Listen to the article
In a heated exchange during a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Tuesday, GOP Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana sharply rebuked David Bier, an immigration policy expert from the CATO Institute, after Bier accused the Trump administration of attempting a “population purge” in the United States.
“What planet did you parachute in from? You trigger my gag reflex,” Kennedy told Bier, who had just claimed that federal judges opposing President Trump’s immigration enforcement operations “are much braver” than U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
Bier, who was called as a witness by Democratic committee members, made the controversial assertion that the Trump administration was not only pursuing mass deportations but also “trying to deport U.S.-born citizens, people born here.” He characterized this as “an agenda intended to reduce the population of the United States, including U.S.-born people.”
Earlier in the hearing, titled “Sanctuary Cities: The Cost of Undermining Law and Order,” Bier argued that both legal and illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy and help reduce the national deficit. He cited statistics showing immigrants work at rates 12 percentage points higher than the national average while using fewer government benefits due to eligibility restrictions.
“According to the Social Security Administration, we need about 35 million more workers in order to keep revenues equal to expenses by the middle of the 2030s,” Bier testified. “Immigration is not going to solve it completely, but it is moving us in the right direction.”
Following the hearing, Bier told Fox News Digital that his exchange with Kennedy “had nothing to do with illegal immigration” and that “the question was about immigration generally.”
Senator Bernie Moreno, Republican of Ohio, also took issue with Bier’s testimony, calling him a “smug guy” after they clashed over whether Congress should prohibit illegal entry into the country. “You haven’t answered my question, but that’s okay. You’re a smug guy, and that’s part of your shtick,” Moreno said.
The hearing highlighted the deep partisan divide over immigration policy. Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California, a vocal critic of the Trump administration, argued that sanctuary policies actually improve community safety and economic outcomes.
“Data shows that sanctuary policies actually make communities safer, healthier and more prosperous,” Padilla stated. “The evidence shows sanctuary jurisdictions have lower crime rates, higher median household income, less poverty, less reliance on public assistance, higher labor force participation, and lower unemployment.”
The disagreement comes amid ongoing national debates about immigration enforcement and the economic impact of both legal and illegal immigration. The Biden administration has faced persistent criticism from Republicans over its handling of the southern border, with many GOP lawmakers calling for stricter enforcement measures.
Immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in American politics, with profound disagreements not only about enforcement strategies but also about the fundamental economic and social impacts of immigration on U.S. communities.
The CATO Institute, where Bier works as an immigration policy expert, is known for its libertarian perspective that often advocates for more open immigration policies based on economic arguments. This position frequently puts the organization at odds with more restrictionist views common among Republican lawmakers.
As the 2024 election approaches, immigration is expected to remain a central campaign issue, with both parties staking out positions that reflect their differing perspectives on border security, deportation policies, and the economic contributions of immigrants.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The accusations of a ‘population purge’ and deporting US citizens are quite extreme and concerning. While the economic data on immigrant contributions is noteworthy, those inflammatory claims warrant closer examination. I hope lawmakers can move past partisan divides to have a fact-based, constructive dialogue on this complex issue.
It’s interesting to see the differing perspectives on how immigration impacts the US economy. While the data on economic benefits is noteworthy, the heated rhetoric is concerning. I hope lawmakers can move past partisan posturing and find pragmatic solutions that balance security, economics, and American principles.
The claims about ‘population purge’ and deporting US citizens are quite alarming. While the economic data on immigrant contributions is informative, those extreme accusations require closer scrutiny. I hope lawmakers can move beyond partisan posturing to find pragmatic, fact-based solutions on this complex issue.
Wow, the accusations of a ‘population purge’ and deportation of US citizens seem quite extreme. While immigration is a complex and sensitive issue, making such inflammatory claims seems counterproductive. I’d be curious to see the specific data and analysis behind those assertions.
Yes, those claims warrant closer scrutiny. Rigorous, fact-based debate is needed to address this issue responsibly.
This immigration policy debate seems to be bringing out a lot of strong emotions and accusations on both sides. While the economic impacts are relevant, the inflammatory language is counterproductive. I wonder if there are opportunities for compromise and nuanced solutions that address valid concerns while upholding core American values.
This immigration policy debate seems quite heated and polarizing. While the statistics on immigrant contributions to the economy are interesting, the inflammatory rhetoric from both sides is concerning. I wonder if there are any constructive solutions that could address valid security concerns while also upholding American values of openness and opportunity.
I agree, the tone from both sides makes it difficult to have a nuanced, evidence-based discussion. Hopefully cooler heads can prevail and find common ground.
This debate highlights the deep divisions and high tensions around immigration policy. While the economic data is relevant, the inflammatory rhetoric from both sides is concerning. I wonder if there are opportunities for more constructive, good-faith dialogue to address valid security concerns while also upholding American principles of openness and opportunity.
I agree, the charged language makes it difficult to have a nuanced discussion. Hopefully the debate can shift towards finding balanced solutions that consider all perspectives.