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 ...
Cool it.
He’s a LIAR.
I don’t take too kindly to people spreading misinformation on this site.
I want this site to be a TRUSTED and RESPONSIBLE site.
“But...but...it’s from the Boston Globe, they’re lying about Mitt’s positions!”
So nothing has changed. They don’t even bother to forge quotes anymore. This article is 100% the opinion of a boston liberal.
Yes they do. The current immigration policy that favors so-called "family reunification" (or nepotism, as I prefer to call it) is a result of Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration act. We will not have a sane immigration policy until we repeal it.
But I've never seen one proposed provision within "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" legislation that corrected those issues,
Then you don't get out very much, do you? Bush's immigration reform bill was not the only one proposed. I leave it to you as an exercise to look up reform bills sponsored by people like Tom Tancredo who favor tighter immigration laws and lower legal immigration numbers.
That then automatically reduces the number of anchor babies and the amount of dollars being spent on welfare benefits.
FYI, the welfare spending on poor legal immigrants dwarfs any amount spent on illegals.
“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.”
Did you make that up?
As I have said in at least 2 posts on this thread, I don't have a problem with the family reunification laws. They are not the problem, unless you attach them to a massive amnesty program. I see no reason to repeal it. I would rather have the mothers or sisters or brothers of those legal immigrants that followed the law than the lawbreakers who think they are entitled amnesty.
Then you don't get out very much, do you?
Lose the snide comments.
Bush's immigration reform bill was not the only one proposed. I leave it to you as an exercise to look up reform bills sponsored by people like Tom Tancredo who favor tighter immigration laws and lower legal immigration numbers.
As I said, "I've never seen one proposed provision within 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform' legislation that corrected those issues." Now you cite Tancredo. I would ask what bill that Tancredo introduced was ever referred to as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." I have also never heard anyone to say that "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" would include lowering the number of legal immigrants -- care to offer a citation on that one?
FYI, the welfare spending on poor legal immigrants dwarfs any amount spent on illegals.
And your point is? We should get rid of legal immigrants and keep the illegal ones because they are cheaper? And what happens when the illegals become legal through amnesty or the fraudulently named "path to citizenship" proposals? Kabooom! Watch the welfare roles explode!
Our immigration system is not "broken" as our liberal media keeps telling us -- the laws are just not enforced. There is only one reason for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," IMO. It is to push Amnesty.
Well, for example, the laws requiring employers to check eligibility. Right now, all they have to do is look at a social security card. They don't have to follow up and verify that the card is valid. In fact, if they suspect an employee is illegal and they start scrutinizing him, they can be sued for discrimination.
To get proper employer verification, we need legislation. To require verification, we need legislation. To increase the penalties for hiring illegals, we need legislation. To protect an employer who is scrutinizing a suspected illegal worker from discrimination suits, we need legislation. Etc., etc., etc.
You are a real 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.
H.R. 1940
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.
Yes they are.
Why? Chain migration is not the problem
Yes it is. California went from a solidly Republican state to democrat because of chain migration, a lot of which was spurred by the 1986 amnesty. The vast majority of legal immigrants coming in because of chain migration are low income and therefore very likely to be future democrats.
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.
It's horrible 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?
Just because they are family doesn't mean they too are going to be hard working. Lots of people sponsor their elderly parents, who then promptly go on social security without having paid in anything. Or they sponsor their cousins or adult children who are often undereducated and likely to go on the dole.
FAIR, the immigration lobbying group with whom Tancredo and other restrictionists are affiliated, refers to its agenda as an "immigration reform agenda."
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/111th_agenda.pdf?docID=2341
They generally don't use the adjective "comprehensive," though, you're right. Neither did Romney.
And your point is? We should get rid of legal immigrants and keep the illegal ones because they are cheaper?
No, my point is that our legal immigration policy is just as big a problem as our illegal immigration problem. To fix it we need reform, though a different sort of reform than what Bush and McCain are proposing.
That's why it's stupid to say that anyone who favors reform automatically favors what Bush and McCain proposed.
And what happens when the illegals become legal through amnesty or the fraudulently named "path to citizenship" proposals? Kabooom! Watch the welfare roles explode!
I agree. It will make the problem much worse. But just because the Bush-McCain reform idea is bad doesn't mean all reform ideas are bad.
Take a look at FAIR's reform agenda. I think you will agree with most of it.
Well, for example, the laws requiring employers to check eligibility. Right now, all they have to do is look at a social security card. They don't have to follow up and verify that the card is valid. In fact, if they suspect an employee is illegal and they start scrutinizing him, they can be sued for discrimination.
