The horse race for the 2028 Democratic Party nomination has not begun, but that doesn’t mean some fillies, mares, nags, and mules aren’t starting to make their way toward the dirt track. Good luck finding a thoroughbred. Although the bell won’t sound for another year or so, the race will come upon us as fast as Democrats are running away from Eric Swalwell. The track will be muddy. Primaries always are. And if Democrats hold to form, the race will be fixed. Just ask Bernie Sanders, anybody who ran against Joe Biden in 2020, or anybody who didn’t want Kamala Harris in 2024. Assessing the Track Conditions The contenders will also be facing strong headwinds. The party that has demonstrated a clear dislike of America will be facing an electorate just coming off the high of America 250 and amping up for the 2028 Olympics. “USA! USA! USA!” will trump “No Kings.” Plus, the Democrats have been so consumed by Trump Derangement Syndrome that they’ll be flummoxed running without their Trump blinders on. They can’t run against a man who’s not in the race (and they can’t run against his accomplishments). “Yes, let’s reopen the border! Let’s send crime skyrocketing! Let’s give Iran back its nukes! Let’s get back to chopping off the body parts of children and letting hairy men stomp on girls in sports!” What could they say? “Vote for us because Donald Trump ragged on the Pope”? So right out of the starting gate, the Democrats will be in for a slog. The Racing Sheet Who at this point appears to be considering joining the race? Gavin Newsom is so badly itching to get to the White House it’s a wonder he didn’t join the ballroom construction crew just for the opportunity. Harris just said she’s “thinking about” another run. (Pause for laughter.) Her chances? About the same as her word salads becoming a featured item at Golden Corral. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker isn’t losing weight for the health of it. But is anybody going to place a bet on the politician who’s about to lose the Chicago Bears to Indiana? Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin admits she’s considering a run. The first clue? Her participation in that odious video urging U.S. servicemembers to defy Trump’s orders. Nothing like a call to mutiny to raise your profile among the base. She’s also hanging out in Iowa. And it’s not like she’s there to see the “Field of Dreams” ballfield. Slotkin will hide her CIA spook roots by touting her family’s farming roots. Fun fact: They’re the folks who brought us Ball Park Franks. “Did someone say ‘franks’?” asked Pritzker. Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly has been positioning himself by not only taking part in that mutiny video, which alone should disqualify him from being commander in chief, but through his continuous assaults on Trump. How’d that work out for Stephen Colbert? Fani Willis? Eric Swalwell? Call it the Trump curse, but the loudest enemies of Trump have a history of imploding. Pete Buttigieg might try again. Sorry, Pothole Pete. Democrats tried the DEI thing with Harris. And even Democrats are not going to follow Trump with someone who makes Dylan Mulvaney look like the Marlboro Man.Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer? Her actions during COVID-19 and witch-like aura make her a long shot. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro would be a strong contender, but today’s Democratic Party treats Jews worse than it treats MAGA. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey? No. Just no. If Democrats wanted a tear-soaked drama queen, they’d elect Susan Lucci. Finally, there’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. According to Axios, the little progressive darling has been quietly making organizational moves for a potential run. Don’t underestimate AOC, particularly in the early furloughs. She’s a natural attention-grabber who will suck the oxygen away from lesser candidates. She wields social media skills like Zorro wields a sword. She’s already in the rarified Democrat air of being known by her initials, like JFK, LBJ, RBG … BLM, KKK … She’ll have the Democratic Socialists of America riding her. If they could elect as mayor of New York City a radical Islamist communist who’s barely a U.S. citizen and had nothing on his résumé but a famous mother and failed rap career, imagine what they can do with the charismatic bartender-turned-congresswoman. “Did somebody say ‘bartender’?” asked Harris. And they’re off … toward the debates. Down the Stretch Policy differences mean little in debates. Much more important are the dynamics and visuals. Think back to the 2020 Democratic primary. Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Harris’ campaign in 90 seconds. Not just because she exposed Harris’ atrocious record as California attorney general and San Francisco DA, but because of how Harris fell apart under the attack. She showed off her thin skin and weak chin. Democrats saw it. America saw it. Somehow the autopen missed it. What can we expect during those early debates in 2027, assuming the above named candidates enter? Newsom and AOC will jump to the front of the pack by virtue of their star quality, organization, and name recognition. The other candidates will play supporting roles or be extras. By virtue of being one-two, Newsom and AOC will at some point be positioned next to each other on the debate stage. The tall central-casting candidate from California next to the short girly-girl who pretends to be from the New York hood. As terrible as it may be to say, the simple truth is standing next to Newsom, AOC is going to look like his nanny. “Did somebody say ‘nanny’?” asks Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff. All told, a safe early bet is California Golden Boy to win, Bronx Bartender to place, Pennsylvania Hebrew to show. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Horses Approach the Gate for the 2028 Democrat Primary appeared first on The Daily Signal.

