- Heather Mac Donald writes on the connection between immigration policy and terrorism, as exemplified by the Berlin truck attack:
Even if the number of illegal-alien criminals in the U.S. who commit terrorism is small, using immigration laws to prevent even one such attack is patently justified. And even if there were no illegal-alien criminals in the U.S. who committed terrorism, deporting aliens who commit crime is nevertheless a just and sound policy. Communities do not benefit from criminals in their midst. Sanctuary scofflaws ritually claim that honoring federal immigration detainers might discourage illegal-alien victims from reporting crime, but federal immigration authorities are seeking to deport criminals, not their victims.
The apprehension of Anis Amri by Italian police vindicates another challenged law-enforcement practice as well: proactive policing. Two Milanese officers, Cristian Movio and Luca Scata, observed a disheveled man loitering outside a northern Milanese Metro station at 3 a.m. They stopped him to ask some questions and check his identity papers. Amri quickly pulled out a gun and started shooting at them; he was fatally shot in return. Had the Black Lives Matter movement taken hold in Italy, with its specious charge that pedestrian stops are a means of racial oppression, the two officers might well have taken the less politically risky course of walking past Amri rather than acting on their reasonable suspicion that something needed checking out.
There is no reason to protect illegal-alien criminals from deportation. And cities that defy the law should face serious consequences. If Anis Amri had been jailed in San Francisco for stealing a car and had been in the country illegally, the San Francisco sheriff, with the support of the city’s board of supervisors, would have provided him safe passage back to the “community.” President Trump’s response to the wave of Islamic terrorism should include new screening for people coming in. But it should also make sure that people in the country illegally be promptly deported when they go on to commit further crimes. Such a policy is essential to preserving safety and the rule of law.
- Abby Schachter writes on American governmental agencies dictating how children are raised:
There are two important lessons to draw from all this government-run child-rearing. The first is how improperly we are defining private life and public life. Only in a world where a healthy population is defined as a public good can the state justify breaking apart families over a health problem that will cause no harm to anyone but the sufferers.
The second lesson is that there are both individual parents and groups of advocates across the country who are focused on returning the rights of parents to raise their own children. These parents — Captain Mommies and Daddies, I call them — have had run-ins with the overbearing state and decided to advocate on their own behalf and on behalf of their kids. Then there are organizations like the Family Defense Center, which provides legal defense for parents caught in the child-welfare and legal systems. At ParentalRights.org the goal is to amend the U.S. Constitution and support state laws to empower parents. And the National Association of Parents wants to shape public policy on parents’-rights issues through education and advocacy.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan is Turkey’s new Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and that’s not a good thing for American interests.