Thread: Romney Camp Distances Itself from Congressman's Hardline Immigration Views

By Elizabeth Llorente

Published September 12, 2012

Fox News Latino

The Romney campaign attempted to put distance on Wednesday between the Republican presidential candidate’s approach to immigration and that of Rep. Steve King, a conservative firebrand congressman whom he endorsed for re-election last week.

"As with any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, Governor Romney does not agree with everyone on every issue,” said a campaign statement, attributed to Sharon J. Castillo, advisor for the Romney campaign. The statement noted that “As president, Mitt Romney will deal with this issue in a civil and resolute manner.”

King, an Iowa Republican who is running for reelection against Democrat Christine Vilsack, has been as controversial a figure on immigration matters as Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Gov. Jan Brewer.

Even more than his push for tough immigration enforcement, however, it is his unvarnished rhetoric that has made the congressman a lightning rod.

King, the vice chairman of the House immigration subcommittee, elicited outcries from immigration advocates and Latino civil rights groups earlier this year after he drew parallels between attracting the best from around the world to emigrate here, and picking the best dog out of a litter.

He also came under fire for likening illegal immigration to a “slow-motion terrorist attack” and a “slow-motion holocaust,“ and calling for an electrified fence along the Mexican border, saying “we do this with livestock all the time.”

In his endorsement of King during a campaign event Friday in the congressman’s congressional district, Romney said "I'm looking here at Steve King. He needs to be your Congressman again. I want him as my partner in Washington!"

Locked in a battle over Latino votes, pro-Obama supporters and campaign officials immediately seized on the endorsement, which came just one day after the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention, which portrayed the Republican Party as anti-immigrant and hostile to Latinos.

The Democratic National Committee jumped on the Romney-King endorsement with a Web video Saturday that concluded in bold letters: "Mitt Romney & Steve King. Partners in extremism."

On Wednesday, shortly after the Romney campaign put out its statement regarding Steve King, the Obama campaign hurled out its own.

The statement, attributed to Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairman Charles Gonzalez, D-Tex., said: “By endorsing Rep. Steve King, Mitt Romney has once again shown his allegiance to extreme immigration advocates and indicated the type of policies his administration would pursue."

"Whether it was comparing immigrants to dogs or proposing an electrified fence along the border, Rep. King and others with similar views have prevented a civil and productive discussion from moving towards serious, bipartisan solutions regarding one of our nation’s most pressing issues,” Gonzalez said. “By endorsing Rep. Steve King, Mitt Romney has once again shown his allegiance to extreme immigration advocates and indicated the type of policies his administration would pursue.”

Many in the Republican Party have expressed concern that the tough-sounding tone of discussions on immigration during the GOP primary deepened the alienation many Latinos have felt from Republicans.

Mitt Romney, in particular, was criticized by moderate Republicans and those who favor liberal immigration policies for taking positions on immigration that were far stricter than those of the other GOP candidates.

He said the U.S. government was wrong to fight states like Arizona that pass their own immigration laws, he repeatedly pushes measures in Congress to make English the official language of government business, and he has given some of the most hardline immigration activists – such as Arpaio and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach -- roles in his presidential campaign.

After the primary, Romney appeared to try to soften his tone on immigration, saying that he’d support giving undocumented immigrants who were brought as children a path to legalization if they were willing to serve in the military.

The Republican National Convention, held at the end of August in Tampa, Fla., highlighted his campaign’s plan to soften Latino voter views of Romney as hostile or indifferent to immigrants, particularly Latinos. The convention featured Latino political leaders in unprecedented primetime speaking roles.

The Democratic National Convention, held a week later in Charlotte, N.C., also featured many Latino speakers, and a record number – nearly 800 – Latino delegates.

In Wednesday’s statement, which made no direct reference to King, Romney campaign advisor Castillo said: “When it comes to immigration, Governor Romney has been clear that he will work with leaders of both parties to reach a long-term solution for the broken immigration system that has failed so many – from the children of illegal immigrants who are here through no fault of their own to those patiently waiting in line to come to America legally.”

