Update: Why DACA must end. 

For those of you on the Trump Train, I have some disappointing news. It seems that the President, at least, if we’re to believe his chief mouthpieces, has accepted DACA as a fait accompli. Although Mark Krikorian’s post in NRO frames this as an open question, the truth is that we’ve been given no indication that Donald Trump plans to do away with his predecessor’s unconstitutional administrative amnesty. The fact that he didn’t terminate this program on his first day in office means he has already broken one of his main campaign promises on the subject of immigration.

In terms of draining the swamp, we’re off to a rough start.

Or, at the very least, begins to shift. The first loose brick turns out to be Suffolk County, where Sheriff Vincent DeMarco has decided to abandon his county’s sanctuary city policy. Hopefully, this is the first of many such reversals throughout the country. My only response to this pseudo-scholarly op-ed by open borders fanatics is, “Wanna bet?”

Despite the stream of propaganda spewed by the legacy media, the biggest fear the public had of a Trump administration had nothing to do with Vladimir Putin’s Russia or a white nationalist uprising. In fact, the main worry of Trump supporters was that his presidency would simply be business as usual. In other words, a White House dominated by globalist rope-sellers  and corporatist retreads who do not care about American identity. The idea of perpetual debt, unceasing third world immigration, and a continuation of pointless military interventions in Middle Eastern backwaters is something we all feared would come to pass.

Unfortunately, the most recent decisions and statements to come from the Trump transition have not done much to dispel these fears. The fact that Kris Kobach will not be nominated to oversee the Department of Homeland Security is disquieting, to say the least. The fact that he was paraded in front of the White House press corps, seemingly as nothing more than a sop to patriotic immigration reformers, reinforces the belief that President-elect Trump is not genuinely committed to this cause. Even though General Kelly is not the worst possible choice, he also isn’t a shaper of groundbreaking immigration enforcement policies, nor a brilliant immigration law scholar. What’s more, it’s doubtful that he will have the same commitment to prosecuting a national campaign against illegal immigration that Mr. Kobach would have. Coupled with the impending nomination of a Labor Secretary who is an open borders zealot, it makes one wonder what the point of this election was.

Another troubling indication of things to come is Donald Trump’s waffling on President Obama’s unconstitutional administrative amnesties. A central plank of his political platform was the elimination of DACA and DAPA, yet he seemingly left open the option of giving relief to millions of illegal aliens who fall under these 2 executive actions during an interview with Time Magazine. His use of the obnoxious euphemism DREAMer to describe these individuals, many of whom are fully grown adults with tenuous-if any-connections to the United States is particularly galling. Will a President Trump sign Leapin’ Lindsey’s amnesty bill if it passes Congress and reaches his desk? Only time will tell, but these are not good signs for those of us who believed Donald Trump would indeed drain the swamp.

One of the more brilliant political remixes I’ve seen, courtesy of Placeboing. If only Hillary’s opponents were this creative.

P.S. Here’s a preview of what’s to come, courtesy of Hillary’s heretofore MIA running mate. 

Even as events conspire to make hash of the narrative contrived by Hillary Clinton and the national media, i.e. Vladimir Putin’s exposure of the awfulness of the Democratic Party is the true threat to American democracy, the politically correct variety show in Philadelphia proceeds apace. Before tonight is over you will have endured the entire spectrum of Democrat hideousness, from the not quite prime-time address by career limousine Marxist Bill de Blasio, to the condescending stylings of golf aficionado Michael Bloomberg, to the capstone of the evening, an address by the POTUS himself, Barack Obama.

No doubt we’ll be treated to more effusive praise of the ongoing dissolution of this country’s borders and erasure of our sovereignty. You can view the proceedings, a national examination of America’s decay, here.

For those of you who thought Hillary Clinton’s admiration of Angela Merkel had something to do with her gender, think again. Actually, Mama Merkel serves as a role model because of her unparalleled ability to destroy a nation, as this article describes in brutal detail. If you want to see the future of the United States, you might want to take a look at Germany.

Not a pretty picture.

The American victims our our government’s reckless immigration policies speak out. Watch the complete hearing live. That’s some nice lying, Congresswoman Lofgren.

The facile nature of the immigration debate within this country can be infuriating to those of us who’ve invested time and effort into gaining a fuller understanding of this complex, interconnected series of issues. It often seems like we’ve living in the dystopian future outlined in the Neil Postman classic, Amusing Ourselves to Death. A world where linear thinking and the gathering of empirical evidence in order to buttress your argument are considered inconsequential, if not a hindrance, while the refraction of charged images and exploitation of emotional triggers are paramount. In that sense, the photo of Aylan Kurdi’s corpse being carried from the Mediterranean shore is emblematic of the type of discussion this subject engenders. Rife with emotionalism and moral preening, devoid of introspection, and remarkably fact and logic-free.

That’s why the chat between Professor Glenn Loury and economist George Borjas featured on Bloggingheads TV is such a breath of fresh air. They not only engage in a substantive examination of this topic-along with its profound implications for American society-but discuss why the rational, cost-benefit analysis that usually factors into any domestic policy debate is completely discarded when the subject turns to immigration. They honestly explore why the elites who have benefited from unfettered immigration from the developing world have stigmatized criticism of their agenda to the point where it is almost never broached in national conversation, and is taboo among Democratic Party incumbents and aspiring political leaders.

It’s worth watching in its entirety. I’m looking forward to your feedback.

The White House has been relatively tight-lipped about its deliberations, re: Antonin Scalia’s replacement, but we already know that his death will irrevocably impact a host of Supreme Court cases this term. One of the most consequential-as we’ve pointed out-is United States v. Texas, which will test the novel legal concept that the President is able to unilaterally create and interpret federal immigration law. Dan Stein, of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, has a brilliant analysis of this case-and its implications for the future of this country-on SCOTUSblog. It’s worth reading in its entirety, not only because of its insight but because of startling lack of information found in mainstream press coverage of this subject.