A fun question to spin… it all depends on comparison period.
Looking at a crime rate chart for El Paso since 2000 — when illegal border crossing apprehensions peaked and serious talk of a wall began in conjunction with 9/11 — Crime rates had peaked and were well above national averages.
As apprehensions fell with the discussion of the wall and the tightening of security after 9/11, we see the crime rate fall and bottom with the Wall Legislation of the 2006 Secure Fence Act.
Then we see the upturn — when it was realized that the Fence was focused on the California Border and would run from the Pacific Ocean 650 miles east.
Now let's look at a border map with the above chart:
It would appear that during construction, there was an upturn, but when the construction as completed the crime rate went down. Thus, based on the crime statistics presented at https://realestate.usnews.com/places/texas/el-paso/crime, Trump was telling the truth. Which does not conflict with the alternative comparison stated on the same page: “Many people assume that El Paso is a dangerous place to live based on its proximity to Juarez, Mexico, which has a reputation for gang violence. Just like any major metropolitan area, El Paso does experience crime. But the region's rate of violent crime is lower than the national average and the rate of property crime is significantly lower.”
Gee… the Rate went from HIGHER to LOWER — first when security after 9/11 was tightened, and then again when the wall was completed. Trump’s comparison was to the wall and not to the other regions in the nation which are not in proximity to the wall or directly affected by border crime.
