Praise is due to a recent Trump administration push to nail immigration lawyers for the broadly undeterred crime of running mass asylum fraud schemes, which have let huge volumes of ineligible illegal aliens into the country. The asylum system has long acted as a powerful magnet for aspiring illegal border crossers and visa overstayers, because, until President Donald Trump sharply curtailed its use, merely claiming asylum verbally allowed millions of ineligible foreigners into the country almost indefinitely. But targeting lawyers with fines is more of a beginning than a finish. To prevent the next mass migration crisis, we need the whole world to feel real asylum fraud deterrence. That means the Trump Department of Justice, headed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, must prosecute and imprison individual claimants, known in the business as “single scope” cases. These would be just the average foreign economic migrants who, perhaps coached online or by friends and relatives, lied under oath on U.S. government forms, to federal agents, and to immigration court judges, claiming that they suffered asylum-eligible government persecution back home. Claiming government persecution that never happened to gain asylum and its attendant public welfare and work authorization is a prosecutable felony crime. The problem is that appointed U.S. Attorneys in all 94 offices have never wanted, and won’t take, such cases unless told to. The time for that is now. Acting A.G. Blanche should appoint a “Special Attorney” (under 28 USC 543) to elevate asylum fraud prosecutions against individual aliens to a high-tier priority nationwide and within Department of Homeland Security component agencies. They won’t want to do it because presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys don’t regard busting individual aliens for criminal asylum-lying as worth the squeeze, so they decline most criminal referrals that come their way. That roadblock in turn disincentivizes investigations by the responsible agencies: ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS). After all, why would any HSI or FDNS agent bother investigating crimes they know prosecutors will ignore? This (somewhat dated) December 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report details how the processing blockage serves non-lawyer individuals who commit asylum fraud. According to the report, U.S. Attorneys had long preferred to see individual suspects of asylum fraud “not generally criminally prosecuted.” In turn, the agents of HSI “felt constrained because…prosecuting asylum fraud is a low priority for the U.S. Attorney’s Office.” Until very recently, FDNS could not directly refer their own fraud cases to U.S. Attorneys; the old policy required them to ask HSI agents to do it for them. HSI would reject FDNS cases, which, in turn, dampened FDNS interest in originating investigations. It’s a vicious, feckless circle. FDNS officers in six of eight asylum offices, the GAO report stated, reported that HSI declined their case referrals and, for those the agency did accept, would close them without further investigation. As a result, half of the eight FDNS offices referred either zero or only one fraud case to HSI from 2010 to 2014. One HSI office had not accepted an FDNS referral in two years because the area’s U.S. Attorney’s Office would only accept asylum fraud referrals involving at least 100 asylum applications, a circumstance that provides for sentencing enhancements, the report stated, which prosecutors love. Another asylum office reported that its U.S. Attorney had accepted no asylum fraud referrals in five years. “Because HSI does not prioritize investigations of single instances of asylum fraud, FDNS immigration officers we interviewed in seven of the eight asylum offices stated they generally do not submit single-scope cases…” the report stated. Skill atrophy was another cost. A 2008 GAO survey of all the nation’s then-256 asylum officers and 56 supervisors in the nation’s eight USCIS division field offices found the majority felt themselves ill-trained to detect fraud or assess the credibility of asylum seekers. Seventy percent confessed they found it moderately or very difficult to identify document fraud and could not assess credibility in more than half the cases they adjudicated. While these reports have aged, sources inside FDNS and USCIS told me recently that nothing has changed in the nearly 10 years since, despite the unprecedented mass border crossings of 10 million foreign nationals and a related surge in asylum claims from 172,000 in 2019 to 860,000 in 2024. A great many of those were no doubt filed by people encouraged by the knowledge that they would face no consequence for lying. This must be fixed. An appointed Special Attorney must require the 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices to understand that single-scope asylum fraud cases are far more valuable as crucial fraud deterrents than previously thought, and must accept some in every judicial district each year. Almost as important is that every one of these cases gets publicized and broadcast around the globe. That’s because the world of aspiring immigrant wrong-doers pays almost obsessive attention to all immigration-related enforcement in the United States and will alter its behavior if prison time for regular people becomes a possibility. It’s notable that last September, the Trump administration gave its FDNS agents guns and investigative referral authority that bypasses HSI. A whole new corps of officers is now geared up to refer individual asylum fraud cases to – hopefully willing – prosecutors. And they should get orders to be willing. At stake is no less than another mass-migration border crisis that voters have already said, loud and clear in the last national election, they don’t want. *** Todd Bensman is a Senior Research Fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center. He recently joined Heritage following an appointment as Senior Adviser to DHS, ICE, and Border Czar Tom Homan.

