Romney's top Hispanic surrogate: GOP must embrace immigration reform

The Hill ^ | November 14, 2012 | Cameron Joseph

[CutePuppy]

Former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mitt Romney's top Hispanic surrogate, is calling for the Republican Party to "modernize" and embrace comprehensive immigration reform in order to survive as a national party.

"We need to modernize. Modernization includes diversity. Obviously, immigration reform is part of that process of diversity," he told The Hill on Tuesday. "We are the party of growth, of business, of entrepreneurship, of innovation. We cannot continue to be that without an effective immigration policy."

Gutierrez, who chaired Romney's Hispanic Steering Committee during the GOP nominee's presidential campaign, blames Romney's rightward primary shift on immigration for his loss. Obama bested Romney among Hispanics, one of the nation's fastest-growing demographic groups, by a whopping 71 to 27 percent. That has led to calls from many prominent Republicans for the party to re-evaluate its position on immigration.

"The primary process has been taken over by the extremes," Gutierrez lamented. "The process forced Gov. Romney to be on the extreme right during the primaries and then in the general he had to work his way back to the center. The primaries gave the opposition so many talking points to use against Gov. Romney."

Gutierrez called his time as a Romney surrogate "very frustrating."

"What I learned throughout this whole process is that we as a party cause a great deal of fear for Hispanics, and not just in Hispanics but other immigrants too," he said. "I'd go on a Spanish-language show and defend the party, only to pick up the paper the next day and find some incredibly antiquated statements about immigrants from extremists in our party, things that almost sounded like they were from the 1920s. ... I was getting the question of self-deportation three days before the election. It never went away, even though the governor had moved and evolved and talked about a different position."

The former Cabinet official for then-President George W. Bush said that better immigration policy alone could not fix things for the party - but without comprehensive reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the party would continue to struggle with Hispanics, Asian-Americans and other fast-growing populations.

He said immigration reform is an "economic imperative" for the country.

"It's a strategic issue for the 21st century. It's not a tactical political issue," he said. "When I came to this country in 1960 as a refugee from Cuba, the one thing I remember is how welcome I felt, how much people wanted me to succeed. I think of these students, these 'DREAMers,' and the courage and will it takes to continue to study 18 hours a day and get good grades even though they don't know if they're going to be deported the next day. Those are the kind of people we want and have made this country. We need to accept that and understand if we get immigration right, the 21st century is ours. If we get it wrong ... what a shame."

[CutePuppy]

Giving amnesty to people who are here illegally and will then vote against you is not only immoral, it's suicidally counterproductive and will only rile up those who are jumping through bureaucratic hoops to immigrate or get a work visa in the U.S. legally.

He is also hitting all the buzzwords ("diversity," "modernization," "comprehensive reform," "pathway to citizenship," "undocumented immigrants") and deliberately confusing the issue by erasing the difference between political refugees (Cubans and others) and reconquistas from Central and South America.

That's the Bush-Romney "Hispanic surrogate" - 'nuff said?

[Gene Eric]

Exactly why must the Country grant anything to these foreign nationals?

[Utmost Certainty]

Shamnesty.

[onyx]

GO AWAY EVERYTHING and EVERYONE ROMNEY!

[Just mythoughts]

Well they gave us saint Ted Kennedy's deathcare reform might as well give us his amnesty reform. Then the majority can make Teddy a saint.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

"Severely conservative!"

"Electable!"

"Unskewedpolls.com!"

"Dick Morris!"

Man... everything even remotely related to Mitten's epic electoral belly flop is going to end up, decades from now, being recalled (with a barely repressed shudder) as the political equivalent of Earth shoes, or pet rocks, or the Starland Vocal Band.

At best. ;)

[Catsrus]

Are you telling me that Ted Kennedy hasn’t been made the patron saint of amnesty yet? I’m shocked!

