By Michael McCarthy
In what is the most divided time in history regarding immigration, it is invaluable to understand what immigration really means. While reading just the headlines in the modern-day setting is easy, this is how misinformation and divisive rhetoric shape false narratives nationwide. With such a messy and confusing topic shaping democracies worldwide, it is more important than ever to dispel the misperceptions of immigration.
In forming opinions about immigration, it is necessary to look at empirical evidence rather than enticing headlines or false narratives with no factual backing. Unfortunately, in modern America, the opinions formed about immigrants are largely based on misunderstanding rather than facts. Facts such as economic impact, immigrant population, and security concerns are all routinely ignored in light of divisive rhetoric. The formation of opinions on immigration is so important because lives are at stake, and legislation is malleable depending on how Americans interpret immigration. Basing legislation on non-empirical evidence is unfair to the well-being of immigrants, who the United States was fundamentally built upon.
Research in the Lutz and Bitschnau article indicates that individuals' views on immigration are often shaped by misperceptions. The most prominent misperception of immigration is innumeracy. (Citrin and Sides 2008; Herda 2010; Herda 2019; Lundmark and Kokkonen 2017; Steele and Perkins) While this is not entirely specific to the United States, it often attracts more attention due to the ongoing media coverage of the “border crisis.” The problem with overestimating the immigrant population is the perpetuation of societal fear of people believing their jobs are endangered, and communities are unsafe, which are both false assumptions to make, yet lead to unfair legislation based on falsehood.
While it might seem that more people within a country leads to fewer resources, that is simply not the case. Now, many United States Citizens view immigrants as “soldiers” (Caplan 2007; Johnston and Ballard 2016; McLaren and Johnson 2007), making citizens feel they have to work hard to sustain immigrants' lifestyles via welfare, housing, etc., which is deducted from the tax base. However, economists have indeed found the opposite to be true. Immigration actually enhances welfare effects (Dustmann and Preston 2019; Johnston and Ballard 2016; Kemeny and Cooke 2018). This is due to more income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc, which is often overshadowed by the idea of "illegal immigrants.”
Moreover, it is worth noting the invalid safety concerns felt by citizens in the presence of immigration. It is true that people tend to overestimate the number of crimes committed by immigrants in their country. (Semyonov, Raijman, and Gorodzeisky 2008; for Britain) This leads to an entirely unjust, false perception and racial ambiguity towards immigrant minorities. Further, this racial profiling that stems from false perceptions of immigration expands to both legislative actions and alters how one is perceived within the judicial system. In essence, if society bases its perception of crime on a falsehood, those who are convicted will be, in part, convicted due to bias.
When discussing strains on social cohesion, critics may argue that increased immigration weakens a country's cultural identity. However, having more cultures in one place offers more opportunities to appreciate one's own culture. Take, for example, the United States, which is viewed as the “melting pot” of ethnicities. While the United States certainly has its shortcomings in recognizing empirical evidence supporting immigration, it is worth giving the United States credit for building an infrastructure to support an amalgamation of cultural identities. Further, the fear of weakened social cohesion is a byproduct of false narratives. Instead, counties should seek to unshackle themselves from the divisive “us versus them” rhetoric and find ways to integrate immigration into their culture so that all identities can be represented.
It is a citizen's duty to base their opinions on empirical evidence from trusted sources, and not simply spout what the headlines read. Further, it is imperative that citizens realize that beliefs have a significant impact on which legislation passes and how groups of people are viewed on a daily basis. The problem of falsely attributing side effects of the immigration system extends beyond immigration itself. Yet, the citizens are only half of the solution; the other half lies in the hands of the media. Access to data, true narratives, and media not tailored to clicks is mandatory in accurately shaping perceptions of immigration. Citizens, legislators, judges, and journalists must begin making decisions based on truth, rather than fear. If people want an accurate immigration policy and a healthy democracy, the beginning is in what information they choose to consume.
By Noah Barnhart
Every single day, thousands of girls are forcibly married before they have reached 18 years old. A great quantity of them is only about 14 or 15 years old when they are married. These extremely dangerous marriages prevent these young girls from finishing their education, and they are thrown into intense and violent situations. We must not forget that these girls are being deprived of their childhood, education, and their own growth and are being forced to start their adult lives at 14 years old.
