The Romney Flip in Immigration

By Leon H Wolf Posted in Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Full Disclosure: Leon Wolf is the E-Campaign Coordinator for the Sam Brownback for President Campaign.

At this point, finding opporutnistic changes of position on the part of Mitt Romney is about as difficult as hunting cows; this one, however, deserves special mention because it is on an issue that Romney is trying to use to separate himself from other candidates in the race like Senators Brownback and McCain: immigration. At the CPAC conference this year (Boston Globe has the audio), Romney said "McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer," and characterized it as "amnesty." Romney would apparently like everyone to believe that, had he been in the Senate in 2005-2006, he wouldn't have supported McCain-Kennedy. There's only one problem: In 2005-2006, he expressed public support for McCain-Kennedy.

In an interview with the Boston Globe in 2005, Romney made it clear that he did not believe that McCain-Kennedy was amnesty:

In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

The audio of the interview is available on the Globe website for those who may fear that Romney's position is being misrepresented. In the audio clip, Romney demonstrates that he has command of the issues and proposals presented by McCain-Kennedy, that he considers them to be "quite different" from amnesty, and then he ends by calling them "reasonable proposals."

In March of 2006, Romney expounded on his position in the Lowell (MA) Sun:

I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country … With these 11 million people, let’s have them registered, know who they are. 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.

-Source, Romney Supports Immigration Program, But Not Granting ‘Amnesty’, Evan Lehmann, 3/30/06

Thus indicating that Goveror Romney still supported a path to citizenship, and did not consider such to be "amnesty." In September of 2006, Romney was even more explicit, saying that those who were opposing the President and McCain on immigration were "making a big mistake."

Six months later, as Romney was now running for the White House and attempting to create separation, he was calling the McCain-Kennedy proposal which he had on several previous occasions defended as being a "non-amnesty" proposal, and a "reasonable proposal," and one which he explicitly supported an "amnesty proposal" while standing with a get-tough-on-immigration sheriff for a photo op.

When the Globe confronted the Romney campaign about this abrupt and shocking about-face, the Romney campaign responded thusly:

Asked about the discrepancy between Romney's comments in 2005 and now, spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said: "Over the past year and a half, as the American people have learned all the details of the McCain-Kennedy approach, they have arrived at the same conclusion as Governor Romney: It rewards people who are here illegally."

First of all, the "American people" were not the subject of the question, Governor Romney was the subject of the question. Second, this answer is just not plausible; two full years ago as Romney himself was personally discussing the McCain-Kennedy program with the Boston Globe, he showed a remarkable command of the particulars of the proposal: he knew that it "required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship." Add to this that illegal immigrants were required to learn English and pass a history exam, and that's McCain-Kennedy. Not only did Governor Romney demonstrate command of these facts about McCain-Kennedy, he laid them out as being the things which specifically distinguished it from an amnesty plan.

I suppose that it's possible that Governor Romney will tell us how, sometime between September of 2006 and March of 2007, he had a "powerful personal experience" which convinced him to be adamantly opposed to a path-to-citizenship plan, in the same way that he had a "powerful personal experience" which led him to be opposed to abortion. However, the number and breadth of these "changes of heart" on Romney's part lead inescapably to a single conclusion: Romney's most powerful personal experience was announcing his candidacy for the Presidency.

In an interview with the Boston Globe in 2005, Romney made it clear that he did not believe that McCain-Kennedy was amnesty:

The audio of the interview is available on the Globe website for those who may fear that Romney's position is being misrepresented. In the audio clip, Romney demonstrates that he has command of the issues and proposals presented by McCain-Kennedy, that he considers them to be "quite different" from amnesty, and then he ends by calling them "reasonable proposals."

Listen to the audio again and it’s rather clear that Romney wasn’t talking about McCain-Kennedy, he was talking about some of the specific items proposed by both Senators McCain and Cornyn (who authored different bills) which dealt with registration, taxes, no benefits, and having to wait in line rather than be granted automatic citizenship) and why those specific proposals weren’t amnesty. There is no mention of any specific bill (not surprising since the two Senators sponsored different bills) which makes it rather hard to claim that he “flipped” on supporting a bill that he wasn’t even talking about.

