President Trump is now activating Immigration and Customs Enforcement to go after Somali illegal immigrants in Minneapolis. This follows the reports about large-scale Somali welfare fraud, including the attempt by many members of the Somali community to defraud the federal and state governments during the pandemic. A lot of that money ended up going in remittances back to Somalia. On Tuesday, President Trump’s overall take was that the United States needs to radically limit immigration from places like Somalia. That is correct, because not all countries are going to be equally useful as sources of migrants to the United States. The people who come from many of these countries do not have any sort of cultural habits that mesh well with the United States. The president stated that he doesn’t want Somalis in the United States, saying: I hear they ripped off — Somalians — ripped off that state for billions of dollars, billions every year, billions of dollars, and they contribute nothing. The welfare is like 88%. They contribute nothing. I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you. Somebody will say, ‘that’s not politically correct,’ I don’t care. I don’t want them in our country. Their country’s no good for a reason. When the president says, as a general point, that he does not want Somalis in the country,  that they’re coming from a culture that does not mesh well with the United States, is he wrong about that? As a general rule, is that wrong? On Tuesday, the administration unveiled a new regulation that would prevent immigration applications from citizens of 19 countries already covered by President Trump’s travel bans. Right now, there’s a travel ban that says if you’re coming from Iran, Venezuela, or Haiti, you’re not going to get a travel visa. Now he’s extending that into a pause on all immigration applications from those 19 countries. All of this raises the question as to whether the United States ought to block immigration from third-world countries. According to the Migration Policy Institute, from 2015 to 2019, Somalis, of all sub-Saharan African immigrants, had the lowest levels of educational attainment. Only 14% held a bachelor’s degree or higher. Of all immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, Somali-headed households were the poorest immigrants who came into the United States, and had the lowest median income at $32,000. Somalis in the United States had a 37% poverty rate. Extremely poor, extremely uneducated. Somalis had the highest rates of being uninsured in terms of health insurance: 18%. Somalis had the highest naturalization rate of any of these groups. So they come here extremely poor, extremely uneducated, with a low income and wealth trajectory. And then they get naturalized at a super-high rate because they want to stay, which anyone would want. This is an amazing country. That, however, does not mean we have an obligation to take in everybody. When they do earn money, a huge percentage of that money gets sent back to Somalia. And some of that money goes to terrorist groups like al-Shabaab. This is what President Trump is railing against. You may not like his language. You may think that it’s colorful or purple or whatever, and that’s fine. Anyone can be critiqued for the language that they use. But his general point, that the United States cannot afford to take in waves of extremely poor immigrants who do not cohere with the American system, that we cannot afford to bring in hundreds of thousands of people with actual allegiances to war-torn countries like Somalia, who then take a disproportionate share of our welfare dollars, is true. So when you hear the argument that this is a country of immigrants, well, yes, it is certainly true that this was a country of settlers, and then it was also a country of immigrants. But the kinds of immigrants you take in help define your country, and the systems that they meet here help define your immigrants. The reason so many people have left their home countries over the course of centuries to come to the United States is because the United States was a place that guaranteed opportunity, but it did not guarantee a gigantic welfare system that actively prevented assimilation. We changed our own immigration system. We changed our own incentive structure. And then we were surprised when different people came. The current argument being made is as though we are welcoming people from Eastern Europe or Italy or Ireland or Germany circa 1903, when there were no robust federal welfare systems in the United States. The income tax wasn’t even constitutional at that point. There were no robust welfare systems, even at the state level. There was no real attempt by the government to get involved in propping up people who were wildly poor, to the tune of not having to assimilate or get a job. And so that drew a different kind of person. Yes, it drew people who were desperate, but the people who were desperate recognized that their path forward lay in embracing Anglo-American legal ideas, lay in embracing Biblical values , and embracing and assimilating to American rights and responsibilities, because that was the social safety net. The social safety net was that you join a community, you come here, you join a church, your friends and your family help you out. But then it is your job to learn English. It