Child marriage is a violation of human rights, not just a cultural issue. It prevents young girls from having a voice and making their own choices. The United Nations calls for eliminating all forms of discrimination against women and girls, emphasizing that marriage should involve the consent of both parties. In Somalia, frequent early marriages deny girls their youth and autonomy.
The percentage on this issue is the most concerning part, as The Kenyon Wall Street writes that UNICEF conducted a study where they found that 35-36% of Somali girls currently aged 20-24 were married before the age of 18. Then, a shocking 16% were married before they turned 15. These numbers are extremely high when compared to other countries. Thus, demonstrating that this matter cannot be ignored and must be heard, given serious concerns for these girls.
There are numerous consequences for a young girl regarding their health and safety. UNICEF reports that nearly 60% of gender-based violence is committed in areas of child marriage, meaning that these young girls are more likely to experience domestic violence. These young brides are also pressured or maybe even forced into early pregnancies, which can cause significant health complications. The Kenyon Wall Street found that from 100,000 live births, 692 deaths occur, which is the highest in the world for maternal mortality rates. This exposes the cruelty of child marriages and backs the importance of ending child marriages.
It is extremely clear from the brief making women and girls visible that gender gaps and gaps in data have been misdocumented, with statistics going missing or never being reported. This then causes even larger issues, as the UN Women report noted that it is extremely difficult for policymakers to fully understand these issues when the data is skewed or simply incorrect. The importance of ending the gender gap and obtaining accurate, consistent data is crucial for governments.
Many defensive statements that argue for early marriage explain how it is deeply rooted within the culture and has been used as an economic necessity to help the family out. These regions may feel pressured into doing this as their only way out of financial disaster by having their daughters marry early.
All in all, simply accepting this culture and continuing to allow this to happen violates many human rights issues and violates women’s rights, as it is not voluntary. This practice cannot be justified as it deprives young girls of their education and their youth and forces them to grow up at very young ages. Around the globe, laws and other legal protections have been enacted to protect women from this issue. There has also been improved access to primary and secondary education, as well as better economic opportunities for families, so this last-resort idea does not need to be explored, as we have seen it help combat this issue.
Somalia could explore the paths other countries have explored, but it would require immediate action from its leadership.
The Somali government and leadership, in order to end child marriage, would have to implement and then strictly enforce clear and concrete age requirements for marriage. The Somali government could also seek support from international organizations or women’s groups to build programs that help women stay in school or continue attending. Keeping the girls in school for longer would be a good way to delay marriage, so long as education is one of the most important things for young people. Lastly, policymakers must make it clear that data collection must be clear and concrete, and that no evidence can go missing, so they can help these girls and put laws into place.
This will not end overnight, but continuing to ignore this issue will cause millions of young girls to lose their childhood.
Ending child marriage must become the highest priority to protect girls and their future.
By Tanner Turnpauph
Immigrant sentiment in rural Indiana is, for the most part, largely negative. As the national media continues to highlight the plethora of ICE arrests, and incidents in cities like Minneapolis keep racking up, the topic is on everyone’s minds. The question is where does this negative idea of immigrants come from? Is it justified? Or is the public image that is pushed about immigrants in America fabricated? The answer is simply no, anti-immigrant sentiment in rural Indiana is not driven by real changes in crime or factual evidence against immigration, but by social media platforms and confirmation bias that amplifies negative narratives.
Social media has long tried to portray the idea that what you see is what you get. The images posted about other’s lives are the real thing, and there’s no way that any of it is fabricated, you should take it at face value. However, we know this isn’t true. People lie, photoshop, spread misinformation, and even use artificial intelligence to create whole pages of content. So then why do we allow the information we consume on social media to affect our beliefs. If you see a post you agree with, you smile, you feel good, because you feel validated that what you think is correct. If you disagree, the opposite happens, you think to yourself “This is just something dumb on the internet, they don’t know a thing!” This is called confirmation bias, and it’s a very simple behavioral economics principle that explains how media can affect our beliefs.
This is very similar to an effect mentioned in the article Immigration, Crime, and Crime (Mis)Perceptions. The radio effect explains how areas with a local radio influence crime related concerns about immigration and increase the number of preventative measures taken against crime, even though there is no significant change in crime rates. My biggest issue with this idea is that radio as a medium is going by the wayside. Social media is where ideas float, roam, and take hold. There are a million creators with a million beliefs, and a special algorithm designed to show you what you love, and what goes viral.
