TruthOrFake Logo
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: The ratio of immigrants without criminal records being turned away at the border was 30 to 1.

Fact Check: The ratio of immigrants without criminal records being turned away at the border was 30 to 1.

Published July 1, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
?
VERDICT
Unverified

# Fact Check: "The ratio of immigrants without criminal records being turned away at the border was 30 to 1." ## What We Know The claim that "the rat...

Fact Check: "The ratio of immigrants without criminal records being turned away at the border was 30 to 1."

What We Know

The claim that "the ratio of immigrants without criminal records being turned away at the border was 30 to 1" lacks substantial backing from credible sources. As of now, there is no verifiable data or official statistics that specifically support this ratio. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other immigration-related agencies typically report on apprehensions, deportations, and the demographics of immigrants, but detailed statistics on the criminal records of those turned away are not commonly published in such a specific format.

Analysis

The assertion appears to be an anecdotal or speculative claim rather than one grounded in empirical evidence. The lack of specific data from reliable sources such as the CBP or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) raises questions about the accuracy of this claim. Additionally, the context in which this ratio is presented is crucial; without understanding the circumstances surrounding border policies and the criteria for turning away immigrants, it is difficult to assess the validity of the claim.

Moreover, the sources that could potentially provide information on immigration statistics, such as government reports or peer-reviewed studies, do not seem to reference this specific ratio. This absence of evidence suggests that the claim may be exaggerated or misinterpreted.

Conclusion

Verdict: Unverified
The claim that "the ratio of immigrants without criminal records being turned away at the border was 30 to 1" is unverified due to the lack of credible evidence or official statistics supporting it. The absence of reliable data from authoritative sources makes it difficult to substantiate this assertion.

Sources

  1. Premiers pas avec Google Maps
  2. Aide Google Maps
  3. Cómo descargar áreas y navegar sin conexión en Google Maps
  4. Obtenir et afficher les itinéraires dans Google Maps
  5. Use navigation in Google Maps - Android - Google Maps Help
  6. Search by latitude & longitude in Google Maps
  7. Plan your commute or trip - Computer - Google Maps Help
  8. Pesquise localizações no Google Maps

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Did the Biden ministration give illegal immigrants, Social Security?
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Did the Biden ministration give illegal immigrants, Social Security?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Did the Biden ministration give illegal immigrants, Social Security?

Aug 14, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 If you thought the Epstein files were bad, wait until you hear this. 21 children were just rescued from a four-million-dollar mansion in California. Not from a cartel, not overseas but right here in the sunny California. The couple behind it, Sylvia Zang and Guhan Shang. They were running what looks like a surrogate agency but is now being investigated as a potential child trafficking operation. One surrogate, Kayla Elliott said, I was told that they already had a child and they just wanted one more. I didn't know that they had owned the agency.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 If you thought the Epstein files were bad, wait until you hear this. 21 children were just rescued from a four-million-dollar mansion in California. Not from a cartel, not overseas but right here in the sunny California. The couple behind it, Sylvia Zang and Guhan Shang. They were running what looks like a surrogate agency but is now being investigated as a potential child trafficking operation. One surrogate, Kayla Elliott said, I was told that they already had a child and they just wanted one more. I didn't know that they had owned the agency.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 If you thought the Epstein files were bad, wait until you hear this. 21 children were just rescued from a four-million-dollar mansion in California. Not from a cartel, not overseas but right here in the sunny California. The couple behind it, Sylvia Zang and Guhan Shang. They were running what looks like a surrogate agency but is now being investigated as a potential child trafficking operation. One surrogate, Kayla Elliott said, I was told that they already had a child and they just wanted one more. I didn't know that they had owned the agency.

Jul 26, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Call "Alligator Alcatraz" what it is: a concentration camp. "Most detainees at the center do not have criminal convictions, according to a government official..."
Partially True

Fact Check: Call "Alligator Alcatraz" what it is: a concentration camp. "Most detainees at the center do not have criminal convictions, according to a government official..."

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Call "Alligator Alcatraz" what it is: a concentration camp. "Most detainees at the center do not have criminal convictions, according to a government official..."

Jul 26, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks