Thank God President Trump walked back his misguided order to grant de facto amnesty to illegal alien farm workers. Now he needs to kill the policy for good.
Trump won in 2016 — and again in 2024 — on two core promises: lower the cost of living and stop the third-world invasion of the United States. Since he shows no interest in cutting deficits in a way that might restore pre-COVID price levels, immigration remains the battlefield that will define his presidency. And unless he corrects course, he risks failure on that front too.
No more half measures or donor-driven compromises. No more weakness. Only total war on the policies, programs, and pipelines that keep America under siege.
To his credit, Trump moved quickly to shut off the surge at the southern border during his first week in office. But he did the same in 2017, and the long-term results didn’t last. A future Democrat administration will simply escalate. If Biden brought in 10 million, the next one will aim for 20 million.
Temporary border control and modest deportation numbers won’t solve the crisis. Fewer than a million removals over a four-year term won’t reverse the demographic or economic damage — especially while legal immigration, foreign student visas, and guest worker programs continue at record highs.
Trump must go beyond symbolic border enforcement. That means neutralizing judicial interference through must-pass legislation — or ignoring illegitimate court rulings outright. He should authorize maritime deportations using ships, suspend most of the 1.5 million foreign student visas — especially from China and Islamic countries — and permanently empower states to enforce immigration law.
Instead, Trump recently unveiled a set of policies that undermine those very goals.
He announced continued access for Chinese nationals to U.S. universities — just as a spy ring was uncovered at the University of Michigan. He expanded his support for white-collar visas for Indian nationals and revived his “golden visa” scheme, which allows wealthy Chinese Communist Party elites to buy their way into U.S. citizenship.
Worst of all, Trump issued an order halting removals of illegal aliens working in farming and hospitality. He later reversed course — but the damage was done.
In pushing for more illegal labor, Trump handed leftists a talking point they had already lost. He lent moral weight to one of their core claims: that America needs illegal immigrants to do the “jobs Americans won’t do.” That argument, long peddled by George W. Bush, John McCain, and the donor-class GOP, was the very reason millions turned to Trump in the first place.
Ten years after calling for a moratorium on illegal immigration and a drastic cut to legal migration, Trump now echoes the talking points he once dismantled. If he keeps this up, he won’t just squander his mandate — he’ll cement the invasion he was elected to stop.
The cash-based, transient, and legally vulnerable workforce offers a logistical gold mine for transnational criminal organizations. Cartels use job scams to traffic humans, set up safe houses, and move product. Rural communities lack the law enforcement resources to push back. The result: strategic sanctuary zones for America's most dangerous enemies.
RELATED: Trump shrugs at immigration law — here’s what he should have said
When Trump says these workers are “hardworking” and “not criminals,” he ignores the obvious fact that every illegal alien is a criminal. Amnesty for farm workers isn’t just a policy mistake — it’s an operational gift to America’s foreign adversaries.
Trump knows immigration is his strongest issue. The polls prove it. But if he wavers, even slightly, on mass deportations or illegal labor, he opens the door for his political enemies to sow doubt — and for cartel operatives to sow chaos.
He reversed the farm worker carve-out. Now he must bury it. Then, he needs to go farther. No more half measures. No more donor-driven compromises. No more weakness. Only total war on the policies, programs, and pipelines that keep America under siege.
His base expects it. The country needs it. The future depends on it.
Although I would do so reluctantly — while holding a barf bag in one hand — if forced to vote in the next New York City mayoral election, I’d cast my ballot for Zohran Mamdani.
Yes, thatZohran Mamdani.
It isn’t just the Democratic Party destroying these cities — it’s the people who keep voting for them. Let them live with the consequences.
A dire warning about this unappetizing candidate, a “Muslim lefty from the other side of Queens,” just appeared in the New York Post, which reports that Mamdani consorts with pro-Hamas rioters, adores Black Lives Matter, and recently said Bill de Blasio was “the best mayor of his lifetime.”
In a sane political environment, such a figure would be consigned to the loony bin. But in the present urban climate, voters find themselves grasping for the least ghastly option — if they bother voting at all.
And Mamdani, God help me, appears marginally less disgusting than Andrew Cuomo, who is now the front-runner.
Cuomo, who presided over the slow death of New York as governor, seems poised to take the helm of a city already in decay. In any race to the bottom, he’d win in a landslide. This is a man who groped and manhandled female staffers while parading his feminist credentials; who packed nursing homes with COVID patients, causing the deaths of thousands; who then lied about it repeatedly and shamelessly. He worked tirelessly to eliminate cash bail, unleashing a wave of criminality across the state.
And yet, somehow, Mamdani is supposed to be worse?
That former Mayor Mike Bloomberg — now a prolific funder of leftist candidates — is backing Cuomo only sharpens the stench of this whole affair. The staleness of the New York political class, its complete moral exhaustion, has never been more evident.
Still, I’ll give you another reason I prefer Mamdani: Sometimes collapse is a better catalyst than stagnation.
Cuomo would likely run the city into the ground — but slowly. He’d reward the usual Democratic parasites with patronage, keep street crime just under the boiling point, and exercise marginally more restraint when it comes to unwanted touching. He’d reassure the woke plutocrats and Wall Street donors that he won’t rock the boat too much. He knows the game and plays it well.