To understand how narratives like this spread, we need to ask: what kinds of stories go viral online? Is the news full of the great things that happen every day, or the bad? Through the evolution of the radio effect, social media is feeding people what they already believe. This creates an immensely dangerous feedback loop, where you see a post, you agree with, you like it and now ten more are queued up for you. This is known as an “echo chamber” or an environment, often digital, where existing beliefs are reinforced by exclusive exposure to similar viewpoints, creating a self validating loop. This is what news platforms on social media want to do, and it’s what they are trained to do. Today, algorithms prioritize outrage and they push content that causes the fear of immigrants as criminals or burdens into the mainstream. A recent study on social media and anti-immigrant prejudice has reported that discussions on social media regarding immigrants often involved negative emotions and concerns for topics such as crime, and job competition. The study also reports that individuals with an increased social media usage have much more negative views of immigrants.
Some will try to tell you that social media mirrors real concerns, but we know this isn’t true. In fact, we see that anxiety about immigration stems from stereotypes. When looking at the work of Valentino and Suhay, we determine that opposition spikes when immigrants have Latino features, but not when they have European features. This shows that the bias is a manipulated variable, and not reflective of real outcomes.
This topic hits incredibly close to home after the recent passing of Indiana’s Senate Bill 76, a bill that forces local police, government institutions and educational institutions to comply when ICE submits a detainer request. The bill eliminates the intent standard for governmental bodies, meaning that schools and local officials could be forced to act as extensions of federal agents. This bill also passes the burden onto businesses, as it is not illegal to knowingly employ or hire an undocumented immigrant. Social media has exploded with discussions of the bill, and many immigrants in Indiana report elevated stress. As government policy continues to be antiimmigration, the echo chambers of social media flags to Hoosiers that immigrants are dangerous, illegal, and unwelcome.
There is still hope. We can prioritize digital literacy for the coming generations. Embrace opposing views, experience some cognitive dissonance, and don’t be afraid to be wrong. Share experiences with those who aren’t like you and form opinions that don’t come from a phone screen. It is very easy to live inside the bubble that you create for yourself… and as a white man from small town Indiana I would be lying if I said that bubble doesn’t exist, but it is a very unsatisfying way to live. Educate yourself on the facts, embrace the immigrants that make America great, and strive to be wrong sometimes.
By William Cunningham
Immigration debates in the U.S. are shaped by language. One term dominates: "illegal." Used by politicians and the media, "illegal" refers to people without legal authorization. This label powerfully positions individuals as existing outside the law. However, from a human rights perspective, this is a misleading framework. Laws or practices can be illegal and unjust, but people themselves cannot be. When politicians apply the term "illegal" to humans, they describe a policy-created status, not a personal condition. Understanding this distinction is essential: immigration systems must respect both law and migrants’ fundamental rights.
Nicholas De Genova, an American anthropologist, argues that migrants themselves are not responsible for the condition of being considered illegal, but rather it is created by the immigration laws themselves. Governments establish rules determining who can cross borders, work, and reside in their country. When those rules change, it restricts those once considered legal and makes them undocumented. Because of this, illegality is less about individual’s actions and more about legal systems that classify certain behavior as criminal. Immigration systems, therefore, do not just regulate migration; they actively are the cause of both inclusion and exclusion of certain immigrants.
The consequences of classifying immigrants as illegal are very significant. When migrants are classified this way, they often lose protections that many "legal" residents take for granted. Workers without proper documents may face dangerous conditions or stolen wages, but are not able to report these abuses, as it would lead them straight to deportation. Some undocumented families even avoid hospitals, schools, or other services out of fear of authorities. As a result, some communities are pushed into the shadows, unable to experience many freedoms of the United States. These negative outcomes demonstrate how immigration laws do not just regulate who comes in through the borders, but it also shapes the everyday life for millions of migrants who live and work in a country without formal paperwork within it.
Research highlights as well that immigration status is not based solely on official documents, but also on social perception. Sociologists René Flores and Ariela Schachter have found that migrants are often presumed to be "illegal" based on cues like language/accent and perceived ethnicity. In their studies, individuals were more likely to label someone undocumented if they spoke Spanish or appeared Latino. Even without any information about their legal status, these migrants were called illegal by many individuals, and these findings highlight how enforcing immigration policies can intertwine with racial stereotypes, making the law susceptible to being used just because of social suspicions.
