Trump suggests turnaround on immigrants
The president is shifting America’s focus back to hard power – Britain should follow his lead
DONALD TRUMP last night suggested he could grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants who have not committed serious crimes in what would be a major policy shift.
Throughout his campaign and first five weeks in office, Mr Trump had been unwavering in his hardline stance on illegal immigrants.
However, he reportedly said last night: “The time is right for an immigration bill as long as there is compromise on both sides.”
Such a move would be a dramatic turnaround for the president who had ordered officials to deport all undocumented immigrants who have committed any crime or falsified any documents. The definition applies to almost all the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country and set the stage for mass deportations.
Under President Barack Obama, undocumented immigrants were only to be deported if convicted of a serious crime.
Mr Trump’s proposal would apparently stop short of granting a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but would give them legal status to remain in the US. The White House did not dispute the reports of Mr Trump’s compromise statement.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy White House press secretary, said: “The president has been very clear in his process that the immigration system is broken and needs massive reform, and he’s made clear that he’s open to having conversations about that moving forward.
“Right now, his primary focus, as he has made clear over and over again is border control and security at the border and deporting criminals from our country, and keeping our country safe, and those priorities have not changed.”
Mr Trump is expected to issue a revised travel ban for seven Muslim-majority countries today.
Earlier yesterday, Mr Trump said his £43 billion plans for expanding America’s armed forces will be financed by a growing economy and by making other countries pay for US military help. The president was interviewed by Fox News ahead of his first address to a joint session of Congress last night, a speech that offered a chance for a reset after a chaotic first few weeks in office.
In a typically bullish performance, Mr Trump used the interview to award himself an “A” for achievement and said that leaks and protests were the work of Barack Obama and his supporters.
Critics say an inexperienced White House is struggling to maintain unity or explain how it will pay for more warships, fighters and soldiers at a time when it is also promising to cut taxes and protect benefits – such as Medicare and Medicaid – that are important to his blue-collar supporters.
The money, Mr Trump told the interviewer, will come from a “revved up economy”.
He said: “I mean, you look at the kind of numbers we’re doing, we were probably GDP [growth] of a little more than one per cent and if I can get that up to three or maybe more, we have a whole different ball game.”
Apart from relying on a surge in growth, Mr Trump outlined a radical plan to develop an income stream from military allies. “When we help them, even militarily, we are going to ask for a form of reimbursement,” he said. “We have countries where we are taking care of their military and we are not being reimbursed. And they are wealthy countries.”
His plans raise fresh questions about his commitment to long-standing strategic alliances and the role of Nato.
The past week has brought a rising tide of grass roots anger. Republican politicians have faced protests at town halls by voters concerned at what will happen if Obamacare is repealed. Mr Trump shrugged off the widespread opposition, blaming the demonstrations and leaks on his predecessor. “I think President Obama’s behind it because his people are certainly behind it,” he said, without offering any evidence.
Meanwhile, Mr Trump’s adviser, Kellyanne Conway, found herself the subject of outrage after she was spotted with her feet up on a sofa in the Oval Office while the president met representatives of historically black colleges and universities.
She was accused of disrespecting the office of the president. Other images suggested a different explanation – that she was simply trying to find the perfect angle from which to photograph the visitors and their host.
Say what you like about Donald Trump’s more outlandish policies, such as walling off the Mexican border or trying to bar entry to the US for nationals travelling from seven Muslim countries. The one area where it is hard to dispute the merits of the president’s approach is in the realm of national security.
Mr Trump may have experienced some initial difficulties filling key positions, with General Michael Flynn, his original choice for National Security Advisor, being forced to resign over his dealings with the Russian Embassy in Washington.
But Mr Trump’s determination to rebuild America’s military strength following the years of decline under the Obama administration is as welcome as it is overdue. And it also sends a signal to America’s allies – and that includes Britain – that they, too, need to raise their game or risk losing the protection afforded by the world’s undisputed military superpower.
To put this into perspective, the extra $54 billion (£43 billion) Mr Trump intends to spend on reviving America’s military forces is more than Britain’s entire defence budget. (Our defence spending will be around £38 billion this year.)
Mr Trump intends to spend that extra cash on recruiting an additional 60,000 soldiers, 12,000 marines and acquiring at least another 100 combat aircraft. The US Navy will see the number of ships at its disposal rise from 274 to 350.
This is the equivalent of adding the entire strength of Britain’s Armed Forces to the US military. In fact, when you look at the current size of the Royal Navy, which has just 19 warships, you get some idea of the deep and growing gulf between the strength of the US military and its European allies.
Moreover, Mr Trump says he intends to fund the increase by reallocating funds from the “soft power” resources so favoured by Barack Obama, such as foreign aid. It is all part of what the president calls his policy of “peace through strength”, where America’s enemies are dissuaded from undertaking acts of aggression through fear of the overwhelming military response they might provoke, rather than promises of educational scholarships as a reward for good behaviour.
Just how Congress, where many Republicans are concerned about the president’s lavish spending plans, will respond to Mr Trump’s initiative remains to be seen. But the principle of redirecting funds from soft power options such as foreign aid to strengthening the military is one that our Government would do well to consider.
The Trump administration’s shift from soft to hard power will certainly put it at odds with Britain’s defence policy, where the emphasis is currently on avoiding military options at all costs.
Britain’s obsession with maintaining the foreign aid budget at 0.7 per cent of GDP is one of the few legacies that survives the CameronOsborne era. Keen to distance themselves from the political controversies surrounding Britain’s involvement in the military campaigns in Iraq and Libya, they opted to make foreign aid their main priority while implementing drastic cuts to the nation’s military strength. Though never articulated in public, the aim of the architects of the disastrous 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review was to ensure that Britain avoided future military entanglements through the simple expedient of not having the military strength to do so.
The result is that we now have the bizarre situation where we are giving foreign aid to countries that do not want it – India’s High Commissioner to London recently declared his country does not need the hundreds of millions of pounds Britain gives it each year – while the military is struggling to repair the appalling damage it suffered during the Cameron-Osborne era.
Ministers insist steps are under way to plug some of the more blatant gaps in our capabilities, pointing out that £178 billion will be spent on new kit over the next decade.
But a recent analysis by the respected International Institute for Strategic Studies infuriated ministers by claiming total defence spending in Britain has fallen below the 2 per cent of GDP level required for Nato membership. That’s deeply embarrassing for the Government, especially as Mr Trump has made it explicitly clear that he expects Washington’s allies to pay their fair share.
With senior officers in all three Armed Services saying they are struggling to overcome severe manpower and equipment shortages, a simple solution would be for the Government to ditch its foreign aid commitment and divert some of the money to strengthen the military. Our aid budget is around £12 billion a year; I’m told an extra £5 billion would go a long way to restoring the Armed Forces to their pre-Cameron strength.
Mr Trump has shown the way. Theresa May would be well-advised to follow his lead.