Romney will push immigration reform, Giuliani says

Romney will push immigration reform, Giuliani says

Published July 27, 2012
EFE

Immigration reform would be possible if Republican Mitt Romney wins the presidency, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Efe in an interview.

"I believe that if Romney is elected president with a Republican Congress, immigration reform can be passed," Giuliani, who was mayor of New York between 1994-2001, said during a telephone interview from Florida, where he is campaigning for Romney.

"He will be sensible and humane with the undocumented who are living here and who comply with the laws and are working," said Giuliani, recalling the "compassionate conservatism" of ex-President George W. Bush.

The key to moving forward with reform is "stopping illegal immigration" plus the "sensible" solution that a president like Romney would promote, Giuliani said.

During the primaries, however, Romney stuck to an iron-fisted policy against the undocumented and rejected any form of legalizing their immigration status, though he has softened his position since effectively securing the GOP nomination.

Both Obama and Romney are actively courting the Hispanic vote, which this year looks to be decisive in key states like Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Nevada.

An estimated 12.2 million Latinos will go to the polls this year and winning the presidency will require at least 40 percent of the Hispanic vote.
Obama garnered more than 60 percent of the Latino vote in 2008 and leads Romney among Hispanics by 67 percent to 23 percent, according to results of a NBC-Wall Street Journal-Telemundo poll released this week.
EFE

Romney will push immigration reform, Giuliani says | Fox News Latino

Quote:

---

"He will be sensible and humane with the undocumented who are living here and who comply with the laws and are working," said Giuliani, recalling the "compassionate conservatism" of ex-President George W. Bush.

---

Well now, ain't that an oxymoron? You can't comply with the law if you are here illegally and you are working! Just one more politician talking out of both sides of his mouth.

This is some sick crap.

Giuliani is claiming Americans are going to face an Amnesty push from Romney or Obama.

Giuliani is claiming that Romney and Obama both work for the same nation destroying elites and clearly NOT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC that opposes Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty for illegals 2 to 1.

W

Romney is saying what is expedient and will get him elected, but in the end, I think he will be no better on immigration than Obama (except maybe for the executive orders). Apparently, Guiliani believes that too! His idea of a "sensible solution" is Comprehensive Immigration Reform!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imblest

Romney is saying what is expedient and will get him elected, but in the end, I think he will be no better on immigration than Obama (except maybe for the executive orders). Apparently, Guiliani believes that too! His idea of a "sensible solution" is Comprehensive Immigration Reform!!

---

I would disagree, Romney doesn't support many of the same things Obama does where illegal immigration is concerned. Furthermore, since when is anything Guiliani thinks relevant?

RELATED
Mar 25, 2010
http://www.alipac.us/f12/republicans...-obama-182899/

http://www.alipac.us/f11/corporate-f...orders-220856/

from Romney's website: Immigration

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.

DUH, Mitt, are you even aware of E-Verify? try enforcing it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzzm1

from Romney's website: Immigration

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.

DUH, Mitt, are you even aware of E-Verify? try enforcing it

---

What are you talking about? Romney does support E-Verify. Actually he wants to make it mandatory nationally, currently it is not. As for enforcing it, he doesn't hold a position that would qualify him to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

What are you talking about? Romney does support E-Verify. Actually he wants to make it mandatory nationally, currently it is not. As for enforcing it, he doesn't hold a position that would qualify him to do that.

---

If he's elected President, he would hold a position that would qualify him to do that. Executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws! And if he supports E-Verify, why didn't he say so on his website?

Here's part of what he has to say, and I think it captures the essence of the rest of his "stand" on immigration:

Quote:

---

But today, our immigration system is broken.

Our immigration system is not optimized for today’s economy. The United States is currently excluding too many workers who will start businesses, create jobs, foster innovation, and help grow our economy. We do not grant enough visas to high-skill job creators and innovators our economy needs to make up for labor shortages and gaps in skills. Plus, the current system sends away the great majority of the over 300,000 foreign students who are earning advanced degrees at U.S. universities. And the system for bringing in temporary, seasonal workers is so cumbersome and time-consuming, that too often an employer finds that harvest or tourist season passes before temporary worker visas are approved.

....

The current system is keeping nuclear families apart. Currently, legal immigrants in America often have to wait years to be with husbands, wives, and young children.

