Romney will push immigration reform, Giuliani says

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzzm1

Romney's campaign website Mitt Romney for President | Mitt Romney for President of the United States of America in 2012

"Mitt Romney will develop an effective, mandatory employment verification system that will enable employers to be sure that those they hire are eligible to work."

It's called leaving wiggle room

---

A week ago, Romney, in a new Spanish language ad geared towards illegals, said that he will work with Republicans AND DEMOCRATS to come up with a solution. Some people for whatever reason don't see history repeating itself here. It will be McCain-Kennedy-Bush all over again. In the next three months he'll lay out exactly what he plans to do to appeal to the illegals, and even then there will be excuses and the want to give Romney the benefit of the doubt. I just don't understand the blind faith in this guy given his actions the past couple of months. Every time he opens his month to address the issue of illegal immigration, it's like WTF are you talking about??? What a damn idiot this guy.

Every single week that passes makes it more and more clear that I cannot vote for either of these two. And sadly enough, our friends in the U.K. don't like either of these two any more than we do. As embarrassing as it is, these two are our only two choices for President of the most powerful nation on Earth. And people are just too busy to care.... Sad times we're living in folks.


Here is the Spanish language ad. And thanks Romney for not providing a translation to us English speaking Americans. What country is this again?

País De Inmigrantes - YouTube

thanks for posting googler; that is what, we, the people, are up against;

Wow, some folks are just to Mitt-picky for me. One things for sure, Romney doesn't even come close in comparing to McCain, Kennedy, or Bush on the issue. That's a fact that no amount of rhetoric is going to change. It sure would be nice if some other folks would join this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Wow, some folks are just to Mitt-picky for me. One things for sure, Romney doesn't even come close in comparing to McCain, Kennedy, or Bush on the issue. That's a fact that no amount of rhetoric is going to change. It sure would be nice if some other folks would join this debate.

---

The warning signs are all around that Mitt Romney may be in the service of the same people responsible for the BushObama illegal alien invasion of America.

We need to prepare ourselves for this betrayal possibility. Rudy Guilianni is saying that Romney has lied to us all.

Time will tell, but the warning signs are all around Mitt Romney. See it, acknowledge it, and don't say that people raising concerns about the warning signs are somehow wrong or misguided.

Support Mitt, vote for Mitt, do what you feel is best. But don't take issue with anyone at ALIPAC showing concerns about the bad signs those building the North American Community may still have control of the Executive Branch regardless of who wins or loses the 2012 Presidential race just like they would have won either way in 2008. It's what they have done, it's what they do now.

W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

The warning signs are all around that Mitt Romney may be in the service of the same people responsible for the BushObama illegal alien invasion of America.

We need to prepare ourselves for this betrayal possibility. Rudy Guilianni is saying that Romney has lied to us all.

Time will tell, but the warning signs are all around Mitt Romney. See it, acknowledge it, and don't say that people raising concerns about the warning signs are somehow wrong or misguided.

Support Mitt, vote for Mitt, do what you feel is best. But don't take issue with anyone at ALIPAC showing concerns about the bad signs those building the North American Community may still have control of the Executive Branch regardless of who wins or loses the 2012 Presidential race just like they would have won either way in 2008. It's what they have done, it's what they do now.

W

---

The opposite could be true too. Personally, I think Romney could possibly be the best President we've had to satisfy most of us on the illegal immigration issue we've had in decades. I would say all the signs are there for that too. Of course I realize that's not saying much but he is without a doubt better on the issue than anyone we've had in a number of years.

It's not the raising of concerns I'm worried about, it's the complete disregard for his strong points on the issue of illegal immigration that are my concerns. It's just my opinion but I'm afraid some aren't seeing the trees for the forest. Honestly, I do see and understand your concerns but I just hate to see us talk ourselves out of the best chance we've had in ages to make some progress on illegal immigration. While I don't agree with Romney on many of his positions involving legal immigration, I think he's right on about 80-90% of his positions where illegal immigration is concerned.


Romney positions:

- Doesn't support the Dream Act or any thing that would give tuition assistance to illegal immigrants. He calls the Dream Act a "handout" and has promised to veto any such bill.
- Doesn't support amnesty for illegal immigrants. Supports immigration reform but does not support comprehensive immigration reform There could be a very big difference in the two. While comprehensive immigration reform means a balanced plan that would include amnesty, immigration reform could mean no amnesty and stronger enforcement programs such as a national E-Verify program.
- Strongly support a national E-Verify program.
- Supports Arizona's bill to get tough on illegal immigrants.
- Doesn't support a driver's license for illegals. Actually vetoed such a bill in Mass.
- Supports local law enforcement assistance in apprehending illegal immigrants. He actually signed a bill into law that would have allowed Mass. state law enforcement to apprehend illegals.
- Has promised to complete a 2,000-mile border fence to help stem illegal immigration.
- Supports English as our official language.

Like I said, Romney seems to be fairly strong on the issue when compared to the White House goof-balls we've had to deal with over the last two decades. I believe credit should be given when and where it is due. However, it seems some are extremely reserved at giving him any credit. Frankly, I'm a little confused on why that is. Can anyone here understand where I'm coming from?

I'v read this thread and agree that while Romney is better than Obama on illegal immigration (in other words, Romney is better than an F-), the warning signs about him (Romney) are all around us. It should be noted that Romney recently edited his position on immigration on his website. While some of the changes are subtle, others are a red flag.

