RUTHFULLY YOURS

Donald Trump, who leapt to the front of the Republican presidential field with his tough immigration stance, promises to deport every illegal immigrant residing in the country in less than two years, with the help of a “deportation force” — and, naturally, critics are warning of jackbooted thugs and midnight raids. There is no need for either. Much of our problem can be resolved through more modest — and less inflammatory — measures.

Estimates from the Center for Migration Studies and the Pew Research Center show that, of the 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, approximately 2.5 million arrived after Barack Obama’s inauguration. Yet the overall number of illegal immigrants in the country has remained fairly static, meaning that illegal immigrants have been coming and going in about equal numbers. Why? Because, contrary to much political rhetoric, many illegal immigrants are not here to stay, and so are very sensitive to incentives: When the prospect of profitable work outweighs the risk of falling afoul of law enforcement, they come; when it doesn’t, they leave.

Being attacked by Donald Trump is one of journalism’s more exhilarating experiences. We got the treatment on Thursday when he took to various TV shows and Twitter with his usual soft sell and demanded corrections, apologies and resignations after our editorial reference to his trade policy. We haven’t had this much fun since Eliot Spitzer left office.

Mr. Trump isn’t upset that we called him potentially the Republican Party’s “most protectionist nominee since Hoover.” Perhaps he took that as a compliment. He’s mad because he says we said that he didn’t know that China isn’t part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

But we didn’t say that. We wrote that judging from his debate remarks Tuesday “it wasn’t obvious that he has any idea what’s in” TPP. It still isn’t. Here’s the debate transcript after Mr. Trump was asked by moderator Gerard Baker about the candidate’s opposition to TPP and why he would “reverse more than 50 years of U.S. trade policy”?

Mr. Trump: “The TPP is a horrible deal. It is a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. It’s a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone. It’s 5,600 pages long, so complex that nobody’s read it. It’s like ObamaCare; nobody ever read it. They passed it; nobody read it. And look at the mess we have right now. And it will be repealed.

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama’s biggest campaign donors are mostly sitting on the sidelines of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary so far, not opening their wallets in support of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Almost four-fifths of the people who gave the 2012 maximum $5,000 to the president’s re-election committee hadn’t donated to a presidential candidate by Oct. 1, a Wall Street Journal analysis of federal campaign finance records found.

In interviews ahead of this Saturday’s Democratic debate in Iowa, donors said Mrs. Clinton, the party’s front-runner, hadn’t motivated them to give the way Mr. Obama and previous Democratic candidates had. Still others said they are put off by the larger role of super PACs and that their donations to candidates, which are limited in this election cycle to $5,400 for the eventual nominee, just don’t matter much anymore.
“I’m just not ready for Hillary yet,” said Robert Finnell, a Rome, Ga., lawyer who gave the maximum allowed contribution to Mr. Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns and gave significant sums to 2008 hopeful John Edwards and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry. “It’s not that I don’t think she’s competent—she is competent, she’s just hard to like.”

The donors’ reluctance could be a troubling trend for Mrs. Clinton. They are some of the easiest prospective contributors to identify, given that their names are on Mr. Obama’s campaign disclosure reports, and that they’ve already made a habit of cutting checks to politicians.

In the fourth televised GOP primary debate last night, eight Republican candidates for president laid out their positions as they sparred over taxes, immigration, government spending, and to a lesser extent, foreign policy.

They clashed heatedly over what it means to be a conservative and the immigration issue, particularly amnesty.

The debate venue was the same storied Milwaukee auditorium where Theodore Roosevelt gave a 90-minute speech Oct. 14, 1912 after being shot in the chest by a deranged saloonkeeper. Roosevelt, who served as president from September 1901 to March 1909 as a Republican, was campaigning at the time for president on the Progressive Party ticket.

Last night’s debate was — fortunately — less eventful.

It was also the best, most business-like of the four GOP primary debates so far.

It stood in stark contrast to the televised firing squad 10 Republican contenders faced on CNBC on Oct. 28. That was the debacle of a debate in which moderators acted like prosecutors cross-examining hostile witnesses and obnoxiously playing candidates off against each other.

Unlike left-wing CNBC charlatan John Harwood, the moderators of Fox Business Network last night recognized it was their job to elicit answers and facilitate constructive conversations, not oversee gladiatorial combat. FBN anchors Maria Bartiromo and Neil Cavuto, along with Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker, were well-behaved, reasonable, and professional. (The main debate transcript is available here.)