Some people say in critique of this perspective that every state has the right to regulate its borders and enforce laws on immigration. They state that without clear rules governing entry to their society, their governments would struggle to maintain a sense of economic stability and national security. This concern reflects a very important principle: sovereign states do have the legitimate power to manage who migrates into their country, and determine the conditions under which people may or may not enter.
However, even acknowledging the authority these states have, that does not mean these governments should accept a system marginalizing millions of people. When used correctly, immigration policies can be used to enforce rules while still respecting fundamental human rights. Governments can pursue reforms to aid these marginalized peoples, expanding the ways to achieve legal status, strengthening labor protections, and ensuring access to essential services like healthcare, even for those who have not yet reached documented immigration status.
Policies like these would help the U.S. recognize that migrants, "legal or illegal," are a core piece in the social and economic sphere in which they live.
The broad issue at hand is a sense of belonging for immigrants. Modern economies, especially in the United States, rely heavily on migrant labor in several industries. Yet these migrant-dependent societies often treat them as outsiders who do not fully belong. When these people are labeled as "illegal," it reinforces a contradiction, a contradiction suggesting that the presence of these migrants is both necessary and illegitimate at the same time.
If we are to believe that fundamental human rights are universal, then they can not just stop at borders or depend on legal papers. Immigration laws are always going to exist, and politicians will always be contentious on their beliefs about immigration. However, recognizing that "illegality" is not what a migrant is, but is instead a legal category, is crucial for building fair and equal immigration systems that respect all migrants with human dignity.
By Zackary Schroeder
When fear of immigration grows stronger than facts themselves, it is then that a major crisis for democracy emerges. The case of Chile illustrates the nature of this crisis. In Chile, where the foreign-born population nearly tripled within a decade, researchers found no corresponding increase in crime. Rather, fear of crime grew. Residents in neighborhoods with higher immigrant populations expressed greater fear of crime and invested more in alarm systems, fencing, and local security, even though victimization rates did not rise. Fear of immigrants was not producing a rise in crime, it was creating fear.
Fear of immigrants, not evidence-based reasoning, is what undermines human rights.
Ted Brader, Nicholas Valentino, and Elizabeth Suhay demonstrate how fear can be created and how it spreads. Researchers conducted several studies where they showed participants news articles about immigration. However, the news article was only effective in triggering anxiety if accompanied by pictures of Latinos as immigrants. Participants had little reaction to the same news articles with accompanying pictures of European immigrants. This demonstrates that it is not facts that are driving public opinion rather, it is the emotional cue provided by the images of the immigrants that shape opinions.
Philipp Lutz and Marco Bitschnau provide a larger perspective on the extent to which fear distorts perceptions of immigrants in democratic societies. People consistently overestimate the proportion of immigrants in their own country, and they consistently misjudge the educational qualifications of immigrants, their contribution to the economy, and the likelihood that immigrants will commit crimes. These are not random errors, but rather consistent patterns of perception that continue to persist even after participants are provided with accurate information.
At this point, the human rights implications of fear-driven misperception cannot be ignored.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. " It also provides for non-discrimination and the right to equal protection under the law. However, when politicians and the media amplify fear and use it to justify restrictive immigration policies, the protections afforded by these provisions begin to break down. Rights are not lost immediately they slowly deteriorate as public support for them erodes because of the perceived threat posed by immigrants.
In its 2024 report, the Global Rights Project documents the scope of the problem. Most governments in the world fail to meet the minimum requirements of human rights, and only five percent of the world's governments receive an A rating. The consequences of policies based on misinformation are real.
Fear-driven narratives can justify surveillance, detention and limitations on freedom of movement. They create a sense of normalcy among the public regarding the idea that some individuals are inherently suspicious.
Christian Davenport, a researcher on state repression, describes the mechanisms of repression. Leaders of governments are most likely to repress rights when they believe that there is a threat to stability. The form of repression depends upon the type of political system, and personalist dictatorships frequently employ violence, whereas single-party regimes typically employ legal restrictions however, the underlying logic is the same. Coercive policies follow fear.