What makes this latest hit piece by Leon particularly comical though is that the only other candidate who actually supported McCain-Kennedy was one of its co-sponsors:

Immigration may pose an especially thorny problem. In March, Brownback broke with most of his fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to vote for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which would put today's illegal aliens on a path to citizenship. The senator has likened his own position to Reagan's, though it is hard to believe that many conservatives view the 1986 immigration law (which granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal aliens) as a high point of Reagan's presidency. "I see tension in our party between showing compassion and enforcing our laws," says Brownback. "We also have to recognize that there is a lot of work where it's hard to find Americans who will do it, such as meatpacking, which is a physically demanding and dangerous job." He therefore believes a guest-worker program is necessary. His approval of the McCain-Kennedy bill in committee unleashed a torrent of conservative criticism: Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a restrictionist group, dubbed him "Amnesty Sam," and Human Events Online, the website of the weekly newspaper, declared in a headline, "Brownback Can Kiss '08 Run Goodbye."

Whoops.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

1. You were given an instruction in another thread. Your next comment needs to be a response to it.

2. I did in fact listen to the audio, it's a shame you can't read. From the OP, they are the "proposals and issues presented by McCain-Kennedy" and

he knew that it "required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship." Add to this that illegal immigrants were required to learn English and pass a history exam, and that's McCain-Kennedy.

Further, the September 2006 AP article makes it clear that it's McCain's proposal that he was specifically supporting. So, nice try.

No one's disputing that Brownback supported McCain-Kennedy - I've written about it extensively here before. IN fact, I myself support it. So, sorry your little "gotcha" didn't work out nearly so well as you hoped. The difference is that my candidate is not now trying to pretend that McCain-Kennedy was something that it was not in order to pander to primary voters.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Further, the September 2006 AP article makes it clear that it's McCain's proposal that he was specifically supporting. So, nice try.

Read it again, there is nothing in the September 2006 AP article in which Romney even mentions McCain. In fact, as has already been pointed out in earlier discussions, Romney was rather clear that he didn’t know the specifics of the McCain-Kennedy but instead focused his comments on specific proposals that he supported:

Asked for his views on the immigration bill the Senate is now debating, Romney said he did not know the details, but said of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, “Let’s have them registered, know who they are, those who’ve been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn’t be here. Those who are here paying taxes, and not taking government benefits, should begin a process toward an application for citizenship as they would from their home country.”

He added, “I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. I do believe in insisting that these individuals learn English, pay taxes, and don’t take government benefits.”

Romney wants to smooth the way for more highly-skilled immigrants. “If you graduated at the top of your class at the India Institute of Technology, welcome to the fast track to become a citizen of the US of A. We need your brain power.”

Not much of a “flip.”

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

1. Blam. I know your personal makeup probably makes apologies difficult, but it was made clear that this was not a request, and that your next comment needed to address it. Better luck in other pastures.

2. We're clearly reading two different AP articles, as the one I'm reading (which you linked to) said this:

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 Bush administration, you will recall, announced support for comprehensive immigration reform, which became McCain-Kennedy. In fact, opponents of the bill took to calling it Bush-McCain-Kennedy. That's what was under consideration in September of 2006, even though Romney himself doesn't mention McCain, that's the proposal he was discussing.

It's further absurd of you to claim that he didn't know what the bill involved since, according to the interview, he knew full well that it involved
1. A waiting period of good activity
2. A fine
3. Payment of back taxes
4. Registration with the government (presumably in a database)
5. Application for citizenship

All of this he knew off the top of his head, and they are all the major aspects of McCain-Kennedy. The only thing he didn't mention were:
6. Learning English
7. Passing a civics exam

All of which makes McCain-Kennedy more difficult, not less, than what he was describing. So for him to say, "Gosh, I just didn't know what the bill contained!" Is pretty ridiculous.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

*Leon pouts* and says "go home. no toys for you." LOL

Were you an only child, Leon?

And the rules around here are pretty unambiguous. You call a significant portion of the readers around here "nutters," you're usually tossed to the curb immediately. Because Thorley's been around for a while, he was given a chance to apologize, which he refused (twice). Got nothing to do with me, as I wasn't one of the people he insulted.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

it seems bad. Perhaps if you had blamed him in the other thread where he was in error it would look better.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't find where Thorley called anyone a "nutter" in this thread.

It was here and here.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

First of all, you should have done it on that thread if you were going to do it at all. That said, I still think that it's rediculous. While I don't agree with his position, this is POLITICS, people. It's practically a contact sport. You need to have thicker skin than crying over being called a "nutter" on rare occassion.

If he wants to occassionally characterize a view that he believes is wild and extreme by using rhetorical hyperbole, then who really cares?

I have been a moderator on several high-traffic sites around the web. You have to keep vigilent watch or the weeds will chock out your site. You have to draw the line somewhere. If they choose to draw the line at calling everyone here 'nutters', then so be it. It helps keeps civility here.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF'
by Rudyard Kipling

This site was much better before the Romney crowd tried to take it over.