[Arthur McGowan]

Former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mitt Romney's top Hispanic surrogate, is calling for the Republican Party to "buzzword" and embrace comprehensive immigration reform in order to survive as a national party. "We need to buzzword. Buzzword includes buzzword. Obviously, immigration reform is part of that process of buzzword," he told The Hill on Tuesday. "We are the party of buzzword, of buzzword, of buzzword, of buzzword. We cannot continue to be that without an effective immigration policy."

[ansel12]

Speaking of Massachusetts.

This is the REAL Mitt Romney on illegals.

My jaw dropped when I saw Mitt denying his illegals in the 2007 debate, and was not surprised what came of it a week later (well, surprised but not totally shocked).

Governor Mitt and wife Ann, were interacting with the Guatemalan illegals at their private home for 10 years. The landscaper that the illegals worked for, was a naturalized Colombian himself, personally chosen by Mitt, (A naturalized Colombian, Guatemalan illegals, and a sitting Governor during 4 years of that period), IDs better have been checked.

In December of 2006, the republican Governor was exposed, and suffered national embarrassment for using illegals for 10 years.

In December of 2007, in a national debate, Rudy Giuliani accused Mitt Romney of having run a “Sanctuary Mansion”. On national TV, Mitt Romney indignantly denied the claim.

A few days after the debate, the Boston Globe decided to look again at Mitt’s house, and guess what, they found Guatemalan illegals, they were working for the same Colombian, MITT HAD NEVER FIRED THEM!

Ten years and a national scandal, turned into 11 years, and into a second national scandal, with all the same players, the same “contractor”, Guatemalan illegals, and the same Mitt Romney and his wife interacting with them at their home during the week.

[Jack Hammer]

The illegals continue to demand unlimited immigration and total amnesty, coupled with some sort of perceived “right” to go to the head of the line, while those who wish to come here from Ireland, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Mali, Argentina, Ukraine and countless other nations fill out their forms and study English and wait. And wait. And wait.

[onyx]

He screwed over over my candidate, Newt Gingrich, and I had sworn in '07 I'd never vote for Romney, but when the demonic-rats voted against God and Jerusalem at their evil convention, I changed my mind and decided I had to vote against the Marxist by voting for Ryan/Romney and then came Benghazi which cemented the deal.

I thought R&R had an excellent chance of winning, until Romney wouldn't address Benghazi.

[Ann Archy]

ROMNEY DIDN'T WANT AMNESTY!!!! He was TOUGH on this....that's why he lost the Hispanic vote, supposedly!!

Our country is LOST...GONE....IMMORAL.

[Just mythoughts]

Are you telling me that Ted Kennedy hasn’t been made the patron saint of amnesty yet? I’m shocked!

Not yet. But he is now the official patron saint of Obama's 'deathcare' act. It would not surprise me in my lifetime there will be sufficient numbers voting to make old Ted Kennedy officially a US patron saint.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

until Romney wouldn't address Benghazi.

It's a mortal lock, guaranteed, that Newt sure as hell wouldn't have skittishly treated the bloody butchering of a U.S. ambassador, by yowling foreign savages, as an "Oopsie! Mustn't touch that, for heaven's sake!" election taboo.

I already knew Mittens was political toast, long before that... but: that WAS a ruinously costly (and absolutely, 110% avoidable) "own goal" error, without question.

[hosepipe]

more democrats or else....

[CutePuppy]

Are you telling me that Ted Kennedy hasn't been made the patron saint of amnesty yet? I'm shocked!

No, Ted Kennedy hasn't been, but according to this post by ansel12, maybe because JFK already has been:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2958740/posts?page=78#78 - FR, by ansel12, 2012 November 12

[nathanbedford]

There is not a single fact in this article, save one, that persuades me to the author's point of view. I have been saying since the election that we conservatives must not succumb to reactions about the debacle but must get good data. We have no data from this man. His opinion is utterly worthless. Opinion of this kind, whether coming from the right or the left, is of no value.

