Posted on 11/18/2007 9:27:09 AM PST by Rockitz
It is my guess, that he gave that answer (obvious, that it is ) in response to a direct question on that topic.
I clicked on the link. Thanks. I am a little concerned about what Romney says about how he would treat the 12 to 20 million {or more} illegal aliens already in this country. Specifically, the Romney position states,
For the 12+ million illegal aliens in the country now, Romney favors immediate deportation of convicted criminal illegal aliens and deportation of illegal aliens who refuse to get off public welfare assistance. For the remaining illegal aliens already in the country, Romney would support offering a temporary work visa, with biometric identification data, to facilitate reasonable attrition in returning the illegal aliens to their home countries The temporary work visa would be required to remain in the country and employed, but would not be renewable. The illegal aliens who decide to stay and apply for the temporary visa must return to their home country after the term of the temporary visa expires (for example, 6 months). They would be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship from their home country and would enter the process at the back of the line behind all other current applicants.
Allowing illegal aliens who broke our law by entering illegally, committing ID theft, not paying taxes, etc. to be rewarded with temporary visas is wrong and it is compounded by making them eligible to apply for US citizenship from their home country. And it is not practical. I have no idea what reasonable attrition means. What happens after the six month, non-renewable temporary visa expires? This sounds like the Mike Pence flim flam to modify comprehensive immigration reform. An illegal alien would be crazy to apply for such a visa that would identify him and his whereabouts and force him to leave the country in six months. Anytime I see back of the line and path to citizenship, I know we are talking about amnesty.
Governor Romney (on chain migration): "My view is that we should not have a policy in our immigration structure that says that if a child is born here to illegal immigrants then, by right, the entire family is brought in based upon that child’s citizenship. That does not require a change in law either constitutionally or through other means and can be adopted through policy."
Romney is not challenging birthright citizenship, just that he can't sponsor the entire family. Under current law, a child born here to illegal aliens cannot sponsor anyone until age 21. Romney doesn't see to understand that point based on his statement.
Earlier this year, Romney said he was studying whether birthright citizenship could be ended legislatively -- as some of his supporters believe -- or whether it would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Kmiec, who served as a constitutional legal counsel to former Presidents Reagan and Bush, said that someone who enters the U.S. illegally, and has not renounced the citizenship of the country from which he or she has emigrated, is not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.
One of Romney’s most outspoken supporters on Capitol Hill -- Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga. -- shares Kmiec's assessment that Congress likely has the power to end birthright citizenship through legislation. "Romney Eyeing End to Birthright Citizenship"
See link in # 43 — which was also available in #31.
I agree.
A child born of illegal aliens cannot sponsor anyone until he/she is 21. Romney has not come out against birthright citizenship. I guess he will study it some more.
Mitt would of, but never denied in state tuition breaks to illegals. It never came before him as Governor. Talk radio and citizen anger sunk the Massachusetts Legislature's plan to enact a bill. The Legislature never did, they backed down and the bill was never voted upon.
Mitt was late to the anger party, if you will.
Anyways.
Public universities and collages are tax supported. Illegals do and can go to them. And thus receive a subsidy from the taxpayer. Matter of fact, if you come here, you will pay out of state tuition. An illegal pays in-state tuition. You pay more as an American citizen. Nice.
Mitt did nothing about this. It is still the case, and lawful today. Illegals are going to Massachusetts state schools, and paying the same tax supported, subsidized cost as tax paying citizens.
This is wrong. Mitt did nothing, zero, zilch, nada.
"On the birthright citizenship issue, we're still looking at it," Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told ABC News.
Plus, you can have all the great plans in the world, but you have to be able to beat Rudy and then Hillary.
But like curiosity said, I'd be fine with Fred. His immigration plan has to be better than McCain's or Rudy's.
Can not Mitt make his own mind up? I don’t want to know what a guy’s staff is mulling over.
But, I knew this. Mitt’s a wonk. He wouldn’t open an umbrella without a study.
I would put Fred ahead of Romney for the reasons I cited in my post #42. I am part of a local grassroots organization on immigration. We are trying to form a national coalition to nail down where the candidates stand on immigration and sponsor an issues debate on the subject, hopefully for both parties in the primaries or in the national elections.
However, given his alliance with Shamnesty McCain, do we trust the old Fred or the new plan?
Yes, it was written by Kris Kobach, Thompson's advisor on immigration issues. Kris is well-versed on the issue and on the right side for those of us fighting this battle on a daily basis. We have been in touch with Kris and he is in favor of an issues debate.
Plus, you can have all the great plans in the world, but you have to be able to beat Rudy and then Hillary.
Fred may be the man who can be the consensus candidate in what I believe will be a brokered convention. He will not splinter the party like Romney might. The choice is really between those two in terms of a viable, electable candidate. I think Fred is more conservative and the Rep power base is the South.
