Just in case you were thinking there’s no way Romney could blow this thing …
Obama issues an executive order that is his most egregious assault yet on the separation-of-powers foundation of our constitutional system, regardless whether the subject matter was immigration or tiddlywinks, and Mitt Romney’s big problem with it is — wait for it … — that it is a mere “stop-gap measure” not a “permanent solution.” Romney is intentionally ambiguous about his intentions; his advisors — who won’t get their stories straight, probably on purpose — give similarly weasel assurances to the disparate factions they are courting; and the only thing you can really be sure about is that Romney is committed (or, at least, as committed as Romney ever gets) to the Bush/GOP Establishment dream of — all together now –comprehensive immigration reform.
Sigh …
From the Daily Mail:
Top Hispanic adviser says Romney would KEEP Obama’s ‘Dream’ plan to allow 800,000 illegal immigrants to stay in U.S
A top Hispanic adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaign has said that the presumptive Republican nominee would keep in place President Barack Obama’s controversial order to halt the deportation of up to 800,000 young illegal immigrants.
For the past week, Romney has repeatedly declined to say whether or not he would repeal the order, based on the DREAM Act and allowing to stay those under 30 brought into America illegally by their parents but who have since led productive lives. Speaking to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) annual conference on Thursday, he again sidestepped the issue. ‘Some people have asked if I will let stand the President’s executive action,’ he said. ‘The answer is that I will put in place my own long-term solution that will replace and supersede the President’s temporary measure.’ Obama’s order, he said, was a ‘temporary measure that he seems to think will be just enough to get him through the election’. But Romney gave no indication whether he would maintain that temporary measure while pursuing a broader solution to the immigration issue.
Speaking to MailOnline after Obama’s speech to NALEO, however, Jose Fuentes, a co-chair of Romney Hispanic Steering Committee and a former Attorney General of Puerto Rico, said that he believed Romney would not repeal Obama’s order. Asked whether his assumption would be that Romney would keep the order that Obama put in place last Friday, he replied: ‘Yes, he would make it a part of a comprehensive reform and make it permanent.’ Pressed to clarify whether he thought the order would remain pending that comprehensive reform being achieved, he responded: ‘If you’re saying that you’re going to make it permanent and that you’re going to fight to make it permanent, I think that’s a pretty good assumption.’
This contrasted sharply with the words of Ray Walser, co-chair of Romney’s Latin American Working Group, who told the Telegraph on Thursday: ‘My anticipation is that he would probably rescind this directive were he to be elected in November.’
Romney has a very delicate line to tread. Many conservatives have denounced Obama’s order as unconstitutional and a de facto ‘amnesty’ for illegal immigrants. But he needs to attract Hispanic votes in key states and senior figures like Senator Marco Rubio of Florida have made clear they favour the substance of the order, if not Obama’s timing, method and intention.
Asked whether Fuentes was correctly stating the campaign’s position, Romney’s spokeswoman Andrea Saul responded: ‘Governor Romney has been clear he will put in place a long-term solution that will supersede President Obama’s stop-gap measure.’
Full story here.
Here’s Romney in a GOP debate last November, when he was ripping Newt Gingrich for proposing a humanitarian exception to deportation for a sympathetic class of illegal aliens who had long-standing roots in the U.S.:
But to say that we’re going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you’re all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing…. People respond to incentives. And if you can become a permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, you’ll do so. What I want to do is bring people into this country legally, particularly those that have education and skill that allows us to compete globally.”
And then there’s this account of Romney’s immigration stance, from the HuffPo, just a few short months ago:
Anyone in the United States in violation of federal law should go back to his or her country of origin, Romney said Wednesday during a tele-town hall with Iowa voters.
The former Massachusetts governor noted that he favors a “path to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants, but added that “consists of going to their home country, applying for citizenship or permanent residency just like everybody else, and getting back in the line.”
“They should have to get in the same line with everybody else who wants to come here legally,” Romney said.
In 2007, Romney had also talked of undocumented immigrants returning to their country of origin, but back then he didn’t appear to favor that approach for all. In the end, his comments in a key Dec. 16, 2007, interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” were jumbled and unclear.
“They should have a set period during which period they sign up for application for permanent residency or for citizenship. But there’s a set period whereupon they should return home. And if they’ve been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, that would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they’ll be going home,” Romney told Tim Russert in that interview.
So the question becomes: Is there anything, other than Romneycare, that Mitt won’t, er, evolve on?
This is the Romney we know and loathe. Will he pick a spineless VP? Asserting the powers of dictatorship ought to be an issue if the idea was to show leadership, or is this a pandering contrst?
