Columnist.
I know it will come as a shock to most conservatives, but far fewer people are sneaking into the country across our southern border than at any time in recent memory. At the height of the illegal immigration crisis in 2000, 1.6 million illegal immigrants entered the U.S. Since 2012, the numbers are down to about 400,000 — and they've gone down so far this fiscal year by another 28 percent over last year. That's good news, but good news doesn't energize the base nearly as effectively as fear. Instead of embracing the facts that illegal immigration is down to a decades-long low — by one measure lower than it has been in more than 40 years — many conservatives still fret about an illegal invasion that threatens our very way of life. Measuring the flow of illegal immigrants is difficult, which is why so many people argue about the numbers incessantly. A few years ago, I'd often encounter people who claimed there were 30 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., when demographers estimated slightly more than 12 million.
A Baltimore grand jury handed down indictments against six police officers Thursday in the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody, the latest chapter in a saga that captured national attention when riots erupted last month following Gray's funeral. Gray's death doesn't lend itself easily to simplistic racial explanations, which were seized upon in other highly publicized deaths of black men in police custody over the past year, including the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner in New York City. Three of the accused officers are white; three are black. Five are men, and one is a woman. The police commissioner, whose department is now under scrutiny by the Justice Department for potential civil rights violations, is black. So, too, are the mayor and the city prosecutor bringing the charges. But if Baltimore's political leaders are mostly black and its police force reflects the racial composition of the city, why is there such a sense of racial grievance among its black residents, especially those who live in poor neighborhoods in West Baltimore?
Pope Francis' decision to give formal recognition to a Palestinian state is puzzling at best. Some conservative Catholics — most prominently scholar and papal biographer George Weigel — have given a wide berth to the pope's views on income inequality, climate change and how best to integrate gay and divorced Catholics into the Church's ministry, even as the left has gleefully embraced the pontiff's rhetoric. Francis' latest foray into controversy is harder to explain. Unlike Francis' positions on the poor, which Weigel avers are rooted in the pope's pastoral history and mission, the decision on Palestinian statehood is purely political — and, as such, is open to criticism. Jonathan Tobin, writing online in Commentary magazine, notes: "For all his good will, the pope is mistaken to think that giving the Palestinians such recognition will advance the peace process." Tobin reminds us that the Palestinians were offered an independent state in 2000, 2001 (in an offer that included almost all of the West Bank, Gaza and part of Jerusalem) and 2008, and they refused to negotiate in 2013 and 2014 under an Obama administration-led framework that included a two-state solution.
Like her former boss Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is more interested in goading Republicans on immigration than she is in actually fixing our broken system. This week, Clinton announced that she would expand on Obama's executive action, which would defer deportation and grant work permits for up to five million illegal immigrants in the U.S. "I will fight to stop partisan attacks on the executive action that would put DREAMers, including those with us today, at risk of deportation," she said in reference to students in the audience who had come to the U.S. illegally as children. "If Congress refuses to act, as president, I would do everything possible under the law to go even further." Clinton also said she favors a pathway to citizenship for most of the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. What she didn't say was that she would work with Congress to achieve those aims. Nor would she commit to making immigration reform an early agenda item in her presidency — saying only it would be a "priority."
For most Americans, including President Barack Obama, the term "thug" seemed an appropriate appellation for the rioters who destroyed businesses, homes and other property in Baltimore this week. Now liberals are crying foul. The Baltimore Sun has editorialized, "Having city leaders apply it to the high school students and others who rioted throughout Baltimore tells the offenders that they weren't just wrong in what they did, but that they're also worthless because of it — something too many people already believe." Baltimore's mayor, after initially using the term, apologized on Twitter: "That night we saw misguided young people who need to be held accountable, but who also need support. And my comments then didn't convey that." Several commentators have likened the use of the term to the N-word.
The Clintons have always had an uneasy relationship with money. Bill never had any. And although Hillary had a comfortable upbringing, she didn't take the path to riches that her Yale Law degree might have provided, choosing instead to do public interest law right out of law school and marry a man with great political ambition. But, clearly, both Bill and Hillary wanted the good life — and the money it takes to provide it. Nothing wrong with that, but the means by which they've enriched themselves have been unsavory at best. And all this makes suspicious the recent revelations that Bill and Hillary have become fabulously rich through the former president's speeches paid by individuals, corporate interests and governments who stood to benefit from their relationship with a former president married to a U.S. senator who then became secretary of state.