One of the evening’s more interesting multi-debater exchanges came when Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) trolled Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) over foreign policy and child tax credits.

After Baker told Rubio his tax plan includes a significant expansion of child tax credits that would raise the incomes of struggling parents, the moderator asked if there was “a risk you’re just adding another expensive entitlement program to an already over-burdened federal budget?”

Rubio stressed the paramountcy of the family in American society and said he was “proud” of his child tax credit increase, which he said was part of a “pro-family tax plan” that would strengthen the family unit.

Paul interjected, perhaps thinking of himself an an ideological gatekeeper like William F. Buckley Jr., saying,

We have to decide what is conservative and what isn’t conservative. Is it fiscally conservative to have a trillion-dollar expenditure? We’re not talking about giving people back their tax money. He’s talking about giving people money they didn’t pay. It’s a welfare transfer payment … Add that to Marco’s plan for $1 trillion in new military spending, and you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative.

Rubio shot back, saying “this is their money” that Americans have paid. Using an argument often employed by left-wingers, the senator said his program would allow parents to “invest” in their children, “in the future of America and strengthening your family … [the] most important institution in society.”

Paul replied, “Nevertheless, it’s not very conservative, Marco.”

Rubio said he wanted to rebuild the military and slammed Paul as “a committed isolationist.” Rubio added, “I’m not. I believe the world is a stronger and a better place, when the United States is the strongest military power in the world.”

Milwaukee — It was, at last, a debate about policy. If the emergence of Donald Trump and the efforts of previous debate moderators to pit candidates against each other have forestalled the policy arguments that typically characterize Republican primary contests, Fox Business Network’s debate on Tuesday brought them to the fore.

Less than three months before voters go to the polls in January, the candidates clashed on some of the major issues that have divided the Republican party over the past six years: The night’s big moments did not come from one candidate trashing another, but from policy exchanges, first on immigration and then on defense spending. After months of headlines dominated by a real-estate mogul-cum-reality-television star, it was a welcome change of pace.

The event was steady and studious, and the upshot was predictable — an evening that did little to alter the trajectories of individual candidates or the broader narrative of the race. In the course of two hours there were no knockout punches, no major gaffes, no made-for-opposition-research moments. Each of the candidates went silent for a stretch, but none completely disappeared as in previous debates — perhaps because the stage had shrunk to only eight, the smallest primetime grouping to date.

Here’s what I learned at Tuesday night’s Fox Business Republican debate.

1. If John Kasich is elected president, I will sell my television set. I’ve already seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame at least a dozen times.

2. Carly Fiorina is a good debater. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are even better debaters.

3. I wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole with Rand Paul.

4. The biggest spendthrifts in America are Jeb Bush bundlers.

5. Ben Carson talks slowly.

6. Donald Trump likes to hang out in green rooms.

In other words, nothing much new. Still it was entertaining. Moderators Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo and Gerard Baker did a fine job, devoid of self-promotion and thus far superior to their predecessors at the other networks. It wasn’t their fault it wasn’t all that substantive in the end. It never is. It’s the nature of the format. Eight is still too many people. How about four or five next time?

Who won? The New York Times said Rand Paul, which means he didn’t. Frank Luntz’s focus group of actual New Hampshire Republican voters gave it to Rubio in a walk. I tend to agree, with Cruz a close second. Marc Thiessen said on The Kelly File that Rubio would be the strongest GOP candidate in the general because he would seem like JFK debating Hillary’s Nixon. Actually, I think Hilary’s worse than Nixon, but he’s got a point.

It’s sad watching most Republican candidates promise to make cuts in federal spending without ever actually telling us where the cuts would occur. They mention some big number and then promise us that over eight or ten years it would be cut. But their claims have about as much credibility as Carly Fiorina’s vague tax plan, which is mysteriously floating somewhere on YouTube.

All that changed last night, however, when Ted Cruz called for the elimination of the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Commerce, and Education, as well as the IRS. The liberal media will be focusing on the fact that he mentioned eliminating Commerce twice. I prefer to focus on the merits of what he has announced.

The Department of Energy. We have a Department of Energy that generates no energy. Instead, the DOE distributes nearly $30 billion (as of 2012) to research “clean” energy. In other words, it’s a slush fund for Democratic cronies like Solyndra who want taxpayer funding for windmills and solar panel technology that is hopelessly uneconomical. Here’s an idea: let the private sector research energy alternatives. They did a fine job of it long before the DOE came along. Cruz is right to call for its elimination.