Nothing in this discussion suggests that legitimate concerns about immigration are necessarily unfounded. Governments have a responsibility to control borders and communities have the right to feel secure. However, democratic systems require decision-making based on evidence, not hyperbolic anxiety. When crime statistics remain flat while fear continues to escalate, it is reasonable to ask why and who is benefiting from this.
Part of the answer to these questions is in how information is framed. Many media outlets devote disproportionate coverage to rare instances of crimes committed by immigrants. Politicians may emphasize cultural differences to elicit emotional reactions from voters. Social media accelerates the spread of sensationalized narratives, while quieter statistical realities recede from view.
Frameworks for protecting human rights exist to prevent these dynamics. They establish the principle that rights should be protected regardless of whether they are popular, based on an individual's identity, or based on panic. They require states to protect all individuals equally, regardless of whether public opinion is volatile.
Ultimately, this debate is not primarily about immigration. It is fundamentally about the ability of democracies to make informed judgments. Democratic systems rely on informed citizens who are able to distinguish fact from emotion. When mass misperceptions are used to drive the results of elections, the foundation of rights protection within those democratic systems is compromised.
Immigration does not automatically result in the risks that many imagine. Instead, fear of immigration expands. The long-term result of allowing fear to dictate policy without restraint could undermine the principles that democratic societies purport to defend.
Although fear may be compelling, only evidence protects our rights.
The Immigrant Crime Crisis Doesn’t Actually Exist. So, Why Do People Think It Does?
By Albert H. Bernhardt
Whenever immigrants appear in American communities, people begin to start caring about crime a lot more. This isn’t just rhetoric; it’s empirical. However, a study by Nicolás Ajzenman et al. also shows that immigrants have only a marginal or strictly correlative impact on crime rates. So why do people still act as if?
As it turns out, the reasoning behind this issue is multifaceted, but it seems to boil down to a single concept: the divorce between public opinion on immigration and empirical realities. Americans, in general, often wildly overestimate the scope of immigration's broad impacts on society. This ranges from overassessing economic impacts to falsely correlating immigrants with crime. Neither variable is true, but the reasoning behind why Americans do this is simple: the human mind is fickle.
It must be stated that extant research finds a statistically negligible, if even existent, link between heightened immigration and crime. People often think that immigrants bring crime with them, especially to lower-income areas. However, a study shows that in Chile, a country poorer than the United States and currently undergoing a massive influx of immigrants, with the foreign-born population tripling in the last decade, crime rates there remained statistically unchanged. Researchers tested whether crime rose in high-immigrant areas in Chile, and they concluded that immigration had no impact there. In a comparative sense, if immigrants do not contribute to crime in Chile, then why wouldn’t they in America, with its strong institutions and wealth?
This isn’t the only dimension to this issue, however. The same study also noted something else interesting: despite the marginal-at-best impact immigrants had on crime in Chile, public perception worsened. Respondents in the study reported feeling less safe in areas where migrants were present, believed that crime was increasing despite the evidence, and invested more in personal security. Even though nothing changed regarding crime rates, the fear factor still increased. This proves at least one thing: that there is a serious gap between how immigrants are perceived and how immigrants actually behave.
But why is that? As it turns out, people in general tend to grossly overestimate the impact of immigration across multiple areas, not just crime. Another study revealed that, regardless of the immigrants' behavior, people tend to vastly exaggerate their role in various ways. People not only believe that immigrants commit more crimes than they actually do, but they also exacerbate their economic impacts and frequency of immigration as well. As for why this is, the answer boils down to a set of highly uncomfortable facts about the human psyche. According to the paper, humans are uniquely susceptible to misinformation regarding migrants because it triggers an old instinct: in-group bias. When groups are perceived as interfering with one’s community, people will typically exaggerate the situation to remove what they view as a problem.
This is the root of many common anti-migrant arguments. People fear that migrants “invade” their countries and make things worse overall. Others still believe that they displace locals economically and refuse to assimilate. However, all of these critiques fail to hold in the midst of the evidence. While some of these critiques come from a place of concern rather than malice, the outcomes are still real. In the worst of cases, the human rights of migrants may be violated, so it is imperative that, despite the fears of the population, the record is set straight.
Immigration debates often begin with fear and end with massive discrepancies between opinion and reality. However, the evidence tells a different story; though the fear of migrant crime increases, the reality is that there is no increase and that the adverse effects of immigrants in general are grossly overstated. It is often speculated that for every single bad thing an immigrant does, a thousand good things go unrecognized. It is up to us, as a nation, to change this.
