Replies

That's not true. He’s always said he'd deport the 2 million illegals who have a cirminal record. The rest he said have to go back to their home countries in order to apply for citizenship. He didn’t say he’d physically remove them. I think we all know by now that that is not going to happen no matter who says they will do it. Even if someone wanted to do that, they wouldn't be allowed to accomplish it.

Mitt’s always argued that by securing the border, enforcing the laws and removing the magnets that attract the illegals (free benefits, illegally obtained jobs, health care, sanctuary cities etc), they will remove themselves through attrition.

The key is that he supports securing the border once and for all and he rejects the Z visa which would give the illegals immediate and indefinite legal status.

Plus, Tom Tancredo thinks Romney's plan is acceptable. That's good enough for me and preferable to what McCain, Huck or the dems have in store.

Romney allowed sanctuary cities in MA to flouish because he said the courts made him do it. This was in spite of the fact that Romney had federal law on his side. But now voters are supposed to believe that Romney's found a pair? That he's willing to fight for what he says he believes in? That he'll go to court, fight Congress in order to secure our borders?

Snort.

Romney was my preferred candidate at the beginning. He has run a very poor campaign so far, and is only now starting to be the “real” positive Mitt Romney.

If he had adopted that persona to begin with, instead of pandering to the right of Huckabee in Iowa, he could well be the leader now.

I am going to sit back and see how he does in Michigan. If he wins, great. If not, I don’t want to hear his excuses about why he lost.

He himself said, “If I can’t win in Michigan, where can I win?”