As noted above, there is one fact that is persuasive:

The former Cabinet official for then-President George W. Bush

George W. Bush is one of the big reasons we are in the fix we are in. It was not a Democrat but George Bush who signally failed at first to close the borders and enforce the laws against hiring illegal immigrants. I have never known for sure whether he did this as a cave in to the Chamber of Commerce or because he had a Mexican nanny as a child or a Hispanics sister-in-law. Whatever the reason, George Bush set us up for this catastrophe. How was the author, himself an Hispanic, advising George Bush while he was in the cabinet?

We need as conservatives to get good data. The questions have been asked, how do Hispanics actually vote on this issue, if we granted amnesty would we win the Hispanic vote? If we granted amnesty, do we have any assurance whatsoever that a whole new flood would not be encouraged? What does history teaches about the Hispanic vote in the last amnesty under Reagan? Did George Bush when his Hispanic votes because of his position on immigration and his lack of enforcement or for other reasons? Are Hispanics really the God-fearing, family oriented people who seek only jobs as has been advertised or are they a whole new class of dependency Democrats?

In the absence of data which answer some of these questions, we remain in the dark and vulnerable.

[onyx]

Well, it’s over now, he’s marked “loser” and we’re stuck with the Marxist unless he’s impeached.

[CutePuppy]

:-) Your transliteration is hilarious, but I think it can be further refined.

Former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mitt Romney's top Hispanic surrogate, is calling for the Republican Party to "buzzword" and embrace buzzword in order to survive as a national party. "We need to buzzword. Buzzword includes buzzword. Obviously, buzzword is part of that process of buzzword," he told The Hill on Tuesday. "We are the party of buzzword, of buzzword, of buzzword, of buzzword. We cannot continue to be that without an effective buzzword."

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

George W. Bush is one of the big reasons we are in the fix we are in. It was not a Democrat but George Bush who signally failed at first to close the borders and enforce the laws against hiring illegal immigrants.

Co-signed.

[Utmost Certainty]

Seconded.

[Just mythoughts]

I get greatly irritated over ‘amnesty’. While the majority of illegals here may well be from our southern border, they by no means are the only illegals here in the USA. And what is being stripped from legal citizens is that some of US have no other country of origin giving US legal entry status in return.

I think we should adopt the Mexican immigration law and see how that suits these open borders crowd. Whether they are for ‘human rights’ calling it social justice, to fill up pews or the wealthy seeking cheap labor to clip their lawns, clean their toilets, and change their babies dirty diapers. All of this is self serving for a few, while sticking US taxpayers with the bill to house and feed and educated their slaves.

[gotribe]

So think of it this way:

1. Given that obama is pro-muslim with a stated goal of righting America’s past “wrongs”
2. Given that obama leans toward muslims even with terrorist leanings
3. Given that obama supports far-left Statist rule as his means of achieving goals

How does immigration reform further these goals? How much of the illegal population in the U.S. will solidify his coalition for pro-terrorist, Statist rule?

[Happy Rain]

The vast majority of Hispanics are hard core socialists from socialists countries—they will always vote Democrat and giving them stuff to vote for Republicans works as well as giving blacks stuff to vote Republican—usefull as tits on a boar hog.
Even amnesty candidates like W and McCain barely got a third of their votes.

[Smokin' Joe]

I got your immigration reform--right here!

Close the border.

Deport those who are here illegally--period.

Any city or state which provides sanctuary can have their Fed funds cut to zero, across the board.

Not only would billions be saved in everything from 'social programs' to law enforcement, there just aren't many jobs Americans won't do any more.

[RightLady]

We’ve got to seal the boarder FIRST. After that we can take a look at things as they are , but until this is done there can be no negotiations and no reforms

[RightLady]

We’ve got to seal the boarder FIRST. After that we can take a look at things as they are , but until this is done there can be no negotiations and no reforms

[Smokin' Joe]

It was not a Democrat but George Bush who signally failed at first to close the borders and enforce the laws against hiring illegal immigrants.

FRiend, we have had an illegal alien problem since Eisenhower had Operation Wetback, and all of the presidents since (and all of their men), in turn, have failed to close the border. Neither party has had the will.

Sure, each of them has had the opportunity, and each is to blame, not just Bush. He was just the last we expected to do anything about the problem who failed.