Fans of “Little House on the Prairie” can rest easy. I’ve been studying Laura Ingalls Wilder for decades, and I love the new Netflix rendition of her story. While binge-watching it over the past several days, I hung on every scene, taking in the scenery, the characterization, the story lines, the innovations. I was hooked from the opening scene of the first episode until the closing credits of the eighth and final episode. The cinematography, the writing, the acting, the themes, and the action all swept me away and brought me to tears more than once. As a kid, I read Laura Ingalls Wilder’s “Little House” novels over and over. I dressed as Laura for Halloween. I faithfully watched the original television series. As a mother, I read the books to my children and showed them the various television miniseries as well as the television series produced and directed by Michael Landon, who played Charles Ingalls. These television adaptations run the gamut of staying close to the novels to straying very far from them. But no matter how big the departures from the “Little House” books, all of these renditions, especially the new Netflix one, embrace the family-centered wholesomeness of Wilder’s novels. Far from presenting a woke version of the beloved story, Netflix’s new series celebrates life and human dignity as it explores the very same questions raised when the novel was published by Laura Ingalls Wilder in 1935. The autobiographical novel follows the Ingalls family as they depart from the Big Woods of Wisconsin to settle as farmers on the Osage Diminished Reserve in southeastern Kansas. Charles Ingalls (Pa) acted on news that the Osage lands would be open to settlement as soon as the tribe signed the treaty. The plan was to arrive just as the Osage removal had taken place, in time to select a choice parcel of land. But the Osage had not decided whether to sign the treaty, and their presence creates the central tension of the book. When “Little House on the Prairie” was published in 1935, no other author asked the questions Wilder put to her readers. Why did the Ingalls and other settlers choose to settle in Indian Territory if they didn’t like Indians? Why were potential settlers told the Osage Diminished Reserve was available for settlement before the Osages had decided whether to sign the treaty? Why did the government make the tribe leave a place that had been designated Indian Territory? Netflix’s new cinematic version places these questions from the novel firmly at the center of its riveting rendition, creating new characters and story lines that bring those tensions into the everyday realities faced by the Ingalls family. The release of the cast list made clear that a host of newly invented characters would join the Ingalls family in southeastern Kansas. Teasers showed the Ingalls family taking an active part in the town life of Independence, Kansas, which is a new angle to the story. (The novel has the family living some 40 miles from the town, a distance that made trips there something of an annual occasion; in reality, the Ingalls’ homesite was 13 miles from Independence.) But the relationships and story lines that keep plots moving forward for an entire season’s worth of episodes need a town. I’m willing to allow for that suspension of disbelief. Showrunner Rebecca Sonnenshine and her crew of writers and producers have crafted a beautiful series that is simultaneously true to the themes and story arc of Wilder’s novels, cognizant of the timeline and history of the “real” Ingalls family, and creative in spinning new characters and story lines that build the themes and give texture to the story arc. Other minor characters from the novel appear in greatly expanded roles, such as Dr. George Tann, the black doctor who nurses the malaria-ridden Ingalls family back to health. The endearing Mr. Edwards gains a first name (John), a backstory, and a love interest. Mr. Scott is transformed into a young single man from a wealthy Boston family. There is no Mrs. Scott, but much of her character is transferred to Jemma James, the town’s leading socialite and bigot. The essential parts of Wilder’s novel are all there: a dangerous river crossing that results in the disappearance of Jack the dog, the necessity of finding help to build the cabin after Caroline is injured, tensions with the Osages who help themselves to the Ingalls’ food supplies, the entire family suffering from malaria, Christmas with Mr. Edwards supplying greetings and gifts from Santa, a devastating prairie fire, an encounter with wolves, tense Osage councils, and the threat of armed government officials pushing the Ingalls and their neighbors off the land. These quintessential aspects of Wilder’s novel appear in different ways and combinations in the new series, which underscores the intertwined themes of danger and the need for community. Very early in the first episode, Dr. Tann tells Charles that independence on the prairie is an impossible