“I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered, and should be solved on a long term basis so they know what their future would be in this country,” Romney said after a campaign stop in Milford, New Hampshire.
I see nothing wrong with that.
“I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long term solution because an executive order is, of course, a short term matter and can be reversed by subsequent presidents,” Romney said.
So Romney, is in no way, agreeing with Obama’s action, today.
The article also stated:
“Romney has not come out in support of Rubio’s measure, saying only that the two have spoken about the proposed legislation.”
The point wasn’t that, it was the falsification of the title that the poster of this thread accused. If what he said is true, it was a dishonest change.
“should be solved on a long term basis so they know what their future would be in this country”
That’s the part of Willard’s quote I have a problem with.
If what he really said was “should be solved on a long term basis so they know what their future would be in THEIR OWN COUNTY, NOT OURS, AND THEREFORE ON MY FIRST DAY IN OFFICE I WILL RESCIND THIS INSANITY OF OBUMMERS AND ORDER THAT THEY BE REPATRIOTED TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN”, then I would have no problem with it.
I don’t like open-borders types whether they prefer a D after their names or an R.