During a recent House hearing, several members of Congress stated as fact that illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than U.S.-born citizens.
Americans have heard the same claim from politicians, pundits, activists, and much of the media for years. It is often presented not as one interpretation of the available evidence, but as a settled fact. The message is delivered with such confidence that questioning it is portrayed as rejecting science rather than asking a reasonable question.
They may be right. They may be wrong.
But if the evidence is so clear, why doesn't the federal government collect and publish comprehensive national data that allows every American to examine the evidence for themselves?
That shouldn't be a controversial question.
No comprehensive national system tells us how many crimes are committed by people who are in the country illegally. The FBI's national crime reporting does not include verified immigration status. Most state and local agencies do not collect or report it in a standardized way. Immigration status is not consistently tracked from arrest through prosecution and conviction across the country.
Instead, Americans are left with competing studies, state-level data, and political arguments.
The disagreement is not imaginary. Researchers at the Cato Institute have concluded that illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. Researchers at the Center for Immigration Studies have challenged those conclusions, arguing that the available data are incomplete and the methodology has important limitations.
When respected researchers disagree about the completeness and interpretation of the available data, public officials should be cautious about presenting one conclusion as an indisputable fact.
If policymakers are confident enough to assure Americans that the issue is settled, they should also be confident enough to support collecting comprehensive, transparent data that allows those claims to be independently verified.
Recommended
Every successful organization measures outcomes. Businesses do it to allocate capital, improve performance, identify risks, and correct mistakes. Governments should be held to the same standard. Public policy should be guided by transparent, reliable data and not assumptions or political narratives.
Illinois demonstrates why this matters.
Governor J.B. Pritzker has championed sanctuary policies, defended limits on cooperation with federal immigration authorities, and supported expanding driver's licenses for individuals who are unlawfully present in the country. Whether those policies have made Illinois safer or less safe should not be a matter of political rhetoric. They should be measured.
Instead, Illinoisans are repeatedly told these policies are working without being shown the "full balance sheet.” Businesses don't report only revenue while hiding expenses. Investors expect to see the complete financial picture before judging performance. Citizens should expect the same from their government before accepting claims that public policies are succeeding.
I've spoken with sheriffs who have expressed frustration that immigration status is not consistently identified or documented during routine law enforcement encounters. Whether those challenges stem from policy, procedure, legal limitations, or practical realities, they point to the same problem: incomplete information makes confident national conclusions more difficult.
I didn't arrive at these questions as a researcher or politician.
I arrived at them as a father.
On January 19, 2025, my 20-year-old daughter, Katie, was riding in the back seat of a car stopped at a red light while visiting friends at the University of Illinois. An intoxicated driver traveling nearly 80 miles per hour crashed into the vehicle. Katie never made it home.
The man convicted of killing her was an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported and later obtained an Illinois driver's license.
Like every parent who loses a child, I wanted answers. I wanted to understand not only what happened to Katie, but whether other families had experienced similar tragedies, and whether better public policy could have prevented them.
Collecting better data is not an attack on immigrants.
It is not an endorsement of any political party.
It is not evidence of prejudice.
It is the minimum standard of accountable government.
Transparency should never be viewed as a threat. If today's claims are correct, comprehensive national reporting would strengthen public confidence in them. If better data reveals policy failures or opportunities for improvement, lawmakers should address those honestly.
Either way, the public benefits.
Trust is not built by asking citizens to accept conclusions they cannot independently evaluate.
Trust is built through transparency.
My parents came to America legally because they believed this nation was governed by the rule of law. They taught me that immigration is one of America's greatest strengths, but only when the laws that sustain it are respected and applied equally.
My daughter's death did not make me skeptical of immigrants.
It made me skeptical of governments that ask citizens to accept sweeping conclusions without collecting the information necessary to prove them.
If the evidence is as clear as we're told, show us the data.
Let Americans examine it for themselves.
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump, illegal immigration into our great country has virtually stopped. Despite the radical left's lies, new legislation wasn't needed to secure our border, just a new president.
Help us continue to report the truth about the president's border policies and mass deportations. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member