Posted on 03/14/2007 10:47:18 AM PDT by JohnnyZ
Add immigration to the long list of hesitations conservatives ought to have about Mitt Romney.
What he thinks ought to be done about the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country depends on whether you asked him POC (pre-official candidacy) or AOC (after-official candidacy).
Back in 1994, when the U.S. Senate, not the Oval Office, was in Romney’s sights, he said in those now infamous (on YouTube anyway) debates with Sen. Edward Kennedy: “I do not believe that we should deny all services to people who come here from across the border.”
And more recently, but still POC, Romney told the Lowell Sun in March 2006, “I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let’s have them registered, know who they are. Those who’ve been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn’t be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.”
Now, given the immigration sweep fiasco which just took place in Romney’s home state (where mothers were among those rounded up from a New Bedford factory while children were left without adequate care) the former governor’s position of March 2006 was positively prescient. Whatever your views of immigration and border control, the impracticality of prying illegal immigrants who are already here (and whose children are citizens by virtue of their birth on American soil) out of our communities (and our economy) is obvious.
Equally obvious to Romney, though, was the need to conservativize (I know that’s not a word, but it should be) his credentials on immigration. He couldn’t very well run as the GOP’s alternative to Sen. John McCain if his position on illegal immigration were virtually identical, now could he?
Enter AOC Romney. In February on “This Week,” George Stephanopoulos asked Romney whether illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship. The answer? “No.”
Then at the Conservative Political Action Annual Conference earlier this month, Romney denounced McCain’s plan as a taxpayer giveaway that amounts to amnesty.
“McCain-Kennedy isn’t the answer,” he said.
So what is?
Well, Romney’s common-sense positions against granting in-state tuition rates and driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, he says, will offer insight to his approach. He’s right on those two policies, but relatively minor legislative skirmishes shed little light on the reality of what to do about the workers at Michael Bianco Inc., their families and the millions like them elsewhere in the U.S.
But the most galling part of Romney’s immigration pandering is that he may advocate an end to citizenship for the children of illegals born on American soil.
“It’s something which I’m looking at,” he told Stephanopoulos. “I think it’s an important and valid topic.”
Really? Then why didn’t Romney bring it up earlier this week when he addressed Miami-Dade Republicans in Florida? “As president, I will stand side-by-side with the members of this community in fighting the menace of the Cuban monsters,” Romney said, according to published reports. But he said not a word about the “menace” of illegal immigration. That wouldn’t be because of Florida’s influential Hispanic voting bloc, would it?
“He’s going to have problems in South Florida,” said Miami-Dade County Commissioner Jose “Pepe” Diaz.
According to recent polls, Romney’s having problems everywhere. The reason is obvious. On taxes, abortion, gay rights and now immigration, Romney’s switch in positions POC to AOC have made his credibility DOA.
Romney told the Lowell Sun in March 2006, “I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country.
RINO LOSER!!
He does know how to play to his audience, doesn't he?
This isn't really inconsistancies. Few people want to round up people at gunpoint and haul them out of the country, and that isn't inconsistant with not giving citizenship to children of illegals, or even not offering a "path to citizenship" specifically for illegals.
There are two questions to be answered for illegals in the country: first, do you let them get into line at all for citizenship, even in the back of the line?
And two, if you DO let them in line, to you kick them out while they wait to get to the front of the line, if it is clear they will be acceptable when they make it to the front of the line?
The law-and-order types argue that we should throw them out of the country. I personally think that if a family is living, working, has a house, is paying taxes, isn't a burden to society, doesn't even HAVE a place to "go home to" because they've been living here the last 10 years, and it's clear their skills and willingness to follow our laws (except the one about not being here), their learning english, etc. are exactly what we want in the people we approve -- why throw them out?
We have programs that would, if they had applied, allow such a family INTO the country under a work visa or green card, while they waited in line or citizenship. Absent evidence that this family is a burden to our country (for example, they shouldn't be collecting any welfare or food stamps or government service, they should have their own medical insurance, etc.), it just seems spiteful to force them to give up their lives, their home, and move to a country where they no longer speak the language, have no place to live, no job, no family, just so in 5 years we let them back.
It's a recipe for making people hate us even more.
I realise that's an unpopular position here. I realise the people brought it on themselves because they snuck in. But we encouraged them to sneak in by not enforcing the laws, by turning a blind eye to the employers, by essentially opening our arms to them so we could get cheaper labor. I don't think it harms us to leave the long-term illegals who have assimilated in the country so long as they keep working and keep clean. It's not like we have 6% unemployment and they are taking jobs away from americans.
If we combine this with sealing the borders, and we limit the newcomers until we work off the list, and we kick out the short-timers, we can assimilate the current crop of long-term illegals (who are already integrated into our society) without a new rush of illegals.
I have no idea how close Romney is to what I just described. I'm just saying Romney doesn't look as "inconsistant" on the issue as the Boston Globe makes out.