And how about, while we're discussing hyperbole, we drop the use of the word "Gestapo" to describe anything other than actual, real Nazis.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Cannot everyone have their "Gestapo" go away for a second?

http://michigandersforromney.com/

I notice that the only people comparing Leon and other RedState editors to Nazis are the Romney supporters.

I repeat my earlier observation that this site was much better before you guys swarmed in and tried to take over.

I bet you're going to apologize for calling me a Nazi.

As in, now.

It's 45 til midnight on Saturday night, EDT. You have until the same time Sunday.

Best step to.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

You're done. Gestapo references are a fast way to get shot.

Hit the contact form if you feel it appropriate.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Check the discussion out on the new Apollo 13 open thread. The directors evidently are aware of this tussle, and I think we can trust them to arrive at a fair resolution.

I have no problem with Leon being a paid political operative for a candidate. He does prominemtly post the fact, after all. I have not problem with Leon being a strong advocate of a candidate and having the power of life and death here. Many of the moderators are strong advocates of one candidate or the the other. But I question the wisdom of being a paid political operative of any candidate AND having the power of life and death here.

Even when Leon, as he says, just does his job in banning a long time poster here because of offenses unrelated to this thread, the fact that Leon does it on a thread where said poster is disagreeing with him about his views of his candiate's opponent, has the strong appearance of conflict of interest and abuse of power.

I say again, is this wise? I really doubt Leon wants people to inadvertently get the idea that Brownback operatives are unfair and/or abuse their positions just because he is doing his job as moderator. I certainly doubt the Brownback campaign wants that to happen, either. Would it not be safer for all concerned if Leon chooses to be one or the other, but not both?

(If this has already been hashed out previously, I apologize. I am an infrequent visitor here.)

I'll shutup now.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF'
by Rudyard Kipling

For those who don't follow this thread back to its beginning, where it was said:

You were given an instruction in another thread. Your next comment needs to be a response to it.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

He's had it coming for a little while now. Leon was gentle. I would have been nasty in a way that Thorley has deserved for a while.

If your problem is with Thorley's banning, take it up with me. If it's because Leon got to him before I did, take it up with God.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I am sick of each of these candidates. I am neither paid, nor do I endorse, any of them.

Leon got Thorley because I was getting ready for trial. Period. Full stop. Had I not, I would have made a Tae Kwan Leap reference in the banning comment.

Leon was here. I was not. Had it been otherwise, you could all tell me how bad I looked.

In point of fact, anyone who has a problem with this: Hit the Contact form. It'll make it to me eventually.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

A "Boot to the Head" reference....

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

And I hadn't seen it when I wrote my emails this afternoon. Everbody was pretty riled up but Thorley should have at the very least apologized for calling people "nutters" in public and then just let the damn thing drop. It's that simple, it's not a conflict of interest or any other thing. Believe me, I have VERY strong opinions about Brownback's chances and Romney's candidacy, but obviously here we've gone into a kind of a bench clearing brawl.

That wasn't my intention. I don't want to keep the brawl going. We're talking about some highly charged issues, and the discourse took a turn for the worse, and now it's an ugly scene with several breaches of etiquette and the inevitable refusal of people to either apologize or budge. I hope it doesn't last too much longer.

This stuff has happened since the dawn of Usenet. It's a shame that it's still happening now. That's the last thing I'm going to say, except this:

If someone has some really harsh things to say, for Pete's sake, send an email. Don't post it in public. Get a grip.

I would have written something very different from what I wrote about an hour ago. Now I'm angry, too.

I met Mitt Romney in person multiple times. I have attended his speeches. I have watched him debate. By all accounts, he should be a first tier candidate. He is very likable in person and knows how to move an audience.

With that being said....why does he keep blatantly flip-flopping on such important issues? I just don't get it. Who is advising this man?

And these aren't small issues that voters will look past. Abortion, immigration, tax cuts, being in the model of Reagan....these are important to our country. I just don't get it.

Seriously, what does this guy really believe in?

http://michiganformccain.blogspot.com/

"In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose."
-John McCain

The Boston Globe piece states that in 2005, the date of that audio piece you refer to, "Romney did not specifically endorse McCain's bill." Based on what I can find (a Google search), Romney has never come out in support of McCain's bill. Since the Globe piece, Romney has made it clear that he is against the bill. How is that a flip?

On to the amnesty issue, the Globe article also has the following from Romney:

"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' " Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."

