Romney won't say he'll overturn immigration order

AP ^ | Sunday June 17, 2012

[Bigtigermike]

BRUNSWICK, Ohio (AP) — Mitt Romney is refusing to say that he would overturn President Barack Obama's new policy allowing some young illegal immigrants to stay in the United States.

The Republican presidential candidate tells CBS” ”Face the Nation” that if he’s president, Obama’s executive order “would be overtaken by events … by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution.”

Romney was asked three times in the interview if he would overturn Obama’s order, but he didn’t directly answer the question. Instead, he said would work to pass a law to help those young people who were “brought in by their parents through no fault of their own.” Romney said he doesn’t know why Obama “feels stop-gap measures are the right way to go.”

The candidate’s comments represent a further softening of his rhetoric on immigration since the GOP primary campaign ended.

[WilliamIII]

Obama has everybody talking about something not the economy.

Legalizing millions of undocumented workers contributes isn’t about the economy? Whose jobs will they be taking? Of course it’s about the economy!

But Mitt won’t undo Obama’s order?

[Steamburg]

For crying out loud. It was a smoke and mirrors trap for votes. There is absolutely no reason for Romney to comment on this pandering crap until after the election.
It’s time for the PAC’s to get hard core and go after the W0N every time he opens his foul mouth.

[WilliamIII]

Immigration policy, despite Obama’s recent EO, is the perogative of the Congress.

If that’s so, then Obama’s order is unconstitutional. But Mitt won’t undo it? Don’t we need a president who will defend the Constitution?

[TEXOKIE]

...”Newt has it going with real dreamers dreamin’ about following the Constitution.”

Would you be willing to amplify?

[WilliamIII]

There is absolutely no reason for Romney to comment on this pandering crap

When the president violates the constitution, his challenger has a duty to call him on it — if the challenge CARES about the Constitution!

[Tau Food]

Romney did comment on it. He made it clear that he would enact a more liberal, more comprehensive “reform.”

[DownInFlames]

Im for Mitt, he will be easier to Impeach.

[jimbo123]

Romney’s smart not to let Obama change the political discussion away from Obama’s horrid economy, and record as the POTUS.

Exactly. I think Romney is a RINO turd, but if he wants to win, he should say as little as possible and not get drawn in to the debate. If you look at the poll numbers that are running 60%-70% disapproval for the Kenyan's amnesty plan, Romney should take that anger as a gift from Barry and talk about other things.

[Lady4Liberty]

Way to stand up for the American worker, Mitt. Illegals are helping destroy our economy and the Republican nominee was too afraid to take a conservative position.

Oh wait, Romney has never been conservative, why would I expect that?

Obama is pulling his strings like a puppet. He KNEW Mitt wouldn't take a stand against him. Weak, impotent, coward. Mitt is making John Kerry look strong.

[Lazamataz]

Suddenly, I feel less motivated to make it to the polls in November.

[Tau Food]

Im for Mitt, he will be easier to Impeach.

I can't vote for anyone I believe should be impeached. I will be voting against both Romney and Obama.

[BobL]

I’m FAR from a Romney-bot (look at my posting history this year), but I just think he’s playing it safe, given that there are MILLIONS of Hispanics that could be energized to sign-up (legally or illegally, they don’t care) and throw the election to Obama.

That’s EXACTLY what happened in California once they tried to crack down on Illegals. The Dems had a field day signing up everyone in sight (even though everyone knew that half of them were illegals) and the Dems now own that state.

[chiller]

You are correct, sir. I think it's a trap set to get Romney embroiled in a immigrant hating kerkuffle.

Rove, Texas farmers, Georgia farmers, Rubio have all been looking for some solution.

I don't blame Romney for not jumping up and down, screaming about this at this point, as much as I personally would love to see the law strictly enforced. I guess, I'm thinking there are some (very few) circumstances which should be considered at the risk of looking cold and heartless to the electorate.

[Andy from Chapel Hill]

Think of it this way:
Zap the fraud - a vote for Mitt neutralizes a fraudulent vote for Obama and gets us closer to a fair election.

[Williams]

Obama’s looking better and better? FU

[COBOL2Java]

What's to vote for?

Barring a miracle in Tampa, one of the two stinking bastards is going to win in November. Vote your conscience instead of being a GOP lemming.

[CatherineofAragon]

But he’s our conservative hope! /s

“Those people who’ve come here illegally and are in this country, the 12 million or so who are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship”——————Mitt Romney, “Meet the Press”, 2007

[wtc911]

If Romney takes this on at all it should be strictly from the illegality perspective. Hammer that we have the first POTUS in our 230 year history who has made dis-regard for the law and for the legislative process a hallmark of his regime.

[KC_Lion]

If we just agree with the democrats than we won't have these bi-partisan conflicts anymore!

So lets just sweep this issue under the rug because the Democrats feel threatened by it.

[sforkjoe57]

Refusing to enforce laws that protect American workers from foreign criminals is a natural outcome of a Permanent Ruling Aristocracy form of government. Without the natural right of states to secede, there is no means to regulate the tyranny and corruption of the Permanent Ruling Aristocracy (party bosses, lobbyists, federal employee union bosses, major Washington D.C. law firms and the military/industrial/international banking complex) and their Orwellian Ministers of Truth (America’s newsrooms and faculty lounges).