Senators Offer a Bipartisan Blueprint for Immigration

A bipartisan group of senators has agreed on a set of principles for a sweeping overhaul of the immigration system, including a pathway to American citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants that would hinge on progress in securing the borders and ensuring that foreigners leave the country when their visas expire. The senators were able to reach a deal by incorporating the Democrats’ insistence on a single comprehensive bill that would not deny eventual citizenship to illegal immigrants, with Republican demands that strong border and interior enforcement had to be clearly in place before Congress could consider legal status for illegal immigrants.

Their blueprint, unveiled on Monday, will allow them to stake out their position one day before President Obama outlines his immigration proposals in a speech on Tuesday in Las Vegas, in the opening moves of what lawmakers expect will be a protracted and contentious debate in Congress this year.

Lawmakers said they were optimistic that the political mood had changed since a similar effort collapsed in acrimony in 2010. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and one of the negotiators, said he saw “a new appreciation” among Republicans of the need for an overhaul.

“Look at the last election,” Mr. McCain said Sunday morning on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “We are losing dramatically the Hispanic vote, which we think should be ours.” The senator also said he had seen “significant improvements” in border enforcement, although “we’ve still got a ways to go.”

Former New Orleans mayor Nagin charged with corruption

A federal grand jury on Friday charged Ray Nagin, the former New Orleans mayor who denounced the federal government response to Hurricane Katrina, with 21 counts of public corruption including receiving thousands of dollars in kickbacks for city services.

The charges include six counts of bribery, nine counts of wire fraud, four counts of filing false tax returns and one count each of conspiracy and money laundering.

"Nagin used his public office and his official capacity to provide favorable treatment that benefited the business and financial interests of individuals providing him with bribery or kickback payoffs in the form of checks, cash, granite inventory, wire transfers, personal services and free travel," the indictment said.

In one case he received $72,500 in bribes, and $50,000 in another, according to the indictment. Nagin and his sons, Jeremy Nagin and Jarin Nagin, owned a countertop company called Stone Age LLC that provided granite for projects such as kitchen remodeling. In several instances, he received wire transfers and granite as bribes, the indictment said.

U.S. Air Force finds pornography, "offensive" material in inspections

The U.S. Air Force, reeling from a scandal over sexual abuse of female recruits, said on Friday a search of its facilities across the globe turned up tens of thousands of items it considered to be "offensive, inappropriate or pornographic."

The inspections of public areas on Air Force facilities over 12 days in December were aimed at heightening awareness among personnel about sexual violence and professionalism in the workplace, said Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh.

"I talked with airmen across the force and believe that some units were not meeting those standards," he said. "Every airman deserves to be treated with respect. They also deserve to work in a professional environment."

The Air Force was rocked last year by revelations that female recruits were sexually abused at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. Eleven instructors at the base, the home of all Air Force basic military training, have been charged with offenses ranging from inappropriate behavior to sexual assault.

The Air Force has said that 48 women have come forward with what investigators consider credible stories of sexual misconduct.

Difficult Choices on Debt if the U.S. Hits the Ceiling

By mid-February or early March, the United States could face an unprecedented default unless it raises its debt ceiling, the Treasury Department said this week. Some legislators have theorized that a quick breach in the debt ceiling might cause only a minor disruption to government finances. And some commentators have suggested that the United States could pass legislation to prioritize or guarantee payments to bondholders, thus erasing what they describe as the worst of the financial market reaction and removing the threat of technical default.

But experts in government finance and markets described running up against the debt ceiling as an event that might quickly precipitate a financial crisis and eventually lead to a recession — an event with far greater disruptive potential than the “fiscal cliff” package of tax increases and spending cuts, a government shutdown or even the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

A debt-ceiling crisis would be at its heart a cash-management problem. Every day the government receives millions of bills to pay, to its employees, older Americans, soldiers, bondholders and contractors, among others. Under normal circumstances, it makes payments with new revenue as well as with the proceeds from bond sales. But the country has already run out of authority to issue new debt, as of Dec. 31, and Congress has not yet raised the statutory debt ceiling, currently around $16.4 trillion.

The Treasury Department is undertaking “extraordinary measures,” like suspending the reinvestment of certain government retirement funds, to leave it with more cash on hand. But such measures buy the country only so much time, and in a matter of weeks outflows will overwhelm inflows.

That day might be Feb. 15, for instance. According to a Bipartisan Policy Center analysis, the government expects about $9 billion in revenue to arrive in its coffers that day. But it has $52 billion in committed spending on that day: $30 billion in interest payments, $6.8 billion in tax refunds, $3.5 billion in federal salaries, $2.7 billion in military pay, $2.3 billion in Medicaid and Medicare payments, $1.5 billion owed to military contractors and a smattering of other commitments.

American foreign policy Time to engage

Barack Obama’s first-term caution was understandable, but he must now show greater resolve.