[Smokin' Joe]

Precisely.

[CutePuppy]

How was the author, himself an Hispanic, advising George Bush while he was in the cabinet?

Gutierrez was one of the chief promoters of amnesty while serving in Bush cabinet.

If we granted amnesty, do we have any assurance whatsoever that a whole new flood would not be encouraged?

I think we can be pretty much assured that they would be more encouraged, because the pattern and the "comprehensive immigration" lingo will be set in stone. On the other hand, the issue pretty much died after 2010 elections, while the May 1 parades in 2009 and 2010, with Mexican and American flags were loud and promoted by media to the hilt. So if GOP can hold it off until 2014 by promoting their own version of reform, without amnesty, it's likely to have the result similar to 2010.

What does history teaches about the Hispanic vote in the last amnesty under Reagan?

The percentage of Hispanic vote was lower for George H.W. Bush in 1992 than it was in 1988 for Reagan, by about 5% (?).

We need as conservatives to get good data. The questions have been asked, how do Hispanics actually vote on this issue, if we granted amnesty would we win the Hispanic vote?

According to this, it's not a big issue for them (and we don't know how the issue breaks out in favor or against) - The GOP's Hispanic Opportunity (Hispanics rank immigration a lowly fourth in their list of concerns) - FR / NRO, by Rachel Campos-Duffy, 2012 November 13

Anecdotally, I personally know a few Hispanics who have been beneficiaries of Reagan amnesty and they are well assimilated, and are against amnesty (or at least that's what they tell me, voluntarily - I never asked or hinted at the interest). They don't like Obama but have been ambivalent on McCain and Romney (which makes them similar to many FReepers in this regard).

They are all "family-oriented" and care about the "poor" but I don't know their vote patterns on most issues, except that they are not in favor of SSM / "gay marriage."

They are not well-versed in politics or outside of their chosen field so may be confused about issues like "global warming" but they are generally receptive to explanations and do know the word propaganda very well.

I realize this is likely not a typical or "average" environ, so can make of it what you will, which is probably nothing. This is just a small sample of very limited experience.

In the absence of data which answer some of these questions, we remain in the dark and vulnerable.

Yes, but only if we, like Democrats, treat them as a "special" group, rather than parts of other, larger groups, such as age or economic (e.g., working middle class, working poor, freeloaders etc.) and manage the message accordingly.

[olezip]

"We need to modernize. Modernization includes diversity. Obviously, immigration reform is part of that process of diversity," he told The Hill on Tuesday. "We are the party of growth, of business, of entrepreneurship, of innovation. We cannot continue to be that without an effective immigration policy."

In 1986, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act was supposed to take care of our illegal immigration problem once and for all. The "amnesty" part was implemented, but the closing borders to stop illegal immigration was derailed. As a result, more illegals poured into the country without papers because they would get amnesty.

Now the problem of illegal aliens has grown at least ten fold. But we say to reward them by giving them citizenship in preference to the millions denied entry to this country because they followed the law.

The guilty who undermined the Simpson-Mazzoli Act have been rewarded. The Democrats gloss over this and demand that the USA reward those who would jump the line in front of those who obey the law. The Democrats have no interest in protecting our borders, or addressing a fair policy for the millions who wait. What a country!

[mosesdapoet]

When is the treatment of American citizens in Mexico and their rights vs US treatment of Mexicans going to be an issue when we discuss amnesty ?

Ever hear of reciprocal agreements ? These are arranged to protect the rights of American citizens working or living in other countries.

Why is it when it comes to citizens of other countries we are required to offer them the same privledges as we do to US citizens? But when it comes to US citizens who get in trouble or attempt to do business in other countries such as Mexico they do not get the same treatment their citizens get.

Americans can’t own coast land in Mexico. And get no title to it elsewhere. If they run out of cash they’ll get unceremoniously sent back or put in jail untill some relative comes up with the “fresh”. That’s just for starters as for granting them voting privledges yea let’s give Mexican citizens that right when American citizens vote in their elections .

