Posted on 03/16/2007 1:18:12 PM PDT by SmithL
Romney said he believes that undocumented immigrants living in the United States should receive no "special pathway" to legalization, but neither would he automatically deport them should they declare themselves to the government.
"The first thing I'd like them to do is to register, so I know how many there are, and what their circumstances are,'' including whether they have had children born in America, how long they have been here or if they hold jobs, he said in a telephone interview with The Chronicle from San Diego, where he was fundraising as part of a two-day state swing. "And on that basis, we can see who would receive temporary employment visas and who would instead be required to return home.''
Romney, 60, the former Massachusetts' governor, is a strong fundraiser and is considered one of the top tier of Republican candidates for president with Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Romney said illegal immigrants in the United States "should be treated just like those in other countries,'' meaning "there should be no special pathway for illegal immigrants here.''
"They can apply for a green card. They can apply for citizenship just like anyone else,'' he said. But "there should be no advantage in citizenship or permanent residency'' for the undocumented.
Romney, during his interview with The Chronicle, discussed a wide range of issues including the importance of California moving its presidential primary early in the campaign season to Feb. 5, making it part of what appears to be almost a national primary...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
"Analysis of the latest Census data indicates Texas’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration."
Costs of Illegal Immigration to Texans: Executive Summary
Ummmmmmm Ummmmmm. Wouldn't that take centuries to fully accomplish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
The Scott Norberg case
One major controversy includes the 1996 death of inmate Scott Norberg while he was in custody. Norberg was arrested for chasing two young girls in Mesa, Arizona. Arpaio's office repeatedly claimed Norberg was also high on methamphetamines, but a blood toxicology performed post-mortem conclusively proved this was not true. During his internment, detention officers shocked Norberg more than 20 times with a stun-gun, including on his testicles. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, Norberg was already handcuffed and face down when officers dragged him from his cell and placed him in a restraint chair with a towel covering his face. After Norberg's corpse was discovered, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them as they were trying to restrain him. The cause of his death, according to the Maricopa County medical examiner, was due to "positional asphyxia". Sherrif Arpaio investigated and subsequently cleared County detention officers of any criminal wrongdoing. [4]
Norberg’s parents filed a lawsuit against Joe Arpaio and his office. The lawsuit was settled for $8.25 million (USD) following a highly contentious legal battle. Despite vowing to never settle, the case quickly closed after it was disclosed the Sheriff's office had destroyed key evidence in the case.
[edit] The Brian Crenshaw case
Brian Crenshaw was a blind inmate allegedly beaten into a coma by guards working under Arpaio. Crenshaw suffered injuries that included a perforated intestine and a broken neck. He later died at a local hospital. When asked about the incident, Arpaio insisted, "The man fell off a bunk." [5]
With respect kabar, among the top-tier candidates I'll trust Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio's judgment on this call, thanks. I appreciate your other comments.
Sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes. Despite the fact that I have a home in Scottsdale, I could care less what Sheriff Arpaoi has to say on this subject. The impact of immigration, legal and illegal, on the future of this country is enormous. Romney's current plan, as provided by you is a disaster. It is not far off from the 2006 Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill.
FYI: I watched the Arpaoi interview from your link. It really has nothing to do with immigration policy, but rather, his support of Romney as the best candidate across the board. There was no mention of any specifics about immigration policy, but rather a passing comment on law enforcement and the training of some ICE agents. If you are touting this link as being a ringing endorsement on Romney's immigration reform policies, it misses the mark by a mile.
Good to know. Thanks UP.
These data are just estimates gleaned from census data. We need better and more accurate information to make good public policy. Hell, we don't even know how many illegal aliens are here with estimates ranging from 11 to 20 million. If we could use schools, hospitals, prisons, etc. to capture real data, we would have a much better picture of the costs of illegal immigration. We don't even allow SSA to share information ICE.
My FRiend, the country was finished when FDR was elected in '32 - we just didn't know it then. FDR begat the Kennedy clan with their hatred of the ruling class, with Teddy marshaling in the '66 immigration act as a supreme act of retribution, which in turn launched us on the path we are now.
CIRA 2007 is going to pass. Nothing last forever - all civilizations from Egypt, Greece, Rome to today have fallen from internal corruption.
It's weird seeing history repeat before our very eyes. This is probably the same exact process as before: low-skilled immigrants flocking to centers of commerce, king makers & politicians aligning themselves with new constituents, and the smart-money taking off for greener pastures.
Eventually, the whole thing is re-constituted someplace else. Where is it this time? Australia?
Latest poll results from New Hampshire among likely Republican primary voters:
"The poll found McCain with 29 percent, Giuliani with 28 percent and Romney with 22 percent. After Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had 5 percent."
"Romney polls third in experience, with McCain the leader there, and second in leadership, well behind Giuliani. But he finishes first in personal character and, by a wide margin, on his issue positions."
I waited a couple of minutes and that page never loaded up.
State money or federal money?
That particular Romney comment didn't seem to be anything beyond what is already in place.
Not exactly a proposal for anything new, IMO.
Expand the bureaucracy while lessening accountability and selling it like it is the real deal. Republicans have not seen this kind of brazen slickness. When it comes to slickness, he may be in Slick Willies league otherwise known around here as the former rapist in chief.
The liberal politicians in this country will be promising our hapless compesinos free medical care, subsidized food, and welfare payments. The rich will leave because they can, and the middle class will be stuck paying the bill.
Based on census figures, we have gained 100 million people since 1970, 53 million since 1990, and 20 million since 2000. Policies have consequences and since the disastrous change in our legal immigration policies in 1965, we have increased our annual intake sixfold. And now we want to add a "guest" worker program where the "guests" never go home. Is this a great country or what? Throw another shrimp on the barbie.
