City Journal: No, You’re Not Imagining a Migrant Crime Spree
Underlying the escalating controversy of illegal immigration is the sheer number of migrants entering America during the Biden administration. In a 2020 debate with Trump, Biden seemed to encourage an immigration surge, and it followed soon after his election, with about 8 million people, on some estimates, flocking to the U.S. border without applying first for legal entry. The administration has released up to 3.3 million of them into the U.S. to await immigration hearings, many of which won’t occur for years. At the same time, the number of immigrants who enter by avoiding border security and remain fraudulently in America has also skyrocketed, to an estimated 1.6 million to 1.7 million since Biden’s election, compared with about 1.4 million over the entire previous decade.
The Bragg-style soft-on-crime approach—especially combined with sanctuary policies that keep cops from cooperating with immigration authorities—has resulted in countless examples of repeat-offender aliens getting off scot-free. NYPD officials slammed New York’s sanctuary policies, which forbid the police from cooperating with federal immigration officials, after an illegal alien with previous convictions and a deportation order against him brutally raped a New York woman in August. “When will our sanctuary city laws be amended to allow us to notify federal authorities regarding the deportation of non-citizens convicted of violent crimes?” the NYPD’s chief of patrol asked the press.
Sometimes, deadly consequences have ensued, like the horrifying case of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray of Houston, whom two illegals allegedly dragged under a bridge, raped, and killed. Border officials had earlier stopped and released the two men. Testifying before Congress last year, the president of Victims of Illegal Alien Crime, Donald Rosenberg, said that almost all illegal-alien-caused deaths in the U.S. are preventable. “In the past 12 years, I have reviewed hundreds, maybe over a thousand, cases that resulted in a fatality. I can’t remember one where the killer didn’t have prior convictions or, at the very least, contact with law enforcement. Why were these people still here?”
As the United States grapples with immigration policy under a newly re-elected Trump administration, a provocative perspective has resurfaced: the notion that illegal immigration constitutes a “moral hazard.” This concept, borrowed from the insurance world, suggests that shielding people from the consequences of risky behavior can inadvertently encourage it. A recent editorial from Issues & Insights, frames illegal immigration through this lens, arguing that lax border policies not only harm American citizens but also perpetuate suffering abroad. Drawing on their claims—while digging deeper into data, counterarguments, and on-the-ground realities. Does the “moral hazard” label hold water or does it oversimplify a complex crisis?
Issues & Insights: The Moral Hazard Of Illegal Immigration
The phrase “moral hazard” comes to us from the insurance industry. It refers, says Law & Liberty, “to the possibility that insuring against costly outcomes actually increases the reckless behavior creating the need for insurance in the first place.”
We often hear about the moral hazard of foreign aid. As long as we send money to struggling nations, their “leaders” will never liberalize their economies and root out the corruption that wrecks their societies. They don’t have to deal with the consequences of their policies.
It takes no leap of logic to apply the tag to an open-border policy, much like the one the Biden administration oversaw for four years. When unfettered entry into the U.S. is a pressure release valve for countries where millions are mired in perpetual poverty, those nations’ leaders, who are more often than not grifters and authoritarians, have no incentive to free their economies and purge their governments of the mobsters and entrenched insiders whose misfeasance limits prosperity to only a select few.
A Record Low at the Border
The Issues & Insights piece opens with a striking statistic: U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported just 28,654 illegal border crossings in February 2025—the lowest for any February in recorded history. The editorial credits this drop to stringent Trump-era policies, contrasting it with what it calls the Biden administration’s “open-border” approach, which saw monthly averages of over 200,000 crossings during his four-year term. This sharp decline, they argue, is “good news,” not just for border security hawks but for a broader moral reason: curbing illegal entries might force systemic change in migrants’ home countries.
The moral hazard thesis hinges on this idea. The editorial posits that unfettered access to the U.S. acts as a “pressure release valve” for nations mired in poverty and corruption. Leaders in these countries—often depicted as grifters or authoritarians—face little incentive to reform when their citizens can flee north. By tightening borders, the piece suggests, the U.S. could indirectly compel these governments to address root causes, sparing “countless future generations” from lives of “squalor and desperation.”
