When President Trump threatened to release throngs of illegal immigrant detainees into America’s sanctuary cities last week, the media and Democrats went bonkers. While the scheme may not pass legal muster, it was “pure genius” as a political ploy.

The mere mention of this possibility caused award-winning artist and progressive activist Cher to take to Twitter and claim that if her hometown of Los Angeles, can’t take care of its roughly 50,000-person homeless population, “How Can it Take Care Of More?” 

Newsflash, Cher is absolutely right. Unchecked illegal immigration hurts all Americans, especially working- and lower-class Americans, regardless of ethnicity. 

Yet as Congressional Democrats search for Russian agents under every rock and in every crevice on Capitol Hill, they are purposely ignoring the very real crisis and national emergency unfolding in front of their eyes.

The sheer number of illegal immigrants bum-rushing the country’s southwest border speaks for itself. In March of 2019, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended or deemed inadmissible more than 103,000 aliens, the most in a single month since 2007. For FY 2019, the U.S. Border Patrol has already apprehended more than 361,000 aliens or more than 2,000 a day at the nation’s southern border. With six months left in FY 2019, that number could conceivably top 1,000,000. As a point of reference, in FY 2018 the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended just under 400,000 individuals in total at the southern border.

While the volume of illegal immigrant crossings is staggering, that is only a small part of the problem. The primary issue is the “make up of the flow.” An overwhelming majority of the illegal immigrants are coming from Central America, chiefly Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Many are traveling as family units (real or alleged) or as unaccompanied alien children, and an ever increasing percentage are claiming asylum, making it nearly impossible to return them in a timely manner, if at all.

The reason is simple: America’s immigration laws are outdated and ill-equipped to handle the present situation. As crafted currently, the laws are designed to repel single men from Mexico not those traveling as family units or unaccompanied children from Central America or those looking to game the asylum system. Hence, many of these migrants cannot be detained by authorities for any significant period of time and are thus released into the interior of the U.S. in a vast majority of the cases, never to be heard from again. Yes, our current immigration laws incentivize foreign nationals to come here illegally, because chances are they will get to stay indefinitely.

So when President Trump says “[w]e have the worst [immigration] laws of any country in the world. … You have to fix the asylum system, it’s ridiculous” – he is beyond right. Even TheWeek.com’s senior correspondent Damon Linker agrees. 

Now Democrats will tell you the solution to the current border crisis is “comprehensive immigration reform,” but that is not only a dishonest talking point designed to accomplish nothing, it is a logical farce.

Read more from Ford O'Connell at The Hill

Congressional Republicans will defer to President Trump on many things, but on foreign policy, they are more willing to assert themselves. That’s been clear in the aftermath of Trump’s announced withdrawal from Syria and the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. But a more subtle sign of the president’s loose grip on lawmakers was the emergence of an unlikely alliance against him that has been described by one of its participants as a sign of the “end times.”

Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., represent opposite poles of the GOP foreign-policy spectrum. Graham is hawkish, insisting that if we do not fight America’s enemies “over there,” we will instead face them “over here.” Paul is a skeptic of military intervention, especially in the Middle East, who argues the U.S. is fighting too many wars with too little congressional authorization.

On Saudi Arabia, the two of them are united: They want to punish Riyadh for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and are exasperated by the president’s unwillingness to confront Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Trump wants to continue to have a close relationship with the Saudi regime, which he views as an important counterweight to Iranian influence in the region.

Despite their ideological differences, Graham and Paul generally have taken a similar approach to dealing with Trump. They were very anti-Trump when they ran against him for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Paul called Trump an “orange-faced windbag” while Graham dubbed the businessman and reality TV star a “jackass” and a “kook.”

Trump repaid in kind. “He gave out one guy’s phone number and called the other guy a midget,” recalled Republican strategist Ford O’Connell. “If we nominate Trump,” Graham predicted during the campaign, “we will get destroyed … and we will deserve it.”

“You’ve got to understand how Paul and Graham went from Never Trumpers to people who have cracked the Trump matrix and have his ear,” said O’Connell. “When you disagree with a Trump position outside of your core issues, rather than running to CNN or MSNBC or to the first available mic to share your disgust, you keep your mouth shut, period. And when you agree with a Trump position outside of your core issues, you cheer on his position louder than he does and you sprint to a Trump-friendly media outlet and ring a cowbell as loud as you can.”

That’s how the two senators became frequent golfing buddies with the president despite frequently disagreeing with him.

Read more from W. James Antle III at the Washington Examiner

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been in plenty of public battles with President Trump, but this week's tense exchange between the two now have some thinking that Sessions may be on the way out.

Most Republicans continued to defend Sessions after his latest fight with Trump over Twitter, but a few cracks showed this time around — signs that the Senate is coming to grips with the idea of replacing Sessions in the near future.

One Trump ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., talked openly about the clock running out on Sessions after more than a year of Trump's obvious frustration with his attorney general.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who also warned last year that he wouldn’t hold a confirmation hearing for a new attorney general, signaled in an interview with Bloomberg News that he might be able to make time for a hearing.

