For a missive so confident in its (utterly nonsensical) argument, Maurice Brandt's Aug. 27th letter displays a lack of critical thinking that is, frankly, stunning, even relative to the typical shoddy logic of his racist ilk.

Pay no attention, Mr. Brandt says, to the proven fact that immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than people born domestically; it is meaningless.

WDAY logo
listen live
watch live

Focus, instead, on the bottom line: if zero immigrants are allowed into the country, the immigrant crime rate will be zero.

Well, that logic isn't exactly wrong, it's just circular reasoning. It does nothing to prove its apparent solution of closed borders is effective, necessary, realistic, sane, or acceptable to human morality. It also unevenly weighs the seriousness of crimes based on the ethnicities of the people committing them, which does nothing to stop criminal activity, but DOES fly in the face of American ideals, such as 1) that we are all created equal and that therefore 2) the law should apply equally to all people.

Alright, look, I'll try to come up with a metaphor dumb enough to explain this. It would be like trying to outlaw green cars, even though statistics show they are involved in fewer fatalities than purple cars, because if there are zero green cars on the road, they will cause zero accidents, which is fewer than now. It's perfectly reasonable to want to stop car accident deaths, but the proposed solution doesn't do that. It just betrays your irrational hatred of green cars, as well as your knee-jerk reaction to attack them for an issue inherent to every color, make and model of car in the world.

If Mr. Brandt wants to claim logical superiority, he has to reconcile his dissonant opinions. Either his claim - that a very small percentage of a population committing crimes means the entire population should be excluded from society - needs to be applied equally, which would mean no human being should be allowed to exist because some of us will commit crimes. Or he can double down on his claim that the law should apply to individuals differently, depending on who they are, and admit he thinks the ideals of freedom and liberty are worthless.

To use Mr. Brandt's expression: "why is that so hard a concept to grasp?"

Thielges lives in Fargo