People connected to the Iranian regime should know that anyone supporting terrorism will have their visa revoked, State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott told The Daily Signal. “A visa is a privilege, not a right,” he said. “If you are going to break the terms of your visa, if you’re going to engage in criminal activity, if you’re going to undermine our national security, that is grounds for revocation.” The State Department has revoked the green cards of family members of Masoumeh Ebtekar, called “Screaming Mary.” Ebtekar worked as the English-speaking spokeswoman for Iranian militants that held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Ebtekar’s son, Seyed Eissa Hashemi, and his wife and son were taken into custody in Los Angeles and face deportation. The three entered the U.S. with visas in 2014, under the Obama administration. “We’ve been clear from the beginning, if you are going to be here on a visa and you’re going to undermine our national security, you’re going to support terrorism, you’re going to break our laws, that is grounds for revocation,” Pigott said. “That’s what happens in America First visa policy.” The State Department also revoked the lawful permanent residence status of the niece and grandniece of deceased Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Major General Qasem Soleimani, killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2020. His niece, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, and her daughter were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. Pigott said the United States has “no obligation” to house people who support terrorism and pose a threat to national security. “It may have been ignored by previous administrations, but it is not being ignored by this administration,” he said. “We are taking this incredibly seriously, and we are making sure we’re putting the American people first.” So far, the State Department has revoked more than 100,000 visas, most of them for people who directly violated the law, Pigott said. “We have reinvigorated existing mechanisms for revocations,” he said, “and that includes a continuous ability to continuously vet people that are here on visas in this country, for people that are supporting terrorism, for people that are supporting the propaganda of a terrorist-funding regime, for people that are breaking our laws.” Border security is not just about the U.S.-Mexico border, Pigott said. “The actions of this president have led to the most secure border history, but visa security is border security,” Pigott said. “It’s who we’re letting into this country, and part of that is that continuous vetting.” The post State Department Official Gives Strong Message to Families of Iranian Terrorists Living in US appeared first on The Daily Signal.

New winds are shaping conversations about citizenship in the U.S. and Europe. As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the Trump administration’s constitutional argument for tighter birthright citizenship, Italy’s Constitutional Court has already signed off on a law raising the bar for would-be citizens. Italy’s rationale is instructive for the U.S., whose prow seems pointed toward consequences the Italian government is now trying to correct. Italy’s new law renders citizenship less touristy and likelier to indicate meaningful membership of the self-governing society within its borders. By contrast, in the U.S., the citizen/noncitizen distinction is losing substance within America’s permeable borders and beleaguered immigration enforcement. Although how tightly countries should draw circles around citizenries is debatable, whether citizenship ought to be a meaningful distinction should be a settled question. But in present-day America, it’s not. That’s a problem. Diluting citizenship as a meaningful distinction threatens democracies and empires alike. This is as true today in Italy and the U.S. as it was in ancient Greece and Rome. Countries can become and will longer remain what they ought to be—just, self-governing societies—by ensuring citizenship means something real within their borders. Italy’s New Citizenship Restrictions Since its formation as a unified country in 1861, Italy has granted citizenship to people descended from at least one Italian citizen—even if their closest link was a great-great-grandparent. This constitutional principle is jus sanguinis, meaning “right of blood.” Until recently, applicants have not been required to speak Italian, reside in Italy, or pay the taxes that come with living there. That changed in March 2026, when the Italian Constitutional Court upheld the “Tajani Decree” over lower-court objections. A new two-generation limit now requires applicants to trace their ancestry to a parent’s or a grandparent’s Italian citizenship. Additionally, that family member’s citizenship must be (or have been) exclusively Italian, not dually held with another country. New applicants must also, as my Grandma Gargiulo, 91, says, “talk Italian good.” Media vs. Administration As in the U.S., in Italy the administration’s policy has rankled the media more than, well … citizens. Although applications submitted before the policy’s adoption are grandfathered in as valid, relatively few who intended to apply have missed their chance. Some would-be Italians within this vocal minority are now out significant time and money that they spent preparing to apply under the old rules. But most of the outrage appears feigned by media with little or no stake in the policy change. In fact, most coverage ignores why it may be wise for Italy to draw a tighter circle, if only to reduce fraud and inefficiency. “Nationality cannot simply be a tool for traveling to Miami with a European passport,” stated Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, for whom the new law is named. Besides clogging the system, the ratio of potential applicants to actual Italian residents is absurdly disproportional. Until 2025, some 60 million to 80 million Italian descendants worldwide could have applied for citizenship—in a country of 61 million residents. Scaled to America’s population of 342 million, the same loosely drawn circle could invite up to 513 million people worldwide to apply for citizenship with a reasonable presumption of acceptance. In short, having offered citizenship too loosely for decades, Italy