Currently, employers are required by law to document that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States. If they don't, they are subject to some pretty hefty penalties, $275 and $16,000 per offense. It is the employers responsibility to document it. As you say, they aren't required to follow up on a SS, but they will suffer the consequences if it is shown that they did not exercise due diligence. E-verify is one of the options that they can NOW use to limit their liability.
To get proper employer verification, we need legislation. To require verification, we need legislation. To increase the penalties for hiring illegals, we need legislation. To protect an employer who is scrutinizing a suspected illegal worker from discrimination suits, we need legislation. Etc., etc., etc.
What good are tougher penalties if no one is enforcing the law? Enforce the law first. Then, if additional actions are required, introduce specific laws (not "comprehensive reform") to deal with those issues individually.
>>... can you cite any "immigration reform" bill that included a provision to clarify the intent of the 14th Amendment
>H.R. 1940
As I think you know, I meant "comprehensive immigration reform." Instead, you cite a specific bill, H.R. 1940, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007. I would support that, as long as it isn't buried in a "comprehensive" bill that includes all sorts of other unnecessary new laws.
Yes they are. ... Yes it is. ... It's horrible policy.
We disagree.
Which proves my point.
Neither did Romney.
I'm reserving judgment on whatever it is that Romney is proposing until he actually puts something forward. Although, I question the prudence of the statements he has made (see my post #151). I only entered this thread when mbraynard made the ridiculous statement that "Everyone here on free republic also supports immigration reform." Obviously by reading all of the posts on this thread that statement was not accurate.
No, my point is that our legal immigration policy is just as big a problem as our illegal immigration problem.
I disagree.
Good. That was my main point: the paraphrased statement is not detailed enough to make a judgement. If he does in fact come out in favor of some Amnesty or Amnesty-lite, I too will oppose him.
This is just like the instance where a reporter writes "Romney praises Obama," when all Romney did was commend Obama for explicitly leaving open the possibility of putting GM through bankruptcy. That's a major step up from what Bush, for whom bankrupcty was not an option.
Although, I question the prudence of the statements he has made
We don't even know what he actually said. The only public record of that statement is a paraphrase by some reporter. It's not even a direct quote. All I am saying is that you should reserve judgement until you hear what he actually said, in context.
Unfortunately, too many people seem willing to condemn a man based on what some reporter's unclear paraphrase of a statement. That's something I really deplore.
The Globe coverage was misleading and The Hill language was not definitive. Kind of hard to get excited about that.
We don't even know what he actually said. The only public record of that statement is a paraphrase by some reporter. It's not even a direct quote. All I am saying is that you should reserve judgement until you hear what he actually said, in context.
Eh.... I dunno. That doesn't really lend itself to a lot of different interpretation, IMO. Regardless, I think you get my point. I see so many opportunities right now for GOP leaders to reach out to Hispanic Conservatives. It boggles my mind why the politicians' focus is primarily on (what has been shown in the past to be bogus) "immigration reform." They really need to get out of their ivory tower and listen to the people.
Ping!
In the context -- a shrill female throwing a temper tantrum because of one quote out of about 100 posted, all of which flatten Mitt -- that she charges is being taken out of context because she was there (she has no actual proof, no links, no video, no newspaper quotes) and understood it to be spoken clearly in jest, and frankly, I am inclined to believe her. But the rest of the quotes and items that show Romney a blatant opportunist at best are all valid, and she knows it. She has only one charge she can call a lie, and for that she has only her word.
So this shrill Smitten Mitten starts spouting off in true "How often do you beat your wife?" fashion, "I want this site to be a TRUSTED and RESPONSIBLE site."
And this is ESPECIALLY sickeningly rich because of at least half a dozen Mittens who have posted here absolutely fraudulent claims of endorsement from Republican pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan. They post it repeatedly though they know full well it is false.
All of use need to remember that this pain-in-the-neck bad loser shrill bad mannered whiner is pretty much representative of the kind of people who would be equally intolerable as GOP leaders lording it over everyone else, had Romney not been rejected by us.
I thank God that Romney lost.
Classless.
BTW - Romney already put a plan forward. Over a year ago.
You really ought to spend some time on FAIR's website getting a handle on this. You make us look bad.
Every real conservative in the US Congress has proposed reforms to try to end the nightmare of illegal immigration.
"Changing the laws are a means to eliminating illegal immigration."
By making them legal. LOL You are a real hoot!
Oh yeah, that's totally what I mean. Oh clearly so. You are so brilliant. Are you in Mensa with Joe Biden?
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.