illegals who were not terrified of authorities and being deported. This does not mean none were committing crimes, other than by their presence.

Cross-referenced US census data going back decades also supports lower immigrant crime rates, it seems. There is a lot of info supporting this. Even if its not 100% accurate, the ongoing trend has stayed the same. The numbers may change, so has global population.

This does not mean that what 35th lists is not important or relevant. My real point is that there are two sides to every story.

In the end, poverty, greed, and ignorance drive crime,IMO. And immigration has always been around, legal or otherwise, driven by starvation, war, disease, or the promise of opportunity. People didn't immigrate to the US just because it had unguarded borders.

The systems for regulating immigration and making it work are broken in a time of global chaos and mass migration.

To Maggot's point we see the contrast in news coming from Ireland. An immigrant from Congo, a serial criminal with over 60 charges and convictions against him, dies while being arrested by police and the media and the Left leap on this to bestow sainthood on the man before the circumstances of his death are known. Drugs and poor health are more likely candidates than the local cops as the cause of death. It's Ireland's giddy George Floyd moment!

And at the same time, a 37yo Irish man is beaten to death by two teens, one a 2nd gen immigrant the other is a recent immigrant, and they filmed him as they beat him to death, pleading for his life. Near media silence, the killers' identities are shield 'cause they are just troubled migrant teens, eh?

@Tortorella

The systems for regulating immigration and making it work are broken in a time of global chaos and mass migration.

No – the systems aren't broken, the leadership in charge of the system are broken. We know, as the Socialist Party of Spain has even admitted, that they want mass immigration to provide them with a large underclass of dependent voters that will overwhelm local loss of support by voters, to replace sagging local birthrates on the gamble that they can turn a Somali into a Swede faster than Sweden is turned into Somalia, and as we see in the US and elsewhere there's a LOT of grift and stolen cash in providing programs for "migrants." There is NO popular support for this, which is why the broken leadership have been criminalizing dissent.

SB, yes, same as here.

Well that's a fair point. But broken it is for the last few decades.

"But trends do become apparent over time. A study based on Texas criminal records from 2012 to 2018 shows that US born citizens are more likely to commit crimes than immigrants, both documented and illegal."

It would stand to reason. There are more U.S. citizens.

BUT! Every crime committed by a "illegal", is a crime that was 100% preventable.

1) Stop them at the border!
2) if they get in (as we KNOW some presidents can stop them. SOME presidents don't try!). Ship them back! They don't belong.

In addition:

"Across the rest of the United States, local police departments and cities do not actively track, log, or publicly publish whether a crime suspect is an undocumented immigrant. "

As far as the stats in Europe. Those are out there.

As a side:

If illegals could NOT be counted in a states census. No one would be fighting for them today. They would not count for receiving federal tax dollars back to the state. They would not count for electoral votes. They would not count for congressional seats. POWER and MONEY is the only reason anyone cares.

Well unless they let them vote illegally! 😱

"But trends do become apparent over time. A study based on Texas criminal records from 2012 to 2018 shows that US born citizens are more likely to commit crimes than immigrants, both documented and illegal."

California Bureau of Prisons has reported that illegal immigrants are represented in prison at twice the rate of general population.

Easy answer – ICE to prison to deportation includes all illegals, of whom most are non-violent. This is a big number in CA but hardly a threat to civilization. First offense is a misdemeanor. This is a big number in CA. Technically they have broken the law but are not generally violent. Every study that I can think of for years has shown that immigrants, illegal or otherwise, have lower crime rates than American citizens.
Here's another one…https://www.ppic.org/press-release/immigration-has-little-to-do-with-california-crime/

Please!! Do not assume that I do not support the crackdown on the chaotic southern border of the recent past.

I read this story this morning. It places a face on the mass invasion of illegals and the inability in being allowed to send them back home. Also disadvantages many seem to ignore.

Remember, no one opposes "legal" immigration on TMP that I have read.

I and others have expressed why we believe this has been allowed.

The gentleman losing the daughter is from one of the most vehement sanctuary states, Illinois.

From the article:

"My youngest daughter Katie was killed when an intoxicated illegal immigrant slammed into the back of the vehicle she was riding in at nearly 80 miles an hour while it sat idle at a stoplight. Ever since, I have been trying to understand how reckless public policies allowed something so horrific, and so preventable, to happen.

Katie's death forced me to look beyond slogans and political talking points and ask harder questions about what America's immigration system has become, who benefits from it and who ultimately bears the costs when governments refuse to enforce meaningful standards.