By Connor Grimes
Nearly every nation today claims to support gender equality. Many point to international agreements like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), a treaty adopted by the United Nations in 1979 that requires governments to eliminate discrimination against women in political, economic, and social life. Often described as an international bill of rights for women, the treaty represents an important commitment—but signing an agreement does not guarantee equality actually exists.
One of the biggest issues is that many nations are failing to gather accurate data on women's issues in society. Without accurate data, how can a nation even begin to fix a problem? Many women in society are not even being recognized within their own nation's statistics.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women explicitly affirms and asserts that governments have an obligation to actively work to eradicate discrimination and ensure women have equal rights and opportunities to men. The treaty defines discrimination broadly as any restriction based on sex that prevents women from fully enjoying their human rights.The treaty also requires governments to enact legislation and policies to ensure women have equal rights in areas like education, employment, healthcare, and political activities (United Nations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women). Theoretically, this implies that governments ratifying this treaty commit to taking action, not just paying lip service.
However, measuring the advancement of equality remains extremely difficult, especially when governments fail to collect accurate data. A study from UN Women reveals the seriousness of this concern. According to a global report by UN Women, there remains a lack of data in numerous countries. Despite the fact that the United Nations has developed numerous indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals that focus on gender equality, only about 22 percent of these indicators have sufficient data to track progress on these goals (UN Women, Making Women and Girls Visible: Gender Data Gaps and Why They Matter).
What this means is that policymakers cannot see where the problems of inequality are occurring or whether or not the policies that have been put in place to solve the problems of inequality are actually working. Problems such as gender-based violence, unpaid care work, or the absence of employment opportunities are not adequately captured in the data. This allows the government to pretend that progress is being made on the issue of gender equality when, in fact, the problems persist.
Another impact of these data gaps is on how countries view the role of women in their economies. Many studies on female participation in the work force ask people what their “primary economic activity” is. This can mask female participation if a woman has a work and a family. However, if the method of data collection is adjusted, a different story can emerge. Researchers for UN Women discovered that if a survey asked people in Uganda about their secondary work activity, then participation by women in the work force would rise to 87 percent instead of 78 percent (UN Women, Making Women and Girls Visible).
Some opponents of collecting data on gender issues claim that it is too expensive or too hard, especially for a country that is already disadvantaged. While these claims may be true, they should not be used to excuse a country’s failure to address these issues. If a country wants to abide by CEDAW, then it must start by improving how it collects data on these issues.
Better information is good not just for women, but for everyone. It enables governments to develop policies that address real problems in a better way, and it also enables activists, researchers, and citizens to hold governments accountable for their promises. If the government has the information it needs, it is much harder to ignore the problem of inequality.
Achieving real gender equality requires more than treaties and political promises. It requires transparency, accountability, and a real understanding of the problems that women face in their daily lives. The treaties that governments have signed, such as CEDAW, offer an important framework for the protection of women's rights, but such promises mean nothing if governments do not monitor whether progress is really being made.
If governments really wish to address the problem of discrimination against women, they need to begin by making women visible in the information that guides policy development. This is because it is much easier to ignore the problem of inequality when it is not being counted.
By Ethan Koeneman
Walk through a quiet, middle-class neighborhood in Santiago, Chile, and you’ll notice something strange. Houses that used to look friendly and open are now covered with electric fences, security cameras, and signs warning about guard dogs. Ask the people living there why, and the answer is usually the same: they are scared. The number of immigrants in their neighborhoods has tripled recently, and they worry this brings more crime.
But this fear isn’t only happening in Chile. From Chicago to Santiago, people are putting up real and imaginary walls against a threat that isn’t supported by the data. This is what experts call a “crime-perception gap,” meaning we feel like crime is rising, even when it isn’t.
Why does this matter? When we let our fears and stereotypes decide what’s safe, it’s not just about buying extra locks or hiring guards. We start changing our laws, our politics, and how we treat people all based on a story that isn’t true.
A study by economists Nicolás Ajzenman, Patricio Dominguez, and Raimundo Undurraga looked at ten years of data in Chile, a country where the foreign-born population grew quickly. They found no link between more immigrants and more crime. Robberies, thefts, even homicides did not increase because of immigration.