is now making citizenship mean something more. Strength of Distinction If Italy’s citizen/noncitizen distinction is waxing stronger, America’s is waning. But challenges posed by U.S. immigration, law, and enforcement have weakened citizenship as a definition—if not de jure, then de facto. Officials dilute citizenship as a meaningful distinction when they fail to enforce—or even to regard—citizenship as a vehicle for appropriately conferring rights on lawful citizens and, just as appropriately, not on others. Despite moving in contrary directions, Italy’s policy oddly parallels America’s own citizenship policy—which is so hotly contested, it has become fused with immigration and law enforcement policy. The similarities go beyond lopsided media coverage. Although America does not share Italy’s “right of blood” policy, something like it is the historically-enforced interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Just this month, the Trump administration argued before the Supreme Court that the U.S. currently construes this amendment too broadly, and that the nation thus too casually confers citizenship on people born within its borders—including babies planted by cartel lords and the Chinese Communist Party. Thus, Italy and the U.S. occupy different spots on a timeline. Though the younger country, Italy has already reached its threshold of pain caused by a weak citizenship distinction. Despite residing in a country that has reached its 250th year, Americans sharply disagree about whether their nation’s own pain threshold for weakly distinguishing citizens from noncitizens lies behind or ahead. 3 American Positions Broadly speaking, Americans take any of three positions on citizenship and immigration law. One faction maintains sharp distinctions between the legal status and rights of citizens versus noncitizens, and it would prosecute violations. This faction accepts that although some good would-be citizens may be excluded, a country must draw the line somewhere. This position roughly parallels the Italian government’s today. The second American faction accepts citizenship distinctions and immigration law enforcement in theory, but—like opponents of Italy’s new law—it wants to make the distinctions fewer and softer. For example, in the past, the U.S. has granted legal amnesty to illegal immigrants who have flown under the radar long enough. Essentially, this concession rewarded illegal aliens for not making trouble. This second American faction accepts the risk of incidentally awarding amnesty to some number of bad actors, including potential threats to American safety and security: Every lot has a few bad apples. The third faction eyes distinctions between citizens and noncitizens as dubious, even irrelevant, particularly regarding who has a right to live in America. This faction’s root objection is not to how, but to whether citizen/noncitizen distinctions are to be enforced. Changing the law would be nice; disregarding current law is easier and faster. Hence, much of the outcry against the Trump administration’s use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The objections are not merely to the Trump administration’s methods (although their occasional madness makes a decent scapegoat). The real objection is to distinguishing citizens from noncitizens at all. Classical Cautionary Tales The American faction that minimizes citizen distinctions accepts the security risks of practically open borders. Revealingly, this position has no corresponding champion in Italy’s jus sanguinis controversy. But the Italian nation’s ancestors tried it before. It went poorly. In 212 A.D., Caracalla (successor to Commodus of “Gladiator” infamy) granted citizenship to all free residents of the Roman Empire, instantly naturalizing 30 million people living between Scotland and Syria. But “citizenship, once granted, became irrelevant,” writes Cambridge University’s Mary Beard in her epilogue to “SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome” (2015). “For no sooner had one barrier of privilege been removed than another was put up in its place, on very different terms … with unequal rights formally written into Roman law. … The new boundary between insiders and outsiders followed the line of wealth, class, and status.” Simply put, when governments erase citizenship distinctions, the people invent new ones—often unjust ones. Writing from Athens 500 years earlier, Plato predicted similar trouble with eroding citizen/noncitizen distinctions. He listed it as a step in a democracy’s descent down the slippery slope from self-government to despotism. As the “infection of anarchy” spreads, Plato wrote in the “Republic,” “citizens, resident aliens, and strangers from abroad are all on an equal footing.” (Eerily, the U.S. is also losing other distinctions that Plato says doom a democracy, e.g., authority of parent over child, of teacher over student, of human over animal). Like ancient history and political philosophy, America has its own tales cautioning against minimizing citizenship’s distinction. Undeniably, enforcing U.S. citizenship and immigration law comes with its share of tragedies. But more obviously—because more frequently—so does failure to enforce these laws, resulting in compromised borders, fraud, addiction, and violence. That is why Italy’s decision to draw a tighter and more solid circle around citizenship is so instructive to Americans. Italy’s present (soon to be past) problem depicts the future of the U.S. Each day the U.S. draws a looser and more perforated circle around citizenship, the meaning of citizenship becomes less recognizable. The consequences of America’s too permeable circle were foreshadowed by Italy in 1861-2025, epitomized by third-century Rome, and forewarned in Plato’s Academy. This is not to say the Italian administration’s policy or the Trump administration’s enforcement cannot be improved. Most policies can be. But U.S. citizenship and immigration policy will only deteriorate—and will continue to write preventable tragedies—if Americans feel squeamish about maintaining citizenship as a meaningful distinction, albeit with charity for all and with malice toward none. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post American Immigration Policy Could Learn From Modern Italy, Ancient Rome, and Plato appeared first on The Daily Signal.

