The full text of President Trump’s new executive order, courtesy of CNN. As Mark Krikorian observes, whether or not this stands up to judicial scrutiny will probably depend upon the politics of the jurists scrutinizing it. One of the praiseworthy aspects of this new executive order is the demand for an accounting of honor killings carried out by foreign nationals in the United States. Naturally, this has enraged the usual suspects. To which all right-thinking Americans should have a one-word response.

The Krikorian-Powell immigration debate at the Soho Forum is now online! The audio portion of it, at least. You can listen to it here, courtesy of Reason Magazine. Tell me who you think came off better in the comment section below.

The Soho Forum is a fantastic new institution which explores important philosophical and political issues, many of them topical in nature, through rigorously argued debates. An upcoming event might be of particular interest to our readers, as it features libertarian economist Benjamin Powell and the head of the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian. They’ll be debating the proposition that American should have free migration, barring certain disqualifying features on the part of potential migrants, e.g. direct ties to terrorism, contagious diseases.

Coming as it does on the heels of President Trump’s controversial executive order, this should be a fascinating discussion. You can reserve your tickets and RSVP at this link, and find details of future events by perusing the Soho Forum’s website. Regardless of your views, vis-a-vis immigration, I hope all of you in the New York City Area take advantage of this opportunity.

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.

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.

The idea that the latest all-American jihadi acted alone defies credulity, so it’s no surprise that authorities are already investigating the possibility he was part of a terror cell. The bizarre, impromptu press conference held by the perpetrator’s father merely adds to suspicions that Ahmad Khan’s jihadist intentions were known before this weekend’s terror jaunt across the Tri-State Area. Some of the best coverage has, unsurprisingly, come from overseas.

This article in the Daily Mail explores some aspects of this story which are being curiously underplayed, including the fact that the terrorist in custody tried to bring his Pakistani wife to the United States-something he has in common with David Headley, the architect of the Mumbai massacre and thwarted Jyllands Posten assassination plot. This case is also reminiscent of the Omar Mateen fiasco in the sense that the FBI had previously investigated Ahmad Khan for possible links to terrorism, but apparently those concerns were allayed when his father said, “my bad, my son’s not really a murderous jihadi,” to paraphrase.

The fact that Khan visited Pakistan several times without attracting the notice of federal authorities only serves to highlight the gross ineptitude of our government. Yet instead of reevaluating our country’s masochistic immigration policies-and hat’s off to this Saudi newspaper for crafting a more accurate headline than anything coming from the American press-we have public officials and pundits calling for the curtailment of rights belonging to actual Americans. For the record, in addition to mistakenly granting citizenship to 800 aliens with deportation orders, our government has also taken in over 2,000 Afghan refugees this year.

How exactly is funneling more money to a federal agency whose inability to investigate domestic Islamic terrorism is legendary, and whose failures are manifold, going to ensure Americans safety? Keep in mind, this is the same FBI which caused former Marine Brandon Raub to be thrown into a mental institution because of controversial rap lyrics he posted online, even as it gave Omar Mateen a clean bill of health and said the architect of the San Bernardino massacre was not on its radar.

Although the FBI diligently targets those who threaten to tarnish the shield, forcing out talented agents who could prevent atrocities like 9/11, it rewards this country’s sworn enemies. The answer to our terrorism is not to empower unaccountable bureaucracies which don’t even recognize what America is-and have no interest in ensuring our safety, much less preserving the American way of life. Contrary to the neoconservative scribes at National Review, Islam does not have a problem. We have an Islam problem, and it’s time that we start addressing it.

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

One of the prerequisites for any immigration debate taking place in North America or Europe is that no advocate for reasonable immigration policies be given an equal opportunity to voice his or her views on the subject. The very notion that someone opposing unfettered third world immigration might be given the chance to articulate the views of most American citizens is anathema to our media gatekeepers. Thus, we have the spectacle of Mark Krikorian sharing a platform with two open borders dogmatists from ostensibly different parts of the ideological spectrum, despite there being very persuasive progressive and libertarian arguments against mass immigration to the West from the developing world.

Even so, this discussion of the 2016 presidential race-as well as the relative merits of the various candidates-is worth watching. There may come a time very soon when patriotic immigration voices are silenced altogether. Just ask our German friends about that.

The most notable development leading up to today’s pivotal primaries is, of course, the raft of prominent Donald Trump endorsements, including those of former governor Jan Brewer and immigration stalwart Senator Jeff Sessions. Why the latter decided to endorse Trump rather than his Texas colleague is open to debate, although Mark Krikorian-a Cruz supporter-has an interesting theory.

The New York Times has published 2 stories of interest to those of us in the immigration reform camp, focusing on the 2 main competitors-at the moment-for the Republican nomination. One describes the sub rosa pressure campaign initiated by the Gang of 8 against conservative radio talkers who were skeptical of embracing their amnesty proposal in 2013. You can read the NYT account here, and the more complete-and presumably, honest-description of the Rush-GO8 conclave by Mr. Limbaugh himself on his website. It should be noted that if the Times is attempting to bolster the candidacy of Marco Rubio, a la John McCain during his past presidential runs, this is impeccably poor timing on its part.

Then again, the Old Gray Lady might simply be trying to practice the craft of journalism-however ineptly-during this contentious  primary season. It also has published a tantalizing account of what its editor claims is Donald Trump softening his immigration stance in an off-the-record conversation with Times’ staffers. One wonders what the significance of “off the record” information is if you then disclose hints of that content to the general public. Also, one has to wonder whether Trump’s response mirrored his answer to a presumably similar set of questions posed by Byron York.

National Review-the anti-Trump conservative publication of record for some-has published some interesting pieces on the various Trump-related controversies that have cropped up recently, including a fascinating piece on Trump University, as well as a much less compelling article about the Donald’s use of foreign nationals to work on his construction projects. Surprisingly, NR has also published an essay by its former editor John O’Sullivan-currently a Ted Cruz backer-explaining the provenance of the Trump phenomenon. It should be required reading for those Republicans positing a GOP crackup.

Update: According to CNN projections Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have emerged victorious from tonight’s primary. Notch one for the notoriously inaccurate polling industry! 

We’ll see whether New Hampshire lives up to its state motto later tonight, although the pickings are rather slim in this regard. You can follow the undoubtedly dubious exit polling data from ABC News here. Until the final results come in, we recommend reading Mark Krikorian’s excellent anti-Rubio polemic published by National Review Online earlier today.

Although generally regarded as more conservative than others vying furiously for the establishment vote, i.e. the cheap labor and cheap votes coalition, Rubio is actually a rather dismal echo of his equally open borders primary competitors. If you need proof of this, look no further than his corporate benefactors. That being said, expect media shills-of both the corporatist Republican and bien pensant liberal variety-to continue extolling the virtues of Univision’s favorite GOPer.

The sans culottes of the treason lobby-as well as their illegal alien shock troops-took to the streets recently in order to inveigh against President Obama’s symbolic, pathetic action against OTMs from Central America. I wonder why the American public isn’t more enamored of these lovely young DREAMers.  You can watch Part II here. The after-action report by Joanna Marzullo can be read after the jump.