GOP cools on a hot-button issue [amnesty] [Romney on illegals] [barf]

The Boston Globe ^ | 2009-04-09 | Joan Vennochi

[rabscuttle385]

THOSE OLD Republican hot buttons are growing cold. For proof, check out a recent interview with Mitt Romney, a former presidential candidate and ex-governor of Massachusetts.

According to TheHill.com, a congressional newspaper that publishes when Congress is in session, "Romney believes that one way to attract more minorities to the GOP is to pass immigration reform before the next election, saying the issue becomes demagogued by both parties on the campaign trail." The article also quotes Romney as saying, "We have a natural affinity with Hispanic-American voters, Asian-American voters."

This could be extreme political repositioning, even for Romney.

. . . . .

How Romney gets beyond the flip-flop-flips of his multiple-choice positions on immigration and other issues is a mystery only he can solve.

[curiosity]

That is a paraphrase of Mitt. Nothing in that sentence indicates he supports amnesty. You don't know what he actually said, yet you jump to conclusions.

Why, oh, why are people on this site so quick to make a judgement before hearing the facts?

[curiosity]

We don’t need “comprehensive immigration reform”

I see, so are you okay with our current immigration policy that awards millions of visas to uneducated people without any important job skills simply because they are related to someone here in the US? Are you okay with the anchor baby policy? Are you okay with all the generous welfare benefits avaiable to unskilled legal aliens?

[curiosity]

Right. Give all the illegals amnesty. That'll solve the problem. Dumb Willard.

You're the one who's acting dumb. Immigration reform does not necessarily mean amnesty. Restrictionist groups like FAIR and NumbersUSA have been advocating for immigration reform for decades. So have I.

Immigration reform simply means changing current immigration policy, which nearly everyone agrees is a complete mess. The difference is the left wants to amnesty illegals and allow in more legals. The right wants to stop illegals and reduce legal immigration, or at least change the policy so preference is given to people with marketable skills rather than family connections, which is the kind of reform I support.

There is nothing in the article to indicate Romney supports the leftist reform.

[curiosity]

Mitt Romney is an unelectable politician

Right, he's so unelectable he managed to get elected governor of a state./sarcasm

[NormsRevenge]

something about the water in massachusetts.

[curiosity]

Then watch the mass migration home.

Amazing the ignorance displayed by those suffering from RMS.

What about the millions of visas we award each year to uneducated third world peasants who soon go on welfare? What about our insane legal immigration policy, authored by Ted Kennedy in the 1960's, that gives preference based on "family reunification" or job skills?

If you think our immigration problems will be solved by simply getting rid of illegals, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[ansel12]

Right, he's so unelectable he managed to get elected governor of a state./sarcasm

That's right, spending record amounts of personal funds in every election and in his entire political record he managed to become the fourth republican governor in a row in a state that he left in democrat control because he didn't stand a chance of reelection. His dismal showing in a presidential primary with the weakest field that we have ever seen and him being the only one with money and organization only reinforces that he is unelectable. Even now he still seems to be a career politician with gobs of money and a cult of followers desperately in search of a constituency.

[calcowgirl]

Because I've never heard anyone outside Tancredo take a hardline position. Who do you think the next cycle's candidate is? I don't know of anybody.

Read my post again. I don't think we'll get the candidate until voters say "no more" and reject their nonsense. The elitists that keep offering up this cr@p will continue to do so as long as Republicans will vote for it. As Karl Rove is quoted as saying "Where are they going to go?" He basically thinks voters are a bunch of suckers.

What the heck is "hardline" about enforcing the law? Characterizing immigration enforcement using those terms just plays into the pro-amnesty bunch, IMO.

[Rameumptom]

The Globe is up to its old cut up and paste partial sentences again. The original quote is from an interview with the Hill a few days ago. The orignal source notes that Romney favors "Tancredo" style immigration reform.

Romney's point about conservativbe affinity has been made clear on numerous occassions (Rush limbaugh made teh same point on his show this week) is that most Immigrants have family values and practice conservatism (i.e. start up businesses).

IMO, perhaps the only reason The Globe hasn't gone totally bankrupt yet is the core support of a few RDSers who seem to believe in the innerancy and good faith intentions of the liberal editorial staff at the Globe.

[calcowgirl]

Good post. It’s mind-numbing when you stand back and look at it.

Kudos to Horowitz for pounding the message home. More need to get on that wagon, IMO.

[LibLieSlayer]

POS liberal dim in rino clothing... mitt is a kennedy with better hair!

LLS

[Diogenesis]

ansel12: "Mitt Romney is an unelectable politician"

curiosity: "Right, he's so unelectable he managed to get elected governor of a state./sarcasm"

ansel12 is correct. Romney was a one-time governor who was an economic
and moral disaster. Absolute disaster carpetbagger, who BTW has since FLED Massachusetts

---

Romney was a piss-poor Governor. Romney got a "C" rating from CATO. And that was BEFORE
Romney's Socialized medicine and coverup of the BIGdig kicked in. So the RomneyBOTs try to "spin history".
Note also that Romney also betrayed President Bush as Governor
(predicting what TeamROMNEY would do later in Election2008 to Gov. Palin, and then the GOP - i.e. Romney-backstabbing),
because Romney was also against the conservative tax cuts. Here are the facts from CATO.

