Posted on 04/08/2009 9:21:19 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Ooooh... the Clinton label! LOL.
I'll get back to you later to comment on your false statements, liberal spin, complete lack of manners/social graces and inability to have a reasoned discussion vis-à-vis your childish personal attacks degrading people with disabilities who are not perfect like you.
As I said, I think that changing laws does not correct problems unless those laws are enforced. Our problem today is the lack of enforcement, not the lack of laws. Furthermore, the major problem today is with illegal immigration, not legal immigration.
"Chain migration" (your #1 example) has been around since 1965 or so. In theory, I think it is good policy ("family unification") when applied with sensible immigration quotas for LEGAL immigration. It is OUTRAGEOUS when it is applied to the massive Amnesty (or "path to citizenship") as proposed by some of our politicians.
As to #2, anchor babies... as I said in my "Clintonesque" post, if you work to eliminate the illegal immigration problem, you begin to solve the anchor baby problem. And you can't ultimately solve that problem unless you get the Supreme Court to reverse their findings, something that is also not within the reach of Congress and their "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" legislation.
As to #3, you aren't really suggesting that we need a new law to deport Obama's relative, are you?
As to #4, if you don't have illegal immigrants you don't need to worry about entitlements. Enforce the darn law and we will have more room in our schools, hospitals won't be going bankrupt everday, and the welfare rolls will reduce significantly.
As to #5, quotas are modified all the time. There is no need for a law to change them -- it is within the authority of the Administration to do that already.
So you don't support reforming that (like Mitt and Tank do)? Not even a little bit?
I'm not familiar with any detailed "reform" proposal set forward by Mitt and, honestly, it's been too long since Tancredo was on the scene for me to remember exactly what he was proposing. But, I can say once again, at this time, I do not think any kind of legislative action is required for immigration reform.
Do you moonlight at the Wall Street Journal?
And by that you mean what?
It could be worse. I could be making fun of Lady Obama’s eye-lashes.
There was an FR poll question at some point that asked FReepers if they'd support House version of immigration reform, HR4437 -— Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 -— or the Senate version, S.2130, better known as McCain-Kennedy or "McKennedy". According to my FR archive, FReepers supported the House version with 83% approval.
Buchanan is right in saying that you will effectively stop enforcement by reforming the laws in a way that turns off the 'magnet' that attracts illegals. Specifically, eliminating the benefits that illegals are entitled to per the law (requiring a change in the law) and steeper fines/penalties for those who hire illegals (requiring a change in the law).
I think you are doing too many mental gymnastics to try and prove me wrong when the truth is you agree with me (and with the plan Mitt approved.) The laws on the books are a confusing and contradictory mess. They need to be reformed. The magnets (points 2 and 4) need to be changed. That required a 'law.'
And to call changes to immigration quotas a small issues is flat wrong. The current policy was set in the 1960s and was a huge 'reform' passed under President Johnson and was advocated on the floor of the US Senate by Edward Kennedy. That law needs to be 'reformed.'
If you aren't conversant in the plans offered by presidential candidates a year ago, are you sure you have enough of a grasp of laws that stretch back generations to make authoritative statements about what needs reform and what doesn't?
Many of the same folks making the claims that everyone wants “Reform” were on another thread the other day
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2220664/posts
It seems that some follow Stalin’s teaching of “A lie told often enough becomes truth.”
Oops, not S.2130... correction S.2611.
So you trust Obama/Pelosi/Reid to fix these problems?? Go read the stimulus package if you need an idea what they might do. Jeeze!
By making them legal. LOL You are a real hoot!
As Pat Buchanan has said, simple border enforcement isn't enough and even interior enforcement isn't enough either. Buchanan is right in saying that you will effectively stop enforcement by reforming the laws in a way that turns off the 'magnet' that attracts illegals. Specifically, eliminating the benefits that illegals are entitled to per the law (requiring a change in the law) and steeper fines/penalties for those who hire illegals (requiring a change in the law).
I really don't care what Pat Buchanan said. But if you have a link to his words, I would be happy to comment. Forgive me if I don't accept your interpretation -- I prefer primary sources. But really, can you not speak for yourself?
I think you are doing too many mental gymnastics to try and prove me wrong when the truth is you agree with me (and with the plan Mitt approved.)
I think that you have a real LISTENING problem. I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. Please! Instead of telling me what Tancredo thinks or Buchanan thinks or anybody else thinks, address what I wrote! This is really tiresome!
The laws on the books are a confusing and contradictory mess.
Which ones, specifically? What provisions/words in those laws are are contradictory?
The magnets (points 2 and 4) need to be changed. That required a 'law.'
As to #2, can you cite any "immigration reform" bill that included a provision to clarify the intent of the 14th Amendment thereby eliminating anchor babies? Please cite the bill number.
And to call changes to immigration quotas a small issues is flat wrong.
Perhaps you did not read my words as I did NOT say it was a small issue. I said no LAWS were required to change quotas.
The current policy was set in the 1960s and was a huge 'reform' passed under President Johnson and was advocated on the floor of the US Senate by Edward Kennedy. That law needs to be 'reformed.'
Why? Chain migration is not the problem (unless you give citizenship to 20 million illegals). Chain migration or "Family Reunification" as it was enacted, allowing citizens to sponsor other immigrants from their family to come to the U.S. is not bad policy. If we have good, law abiding, hardworking LEGAL immigrants in this country, why shouldn't we want a member of their family to take up one of those quota spots? Family is a good thing.
If you aren't conversant in the plans offered by presidential candidates a year ago, are you sure you have enough of a grasp of laws that stretch back generations to make authoritative statements about what needs reform and what doesn't?
You really are an insulting little cuss, aren't you? I think my posts speak for themselves.
Thanks for pointing that out. It is a point I wanted to make to Deborah last night, but forgot. Mitt is semi-quoted as suggesting he wants "comprehensive immigration reform passed before 2010."
Setting aside all disagreement as to what Mitt's real position might really be on immigration, or what he might want to include under the "reform" umbrella, one has to wonder what kind of reform would be passed. My belief is that given the goals of the man occupying the White House, and the current make-up in Congress, there is only one kind--and it includes Amnesty and a whole host of other things (porkulus on steroids).
As such, I think the Republican message should be one to highlight the actions that can already be taken under existing law. What better time to support border enforcement and immigration enforcement than when 10% of the workforce is unemployed? What better time to put Obama on the spot to modify quotas for legal immigration? What better time to highlight the billions that are being spent on welfare of citizens from other countries when everyone's quality of life is declining, taxes are increased, and portfolios are diminished? What better time to highlight that the American Dream is only possible when the rule of law is enforced and that open borders threatens not only national security but achievement of that Dream for all the citizens and legal immigrants in this country. .... What better time to point out that this is an American issue, not one of race or ethnicity or national origin. ... I could go on...
But instead, politicians pander.
Actually, he never said anything of the sort.
But hey, let’s keep that time honored FR tradition of forming an opinion before the facts are in.
“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 bill would be called the “Import new democrat voters act” and would have the opposite effect that Mitt thinks it will.( or maybe not if he’s really so “smart” he should know 70-80% of amnestied illegals will vote democrat.....)
Yeah, O’l Mitt, that Gary Cooper, laconic, short sentence, active verb speaker. No question where he stands. A veritable rock, a pillar, a mountain of certitude shining in the distance like the Great Rockies themselves!
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.