THERE is much to like about the foreign policies pursued by President Barack Obama during his first years in office. Rational and reasonable, they have blended strategic optimism with tactical caution, and tempered grand visions with a careful weighing of costs. Only one flaw has betrayed Mr Obama’s thoughtful plans. Time and again, they have not really worked.

To his supporters, this is far from all the president’s fault. Where Mr Obama has gambled to no obvious benefit—whether extending open hands to Iran and Russia, offering a cold shoulder to North Korea, or trying to heal the Middle East by reaching out to the Muslim world, for example—supporters blame the intransigence of other players. Where he has been cautious and slow to act—at the first dawning of the Arab spring two years ago, in Syria today—aides point to the lessons about the limits of American power learned over more than a decade of war. Serving and retired officials, policy experts and diplomats from friendly governments express understanding for the meagre results of Mr Obama’s first-term diplomacy. They see the logic of lowering ambitions and focusing sharply on that which can be achieved. They sympathise with his caution about confronting lobbies and special interests as he sought re-election. But if the president remains as coolly calculating and reluctant to engage in his second term, even firm friends will find it hard to forgive.

Mr Obama’s first months in office were a time of vaulting ambition. There were hopes he might heal the world as he had seemed to heal racial and partisan divides at home. They were soon dashed. Since then a tone of cool detachment has been his foreign-policy hallmark. From being the “indispensable nation”, Mr Obama’s America seeks to be an indispensable catalyst: present, but not deeply involved.

The darkest evening

Thus America has sought to create the conditions for success—as in hotspots like Libya—while resolutely avoiding deeper entanglements. Anne-Marie Slaughter, director of policy planning at the State Department during Mr Obama’s first two years, talks of a global order in which America offers “tough love” while pressing rising powers to share the burden.

The response to the bloodshed unleashed by Syria’s rulers against its people shows the difficulties of this approach; if you can’t find a desired outcome to catalyse, what do you do? The response of doing nothing leaves the administration’s inner circles miserable. Mr Obama has heard appeals to arm rebel groups, to impose a no-fly zone on Syria or take out the despot’s air forces on the ground. His response is to ask for evidence that such interventions would make things better, rather than satisfy the urge to “do something” at the risk of escalating the conflict. His second response is to ask for the price-tag: no small matter to a nation tired of war. Internal arguments have been passionate. Whom would you have us bomb, administration doves ask more hawkish types: snipers in cities? How much American power, they demand to know, would be needed to bring peace? After all, almost 150,000 American troops were in Iraq at the peak of its sectarian killings. So America is left rallying support for the formation of an inclusive opposition and preparing for the day after the Assad regime falls. The reluctance to act, says a witness to the debate, is understandable. It is also, he adds, a “shame on all of us”.

Barack Obama How will history see me?

If Barack Obama wants to be remembered as a great president, he should focus on three long-term problems

NEXT week Barack Obama will take the oath of office as elected president of the United States for the second time—an honour granted only to 16 men before him. When he returns to the Oval Office he will rediscover a string of problems, from domestic struggles over America’s debt ceiling and gun control to bloodier conflicts in Mali and Syria. But now more than ever he would be wise to look at the long term. Mr Obama will not run for office again. How will history see him?

More favourably, we hope, than it would if he were judged just on the past four years. That is not to dismiss the accomplishments of his first term. Few presidents have had to take office against such a dismal backdrop, with the economy contracting at 5% a year, jobs being shed at the rate of 800,000 a month and America mired in two failing wars. Mr Obama has done a creditable job of putting a critically ill patient on the road to recovery. His main legislative achievement—health-care reform—may yet help millions of Americans, though the verdict on that must await its full implementation. All this, together with an unconvincing opponent, persuaded enough Americans (and The Economist) to back him in November. But his first term was nowhere near successful enough to earn Mr Obama the mantle of greatness—or to guard him against the possibility of a disastrous second term wiping away all else. The Obama legacy will partly be defined by events. When George W. Bush sat reading to schoolchildren in Florida on September 11th 2001, “the war on terror” was not part of his vocabulary. Mr Obama may well be blindsided by something similarly out of the blue. But Mr Bush is also often described as the man who expanded government more than any president since Lyndon Johnson; that was a legacy he could have avoided. More to his credit, Mr Bush will also be remembered for dramatically increasing and improving aid to Africa.

Vulnerable Senate Democrats balk at Obama’s gun control measures

Some vulnerable Senate Democrats are balking at President Obama’s new push on gun control, reflecting the tough position many will be in if Congress takes up major firearms legislation.
Shortly after Obama unveiled the details of his policy, a number of Democrats from conservative, heavily rural states who are up for reelection in 2014 indicated they’re likely to oppose the measures. 

The responses indicate how tough it will be for any legislation to move through Congress — and how tricky an issue it is for some rural-state Democrats facing reelection.

