The homicidal empathy of the left’s immigration policies

Fairfax, Virginia, has had four homicides so far in 2026. Three out of the four were committed by illegal immigrants.
One, the case of Abdul Jalloh, underlines everything wrong with the approach the left has taken to illegal immigration. Jalloh, who hails from Sierra Leone, illegally entered the United States in 2012 and proceeded to commit dozens of crimes, including assault, rape, and theft.
Eventually, he was caught by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and locked up for roughly two years while awaiting deportation. But in 2020, a judge ruled he could not be deported to his home country. He was free to go, as ICE could not find someone willing to take him.
It is a recognition that Aztec-style sacrifice of the innocent is not necessary to make the rain fall that has empowered nationalists across the West.
Six years later, he killed Stephanie Minter, a mom waiting at a bus stop.
In the aftermath, Minter’s family and Republicans turned their attention to Fairfax County’s District Attorney Steve Descano for having refused to work with ICE and for his extraordinarily light sentences for illegal immigrants, with many highlighting his statement, “If two people commit the same crime, but only one’s punishment includes deportation, that’s a perversion of justice.”
Descano has been called to testify in front of Congress in mid-May to explain his policies. During his hearing, a particular term may be mentioned: suicidal empathy.
Suicidal empathy is a term, popularized by Dr. Gad Saad, commonly used by the Western right as a catch-all for the liberal idea that the importation of potentially dangerous immigrants is a good thing because not doing so would be cruel.
If you do not support mass immigration, legal or otherwise, the thinking goes, you don’t have a heart.
Politicians have been espousing this sentiment for a long time. In 2014, Jeb Bush famously called illegal immigration “an act of love.”
This way of thinking has also dominated Western establishments for some time, even though concerns were obvious. Right from the start of the migration crisis in 2015, new arrivals were causing trouble. Assaults, rapes, and murders that would never have occurred started happening with frightening regularity. Now 11 years later, migrant rape stories have become a part of life there.
And yet, establishments resist any sort of mass deportation because the countries from which they come are “unsafe,” and it would be inhumane to send them there.
Conservatives do themselves and their societies a disservice by portraying this supposed empathy as “suicidal.” It’s not: It’s homicidal. “Suicidal empathy” invokes self-sacrifice. The people are so empathetic that they are willing to risk their lives — the chance that invading migrants may hurt or kill them — or destroy their society.
But this is not really true, as your average pro-migrant liberal is likely not risking his or her life. While migrants rape and kill at startlingly high rates — as just one example, in 2023, foreigners committed 100% of “serious sexual crimes” in Frankfurt, Germany — the odds of any liberal voter being the person who is targeted is relatively low.
RELATED: My friend survived the Global War on Terror. Leftist immigration policies got him killed.

For example, rape in England and Wales was once consistently low. But right when mass migration happened, it skyrocketed, rising over 300%. In 2024, non-German suspects committed nearly 40% of all rapes, over 4,430 — roughly 12 women a day. But because there are millions of English and German women, the odds of any single person being attacked is small.
However, it is going to happen to someone. Those who oppose mass deportations understand this on some level. But they dismiss its importance, as they believe it is the only way for society to function.
Conservatives often misunderstand where this thinking comes from, chalking it up to a secret plot by a combination of George Soros, his son, and other Antifa funders. To be clear, these networks exist. But they are not why your average liberal is OK with mass rape and murder having arrived on their shores.
To understand why, one must look to history. Specifically, the Aztecs.
The Aztecs sacrificed tens of thousands of people, often cutting the hearts out of still-living individuals. This was done to please the gods and to ensure everything continued as necessary. Children, burned alive, were first tortured so that they would cry, as their tears were believed to satiate the needs of the rain god.
Today’s liberal internationalism — the driving force behind allowing mass migration — is based on the same principles. Mass migration allows for UberEATS and Door Dash. It lets you hire cheap labor. The women of "The View" asking conservatives who will clean their toilets are not representatives of the extreme left-wing: They are in lock-step with the ideology that has ruled the West for the past 30 years.
RELATED: The liberal guide to committing national suicide