New York is so committed to nullifying immigration law that it refuses to relinquish an alleged arsonist accused of killing four people in New York City. That was reported by the New York Post and Fox News on Thursday. According to those reports, Roman Ceron Amatitla—who is a Mexican national illegally living in the U.S.—is accused of a heinous crime but could end up being released. The accusations against Amatitla are enraging. According to the New York Post, he’s been charged with eight counts of second-degree murder and first-degree arson in connection to a fire at a building in Flushing on March 16. Just before starting the fire, Amatitla allegedly “entered and exited the Avery Avenue building multiple times, urinated in front of the apartments, and then went to a nearby gas station—where he bought a beer, stole a second one, and took a pack of matches after refusing to pay for a lighter.” Then, according to authorities, he went into the building a final time, lit a piece of paper on fire, and threw it into a stairwell. After that, the New York Post reported, he “stayed in the immediate area to watch people burn and jump from the windows.” One of the victims was 3 years old. Amatitla should have never been here, but now that he allegedly killed four Americans and hurt seven others you would think that New York, despite its status as a sanctuary state, would quietly relinquish him to federal authorities. Nope. The Department of Homeland Security put out a statement about the situation, saying that on April 14, DHS requested that the New York City Department of Corrections not release Amatitla. But NYCDOC refused to cooperate in any way with federal authorities. This monster set fire to a building and watched as innocent people, including a three-year-old, burned to death.New York City sanctuary politicians REFUSE to cooperate with ICE and are committing to RELEASING this MURDERER onto New York streets.New York’s sanctuary… https://t.co/3jQwPSn9Qu— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) April 17, 2026 “This monster set fire to a building and watched as innocent people, including a three-year-old, burned to death. New York City sanctuary politicians REFUSE to cooperate with [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and are committing to RELEASING this MURDERER onto New York streets,” DHS acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis wrote. “New York’s sanctuary politicians must stop putting politics above public safety. We are calling on Governor Hochul and Mayor Mamdani to commit to honoring this detainer and turning him over.” New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed an executive order preventing local authorities from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul has also decided to further hamstring local police departments from cooperating with ICE. So much for her being a “moderate.” Even for New York, the refusal to work with ICE in this case is remarkable. Think about it for a moment. If you are a Democrat and your goal is to convince the American people that you’ve moderated on your extremely unpopular immigration ideas, an easy step to take would be to let ICE at the very least have the accused mass murderers. But as we’ve seen with the “Maryland Dad” situation, Democrats are willing to go to bat for even domestic abusers, human traffickers, and all kinds of other violent criminals to maintain their open borders position. In a way, it makes sense. If they were to give these folks over to ICE it would mean they’d have to acknowledge that ICE agents aren’t the Gestapo and may actually be keeping Americans safe. That goes against virtually all their messaging since President Donald Trump’s election. So, you get situations like this where even the most seemingly evil, bloodthirsty criminal is protected from deportation. In this case, I’d seriously doubt Amatitla would escape jail time, even in New York. But this case highlights how sanctuary cities and states struggle to deal with even the worst of the worst. New York is shielding thousands of violent criminals in their fanatical devotion to thwarting U.S. immigration law. Not only do these violent criminals escape deportation, but it seems in many cases they escape any kind of justice. DHS stated that that New York’s failure to honor ICE detainers has led to the “release of 6,947 criminal illegal aliens since January 20. The crimes of these aliens include 29 homicides, 2,509 assaults, 199 burglaries, 305 robberies, 392 dangerous drugs offenses, 300 weapons offenses, and 207 sexual predatory offenses.” How many of these people go on to commit other crimes? Given the record of repeat offenders, likely quite a few. That’s what the nation has to endure to appease the Left’s open borders madness. The post New York Refuses ICE Detainer for Illegal Alien Accused of Killing 4 in Arson appeared first on The Daily Signal.

