Make New York Post a Preferred Source A protester holds a sign during Rise and Resist's weekly vigil outside the immigration courts, Department of Homeland Security and ICE offices. ZUMAPRESS.com Border beat: Dems Aim To End Enforcement “Abolishing ICE is no fringe position in the Democratic Party” today, warns the Washington Examiner Editorial Board. Dem plans to “reshape immigration enforcement if they win control of Congress this November” are outlined in the “comprehensive” Reimagining Safety Act, which “would abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency” entirely and indeed “dismantle the entire Department of Homeland Security, ending some functions entirely and moving others to different departments.” Except for “customs enforcement,” none “of the functions performed by ICE or CBP would any longer be performed by the federal government,” and “all of the money appropriated for ICE and CBP would be redirected to social services.” Migrants “would be able to stay indefinitely.”
House candidate Claire Valdez’s recent post celebrating Mexican nationalism is a reminder that “American institutions and national symbols are disposable to the socialist” as “they embody a social order that the movement despises,” explains Maximillian Garely at The Spectator. The Democratic Socialists of America made this explicit with its 2021 declaration that the United States “has never been and will never be a force for liberation.” Hmm, asks Garely: “What could Americans possibly change to satisfy a group that has already adjudicated its entire past, present, and future?” Thus, for the DSA, “constitutional rights and democratic checks and balances, the procedures that enable reform” are “guilty by their association to the country that produced them.” “To defeat the DSA,” we “must relentlessly expose this contradiction.” Simply calling “these politicians un-American, without substantiating the claim, is a losing proposition.”
The Democratic Party has “a stark choice” to make: “Stay a mainstream liberal coalition or lean hard into democratic socialism,” observes Wilfred Reilly at USA Today. Despite goals of “plenty of things most Americans simply don’t support” like “shifting large corporations, banks and utilities to public ownership,” Democratic Socialists are on the march. But “just 9% of Americans have a ‘very positive’ view of socialism,” so why let socialists be the party’s face? While “the GOP, for all its flaws, has proved better at reining in its fringe,” Democrats seem to be surrendering. Will they give in? “Probably – but let’s hope not.”
The “unifying theme” of Pope Leo’s trip to France has been “the inviolable dignity of the vulnerable, including the elderly, the infirm, and people suffering from mental and intellectual disabilities,” cheers Unherd’s Sohrab Ahmari. At Lourdes, the pontiff “launched a jeremiad . . . against abortion and assisted suicide.” Modern talk “of ‘choice’ and ‘compassion’ and the obscene phrase ‘death with dignity,’ used to describe doctors dealing death,” all boil down to the Nazi belief “that worth lies in productive intelligence” leading rapidly to “to the conclusion that some lives just aren’t worth keeping around.” This connects to Leo’s focus on AI; as the pope said Friday: “While ‘intelligence’ is attributed to computational systems, we struggle to recognize the inalienable dignity of human persons, whose lives are judged according to the criterion of efficiency and, when deemed no longer productive, are rejected and discarded.”
“A New York law was written to silence outreach to public employees about their right to leave their unions,” reports RealClearPolitics’ Susan Crabtree of a Freedom Foundation lawsuit claiming “the new law is an unconstitutional violation of free speech because it allows state government officials to shut down speech before a single word is conveyed.” The state claims the law “targets fraud” by “barring people and organizations from sending communications that falsely appear to be authorized by a union or union representative,” opponents say it imposes “prior restraint,” as its “law’s penalties are designed to intimidate” anti-union groups and it empowers “the attorney general to take legal action if she believes someone is ‘about to engage’ in speech that violates the law.”
