ICE arrested 10,000 illegal immigrants in five days to close out June, in a major increase.

 

An ICE badge. AP.

ICE closed out June with 10,000 arrests of illegal immigrants in five days to close out June, a major increase. AP. The five day average was 2000 arrests a day, which is higher than any time in President Trump's first term. The closest was in December of last year when they were averaging 1293 a day. The spike in arrests may be due to a change in ICE tactics. Instead of high profile raids on blue cities like Minneapolis, ICE has focused on arrests nationwide. The new path, steered by new Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, has focused on being more efficient while also being less visible. 

My Comment:

ICE efforts have largely fallen out of the news, but it seems as though the efforts to deport illegal aliens have been redoubled, not abandoned. Indeed, these numbers, which have been confirmed by multiple news outlets, shows that the new tactics are working extremely well. 

What are these new tactics? Instead of high profile raids on blue cities that weren't cooperating with ICE, ICE has been focusing on going after convicted criminals. Many of those folks are picked up during routine police work and handed over to ICE by cooperating agencies. Around 70% of the illegals picked up are convicted criminals, and the 30% that aren't are largely getting swept up at the same time as the criminals. 

This is a massive sea change from the major high profile raids we had during the start of the year. Those raids were somewhat effective in removing illegal aliens, but the optics were not good. Antifa and other protest movements attempted to shut it down and there was violence caused by them that ICE was blamed for (even when it was Customs and Border Patrol that were the shooters in once of the cases). Though I have zero sympathy for the people caught up in the raids and actually despise the protesters and rioters, even I have to admit that the high profile raids were causing more issues then they were solving. 

At the time I didn't know if there was a better way, but it seems clear that Mullin's less visible actions are more effective now. If we can increase the number of people deported while at the same time cutting off the left's energy going into the midterms, than I am all for it. 

Not all of this is due to tactics. ICE underwent a major increase in hiring of personnel and many of those folks are now out of training and are on the job now. Obviously, with more ICE agents on the streets then more folks are going to get arrested and deported. 

There is an obvious downside for the lower profile deportation efforts. It means that many MAGA supporters aren't aware of what is being accomplished, unlike the major high profile raids earlier in the year. Indeed, I have seen some people on social media saying that the Trump administration "caved" on deportation. 

It's a double edged sword as the high profile raids were working as a rallying cry for the left, but also as one for the right. The optics were bad but at least they were optics. Now, a lot of folks on both sides think nothing is happening at all, when instead we are getting even more effective at removing illegal aliens. 

DOJ launches lawsuits against California and Virginia for unconstitutional gun laws.

 

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger and a gun shop. Fox News/Getty.

The Department of Justice has launched two lawsuits against California and Virginia for unconstitutional gun laws. Fox News. California passed the Unsafe Handgun Act to ban Glock pistols, an extremely popular brand of firearms. Virginia passed Senate Bill 749 that made it a misdemeanor to possess, manufacture or sell a so-called "assault weapon". Both laws came into effect recently and could be overturned by the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to two other similar cases from Chicago and Connecticut 

My Comment:

More good news for the gun rights community. Both of these laws are plainly unconstitutional and do not reach the standards set by NYSRPA v Bruen and DC vs Heller. These are firearms in common use, AR-15's are the most popular rifles in the country while Glocks are among the most popular handguns and there isn't a historical precedence for banning these weapons under the Bruen test. 

The Glock law in California is probably the more impactful and dangerous one. The ban isn't because the Glocks are dangerous due to malfunctions or because they are a threat, it's because they can be modified to fire in full auto. Glock "switches" are commonly used to do so by criminals, but almost all semi-auto firearms can be modified this way. Indeed, all you need to do so with a lot of AR-15's is a small piece of metal, called a full auto sear. 

The same argument could be used to ban most firearms. Short barrel shotguns and rifles are illegal federally but the argument for the California law would apply here too. Because you can easily use a hacksaw to saw off a barrel on a shotgun or rifle, they could be banned as well. It doesn't matter in either case that would be committing a serious felony by modifying your weapon this way. Simply being modifiable can't be the standard because almost all firearms can be modified in some way. Of course, I don't think full auto or short barreled weapons should be illegal in the first place, but that's neither here nor there. 

