Dems may go too far for illegals, the EU’s ‘Digital Service’ despots and other commentary

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 includes ICE, snarks the Liberal Patriot’s Ruy Teixeira.

In trying to shut down the “agency responsible for immigration enforcement,” they look to turn “one of their worst-polling issues in recent years” to their advantage. “Trump now polls heavily net negative on the immigration issue.”

But polls still 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 side seems willing to “seek broader support.” And a Civiqs poll found 76% of all Democrats “support flat-out abolishing ICE.”

If Dems become more radical on illegal immigration, “expect momentum to swing right back.”

Free-speech beat: The EU’s ‘Digital Service’ Despots

The European Union’s just-released, 184-page decision to fine Elon Musk’s X under its Digital Services Act “confirms what critics have warned,” roars The Wall Street Journal’s Megan K. 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 international regulatory arm, which acts as “both prosecutor and jury” and, like a “petty despot,” shows “little if any regard for due process.”

With this decision and fine, “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.”

Conservative: Mamdani’s ‘Affordability’ Mistake

“Affordability” is often the goal of policymakers, observes City Journal’s Rafael A. Mangual, with the focus typically on “issues like housing supply, tax rates, and social-welfare spending.”

By contrast, Zohran Mandani’s mayoral campaign messaging “centered on lowering costs” — but his “positions on public-safety issues” would “undercut” his “affordability” goals. 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 studies 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 book “Toxic Empathy,” is “calloused and inhumane.”

No: Empathy means “to feel how someone else feels”; it becomes toxic when “you make decisions based on those feelings, rather than on what is objectively true and moral and just.”

In reality, you can “recognize the humanity of illegal immigrants” without deciding we can’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 can feel empathy for George Floyd’s family without 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,” such as claims made to the FBI of the “ritualistic sacrifice of babies,” are taken as “gospel truth.”

The recent file dump includes a variety of types of documents released “with no explanation” of what they are or indicate.

“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