Odd, isn’t it, that Obama can’t blow it with making overtures to Putin, showing total ignorance about Constitutional Law, his disdain for the private sector, and on and on, but Romney can by not pandering to people that are moochers and criminals.
May Obama should win so that Americans can finally endure the reality of their stupidity.
Gotta disagree
Romney is showing intelligence in counteracting the Liberal moralistic narrative that frames Republicans as Racists for wanting immigration laws enforced. He needs to clearly separate the legal reasoning from the implicit allegations of Xenophobia as cast by liberal invective; be honest in showing that Dems want a political football made precisely of immigrants sufferings so they can be poster children in Dem’s political campaigns. “cynical” must translate to spanish.
The real problem is not the number of illegals here now. It is that the borders are not secure and are maintained in that state for domestic political reasons, possibly indefinitly, and therefore national security is thereby threatened.
Romney can pursue absolutely secure borders for the sake of national security and appropriate latino buy-in in this effort by dissociating the law/border issue from “discrimination” against latinos issue. How?
Offering a path (plan) to “comprehensive reform” that seeks to make legal and actual status agree; eliminating any “shadows” that Demos can push people into in order to advocate for them. A bi-partisan residency status for illegals already here beats a left wing “social justice” citizenship amnesty, ends the future lure of such, (Reagan’s mistake on amnesty) and obviates the new (democratic) voter issue.
Objective one is secure the borders (Mexican buy-in through investment in Mexican private enterprise by the Romney admin. will help).
Objective two, end the demo’s pity party and the “repubs are racist” crap.
If this means that everyone that “broke the law” won’t be deported, well, I guess there are trade-offs in justice work.
(You can disagree, but I don’t want my taxes to go to rounding up people.)
Besides, Romney will do nothing much on the law without the Republican House and Senate; and even if he were planning to start deporting people on day one, would he be campaigning candidly about that? or would he be saying what he’s saying now?
I’m afraid I gotta agree with “flying squirrel”. You’re falling into the trap that liberal Dems have been in for years, but Conservative Republicans haven’t had until recently. It was epitomized, on the Republican side, by the Santorum supporters who insisted that in the past, the problem with Republican candidates (McCain et al) was that they hadn’t been conservative *enough* to generate enthusiasm and get people to turn out for their candidate. The idea echoes the old Pauline Kael anecdote about how she wasn’t sure Nixon had won reelection, because no one she knew had voted for him. You guys are acting as if Romney can just do the “principled” thing, and that will win him the election, even if he’s branded as a “racist” by the media, because no one you know would fall for such silliness. Unfortunately, there are a lot of voters in this country you don’t know, and many of them will take such an accusation seriously. The response to Obama’s election year ploy needs to be more nuanced than “No, we hate Obama and we’ll send all the illegals back, because we don’t like them either.”
People need to figure out that you can’t just represent the leftward or rightward 20% of the electorate, and ignore everyone else, and get elected to anything other than mayor or maybe governor of a single hued (red or blue) city or state.
All Romney would have to do is point out the explicit age discrimination in the Obama executive order and denounce it on those grounds. Simultaneously he could say he would work with congress rather than run an end around. He could conclude this short remark saying he would respect both constitutional issues Obama gave short shrift; due process and seperation of powers.
The author’s alarmism falls into Obama’s trap: O meant to force Mitt’s hand and set the terms of the argument. Attorney McCartney is correct in many of his concerns, but I would posit
A) America’s immigration history at its best is to allow the world’s “best and brightest,” and immigrants (yes illegal, but not themselves border-jumpers) who are employed, in the military, or pursuing education should be treated differently than MS-13 gang members.
B) That’s is Obama’s surface argument. It’s a reasonable one. Of course it’s deceptive. But it is also so obviously a political ploy by Obama – why is this only being announced now, during Obama’s Month From Hell, when he could have done it say in his first 100 days? – and Obama hopes that he can drag Romney out into a stance that alienates some of the electorate. See, even-handed reasonable guy Obama vs. racist Romney. Responding against the measure too strongly risks the trap — remember, we are dealing with a hostile media. Whatever Romney’s opinion is, Romney has no political seat right now and thus no legislative power. A strong anti- message is too bold. It may be right, but it is too bold. Romney is right to hedge and allow the issue to pass. Next week’s news cycle will wash it away.
Obama is throwing glop at the wall to see what will stick. Romney is better served staying on message. He might question the wisdom of rubber-stamping hundreds of thousands of illegal workers in an era of widespread unemployment, but past that he’s playing into an Obama narrative.
It’s the economy, stupid.
“though the story should go that this pilgrim citizens happen to be happy to get alive after having a hard wintertime”