“His plan includes bringing families together, a military path to legal permanent residence and eventually citizenship for those brought here illegally as children, green cards for every eligible student who acquires an advanced degree, and a temporary worker program that benefits both workers and employers."

King has made clear that he opposes nearly all proposals for offering undocumented immigrants a pathway to legalization, noting that to do so would be to grant amnesty, or reward lawbreakers.

Efforts to get a comment from King or his staff were unsuccessful. But in past interviews with Fox News Latino, King has said he is not anti-immigrant and not hostile to Latinos. He says he opposes illegal immigration and that his controversial comments are inspired by a commitment to “the rule of law.”

A statement by Gonzalez, the Texas Democrat, said: “As long as Mitt Romney aligns himself with extreme anti-immigrant policies and advocates, he will not only continue to advocate for misguided and divisive policies, but he will also continue to alienate the Hispanic community.”

One Old Vet

Romney Camp Distances Itself from Congressman's Hardline Immigration Views | Fox News Latino

In Wednesday’s statement, which made no direct reference to King, Romney campaign advisor Castillo said: “When it comes to immigration, Governor Romney has been clear that he will work with leaders of both parties to reach a long-term solution for the broken immigration system that has failed so many – from the children of illegal immigrants who are here through no fault of their own to those patiently waiting in line to come to America legally.”

"As with any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, Governor Romney does not agree with everyone on every issue,” said a campaign statement, attributed to Sharon J. Castillo, advisor for the Romney campaign. The statement noted that “As president, Mitt Romney will deal with this issue in a civil and resolute manner.

Alright Romney supporters. Please explain to me how I'm supposed to interpret these statements. So is Romney another George Bush or not?

Originally Posted by googler

Alright Romney supporters. Please explain to me how I'm supposed to interpret these statements. So is Romney another George Bush or not?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing -- flip-flop Romney - deja vu all over again

Originally Posted by googler

Alright Romney supporters. Please explain to me how I'm supposed to interpret these statements. So is Romney another George Bush or not?

He's not.

Why don't you interpet these comments:

"In his endorsement of King during a campaign event Friday in the congressman’s congressional district, Romney said "I'm looking here at Steve King. He needs to be your Congressman again. I want him as my partner in Washington!"

"Locked in a battle over Latino votes, pro-Obama supporters and campaign officials immediately seized on the endorsement, which came just one day after the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention, which portrayed the Republican Party as anti-immigrant and hostile to Latinos.

The Democratic National Committee jumped on the Romney-King endorsement with a Web video Saturday that concluded in bold letters: "Mitt Romney & Steve King. Partners in extremism."

"Mitt Romney, in particular, was criticized by moderate Republicans and those who favor liberal immigration policies for taking positions on immigration that were far stricter than those of the other GOP candidates.

He said the U.S. government was wrong to fight states like Arizona that pass their own immigration laws, he repeatedly pushes measures in Congress to make English the official language of government business, and he has given some of the most hardline immigration activists – such as Arpaio and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach -- roles in his presidential campaign."


I've noticed you like to cherry pick comments, even when they aren't coming directly from Romney. I could do the same thing with virtually any politician you care to discuss. Why not attempt to comment on the good things you hear too? I still say Romney is the best candidate we've had in decades on the issue that has come this close to being President of the United States. I'm extremely confused as to why you can't see the positives a Romney presidency would mean in dealing with our illegal immigration problem.

Does your real problem with Romney have something to do with his position on other social issues?

Originally Posted by MW

He's not.

Why don't you interpet these comments:

"In his endorsement of King during a campaign event Friday in the congressman’s congressional district, Romney said "I'm looking here at Steve King. He needs to be your Congressman again. I want him as my partner in Washington!"

"Locked in a battle over Latino votes, pro-Obama supporters and campaign officials immediately seized on the endorsement, which came just one day after the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention, which portrayed the Republican Party as anti-immigrant and hostile to Latinos.