I'd also argue that a modified Glock with a Glock switch is actually dramatically less dangerous than a normal Glock. Full auto is for suppression and isn't useful for much else. A full auto pistol, especially one that isn't designed to be one, is hard to control and the vast majority of bullets will not hit there targets. A semi skilled shooter with a semi-auto handgun will always beat out a guy spraying and praying with a Glock switch. 

Regardless, it's clear what the play is here by the DOJ. The general prediction is that SCOTUS will rule in favor or removing these bans and once that happens next year it will be useful to have these cases spun up already. The laws will be overturned a lot quicker that way and I am guessing that is the whole point of these lawsuits. It's even possible that the DOJ will be able to get an injunction to prevent these laws from being enforced. 

It's a pretty good time to be a gun rights supporter. It seems like we are absolutely heading towards a world where gun rights is a settled questions and things like assault weapon bans will be nothing but a memory. A lot can happen, of course, but it really does seem like victory is at hand. For gun control advocates, I would say they are quickly approaching irrelevance. 

SCOTUS says they will review so called "assault weapon" bans that ban America's most popular rifle.

 

A group prays in front of the Surpreme Court. AP.

The Supreme Court says they have granted certiorari for two consolidated cases challenging Illinois and Connecticut bans on so-called "assault weapons" including America's most popular rifle, the AR-15. AP. The case will be the largest gun rights case since 2022's NYSRPA v Bruen, which set the Bruen test for gun laws, which requires there to be a historical precedent for those laws.  The current Court has been highly supportive of the 2nd amendment, with two major rulings on gun rights this year, including striking down Hawaii's de facto ban on concealed carry and federal laws banning marijuana users from purchasing or possessing firearms. 

My Comment:

The big news today is, of course, the birthright citizenship case, that did not go the way many people have wished. But these cases being heard before the Supreme Court is likely to be a more impactful case. Should the AR-15 ban be revoked in these states, it would be close to a final victory for the gun rights movement and the ultimate defeat of gun control in the United States. 

After today's ruling on birthright citizenship and yesterday's ruling on mail in ballots, I would understand if folks were concerned that this ruling could actually uphold the bans. People have been very critical of Roberts and Barrett, given how they ruled today. 

But it's important to note that both of them voted in favor of gun rights this term and in previous cases. Indeed, it would be shocking if they didn't both side with the four justices, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that are chomping at the bit to overturn these gun laws. The most likely outcome here is a 6-3 or 5-4 ruling in favor of overturning the bans. 

Indeed, I think that the fact that the case was granted certiorari at all is a strong signal that one or both of Roberts and Barrett have been brought on board. The four pro-gun justices would not risk losing the case and it's pretty rare for the court to take cases like this if there isn't a strong chance of a favorable outcome. Who knows what will happen during arguments, but it would be shocking to me for this case to fail. 

The legal argument for overturning these bans is extremely strong. There isn't a historical precedence, so the Bruen test is already a failure. But the ruling in DC vs Heller that said that firearms in common use are protected by the 2nd amendment. Given that the AR-15 is America's most popular rifle and these so called "assault weapons" even outside AR variants are extremely popular, it's failing that case as well. 

Should the case rule in favor of overturning the bans, we would likely see the collapse of many attempts by states to attempt to end run the Bruen and Heller rulings. It would be pretty explicit rejection of the modern gun control movement and states that have these kinds of assault weapons bans on the books would either have to repeal them or face court cases they would almost certainly lose. Either way, I'd say within a year or two of the decision, most or even all AR-15 bans will be gone and the lower courts would be a lot more reluctant to try and support more gun control laws. 

The case will be heard during the October SCOTUS session and will likely be decided around this time next year. Indeed, I would expect it to be the last case to be revealed, like the birthright citizenship case was decided today. I'd say there's more than an 80% chance that the case will be overturned and the AR-15 will be protected. 

Europe's heat wave has claimed 1300 lives, so why doesn't Europe embrace air conditioning?

 

People attempt to cool off in Berlin. BBC/Reuters. 

Europe's record breaking heat wave has claimed 1300 lives, according to the World Health Organization. BBC. Temperature records were broken in Poland, Germany and Czechia. France said they had 1000 excess deaths since last week Wednesday. Most of those fatalities were from people over the age of 65. In addition, 74 people have drowned in France as well. The heat wave is being blamed on a "heat dome" effect.

My Comment:

Europe's continuing failure to do anything about heat waves is dominating the discourse on social media and many Americans like me can't believe what we are hearing from our European friends. It's no secret that Europe's general adaptation of air conditioning is extremely low compared to the United States, with only 20% of homes there being equipped with AC while 90% of American homes do. 

