Mitt Romney and the Republicans have found a number of creative ways to side-step the question, “Will you repeal Obama’s immigration order to grant temporary relief from deportation to the children of illegal immigrants?” Check out the highlight reel above, and keep in mind: this is only from Monday morning, on a single network!
Why is the GOP evading? Perhaps because the future of their party’s electability is at stake. According to the 2010 census, the Hispanic population makes up 16.3% of the country’s population. That’s a 43% increase since the previous census in 2000, making Hispanics not only the nation’s largest minority group, but also its fastest-growing one.
If Mitt Romney and the Republicans say that they would, in fact, repeal Obama’s new initiative, they risk alienating an increasingly influential voting bloc for this election and perhaps many more to come. On the other hand, if Romney admits that the president was right, he risks aggravating a conservative base whose high turnout in such a close race will be crucial for victory.
This, ladies and gentleman, is called a pickle. Hence the evasion.
The approach Republicans are taking seems to be threefold: accuse President Obama of acting in purely political interest, criticize him for creating a short-term solution to a long-term problem (one they've refused to address), and then repeat one of the first two tactics. Accuse, criticize, repeat—like something from the back of a shampoo bottle.
Obama’s immigration order could affect some 1.4 million young illegal immigrants. It will help them get the permits they need to work legally. This is an act of government that will have a powerful and immediate effect on the young people it helps to keep in this country.
If Mitt Romney and the Republicans can’t articulate their position on the matter—worse, if they don’t have a coherent one—then they better figure it out soon. Continued waffling won’t do them a bit of good.
Leave a Comment:
The accuse & criticize formula won't lather when you're standing in the shower with business community that largely depends upon having its water carried by undocumented labor and consumers. Romney's run out of shampoo. Someone bring the poor man a towel.
Romney has no need to speak to the issue of what he would do with this Presidential Executive Order if and when he is elected to the office of President of the United States as he has stated he will at that time address a permanent solution on this the total immigration reform. So time to stop stroking yourselves on this non issue MSNBC, and get on to some coverage on the Attorney General Eric Holder being in contempt of Congress over the gun running "Fast and Furious" investigation of his Department of Justice, and the refusal of Barrack Obama to appoint approve the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate the leaking of vital anti-terrorism information, possible from the White House and certainly from the National Security Council, for the purpose of political gain for the President's reelection campaign efforts.
He has not said what the permanent solution is or even outlined anything that he would favor in a permanent solution. And as the article points out (and you ignore), Republicans have blocked all attempts at permanent solutions. This is not a non-issue. It is a legitimate question to ask whether or not he would keep this policy in place until we come to a more permanent solution - and not only that, but what sort of permanent solution he would be in favor of.
Building the defense of the border will be a big emphasis in the Romney Plan. You want stimulus to help with the economy? Then stop the influx dead of illegals coming to take our jobs, and sending the proceeds of their illegal labor back across the border in a reparation of payments activity that weakens our economy further.
Watch for the plank in the convention, you only have to wait a couple of months Boston Guy; and there is no panic now, as the temportary succession of arrests and deportation of young illegal non ciizens has apparently ended in the interim thanks to Obama's flip flopping on this matter from his legal position last year in desperation to curry votes particularly in the Hispanic sector. .
The act itself is illegal so they want be repealing it will be decided in the courts. In sept of 2011 Obama himself told us in a taped interview that he did not have the legal authority to do this. The congress had to be theones to make the laws. The President does not have the legal right to do it according to Obama in 2011.
You two guys have each answered the questions better than your candidate. Maybe YOU should think about running in his place!
Just what is needed two more mindless repulbican vaccum heads grappling for power to cut taxes.
We're going to make a special case by executive order to double your taxes TomFool From Philly. BTW, better warn those Black Panther's that got away with intimidating white voters in your City of Brotherly Love (NOT) in 2008 by swing pick axe handle outside of polling places and shouting "A black man is going to be elected tonight", tell them that the boys from Pennsylvania that "cling to their bibles and guns" will be on the lookout for them this year, as the Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder, about to be found in contempt of Congress on the gun running Fast and Furious program wouldn'y pursue an investigation and charges being brought against those Black Panthers in violation of his oath of office. But I suppose that was "prosecutorial discretion", hmmm?
