Thread: FYI: Mitt Romney's 'Excellent' Rating on 'No Amnesty'

I'm not shilling for Ron Paul. I support Ron Paul 100%. But I want to know more about the other candidates so I will know who I can settle for if I have to.

And I am not a single issue voter. Having said that, I absolutely respect that this is an immigration board, and that immigration is possibly the only thing we all have in common. But it is great that we have that in common, isn't' it?

I learned so much about immigration from the people who post in these forums that it would be callous of me to discount their opinions in other areas.

But I won't spend time arguing whether or not Mitt flipped on a lot of issues, because none of those issues are really important to me. I only worry about the trend, and for the purposes of this thread,whether he will flip on immigration.

Back to Mitt:

In 2006 Governor Romney supported the President’s immigration policy as well as the McCain-Kennedy bill. He expressed support for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship and said illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship.

He even went as far as to say that Republicans that break from the President on this issue are making a "big mistake" according to the Associated Press.
…

Governor Romney has a long history of flip-flops on issues from abortion, to gun control, to gay rights. This pattern of shifting positions should concern Iowa conservatives who are dedicated to securing our border and solving the illegal immigration crisis.

This is from a press release from a group called "Americans For Border Security, dated May 2007.

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

I'm not shilling for Ron Paul. I support Ron Paul 100%. But I want to know more about the other candidates so I will know who I can settle for if I have to.

And I am not a single issue voter. Having said that, I absolutely respect that this is an immigration board, and that immigration is possibly the only thing we all have in common. But it is great that we have that in common, isn't' it?

I learned so much about immigration from the people who post in these forums that it would be callous of me to discount their opinions in other areas.

But I won't spend time arguing whether or not Mitt flipped on a lot of issues, because none of those issues are really important to me. I only worry about the trend, and for the purposes of this thread,whether he will flip on immigration.

Back to Mitt:

In 2006 Governor Romney supported the President’s immigration policy as well as the McCain-Kennedy bill. He expressed support for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship and said illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship.

He even went as far as to say that Republicans that break from the President on this issue are making a "big mistake" according to the Associated Press.
…

Governor Romney has a long history of flip-flops on issues from abortion, to gun control, to gay rights. This pattern of shifting positions should concern Iowa conservatives who are dedicated to securing our border and solving the illegal immigration crisis.

This is from a press release from a group called "Americans For Border Security, dated May 2007.

Romney was asked about this during the debates----he said that he was misquoted and explained why.

Numberusa has now given Romney a rating of "EXCELLENT" in regard to the illegal issues.

Here is the bottom line------even if Romney does not win------Paul or Hunter are not going to win!! Romney has won more delegates and is doing the best----if he is forced out-----we are done.

This means----we are stuck with McCain, Guliani, Huckabee, Hillary, or Obama

NumbersUSA is a respected national immigration reduction oraganization with hundreds of thousands of members.

The attack on Governor Romney by the so-called "Americans for Border Security" has been posted here previously. Mr. Gheen raised questions about this group in a post.

I have a few simple questions about this group, none of which have ever been answered. All of these questions could easily be answered with regard to NumbersUSA.

Who are the leaders of this group?

Where is a website for this group?

Has any representative of this group ever testified at any hearing before any legislative body?

I've never denied that RP's vote on 245(i) was a bad one. It actually affected about 200,000 illegal aliens at a time when the number of illegal aliens in the country was still relatively low. Since then we've had about 25 million MORE illegal aliens enter the country.

Frankly I don't think bad votes on that ONE BILL is anywhere NEAR as egregious as Mr. Romney's numerous remakings of himself to try and appeal to the 'Republican base'. While Ron Paul made a mistake in his vote, Mitt Romney has played 'quick change artist' on several core tenets of the Republican Party.

tancredofan wrote:

Unlike some candidates in the presidential race that voted for amnesty as a member of Congress and now claim to be against it, Mitt Romney has never supported amnesty.

"In November 2005, Romney Said McCain's Immigration Proposal Was "Quite Different" From Amnesty, Called It "Reasonable." "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." (Scott Helman, "Romney's Words Grow Hard On Immigration," The Boston Globe, 3/16/07)"

"MR. ROMNEY: "... the 12 million or so that are here illegally--should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to stay here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally. And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate." - Interview with Tim Russert

It's important that the whole story be told so folks can make an informed decision.

A candidate that can't recall whether he called for eliminating the Border Patrol and would need "somebody show me exactly where that was said".

Mitt Romney has never called for eliminating the Border Patrol and wouldn't need anyone to show him whether he said it or not.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56581

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Paul runs away from '88 position
Says he 'doesn't recall' calling for elimination of U.S. Border Patrol

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com



Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
WASHINGTON – In an exclusive interview with WND, maverick GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said he did not recall taking a position in favor of eliminating the Border Patrol in his 1988 bid for the presidency as a Libertarian Party candidate.
"No," he said. "I do not call for that, and I do not recall calling for that. I'd have to have somebody show me exactly where that was said. I have no recollection of that, and it's certainly not my position, because I emphasize beefing up the Border Patrol."

In fact, weeks before the debate, Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton, was asked in writing by WND about the candidate's position as reported in a 1988 CNN presidential questionnaire.

Paul reportedly stated in that questionnaire: "The U.S. Border Patrol should be eliminated. Any necessary guarding of our borders should be done by the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force."