But what is shocking is how the European peoples react to this fact and the bizarre reasoning they use to get there. Much of this is due to hysteria over "climate change", indeed, even the BBC was blaming it for it being hot in summer. It's certainly the justification that European governments are using to discourage AC usage, to the point where Germany is releasing statements and the UK is taking down functioning units because they aren't "efficient enough".

The real problem is that the European energy crisis. Demand for energy is already high in Summer and more AC units could cause some serious problems. This was a self inflicted problem for much of Europe as they have moved away from more reliable sources of power, like coal and nuclear, to green energy which is a lot less reliable and often unable to provide during peak times. 

What is even crazier is some of the excuses I have heard from European accounts on social media. Many of them are claiming that AC will make you sick. While there are some cases where that can be true, with poorly maintained HVAC systems, it's extremely rare and the whole thing reminds me of the totally false South Korean belief that sleeping in a bedroom with a fan will kill you dead. It's just a bizarre superstition. 

The sad thing is that this causes so many deaths. Indeed, Europe suffers more deaths from heat than America does from all firearms causes, with Europe suffering between 175,000 and 60,000 deaths each year, depending on how you count it. It's absurd that European countries lecture us on our gun laws when they have a much easier problem to solve but they simply don't. 

As for my personal reaction, it's crazy to me that Europe hasn't figured out heat waves. We are currently suffering our own one here in Wisconsin, and it the heat index was well above 100 degrees today. But I was comfortable all day because I had my AC running. 

The whole thing reminds me of the World Cup. I have zero interest in soccer but it was interesting to see all the Europeans visiting the United States for the first time. The entire thing reminded me of Boris Yeltsin visiting a US grocery store and being shocked at how diverse the food was. A lot of Europeans got a system shock in just how good the United States is and how poor Europe is in comparison. And the lack of air conditioning is a good example of this. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin says that Haitians and Syrians here under the TPS program can either go home or apply for permanent residency.

 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin. The Guardian. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said that Haitians and Syrians here under the TPS program can either go home or apply for permanent residency after a SCOTUS ruling. The Guardian. The Temporary Protected Status was put into place for Haitians in 2010 after a major earthquake and for Syrians in 2012 after the country descended into civil war. The Supreme Court said that Trump could revoke TPS for these people and they may face deportation as the decision was not based on race. Mullin said that migrants would be encouraged to leave with a free plane ticket and a $2100 check. They could also apply for permanent residency.  

My Comment:

A few numbers to clarify this story. Around 350,000 Haitians and 6000 Syrians are here under the TPS program, with many of those Haitians concentrated in cities like Springfield Ohio. Many of those people have been here for awhile and there is a possibility for many of them to be deported. 

I do agree that these people should not have TPS. The Haitian earthquake was 16 years ago and even as dysfunctional as Haiti is, they have largely recovered from the earthquake itself. The country is still an absolute mess, but it's no longer in crisis because of the natural disaster. They absolutely do have problems with gang activity, a dysfunctional government and high rates of crime, but it's not like it's a death sentence to be sent back there. 

Syria is in even better shape. The war that blew the country apart in 2012 has been done since 2024. There is still limited amounts of violence, ISIS attacks and unrest, but even during the war there were parts of the country that were comparatively safe. There might be a few Syrians that can't go back because they belong to the wrong religion (Alawites especially), but the majority of Sunni Muslims could return and be fairly safe as long as they stayed out of the worst regions. 

However, I don't think all of these people will end up being deported. Many of them have spouses, children, or family members that are citizens and I am guessing the majority of these people will get their green cards, unfortunately. This is especially true for the Haitians that have been here for a long time. Many others will likely get work visas if they are employed, with Haitians in healthcare having an advantage. 

Asylum is a lot less likely, as if these folks could prove they were under threat in their home countries they would have already applied. The Syrians have a much better chance, as I mentioned before, if they are members of the Alawite community, which isn't very popular under Syria's new Sunni Muslim regime. 

Still, getting rid of any proportion of these people is a win. Returning people to their home countries that were only here because of a long expired crisis will lead to cheaper costs in terms of benefits. Removing them could lower housing costs and open up more jobs for citizens, and even increase wages. I know that there are companies, and the politicians they buy, that are upset by this, but oh well.