The BG has spent quite a bit of time convincing republicans that Romney can't be trusted. They aren't conservatives themselves, so I question their motivation and their veracity.
Whatever, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for many years. And yet we revere him as one of our greatest presidents. But hey, let's demand perfection from our candidates. That's always productive.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/12/03/troopers_can_arrest_illegal_immigrants_in_romney_deal/
Read at your own risk.
Makes it kind of a Straw Man argument, doesn't it?
I'm just saying Romney doesn't look as "inconsistant" on the issue as the Boston Globe makes out.
The article is from the Boston Herald, the relatively conservative counterpart to the Globe, somewhat similar to the NY Post.
The BG has spent quite a bit of time convincing republicans that Romney can't be trusted. They aren't conservatives themselves, so I question their motivation and their veracity.
Herald. You are welcome to question their motivation, but facts can be checked, so dispute them if you can. I have been following Mitt's political career since he ran against Kennedy in '94. I hoped he'd win, though it was a serious deflation when he swung WAY left to try to out-liberal Ted, criticizing him for once being pro-life, promising gays he'd be a better advocate for them. Since then I've followed each of his curiously changing positions, and it's clear as day to me that he's a phony who will say whatever he thinks will get him elected. The Globe and the Herald have been watching the same story the last 12-13 years, and I don't blame them for wanting to spread the facts of the Slick Willard story after watching his phony act for so long.
I don't either. I beleive all we have to do is start enforcing the laws on the books against hiring illegal immigrants, locating and expelling those who have ignored deportation orders and getting rid of the gang-bangers, drug smugglers and identity thieves. Once we show we're serious, 80% of the balance will self-deport.
Provisions can then be made to separate the wheat from the chaff among the remaining 20%-- the cream of the crop can be offered provisional visas which can be upgraded to green cards once certain steps are taken such as fines, applications, learning English, paying taxes, getting in the back of the line and staying off government benefits . . . sort of a point system like every other country in the world with a sane immigration policy has in place (see Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and Switzerland for examples).
Those unwilling to jump through these reasonable hoops can then be easily sorted out and deported in manageable numbers. Does that make me a RINO?
BTW, I'm sure the Boston Hearld has the best interests of conservatives in mind by publishing stuff like this. Considering the source, it is a point in Mitt's favor.
Blatant PR Move.
Mitt signed that agreement in the last month of his 4-year term.
The agreement was immediately repealed by his successor.
Mitt gets a headline.
Nothing gets done.
But then, that's how he operates.
Another hit piece from the MSM. There is no inconsistency in saying that there should not be a blanket amnesty but illegals should be allowed to apply for citizenship at some time.
There are probably countries other than what I've listed who have sane immigration policies. We need to adopt something between our current extreme (let everyone in, especially if they are from Mexico, with little or no screening) and the other extreme (shoot all illegal border crossers on sight).
“I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."
"I don't either."
Neither do I.
" I beleive all we have to do is start enforcing the laws on the books against hiring illegal immigrants, locating and expelling those who have ignored deportation orders and getting rid of the gang-bangers, drug smugglers and identity thieves. Once we show we're serious, 80% of the balance will self-deport."
I agree. It sounds like Romney has some of your above elements in his own thoughts.
It is great to see Romney not wince at taking a crack at birthright citizenship. It needs to be looked at. It is also good that he is at least right on IDs and tuition...
He'll need to lay out more, but whatever he does, the skeptics will decry it as too harsh/conservative.
Same thing Mitt did with his health care plan, now jamming up and turning into a serf making scheme to indenture citizens to politically hooked up insurance and financial companies.
Pssst. Don't ask Mitt how much he helped the state's Republican Party.
Bay State bump
I'm hoping for a Hunter/Thompson match.
I'm not sure of Mitt myself, I like what he says today, but his history is not encouraging.
However, I do tell my liberal friends that a solid conservative is the best friend a gay man could have, because while the liberals just want to coddle them, we want to make sure they can succeed like everybody else.
I've got problems with every candidate. Even Hunter, because I don't think the border patrol agents should be pardoned, I support a guest worker program, and I'm more free-trade than he is.
But when I was looking through the list of other people I might want to encourage to get into the race a couple of months ago, one of those people was Fred Thompson, so maybe I'll have to support him if he gets in. I'm not happy with his CFR stance and I wish he was on board with Tort Reform (maybe he will be now) but if I had to compromise for a candidate he's a much better choice for me to compromise with than Rudy or McCain, and maybe better than Romney.
December 3, 2006
*Governor Mitt Romney has reached an agreement with federal authorities that allows the Massachusetts State Police to arrest immigrants who are in the state illegally*
Look at the date. One word, Expediency
Easy to make this decision a matter of weeks before
he leaves as Gov. and the new Gov. then can reverse this.
Mitt has not Core which might be fine for some people who have no core either.
"those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship"
Ok, we'll let those five people stay.
Bingo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.