Unpacking the Moral Hazard Claim
To test this, let’s examine the premise. The term “moral hazard” traditionally describes how insurance can embolden recklessness—like a driver speeding because they’re covered for accidents. Applied here, it implies that an open border encourages migration by removing the deterrent of failure, while simultaneously absolving foreign leaders of accountability. The editorial parallels foreign aid, where critics argue that cash infusions prop up corrupt regimes without fostering development.
Data sheds light on the issue. Pew Research reported 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2022, a drop from the 2007 peak of 12.2 million, a number that stabilized during Biden’s term despite elevated border encounters. This indicates that U.S. policy isn’t the sole driver of migration—economic hardship, violence, and climate pressures in Central America exert significant influence. Take Honduras: its 2024 GDP per capita was $3,200 (World Bank), with 48% of its people living below the poverty line. Might a fortified U.S. border push reforms in such nations, or would it merely shift the burden of addressing these persistent challenges?
The Second Hazard: Danger and Exploitation
The Issues & Insights piece introduces a second moral hazard: open borders endanger Americans and migrants. Quoting Luma Simms of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, it argues that permissive policies enable violent offenders and traffickers to cross unchecked, putting lives at risk. Simms, a legal immigrant, contends that “open borders are not humane, nor compassionate,” citing the trafficking of vulnerable people, especially children.
Real-world cases lend credence to this concern. In December 2024, Guatemalan migrant Sebastian Zapeta allegedly set a woman ablaze on a New York subway, a crime linked to his illegal re-entry after a 2018 deportation. Posts on X in early 2025 flagged similar incidents—assaults, and drug trafficking—tied to undocumented individuals, amplifying fears of security breaches. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers $150 billion annually, factoring in crime and strained services, though these figures are hotly debated.
The migrant toll of this hazard is undeniably bleak. The International Organization for Migration tallied over 600 deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border in 2023, with cartels bearing the bloody brunt of the blame—luring migrants into deadly treks through scorching deserts and violent ambushes. These trafficking rings flourish where enforcement falters, preying on desperation for profit. So, does an open border truly endanger those it claims to rescue by empowering these ruthless predators?
Political Motives and Pushback
The editorial doesn’t shy away from politics, accusing Democrats of championing open borders to swell voter rolls and boost blue-state populations for congressional seats. Sanctuary cities like Chicago, now strained by migrant influxes, are cited as evidence—Mayor Brandon Johnson’s pleas for federal aid in 2024 underscore the chaos. This aligns with a narrative of cynical power plays, with “illegals as pawns,” per the piece.
Critics, however, see the moral hazard argument as a convenient oversimplification. Immigration scholars like Carola Suárez-Orozco argue that migrants aren’t lured by policy loopholes but driven by survival—U.S. borders don’t dictate gang violence in El Salvador or droughts in Guatemala.
The weepy trope that immigrants flood the U.S. solely for “survival” collapses under scrutiny—a textbook glittering generality designed to dodge hard truths with emotional fluff. Carola Suárez-Orozco peddles this line, insisting gang violence in El Salvador or Guatemalan droughts force every crossing as if U.S. borders bear no pull. Yet, this ignores reality: Pew Research pegged 11 million unauthorized immigrants here in 2022, many chasing economic gain, not just fleeing bullets—remittances from the U.S. hit $66 billion to Mexico alone in 2023 (World Bank). Mexico’s post-NAFTA 2% annual GDP growth hasn’t slashed migration, but neither has it proven closing borders can’t deter; February 2025’s record-low 28,654 crossings (CBP) under Trump’s crackdown suggest otherwise. Painting all migrants as desperate survivors glosses over calculated risks and policy magnets, shielding a flimsy narrative from the messier data.