Those reactions have some observers saying the writing is on the wall, and Sessions' career might be numbered in months.

Ford O’Connell, a political analyst and Republican strategist, told the Washington Examiner that he can’t imagine Trump firing Sessions before the midterms “because of the possible political blowback at the ballot box.”

“No need to insert another factor into the equation as Republicans fight to hold the House and Senate," he said. But after the election is a different story.

"Should Republicans hold the Senate following the midterms — the firing of Sessions is a very real possibility,” O’Connell said, pointing to Grassley and Graham’s recent comments.

Read more from Kelly Cohen at the Washington Examiner

Two Republican senators said Tuesday that they would support impeachment if President Donald Trump fires special counsel Robert Mueller while he investigates potential Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Yet, despite the dramatic ending of Trump's presidency being mooted by Republicans for the first time, there appears little prospect anytime soon of the threat gaining widespread acceptance within the president's party.

Trump ramped up his anti-Mueller rhetoric this week, prompting fears that the president was considering ousting the special counsel. The president tweeted Saturday that “[T]he Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was no collusion and there was no crime. It was based on fraudulent activities and a Fake Dossier paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC, and improperly used in FISA COURT for surveillance of my campaign” and called the investigation a “WITCH HUNT!”

Republican senators Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake, both of whom have leveled criticism against the president before, indicated that firing Mueller would be impeachable conduct. While neither senator represents the heart of the Republican establishment, their words send a message to the president that his party would not unanimously support him.

While Republican rank-and-file would prefer that the president allow Mueller to finish his investigation, “they also recognize gamesmanship of Democrats and never-Trump Republicans by proposing impeachment,” says Ford O’Connell, a Republican strategist who worked on Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign.

“Republicans are going to give Trump the leeway to try and discredit and turn public opinion against Mueller because they know that if Democrats win big in midterms, they’ll file impeachment papers.” Midterm elections tend to be base affairs, said O’Connell, “the folks who try to run from the president of either party wind up the ones that get slashed at the ballot.”

Read more form Nicole Goodkind at Newsweek

Donald Trump last night slammed Elizabeth Warren as a “goofy” Hillary Clinton “flunky” who based her career on a lie about her claims of a Native American heritage during a supercharged Twitter tirade.

Trump, a lock for the GOP nomination, took to social media to unleash his fury.

Minutes prior to calling Warren’s claims of Native American heritage into question, Trump said he would be happy to see Clinton — the Democratic front-runner — pick Warren as her running mate.

Republican strategist Ford O’Connell said depending on what that probe turns up, it could still be “a real ace in the hand” for Trump — though he said establishment Republicans like Graham saying they won’t vote for him or attend the Republican convention this July are giving Clinton ammunition.

Read more from Brian Dowling at the Boston Herald

Less than 50 days before the New Hampshire primary, several Republican presidential candidates are looking for big endorsements that might make a difference in one of the most exciting presidential races in history.

Big names including 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley have yet to endorse in the race.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a favorite in New Hampshire who won the state's primary in 2008, also could be looking to endorse after Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) decision on Monday to leave the race.

Polls show businessman Donald Trump, who has dominated the Republican race, with a commanding lead in New Hampshire.

The RealClearPolitics average of polls shows Trump with more than double the support of Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.), his nearest competitors. 

Still, there's time for a challenger to topple Trump, expecially if Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) manages to win the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1.

Neither Cruz nor Trump is a candidate the GOP establishment wants to embrace, leaving several other Republicans to vie for that crown.

Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are all hoping to break out in New Hampshire. 

Here’s a look at the top names who might be able to help them with an endorsement.

John McCain

Graham’s exit from the race on Monday has freed up the GOP’s 2008 nominee to take his support elsewhere and potentially assist in foiling the hopes of Cruz, who he has called a “wacko bird.”

McCain, who has won New Hampshire in two presidential primaries, will make a strong surrogate for someone in the Granite State. He campaigned hard for Graham there, despite the long odds Graham faced.

McCain brings instant credibility among veterans and establishment-minded Republicans alike.

“It’s hard to know if he’s a great endorsement in this era of strong anti-establishment sentiment,” said Republican strategist Ford O’Connell. “But he brings an aura of competence and he’s someone that a lot of mainstream Republicans have confidence in.”

Read more from Jonathan Easley at The Hill

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s exit from the race for the Republican presidential nomination may sound like a “so what?” moment for anybody who only focuses on national polls to formulate political predictions, but his departure frees up at least one supporter who could play an important role in the nation’s first primary state: John McCain. The Arizona senator who had closely aligned himself to Graham's White House bid can now lend his support to any other candidate he pleases, and that vote of confidence could be a powerful message to voters in New Hampshire, a state that has been good to McCain in the past.