"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]

Pres. Reagan commenting on Mr. Romney's fascism, socialism, dirty tricks,
attacks on GOP candidates, appointment of liberal judges, and Romney's just-bad judgment.

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party
 over to the traitors in the battle just ended.
We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged
 to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support.
Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates
wouldn’t make any sense at all.""
--  President Ronald Reagan

[ansel12]

The orignal source notes that Romney favors "Tancredo" style immigration reform

Some of us don't have that original quote and the original source.

What is the exact quote and the source?

[Reagan Man]

Romney's position on immigration has changed so many times in recent years I've lost count.

Before Romney turned into a Tancredo clone during the last primary season, he stood with Bush, McCain and Kennedy in his support for comprehensive liberal immigration reform. That policy proposal included amnesty and no deportation contingent.

From: Mitt Romney On the Issues: In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, he described immigration reform proposal advanced by McCain as “reasonable.” He now denounces it as an “amnesty plan.” In December 2006, he signed agreement authorizing state troopers to round up illegal immigrants.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: “Top Ten Flip-Flops” Feb 5, 2008

The fact that you find Romney's ever changing position and nuanced politics when it comes to critical issues like immigration, marks you as another fantasyland WillardBot. Out of touch and out of your mind.

[Syncro]

Here's your statement upon which I commented:

"Everyone here on free republic also supports immigration reform."

All it took was the one declaration by a member that they didn't support "immigration reform" to prove your statement false. There were scores if not hundreds of others but just didn't happen to see your post.

So you attack me as being obtuse for correcting your false statement. Nice.

Here's a few synonyms for obtuse to describe your insulting post back to me being as that's the way you want to play.

Your comments were tactless, insensitive; blind, imperceptive, unobservant; gauche, and boorish

I don't make personal attacks when I am corrected, but do sometimes counter them when they are misapplied to me.

Everyone offered an immigration reform plan who was running last year

"Everyone" at FR did not run last year, you disprove your first statement with that one.

In fact, most if not all of those plans were "comprehensive" and most FR members did not support them

If I were the type of person to make insulting personal attacks, I guess I could call you a "mouth" breather with a "pretty poor" memory.

But I won't because you appear to be a fairly intelligent guy who just went a little overboard in your rhetoric.

[mbraynard]

You know, Aspergers can be treated. Would you like me to mail you some pamphlets?

No, everyone here did support some kind of immigration reform because everyone here is unhappy with the status quo. I think you need the pamplets to explain that 'everyone' used in this sense is not literal. I guess some miserable SOB will say they like the status quo just to make the point that it's not literally 'everyone.'

But it is literally correct that everyone running did have a plan for immigration reform. They were all different. Yet, Romney's and Tancredos were the best of the bunch.

You are the one making the false assumption - that immigration reform necessarily means 'comprehensive' - IE - path to citizenship/amnesty. Tanks didn't and Romney's didn't.

[calcowgirl]

No, everyone here did support some kind of immigration reform because everyone here is unhappy with the status quo.

I'll say it again, in case you didn't notice the first time I posted it (to you).

I do not, and did not, support any kind of "immigration reform," and I was not/am not alone on FR in having this opinion.

"Immigration reform" as uttered by Congress, implies that there is a need to change the law or to add new laws.

Being "unhappy with the status quo" does NOT equate to needing new laws. Government currently has the authority and the duty to enforce the law. They are only lacking the will to do so. New laws will not change that -- only kicking the dufuses out of office will.

P.S. Your personal attacks on Synro (e.g. "Aspergers can be treated") are disgusting.

[calcowgirl]

I see, so are you okay with our current immigration policy that awards millions of visas to uneducated people without any important job skills simply because they are related to someone here in the US?

No. I said we don't need new laws to make the changes necessary. Visa quotas and criteria are modified all the time and do not require massive new legislation from Congress. We currently have laws to build a fence, enforce the border, sanction employers who knowingly hire illegals, punish individuals and employers who do not abide by tax laws, etc. It is time to enforce those laws, not add new ones.

Are you okay with the anchor baby policy? Are you okay with all the generous welfare benefits avaiable to unskilled legal aliens?

No. But I've never seen one proposed provision within "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" legislation that corrected those issues, in fact they have only gone to reinforce them. We need to take the enforcement actions already within the authority of Government to reduce the number of illegal aliens. That then automatically reduces the number of anchor babies and the amount of dollars being spent on welfare benefits.

It really ain't rocket science!

[mbraynard]

So you don't think laws need to be changed or added to affect the following status quo:

• Chain migration.
• Anyone born on US soil - even if their parent just snuck across the border - being granted US citizenship.
• Letting Obama's illegal relative stay in the US.
• Illegal immigrants being entitled to education, health, and all kinds of social benefits.
• Immigration quotas that favor the third world

So you don't support reforming that (like Mitt and Tank do)? Not even a little bit?

Do you moonlight at the Wall Street Journal?

[mbraynard]

You are very Clintonesque in your choice of what counts as ‘immigration reform’ and what doesn’t.