Update: Plot twist. 

The White House won’t immediately appeal this ruling. 

Josh Blackman has an interesting post explaining the possible paths going forward for the Trump administration. 

The temporary restraining order against President Trump’s executive order is still in effect, as you probably know. Josh Blackman has a good analysis of the ruling on his website, which I would recommend reading. There are a number of fascinating and disturbing elements of this decision, including the imposition of a “no evidence” standard upon the Trump administration. Although some are attempting to put the best face on what is a sweeping, unprecedented ruling, the truth is that we are entering uncharted waters. We have the largest circuit court in the federal system essentially erasing the plenary power doctrine as it relates to immigration matters.

The fact that the administration was intentionally hamstrung in its appeal is irrelevant in the larger context, i.e. we are dealing with a federal judiciary that’s unwilling to recognize Congressional and presidential authority to execute immigration law. What’s more, the reasoning, such as it is, behind this decision is so shoddy that it would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so dire. The idea that universities and colleges have a vested interest, i.e. continuing the flow of tuition dollars from the coffers of foreign students, which supersedes the national security concerns of the President and his cabinet would be an absurdity in any other era. Keep in mind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the defiant architect of the 9/11 massacres, was brought to the United States along with other Muslim students from abroad in order to pad the enrollment and keep afloat a struggling North Carolina college.

Even if the statutory and Constitutional rationales for enjoining the President’s executive order are incredibly weak-which they are-that doesn’t make the path forward any easier. Whether the administration decides to rewrite this EO from scratch, as some have suggested, or simply appeals to the Supreme Court, those of us who believe that American interests outweigh those of foreign nationals and international organizations have already been dealt a grievous blow by a judiciary which no longer recognizes itself as a co-equal branch of government.

How long before this quasi-ironic tweet becomes a reality? I suppose we’ll find out soon enough.

The chaotic, lawless status quo maintained on our southern border is one of our least-reported domestic catastrophes. This isn’t surprising when you consider the fact that our news media view themselves primarily as a platform for immigrants, illegal aliens and their benefactors more than objective outlets designed to convey pertinent information to the broader American public. Even when the invasion of American territory is grudgingly acknowledged by the press, it is framed in such a way as to make those trying to protect the integrity of our borders seem like mendacious, reactionary charlatans. The fact that human smugglers and brutal narco cartels are exploiting our government’s beneficence in order to ply their trade is not nearly as compelling to news anchors as the plight of doe-eyed DREAMers.

Thankfully, there are American citizens who are unwilling to put up with the wanton destruction of their property, subversion of their rights, and defamation of their character. One of these intrepid individuals is our friend Cindy Kolb, who has been reporting from the front lines of this undeclared war for many years. The latest incursion being Dicks Peak Fire, whose cause is still unknown but which would not be out of character for illegal aliens trespassing onto American territory. Whatever the cause of this particular forest fire, the danger posed to our national treasures and beautiful natural wilderness remains great as long as our public officials refuse to take their oaths of office seriously.

Thanks, Cindy, for alerting us to the public hazards created by our public officials!

Even as the horse race aspect of this presidential election consumes ever more air-time, the current administration continues to enact immigration policies by administrative fiat which have the potential to harm scores of Americans. A case in point is its recent decision to remove some sexually transmitted infections from the list of diseases which bar entry to the United States. To comprehend why this is such a dangerous, idiotic idea, look no further than Jon Feere’s analysis in this fantastic CIS backgrounder.

The increasing prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases-particularly HIV/AIDS-among migrant communities has been extensively documented, and the fact that this decision will put the health and safety of more individuals at risk is beyond dispute. Yet the overriding, and seemingly sole, motivation of open borders dogmatists seems to be the elimination of any external or internal immigration barriers which obstruct the desires of foreign nationals now living in the developing world.

Of course, the routine prophylactic measures employed in the past to prevent epidemics from spreading throughout the United States would now be derided as xenophobic and racist impositions upon poor, beleaguered migrants. Times have changed, but in some ways, not always for the better.

Many of you are probably wondering how the untimely passing of Justice Scalia will impact Texas vs. United States, the landmark case which will determine whether or not President Obama has the authority to unilaterally modify federal immigration law. Thankfully, Jon Feere  has a written a fantastic blog entry which explains all of the possible permutations that could go into a Supreme Court decision with 8 justices, presuming-of course-that Antonin Scalia’s seat is not filled by the time this case is decided.

You can read it for yourself on the Center for Immigration Studies website. To get an idea of why Scalia was so respected by conservative intellectuals, we recommend reading his caustic dissent in Arizona v. United States, which exposed some of the flaws in logic of open borders advocates. This is essential reading as we head into what should be one of the most consequential sessions in recent memory.

All too often the choices offered to the American public come down to differences of packaging. Would you rather vote for the interventionist, open borders, chubby white guy, or the interventionist, open borders, svelte Hispanic male? The media’s relentless denial of the facts and refusal to acknowledge alternative points of view only entrenches the failed policies that millions of Americans live with on a daily basis.

