Displaying posts published in

March 2025

What’s the Best Argument for Columbia Agitator’s Arrest and Deportation? Andrew McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/whats-the-best-argument-for-columbia-agitators-arrest-and-deportation/

For now, the Trump administration is trying to do what can be done within the confines of existing law. That law, construed properly, authorizes the government to exclude and deport pro-jihadist agitators.

Earlier today, we posted my piece about the Trump administration’s arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident alien (LPR) — i.e., a green card holder — who was reportedly born in Syria but claims Palestinian ancestry. Khalil has been a prominent figure in the pro-Hamas agitation at Columbia — as late as last week when he reportedly posed as a mediator between the university and “protesters” who occupied a building at Barnard College — an unlawful enterprise that resulted in nine arrests (Khalil was not among them). That uprising was evidently triggered by Barnard’s expulsion of two students who, hiding behind masks, interrupted a “History of Modern Israel” class by barging in and strewing Jew-hatred flyers around the room.

Early this afternoon, President Trump posted on his Truth Social site that the arrest of Khalil, whom he described as “a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University,” was “the first of many to come,” and that the administration would “find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again.”

The familiar array of Islamist organizations and their media and Democratic Party allies is rallying to Khalil’s defense. The agitator’s apologists contend that his arrest and the government’s plan to deport him are illegal. A lawyer for Khalil has filed a suit in Manhattan federal court (the Southern District of New York) to try to block deportation and compel his release. Khalil’s allies are concerned about reports that, although he was arrested in Manhattan where he was residing, the Trump Homeland Security Department has already whisked him to a holding facility in Louisiana — perhaps hoping to deport him before the courts can intervene, or at least to try to litigate any lawsuits in a district the administration hopes will be more friendly than the SDNY.

Renu Mukherjee Are Universities Following the Supreme Court’s Affirmative-Action Ban? Data suggest that some of America’s top schools may be practicing racial preferences by other means.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/universities-supreme-court-affirmative-action-racial-preferences

When the Supreme Court, in 2023, banned the use of racial preferences in university admissions, observers expected the number of black and Hispanic freshmen on elite campuses to fall and the number of Asian freshmen to rise. At many schools, however, that didn’t happen.

Admissions data reveal that Yale, Princeton, Duke, and several other highly selective schools enrolled fewer Asian students in their Classes of 2028—the first group admitted since the Court decided Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard—than they did in their Classes of 2027. Black enrollment at these schools, by contrast, remained virtually unchanged.

In the run up to SFFA, these elite colleges repeatedly asserted that they could not maintain racial diversity on campuses without affirmative action. Sixteen prestigious colleges filed a joint amicus brief arguing that “no race-neutral alternative presently can fully replace race-conscious individualized and holistic review to obtain the diverse student body Amici have found essential to fulfilling their missions.” Several had advanced the same argument in amicus briefs filed in 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger and 2016’s Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, earlier cases examining the use of racial preferences.

For more than two decades, universities claimed that socioeconomic preferences, geographic sorting, and other race-neutral alternatives could not achieve the same level of racial diversity on campus as could affirmative action. Yet the demographics of many schools’ Class of 2028 suggest otherwise. It raises an awkward question: Did America’s top universities mislead the Supreme Court then, or are they breaking the law now?

Consider data from an Inside Higher Ed database that tracks the demographics of the Classes of 2027 and 2028 at 31 highly selective universities. The database includes the first-year demographics for 13 of the 15 highly selective universities that alleged, in the SFFA amicus brief, that their campuses would lose racial diversity absent racial preferences. I’ve listed the demographics for 12 of those universities below. (The University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania were not included in the database. I chose to omit the California Institute of Technology because its data appeared unclear.)

One Fact Missing From Every DOGE Story

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/03/11/one-fact-missing-from-every-doge-story/

The next time you hear someone complaining that DOGE is “slashing” federal spending or “dismantling” the government, pay close attention. There will almost certainly be an important fact left out: The gargantuan federal deficit.

Every day brings a new sob story about how someone is being hurt by Elon Musk’s chainsaw because some federal program is being shut down, or because a precious federal job has been axed.

Never in any of these is any context provided. And in this case, context is everything.

By the time President Donald Trump took office – four months into the new fiscal year (which started last October), the federal government was already $840 billion in the red. That’s a 58% increase from the prior year.

If all goes well, the deficit for this year will total $1.9 trillion, according to the Treasury Department, which would be the third annual increase.

The result is that the national debt is now $37 trillion – more than double what it was a decade ago. Interest on the debt took off like a rocket under Joe Biden.