One of the biggest myths of the 2012 presidential campaign, propagated by Team Romney and the mainstream media, is that Willard Mitt Romney is a hard-liner on immigration issues. One easily could reach that conclusion if Romney were judged on his speeches, press releases, and sound bites.
However, as all conservatives should know, it is foolish to predict how a politician will govern based on campaign rhetoric. The more reliable way to determine a candidate‘s position is to review his actual record.
Advertisement
It is clear the Romney campaign, beginning with his 2008 bid, decided to use immigration as one of the few hooks it had to lure conservatives to its camp. With Romney’s dismal record on fiscal and social issues, his consultants must have concluded that with so little said about immigration by Romney while governor, they could get away with creating a phony record.
Indeed, if one digs deeply, a disturbing pattern emerges. Romney’s “hard-line” positions on immigration suddenly arose as he began thinking of running for president in 2006. Moreover, his current views on immigration usually contradict what he actually said and did as governor. It appears that Romney’s immigration positions have been created solely for his presidential run or were based upon events that simply never occurred.
Romney’s Support for McCain’s Amnesty Romney has made opposition to any amnesty proposal a central campaign plank. This message first surfaced during the run-up to his 2008 race when his potential rival, Senator John McCain, introduced an immigration measure that included amnesty. Romney attacked it:
I strongly opposed today’s bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new “Z-Visa” does, is a form of amnesty . . . today’s Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country’s illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system.
Moreover, Romney specifically opposed any kind of “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens, saying, “I don’t think there should be a pathway to citizenship for people who are here illegally.”
And quite consistently during the 2012 campaign, Romney made clear in nearly every debate that he opposed amnesty for illegal aliens in any and all forms whatsoever.
However, these statements conflict with Romney’s earlier view on amnesty. Romney gave the Boston Globe an interview in 2005 in which he argued that the McCain-Kennedy immigration-reform bill was “quite different” from an amnesty bill and even called the bill “reasonable”:
I think an amnesty program is what — which is all the illegal immigrants who are here are now citizens, and walk up and get your citizenship. What the president has proposed, and what Senator McCain and Cornyn have proposed, are quite different than that. They require people signing up for a, well, registering and receiving a registration number. Then working here for six years and paying taxes — not taking benefits. . . . And then at the end of that period, registering to become a citizen. . . . And I think that those are reasonable proposals.
And in contrast to his attacks on a “pathway to citizenship,” Romney specifically supported such an approach while governor, saying:
Those who’ve been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn’t be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.
But Romney didn’t stop there. In 2006, as reported by the AP, Romney even criticized Republicans who didn’t support the Bush-McCain amnesty legislation:
Meantime, one of McCain’s potential rivals for the GOP nomination, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has made it known that he supports the president’s immigration position, saying that Republicans who have broken rank with Bush “made a big mistake.”
The Establishment GOP, which includes National Review, are almost all in agreement, that immigration is good and more immigration is even better.
We uncouth rubes in flyover country beg to differ. While a large majority of Americans are strongly against illegal immigration what is surprising is to the Beltway Elite is that a modest majority of Americans favor a reduction in LEGAL immigration.
They are right. It is actually LEGAL immigration with it's endless family "re-unification" policy that is driving our population to half a billion and splintering us into a a multi-lingual, multi-cultural "polyglot boarding house".
I'd rather live in a polyglot boarding house than be forced to land this airplane down in "uncouth rube" country. Maybe that makes me elitist, but then again I'm not the one trying to exclude people from coming here LEGALLY, you are.
What does it mean to be a "conservative" on immigration?
Is it "conservative" to create a national ID system so that anyone who pays you to provide services - whether as an employee or independent contractor - can determine your eligibility? And combine that with audits, raids, prison terms and fines for employers - whether the CEO of a large beef producer or an individual who hires a nanny? Combined with requirements that all fingerprints taken by law enforcement agencies be run against a database on which every citizen / legal resident's fingerprints or biometric ID is held? Combined with requirements that any person's interaction with a federal agency be subject to a check of his status?
Is it "conservative" to work for open international commerce in labor so that workers (subject only to national security or criminal screenings) come into the U.S. and leave the U.S. in the same fashion as goods come into and leave the country (also subjected only to national security or health/safety screenings)?
When the word "conservative" (or "liberal", for that matter) is used in connection with illegal immigration, people who describe themselves as "conservative" - be they Tom Tancredo, Mark Krikorian or the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal / John McCain - have a habit of defining "conservative" so that they fit comfortably within its bounds.
Of course none of this really matters - what we ought to be talking about is what policy is best. So I'd not get too hung up on the "conservative" thing - it's a waste of time.