The Democratic National Committee jumped on the Romney-King endorsement with a Web video Saturday that concluded in bold letters: "Mitt Romney & Steve King. Partners in extremism."

"Mitt Romney, in particular, was criticized by moderate Republicans and those who favor liberal immigration policies for taking positions on immigration that were far stricter than those of the other GOP candidates.

He said the U.S. government was wrong to fight states like Arizona that pass their own immigration laws, he repeatedly pushes measures in Congress to make English the official language of government business, and he has given some of the most hardline immigration activists – such as Arpaio and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach -- roles in his presidential campaign."


I've noticed you like to cherry pick comments, even when they aren't coming directly from Romney. I could do the same thing with virtually any politician you care to discuss. Why not attempt to comment on the good things you hear too? I still say Romney is the best candidate we've had in decades on the issue that has come this close to being President of the United States. I'm extremely confused as to why you can't see the positives a Romney presidency would mean in dealing with our illegal immigration problem.

Does your real problem with Romney have something to do with his position on other social issues?

Wait. You want me to comment on what the OTHER side is saying about Romney's supposed anti-illegal stance??? Really?? The other dishonest side that wants to do everything it can to paint Romney as the most anti-illegal candidate in the history (lol) in order to win the illegal vote??? And then you have the moderate Republicans who are basing their view of him on the strong Conservative Romney we saw during the primaries, which apparently was all an act to win the primary. Yea, he supported Steve King, but only to return the favor, not because of his strong anti-illegal stance, which as you should be able to see by now, is not something the campaign wants to be associated with.

I'm extremely confused as to why you're so adamant in finding every excuse possible to support this guy when evidence comes supporting what I've been saying all along, that he has no real intention of doing anything substantive on the matter. He's said in his own words that he wants to work with Democrats to solve the issue, you see no problem whatsoever with that, and yet I'm the one not seeing the big picture???

When he comes on the Univision forum and repeats the same stupidity this adviser has just espoused, I just cannot fathom what you'll say then.... I am dumbfounded.

Originally Posted by googler

Wait. You want me to comment on what the OTHER side is saying about Romney's supposed anti-illegal stance??? Really?? The other dishonest side that wants to do everything it can to paint Romney as the most anti-illegal candidate in the history (lol) in order to win the illegal vote??? And then you have the moderate Republicans who are basing their view of him on the strong Conservative Romney we saw during the primaries, which apparently was all an act to win the primary. Yea, he supported Steve King, but only to return the favor, not because of his strong anti-illegal stance, which as you should be able to see by now, is not something the campaign wants to be associated with.

I'm extremely confused as to why you're so adamant in finding every excuse possible to support this guy when evidence comes supporting what I've been saying all along, that he has no real intention of doing anything substantive on the matter. He's said in his own words that he wants to work with Democrats to solve the issue, you see no problem whatsoever with that, and yet I'm the one not seeing the big picture???

When he comes on the Univision forum and repeats the same stupidity this adviser has just espoused, I just cannot fathom what you'll say then.... I am dumbfounded.

Well, I'm dumbfounded at your attitude too because you keep trying to paint Romney in the worst light you can but yet you refuse to provide us with the candidate your supporting and why. You keep complaining but you've yet to provide a better solution (talking about a 3rd party candidate isn't a solution because there isn't one in a position to beat Obama). I guess it's easy to criticise when you don't have a player in the game ......... or do you?

Originally Posted by MW

Well, I'm dumbfounded at your attitude too because you keep trying to paint Romney in the worst light you can but yet you refuse to provide us with the candidate your supporting and why. You keep complaining but you've yet to provide a better solution (talking about a 3rd party candidate isn't a solution because there isn't one in a position to beat Obama). I guess it's easy to criticise when you don't have a player in the game ......... or do you?

Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting the feeling that were Romney to come out tomorrow and declare he was all for allowing illegal children to stay and study that you'd stick to the script and tell me that he's still the best choice. Maybe I'm wrong, but every time you and I have these little exchanges, I get that feeling....