The more I examined the data, the more I began to notice an aspect of the problem that often seemed ignored or dismissed in public debate. Perhaps because acknowledging it had become politically uncomfortable."

….

I'll add this from the article:

"Katie's killer, Julio Cucul-Bol, a Guatemalan national who used a Mexican alias while in Illinois, admitted through an interpreter in state court that he had no formal education and was unable to meaningfully communicate in either English or Spanish."
…

"According to recent data from the Center for Immigration Studies, newly arrived immigrants now possess significantly lower levels of educational attainment than earlier waves of immigration.

During the border-surge years engineered under the Biden-Harris administration and overseen by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the composition of migration shifted heavily toward poorer regions of Latin America, bringing larger numbers of individuals with limited formal education and fewer workforce skills needed in a modern, technology-driven economy.

That matters because advanced economies increasingly depend on productivity, skills and institutional capacity. Educational attainment strongly correlates with earnings, poverty rates, tax contribution and long-term dependence on public systems."

…..

"America in 2026 is not the industrial America of 1920. Low-skill labor no longer guarantees upward mobility, even for many native-born Americans struggling under rising housing costs, inflation, healthcare expenses and stagnant wages. Yet policymakers continue expanding migration flows while insisting there will be no meaningful fiscal or social consequences."

…

"Lower educational attainment is closely associated with lower earnings, higher poverty rates and greater demand on public systems. School districts shoulder the costs of language services and educational remediation, often straining already struggling districts. Hospitals provide emergency care that is frequently never fully reimbursed, with taxpayers ultimately covering much of the burden. Cities face mounting housing pressures, while welfare systems expand to accommodate growing needs."

…

"Reasonable people can debate immigration levels and legal pathways. But no serious nation can maintain public trust while weakening enforcement and insisting there are no downstream consequences for public institutions, fiscal stability or social cohesion.

Many countries benefit enormously from large-scale emigration. Remittances from migrants working in the United States generate billions in foreign income while also relieving domestic political pressure.

In effect, the United States increasingly subsidizes the consequences of governmental failure abroad. Rather than fixing conditions for their own citizens, struggling governments can export portions of their poverty to the United States while importing remittance dollars back home."

…

"Every public policy carries tradeoffs, and citizens should not become collateral damage to reckless immigration policies pursued for short-term political gain.

A serious immigration policy would begin with honesty: honesty that educational attainment matters in advanced economies; honesty that mass low-skill migration creates fiscal burdens; honesty that weak enforcement and sanctuary policies carry real-world consequences; and honesty that America cannot permanently function as the economic and social safety valve for the developing world without eventually weakening itself.

Compassion without limits is not governance. And no nation can indefinitely absorb the unresolved economic and institutional failures of other countries while expecting its own stability, cohesion and prosperity to remain strong forever."

@Tortorella – the average criminal offender commits FORTY CRIMES before they are caught, charged, and convicted. When you look at an individual criminal, you will often see dozens of prior arrests. So even a small number of people commit a large number of crimes -- and why should you be less willing to deport "non-violent" over violent criminals?

IMHO, ALL crime is violent.

It can be a violent crime when you're been robbed or assaulted, direct in your face mugging or armed robbery where you're happy to be alive in the face of greater force and malevolence. You feel violated and helpess.

Or it can be a "non violent" crime like you come home and you and family see your "safe" and familiar home has been broken into, trashed, and real and personal emotional treasures taken or destroyed. And your kids ask "will the bad men come again" and are afraid to sleep in their own room. You feel violated and helpless.

All crime is violent.

California has an estimated 2.2 MILLION illegal aliens, and illegal aliens comprise 13% of the California prison population. This mean, even using average crime stats that this is an estimate of the number of crimes THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN because the illegal aliens committing them should not be there:

Larceny/theft: ~32,000–36,000
Motor vehicle theft: ~6,500
Burglary: ~6,200
Aggravated assault: ~6,200
Robbery: ~1,500–1,600
Rape: ~900–1,000
Murder: ~130–140

The Crusades – a long, long time ago …

Jihadis – still alive today …

For peace to come, all sides involved have to agree and want peace. The differences between Christians/Jew/Druze/Yazidis, etc. and islamists in some cases the divide appears to be wide.

As long as one side sees the other as a threat for whatever reasons. And it leads to kinetic actions one way or another. That chasm does not get any closer but wider …

On this we agree, SB. The strengthening of the borders was essential to curbing crimes illegals were committing. A tragic mess…

But I disagree that all crime is violent. Perjury, for example, or misleading investigators, withholding evidence. Tax fraud. Bribery. etc…