is your job to go out and get a job. It is your job to put your kids in the local public school and make sure that they get educated the way Americans ought to be educated. That is why the assimilated project in the United States was extremely successful up until the welfare era. And then the welfare era began, and everything changed. And it doesn’t mean that we didn’t have extreme conflict over immigration prior to the welfare system. There was huge controversy over the levels of Chinese and Jewish immigration in the early part of the 20th century, and before that, huge levels of ire over Irish immigration in the 1840s, 1850s. Immigration has always been a real hot point in American politics, because when new people come to a country, the question is, are they going to become part of the system or are they going to tear down the system from within? The great guarantor that people were going to assimilate was the fact that they didn’t have a choice. The incentive structure drove them toward assimilation. It drove them toward participation in the American Dream. And then came the welfare system and an incentive structure that said, “Come here and we give you free stuff; we demand nothing of you; you can do basically whatever you want in terms of employment; you can send all your money back home; you don’t have to actually try to get involved in the Anglo-American project.” And we were surprised when we drew a different type of immigrant? That’s ridiculous. It’s the same thing as saying, “I have a donut shop, and my donut shop is a prestige donut shop. You come in here, you can get the best of the best donuts. We go in the back every morning, and we handcraft our donuts. They’re amazing.” The constituency drawn to that kind of donut shop is going to be of one particular sort of clientele. But then you decide that you’re going to change your policy, and you just hang a sign in the front window that says “free donuts.” Who do you think is going to show up? It’s going to be a very, very different constituency. Pretending otherwise is silly. This is not the fault of the people attempting to come to the United States. This is the fault of our authorities. This is the fault of the elite in our society who claimed that you could change the entire incentive structure, taking people from cultures that have nothing in common with the United States, and somehow those two things could logically coexist within a similar project. It’s ridiculous. And then, of course, if you point this out, you are bigoted or racist. No, it’s not bigoted or racist to say that if people come from a place that does not have anything in common with the United States, and there is no actual incentivization toward assimilation, they’re not going to assimilate.

Gerry McGovern, the chief creative officer behind the disastrous Jaguar rebranding campaign, has reportedly been fired from the company just months after the new CEO took over, as originally reported by U.K.-based outlet Autocar. McGovern was a 20-year veteran of the company and, per the outlet, was the main force behind the failed avant-garde marketing campaign that received mostly negative reviews from consumers. The shakeup comes just months after the car manufacturer appointed Indian national PB Balaji as chief executive officer following the departure of Adrian Mardell. The ad campaign for Jaguar sparked massive criticism online following its November 2024 release. The “Copy Nothing” campaign included a colorful commercial of people dressed in vibrant, outlandish outfits. The characters could be seen grabbing sledgehammers, painting over the camera lens, and striking poses as the music played. One of the chief criticisms from viewers was that the ad did not feature any cars.  Instead, disjointed phrases such as “create exuberant,” “live vivid,” “delete ordinary,” “break molds,” and “copy nothing” appear on the screen. Tesla CEO Elon Musk responded to the ad, writing, “Do you sell cars?” The social media account replied to many commenters questioning the ad, saying things like, “The story is unfolding. Stay tuned,” “We’re shifting gears, not our purpose,” and “Consider this the first brushstroke.” The ad was part of a huge brand overhaul, which was described as going in a new EV-only direction. Managing director Rawdon Glover complained about the backlash during an interview with the Financial Times, saying the campaign messaging was drowned out in “a blaze of intolerance” on social media. Glover also claimed that the colorful new ad was not meant to be “woke.” McGovern defended the campaign at the time, saying, “Jaguar has its roots in originality. Sir William Lyons, our founder, believed that ‘a Jaguar should be a copy of nothing.’ Our vision for Jaguar today is informed by this philosophy. New Jaguar is a brand built around Exuberant Modernism.” He continued, “It is imaginative, bold and artistic at every touchpoint. It is unique and fearless. We are creating Jaguar for the future, restoring its status as a brand that enriches the lives of our clients and the Jaguar community.” Jaguar sales in Europe dropped by a whopping 97.5% following the botched rebrand as the car manufacturer transitioned from gasoline-powered vehicles to all-electric.  The company did not immediately reply to The Daily Wire’s request for comment on McGovern’s termination.