[dalereed]

Fully enforce existing law and crucify anyone employing an illegal alien and they will all be gone in 60 days!!!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

crucify anyone employing an illegal alien

Okay, I don't ever, ever want ANYone blandly referring to me an "extremist" on this issue, ever again. ;)

[Caipirabob]

Get off your knees, Carlos, you're embarrassing all of us.

[dalereed]

If I had my way I would put a bounty on illegals, $100 alive, $500 dead!

Every military recruit coming out of boot canp would serve 6 months on the border to earn their marksmanship medal!

[lowbridge]

This is the sort of backstabbing we would have had to put up with if romney the RINO had been elected. See what kind of democrat lite he surrounded himself with? If romney had won, he would have been a one termer.

[I want the USA back]

Immigration reform would be good, but not the way the democrats want it.
Work, student and tourist visas should be required and rarely issued to people coming from middle east countries that hate us.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

There is a ‘pathway to citizenship’. It’s a legal pathway that doesn’t include illegal entry.

Acceptance of ‘diversity’ should also include accepting diversity in the political landscape - not trying to monopolize the political process by diluting your opposition out of existence - which is the goal of the left. They actually can’t stand diversity, unless it’s the kind of ‘diversity’ that leads a political monopoly for them.

[dalebert]

dont worry ..only 6 out of 10 are illegals...and law breakers..

[dalebert]

what other country leaves its borders open and ignores illegals then embraces them as citizens for breaking their laws....?????

[freekitty]

We don’t have to embrace anything; especially the PR firm lies.

[BaldJohn]

I remember this story was a load of crap then and is now. What is he supposed to do go card check people that work for someone else? The owner was his friend and had told Mitt there were no illegals working for him.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Immigration = More Poverty for America = More whining from the commie ‘RATS = More TAXES.

[Irenic]

Carlos, not a darn thing should be discussed until that border is secure. If not we will have a perpetual immigration problem.

Or, are you saying all immigrants should be able to freely cross our borders and collects our benefits, have our jobs?

If that’s the case, then Mexico needs to become a state and we start collecting federal income taxes off Mexican citizens..

[zerosix]

Ahem. I would like tp point people's attention to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are without JOBS!

That being said, why do we want to encourage those here illegally - and working - to not only stay but also make them legal. Not only that but make them citizens!

When you give something away, more people come to get it.

That's exactly what the pols on both sides are attempting to do, folks, give away our country!

Politicians work for US not the other way around!

Time to tell them that loud and clear, "You work for us and we're not letting you give our jobs and country to those here illegally, then you permit them to stay here and take our jobs!"

[zerosix]

Ahem. I would like tp point people's attention to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are without JOBS!

That being said, why do we want to encourage those here illegally - and working - to not only stay but also make them legal. Not only that but make them citizens!

When you give something away, more people come to get it.

That's exactly what the pols on both sides are attempting to do, folks, give away our country!

Politicians work for US not the other way around!

Time to tell them that loud and clear, "You work for us and we're not letting you give our jobs and country to those here illegally, then you permit them to stay here and take our jobs!"

[ansel12]

You admit the story is true at least.

Romney clung to his Guatemalan illegals through 2 national scandals as he ran a “Sanctuary Mansion”, during that period Mitt was a governor for 4 years of it, yet Romney still kept his boys safe from his security checks, even his running for president didn’t change their sanctuary status, yet a couple of local reporters could drive over and openly discuss their illegal status with Romney’s permanent (11 years, twice busted, 2 national scandals) landscapers.

His “friend” says that Mitt was lying about his claims of innocence and had never bothered to do anything about the illegals, and we have video of Mitt lying on national television about the 11 year situation, pretending that he had no idea what Giuliani was talking about.

[CutePuppy]

Politicians work for US not the other way around!

You would like to think that... Politicians have a slightly different perspective.

[zerosix]

Of course they do but I’m banking on the TEA Party to shake things up a bit.....and sold most of my stocks ahead of the Obama Crash today!