Compassion hijacking: How we’re being brainwashed to hate immigrants

Today, I’m about to take the stage at one of Asia’s biggest human resources conferences—alongside one of my personal idols, physicist Dr. Michio Kaku.

My talk will be about how we’ve used AI at Mindvalley to accelerate productivity, creativity, and innovation. It’s a story that’s made our company an academic case study in AI transformation.

But I’ll also address something darker—something that’s hijacking our minds, our votes, and our shared humanity.

It’s the way AI is being used not to elevate us—but to divide us.

We see it every time we open TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube and get served content that perfectly matches our outrage.

So today’s newsletter is about this darker side of AI.
It’s about how AI is being weaponized to divide society.

And how ALL of us, but the immigrant and the person marching to get them out – are both being hijacked to serve a greater political purpose.

Let’s begin with the algorithm

Not the kind that builds robots.

The kind that feeds you headlines. Curates your outrage. Hijacks your empathy.

The kind that fuels TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, and X.

These algorithms don’t just reflect your beliefs.
They sculpt them.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth:

AI doesn’t care about democracy.
AI cares about dopamine.

It optimizes for one thing: engagement.
And the fastest way to get engagement?

Fear.
Outrage.
Division.

So what do we get?
Not truth.
Not nuance.
We get emotional bait.

Headlines like:

“Trump ends the H1B Visa program.”
“Democrats halt the government because they want healthcare for illegals.”

And who benefits from this firehose of emotional manipulation?

Not the wise.
Not the kind.

But those most willing to say anything, no matter the cost.

And right now, the cost is being paid by immigrants. The very people we once promised to welcome, protect, and uplift.

America: the immigrant myth

Let’s start with the United States, where this lie has taken root the deepest.

In his recent speech at the United Nations, Trump declared that the U.S. government is being shut down because Democrats want to give healthcare to illegal immigrants.

Sounds outrageous, right?

Here’s what he doesn’t tell you:

The actual portion of the U.S. healthcare budget that goes to undocumented immigrants?

< 1%

That’s not a typo. Emergency Medicaid expenditures for undocumented immigrants are estimated to be less than 1% of Medicaid’s total spending.

That’s for emergencies—like if someone is bleeding out on a highway after getting hit by a car. The American way is to save a life.

The alternative? Let them die.

But 1% is still something, right? That could be going to regular Americans. How dare those undocumented folks leech off tax-paying Americans? 

Now there’s the other great myth that the White House is perpetuating. 

Far from draining the system, undocumented immigrants contribute $97 billion in taxes annually—equivalent to the tax output of the entire state of Ohio.

Yes, you read that right. The average undocumented immigrant in America actually contributes between $8K to $10K a YEAR in tax revenue. 

Now imagine everyone in Ohio being told they’re not allowed to access any healthcare—even emergency care—despite paying taxes.

And when people say, “Well, they came here illegally,” let’s talk history:

For decades, the U.S. had a rotating door policy with Mexico.
Undocumented labor was quietly welcomed to do the jobs Americans wouldn’t.

Reagan tolerated it.
Bush tolerated it.

It only became a “crisis” when fear became a campaign strategy.

I want to be very clear, I’m not suggesting we allow illegal immigrants into countries; countries have border policies for a reason. 

America spends $25 billion in budgeted per year on policing its border. What I am against is the villainization of undocumented migrants, the tearing apart of their families, people not having the right to due process and fair trial, because these are tactics that dictators use. 

As a conscious civilized society, we need to be very, very aware of these tactics. 

Obama himself deported $3M people from the United but it was done with due process – there are fairer, safer ways to deal with illegal immigrants.

But before we move on, let’s talk about crime. Trump has been suggesting that undocumented immigrants contribute vastly to crime. Data from the Cato Institute tells another story.

• Undocumented immigrants are 41% less likely to be incarcerated than Americans. 

• Documented immigrants are 74% less likely to be incarcerated.

Immigrants are by FAR less likely to engage in criminal behaviour. But of course, it’s not convenient to tell the truth. 

If you think this hysteria only affects undocumented workers, think again.

What happened when I tried to build a company in America

Let me tell you why Mindvalley—a global personal growth company—was forced to leave the U.S.

In 2004, I was legally living in New York. Visa approved. Business thriving.

Then, I was added to a federal watchlist.
It was called Special Registration—a Bush-era policy targeting people from Muslim-majority countries.

Here’s the irony:
I’m Hindu. And baptized an Orthodox Christian.
But because I held a Malaysian passport—from a peaceful, developed country with a Muslim-majority population—I was flagged.

For four years, I couldn’t fly in or out of the U.S. without a two-hour interrogation.
Every four weeks, I had to report to the NYPD.

I’d arrive at airports earlier than everyone else to sit in a room with agents who often asked, “How are you even on this list?”