Key Test

'Defendants enjoyed anonymity for years'

'if there was someone to win, it would be me'

'California set aside $1.1 million for the Fast Food Council'

'Exacerbated fraud and hurt patients'

Justices didn’t seem to break along predictable lines Wednesday, when they presented critical questions to both sides in a case regarding a Christian pastor’s free speech challenge to a Mississippi city ordinance.  In Olivier v. City of Brandon, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether someone convicted under a law has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law to prevent its future enforcement without nullifying a prior conviction for violating that law. Brandon, Mississippi, adopted a city ordinance regulating protests around the city’s amphitheater. Pastor Gabriel Olivier preached outside a designated “protest zone” even after police warned him not to do so. He pleaded no contest to violating the ordinance but now wants to prevent future enforcement.  “I am grateful to have had my case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court—an opportunity few others in my situation have ever had,” Olivier said in a statement released by First Liberty, the religious freedom law firm that represents him, after the oral arguments concluded. “I pray this case results in a decision that allows others to be able to fight for their First Amendment rights in court.” Doors Olivier ‘Chose Not to Enter’ During his opening arguments, G. Todd Butler, representing Brandon, said Olivier had multiple opportunities to challenge the law and his conviction in state courts. Butler scoffed at the argument that “courthouse doors are closed” to Olivier.  “That argument ignores the countless doors the petitioner chose not to enter,” Butler told justices. “What this case is about is the petitioner’s preferred door, one that offers a favored venue, and an opportunity for attorneys fees.” Olivier shared his Christian faith near the amphitheater in May 2021. Police told him he was required to speak only in the designated “protest zone.”  Olivier first did as requested, but later argued the designated area was too isolated. So, he returned to his original location and was arrested for violating the city’s ordinance.  Had he challenged his arrest, it would have been less murky legal territory, since he would clearly have standing as someone harmed or affected by the law. However, in June 2021, Olivier made a no-contest plea, which is not admitting guilt but not disputing charges. He received a fine and a suspended 10-day sentence.  Olivier wanted to return to preach at the amphitheater area again, so to avoid another arrest, he challenged the constitutionality of the city’s ordinance in federal court.  Supreme Court Arguments During arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about “collateral consequences” of challenging the law but not the conviction, and how that could affect the enforcement of the terms of future convictions that might be challenged in a similar manner. Allyson Ho, volunteering pro bono with First Liberty to represent Olivier, replied that past court rulings determined it “would not automatically, or even permissibly preclude the state” from enforcing the conditions of the conviction.  Along those same lines, Chief Justice Roberts asked, “What about a requirement that the individual show up for probation meetings?” Absolutely, your honor, because, again, the only effect that the federal judgment has is forward looking,” Ho replied. “It is a prospective relief. It prohibits the enforcement of the ordinance against him on a forward-looking basis. It does not reach back.” The district court and the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined Olivier could not challenge the Brandon ordinance even if its future enforcement would violate his constitutional rights. It based the dismissal on the Supreme Court case Heck v. Humphrey (1994). The high court ruled in Heck that a person can’t bring a civil rights lawsuit if success in the lawsuit would imply the conviction is invalid—unless that conviction has already been reversed through appeal or clemency.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the plaintiffs’ call for only looking forward without challenging the previous conviction was unusual.  “By definition, a win by you, or win by a third party, would call the prior convictions into question,” Sotomayor said. “It will be used by you and others to try to go back in other proceedings and get those expunged or otherwise set aside. You may or may not win. But it will call it into question.” Ho disagreed, and said the high court has used only “two buckets” in applying the Heck precedent. Neither, she said, would apply to Olivier, since he was never incarcerated. “The first bucket are claims where the federal relief would result in immediate or faster release from confinement,” Ho said. “The second bucket is damages resulting from past confinement.”  Questions for Butler Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Butler, the city’s attorney, “about your initial litany of doors” for Oliver. “Were they all state forums, all state remedies, that you discussed? Is there any other federal remedy?” Jackson asked. “If we agree with you, this person ends up with no federal remedy, and that just seems odd.” Butler replied, “My laundry list of things were state court remedies.” But he said the Heck precedent was in part about steering plaintiffs to resort to state litigation.  Roberts pressed the city’s attorney about whether this meant an automatic arrest and jail time if Olivier preaches again at the amphitheater outside the protest zone.  “When you commit a crime, a particular one, and you’re convicted, you undertake not to commit further violations of that provision,” Roberts said. “Now, if he does, is he subject to reincarceration? Certainly, that’s a big part of the probation in this particular case.” Butler suggested Olivier may go to jail if he violates the ordinance again. “If he violated the ordinance, he would immediately not pass go and go straight to jail for 10 days, because he was under the suspended sentence,” Butler said. “And that constitutes custody under this court’s jurisprudence.” The city passed the ordinance in question in 2019, in response to what it considered a hardship for local police to control protesters that showed up in the area.  