The costs are Texas state expenses uncompensated by federal dollars. That article doesn't give the federal dollar compensation paid to Texas for illegal aliens.
$4 billion annually for education cost is the huge portion of the $4.7 billion. Unless the illegal alien parents are welfare bums and subject to deportation under Romney's plan, Texas will keep paying for their children's education.
Unbelievably, Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas approved in-state tuition in TX state colleges for children of illegals, a measure that Gov. Romney vetoed in MA.
We stand to save $150 million for incarceration costs and a good portion of the $520 million for healthcare if we deport criminal illegals and illegals on public welfare assistance in Texas plus some savings of federal money compensated to Texas.
Yes, they were; but they were here to work; now the Democrats did away with those green cards for those types of workers, but they came anyway.
We in California sympathize.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42474
An analysis of recent census data indicates that the presence of illegal aliens in California is costing the state's taxpayers more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration.
The report, written by the Federation of American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, states that even if the tax contributions of illegal aliens are subtracted, state government outlays still amount to nearly $9 billion a year.
The current unemployment figures are about 6.9 million.
There are 12-20 million illegals in the country.
If you assume 20 million, with half working, that is 10 million jobs that will be unfilled if you remove them all tomorrow.
That is enough jobs for every person currently unemployed, with 3 million left over to intice new people.
The fact that there are some jobs where, for the right price, the unemployed will take them, is clear. What is not clear is how that would work for 10 million jobs.
If there is no need at all for additional laborers, we can set the guest worker program numbers to zero. The program will be for US, not the workers.
But our country has ALWAYS had immigrants, because population growth has been seen as a good thing, and the increased worker count has contributed to our growth and prosperity.
I have no doubt that 20 million illegals is a lot more than we need for our economy. I also have no doubt that 0 is not the right number either.
Until we get things under control, we won't know what the right number is.
Under one plan being floated in the senate, guest workers will have to be paid the "prevailing wage". If it is set appropriately, that should be a strong incentive to try to find american workers rather than go through the additional paperwork to do a guest worker.
Serious problems require more than soundbites, but I'm trying my best to be brief.
I would hope that some would be encouraged by the cost to go back home. Those who had no homes to go back to might well pay the fee. BTW, there are fees already to apply for visas and the like, this is nothing new.
The fees would be used to pay for the additional agents needed to process the stricter requirements packages that will have to be filled out, and the investigations needed, to ensure the applicants have committed no crimes and are in fact the type of people we want in our country.
My goal is to make our country better.
I realise my plan is not Romneys. Under Romney's plan, all we know is that the registration is the first step, then he evaluates to see if you qualify for guest worker or else you are deported.
There is no instant "legalization" of those here illegally, just a period during which your deportation status will be reviewed, and a criteria for which you might be granted worker status.
The statement given above does not tell us what criteria will be used to determine if they can participate in guest worker or not, nor does it say anything about permanent status (I believe Romney's guest worker program is strictly a temporary permit not usable by people seeking citizenship, but I don't know that for sure, I just listened to him talking on Sean's show but I didn't catch it all).
as I said in another post, unemployment is 6.9 million people, and there are 12-20 million illegals.
We have always had immigrants coming into the country to augment our work force, throughout our history. They have contributed to strengthening our country.
In the last 10+ years our immigration policy has been broken. The legal numbers have been meaninglessly set, because we had so many illegals. It is certain that, had we had no illegals at all, the legal number would have been higher.
I don't think we need 12 million more immigrants. But I know we need more than zero, unless there are 4 million americans out there who would love to work but aren't looking.
Of course, I'm ignoring that you can't really get unemployment below 4%, at least historically that has been near-impossible, which means that of the 6.9 million unemployed we probably can't use more than a couple million to fill the jobs we get from the illegals.
Worse, the jobs the illegals are doing aren't in places with high unemployment, but places like here in Northern Virginia where our unemployment is in the 2% range, and we have to pay 9 bucks an hour for mcdonalds workers and we can't fill the jobs.
I still think we could get rid of a lot of illegals and be fine, but not all of them.
Well, it sounded a lot like my plan. I realised after I listened to Mitt some on Sean that he probably didn't steal my plan, and his plan is probably not exactly like my plan. It was silly of me to say that.
Step one is seal the borders. Until the borders are sealed, we can't do anything. During the registration period, we have to deploy additional troops on the borders to arrest people and fingerprint them.
The registration itself does not reward people who entered illegally. It simply protects them from punishment, other than the punishment that none of them are allowed in the list for either the guest worker or immigration plans until after registration is over and the people IN the list are evaluated. They have to go to the back of the line, so all the people who did NOT come in illegally are rewarded by being put in front of those who did not.
I left out a point: If the illegals simply run back to their own country, they can sign up before those who stay here and register. So if you run back to your own country you can get in line in front of those who stay here and register.
Yes, people who know they will get kicked out might not register. But since those who register are allowed to sign up for legal status, and those who don't will be barred forever, that is an incentive to sign up. Those who are criminals won't sign up, but we aren't any worse off for them than we are now, and since the law-abiding ones will sign up we will get some support from the hispanic community to round up the illegal lawbreakers and send them home.
I thought the law now was a 2nd time rejection. The first time just got you deported. I wasn't intending to make things easier, I was trying to match the current law in that regard, so if what you say is true I would keep it that way.
I didn't answer all your issues. I have to think about what you wrote, you had some interesting insights. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my ideas.
It is certainly true that we are in bad shape now, with so many illegals here and so much trouble finding them.
I envision a crackdown on employers. With a guest worker program and registration and the possibility of increasing the current immigration count with the illegals not bogging down the system, I hope we can flush out the people living under the radar. We can refuse government service immediately to any who don't register -- right now humanitarian reasons seem to prevent us from doing so.
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.