dream. Throughout the eight episodes, community building plays a central role in plot development. The Ingalls’ survival depends on good neighbors who are willing to help each other. Departures from Wilder’s novel most noticeably center on the ages of Laura and Mary and the relationships they develop. Laura seems to be around seven years old, while Mary seems to be around twelve, and baby sister Carrie was born at Christmas. In the novel, they are much younger, ages four and six, with Carrie born in Wisconsin. In the show, Laura befriends an Osage girl, Good Eagle, and Mary has a beau, Caleb, who was abandoned by his father and taken in by the Exoduster brother and sister team who own the town mercantile. These relationships develop across the entire season. Laura’s friendship with Good Eagle brings the tensions between the settlers and the Osages into tight focus. Mary’s budding romance is just one part of her adolescent growth pangs. She is constantly annoyed by Laura and even jealous that everyone likes her best. She is tired of having to be a good role model and share all she has with her sister. Laura’s character traits are more exaggerated than in the novel. She is a tomboy who wears a boys’ hat and expertly wields a slingshot to hunt rabbits. She loves the prairie and does not want to spend time studying. In an interesting twist, she, rather than Charles, is the family storyteller. She is often called upon to tell a story, in which moments she relates something from “Little House in the Big Woods.” Charles’ and Caroline’s characters have also evolved in the new Netflix series. Charles is still a talented carpenter and musician and a loving father and husband. But his big heart causes trouble for his family. Caroline grows from the reluctant pioneer who dislikes Indians into a feisty champion of her Osage and Exoduster friends. By episode eight, Caroline displays the same level of sensitivity toward the Osages as Charles and Laura. Such understanding is a big departure from the Caroline of Wilder’s novels, who never changes her poor opinion of American Indians.  When there seems to be no way to remain on their homesite, she tells Charles they must move on. They came to Kansas in search of a place to become the best version of themselves. They have done this and can replicate it somewhere else. With that, the Ingalls bid farewell to their new friends and departed, with Mr. Edwards leading the way to a town in Minnesota where his deceased wife’s cousin has a store, Oleson’s Mercantile. Here’s a teaser for season two, a continuation of the “Little House” story as the Ingalls move to the banks of Plum Creek. The new story lines and characters featured in the Netflix rendition of “Little House on the Prairie” are details to be enjoyed and celebrated, not a cause for castigation or hand-wringing about wokeness. These new twists on the beloved novel reveal that the “Little House” story arc is such a fundamental and universal aspect of American cultural literacy that the kinds of liberties taken with Wilder’s novels add to the power of the story. The “Little House” story and its television adaptations are vehicles for discussing and encapsulating core American historical understandings and timeless values. Familial love is a constant theme in the Netflix rendition, as is respect for life and an understanding of the inherent dignity of each human person. Moreover, Netflix’s release of this beautiful new television series just days after the Fourth of July in the midst of the country’s semiquincentennial underscores the power of Wilder’s autobiographical fiction, and it further cements its place as a wholesome standard-bearer of American culture. *** Dedra McDonald Birzer is director and editor-in-chief at the South Dakota Historical Society Press and a lecturer in history at Hillsdale College. She serves on the executive boards of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Pageant Society and the Middle West Review. She is currently writing an intellectual biography of Rose Wilder Lane. This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

An illegal immigrant from India who killed three people in a Southern California semi-truck crash was sentenced Tuesday to four years and eight months in prison, less than half the maximum sentence he faced.  Jashanpreet Singh, 21, faced up to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to three felony counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence in connection with the October 2025 crash. Singh illegally crossed the U.S. border in March 2022 and was released into the country by the Biden administration after being apprehended by Border Patrol, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Dramatic dashcam footage captured Singh’s semi-truck barreling into stopped traffic on Interstate 10 in Ontario, California, triggering an eight-vehicle pileup that killed three people and injured four others, The Daily Wire reported. 

