The big news to come out of the President’s first weeks in office is a federal judge enjoining his executive order blocking immigration from 7 nations of concern. The motion by the Trump administration for an emergency stay has been denied by the 9th Circuit, a decision which bodes ill for its ultimate fate, as Andrew McCarthy points out, although the court will hear the challenge later today. There are a number of troubling aspects to this ruling, foremost among them being the idea that a single judge can influence American foreign policy and national security based upon specious legal reasoning. This is a distressingly familiar sight for the patriotic immigration reform movement, which has seen a single judge thwart Proposition 187-consigning California to its current dismal fate-and another obstruct the implementation of SB 1070-the law which inspired this very website.

The biggest threat to President Trump’s immigration agenda, beyond the attempt by the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP to undermine it within Congress, is judicial obstruction. Immigration law is just one of many domains usurped by the federal judiciary over the past century, however it is one of the most vital to the survival of our republic. Notwithstanding the media-generated fog, this executive order is critically important, not least because it drastically reduces the number of refugees being resettled in the United States and, to the horror of the ACLU, targets criminal aliens.

The lack of reasoning that went into this decision is transparent. As Byron York points out, this injunction-relying upon a litany of unexamined open borders cliches-has been rebutted by the Justice Department, which described in painstaking detail the plenary power exercised by the Executive Branch with regard to the entry of foreign nationals into the United States. Contrary to the Obama administration, which attempted to confer a panoply of benefits upon illegal aliens without the consent of Congress, this is a measured attempt at maintaining the security of American citizens at minimal cost/inconvenience to foreigners. Even so, the same bureaucratic forces which enabled President Obama to flout the Constitution are intent upon thwarting that very reasonable aim of the current administration.

Josh Blackman has a thorough 2 part exploration of the injunction from a statutory perspective, which I highly recommend reading. These cases will set the precedent for how immigration is dealt with going forward. Therefore, we need to address and refute the myths and exaggerations which have already taken hold in large swathes of the media landscape. We cannot allow lies to dominate the narrative, because immigration is the defining issue of our era.

A world without borders would be impossible to govern democratically. It would need to be run by a strong central authority that would quickly morph into an iron fist dictatorship. It’s much more likely to end up as a global Soviet Union than a global Switzerland or global United States. 

I couldn’t have said it better myself. On a similar note, Derek Hunter-an ambivalent Never Trumper-has penned an article for Town Hall explaining why he’s casting his vote for The Donald, in spite of misgivings.

Update: David Goldman adds his 2 cents. 

A few observations about last night’s presidential debate, which you can view in its entirety here, as well as the post-debate spin which followed.

As I pointed out in an essay published earlier this year-before we knew who the parties would nominate-the defining characteristic of Hillary Clinton is her tenacity. Leaving aside her arguably criminal behavior in office, she has virtually nothing to recommend her as a politician, despite the fact that her  lifelong goal-at least since reaching adulthood-has been the acquisition, retention, and exercise of political power. She is the modern-day incarnation of Richard Nixon, stripped of any charisma or popular appeal. However, she has managed to surmount these inherent limitations to the point where she is on the threshold of accomplishing her sole mission in life. Namely, becoming the next President of the United States.

Donald Trump’s closing remarks were effective because they were grounded in an ineluctable truth, i.e. Hillary Clinton does not quit. Regardless of how unfavorably the public might perceive her, or what humiliation she has to endure in order to achieve her goal, she refuses to abandon her quest. While some, including those who view power-seeking and the arbitrary exercise of authority over other individuals, might consider this a repellent quality in a human being, it’s her quintessential feature as a public figure. This was a crucial acknowledgement by Trump as the debate reached its conclusion.

Conversely, the habitual dishonesty of the controlled media was on full display throughout the night. Although not as obnoxiously tendentious as the previous moderator, Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper demonstrated why reporters are even less respected and trusted than the 2 presidential candidates they cover on a daily basis. It’s not simply the fact that journalists have enlisted en masse in the campaign to have one of them elected, but it is the air of sanctimony they assume while denying reality. Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of Trump’s personal attacks on members of the media, even those who deserve to be skewered.

They reinforce a public image-which is partially grounded in reality-that he can’t run a disciplined campaign, and they move the field of battle from the issues to a matter of personalities-most of whom the public has heretofore been unaware. While attacking the ruling class-including the fourth estate-is an essential ingredient to Trump’s campaign, focusing upon personal disputes with specific reporters actually assists Hillary Clinton, who has tried to discuss anything and everything but substantive policies, because in that realm she is at a decisive disadvantage. That said, repeatedly exposing the malfeasance of the purportedly objective moderators throughout the evening was absolutely necessary, as both-but especially Raddatz-couldn’t suppress their sneering contempt for evenhandedness, despite repeatedly patting themselves on the back for how impartially they were performing their roles.

If Donald Trump often shoots himself in the foot by going off-script, some of his worst messengers are the people who he’s enlisted as unofficial spokesmen. Rudy Giuliani being a primary example of this phenomenon. His post-debate interview with Chris Matthews, where he discussed the recent disclosure of a recording involving a vulgar conversation between Donald Trump and Billy Bush, demonstrated yet again why Rudy is a bad emissary to the public. Although a masterful local politician, Giuliani has proven himself to be a consistent blunderer on the national stage, which is probably why MSNBC chose him as one of its pro-Trump guests last night.