Here’s a rundown of what some of those Democrats had to say about the proposals:

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) told the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that he’s not eager to pass new gun control legislation. 

“I think they’ve got a long haul here … There are some of us who just fundamentally believe in a Second Amendment right,” he said. “To be frank, I feel like it’s going to be hard for any of these pieces of legislation to pass at this point.”

U.S. Delegation Seeks To Calm Spats Between Japan, South Korea

The United States sent its top Asian diplomacy and security officials to South Korea and Japan to calm tensions between two U.S. allies whose squabbling has frustrated efforts to deal with a troublesome North Korea and an increasingly assertive China.
The high-powered delegation from the White House, Pentagon and State Department departed on Monday and will be visiting the region shortly after the election of a new nationalist-leaning Japanese government in December and before Seoul inaugurates a new president in February.
Washington hopes South Korea and Japan can put a lid on spats over history and territory stemming from Japan's 1910-45 occupation of Korea. U.S. officials also seek to reassure Tokyo as it confronts almost daily challenges from China over which has sovereignty of disputed islets in a separate, more dangerous, territorial row with Beijing.
The long-simmering disputes erupted anew last year, plunging Tokyo's ties with Seoul and Beijing to troubling lows and casting a cloud over the President Barack Obama's signature policy for East Asia - rebalancing security forces in the region - in part to cope with a surging China.
"We want to see the new Japanese government, the new South Korean government, all of the countries in Northeast Asia working together and solving any outstanding issues, whether they are territorial, whether they're historic, through dialogue," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said last week.
Troubles between Asia's second and fourth biggest economies are frustrating to Washington at a time when a defiant North Korea has tested a long-range rocket and may be poised to conduct its third nuclear test.
In one of the final acts before Obama brings in a new national security team for his second term, Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of Defense Mark Lippert and Daniel Russel, the National Security Council senior director for Asian affairs, will meet with officials in Seoul and Tokyo.
U.S. officials regularly meet counterparts from the two countries, which have been American allies since the 1950s and together host most of the 80,000 U.S. troops in Asia. But the antagonistic nationalism that flared up in Asian capitals last year makes this trip anything but routine.
The Japan-South Korea dispute intensified in August when President Lee Myung-bak became the first South Korean leader to set foot on islands claimed by both countries but controlled by Seoul. They are known as Dokdo in Korea and Takeshima in Japan.
Lee's visit and his call for Emperor Akihito to go beyond earlier expressions of "deepest regrets" for Japan's colonial rule followed South Korea's last-minute cancellation of a bilateral agreement with Japan on sharing intelligence.
The troubles between Seoul and Tokyo coincided with a standoff between Japan and China over another cluster of islets, known as the Diaoyu in China and the Senkaku in Japan.
The dispute sparked violent anti-Japanese protests in China last summer that damaged Japanese businesses in China. Last year's protests have been followed by a consumer boycott and repeated incursions by Chinese boats and planes into seas and airspace around the islands, which are controlled by Japan.
The ships and aircraft that have appeared to challenge Japanese control of those waters and force Tokyo to end its refusal to acknowledge that a territorial dispute exists have been Chinese government vessels. So far China has stopped short of sending military vessels into disputed areas.
But analysts warn of the potential for miscalculation. Any Japan-China conflict could embroil the United States, which says that the islets are covered under the U.S.-Japan security treaty - even though Washington takes no position on the sovereignty dispute.
Another understated aim of the U.S. mission to Tokyo this week is to convince Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to step away from some of the more nationalist policies of the platform on which he campaigned and won office on last month.
Washington is particularly concerned about Abe's previous calls to revise or rescind a landmark 1995 apology for Japan's wartime aggression and 1993 statement acknowledging an official Japanese role in the recruiting of tens of thousands of mostly South Korean "comfort women" to serve troops during World War Two.
Such actions would anger Asian nations that suffered from Japan's militarism, further complicating both U.S. attempts to manage ties between its allies in the region and relations with China, which also is ushering in new leadership in March.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said last week that Abe would stand by the 1995 apology. Although Abe packed his Cabinet with politicians who hold extremely revisionist views of history, analysts are predicting policies will be pragmatic, with a focus on reviving the economy.
"The Abe administration basically will not touch foreign diplomacy and security affairs before the Upper House election" in July, former Vice Minister for Defense Motohiro Oono of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan told a think tank panel in Washington last week.
Bruce Klingner, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said recent statements from Abe have been "suitably nuanced." He said during Abe's 2006-7 tenure as prime minister, he "defied many of the same predictions by maintaining and even improving Japan's relations with its neighbors."
Abe's gestures to neighbors include sending an envoy to meet South Korean President-elect Park Geun-hye; announcing that his first overseas trip since winning office will be to Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand; and offering to supply the Philippines with 10 coast guard vessels and communications equipment to help Manila in its territorial dispute with China.