There is only one correct response to the question of what to do with
illegal aliens: Deportation. Not a watered down Republican version of
the "Dream Act", not special educational or work wavers, not temporary
visas. DEPORTATION
Any Republican who is willing to abandon Conservative principles on
gay marriage, taxes, smaller government, OR ILLEGAL immigration loses
his right to call himself CONSERVATIVE.
Conservatives believe in the RULE OF LAW...a concept lost to left wing liberals.
Illegal Immigrants are breaking the law in the same way a drug dealer is breaking the law.
And Conservatives believe that lawbreakers should be PUNISHED...not REWARDED.
And so far on the issue of what to do with illegal aliens, Romney sounding more and more like a lefty...than the "Severe Conservative" and opponent of illegal immigration that he portrayed during the debates.
A couple of months ago During the debates Romney sounded more sure of his beliefs:
He declared the Arizona immigration laws "a model for the nation"
"I'll also complete the fence, I'll make sure we have enough Border Patrol agents to secure the fence, and I will make sure we have an E-Verify system and require employers to check the documents of workers,"
Back then Mitt Romney skewered Gov Rick Perry for providing free education to undocumented students and declared that he would punish illegal immigrants through "self deportation"
That was THEN.
Romney Now: "With regards to these kids who were brought in by their parents through no fault of their own, there needs to be a long-term solution so they know what their status is,"
and....
Romney Now: “those (illegals) that come to this country and get a higher degree would be eligible for a green card.”
The correct conservative answer to the question of ILLEGAL immigrants was expressed by Conservatives like Congressman Steve King who said “They say [immigrants] weren’t aware they were breaking the law. But it was their parents that made the poor choices for their children. It’s not our moral obligation to make up for the poor decision to bring them illegally from their countries.”
Sadly Republicans have put all their hopes on Mitt Romney who has had a checkered conservative past.
Unless Mitt Romney stands alongside Republicans and condemns ILLEGAL immigration NOW, and in no uncertain terms, the chances of him holding fast to other pillars of Conservative principles AFTER election are highly questionable.
Conservatives corrected George Bush and John McCain in their pursuit of a comprehensive reform of the illegal immigration law of the land by insisting on a strengthing first of the southern border and the stepped up efforts to identify, arrest, and deport the adult illegal immigrants that violated our laws when they took up residence in this country. The problem is that although the Obama Administration has made token efforts to do so, the job still has not been accomplished to the point where it will be safe to enact a reform of the laws that won't first immedately cause a rush of illegal immigrants from streaming across our borders. Instead, when states like Arizona and others faced with the lack of enforcement efforts attempt to do the job themselves, the Attorney General Eric Holder brings suit against them.
Compassionate conservatives do not want to see a high school female who is a scholar, top of her class, who was brought to this country at the age of 4 arrested and deported, especially to a country that is racked with drug and other criminal activity violence where she may not have any known relatives to take shelter with. But at the same time, we don't want to see late 20s adults who came to this country as a 15 year old who never went to school, and at the age of 29 managedto get a GED from some "sanctuary" city social agency program to become employable and then given the assistance to secure a job which a US citizen could and would like to hold by way of a 2 year temporary work visa that could be extended indefinitly. You see, the Devil is in the Details of how do you write the reform legislation.
This whole issue of illegal immigration does not rest solely on the backs of the immigrants. The entire US has accommodated them!. We allowed this to happen over the past 42 years by turning our heads and assisting these people in the process with drivers license, health care and signs in Spanish etc. Does this sound like a country that is trying to oust these people? Absolutely not!. We are to blame for this situation.
And if you want to talk about the rule of law, then carry it out to everyone who has assisted these "criminals" by aiding them in the process, and that would include our local and state governments, churches, businesses for employing them and home owners for using them for domestic solutions.
After 42 years, it is so out of control, that there is no easy solution and a hardcore stance is not the answer; it's not a black and white issue, it becomes more complicated by the day.
If you're going to be a hard line conservative, then pick your battles properly. You're not going to win out on every issue, please, be reasonable.
At this stage of the game, like it or not, Romney is your best bet. This country doesn't produce great statesman any more, they are a thing of the past, so deal with it.
The question of how able immigrants are to assimilate American culture will be answered by 2050 when the question will be turned on it's head with a majority of Americans being latino. That future should change the question now to how will Americans in general will assimilate the cultural contribution of immigrants.