The Trump administration is siding with Olivier, as U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, and Assistant Solicitor General Ashley Robertson gave a brief argument to justices, as well.  The post Supreme Court Justices Hear Street Preacher Who Challenged Law After Pleading No Contest to Breaking It appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In recent days, in the South China Sea, the USS Nimitz carrier strike group has been conducting operations and bilateral exercises with the Philippines, to include anti-submarine warfare drills. This comes as tensions have increased between China and Japan, on top of a simmering confrontation at the flashpoint of Scarborough Shoal with the Philippines. For decades, China has been conducting illegal maritime encroachments into its neighbors’ waters and is now trying to mask its malign activities with a new tactic—environmentalism. This is particularly hypocritical given China has destroyed many pristine coral reefs under an archipelago of man-made island military bases. China now plans to establish a maritime nature reserve that will consist of two parts: A “core zone” that will include the damaged reef within the Scarborough Shoal that will prohibit any human activity, and the “experimental zone” which will cover 400-800 yards of water on either side of the reef where research, the breeding of fish, and tourism may take place. Scarborough Shoal is not just a grouping of rocks and coral; it is a rich fishing ground. Fishermen from the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan have been active in the area for generations. That changed drastically in 2012, when China reneged on a negotiated deal brokered by the U.S. and forcibly seized control of it from the Philippines. Today China has effective control of the shoal and is limiting access and increasing intimidation of non-Chinese fishing vessels.   Infographic showing Scarborough Shoal and other islands and reefs in the disputed South China Sea. (Graphic by JOHN SAEKI/AFP via Getty Images) In recent years, China’s increased presence around the shoal is up from an average of 48 ships a month near the end of 2024, to 95 ships a month during the first half of 2025. Countries with vested economic interests in the region are not happy about China’s actions, especially the Philippines, which stands staunchly opposed to China’s increasingly brazen dominance in their water. Scarborough Shoal is within the Philippine’s 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, making China’s plans particularly problematic given its proximity to the capital of Manila and strategic port of Subic Bay. One potential protection against China’s activities is the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, which states: “If one nation’s ’metropolitan’ territory, military, aircraft, islands, or public vessels are attacked, the other must respond in accordance with their ’constitutional processes.’” The United States has affirmed commitment to protecting the Philippine’s sovereignty under the Biden administration which released a joint statement with the Philippines president saying “An armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific, including in the South China Sea, would invoke United States mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.” With all this in mind, it is critical the U.S. act quickly with the Philippines to deter Beijing from moving forward with its plan to establish a marine preserve at Scarborough Shoal. This should be done through both diplomatic pressure and increased military presence like the current U.S. carrier strike group in the region. In response to Chinese duplicity, in 2013, the Philippines filed an arbitration case against China and won. That case concluded with the international tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ruling in 2016 that China’s Nine-Dash Line violated the U.N.’s conventions and that fishermen from the Philippines and China have traditional fishing rights within the shoal. China does not recognize the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling and continues to claim sovereignty over the territory using the same disproven historical arguments. China may want to appear as if it’s protecting the damaged reefs within Scarborough Shoal, but China has shown it does not care about the environmental impact of its activities in the region. Chinese fishing vessels have participated in damaging practices when harvesting clams, and within the South China Sea, China is thought to have caused the destruction of around 4,600 acres of reef. Why does China suddenly care about this reef, and why build a nature reserve now? Satellite images released on Oct. 8 depict the placement of a barricade at the mouth of the Scarborough Shoal, which has been confirmed by the Philippine Navy. This is not the first time a barricade has been placed at the shoal, but paired with the plans for a nature reserve, it demonstrates China’s goal of gaining full control. As of Oct. 17, China was operating fighter jets and patrol aircraft in the skies overhead, as well as maritime security vessels nearby, and placed new buoys within and around the shoal to assert dominance over the disputed feature. On Nov. 16, China moved eight maritime ships and coast guard vessels that had previously been stationed at the shoal to Subi Reef, near Thitu Island which is claimed by China but is occupied by Philippine troops. Besides resources, China may be able to further strengthen its de facto administrative control of nearby waters, further restricting activities by the Philippines and other nations in the Scarborough Shoal. If China moves forward with its plan for a nature reserve, it is highly likely that there will be heightened law enforcement activity and presence near the shoal further burnishing its control of the shoal and surrounding waters. This was indeed suspect back in 