Even though crime didn’t go up, the fear was huge. The researchers found that if the number of immigrants in a neighborhood doubled people’s worries about crime went up by 14 percent. Residents didn’t just feel unsafe, they changed their lives. They bought alarms, hired private security, and organized neighborhood watches. They weren’t reacting to real crime; it is because they were reacting to seeing more immigrants around them.
So why do we feel threatened when the numbers say we’re safe? Part of the answer is how we think about who belongs. Sociologists René Flores and Ariela Schachter explain that "illegality" isn’t just a legal fact—it’s also something we imagine. We don’t check everyone’s papers; instead, we rely on stereotypes. People with certain jobs, accents, or from certain countries automatically seem “illegal” to many of us.
Media coverage makes this worse. Flores and Schachter found that news stories often portray immigrants as criminals, and even someone with a criminal record can be assumed to be undocumented. This creates a dangerous chain reaction: we see an immigrant, we assume they are “illegal,” we assume “illegal” means “criminal,” and suddenly we feel unsafe and buy a stronger lock.
Some people think their fears are normal. They point to scary news stories or rumors about gangs. They say the neighborhood just feels different now. But research shows that much of this fear comes from the media. In Chile, fear was highest in areas with many local radio stations. Stories about migrant crime made people see danger where there wasn’t any. Instead of informing us, the media was stirring up fear.
This matters because it’s not harmless. When we call people “illegal” based on their job, accent, or background, they face more police attention and are pushed out of society. We make inequalities worse, and these effects can last for generations.
We need leaders and media to stop pushing the “immigrant threat” story and start using real evidence. Policies and safety measures should be based on facts, not stereotypes. Treating our neighbors as threats does nothing to make us safer, it only spreads fear.
The electric fences in Santiago don’t stop a crime that isn’t happening. They only remind the people inside to be afraid. Real safety doesn’t come from cameras or locks, but it comes from understanding the truth and seeing past the stereotypes we’ve built.
(By Anonymous Student)
In the United Kingdom, the right to free speech owed to its citizens has been taken away as Englishmen find themselves in handcuffs for what they say online. An article from Forbes finds that in 2025, over 30 arrests a day are being made by British police for what they believe to be offensive posts, comments, and other content, which is over 12,000 arrests every year. This is still happening today.
The right to freedom of speech and expression is being threatened in the UK because, under the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the government argues it is justified in arresting people for whatever they choose to say online that they considered too offensive or harmful. Such action is extremely repressive and unjust to the British people, who deserve the right to speak out against issues they are against, especially concerning government action. Their right to do this is being violated and must not be allowed to continue.
Freedom of speech is an essential right that all people are owed. In the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 declares that everyone is entitled to form their own opinions and express them without interference and through any media. Government prevention of this fundamental right is a clear violation that instills fear of unjust punishment from the government. It is wrong for anyone to fear punishment for expressing their opinions.
Regardless of this threat to free speech, several media outlets are speaking out against the UK government’s actions. The Nordic Times makes the case back in May of 2025 that the UK government is using hate crime laws much more frequently to silence “popular discontent” expressed by the people, as well as noting in 2023, a high of 12,000 arrests made that year, with the number decreasing slightly in 2025, marking a 58% increase from 2019 of arrests for what is considered offensive internet behavior.
The Daily Mail also had much to say in 2025, arguing that police forces are wasting their time hyper focusing on these specific arrests, stating official reports indicate 90% of all crime went unsolved in 2023, up from 75% in 2015. The article also finds that only 7% of adults find this internet policing to be a top priority, whereas most other respondents are more concerned about violence, drug-dealing, and robbery.
The same Forbes article from 2025 mentioned earlier compares the government's actions to that of a “tin pot Third World dictatorship”. The article also notes special attention to a conservative politician’s wife being sentenced to 31 months in prison for an unacceptable post, compared to a child molester given only 21 months in prison.
A journal article written by Christian Davenport titled State Repression and the Tyrannical Peace can be used to help explain how the UK government’s actions are a form of repression over its people. This article focuses on autocratic governments, but I think it is applicable to the behavior of the UK government and its attempts to silence its people from expressing their distain of several government policies.