It is clear that Romney was working from the idea that amnesty is "everybody gets to stay" without anything more. Using that as the definition of amnesty, Romney is right that McCain's bill is "quite different" from that. Romney never approved of or endorsed McCain's version of amnesty. He was simply commenting on the difference bewteen McCain's bill versus the type of amnesty that lets everyone stay without any effort. Romney never endorsed the citizenship aspects of McCain's bill.

As for the March 2006 quote, Romney stated that they should apply for citizenship "as they would from their home country." This is the conventional citizenship process. So you are right, Romney does support allowing them to apply for citizenship using the typical (difficult process). How is that bad?

The one thing that needs to be emphasized is that all of these attacks are coming from the Boston Globe and the Washinton Post (and Leon as their purveyor on RedState). These two newspapers will do everything they can to distort and misrepresent to further their liberal agenda. If this is the best they can do on Romney and immigration, then I think he will be okay.

While he comes out in support of (or calls "reasonable" and "not amnesty") in the 2005 interview, the September 2006 AP piece makes it clear that the McCain-Kennedy bill is under consideration when he says that those opposing it are making a "big mistake."

"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' " Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."

It is clear that Romney was working from the idea that amnesty is "everybody gets to stay" without anything more. Using that as the definition of amnesty, Romney is right that McCain's bill is "quite different" from that.

No, that is McCain-Kennedy. See this. And his quote in the Lowell Sun makes it clear that he supports a path to citizenship.

As for the March 2006 quote, Romney stated that they should apply for citizenship "as they would from their home country." This is the conventional citizenship process. So you are right, Romney does support allowing them to apply for citizenship using the typical (difficult process). How is that bad?

I'm not saying that it is. Although, in the first place, he does not say anything about the process, he just says they should be allowed to do it, as though they had not entered the country illegally. The only problem is that your guy is now calling it "amnesty." Actually, he's calling something a good deal more difficult (the six-year waiting period, paying the fine, learning English) "amnesty." Again, I've never said I oppose McCain-Kennedy; quite the opposite. It's Romney who purports to be opposed to it now, despite supporting everything it included (and it specifically) as late as six months ago.

I think I'm detecting that the new defense for Romney here on these flip-flops is that it's the liberal media's fault... if it's true that these people are distorting what he said (despite in this case having audio for his calling a program identical to McCain-Kennedy "quite different" from amnesty and "reasonable") then he needs to come out and say "I never said that." Ordinary people are not going to believe, absent evidence, that the Boston Globe and the AP are just making up quotes and attributing them to Romney unless he specifically disputes them.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Leon,
In September 2006, Romney was on O-Reilly saying that they should put the National Guard on the border to enforce it until they could build a wall. http://mittromneyforpresident2008.pbwiki.com/Illegal%20Immigration. So yeah, I am skeptical of an AP article from the same time that offers nothing more than the quote "making a big mistake."

I understand what McCain-Kennedy is. My point is that Romney was simply contrasting McCain-Kennedy with traditional notions of amnesty (i.e., 1986). Romney even states this explicitly in the interview. He defines amnesty as "you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay," and then goes on to say that McCain-Kennedy is not this. He has just stated an undisputed fact. How is this endorsing it one way or the other, especially when the Globe makes it clear that he is not endorsing the bill?

Consider this scenario. A Globe reporter approaches Romney and says "What do you think of McCain-Kennedy?" "Well, I am not supporting it or any other proposal but . . ." and then Romney goes on to describe how McCain-Kennedy is different than conventional notions of amnesty as I explained above. He is not endorsing it one way or the other.

Where did Romney say that forcing an illegal immigrant to use the conventional process (not McCain-Kennedy) to apply for citizenship is amnesty? Forcing illegal immigrants to use the already existing process to gain citizenship is hardly amnesty.

It is pretty clear from the Boston Globe article that Mitt Romney is only responding to questions asked of a reporter on an issue he had not formed a strong position on yet.

Should illegals pay taxes - yes, Should they not receive government benefits - yes, Should they pay a fine - yes, Should they register with the government, yes, etc.

In fact it states in the article, "Romney did not specifically endorse McCain's bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration."

Are you being paid for this attack, or is this one free?

Romney clearly states that he doesn't know enough about M/K to make a judgment, and when he says that illegals take a path to citizenship, he adds "as they would from their home country." The process for becoming a US citizen when you live in another country is a far cry from the M/K process.

__________________________________________
First State Politics

The disclosure is pretty prominent up there. I guess if you want to point it out again, that's your prerogative.

I've addressed this argument about 13 times already in previous comments, so I don't really see a need to do it again here.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Let's do it this way:

Is the process by which foreign nationals apply for citizenship more likely or less likely to result in citizenship than the process advocated in McCain/Kennedy?

