Dems may go too far for illegals, the EU’s – Latest News
Liberal: Dems May Go Too Far for Illegals
Democrats “love a good government shutdown — though this time it’s just the Department of Homeland Security,” which incorporates ICE, snarks the Liberal Patriot’s Ruy Teixeira.
In making an attempt to close down the “agency responsible for immigration enforcement,” they give the impression of being to show “one of their worst-polling issues in recent years” to their benefit. “Trump now polls heavily net negative on the immigration issue.”
But polls nonetheless show “majority support for deporting all illegal immigrants,” and that Republicans are “preferred over Democrats by 18 points on ‘immigration and border security.’”
Meanwhile, neither aspect appears prepared to “seek broader support.” And a Civiqs ballot discovered 76% of all Democrats “support flat-out abolishing ICE.”
If Dems grow to be more radical on unlawful immigration, “expect momentum to swing right back.”
More From Post Editorial Board
Free-speech beat: The EU’s ‘Digital Service’ Despots
The European Union’s just-released, 184-page determination to high-quality Elon Musk’s X underneath its Digital Services Act “confirms what critics have warned,” roars The Wall Street Journal’s Megan Okay. Jacobson: The EU law “threatens everyone’s basic liberties” — by pushing “social-media platforms to enforce European speech laws worldwide.”
Its “most dangerous parts” hand “massive power” to the European Commission, the EU’s worldwide regulatory arm, which acts as “both prosecutor and jury” and, like a “petty despot,” exhibits “little if any regard for due process.”
With this determination and high-quality, “the commission can now bring — alongside any allegations of ‘hate speech’ or ‘misinformation’ — the threat of financial ruin.”
“Unless Washington or sensible European voices push back,” platforms and “those of us who enjoy free online expression are largely at its whim.”
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our each day Post Opinion publication!
Thanks for signing up!
Conservative: Mamdani’s ‘Affordability’ Mistake
“Affordability” is commonly the aim of policymakers, observes City Journal’s Rafael A. Mangual, with the focus usually on “issues like housing supply, tax rates, and social-welfare spending.”
By distinction, Zohran Mandani’s mayoral marketing campaign messaging “centered on lowering costs” — however his “positions on public-safety issues” would “undercut” his “affordability” targets. How?
“When leaders fail on public safety, their constituents’ economic prospects decline with it.” In high-crime neighborhoods “educational performance” and “economic mobility” are “shaped by criminal violence.”
Numerous research show “declining crime boosts home values.” “Failure to control disorder makes investment less attractive” in underserved areas.
“Affordability isn’t self-creating — it’s a by-product of good policy.” “Policymakers who promise ‘affordability’ should remember” to put “safety first.”
Culture critic: Hillary’s ‘Empathy’ Confusion
Allie Beth Stuckey at The Free Press roars back at Hillary Clinton’s claims that her e book “Toxic Empathy,” is “calloused and inhumane.”
No: Empathy means “to feel how someone else feels”; it turns into poisonous when “you make decisions based on those feelings, rather than on what is objectively true and moral and just.”
In actuality, you may “recognize the humanity of illegal immigrants” with out deciding we will’t “enforce our completely valid immigration laws.”
Feeling “compassion” for Renee Good and Alex Pretti “did not invalidate my well-founded and comprehensive perspectives on immigration policy.” And you may really feel empathy for George Floyd’s household with out having to affirm narratives of “systemic racism” or claims “that black lives didn’t matter in America.”
Appeals to “toxic empathy” are “the sharpest tool in the progressive tool kit.”
Libertarian: Context Matters for Epstein Files
The Epstein case “at its core” is a “scandal about a politically well-connected man evading justice,” contends Matthew Petti at Reason.
And “Epstein’s leaked emails” are the key to “understanding a lot of political stories unrelated to his sex crimes.” But “the reckless way” some “people are treating the Epstein files” detracts “from the value of disclosure.”
“Unsubstantiated reports in the files,” similar to claims made to the FBI of the “ritualistic sacrifice of babies,” are taken as “gospel truth.”
The current file dump consists of a selection of varieties of paperwork launched “with no explanation” of what they’re or point out.
“This evidence takes time and effort to put together into coherent narratives.”
“To properly grasp the Epstein case, you have to take it seriously.”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