---

That sounds like he is looking to "reform" the system, rather than enforce what we have. Many American workers are excluded from high-paying positions because of the H1B visa. I think we need to give Americans the opportunities that he is saying we should offer to "high-skill job creators and innovators." And in my experience, "labor shortages" are created by companies looking to bring in H1Bs because, while the jobs are high-paying, they pay immigrants less than they think they would have to pay Americans, when there are in fact plenty of Americans who would love to take those jobs if given the opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

What are you talking about? Romney does support E-Verify. Actually he wants to make it mandatory nationally, currently it is not. As for enforcing it, he doesn't hold a position that would qualify him to do that.

---

what I posted is from Mitt Romney's own campaign website, if you click on the link .. so go argue with Mitt Romney

TRUST? How does one earn my trust? For me it is not someone who talks of support for both sides of a controversial subject. That would indicate that that person does not know what his personal principles are, and would sell his principle to the highest bidder. The only way for one to be true is to know what one stands for and announce that and stand firm when participating in politics, even in life. The primary speeches and general elecion speeches of the republican candidate confirms that he has no priciples that he honors. If votes or money (profit) sways his principles one is not a man of honor!

Obama is the executrive presently in the position of honor and has dishonored that position by not respecting current law, thus he also is not a man of honor in my mind.

No candidate of honor means I have to, and will, vote for someone other than either of the two candidates offered by the parties. I will do so without apology to anyone, since neither party has presented an honest and law abiding candidate their honor and honesty becomes questionable, to say the very least.

Some of you will say I wasted my vote. Have I really? I am standing on my principles, and it is my conscience that I have to sleep with!! Remember, that you must sleep with yours, also!!

I don't like the mayor of NYC & I don't like this mitt at all they are all for the Illegal immigrants .
& if you can not see this you all better get a better pair of Eyes glass '

No amnesty Or Dream Act

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzzm1

what I posted is from Mitt Romney's own campaign website, if you click on the link .. so go argue with Mitt Romney

---

What I'm saying is you misunderstood what you were reading. Let's look at it again: "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."



What that means is he DOES support E-Verify or a like program to make sure only eligible (legal) workers are hired. He wants to make such a program mandatory nationally. So actually his position agrees with yours.

get over yourself dumkoff... my reading comprehension is 100% ... it's Romney's statement that is the problem .. Romney's statement is taken at face value ... he doesn't mention E-Verify ... Romney says again:

"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."

"will develop" infers that a system, in your case, E-Verify, doesn't yet exist.

Romney has the nickname "FLIP FLOP" Romney, for good reason

take it up with Romney

Oops ..... sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzzm1

get over yourself dumkoff... my reading comprehension is 100% ... it's Romney's statement that is the problem .. Romney's statement is taken at face value ... he doesn't mention E-Verify ... Romney says again:

"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."

"will develop" infers that a system, in your case, E-Verify, doesn't yet exist.

Romney has the nickname "FLIP FLOP" Romney, for good reason

take it up with Romney

---

We can do without the name calling. Exactly what do you think E-Verify is? It's an employment verification system that will enable employers to be sure that those they hire are eligible to work. End of discussion because we're going in circles and you're not understanding what I'm attempting to tell you. Romney supports making E-Verify mandatory nationally and he has said as much repeatedly. He's very clear on that position.

Buzz, do you trust Roy Beck of NumbersUSA?

Excerpt:

Romney’s Vocal E-Verify Stance Assisted Strong Arizona Win Tonight – New Poll Confirms Huge E-Verify Popularity


By Roy Beck, Updated Tuesday, February 28, 2012, 9:45 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA
http://www.alipac.us/content/files/i...picture-21.jpg In Arizona where immigration was near the top of voter concerns, the candidate who “owned” the E-Verify issue was bound to benefit. After last week’s debate, Romney owned it; in today’s Arizona election, he benefitted.
The reason Romney benefited was not stance but leadership.
All three Non-Paul GOP candidates (Santorum, Gingrich & Romney) have been supporting national mandatory E-Verify through the campaign. But only Romney in last week's all-important debate made sure the voters knew his position by wrapping himself in that stance (see bottom of this blog).
Not surprisingly, exit polling today found that Arizona voters most concerned about illegal immigration broke strongly for Romney, who they saw as "the mandatory E-Verify candidate." The poll results below should cause every candidate of every party for every office to consider being the "E-Verify candidate" in their race. While Romney had long been expected to win Arizona, polling showed his lead was narrowing until last week's debate performance with the powerful appeal for E-Verify.
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.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/n...-win-tonight-n