(Story continues below)


As a Libertarian, such a position would not have been unusual, since many believe in open borders and most favor the elimination of government agencies they consider to be unconstitutional and unnecessary.

While Benton promised to investigate Paul's position on the Border Patrol in 1988 and ask him specifically about the CNN questionnaire, the political aide never got back to WND.

Again, Romney was asked about the quote regarding McCain during the debate----he said that he was misquoted----and that he has NEVER supported amnesty!!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... 08top.html

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
Legal looting

Cunningham case only hints at extent of rot

December 8, 2005

The recent resignation of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Rancho Santa Fe, has focused the spotlight once again on the reprehensible ways that defense contractors work with lawmakers to win fat contracts for their services, whether they help the nation's defense or not.

Cunningham's bribe-taking was repulsive. But one of the biggest problems in contractors' and congressmen's mutual back-scratching isn't Duke-style corruption. It is what's perfectly legal.

This was underlined by the Union-Tribune article, "Contractor a master of gaining political access," by Dean Calbreath and Jerry Kammer. It detailed how Cunningham and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, worked closely with two local companies – ADCS Inc. of Poway and Audre Inc. of Rancho Bernardo – to make the Pentagon pay for converting printed documents to computer files. They and a few other lawmakers got Congress to allocate $190 million for "automated data conversion" projects from 1993 to 2001.

Did the Pentagon want this "help"? No. As a 1994 General Accounting Office report noted, it already had the tools for such work.

But Cunningham, Hunter and their House allies didn't care. Audre and ADCS were generous with contributions – and ADCS executive Brent Wilkes allegedly was bribing Cunningham. No matter who griped, lawmakers could always add "earmarks" for pet projects to bills and get their way.

This led to such absurdities as a $9.7 million contract for ADCS to digitize historical documents from the Panama Canal Zone that the Pentagon considered insignificant.

This isn't governance. This is looting.

Hunter disagrees. In a phone interview, he said there was support within the Pentagon for such projects, citing several official letters praising Audre's technology or endorsing automated document conversion. He said his fighting for contracts to go to San Diego-area firms is what congressmen do.

But the preponderance of evidence shows defense officials objected to document conversion spending and saw it as ridiculous. That should have carried the day – with Hunter or any lawmaker trying to bring home the bacon.

Instead, the prevailing attitude was that when you have hundreds of billions of dollars to divvy up, everyone should get a piece – and if the Joint Chiefs of Staff think the military's bucks should go toward protecting soldiers and not the pointless preservation of old documents, well, tough luck.

This is no way to run a government. Forget the fatalistic argument that pork is an inevitable part of the legislative process. Just once it would be nice to hear a lawmaker declare he wouldn't vote to spend one dime on a military project that the Pentagon didn't request – or hear a president vow to veto every defense spending bill inflated by the legislative looters.

The status quo is revolting. If only it would inspire a voter revolt. A few more stories like the one about Cunningham, Hunter and the document conversion follies, and it just might.

Originally Posted by tancredofan

A candidate that can't recall whether he called for eliminating the Border Patrol and would need "somebody show me exactly where that was said".

Mitt Romney has never called for eliminating the Border Patrol and wouldn't need anyone to show him whether he said it or not.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56581

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Paul runs away from '88 position
Says he 'doesn't recall' calling for elimination of U.S. Border Patrol

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com



Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
WASHINGTON – In an exclusive interview with WND, maverick GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said he did not recall taking a position in favor of eliminating the Border Patrol in his 1988 bid for the presidency as a Libertarian Party candidate.
"No," he said. "I do not call for that, and I do not recall calling for that. I'd have to have somebody show me exactly where that was said. I have no recollection of that, and it's certainly not my position, because I emphasize beefing up the Border Patrol."

In fact, weeks before the debate, Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton, was asked in writing by WND about the candidate's position as reported in a 1988 CNN presidential questionnaire.

Paul reportedly stated in that questionnaire: "The U.S. Border Patrol should be eliminated. Any necessary guarding of our borders should be done by the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force."

(Story continues below)


As a Libertarian, such a position would not have been unusual, since many believe in open borders and most favor the elimination of government agencies they consider to be unconstitutional and unnecessary.

While Benton promised to investigate Paul's position on the Border Patrol in 1988 and ask him specifically about the CNN questionnaire, the political aide never got back to WND.

So I see you questioning something from 20 years ago! Even if it WAS his position what he said in the questionnaire was this, "The U.S. Border Patrol should be eliminated. Any necessary guarding of our borders should be done by the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force."

That doesn't look like 'open borders' to me or anyone else that reads beyond the 'hype'. It looks more like the elimination of a department of government and the assigning of it's duties to the military. My guess is it would give a couple hundred thousand returning soldiers something constructive to do and add to their military training.

Not a bad idea, really.

In 1998, Ron Paul voted present on final pasage of a bill, H.R. 4328, that included "The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA)". HRIFA gave amnesty to thousands of illegal alien Haitians. H.R. 4328 was an omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. The bill passed by one vote. If Ron Paul, "Dr. No", had voted against the bill it would not have passed. A tie vote kills a bill. Thanks to "Dr. No" voting present, thousands of illegal alien Haitians received amnesty.

I'm still waiting to learn where Section 245(i) amnesty is in the constitution.

Also, I'd like to know where the HRIFA amnesty is in the constitution. If it wasn't in the constitution, "Dr. No" should have voted no.