Today, grassroots activists from the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) staged a sit-in and rally at the Republican National Committee offices to demand a meeting with Chairman Michael Steele. Within 20 minutes, Steele agreed to schedule a meeting with the demonstrators on March 31st.

Meanwhile, on Fox News today, Steele implied that he’s been meeting with activists for the past seven to eight months — which seems hard to believe given the fact that FIRM advocates felt the need to stake out the offices of RNC headquarters in order to get the chairman to agree to a meeting. Nevertheless, Steele did indicate that he’s concerned about the way his party has presented itself on the immigration issue and affirmed that the GOP is a Party of assimilation and apple pie:

I have been having discussions with leadership and with activist groups around the country on the immigration issue now for about seven or eight months. I have been very concerned about how we are positioned rhetorically, as well as from a political and policy side to make sure that we are working with our leadership on the hill and activists on the ground.

We are the Party of assimilation. We are the Party that has always stood for welcoming people. We got away from that in 06 and 08 and paid a dear price for it as you know. We shouldn’t be in the business of alienating Americans, but welcoming them. And showing that this is the process that’s expected to come here. This is the door you come through, the paper you fill out. Have a piece of apple pie, sing the star-spangled banner and get to work.

Watch it:

Advocates are probably eager to meet with Steele on the more specific issue of finding another Republican co-sponsor for comprehensive immigration reform. Currently, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is the lone Republican working on an immigration reform bill with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Graham has repeatedly stated that will not allow the bill to be brought to the floor unless they can find another Republican co-sponsor. GOP volunteers haven’t exactly been forthcoming and FIRM is likely planning on lighting a fire under Steele. “The Republican Party must reject the obstructionist tactics that are alienating mainstream Americans and killing any hopes for a larger, more diverse party in the future,” states FIRM in its press release.

Though Steele is certainly seeking to soften the rhetoric of the Republican Party on immigration, it’s unclear if gentler words will lead to any action. Back in 2008, Steele affirmed that there would be no change in the Republican Party’s enforcement-only platform when it comes to immigration. According to Steele, at the time, “the GOP’s position on immigration is very much the position of many, many Hispanics who are in this country.” When polled, 87% of Latino voters said they would not vote for a congressional candidate who supported deportation policies.

The UK elections are quickly approaching and while for months the odds on favorite to win was conservative David Cameron, the polls are now tightening. However, should Cameron hold on and win, Britain’s place in Europe may be in the balance – and as a result so will the “special relationship” between the UK and the United States.

Cameron has marketed himself as a new type of Tory. He says he is socially progressive, concerned about the environment, and is a man of the people – think “compassionate conservative.” But when it comes to the European Union, Cameron has increasingly gone tea-party by aligning himself with the jingoistic views of Europe held by the UK’s far right. Last Fall, Cameron made the decision to pull the UK conservatives out of the mainstream conservative block in the European Parliament, choosing to align them with a rag-tag bunch of fringe right wing parties, some with deeply anti-semetic, anti-gay, and racist views. This move essentially condemns UK conservatives to irrelevancy in the European Parliament and Europe in general. What is troubling is that this was after all the entire point of Cameron’s decision, making it a thinly disguised effort to shore up his right flank politically by demonstrating his commitment to an anti-European agenda. But even if this is just electoral politics, David Gardner of the Financial Times warns:

The decision to withdraw from the EPP, moreover, was low on substance and high on opportunism. Mr Cameron needed to secure his right flank to assure he won the party leadership, so he tossed some red meat to the Tory backwoodsmen. They will be back for more.

A Cameron victory therefore will likely mean irrelevancy in Europe not just for the Tories but for the UK. Cameron’s decision to pull out of the conservative bloc, his efforts to block the Lisbon Treaty, and his calls for the UK to renegotiate its terms of membership in Europe, were all widely rebuked by European leaders. Should Cameron win and follow through on some of his promises it would essentially make the UK a fringe player in the 27-member European club.

The problem for the United States, however, is that Cameron’s anti-European stance would only serve to make Britain less relevant to the United States. The fact is that the UK is just not as relevant to the United States if it is on the sidelines of Europe.

British debates presenting UK relationships with the US and Europe, as competing alternatives offer a false and outdated choice. In case the UK hasn’t noticed, US policy toward Europe has shifted away from the divide and rule (old vs. new Europe) approach of the first Bush term. The US now wants Europe as a whole to do more globally, not less. As IHT’s Roger Cohen explained:

Euroskeptic Tory obsession could undermine British influence in Europe at a time when the Obama administration needs an effective E.U. partner.

This shift is also not isolated to Obama. The second term of the Bush administration placed more emphasis on rebuilding ties with European leaders like French President Nikolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Now, the UK-US relationship is still immensely important to the US – the UK has thousands of troops fighting alongside the US and Prime Minister Gordon Brown played a pivotal role in the global response to the international economic crisis – but there has been a noticeable shift in Washington’s attention toward the continent. Prior to the Iraq war, Tony Blair attempted to label Britain as a “pivotal power.” What he meant was that Britain played a crucial global role in its ability to act as interlocutor between the US and Europe. Yet the damage caused to UK-European relations in the wake of the Iraq war reduced the UK’s ability to play this role, which has also led to a subtle decline in the relative importance of the “special relationship” to Washington.