Republicans lost the 2012 presidential election during their primaries. By the time Mitt Romney secured his party's nomination, the seeds of his defeat had already germinated. The challenge for Republicans in 2016 will be to keep that from happening again. And no issue is more fraught with dangers for Republicans than immigration. Of the three announced Republican candidates — Sens. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul — Rubio is probably in the best position to avoid the mistakes of the past. Paul's problem is that he has been all over the board on immigration. Although he has recently said he favors legislation that would give work permits to many of the 11 million immigrants now in the U.S. illegally, Paul wants to revoke birthright citizenship. But the nation has, from its founding, embraced birthright citizenship, albeit denying it to the descendants of slaves until passage of the 14th Amendment. A constitutional amendment revoking birthright citizenship has no chance of adoption, and those who argue that simple legislation would suffice ignore the plain language of the 14th Amendment, the legislative history and debate at the time of adoption, and Supreme Court precedents.
Boy do I have a deal for you. Give me enough money to build a fancy new house, and I promise I won't try to blow up yours. You can even check my basement to make sure I'm not stockpiling dynamite. Oh, and I promise I won't try to buy any explosives from those shady characters I hang out with or hide what I already have in a storage unit somewhere else. Sound like a good bargain? Well, in simple terms, it pretty much describes the framework the Obama administration has signed on to in order to persuade Iran to give up its quest to build nuclear weapons. The U.S. and our allies agree to lift economic sanctions, which have crippled the Iranian economy, in return for Iran agreeing to hold back on making nuclear weapons for a while. They promise to convert facilities we know they have been using to enrich uranium and plutonium. They will even let us inspect some sites, though we know they have violated all previous agreements for open inspections. And we'll continue to turn a blind eye toward the mullahs' pervasive violations of human rights, especially those of women.
A new CBS poll on Hillary Clinton this week suggests that the former first lady, New York senator and secretary of state faces a steeper road to the White House than her supporters might think. Only 26 percent in the poll of the adult population had a favorable view of Clinton, while 37 percent had an unfavorable opinion, and an astonishing 36 percent said they hadn't heard enough to form an opinion or were undecided. Because the poll sampled all adults, not just registered voters, the poll's political significance is limited. Much of the general public pays little attention to politics, and even less so this far out from an election. And, obviously, only those who register and vote actually matter on Election Day.
The Obama administration seems to have taken the old adage about keeping friends close but enemies closer to new extremes, judging from the reaction to the Israeli elections. The United States has no real friends in the Middle East, save Israel. Our strategic relationships with other governments, from Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Egypt and others, are not true friendships but are based on mutual self-interest. They can and do change depending on circumstances and players. We were allied with Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, but abandoned him when the Arab Spring promised new, democratic leadership. Then -- thankfully -- we restrained our support for his successor, Mohammed Morsi, who turned out to be no democrat, despite being elected.
Another shooting has taken place in Ferguson, Missouri -- and this time, two police officers were the victims. The violence should not come as a surprise, given the ugly tone set by the nation's top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder. The most divisive attorney general since Richard Nixon's John Mitchell, Holder has fanned the flames of racial grievance for much of his tenure. In his early days in office, he called America "a nation of cowards" on racial issues. Last week, his target was the Ferguson Police Department. Holder promised, "We are prepared to use all the power that we have ... to ensure that the situation changes there." No, he didn't intend for someone to try to kill two police officers by shooting them in the face. But by portraying the police department as racist to the core, he contributed to the culture of vengeance that led to the shooting.
Now that Republicans have walked back from the brink on funding for the Department of Homeland Security, it's time to figure out whether there is any way forward on the immigration reform. I've spent the past few weeks talking -- and listening -- to conservatives on the issue, and I've actually become more hopeful, but I don't expect it will be easy. Nor do I expect it will happen soon. The major obstacle to immigration reform as far as the GOP is concerned is President Obama. They just do not trust him to enforce the law -- any law -- if he happens to disagree with it. When Obama decided to take executive action to give temporary legal status and work permits to four million illegal immigrants, he ruined any chance that compromise could be found while he is in office.
Democrats are playing a dangerous game with Israel by snubbing the prime minister of America's staunchest Middle East ally. Four Democratic senators, as well as almost two-dozen House members, have already announced that they will not attend Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress on March 3. By doing so, they may curry favor with the White House, but they risk sending a dangerous message to Israel's enemies -- especially Iran. As recently as November, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that the only "cure" for Israel is to "be annihilated." Is it any wonder that Netanyahu considers a nuclear-armed Iran an existential threat to Israel's very existence? Israel is the only nation in the world that, from its inception, has been constantly threatened with extinction. Its Arab neighbors have fought repeated wars to destroy the Jewish state. Terrorist organizations have periodically slaughtered Israelis -- aiming their attacks at innocent civilians, even school children. Last year alone, Hamas fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israel from Gaza. Only Israel's superior Iron Dome defense system prevented the rockets from killing hundreds if not thousands of Israelis who were Hamas' intended victims.