The U.S. House on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a bill backed by President Donald Trump that would make daylight saving time permanent year-round, sending the legislation to the Senate.  The Sunshine Protection Act, which would end the twice-yearly clock changes, passed with bipartisan support in a 308–117 vote. Twenty-two Republicans joined 95 Democrats in opposing the measure. If enacted, the legislation would make daylight saving time permanent, keeping clocks set to the time currently observed from March through November. States could opt out only if they did so before the law took effect. Most of Arizona, Hawaii, and several U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, do not observe daylight saving time. Trump has repeatedly urged Congress to end the practice of changing clocks. After the bill advanced out of committee, he wrote that it was time for Americans to stop worrying about “the Clock” and described the current system as a “ridiculous, twice-yearly production.”  He also called permanent daylight saving time “the far more popular alternative” and urged Republicans to support the measure, The Daily Wire reported.  Florida lawmakers rallied hard for the bill before Tuesday’s vote, arguing it better reflect the Sunshine State’s identity.  “Why in the heck are we still changing our clocks?” Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) said, according to Politico. “Floridians — we are the Sunshine State. We value sunshine.” Fellow Florida Republican Rep. Gus Bilirakis backed Cammack up, adding, “This is not about politics. This is about practicality. It is about recognizing that our laws should keep pace with the people we represent.” Other lawmakers, however, had a different point of view.  “I’m not for it,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said. “I think having kids go to school when it’s dark doesn’t make sense.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has warned that locking the clock would “push winter sunrises to an absurdly late hour,” according to The Hill.  Supporters argue that eliminating the twice-yearly clock changes could reduce some of the health and safety risks associated with the spring transition. Research cited by the American Heart Association has found increases in heart attacks and strokes in the days after clocks move forward, while a University of Colorado Boulder study found a 6% increase in fatal car crashes during the following workweek.  Opponents, including several medical organizations, argue that permanent standard time would better align with the body’s natural circadian rhythm because it provides more morning sunlight.  Daylight saving time was first adopted during World War I and later standardized nationwide under the Uniform Time Act of 1966. The legislation heads to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future. 

An attorney representing two migrants who were inside a van during a recent fatal ICE-involved shooting in Houston is facing serious criminal charges of his own. Immigration attorney Hugo Balderas-Ibarra was indicted in February on a felony charge of assault involving family violence by impeding breathing, Houston station KPRC 2 reported. He also faces charges of kidnapping and battery in Seminole County, Florida. Court records show he is scheduled to be sentenced in that case on July 15. He was previously convicted of burglary in 2008 and domestic assault in 2009 in Iowa. Balderas-Ibarra represents Daniel Tirado Pantoja and José Trinidad Rojas Pliego, who were passengers in a van whose driver was fatally shot by an ICE officer last week in Houston, the local news outlet reported. The pair was swiftly taken into ICE custody and remains in a detention center in Conroe, Texas. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said the officer “weaponized” the van “in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer.” The men reportedly said they were going to work at a construction site after buying ice and water when they noticed an unmarked vehicle following them. The attorney’s assault charge stems from an alleged attack on a woman who said she had been dating Balderas-Ibarra, who became abusive when the couple moved in together, KPRC 2 reported. The woman said she decided to leave after finding something on his phone while he was in the shower. She then left early for a flight to Florida before Balderas-Ibarra brought her suitcases, throwing them to the ground and grabbing her by the neck as she went to pick them up. He squeezed her throat and twisted it, leaving her unable to breathe, according to KPRC 2. A law enforcement officer determined that the woman’s neck was red and swollen through photographic evidence. Balderas-Ibarra is out of custody on a $20,000 bond and faces a court hearing July 21, according to court records. In a statement to KPRC 2, Balderas-Ibarra pleaded for the media to ignore his charges and focus on his defendants in the immigration case. “I maintain my innocence and believe the focus should continue to be on my clients, rather than shifting focus onto me. Don’t lose focus!” he said. Balderas-Ibarra has been eligible to practice law in the Lone Star State since January 2025. He is currently practicing with a probationary license, according to the Texas Bar directory. Balderas-Ibarra has no public disciplinary history listed on his State Bar of Texas profile. The immigration lawyer alleges that he is the “product of birthright citizenship” and calls himself “El Abogado Tejano” — a lawyer who is a Texan and of Mexican descent, according to his LinkedIn account.