Voices from the Ground
Posts on X in March 2025 highlight public outrage: “Fentanyl deaths, cartel gangs—open borders kill us,” one user vented, mirroring the editorial’s grim warning. Humanitarian groups, however, argue that harsh measures—like Trump’s 2025 asylum ban—abandon refugees without tackling root issues. A Honduran migrant told Reuters in January 2025, “I’d rather die trying than stay where there’s nothing,” a desperate cry that doesn’t speak for the millions drawn to the U.S. for economic opportunity, as Pew’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants in 2022 suggest. This clash frames the moral dilemma: does deterrence protect lives over time, or sacrifice them in the moment?
Do Compassionate Voices Have a Legitimate Claim?
National Catholic Reporter: Our country suffers from a deficiency of compassion about immigrants
Immigration antagonists will sometimes defend their stance by stating that their ancestors entered this country legally. And for many that is true. But throughout our country’s history, the laws have always made it difficult, if not impossible, for specific people at specific times to immigrate legally, all while providing preferential treatment for those immigrants already steeped in privilege.
Still, you don’t need a U.S. immigration history lesson to recognize that the current state of immigration in our country. at best, lacks compassion. Nor do you need to believe in “open borders” to believe that showing compassion to all, especially the most vulnerable in our midst, is an act of basic humanity.
Compassion, mercy and charity are universal human impulses, and as Christians we know that our namesake is the embodiment of these virtues. His teachings abound in them. The good Samaritan parable is a story of showing mercy to a stranger, in fact to an enemy. The Beatitudes tell us that the peacemakers, the merciful and those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness are among the blessed. Feed the hungry. Give drink to the thirsty. Welcome the stranger. Clothe the naked. Care for the sick. Visit the imprisoned. If after reading these verses we do not feel compelled to embody the same compassion, mercy and charity as Jesus, then we are missing the whole point.
Our country suffers from a deficiency of compassion, mercy and charity, and our treatment of immigrants is not its sole symptom. Having compassion for others has become political. Responding in anger toward those with whom we disagree has become typical. Assuming the worst of another has become nearly instinctual.
Still, every time a national tragedy occurs — whether it’s an act of indiscriminate violence or targeted racism — politicians and citizens alike will inevitably claim, “This is not who we are.” But a quick glance backward tells us otherwise. Our history is proof that racism, bigotry and xenophobia are very much a part of our national identity, despite our frequent claims of the moral high ground. This is exactly who we are
The National Catholic guest opinion claims that America’s treatment of immigrants reveals a “deficiency of compassion, mercy, and charity” drowns in tunnel vision, painting a nation of 330 million with a single, bleak brushstroke. This glittering generality collapses under its own weight—compassion isn’t absent; it’s channeled differently. Border policies aren’t a rejection of mercy but a defense of sovereignty and safety, a biblical principle of stewardship (Nehemiah 2:17–20), not xenophobia. The quote’s leap to “racism, bigotry, and xenophobia” as our “national identity” ignores context: U.S. Customs data show 28,654 illegal crossings in February 2025, down from Biden-era peaks, reflecting order, not hate. Mixing charity with open-border advocacy misreads Scripture—Romans 13:1–7 upholds lawful authority, not unchecked entry. History shows flaws, yes, but claiming “this is exactly who we are” dismisses the millions who legally welcome immigrants yearly (1.1 million in 2023, per DHS). The piece sees only shadows, missing the light of a nation balancing justice and generosity.
A Hazard or a Symptom?
The Issues & Insights perspective compellingly frames illegal immigration as a moral hazard with a double sting—prolonging global suffering by easing pressure on failing states and exposing the U.S. to crime and chaos at home. Its call for deterrence as a spark for reform gains traction with February 2025’s plunge to 28,654 border crossings (CBP), a tangible win for tough policies that hints at broader potential. While migration’s tangled roots—poverty, violence, corruption—resist simple fixes, the editorial’s logic shines a piercing light on a truth too often dodged: open borders may coddle the problem, not cure it. As of March 17, 2025, this view stands as a bold challenge to the status quo, urging us to weigh the real costs of compassion against the promise of principled resolve.