They knew it was absurd. But the system didn’t care.

So I left.

And I moved my company to Malaysia—not for lower taxes or talent, but because I refused to be treated like a suspect for carrying the “wrong” passport.

We built something extraordinary.
Mindvalley now operates globally, has created thousands of jobs, and impacts people in over 100 countries.

And I made a promise:

If I couldn’t build in America, I’d recreate everything I loved about America in my own hood.

This is why Mindvalley became the first company in Asia to win the World’s Most Democratic Workplace award. It’s also why our office made Inc Magazine Top 10 Most Beautiful Offices in the World in 2012 and 2019. I recreated everything I loved about Silicon Valley culture in Asia and helped these ideas spread. 

Eventually, President Obama declared Special Registration unconstitutional.
But in 2016, Trump tried to bring it back—under a new name: The Muslim Watchlist.

Only this time, social media was awake.
People protested. CEOs like Sergey Brin marched in the streets. Trump backed down.

But the same fear-mongering I lived through is now being used again.
To divide.
To distract.
To scapegoat.

Europe—The numbers, the narrative, and my uncle at dinner

A few nights ago, I was having dinner with a family member.

He said, “You know, Vishen, Europe is finally waking up. Crime is going up because they’ve let in too many immigrants.”

He’s not even European. But he’s been watching the wrong YouTube channels.

I looked him in the eye and said, “Let’s look at the data together.”

Yes, many Europeans say they feel unsafe.
That fear is real.
I feel it too.
I don’t wear a watch when walking around certain parts of London.

But that fear isn’t being caused by immigrants.

Multiple academic studies across Europe and the U.S. have found no correlation between increased immigration and increased violent crime. (I’ve linked to all of them in the blog post version of this article). 

But it goes further. Despite what Trump says, crime across the world, and especially in Europe and the USA, are plummeting. 

Why? Because as humans, we grow.
We evolve.
We become more conscious.

Anyone telling you otherwise is hijacking your fear for votes. This chart from Steven Pinker’s excellent book on why we need to be optimistic about the future shows just how much crime is decreasing. It looks at homicides, but the same is true for almost all levels of crime (the book is an excellent read!)

Trump’s Speech at the UN and his claim that the rest of the world is “going to hell”

By now, you should probably have read that Trump’s speech at the UN was widely seen as factually incorrect and described by many pundits as the worst speech any sitting American President has ever given on a public stage. 

Trump says, “Look at Germany! Almost half the prisoners are foreigners!”

He’s not wrong—on the surface.

In Germany, around 48% of prisoners are foreign nationals.

But Germany is part of the EU.
“Foreign” includes people from Italy, Poland, and France—people who move freely within the union.

But we have to look better. Of the total incarcerated in Germany who are foreign nationals roughly 70% were non-EU nationals. And many were just the people Trump vilified. Afghans, Syrians and other refugees and people of lets just say browner skin complexion. So let’s examine data and see if it’s true that such people cause higher crime rates. 

First, let’s zoom out.

Since the 1990s, immigration in Europe has increased by two-thirds.
In that same period, crime has dropped by a third. (All data sources in the blog post related to this article). 

So if crime is falling and immigration is rising, the narrative falls apart.

But still something seems off. 

Why are there so many foreigners in jails in Europe? 

Here, the analysis is simple. 

Here’s what the science of crime shows us:

1. Most crimes are committed by men.
   Globally, men make up the overwhelming majority of both criminals and victims. In the UK, three out of four people arrested or charged are male.
   
2. It spikes in young adulthood.
   Crime—especially violent crime—peaks in the late teens to early 30s. In almost every country, young men under 35 commit the highest share of crimes.
   
3. Most refugees and migrants in Europe?
   You guessed it: young men under 35. That’s because they’re the ones most likely to take the risk of fleeing war zones, walking across borders, and seeking work in foreign countries.
   

So yes, if you bring in thousands of young men, that demographic will naturally show up more in crime stats—even if their behavior is no different from native-born youth.

But here’s where it gets even more interesting.

When researchers adjust for age and gender, the difference disappears.

A Syrian, North African, or Chinese immigrant commits a crime at the same rate as a white European of the same age.

In fact, in many studies (including from Stanford and the Public Policy Institute of California), immigrants are actually less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens of similar demographic profiles.

So when right-wing pundits show you a scary chart without age or gender context, remember this:

They’re not sharing the truth.
They’re selling fear.

Crime is not an immigrant problem.
It’s a young male problem—everywhere, across all ethnicities and countries.

And here’s the good news:

Crime is falling.
Even among the most “at-risk” demographics.
Humanity is evolving.

But if someone’s trying to win your vote with fear, they’re not going to tell you that.