That’s why the question posed above-by one of the many victims of illegal alien crime-needs to be heard. You can listen to some of the other questions-none of which were broached during last night’s Republican presidential debate, it should be noted-by going to the website of the Center for Immigration Studies. It will give you a taste of what a debate might look like if we had media willing to be honest interrogators, instead of megaphones for their own preferred policy choices.

As we pointed out last week, the Supreme Court has decided to weigh the merits of the President’s executive actions on immigration. One of the most interesting analyses on this subject comes by way of Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman, who accurately points out that this case is unique in that it is the only time SCOTUS has asked the White House whether it is upholding its oath to faithfully execute the law.

You can read Mr. Blackman’s essay-which delineates the importance of this case, not simply with regard to immigration, but to the separation of powers and Constitutional law-on National Review. We’d also highly recommend reading Jon Feere’s backgrounder on Texas vs. United States, which outlines the arguments being made by both parties to this historic case.

The Center for Immigration studies has produced a brilliant satire of the unscrupulous policies pursued by the Disney corporation in its endless pursuit of cheap, imported labor. Its exploitation of the fundamentally corrupt, anti-American H1-B Visa program has been well documented, on this site as well as in many other news outlets. However, this comic dissection of Disney’s attempt at brand management in the wake of an attack upon highly skilled American workers captures the lack of ethics at the core of the open borders movement. It should be noted that these sorts of policies will be expanded if either Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz is elected to the presidency, since both candidates want to add to the glut of non-immigrant visas already awarded to foreign nationals.

Kudos to CIS for bringing into stark relief, in an humorous manner, the dreadful policies that corporate lobbyists enact under the guise of a fun-loving mouse.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the current presidential campaign is its unprecedented focus upon some of the more egregiously stupid and deleterious aspects of this country’s immigration policy. In addition to the lethal consequences of municipal sanctuary laws, there is the question of jus soli, colloquially known as birthright citizenship, which presumes that anyone born on American soil to any foreign national-save diplomats-is, de jure, an American citizen in perpetuity. The United States is one of the few countries on the planet, and the only major Western nation-with the exception of Canada-to follow this practice. 

The problem is that birthright citizenship is not part of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, despite the repeated false assertions by armchair Constitutional scholars such as Bill O’Reilly, but a deliberate distortion of previous Supreme Court decisions that rendered erroneous interpretations of this part of the Constitution. Legal scholar John Eastman is arguably the most eloquent debunker of this popular myth, which has somehow become embedded within our national psyche. You can watch an illuminating discussion by Dr. Eastman of how this came to be here. 

The President’s abrupt announcement of an imminent détente with the tropical gulag run by the Castro Bros. has sent reporters and pundits scurrying to analyze the broader political implications of this seeming diplomatic breakthrough. On the economic front, the observation by former Mexican Foreign Secretary Jorge Castenda that the cutoff of Venezuela’s oil subsidies to the island nation has forced it to seek another benefactor is undoubtedly accurate. As is the conclusion drawn by the Washington Post’s editorial board that this new policy will in effect-if not in intent-serve as an American bailout of an economy entering the terminal stage of Marxist decline.

The reality of a first world, capitalist-for the time being-nation riding to the rescue of a regime which has turned what was once one of the most robust economies in the Western Hemisphere into a stagnant pool of human misery is something that El Jefe’s apologists are loathe to accept. A situation that Michael Moynihan deftly skewered in a Daily Beast post recounting some of the more imbecilic remarks tweeted by Castro sycophants, most of whom have probably never set foot inside a Cuban hospital. 

Steve Sailer, on the other hand, has mooted a fascinating and original point which I think most of our readers would be interested in contemplating. To wit, that the relaxation of diplomatic relations between our two nations could potentially lead to the export of scores of Cuban migrants who pose economic and political problems for a faltering Communist dictatorship. Although the analogy to the Marielitos is tempting for a number of reasons, it’s not necessary to consider a seaborne invasion in order to foresee how immigration could be dramatically impacted by this diplomatic thaw.

While drawing any firm conclusions as to what will happen in the future regarding Cuban-American relations is impossible at the moment, is it that outlandish to consider the possibility of thousands-or a possibly greater number-of Cuban refugees being admitted to the United States as a result of a bilateral agreement between this administration and the caudillo in Havana, with or without congressional input? Based upon recent history, I don’t believe it is. Only time will tell whether this démarche is the beginning of a new era in American foreign policy or something much more cynical and unromantic.

As we pointed out on Monday, one of the few viable options for Republicans seeking to stop this administration’s unlawful, patently unconstitutional expansion of its policy of wholesale amnesty is withholding congressional funding. Of course, what would a sensible proposal for reining in the imperial presidency be without a GOP leader doing his best to thwart it? In this case, that individual is Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers, who is floating an absurd proposal to enact all of the President’s funding requests, including those which would facilitate his latest unlawful quid pro quo for undocumented citizens. 

 To add insult to injury, it appears that one of the major donors to Mr. Rogers has a huge financial stake in the enactment of any mass amnesty, which would include the printing of scores of work permits. Here’s a link to a page where you can get in touch with Mr. Rogers, in a neighborly fashion, of course, and express any concerns you might have over this unsettling coincidence.