A Texas judge handed the GOP a gift this week by issuing a temporary restraining order barring the Obama administration from granting temporary status and permission to work to some four million illegal immigrants. But it's unclear whether the party's congressional leaders will be able to convince their members to declare victory and move on to vote for a clean bill funding the Department of Homeland Security, without House-passed immigration amendments. They'd be smart to do so, because the alternative would virtually guarantee that DHS will run out of funding at the end of the month. If that happens, there is no question which party will bear the blame. Polls show that a majority of Americans (53 percent in a recent CNN survey) would blame Republicans for a DHS shutdown, just as they did in 2013 when squabbles over funding for Obamacare led to a 16-day government-wide shutdown. In that debacle, support for the GOP fell dramatically, with only 32 percent of Americans saying they held a favorable view of the party in a Gallup poll after the shutdown. It took a year before Republicans gained back the support they'd lost, ultimately winning a huge victory in last fall's election.
Republicans won big in November on the hopes that a GOP-led Congress could counterbalance President Obama's imperial presidency. But as the deadline approaches to fund the Department of Homeland Security (Feb. 27), it looks like Republicans would rather play chicken with Democrats than actually get something accomplished. The House has passed a bill funding DHS that includes provisions to undo the president's actions on immigration. Even many of us who support comprehensive immigration reform, including giving some illegal immigrants the ability to earn legal status, have grave reservations about the president's approach. His decision to use executive action to circumvent Congress is a dangerous precedent -- but this is something the courts should decide. A suit filed by 26 states is before a district court in Texas at the moment, and a decision could be handed down any day.
I would not watch the video of Jordanian pilot Mouath al-Kasaesbeh being consumed by fire, because to do so was exactly what the Islamist barbarians who produced it wanted. They wanted not only to kill their captive in the most horrific way imaginable, but also to burn the images of his immolation into the minds of those who oppose them. Terror is their most effective weapon. The only way they can achieve victory is by frightening people into submission. Scare off those who would join an alliance to fight the Islamic State, and ISIS wins. But barbarity also has a way of inspiring courage. King Abdullah II of Jordan, no stranger to combat as a former attack helicopter pilot and commander of Jordan's special forces, has vowed a "relentless" fight against ISIS. If the terrorists thought they would make fellow Arabs retreat, they may be in for a rude awakening.
Rep. Steve King's Iowa Freedom Summit last week was not the most fortuitous launch for Republican presidential hopefuls, but it could have been worse. The Iowa congressman has embarrassed himself and the GOP with his anti-immigrant rhetoric over the years, which is no doubt why some prominent would-be candidates had "scheduling conflicts" that kept them away. Missing from the forum were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Mitt Romney, whose missteps on immigration last time helped cost him the election. Most of those attending managed to keep their remarks civil -- attacking President Obama's use of executive action to grant legal status to some five million persons in the country illegally rather than the illegal immigrants themselves.
In what was one of the most stunning rebukes of a sitting president by a member of his own party, Sen. Robert Menendez accused President Obama of taking his talking points on Iran "straight out of Tehran" after the president's State of the Union address. It's not the first time the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has disagreed with the president. In early January, when the president announced his unilateral opening to Cuba, Menendez said the administration "got absolutely nothing for giving up everything that the Castro regime wants." Menendez gives hope that there are at least a few Democrats who understand the nature of totalitarian regimes. Menendez may not be Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the legendary Democratic hawk who was the scourge of the appeasement wing of his party in the U.S. Senate from 1941 to 1983, but he knows a bad deal when he sees one. And the president's line on Iran's nuclear program -- that "we've halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material" -- is nothing short of a lie. Now the question for Democrats will be whether others will join Menendez in pushing for tougher sanctions against Iran. The president has already announced he will veto a sanctions bill, but Menendez would need only 12 other Democrats to join the 54-member Republican majority to overturn a veto.
When I started second grade at St. Mary's Elementary School in Albuquerque, my parents decided it was time I learned how to walk to school. The trek from my grandparents' house, where we lived in a small two-room adobe casita at the rear of the property, to the school a mile away took about a half-hour. I walked alone, down what passed for busy streets in those days, through neighborhoods and commercial areas, occasionally meeting classmates en route. It was good exercise and taught me independence at an early age. It's lucky for my parents they weren't raising me in Montgomery County, Md., today, or they might be facing child neglect charges. That may be the fate of a Silver Spring, Md., couple.