In the minds of liberal internationalists, the UberEATS driver and the lawn mower have a better life because of their minimum wage (or lower) jobs. The Vietnamese child in the shoe factory is making 10 cents a day — five cents more than if he were working another job!
So it is with those who are sacrificed to migration. Yes, those few who are raped or killed are unfortunates, but they at least get to live in a melting pot after they’ve been sexually assaulted. As Piers Morgan recently argued, he gets to live in a society with tikka masala. (Morgan, of course, has paid security guards and is under no threat.)
It is a recognition that Aztec-style sacrifice of the innocent is not necessary to make the rain fall that has empowered nationalists across the West. Even when they have lost, in places like Poland or Hungary, their successors have mostly kept strict anti-migrant policies intact.
Abdul Jalloh should never have been in the United States, and deportation should have been easy. If Sierra Leone did not want him back, it should not have mattered.
The United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world. If Washington wants to return criminals to their home countries, it has the power to do so.
This homicidal empathy has real victims, and their numbers increase by the day. The right must not let its left-wing opposites get away with viewing themselves as suicidal. They are not risking their own lives. They are arguing for the homicide of others.
KJP continues her DISASTROUS book tour as more Dems and colleagues pile on their disgust

Karine Jean-Pierre, the former White House press secretary under the Biden administration, is facing more criticism over her disastrous book tour.
Jean-Pierre began her tour in October to promote her new book, “Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines.” She has been relentlessly mocked, even by those on the left, for repeatedly mentioning identity politics.
'Lady, please do your book tour and then shut the f**k up! Please.'
During an October 29 episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored,” the Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur and Katie Miller, a former deputy press secretary and wife of U.S. Homeland Security adviser Stephen Miller, found rare common ground criticizing Jean-Pierre for frequently mentioning that she identifies as a black LGBT woman.
“I don’t care about her skin color or sexuality, but my God, she cares about it,” Morgan stated after playing several clips of her book tour interviews. “When people talk about DEI and they look at the way she’s been handling her book tour, all they’re hearing is identity politics.”
Miller agreed, contending that Jean-Pierre was not qualified for the press secretary job.
“I do totally cringe. I hate to say it, but I half agree with Katie here,” Uygur replied, clarifying that he did believe Jean-Pierre was qualified, but adding, “She’s obsessed with identity politics, and I can’t stand it.”
RELATED: Karine Jean-Pierre's memoir ROASTED: A review so savage, Glenn Beck wants to hug the critic

Jean-Pierre was confronted about Miller's and Uygur’s criticisms during a Tuesday episode of the podcast “Higher Learning.” Host Van Lathan asked Jean-Pierre to explain why she feels it is important to identify herself as a “black, queer woman.”
“If anything, I get criticized for saying I’m a black, queer woman. I don’t get shielded from saying I’m a black, queer woman,” she replied. Jean-Pierre claimed that mentioning her identity puts “more of a target” on her.
“It pisses me off that people who have not walked in my shoes, who have no idea who I really am as a person, get to tell me how I get to identify myself or not,” she continued. “You can’t tell me how I get to call myself. Like, screw you.”
RELATED: Karine Jean-Pierre's humiliating book tour is even worse than you think

On Sunday, political analyst James Carville mocked Jean-Pierre for dodging a question during an interview with the New Yorker “because she’s a black, lesbian female.”
“Lady, please do your book tour and then shut the f**k up! Please,” Carville said.
Former Biden spokesperson Andrew Bates also voiced disagreements with Jean-Pierre. During a Monday interview with Spectrum 1 News, Bates said he “disagree[d] with the reasoning that she has put forward for leaving the party,” referring to Jean-Pierre’s decision to identify as independent after Democrats "betray[ed]" Biden.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!