Davenport defines an important distinction for arrests and bans due to individual expression, association, assembly, and beliefs as civil liberties restrictions. These kinds of restrictions are used primarily as an alternative over personal integrity violations, which directly harm people through torture or mass killings. Thus, Davenport’s article shows how the UK government has resolved to these arrests as a more “peaceful” way to keep order, preventing the British people from government criticism.
Supporters of the UK government frequently argue these arrests are made to protect those targeted in offensive social media posts, especially immigrants, LGBT+ people, and other groups heavily supported by the government. The government has a duty to protect groups such as these from credible harm. Although many arrests are the result of online harassment and threats to certain groups, I do not believe social media posts and content deserve such a heavy penalty. People deserve the right to be angry at the government favoring certain groups over others.
The UK government's attempts to silence dissident from the British people should serve as a warning to the country, as well as other countries facing similar media policing. If the UK government is not met with strong pushback against this oppression against free speech, who knows what rights the government will decide to take away next.
By Rylan Perkins
On Saturday, February 28th, President Trump posted an 8-minute video to Truth Social addressing the nation, announcing the joint US-Israeli military operation in Iran. This was not just a typical address to the nation; it was also an address to the Iranian people, calling on them to overthrow their government.
According to the 2024 Global Rights Index Project (GRIP) report, Iran ranks at the very bottom, with a human rights grade of 0. If the U.S. helps over 90 million people regain rights from an oppressive state, that would be a huge win for human rights as a whole and would be a real-time example of the boomerang model working successfully.
Aiming to achieve this goal with little negative impact on Americans would undoubtedly be a noble cause. Yet is that exactly what our goal is here?
I argue that Operation Epic Fury is presented as an effort to free Iranians, but in reality, the United States is not making a genuine attempt to enable the Iranian people to overthrow the Islamic Republic's regime.
Calling for a popular overthrow may sound stirring in Trump's speech, but the reality of how authoritarian states block collective action, especially without outside forces physically supporting Iranians, makes the reasoning for the attack appear superficial.
According to the GRIP report, Iran’s government has spent years tightening control over information flow, restricting media, policing dissent, and shaping what people can access. Currently, most power grids in Iran are down.
Meaning the Iranian people cannot effectively communicate, coordinate, plan, mobilize, or verify what's happening. Furthermore, the Iranian people are not armed; the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), which effectively runs the country (regardless of the top officials being killed), has 150,000 people, and they are armed.
The administration currently claims that there will be no ‘boots on the ground’ from the U.S. So if this remains true, how are unarmed civilians supposed to coordinate and mobilize to overthrow an armed military of 150,000+?
Let's assume the administration is withholding information about how the Iranians will regain control of their government. We are still left with a glaring issue: why this regime, and why now?
The two key reasons in Trump's address as to why we are carrying out this operation are that one, Iran poses an imminent threat, and two, Iran is oppressive to its people. The list of countries that fit this same criteria is long; North Korea is an imminent threat and oppressive to its people, as is Russia, China, etc.
When a government is genuinely committed to human rights, it should apply those standards consistently. The State of the World's Human Rights report bluntly states that in 2024, governments “failed repeatedly to take meaningful action to end atrocities.” The report highlights the U.S. backing Israel’s actions in Gaza and exercising its U.N. veto power to stall stronger action for months, later supporting a limited ceasefire resolution, then undermining it by treating it as nonbinding.
When civilian suffering does not fit the strategic agenda, the U.S. invokes complexity, and nonbinding resolutions as hurdles. This inconsistency further demonstrates that the human rights angle agenda in Iran is likely a front.
Critics might argue that it is not the U.S.’s job to ensure the Iranian people can actually follow through and overthrow their government, and that any opening for uprising is just a bonus outcome of eliminating a hostile enemy’s threat.
But if the U.S. does not intend to see through to the Iranian people regaining real freedom and safety, then it should not frame liberation as a core goal in a public address to Americans and to Iranians.
Otherwise, it repeats the same false justification from the government we’ve heard before, where a noble justification is used to legitimize action, and later the public realizes the justification was never fully true, as in the Iraq War.
Due to that one; calling for Iranians to rise up is not a strategy when the regime controls information, the grid is down, and civilians are expected to outlast an armed security apparatus without U.S. support on the ground. And two; the “human rights” reasoning is weakened by the U.S.'s broader track record of selectively engaging in atrocities only when it aligns with strategic interests, this leads to the conclusion that the justification of “freedom for the Iranian people” is unlikely.