__________________________________________
First State Politics

Leon cannot answer the question because his hatchet job backfired again.

If you are going to attack someone for flip flopping, you need to have clear evidence. This evidence is clear in the opposite direction. Romney never endorsed McCain-Kennedy where as a certain Senator Leon supports did.

http://michigandersforromney.com/

You're confusing my unwillingness to spend my time repeating the same thing to the 3,104th Johnny Five who infests my thread with my inability to do so. Sorry I "hatched job"bed your guy by pointing out that he said that those who were opposing the President's plan (McCain-Kennedy) were "making a big mistake." I think what you meant to say is that I "swift-boated" him; which is to say, quoted him accurately.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

That I myself expressed support for McCain-Kennedy as it was being debated (which is to say, long before the Sam Brownback campaign was even a twinkle in my eye, and have also been very forthcoming about Senator Brownback's support of it. That's the difference between my guy and yours, Ryan -- he doesn't take a focus group poll about every decision he's ever made, and then change his stance if the poll finds that the "base" didn't like that decision. Which is also the difference between you and me; I don't have the unenviable task of going around defending both sides of every issue, since my candidate has defended them both. It's not a job I particularly envy, but I admire you for giving it your best.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

"That's the difference between my guy and yours, Ryan -- he doesn't take a focus group poll about every decision he's ever made, and then change his stance if the poll finds that the "base" didn't like that decision."

Are you sure about that? From what I read and hear from people who have actually worked with Romney, what he does when faced with a difficult problem is take "data baths". He brings together people from all points of view, puts them together in a room together, and sorts out the facts from the self-interested POVs. He calls in all the reports available. He studies them carefully, and then he chooses the solution he thinks is best.

This has been Romney's mode of operation his entire life. Where did you get this focus group stuff from?

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF'
by Rudyard Kipling

One would presume that he would have done one of these.. "data baths" when he was first considering the immigration issue in 2005 when it was a red hot and current debate, right? And at that time, he looked at a proposal which allowed a path to citizenship, contingent upon a period of peaceful residence, payment of a fine, back taxes, and application for citizenship, and said that was "reasonable" and "not amnesty." When the President called for such a proposal, and got one in the Senate in the form of McCain-Kennedy, presumably he would have done another one of these before speaking out in support of it, yes? So I'm curious as to how the new one which he apparently convened after he declared for election was any different, except that many conservatives didn't like it. Since the facts didn't change, only the public opinion, that's pretty much a "focus group" type of approach, to me.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

I suppose that it's possible that Governor Romney will tell us how, sometime between September of 2006 and March of 2007, he had a "powerful personal experience" which convinced him to be adamantly opposed to a path-to-citizenship plan.

Perhaps Mr. Rosales or another illegal made a major mistake while cutting his grass, pruning his shrubs, and mulching his trees?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/12/01/illeg...

It's been proven several times that Romney hired the company and the company hired the illegals.

I'm sure, however, that the company owner asked Romney every day if he'd like illegal immigrants working on his property and he signed off on it. No question about it.

Please.

__________________________________________
First State Politics

Texas Gringo is just as guilty as Romney of supporting illegal aliens if he has visited and used a business that uses illegal aliens somewhere along the process.

Texas needs to tell us whether he eats fruits or veggies grown in the United States and who picks them. Texas needs to tell us where the meat he eats comes from and the legal status of those who slaughter it.

Now I doubt very many of us have not at least indirectly used a product or service tied to illegal aliens unless you living a subsitence existence.

http://michigandersforromney.com/

Frankly, it is silly to compare this situation to going to a restarant or eating fruit because the duration, closeness, and frequency of contacts are so much greater. Given that illegals landscaped Romney's yard up to twice a week for about a decade, do you really believe Romney had no idea he was using illegals? Or, did he just not care much about illegal immigration before his presidential ambitions and political makeover?

If someone really cared about this issue, he would not be using illegals so directly. And if he did really care about illegal immigration and was simply clueless about the illegals landscaping his yard for about a decade, then I would question his political savviness to do such a stupid thing and open himself up to charges of hypocrisy. Put it this way--do you think Tom Tancredo has illegals mowing his lawn?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks cups hurl
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

One of my pet peeves is about the shredding of our candidates by US, the folks on the right.

OK so you are adept at pointing out Romney's faults, big deal, it looks like easy work and I'm sure the dark side(democrats) is watching and keeping notes of all the opposition research.

My question, are you for Brownback since you are working for him, or simply against everyone else?

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service