Worthy of a second mention:

"Not surprisingly, exit polling today found that Arizona voters most concerned about illegal immigration broke strongly for Romney, who they saw as "the mandatory E-Verify candidate." The poll results below should cause every candidate of every party for every office to consider being the "E-Verify candidate" in their race. While Romney had long been expected to win Arizona, polling showed his lead was narrowing until last week's debate performance with the powerful appeal for E-Verify."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

We can do without the name calling. Exactly what do you think E-Verify is? It's an employment verification system that will enable employers to be sure that those they hire are eligible to work. End of discussion because we're going in circles and you're not understanding what I'm attempting to tell you. Romney supports making E-Verify mandatory nationally and he has said as much repeatedly. He's very clear on that position.

---

Romney did not mention E-Verify in his position statement on immigration .. it's as simple as that ... you are trying your best to put words where they don't exist ... what Romney said was

"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."

"FLIP FLOP ROMNEY"

"will develop" infers that no system presently exists

E-Verify Compendium Forums for Justice - View Single Post - E-Verify Compendium http://bit.ly/gO6lYf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

What are you talking about? Romney does support E-Verify. Actually he wants to make it mandatory nationally, currently it is not. As for enforcing it, he doesn't hold a position that would qualify him to do that.

---

Just in case, you lost the link, Mitt Romney's campaign website:

Mitt Romney for President | Mitt Romney for President of the United States of America in 2012

Romney Doing the Job the Republican Establishment Won't Do

• http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/ColPics/Coulter.jpg
• Ann Coulter
  
  

Apr 25, 2012




http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/R...A-CAMPAIGN.jpg
Sign-Up




The actual Republican Establishment –- political consultants, The Wall Street Journal, corporate America, former Bush advisers and television pundits -- are exhorting Mitt Romney to flip-flop on his very non-Establishment position on illegal immigration.
Both as governor of Massachusetts and as a presidential candidate, Romney has supported a fence on the border, E-Verify to ensure that employees are legal and allowing state police to arrest illegal aliens. He is the rare Republican who recognizes that in-state tuition, driver's licenses and amnesty are magnets for more illegal immigration.
These positions are totally at odds with Establishment Republicans who pander to the business lobby by supporting the cheap labor provided by illegal immigration, and then accuse Americans opposed to a slave labor class in America of racism. If this continues, America will become California and no Republican will ever be elected president again. Big business doesn't care and Establishment Republicans are too stupid to notice.
If you're not sure how you feel about illegal immigration, ask yourself this: "Do I have a nanny, a maid, a pool boy, a chauffeur, a cook or a business requiring lots of cheap labor that the rest of America will have to subsidize with social services to make up for the wages I'm paying?" Press "1" to answer in English.
If the answer is "no," illegal immigration is a bad deal for you. Cheap labor is cheap only for the employer.
Today, 70 percent of illegal immigrant households collect government benefits -- as do 57 percent of all immigrant households -- compared to 39 percent of native households.
Immigrant households with the highest rate of government assistance are from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (tied at 75 percent), based on the latest available data from 2009. Immigrant households least likely to be on any welfare program are from the United Kingdom (7 percent).
British immigrants aren't picking the tomatoes Karl Rove doesn't want his son to pick. (That's how he justified Bush's amnesty proposal.)
You can either pay a little more for tomatoes picked by Americans or you can pay a lot more in welfare to the illegal immigrants who will pick them as well as to generations of their descendants.
Yes, many illegal immigrants work hard, but it's not our responsibility if their employers don't pay them a living wage. This is known as an "externality," which we hear a lot about in the case of greedy businesses polluting the land, but not when it's greedy businesses making the rest of us support their underpaid employees.
Romney is one of the few Republicans to recognize that there is no need to "round up" illegal aliens (in the lingo of amnesty supporters) to get them to go home. Illegal aliens will leave the same way they arrived. They decided to walk across the border to get jobs -- and welfare, apparently -- and they'll walk back across the border as soon as the jobs and welfare dry up.
Obama has a similar plan, but instead of using E-Verify to stop illegal aliens from taking American jobs, he did it by destroying the entire job market. [I]Hmmmm, drug-war ravaged Ciudad Juarez, or Obama's America ... I'll take Juarez!

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

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

Instead of reform, how about freaking ENFORCEMENT??