When then-Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., announced his candidacy for governor of California, I was beyond surprised. Rumors of sexual misconduct, including allegations of blatant and serial infidelity, had been circulating for years. Having run for this very office, I experienced firsthand the intense level of local, state and national scrutiny one receives when seeking the top job in the biggest state in the country. The left-wing media treats liberal Democrat candidates different from how it treats conservative Republican candidates, but the media are not the problem if one’s candidacy starts to resonate. The heat comes from the same-party campaign rivals. When I decided to run for governor of California, I sought the advice of several experienced strategists, politicians, pundits and some professors. They all said the same thing, only worded differently: “Is there anything in your background that would be a problem?” These questions, they advised, include but are not limited to: Skeletons in your closet? What about your friends, associates, and family members? Taxes? Sexual harassment or misconduct or assaults? Any present or past behavior that could be deemed scandalous? Dating history, marriage, or divorce? Outstanding warrants? Traffic tickets? Unpaid traffic tickets? DUIs? Automobile accidents you caused or were involved in? Arrests? Misdemeanors? Felonies? Unpaid bills? Credit card debt? Lawsuits filed by or lawsuits against you? Drug use and drug abuse? Alcoholism? Abuse of prescription drugs? Sketchy business dealings? Bankruptcy? Inappropriate internet activity, including porn sites, other illicit sites or sending “compromising pictures”? Social media posts that could come back to haunt you? 911 calls from your home? Your work history? To what church do you belong? Who is your pastor? Ever been fired? If so, why? Is your campaign biography accurate, with no exaggerations or embellishments? Do your neighbors like you? And, for good measure, I was advised to hire a private detective to investigate myself. My experienced campaign manager took me on only after I addressed all those questions—and others—and obtained a report from a well-regarded private investigator. My campaign manager cautioned, “If you are accused of picking your feet in Poughkeepsie—especially if you DID pick your feet in Poughkeepsie—it will come out.” This brings us to Swalwell, who, according to a University of California, Berkeley poll conducted in March, was the leading Democrat in the primary. He was endorsed by Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who, like Swalwell, served as a prosecutor in an impeachment trial against President Donald Trump. According to Reuters, “ … a fifth woman came forward to accuse Swalwell of unwanted sexual contact, saying the Democratic lawmaker drugged and raped her during an encounter in 2018.” Swalwell first denied the accusations. He then dropped out of the race for governor, followed by his resignation from Congress. Former House Speaker and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claimed she knew nothing about the rumors against Swalwell. But Willie Brown, once a mentor to former Vice President Kamala Harris and a former mayor of San Francisco, and who for 15 years served as speaker of the California Assembly, said: “No, I’m not surprised frankly because there have been rumors after rumors after rumors, his colleagues in Washington pretty much said that. That’s what Adam Schiff said, that’s what Nancy Pelosi said.” But Swalwell’s problems are just beginning. The sheriff of Los Angeles County has launched a criminal probe, as has the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Civil lawsuits may follow. Then there are Swalwell’s financial issues. Despite a combined income with his wife of over $400,000, he is deeply in debt. He owes $100,000 in student loans, borrowed against his retirement account to help fund his campaign and deferred paying income taxes to conserve cash flow. This is not exactly a good look for someone vying to be the chief executive of a state with a budget deficit and massive unfunded pension liabilities. On top of everything, these scandals could cost the father of three children his marriage. After all, Swalwell set the standard. During the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Swalwell considered Kavanaugh unfit due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Swalwell tweeted: “Support survivors. Believe survivors. We are with you.” All of this raises a question. When Swalwell decided to run for governor, “What was he thinking?” COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Implosion of Eric Swalwell: What Was He Thinking? appeared first on The Daily Signal.