Today, the White House hosted a conference call with Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) Janet Napolitano to discuss the DREAM Act. Napolitano, a former border governor, declared that the DREAM Act will actually help DHS enforce the law. According to Napolitano, though the DREAM Act is “not a substitute for immigration reform,” it is a positive first step that will have a significant impact on immigration enforcement and national security:

I think the DREAM Act will actually help us improve immigration enforcement. [...] It would actually complement the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts [to prioritize criminal aliens]. [...] I urge congress to pass the DREAM Act. I urge the congress to set aside old labels that don’t mean anything.

Back during the Bush administration, the Department of Homeland Security blindly tried to deport as many undocumented immigrants as possible. Since DHS only has a finite set of resources, Bush’s strategy simply wasn’t an efficient use of money and manpower in terms of national security. Since Napolitano took over DHS, the agency has changed its priorities to focus on securing the border, punishing employers who hire undocumented labor, and capturing dangerous undocumented immigrants.

The DREAM Act “complements” DHS’ immigration enforcement activities precisely because it allows the agency to funnel even more of its resources towards pursuing threats and keeping the country safe rather than tracking down and removing promising college students. Napolitano explained that by granting young undocumented the opportunity to regularize their status, DHS will be able to “prioritize to an even greater extent the enforcement of our immigration laws” and go after drug smugglers and human traffickers. Napolitano described DREAM Act students “the least culpable” undocumented immigrants caught in the broken immigration system since they were brought to the U.S. through no fault of their own. “The DREAM ACT would allow us to further target our efforts against those who are culpable,” concluded Napolitano.

When asked if DHS is willing to declare a moratorium on deportations until immigration reform is passed, Napolitano flatly responded, “no.” “Our job is to enforce the law and we’re going to continue to do that,” affirmed Napolitano.

Our guest blogger is Nina Hachigian, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

China not our Lapdog! Is this really an insight deserving of major real estate on the front page of the Sunday New York Times’ Week in Review?

The Times proclaims that “the United States is heading into a future in which countries like China, with independent sources of power, are not reliant on or easily influenced by the United States, and so are pursuing their own national interests.” Their own national interests! Shocking! The piece continues that “a new reality” is emerging: “a Sino-American relationship that…must be carefully calibrated to balance American demands against what Beijing can realistically be persuaded to do.” Right. And the punch-line is…?

Most of the piece rehearses such truisms, but it is actually misleading when it suggests that the Obama Administration had not fully grasped national interest as the basic driver of major power diplomacy from Day One. The China policy veterans in charge are well-steeped in the difficulties of persuading China, not to mention privy to the internal opinions of the Chinese government of the sort that Wikileaks has released (contradicting the Times’ assertion that a divided Korea is necessarily the best guarantor of China’s long-term interests, for example).

These professionals, with decades of experience, understand the challenge of trying to leverage China. They do not just “push, prod and cajole,” though those steps are part of the meat and potatoes of diplomacy. They use a variety of creative incentives and disincentives, including making common cause with other nations. The Administration has been able to make progress in a number of areas, including in getting China to agree to a tough UN sanctions package against Iran, despite, as Cooper notes, Beijing’s need for energy from that country.

The New York Times is not alone here. Much of the media has failed to get the narrative of China policy in this Administration. Obama was neither naïve about what he could get from China nor intimidated by Beijing when he entered office. He was making a conscious choice to reverse the tradition of American presidents to come into office swearing tough action against China just to have to awkwardly reverse course a year or two later when confronted with the cold reality of how interdependent the US and China are. Read more