The culture gap

Now, there’s another debate I often hear:

“But can immigrants, especially those from Muslim countries, actually assimilate into Europe?”

Ah.

That’s a more interesting question. 

The answer is: Absolutely yes.

When I hang out with my friends in Europe, they come from an eclectic and diverse bunch—Brits, Swedes, Italians, Indians, Americans, Canadians, Colombians, Egyptians, and Emiratis.

And one thing I’ve noticed?

Almost all of us have parents who were deeply steeped in their original cultures.

But among our generation—those of us in our 30s and 40s—our values are remarkably similar.

Sure, we may vote for opposite political parties, but our core values?

We believe in women’s rights. In fairness. In a democracy. In self-expression. In dignity.

But don’t take my word for it. There’s a scale that measures this.

In his book Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker discusses something called the Enlightenment Values Scale, which measures cultural attitudes toward democracy, equality, free speech, anti-corruption, women’s rights, and more.

What does the data say?

Enlightenment values are rising across the entire world.

Especially in the Islamic world. Especially in Africa.

Yes, these regions still have lower average Enlightenment scores than Europe or East Asia.
But they are rising faster than anywhere else on Earth.

According to the data, the average young person in the Islamic world today holds values equivalent to the average young European in the 1980s. (see the chart below)

You know what that means?

We’re talking about a two-generation gap.

That’s it. Two generations.

In fact, today’s 18-year-old in the Muslim world likely has more in common with a European 18-year-old than that European 18-year-old has with his own grandparents.

So if we want to claim that bringing in young immigrants from Muslim countries is somehow bringing in people who will “hijack” European culture, then based on the actual data, we might as well kick out our grandparents, too.

Because the gap isn’t between civilizations.
It’s between generations.

We are becoming more alike as a species.
Thanks to globalization, the internet, education, and shared media.

We are converging—not diverging.

And this new generation—the one crossing borders, dreaming bigger, seeking safety, opportunity, connection—they are not a threat.

They are the future.

Actual diagram of the Enlightenment Values scale from Pinker’s book.

Why right-wing politicians push the fear narrative

Because it works.

Because when it comes to actual governance, they underperform. 

VASTLY.

So they rely on outrage. Fear. Division.

Let’s look at the numbers—over the last 30+ years of U.S. leadership. 

Since 1990, the USA has had:

3 Republican Administrations: George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Donald Trump
3 Democratic Administrations: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden

Now, let’s compare their performance on indicators of wealth, business, and economy. 

Before I go into the numbers. Who do you think performs better?

Pause a moment and guess…..

When I surveyed my audience, over 45% said Republicans. At an entrepreneurship meeting recently in the USA, 90% said Republicans. 

Yet the real data shows that Democrats outperform in almost every major category. 

• GDP Growth: Democrats averaged 3.46% growth; Republicans 2.4%.
  
• GDP Per Capita: Higher growth under Democrats in every decade.
  
• Job Creation: Democrats created 87.8 million jobs. Republicans: 31.9 million.
  
• Unemployment Rate: Lower under Democrats—5.4% vs 6.2%.
  
• Stock Market Performance (S&P 500): Democrats averaged 14.4% annual return. Republicans: 8.8%.
  
• Deficit (as % of GDP): Republicans average defects ~2.68%, Democrats ~2.57%
  
• Inflation: Lower under Democrats.
  
• Infrastructure & Innovation: Democrats championed large-scale investment (CHIPS Act, Infrastructure Bill). Republicans leaned on deregulation and tax cuts.

Feel free to use your favourite AI to look up any of this data on your own. 

The conclusion?

Democrats govern better.
Republicans market fear better.

And they’ve learned how to weaponize the algorithm.

Now, to be clear, the comparison I’m making here is purely on business metrics.

Many of my entrepreneur friends—people I deeply respect—have told me they vote Republican because they prefer Republican business policy. 

When I shared this data with them, they were genuinely shocked. Most had been convinced that Republicans outperform Democrats on economic measures.

Now, if you vote Republican because you align with conservative values, your Christian faith, or prefer Republican tax policies—that’s absolutely okay. Vote Republican.

But let’s stop repeating the myth that Republicans are better for the economy.

When it comes to actual business performance, the data just doesn’t hold up.

And so distraction and division become the political game. 

The original Republican Party (pre-Trump) had deep respect for immigrations. 

Reagan said, “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.” (From Reagan’s remarks near the end of his presidency)

And Bush said, “Our country is a country of laws, and we’ve got to enforce our laws. But we’re also a nation of immigrants … America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time.” (Address on Border Security and Immigration, May 2006)

But the current administration. I think many ex-Republican Presidents would be rolling in their graves. 

What you can do next

Don’t believe the villainization of people who are struggling to feed their families and get a leg up in life. 

