Getting immigration proper, academia is bankrupt – Latest News
Conservative: Getting Immigration Right
“American immigration policy should serve the interests of America and Americans,” argues National Review’s Dan McLaughlin, a level that ought to “be the starting point rather than the end of debates.” That’s why two contentious immigration packages, “asylum and refugee law and Temporary Protected Status,” have to be “reformed or abolished,” as they’ve “no limiting principle” and stir “resentment of immigrants.” The asylum “system is a farce” as a result of immigration legal professionals and advocacy teams “advise people to game the system.” Crucially (and setting “aside what to do with people already here”), how do these insurance policies serve American pursuits? We can welcome “more legal immigrants” if we’re “selecting whom we accept” — that is, “if we make American interests and values our compass.”
Iconoclast: Academia Is Bankrupt and in Denial
“Word does not yet seem to have reached the faculty lounge,” observes The Washington Post’s Megan McArdle, that the “public” is no longer anticipated to “cater to” academia, the place the “political agenda,” “cost” and the “perception that degrees no longer prepare graduates for the workforce” have cratered the credibility of the establishment. But many lecturers are “clueless” about the issue, and even those that sense that “something is seriously amiss” fail to “understand what it will take to fix the problem.” Their solely resolution is to “imperiously inform Americans they are wrong” that academia “has let politics inform its work” or that any “reform” is mandatory. Academics are “reputationally bankrupt” and failure to adapt will lead many of them to “eventually be financially bankrupt as well.”
Media Watch: The ‘Credibility Gap’ Is Growing
Gallup knowledge show plummeting public confidence within the information media, and The Hill’s Becket Adams factors to “decades of sloppy, one-sided reporting and a near-total disregard for audience feedback” as eh purpose. Just take a look at National Public Radio, MS Now and PBS News’ “current crisis of credibility” to elucidate trust of simply 14% to 17 %. Note how CNN cited a tweet from Republican Rep. Jack Kimble — a “satirical Twitter account” — in reporting on hospitalized Sen. Mitch McConnell. The press takes this “credibility gap,” it’ll be “serving our purpose of keeping the public well-informed.” If not, information media will finally “collapse into a small subculture with a limited audience interested only in the affirmation of increasingly niche political pieties.”
More From Post Editorial Board
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our each day Post Opinion publication!
Thanks for signing up!
Persian Gulf: It’s a New Kind of Warfare
Islamic Revolutionary Guard chief Ahmad Vahidi attacked transport and a US airbase partly to ship “a message,” asserts Michael Doran at The Free Press: that he’s the one “calling the shots” in Iran. President Trump responded with “calibrated escalation” to drive Vahidi to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, nevertheless it’s “unlikely to eliminate the drone threat” that drives “insurers from the market” and ensures “disruption.” Indeed, huge US and Israeli forces “have failed to fully neutralize Iran’s ability to disrupt” the Strait — revealing “how profoundly warfare has changed”: “The era in which U.S. airpower could rapidly neutralize a regional adversary at acceptable cost” is “being replaced by a more contested, attritional environment in which weaker states can buy time and impose significant costs.”
Tech beat: Lawsuits Make Terrible Policy
Whether it’s 4 states “seeking a combined $1.4 trillion in penalties” from Meta utilizing from “calculations under their consumer-protection laws” or 1,200-plus faculty districts suing below “a far more elastic theory — public nuisance,” grumbles Cory L. Andrews at The Wall Street Journal, “a courtroom is the worst imaginable place to settle” the controversy over harms from teen habit to social media. The science right here is “far from settled,” and “whether social media should be limited, age-gated or redesigned are questions for Congress,” not “two sets of paid experts giving speeches to 12 laymen, the edge going to whichever side’s client is more sympathetic.” Broad court-imposed fixes aren’t judging, however “governing,” and “by someone no one authorized to govern, on a question the evidence hasn’t yet answered.”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