But the rot would fester.
RELATED: New 12-foot-tall statue of woman in Times Square meant to represent ‘cultural diversity’
New York would remain unsafe. Schools and other public institutions would stay in the grip of culturally radicalized unions. The courts would remain ideological tools of the left. Nothing would improve. The decline would just ooze along — business as usual.
Mamdani, by contrast, might deliver a spectacular crash.
If he’s as doctrinaire and deranged as his critics suggest, his administration could bring about real catastrophe with impressive speed. That kind of shock might finally push productive citizens to flee en masse and accelerate the corporate exodus already under way. Sometimes it takes a maniac to wake the slumbering.
This wouldn’t be the first time a disastrous mayor paved the way for genuine reform. In 1994, New Yorkers elected Rudy Giuliani after enduring the catastrophic tenure of David Dinkins. Giuliani cracked down on crime, brought investment back, and helped restore a semblance of order. But it took years of misrule to make that turnaround politically possible.
Yes, I know what you’re thinking: That kind of change isn’t possible any more. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia are too far gone. Their voting blocs are locked into leftist fantasy. The idea of another Giuliani, a Richard Daley Sr., or even a Frank Rizzo showing up today seems laughable.
Maybe so. But if that’s true, then the voters are getting exactly what they asked for. It isn’t just the Democratic Party destroying these cities — it’s the people who keep voting for them.
Let them live with the consequences.
Given the state of our urban politics, the choice now is between ideological lunatics and cynical reprobates. Mamdani may fast-forward the train wreck. Cuomo might slow it down. But either way, the crash is coming.
At least with Mamdani, we might finally reach bottom — and from there, maybe, begin again.
House Republicans responded to the idea that money saved from federal cuts could be passed down to the taxpayer.
The money would come via cuts recommended by the Department of Government Efficiency under Elon Musk, which included savings from programs under USAID and the Treasury Department.
First proposed by investment CEO James Fishback, the "DOGE Dividend" checks would total $5,000 and be "sent to every taxpayer," Fishback wrote on X.
'We kind of got in the situation that we’re in by just sending checks to people.'
However, when approached for comment regarding the possibility of sending the refund checks to the taxpayer, at least five Republican members of Congress shot down the idea, with one even claiming it could cause inflation.
Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) said checks to the public were specifically the problem, not the solution.
"We kind of got in the situation that we're in by just sending checks to people, and we got a $36 trillion debt headed toward 37 rapidly," Harris told the Daily Signal. "It's going to make far more sense for any savings that we find to make sure that we get that debt under control, bend that curve, and make sure that we get our country on a really fiscally sound financial footing."
Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) answered similarly, saying the latest Republican budget is actually the answer the taxpayer seeks.
"The 'big, beautiful bill' will be stimulative on its own," Huizenga told the Daily Signal.
The congressman stated that the "additional cash infusion to folks ... could potentially be inflationary."
However, given that the DOGE cuts would be money that was already allocated and, in most cases, being spent, it is unclear how that would happen.
Huizenga added, "To me, with $36 trillion in debt, the most responsible thing that we can do is apply that" to the massive deficit.
RELATED: White House works to send DOGE cuts package to Congress
— (@)
Rep. Mike Cloud, (R-Tex.), Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) all told the Daily Signal that paying down the deficit was more important then sending out checks.
"What we can do, and President Trump's great at this, is find creative ways to grow the economy and grow our way out of this while we get a hold of in Congress our federal spending that's way out of hand, to get rid of our spending addiction," Cloud told the outlet.
"Let's focus on tackling our $36 trillion debt, while also helping hardworking Americans prosper by making the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent and spending less of their tax dollars," Lee told the Daily Signal.
"DOGE savings coupled with tax cuts will ensure Iowans and Americans can keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets while also restoring fiscal sanity and addressing deficit spending," Hinson said to the Daily Signal.
RELATED: Elon Musk formally departs from DOGE following a tumultuous tenure
Reporter Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell, who spoke with the Republicans, told Blaze News that the sources she spoke to "would love to give money back to the taxpayer" but are more focused on debt spending.
"They believe the best way to put more money in the wallets of taxpayers is to reduce the national debt."
On June 6, Fishback wrote an update on his X page, saying the savings Musk promised the federal government did not come to fruition.
"The truth is that Elon set expectations that he relayed to the President, me, and the country that he did not come close to fulfilling."
The investor still said he was proud of his proposal and that he intended to work with the Donald Trump administration to "return savings to taxpayers."
On June 7, USA Today claimed that any DOGE dividend would actually be delivered on a per-eligible-household basis, which includes only those who pay more taxes than they get back.
USA Today said lower-income Americans would not qualify for the return.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
“Prices would rise — sharply — they said, reigniting an inflation crisis that tens of millions of Americans had elected [President Donald Trump] to solve,” CNN’s David Goldman wrote on Friday. “But that massive, tariff-induced inflation spike hasn’t materialized. Not even close.” Indeed, it hasn’t. But who exactly is Goldman referring to when he says, […]
While liberals hide indoors in fear of the falling sky, the rest of us recognize it’s actually beautiful outside in a new day brought by the Trump administration.
If the cost of maintaining a sovereign nation is paying, in the short term, slightly more for food grown and harvested by American hands, then it's a price worth paying.
www.theblaze.com