So which Republican Primaries will Fred win? Iowa? New Hampshire? South Carolina? Michigan? Florida? California? New York? Texas? Fred has no plan for winning. He is not a strategist and he has not hired able strategists.
Frederalism is his only strategy, and it basically consists of conceeding defeat on social issues at the National level, unless a few judges can be picked along the way. Fred’s America is a balkanized nation with a hodge podge of abortion laws, marriage laws, gun laws, and no national leader with a mandate to articulate and promote one Nation under God.
He will win SC, Texas, and most of the Southern states. Who do you think will win these races? Do you think any candidate is going to have enough delegates to win on the first ballot?
Frederalism is his only strategy, and it basically consists of conceeding defeat on social issues at the National level, unless a few judges can be picked along the way. Fred’s America is a balkanized nation with a hodge podge of abortion laws, marriage laws, gun laws, and no national leader with a mandate to articulate and promote one Nation under God.
LOL. It is called the Constitution. I would rather have a hodgepodge than an all powerful federal government in Washington dictating every facet of our lives. We don't need a "national leader" with a mandate. Government isn't the solution, it is the problem.
Actually Romney came to the immigration debate before you did!
You cannot look at the numbersusa.com score card and not acknowledge that he was part of the problem, not the solution. I am not so willing to forget his McCain partnerships on other issues either. They indicate what his future actions might be. Everyone keeps saying we need to look at the record, but then we are supposed to ignore that senate record?
I think we need change and an outside the beltway type offers us that opportunity. The insiders usually offer more of the same.
Mitt accomplished a lot with an 85% liberal legislature. It will be interesting to see what he can do when the playing ground is more fair. If anyone can figure out a way to do it -- and do it right -- it's Mitt.
That would certainly be a good start, but there's lot more to chain migration than the parents of kids born here. Currently, our legal immigration policy gives a preference to people who have extended adult family in the US. Most people who get green cards get them based on the fact that they have cousins, aunts, adult siblings, etc in the states. The anchor baby problem, while very real and important, is not the biggest problem.
Romney's been quiet about the general "family reunification" provisions of our legal immigration policy that apply to adults, but I think he'll come out against it more strongly soon.
He's also been mum about the total immigration numbers.
Again, I think he will eventually come to our side on this, but he hasn't quite yet.
Apparently you don’t understand the word flip flop.!
Governor Romney opposed efforts to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. “Those who are here illegally should not receive tacit support from our government that gives an indication of legitimacy,” the governor said, echoing arguments that opponents have voiced in the Commonwealth and in other states considering similar license measures. “If they are here illegally, they should not get driver’s licenses,” he said.
(Scott S. Greenberger, “Romney Stand Dims Chances Of License For Undocumented,” The Boston Globe, 10/28/2003)
More here!
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#immigration
Governor Romney (on chain migration): “My view is that we should not have a policy in our immigration structure that says that if a child is born here to illegal immigrants then, by right, the entire family is brought in based upon that child’s citizenship. That does not require a change in law either constitutionally or through other means and can be adopted through policy.”
(Teddy Davis, “Romney Eyeing End to Birthright Citizenship,” ABC News, 7/22/2007)
More here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#immigration
Americans For Border Security Press Release: Romney Took Different Position In 2006 And Advisor Made Questionable Comments While Campaigning In Florida, State With Large Hispanic Population
Contact: 480-626-8694 May 30, 2007
Des Moines – Today Americans for Border Security called on Iowans to ask Mitt Romney to clarify his position on immigration and explain in detail why his position in 2007 is different than his position in 2006.
In 2006 Governor Romney supported the President’s immigration policy as well as the McCain-Kennedy bill. He expressed support for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship and said illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship.
He even went as far as to say that Republicans that break from the President on this issue are making a “big mistake” according to the Associated Press.
Now Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney says he ‘’strongly opposes’’ the immigration plan also denounced by conservatives even though his public statements suggest he actually agrees with major aspects of the proposal in Congress.
Mitt Romney opposes the legislation but won’t offer a plan of his own. This worries conservatives such as Americans for Border Security because of his previous pro-amnesty position.
Romney advisor Al Cárdenas, a Cuban-American lawyer and former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, said, “The criticism he has received has been over the top and unfair. . . . I am confident that he will [put] forward an immigration proposal that Floridians and Hispanics alike will find fair.’’
While in Florida Romney said he would “not deny” illegal immigrants the “opportunity to apply for permanent residency or citizenship,” but he would not say how he would change the proposed legislation to make such application acceptable, according to the Palm Beach Post.
Governor Romney has a long history of flip-flops on issues from abortion, to gun control, to gay rights. This pattern of shifting positions should concern Iowa conservatives who are dedicated to securing our border and solving the illegal immigration crisis
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.