Politicians of all parties have been deceiving the American Public (and those who are legal citizens either Hispanic or others) regarding the millions of illegal immigrants who have flooded over our southern border in successive tidal waves over the years. Did you notice that the border has never been sealed? By "sealed", I mean a border that is almost impossible to breach. Use your imaginations as to what you think I am talking about when I say "sealed." The issue is a political football and so called "debate" that is about as futile as a politician breaking wind in the wind. Why has the border never been sealed? Because a few power brokers (not to mention a few politicans who were probably paid off over the decades) want a "leaking border" so they can keep making those billions of untaxable dollars moving weapons, drugs, sex slaves, and cheap labor across those deseret wastes that a so called Border Control can hardly patrol. There are now millions of illegal immigrants who are too numerous to be rounded up and deported, and that have no intention of leaving anyway, and especially those people who were born here. There is no solution except to grant citizenship to those already here, or who have been here for at least a reasonable length of time. Obviously this excludes criminals. Then, the border can be sealed with only the authorized ports of entry for those with the correct documents. Other than that, illegal Hispanic immigrants will continue to cross the border 24/7 with very few caught. So seal the border and grant citizenship to those here or shut up!!! Too costly to build an almost impregnable border? Maybe so with all those billions spent fighting futile wars overseas while you were being "invaded" by illegals and drugs and weapons right next door!! Will any of this happen? Probably not. Do you really think that those who make fortunes with cheap labor, weapons, and drugs will really allow their business to be disturbed. As far as the states go, this is a federal issue. What are the border states going to do. Even if one mined a border, the illegals would go around it. This is a long, long border folks!!!
"Romney: A Conservative on Immigration?
His record doesn’t reflect his current campaign stances."
The editors did not really need the top headline. The sub-headline works quite nicely, on virtually every Romney plank. In fact, it would make a pretty good slogan for his campaign.
Baldwin and Murdock also supply Romney with the perfect bumper sticker, to wit:
"He has no consistent views"
I suppose it's good that we are finally looking at actual records. Too bad that wasn't being done from the start. Had that been the case, Romney would never have been the presumptive anything, and the party might have been a little closer to choosing a conservative nominee.
There is not a single candidate in the history of the world who has been consistent on every issue over their lives, even their briefer political lives. Remember Ronald Reagan, the Roosevelt Democrat and union leader?
What is important is where they stand now.
Romney has evoked the strongest position regarding the control and termination of illegal immigration, and every component thereof - secure borders, attrition by enforcement, employer penalties, denial of benefits, absolutely no paths to citizenship. None of the other candidates, save Santorum, even approaches that degree of combativeness on the issue.
You can claim, as these two authors do, that Romney is not believable on these positions. But consider this: Romney has had these positions since at least 2007, in spite of the fact that the Republican establishment and punditry, including the National Review, are telling him that such positions are political losers, and that we must pander to the hispanics to win elections.
The easiest course for Romney would be to fall in line with the Republican elites and the TV talking (empty) heads and agree to treat the hispanic activists for amnesty and special interests favorably. He has not. He has remained firm on the issue.
As to Messrs Baldwin and Murdoch, who condemn Romney on having illegal alien subcontractors in his yard, can you please publish all the contracts you have had for work around your homes - painting, remodeling, house cleaning, painting, whatever, and show us where you did an E-Verify or wrote into the contract a clause prohibiting under pain of default and forfeiture the hiring of any illegals. Can you prove you never had an illegal working in your home?
There are areas that I disagree with Romney on and on the whole would prefer Santorum, but when it comes to illegal immigration Romney has taken a brave stand at great risk if one is to listen to these experts. Would that the Republican Party as a whole took the same positions on illegal immigration, rather than cave into the cheap labor plantation owners of the Chamber of Commerce. We would not have 20 million illegal aliens here today if the Bushs and McCains had spoken like Romney.
I would like Baldwin and Murdoch to respond to my challenge: Can they vouch that they never had an illegal alien in or around their own homes, or have ever required a prohibition against illegals in their contracts. Answers please!.
The question has not to do with Romney's consistency so much as his honesty. In other words, we don't believe in his supposed conversion to conservatism. Nor should we.
There is not a single candidate in the history of the world who has been consistent on every issue over their lives, even their briefer political lives. Remember Ronald Reagan, the Roosevelt Democrat and union leader?
What is important is where they stand now.
Romney has evoked the strongest position regarding the control and termination of illegal immigration, and every component thereof - secure borders, attrition by enforcement, employer penalties, denial of benefits, absolutely no paths to citizenship. None of the other candidates, save Santorum, even approaches that degree of combativeness on the issue.
You can claim, as these two authors do, that Romney is not believable on these positions. But consider this: Romney has had these positions since at least 2007, in spite of the fact that the Republican establishment and punditry, including the National Review, are telling him that such positions are political losers, and that we must pander to the hispanics to win elections.
The easiest course for Romney would be to fall in line with the Republican elites and the TV talking (empty) heads and agree to treat the hispanic activists for amnesty and special interests favorably. He has not. He has remained firm on the issue.
As to Messrs Baldwin and Murdoch, who condemn Romney on having illegal alien subcontractors in his yard, can you please publish all the contracts you have had for work around your homes - painting, remodeling, house cleaning, painting, whatever, and show us where you did an E-Verify or wrote into the contract a clause prohibiting under pain of default and forfeiture the hiring of any illegals. Can you prove you never had an illegal working in your home?
There are areas that I disagree with Romney on and on the whole would prefer Santorum, but when it comes to illegal immigration Romney has taken a brave stand at great risk if one is to listen to these experts. Would that the Republican Party as a whole took the same positions on illegal immigration, rather than cave into the cheap labor plantation owners of the Chamber of Commerce.
Deroy Murdoch has an unhealthy almost obsessive hatred of Mitt Romney.
Mr. Murdoch: you may be onto something if Newt and Santorum both didn't oppose E-verify.
You wish to attack Romney on positions he has taken for at least 5 years, but you fail miserably because he is undoubtedly to the right of both Santorum and Newt on the subject no matter how irrationally you argue otherwise.
Get help with your Romney Derangement Syndrome, Murdoch
