“”Due process is the most foundational legal principle protecting individual liberty in Western civilization. It dates back to the Magna Carta,” Bolick observed. Yet “we have seen the words due process appear in quotes repeatedly, as if this concept was created by rogue liberal judges to help illegal immigrants stay in the country.””
…
“Bolick is a principled legal thinker and one of the genuine good guys in American law. If he is worried about the health of our constitutional order, we should all pay heed.”
“As Trump has acknowledged, he is torn between the economic concerns of business owners, including many of his own supporters, and the demands of hardliners like White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. That tension is apparent in the contrast between the administration’s immigration rhetoric, which emphasizes the removal of dangerous criminals, and workplace raids that target peaceful, productive people with strong, longstanding ties to the United States. And it reflects the general public’s mixed attitude toward immigration enforcement, which includes an openness to legal pathways that would allow people in the latter category to remain in the country.
“In 2020–22,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports, “32 percent of crop farmworkers were U.S. born, 7 percent were immigrants who had obtained U.S. citizenship, 19 percent were other authorized immigrants (primarily permanent residents or green-card holders), and the remaining 42 percent held no work authorization.” But as Trump tells it, he was not aware of how his deportation campaign might affect U.S. farmers until Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who attended the Des Moines rally, brought the issue to his attention. “You were the one that brought this whole situation up,” he said to her at the rally. “Brooke Rollins brought it up, and she said, ‘So we have a little problem. The farmers are losing a lot of people.'”
Trump has repeatedly promised to execute “the largest deportation program in American history”—a goal that he reiterated in Des Moines. Yet he sounded surprisingly sympathetic toward at least some of the people affected by that crackdown. “These people…work so hard,” he said. “They bend over all day. We don’t have too many people [who] can do that.” He added that “some of the farmers…cry when they see [immigration raids] happen.” He alluded to “cases where…people have worked for a farmer on a farm for 14, 15 years” and “then they get thrown out, pretty viciously.” His conclusion: “We can’t do it. We’ve got to work with the farmers and people that have hotels and leisure properties.”
If the agricultural sector’s reliance on undocumented workers somehow was news to Trump even after he served as president for four years, he should have been intimately familiar from his own businesses with the potential impact of immigration enforcement on the hospitality industry. In 2023, the American Immigration Council estimated, U.S. hotels and restaurants employed 1.1 million unauthorized workers, 7.6 percent of the total work force.
Trump did not mention construction. But last September, the National Immigration Forum estimated that undocumented workers accounted for “almost a quarter” of employees in that industry.
It was completely predictable, in other words, that a broad crackdown on unauthorized U.S. residents that included workplace raids would have an outsized impact on several kinds of businesses”
…
“a Pew Research Center survey conducted in early June, 54 percent of respondents opposed “more raids where people in the U.S. illegally may be working,” and 65 percent thought “there should be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally, if requirements are met.” Despite Trump’s rhetorical emphasis on deporting criminals, 57 percent of respondents anticipated that his immigration policies would have “no impact” on crime or lead to “more crime.” A plurality (46 percent) thought those policies would make the U.S. economy “weaker,” while just 34 percent said they would make it “stronger.””
“Trump administration argues that its policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting international students for expressing anti-Israel opinions “does not exist.” The government’s lawyers also maintain that the supposedly nonexistent policy is perfectly consistent with the First Amendment—a less laughable argument that nevertheless is hard to reconcile with Supreme Court precedent, especially as applied by several lower courts.
President Donald Trump and his underlings, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Department of Homeland Security officials, have made it clear that they are determined to expel students, including legal permanent residents as well as visa holders, who have engaged in protests or other forms of advocacy that the government views as “pro-Hamas” or “anti-Semitic.” Rubio says those activities, even when “otherwise lawful,” justify removal from the United States because they threaten to undermine U.S. foreign policy interests.
The Trump administration claims it is targeting “aid or support” for “designated terrorist groups” and “unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence,” neither of which is constitutionally protected. That defense is hard to take seriously, since the government avers that even writing an anti-Israel op-ed piece or peacefully participating in pro-Palestinian protests falls into those categories.”
A common Republican response to a school shooting is mental health is the problem. A few years ago, members of both parties passed a mental health bill and school therapists were paid for. The Trump administration cut that funding because of a line about diversity hiring; Republicans who voted for this funding are silent.
Former Iranian diplomat says Iran was not deeply enriching before Trump unilaterally left the Iran nuclear deal. They enriched to 60% recently as a bargaining chip with Trump.
Also says their nuclear program was damaged, but they can rebuild.
“When dealing with a potentially career-threatening political scandal, there is a standard playbook: Issue a broad denial. Attack the accuser. Then declare the controversy over and tell everyone to move on.
That’s what Emil Bove — Donald Trump’s criminal defense lawyer-turned-senior Justice Department official — is going for as he tries to secure a lifetime appointment as a federal judge. The scandal? A scathing whistleblower disclosure by a former Justice Department lawyer that alleges disturbing and unethical conduct on the part of Bove and other senior DOJ lawyers, including multiple efforts to defy the courts in service of Trump’s agenda.
The disclosure, released one day before Bove’s Senate confirmation hearing last week, has further complicated a nomination that had already opened an uncomfortable fissure within the conservative legal movement and which faces an uncertain future in the GOP-controlled Senate.
Immediately after the allegations were unveiled, a defense took shape among the Trump administration and its Republican allies.”
“Republicans once talked seriously about aligning taxes and spending. They cared about economic distortion, simplicity, and broadening the tax base. Now, too many just want the sugar rush of tax cuts without fiscal discipline. Meanwhile, Democrats want to vastly expand the state and pretend that billionaires alone can foot the bill. Both sides are wrong. The math doesn’t work, and the morality of the reckless spending is worse.
Those who want to frame this bill as pro-growth are dreaming. They’re relying on unrealistic economic assumptions about a short-run bump to justify the consequences of long-term debt increases—and banking on cost-disguising budget gimmicks that nobody takes seriously.”
Repeated Republican presidents and Congresses have told us that tax cuts will pay for themselves, and they repeatedly have not paid for themselves. Tax cuts like these are budget busters.