The UK press may clamor about the supposedly warm personal interaction between Obama and Cameron, but while personal rapport matters on some level, it certainly doesn’t compensate for growing international irrelevance. Without its place in Europe, Britain will still be an important and close ally for the U.S. But with its military forces increasingly depleted and looming cuts in defense spending due to stark budget deficits, a Euro-skeptic Britain certainly brings an underwhelming stack of chips to the special relationship.

Speaking this morning at the 2010 policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the Obama administration’s support for Israel, declaring that, “for President Obama, for me, and for this entire administration, our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s future is rock solid.”

Secretary Clinton also briefly addressed the recent tension between the U.S. and Israel over Israel’s announcement of new Jewish housing in occupied Jerusalem:

New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need. It exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region could hope to exploit. And it undermines America’s unique ability to play a role — an essential role, I might add — in the peace process. Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don’t agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally.

Clinton’s assertion that praise and criticism of both sides is appropriately expressed in public could be taken as a direct rejoinder to the AIPAC’s new president Lee Rosenberg, who said in a speech yesterday that “allies should work out their differences privately.” This is the usual AIPAC line, and it’s never made much sense to me. Were Israel’s construction of settlements taking place in private, that would be one thing. But it’s not — the settlements, and the resentment and extremism that they help drive, are very public.

Likewise, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s stiff-arming of the Obama administration on a settlement freeze (something to which Israel had previously committed under the road map) was very out in the open, so it makes sense that any U.S. response should be too. The U.S.-Israel relationship is indeed important, but not at the cost of U.S. credibility. And when a smaller partner dictates which parts of past agreements they feel like observing, as Israel continues to do in regard to settlements, U.S. credibility suffers.

Yesterday, approximately 200,000 people gathered at the National Mall to show their support of comprehensive immigration reform. Roy Beck, director of the immigration restrictionist group, NumbersUSA, decided to add himself to the mix and report on the event via a live stream that was available on the group’s website. According to Anne Manetas of NumbersUSA, a group of female mimes threatened Beck and his bodyguards with “constant efforts at crushing physical intimidation” instigated by “blowing hateful whistles” and waving balloons.

Watch NumbersUSA’s video of the hateful mimes:

However, that doesn’t explain why Beck’s bodyguard is the one who ended up being arrested and charged with assault yesterday. Lena Graber, one of the three mimes who pressed charges against Beck’s bodyguard, talked with Wonk Room this morning. Graber explains that she and four other mimes followed Beck and his crew around for four hours in an effort to prevent Beck from picking a fight with demonstrators. According to Graber, Beck’s bodyguard pulled out a pocket knife and started popping the mimes’ balloons. Graber cannot provide details on the assault charges filed by the other two mimes, but she did provide an account of what happened to her yesterday:

They were pretty aggressive and they would sort of elbow us out of the way and say “Don’t touch me” as they were doing so. One of the bodyguards had white makeup all over his elbow and he was all upset that the mimes had gotten makeup on him…but our makeup was on our faces and I wasn’t face-bunting anyone so I felt like that was more incriminating evidence than anything else.

We each started with about 15 balloons that were on ribbons and the taller bodyguard had a pocket knife and he would grab the balloons and pop them with the knife. And at one point when I still had a lot of balloons they were tied around my upper arm…and I felt this yank on my arm where they were tied around. And I turned and he was pulling on all of the ribbons…so that was the only time I talked, I said “OW, that hurts. That’s attached to my arm, stop that.” And he didn’t stop and so I screamed as loud as I could. [...]

Listen:

Graber also stated one of Beck’s cameramen remarked, “well, I guess I’ve never been followed around by five women all day — even better they’re not talking.” Another witness who did not want to be named confirmed Graber’s account and described the mimes’ behavior as “completely whimsical in nature — never threatening.” Both Graber and the witness confirmed that the “hateful whistles” were actually just small plastic whistles in the shape of a soccer ball.

Deepak Bhargava of the Center for Community Change, one of the march’s organizers, tells Wonk Room:

“In pressing our case for immigration reform this year, one of our main efforts will be to be forcing our leaders to take sides – will they stand with hate mongers like Roy Beck or will they stand with hardworking Americans who want immigration reform. Our movement brought 200,000 people to Washington to press a message of hope and make our case peacefully and positively. The tea party brought a few hundred the day before to hurl racial epithets and slurs at Congress and the President. Roy Beck brought thugs — one of whom was arrested for assault — to a peaceful march. It’s time for our leaders to decide who they stand with.”

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, another restrictionist group, reports that Beck “filed assault charges with the Park Police against all the mimes and their SEIU handlers.” Aside from the alleged assault on behalf of Beck’s bodyguard, yesterday’s march was orderly and peaceful.