2016, with China to turn Scarborough Shoal into a man-made island garrison, as it has done with several features under its control in the Spratly Islands. If this were to happen, it would threaten United States operations and exercises with the Philippines, along with access to the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. The bases open to U.S. forces under this agreement include Fort Magsaysay, Basa Air Base, Antonio Bautista Air Base, Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base, and Lumbia Air Base. If China succeeds in constructing this nature reserve, we should expect increased Chinese military presence, maritime coercion by paramilitary forces, and further encroachment. With rising tensions in the region and the recent deadly collision between a Chinese destroyer and a Philippine Coast Guard cutter, China will likely not back down lightly. The United States has strategic interest in this region. A little demonstration of resolve today could go a long way toward preventing a more intractable long-term problem at the Scarborough Shoal from getting worse. The post China’s Development of the Scarborough Shoal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Comedy Central’s Jordan Klepper stopped by The Daily Show: Ears Edition podcast on Monday to preview his upcoming special that claims there is a dissonance between President Trump’s campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize and his actions in cities like Portland, Oregon. As part of the sneak peek, Klepper hyped his travels to Portland, where he wandered into one of the city’s naked bike rides, which he portrayed as “uplifting” and “the best use of comedy” amid ICE operations. Klepper gushed, “I will say, when we showed up at the naked rally, it was cold. It was rainy. I didn't expect any people to be there. And there were hundreds and hundreds of naked people there. And after you get past the shock of so many naked people and dongs, it really was an uplifting, energetic vibe. It was people who were passionate about what was happening, what was happening with these ICE agents.”     He also recalled, “You saw these images, it was horrifying. And there are so many people who were like, we want to show up. We want to show solidarity. There was joy, there was comedy. I'm often asked, like, ‘What is the role of comedy in these weird, dark, and trying times?’” According to Klepper, “I think in the role of protest, this is the best use of comedy. It was organic, it was thoughtful, and it was joyful. And yet, that joy was being put up against these aggressive actions. And to me, it was like, this is joy as an act of protest. And that was very life affirming and interesting to see. We take that to the ICE facility, which is this sort of joyous act of solidarity. And when we arrive, like, there are these people dressed as animals. There's more protest, there's music, there's song, there is this feeling of protest. But there's also men who are shooting pepper bullets into the crowd.”  Klepper continued: There is an act of aggression that's happening. There's positive chants mixed with some right-wing agitators who are on the outside, who are screaming epithets at the naked people. They're being anti-LGBTQ. You're hearing a lot of stressful things. And then, as Scott says, suddenly, we see an aggressive act where these ICE agents push into the crowd, into a band that are literally dressed as bananas, playing music, shoved into the ground, pepper sprays being shot out. Our camera guy is coughing and pulled out because he's got pepper spray in his lungs. You're like, this, it's such a chaotic, wild moment that's filled with both joy and hatred and anger and righteous anger and cruelty and beauty, and fuckin' America right now. The implication is that law enforcement is beclowning itself because they are cracking down on people in costumes, but it actually just makes the people in the costumes look juvenile. Meanwhile, they allow Klepper to ignore the people in the crowd who are not joyful or uplifting. Here is a transcript for the December 1 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show: Ears Edition 12/1/2025 JORDAN KLEPPER: I will say, when we showed up at the naked rally, it was cold. It was rainy. I didn't expect any people to be there. And there were hundreds and hundreds of naked people there. And after you get past the shock of so many naked people and dongs, it really was an uplifting, energetic vibe. It was people who were passionate about what was happening, what was happening with these ICE agents. You saw these images, it was horrifying. And there are so many people who were like, we want to show up. We want to show solidarity. There was joy, there was comedy. I'm often asked, like, “what is the role of comedy in these weird, dark, and trying times?” I think in the role of protest, this is the best use of comedy. It was organic, it was thoughtful, and it was joyful. And yet, that joy was being put up against these aggressive actions. And to me, it was like, this is joy as an act of protest. And that was very life affirming and interesting to see. We take that to the ICE facility, which is this sort of joyous act of solidarity. And when we arrive, like, there are these people dressed as animals. There's more protest, there's music, there's song, there is this feeling of protest. But there's also men who are shooting pepper bullets into the crowd. There is an act of aggression that's happening. There's positive chants mixed with some right-wing agitators who are on the outside, who are screaming epithets at the naked people. They're being anti-LGBTQ. You're hearing a lot of stressful things. And then, as Scott says, suddenly, we see an aggressive act where these ICE agents push into the crowd, into a band that are literally dressed as bananas, playing music, shoved into the ground, pepper sprays being shot out. Our camera guy is coughing and pulled out because he's got pepper spray in his lungs. You're like, this, it's such a chaotic, wild moment that's filled with both joy and hatred and anger and righteous anger and cruelty and beauty, and fuckin' America right now.