The projection that by 2050 or a full generation from now the population of the US will be 50% or more Hispanic assumes that Hispanic families will continue to have higher numbers of children than white or black or yellow or red American citizens, and that the numbers of illegal immigrants swarming across our border from Mexico and Central and Southern American countries is going to continue at the same rate it has for the last 40 years. I don't believe either of those scenarios is going to be the case, bluesmokeandmirrors.
And where we have the greatest numbers of hispanics living as a percentage of the population, California and Texas, the impact on the politics of those two states is of probable consequence, although outside of the border states Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California there isn't much overall problems with assimilation to the American culture, especially for 2nd generation hispanics.
Thanks for the good points, Keith. High rates of lower numbers tend to decline as the number increases, which may not have been taken into calculation in this case. With myself not knowing of any smoothing in the equation, I agree. Neither would it necessarily prove over such a time period that party affiliation would thus become more Democrat or politically liberal. Still, I would stick with my assessment in terms of the direction it is going though not necessarily to the extent of either a majority by 2050 or a higher percentage of Democrats or liberals as a result. As for assimilation, those assimilating seem rather able to have overcome resistance to that by others who are the ones that tend to raise the question of assimilation in the first place,
Agreed. It is interesting to note the issue raised in Arizona of the secondary level classes in Hispanic culture being taught vs. emhasis on assimilation. Romney, in part of his education reforms as Governor of Massachusetts replaced that state's former strong emphasis on bi-lingual education for immersion in English language, beliving the best avenue for assimilation of minorities into society was to provide them with the tools for success in the economy of the state and nation.
It will be interesting to see if the Hispanic voters trend in the direction of listening to the emphasis on longer range economic programs for the nation, like deficit spending and debt reduction and excessive regulation deduction and aiding the business sector, and getting the government out of their church and lives. I'm fully expecting a backlash from the hispanic community on Obama and the progressives pro gay agenda; they are very traditional in their views of marriage and family, and see their family structures as their strength.
John Steinbeck wrote eloquently of the issue of minority assimilation in America's history, pointing out that each wave of immigrants had to go through it, usually in one generation, except for the Native Americans who were given the option (or forced) onto separate reservations, and the Black Americans that were brought here by force as enslaved labor. Neither group has managed to assimilate well to the majority culture, being still very ideosyncratic in their insular communities.
I think the more culturally sensitive bilingual education has higher success in early grades and then changing horses in mid-stream in mid-grades to immersion seems to mess things up, unscientifically speaking.
What Hispanics decide might have closest correlation to what Catholics in general might decide, being liberal on social programs but conservative on gays, most certainly. Just a note on being forced onto reservation, the Navajo kept their indigenous lands, never really having to relocate.
Regardless of anything idiosyncratic, assimilation also requires acceptance by the greater culture to which I see considerable resistance.
I am in favor of the President taking action, and to those critics who want him to wait for Congress to act, we all now know he will get no cooperation with McConnell and Boehner. So he must do what he must do for the good of the country. I like his reasoned approach, we do need more comprehensive reform and a path to citizenship. Don't forget that many of these families came from sheer desperation and a consequence for the parents may mean amnesty, not citizenship. Have the kids sponsor their own parents. But, in the end, isn't it best to know who the heck is here? A border wall is a joke in this day of planes, trains, boats. Make it easy for people to register as alive and illegal without deportation. Again, isn't it just best to know who lives with us in our communities? And, they can pay taxes too. Our urban cities need people to live in all the darned foreclosed houses since the malling and vast suburban sprawl. I'm all for it.
mj:
Last I looked the minorities of the Black and Hispanic communities in the inner cities are fighting like all get out to get out of their crime ridden ghettos and barrios for the good live in the suburbs....that is assimilation in progress, my good fellow or madam.
Immigration, like childbirth, requires experience to really understand the pain...yes I have experienced it since 1986, some things take time I guess, like immigrating from Canada to the USA.
Given the fact that this network has newly discovered something called "Fast and Furious" it is a true joke that you would comment on a political candidate spinning a topic to his advantage..... considering this network sliced and diced tape to create a perception the did not exist again...(See A. Mitchell).... the one thing that can never be said about BSDNC...is that you lack Audacity. You have and endless supply.