Finally, I noticed a Johnson-Weld sign being waved outside of the university where this debate was held. Even though I have very little admiration for Gary Johnson the politician-who often resembles one of the more unhinged, illogical social justice warriors-and even less for Bill Weld, I still believe they-along with Jill Stein and Darrell Castle-should have been allowed to participate in these presidential debates, which are administrated by a cartel run by the 2 major political parties in this country. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the beliefs of these minor party candidates, America is entitled to hear them expressed in a public forum, not treated as if these beliefs do not exist. If anything comes from this absurdist presidential election, perhaps it will be a growing acknowledgement that it’s not the media’s job to decide which ideas are licit and which are forbidden.

This past week brought news of yet another innocent American life taken at the hands of a criminal alien. In this case, one who had been deported on five separate occasions. The brutal murder of Kathryn Steinle can be laid directly at the feet of contemptible, hispandering politicians like Gavin Newsom, who have made San Francisco into a sanctuary for violent-in many cases, homicidal-offenders who surprisingly do not abide by this country’s immigration laws. The death of Steinle would be horrific enough were it not part of a consistent pattern of criminal behavior being ignored by government agencies more interested in placating certain ethno-political constituencies than protecting the lives of American citizens.

It’s a story that’s been repeated ad nauseam for years, and yet there is still no action to prevent future needless deaths. Just as Adrienne Shelly, the brilliant independent actress and filmmaker pictured above, was murdered by a man who should never have been in this country, so too will countless others die at the hands of illegal aliens because of our government’s criminal negligence. We need to remember these lives which have been stolen from us by that callous disregard, but we also need to ensure that these Americans will have not died in vain, and commit ourselves to action that will prevent innocent citizens from having their lives taken in the future.

It’s no surprise that George W. Bush’s younger brother decided to skip the Iowa Freedom Summit this weekend. The notion of someone who can barely disguise his contempt for American citizens and workers sharing the same stage as Congressman Steve King is fairly preposterous, once you stop to think it over. Instead, the former governor of Florida decided to give a rousing endorsement of mass immigration to a group of car dealers, yes car dealers, in that bastion of American conservatism, the city of San Francisco. Dripping with condescension, the speech was an almost parodic distillation of the fatuousness we’ve come to expect from the Bush family, vis-a-vis public policy recommendations. The sort of exercise in vapidity you would expect from someone whose circle of advisors doesn’t extend far beyond the cabinet of the last Republican President named Bush. 

One way to avoid humiliation at the hands of those benighted conservatives who populate Republican primaries is to join forces with the only other presidential candidate with as deep a familiarity with the culture of entitlement and political privilege as the scion of George H.W. Bush. That’s right, Hillary Clinton. Although being the sidekick to Bill Clinton’s wife would probably not be his first choice, it would be a suitable match for someone who’s moved past this whole Americanism thing.

Good luck trying to sell your message of illegal alien exceptionalism, Jeb. I’m sure the folks in Ames will be eager to hear it.

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.

There’s nothing that defines this administration as much as its lack of transparency, and its handling of immigration policy is no exception to this rule. Which is why we recommend reading the account by the Center for Investigative Reporting of James F. Tomsheck’s explosive allegations regarding corruption within the bureaucracy of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Of particular interest to our readers is the complicity of pro-amnesty Obama flunky David Aguilar, the current head of CBP, in perpetuating this deplorable situation.

The fact that the man entrusted with facilitating the President’s unlawful amnesty would disregard clear violations in his agency is not surprising, nor is the lack of responsiveness to these credible allegations. In fact, in an unprecedented move, the majority of the federal government’s inspectors general have sent a letter to Congress asking it to help them deal with this administration’s continued obstruction of their investigations into government corruption and potential criminality.

As Jonatan Turley has pointed out repeatedly, this White House is conducting its affairs in the manner of  an imperial presidency. And, as we all know, the divine right of kings does not allow for oversight, let alone scrutiny into the actions of a sovereign. Someone needs to remind the President that we live in a constitutional republic.

It turns out that the Coulter-Kaus debate was broadcast on one of  C-SPAN’s many outlets yesterday, despite the unofficial CPAC ban on discussion of the most important domestic political issue. You can watch the full debate here. In addition to covering the political costs of amnesty and the legally and constitutionally dubious nature of the Obama administration’s administrative amnesty, they also explore the Democratic and Republican presidential fields and the political and economic consequences of Obamacare, as well as entitlement reform. 

The newest political gambit by the House Republican leaders is a concrete illustration of just why the American public is souring on the Republican Party brand.

The colossal stupidity of their current course is obvious, but it evidently won’t deter Boehner et. al. from committing collective political suicide. The only thing standing in the way of the naturalization and enfranchisement of tens of millions of illegal aliens is the American public, which still steadfastly opposes amnesty and ranks its passage somewhere below the war on bed bugs in terms of national political imperatives. 

The time when we can force the hands of the pathetic representatives who ostensibly represent the Republican Party is almost past, but we still have some time to make our voices heard. It’s time to repeat the rout of 2007.