Regarding E-verify, a few months ago his site said this:

"He will establish a tamper-proof employment employment verification system like E-Verify that will enable employers to hire only those legally permitted to work and deny jobs to those here illegally."

Now his site has softened the language somewhat, deleted the specific reference to E-verify, and says this:

"Mitt Romney will develop an effective, mandatory employment verification system that will enable employers to be sure that those they hire are eligible to work. This will discourage illegal immigrants from coming to American to seek jobs."

I should also add that his site recently added a line about working to "properly set the cap on non-agricultural temporary worker visas." This sentence was not on his site as recently as a few months ago.

Interpret this how you wish.

Quote:

---

Mitt Romney is doing something Monday morning that no candidate before him, from either party, has ever done -- hold a fundraiser in Israel.

---

http://www.alipac.us/f12/romney-hold...israel-261679/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

We can do without the name calling.

---

Absolutely agree!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Many pundits claimed Romney’s robust advocacy of making Arizona’s mandatory E-Verify law a model for the nation was a blunder that somehow put him on the political fringe. Paul Begala just stated on CNN that Romney in last week's debate moved "so far to the right" on immigration that he will find it very difficult to move back enough to the center in the general election.

---

We need to realize that CNN is SO far left, that even the middle looks far right to them!!

Romney tax plan helps rich, hurts middle class-study

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/FZ...b5cec5193.jpeg
By Kim Dixon | Reuters – 42 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. presidential challenger Mitt Romney's proposal to slash income taxes by 20 percent across the board would boost income for the wealthiest taxpayers while reducing it for the middle class, according to a nonpartisan analysis released on Wednesday.

The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney's tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000.

Tax policy and how to tame the U.S. government's budget deficit, topping $1 trillion in recent years, is a major point of contrast in the presidential race, in which Romney will face President Barack Obama on November 6.

The Romney campaign blasted the study, calling it biased and noting that one of its authors, Adam Looney, was formerly an official in Obama's Treasury Department.

"President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending," Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said.

The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, is led by Donald Marron, a former economic official in the administration of Republican President George W. Bush.

Another of the study's authors, William Gale, was an economic adviser to Republican President George H.W. Bush.

Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and a multi-millionaire who made a fortune at private equity firm Bain Capital, has not spelled out how he would lower tax rates. He has said broadly he would cut some tax benefits for the wealthy.

Because the value of the 20-percent tax cut for richer Americans would exceed the gains they get from popular tax breaks that Romney might chop, they would see the greatest income gain from Romney's possible changes, the study said.

"We add up how much people get from the tax cuts and then add up how much can potentially be raised," from ending tax breaks, said Looney, an economist and study co-author.

TAX BREAKS AT ISSUE
About two-thirds of the $1.1 trillion in revenues that the government foregoes annually because of tax breaks would have to be curbed to fund Romney's tax cut, the analysts said.

These tax breaks include popular ones such as the mortgage interest deduction, the break for employer-provided health insurance, and credits for low- and middle-income families.

The analysis assumed elimination of tax breaks would start with the wealthy, as Romney has suggested, and that some revenue growth would come from lowering tax rates.

The revenue-boosting promise of lowering taxes, especially for the wealthy, is a hallmark of Republican tax policy, though "trickle-down" economics is disputed by many economists.

Obama has blasted Romney's tax plan for disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. On Wednesday, Obama cited the Tax Center study in attacking Romney's tax plan.

"Under my opponent's plan, guess who gets the bill for these $250,000 cuts?, you do," Obama told a campaign rally.

The tax policy debate is expected to intensify toward the end of 2012, with the expiration of lower tax rates for all Americans enacted under Republican President George W. Bush.

The Democratic-led Senate last week passed legislation extending most of those tax rates -- but not for households earning more than $250,000 a year.

The Republican-led House of Representatives will likely pass their plan to extend the current rates on Wednesday.

The dispute is not likely to be resolved until after the elections.
Romney's tax proposal also includes cutting some taxes on investment income and eliminating taxes on inherited estates.

(Reporting by Kim Dixon; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Cynthia Osterman)

Romney tax plan helps rich, hurts middle class-study - Yahoo! News

Quote:

---

Like I said, Romney seems to be fairly strong on the issue when compared to the White House goof-balls we've had to deal with over the last two decades. I believe credit should be given when and where it is due. However, it seems some are extremely reserved at giving him any credit. Frankly, I'm a little confused on why that is. Can anyone here understand where I'm coming from?

---

The problem here is that if Mitt Romney does secretly support a form of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" amnesty as John McCain, Rudy GUilianni, and many liberal members of the press claim they already know about unlike us peasants out here in civilian land, then all of his other promises on illegal immigration are worthless.

We have seen that happen with many RINO Republicans serving the same Council on Foreign Relations aka Goldmann Sachs plan as Bush and Obama. A good example is Chris Christie. He ran on opposing licenses and in-state tuition for illegal aliens and he beat Jon Corzine because Corzine came out for those very items.

Then, AFTER HE WON, Chris Christie announced his support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty for illegal aliens, which if passed would qualify illegal aliens for licenses, in-state tuition, and much much more!

So we know what the Globalist template is for their Republican puppets and the evidence suggests that Mitt Romney may well be one of those.

So sure, point out the wonderful things he has said about enforcing immigration laws and opposing the Dream Act... try to hold Romney to it... and agree with those that point out that growing evidence Romney has lied to us all are indeed very dire.

W