The next time you see an immigrant delivering your food…

The next time you’re served by a man with an accent…

The next time you step into a cab with a driver from a distant land…

Ask them their name.

Ask where they came from.

Ask why they came here.

Ask what they left behind.

Because they’re not your enemy.

They’re not here to take your job, your healthcare, or your safety.

They’re just trying to live.

Just like your grandparents once did.

And if we keep letting fear win—if we keep letting AI divide us—

Then the greatest con of the 21st century will be complete:

The powerful will keep stealing from you.

And you’ll keep blaming the powerless.

It’s time to wake up.

To research.

To think.

To reconnect.

To choose leaders who build—not burn.

Because democracy will not survive another decade of algorithmic fear.

But it might—if we start choosing love over division, and truth over dopamine.

If this newsletter stirred something in you, I’d love to hear it. Leave a comment below. Do you agree? Disagree? Have a story of your own? I read every single one because these conversations matter more than ever.

With fierce compassion,

Vishen

---

REFERENCES AND SOURCES OF DATA MENTIONED IN THIS NEWSLETTER:

A foundational study by Luca Nunziata (2014), published as an IZA Discussion Paper titled “Immigration and Crime: New Empirical Evidence from European Victimization Data”, examined European victimization surveys and national immigration data. His conclusion: immigration does not raise actual crime rates, though it may increase fear of crime due to perception biases. You can read it here: ftp.iza.org/dp8632.pdf. Nunziata later published a peer-reviewed version in the Journal of Population Economics (2015), confirming the same result — “no effect of immigration on crime victimization” (ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jopoec/v28y2015i3p697-736.html).

A landmark British study by Bell, Fasani, and Machin (2013), “Crime and Immigration: Evidence from Large Immigrant Waves”, published in the Review of Economics and Statistics (MIT Press), looked at two major immigration waves to the UK — the asylum-seeker inflows of the late 1990s and the “A8” Eastern European workers who arrived after the 2004 EU expansion. Their data show no increase in violent crime, and only a small, temporary rise in certain property crimes during the asylum wave (which later reversed). The full working paper is available from the LSE: eprints.lse.ac.uk/59323, and the published journal version is here: MIT Press PDF.

In Germany, one of the most examined European cases, Maghularia and Uebelmesser (2019, updated 2023) conducted a detailed district-level analysis over 2008–2019. Their study, published in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, found that before the 2015 refugee inflow there was a weak positive association between immigration and certain crimes, but this turned negative or insignificant afterward. Over the full decade, the average effect of immigration on overall crime was statistically zero. The study is available at sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268123001713.

Huang and Kvasnicka (2019), in their IZA Discussion Paper No. 12469, titled “Immigration and Crime in Germany”, reviewed the European evidence and presented new results using official police data. Their conclusion echoed earlier findings: no evidence that asylum seekers increased violent crime; small upticks in non-violent or migration-specific offences were explained by demographics (young male populations) and economic integration barriers. Download here: ftp.iza.org/dp12469.pdf.

Similarly, Dehos (2021), writing in Regional Science and Urban Economics, analyzed Germany between 2010 and 2015 and found no increase in overall crime attributable to asylum seekers once migration-related offences were excluded. There was only a small increase in property crimes after asylum recognition, which the author attributed to temporary economic hardship rather than cultural factors. (sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046221000341).

Recent empirical summaries continue to reinforce this conclusion. The Ifo Institute’s 2025 analysis of German police data found no correlation between the share of foreigners (including refugees) and local crime rates — effectively confirming the earlier decade of literature. Likewise, a comprehensive international survey by Marie and Pinotti (2024) in the Journal of Economic Perspectives reviewed studies across Europe and the U.S., concluding that “the bulk of credible evidence finds no systematic relationship between immigration and violent crime.”

Even broader meta-reviews, such as Gehrsitz and Ungerer (2022) in Economica, stress the same point: high-quality studies using causal identification find no significant effects on violent crime, and only minor, temporary effects on certain property offences.

For accessible summaries of this literature, the IZA World of Labor review, “Crime and Immigration” (wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/33/pdfs/crime-and-immigration.pdf), concisely notes: “There is little evidence that immigration increases crime; at most, small, short-term effects appear in specific contexts.” Another readable synthesis is “Immigration, Crime, and Crime (Mis)Perceptions” from the Inter-American Development Bank (publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Immigration-Crime-and-Crime-MisPerceptions.pdf), which explores how public fear often rises even when actual crime does not.

Finally, Nunziata’s earlier conference version, “Crime Perception and Victimization in Europe: Does Immigration Matter?”, presented at the IZA Annual Migration Meeting, offers the early theoretical framing that would go on to guide much of this research: crime perception ≠ crime reality. It’s archived here: conference.iza.org/conference_files/amm2011/nunziata_l1447.pdf