“Even though the John McCain style is out of vogue in this election cycle, the one place he has a big impact is in New Hampshire,” Ford O’Connell, a political strategist who worked for McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, said, referring to McCain's general reputation as a traditional and respectful politician (the 2008 general contest not withstanding). O’Connell said that Graham and McCain have a long history together, and that the South Carolinian also spent a lot of time on the 2008 campaign trail to help boost his Southwest colleague's odds.

With that said, it is still unclear who might win McCain’s favor now that Graham has called it quits. The 2008 nominee may not throw his weight behind anyone else before the New Hampshire primary occurs, O’Connell. Instead, he’ll likely wait it out while commenting on their specific policy proposals. If there’s anyone who McCain seems most likely to agree with – and it is definitely possible he could still make a last minute decision in the week between the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire to tip the scales against Donald Trump – it would likely be one of two candidates who have been rising recently in polls.

“I promise you that, whoever he backs, it will not be Donald Trump,” he said. “I see McCain weighing in on issues, but, you know, if you had to look: I think [New Jersey Gov. Chris] Christie and [Florida Sen. Marco] Rubio are likely.”

Read more from Clark Mindock at International Business Times

The Republican 2016 hopefuls relegated to Wednesday’s preliminary GOPpresidential debate have a new sense of urgency after their ranks were culled last week with the withdrawal of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry from the race and the elevation of one of their own, Carly Fiorina, to the main stage.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and former New York Gov. George Pataki are all hoping to score the kind of performance that will help them emulate Ms. Fiorina. But operating low-budget campaigns without the kind of attention reserved for the big-name candidates, they are in danger of following Mr. Perry, who flamed out last week.

Most of the attention will go to the 11 candidates in the main event at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. The preliminary affair begins at 6 p.m. East Coast time, while the main debate begins after 8 p.m.

Debates can be crucial for cash-strapped candidates who are looking to gain some traction against some of their better-funded rivals. And being part of the preliminary debate could even be beneficial for the four lower-tier candidates, because they’ll get more airtime per person to make their pitch, compared to the 11-person free-for-all that will ensue later.

But Ford O’Connell, a GOP strategist, said it will be tough for the candidates to make gains.

“I don’t know that any of them can get out of the losers’ table,” Mr. O’Connell said. “I mean, seriously, they might need an act of God.

“For Fiorina, she is a special case. She is the only female in the field, and she presented herself well. The others are careers politicians, and the voters are not up for a career politician being up there right now,” he said.

Read more from Seth McLaughlin at The Washington Times

Republican insiders are reconciling themselves to the idea that Donald Trump won’t be exiting the stage anytime soon — and their main concern now is limiting his damage to their party.

The GOP establishment is almost universally hostile to Trump, who has soared in the 2016 polls on the back of his celebrity, his outspoken statements on immigration and trade deals, and media coverage of his antics.

Many party strategists believe Trump did himself serious damage with his recent remarks denigrating Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) experiences while a prisoner of war in Hanoi, Vietnam — but there is not yet conclusive polling evidence available.

Meanwhile, Trump has made clear that he has no serious intention of reining in his rhetoric — or curbing his propensity to tweak the nose of anyone who displeases him. On Tuesday, shortly after fellow White House contender Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had referred to the businessman as a “jackass,” Trump read out Graham’s cellphone number on live television during a campaign event in the senator’s home state.

Among Washington Republicans, the hope is that voters will tire of such comments and that Trump will have to push his boat out into ever-murkier waters to continue to command attention.

Yet others note that Trump’s fortune, which he says is in excess of $10 billion, gives him leeway that long-shot candidates of the past did not have.

“Herman Cain didn’t have $10 billion,” said another GOP strategist, Ford O’Connell. “Other candidates say things like ‘I’m dropping out because I don’t see a path to win.’ But they dropped out usually because they were out of money ... [Trump] can stay as long as he wants.”

Read more from Niall Stanage at The Hill

Donald Trump quickly earned the scorn of many veterans' groups this weekend with his controversial comments about Sen. John McCain's military service.

But the irony is that the unpredictable Trump is still likely to make it into the Fox News debate next month. And if he does, he will quite possibly bump off the stage one of the only two Republican candidates who are military veterans: former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The other veteran, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, is not close to the threshold for inclusion, but having neither Graham nor Perry on stage is sure to be an issue.

According to the Washington Post's most recent calculations, Perry just barely makes the cut for the Aug. 6 debate; the candidates on stage will be the top 10 from an average of the five latest national polls. Last week, Perry ranked 11th and looked like he would miss the debate, while Graham is further down. New polls are being released that could change that formula, but Perry is on the bubble.

The potential slight to the two Air Force veterans also comes at a time when national security is a big issue among voters. Now some Republicans are worrying about denying the vets' voice while giving Trump his greatest megaphone yet.

"It has the potential to become a sideshow on an important issue for Republican voters," said GOP strategist Ford O'Connell, who worked on McCain's 2008 campaign for president. "Graham and Perry pretty much stay above the fray. With Trump, he's just so unpredictable and is running an entire campaign on emotion."

Read more from Jessica Taylor at NPR