And solution? I've been talking about a solution for months now. ALIPAC along with other grassroots online organizations not happy with our two choices could get together, combine their resources and voices, and come up with a platform. Why else do we have all these online groups if not to get like minded people together to do big things. A candidate with the vision and courage to take on the current political parties, would step up to the plate and we'd vet him or her. Are you not a visionary? You need to think outside the box for a change. The people responsible for our independence were not stuck in the same plane of thought. Oh and the Tea Party was grassroots, they've shown what's possible in this country.

Originally Posted by googler

Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting the feeling that were Romney to come out tomorrow and declare he was all for allowing illegal children to stay and study that you'd stick to the script and tell me that he's still the best choice. Maybe I'm wrong, but every time you and I have these little exchanges, I get that feeling....

And solution? I've been talking about a solution for months now. ALIPAC along with other grassroots online organizations not happy with our two choices could get together, combine their resources and voices, and come up with a platform. Why else do we have all these online groups if not to get like minded people together to do big things. A candidate with the vision and courage to take on the current political parties, would step up to the plate and we'd vet him or her. Are you not a visionary? You need to think outside the box for a change. The people responsible for our independence were not stuck in the same plane of thought. Oh and the Tea Party was grassroots, they've shown what's possible in this country.

Okay, so who is your candidate of vision? Give me a name, please. It's easy to criticise someone elses choice when you won't produce one of your own. In reality there isn't a Knight standing by on a white steed to take us out of the darkness, not this time around. We're two months away from the presidential election ....... Obama or Romney ........ that's the choices.

Originally Posted by MW

Okay, so who is your candidate of vision? Give me a name, please. It's easy to criticise someone elses choice when you won't produce one of your own. In reality there isn't a Knight standing by on a white steed to take us out of the darkness, not this time around. We're two months away from the presidential election ....... Obama or Romney ........ that's the choices.

All indications lead to Romney coming out in support of the illegal children going by his previous language and what his adviser has said this week, same with Obama, and instead of joining in the legitimate criticism of his inability to take a firm stance on the issue, which would erase all doubt, you continue on about how we only have two choices. There is a third choice and that is not voting for either of these two because to do so would go against why we're all here in the first place, and it's not to defeat Obama, but to defeat illegal immigration.

I'll tell you what though. If by some miracle, Romney surprises and convinces me at the Univision forum that he intends to put a stop to the rewarding of the illegal children, then I'll shut up and quit my criticism of him. On the other hand, if he says he'll reward them in some form or fashion, then he's finished this November as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by googler

All indications lead to Romney coming out in support of the illegal children going by his previous language and what his adviser has said this week, same with Obama, and instead of joining in the legitimate criticism of his inability to take a firm stance on the issue, which would erase all doubt, you continue on about how we only have two choices. There is a third choice and that is not voting for either of these two because to do so would go against why we're all here in the first place, and it's not to defeat Obama, but to defeat illegal immigration.

I'll tell you what though. If by some miracle, Romney surprises and convinces me at the Univision forum that he intends to put a stop to the rewarding of the illegal children, then I'll shut up and quit my criticism of him. On the other hand, if he says he'll reward them in some form or fashion, then he's finished this November as far as I'm concerned.

Did I hear you right, did you actually say we shouldn't vote? Wow, I can't believe you see both Romney and Obama as equals on the illegal immigration issue ....... just amazing! Well, at least I now know your intentions ..... it's not to vote for someone, it's not to vote at all. I have to assume that's what you mean since you failed to list a candidate or party of choice.

Personally, after following your posts for a few weeks, I think your hate for Romney goes much further than illegal immigration. Actually, I may even go as far as to suggest your dislike for him has a lot to do with his position on other social issues such as his refusal to support gay marriage and the fact that has a strong religious faith, which you self-admittingly don't have. I could be wrong but that is my perception. If I'm wrong, I'll apoligize in advance, but if I'm not, you need to stop hiding behind illegal immigration and admit it's not all that is motivating your constant and consistent attacks on Romney. How about dedicating a little more of that enthusiasm toward Obama ....... after all he is supposedly leading in the polls.