Thread: Gingrich v Romney on Immigration

Gingrich v Romney on Immigration

wdbo.com
By Jamie Dupree
Posted: 11:38 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011

Video @ link

A day after taking heat at a GOP debate on the issue of illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich's campaign fought back, accusing Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on the issue and pointing reporters to a 2007 video of Romney supporting that argument.

The debate dustup centered on Gingrich's assertion that while illegals who have recently come to the United States should be deported, others who have been here for many years should be allowed to stay legally, but not obtain citizenship.

Both Romney and Michele Bachmann quickly labeled that amnesty.

Gingrich acknowledged last night he would be attacked for his position, but argued it is the right thing to do.

"I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane," the former U.S. House Speaker said.

Now Gingrich is going on the offensive, using Twitter to tweak Romney.

"Here's a trip down memory lane," Gingrich tweeted with a link to a 2007 "Meet the Press" video. So what's your position on citizenship for illegals again?

You can judge for yourself whether Romney used to have a different position in 2007 than in 2011. Back then, legal status - even citizenship was okay, but now it would be amnesty.

"My own view is, consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who have come here illegally, and are in this country, the 12 million or so that are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship," Romney said.

Here's a thought - Romney has always seemed vulnerable on the "flip-flop" issue, but it hasn't really stuck.

Will part of Gingrich's ascension to the top of the GOP field mean sharper attacks on Romney highlighting those policy changes over the years?

There is a 200 page playbook out there of opposition research on Romney that was done by the campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) four years ago.

Something to consider.

http://www.wdbo.com/weblogs/jamie-dupre ... migration/[/b]

The biased, radical left-wing, mainstream media and the democrats like Gingrich because they know Nobama can beat him in the general election. They don't like Romney because they know he can beat Nobama in the general election. It's as simple as that. That's why the MSM is touting Gingrich and has been touting these flavor-of-the-month, anti-Romney candidates. They're afraid of Romney because they know he can beat Nobama.

A vote for Gingrich in the primary is really a vote to re-elect Nobama. Conservatives need to get their heads out of their posteriors, realize this fact and stop fooling around with these flavor-of-the-month candidates!

Nobama has already done extreme harm to our nation. There's no telling what he'll do if he's re-elected to a second term and he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected. He'll get even more radical than he has been already!

Mitt Romney for President. He's the best of a mediocre lot. He's got my support from here on in.

Gingrich acknowledged last night he would be attacked for his position, but argued it is the right thing to do.

Well then. . . . Newt should run as a Democrat if he is a xenomaniac (and loves foreigners more than his own people).

Originally Posted by Achilles

Well then. . . . Newt should run as a Democrat if he is a xenomaniac (and loves foreigners more than his own people).

"Xenomaniac" I love it!

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by Achilles

Well then. . . . Newt should run as a Democrat if he is a xenomaniac (and loves foreigners more than his own people).

"Xenomaniac" I love it!

The Left is always creating words to demonize us. We must do the same to them. And, by the way, when they accuse us of suffering from homophobia, we must respond by saying we suffer from homonausea!

Originally Posted by Achilles

And, by the way, when they accuse us of suffering from homophobia, we must respond by saying we suffer from homonausea!

Another good one! Thanks!

You guys who support Romney should ask yourselves this question: If Romney is really what he claims to be on the issue of amnesty than why has he flipped flopped so many times in the past? It's because he actually supports amnesty. What else could it be? You think maybe he changed his mind? No way. He just changed his advertising.

Interview with Tim Russert on NBC News' "Meet the Press"
December 16, 2007



Here Is the transcript of the actual Interview that Newt and the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS are currently spinning to confuse the AMERICAN public about Mitt Romney. NEWT Is nothing more than a closet liberal,and the mainstream news would like nothing more than Newt verses Obama,because Obama would win. ROMNEY HAS STAYED CONSISTANT ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION :

RUSSERT: The Lowell Sun, your home--one of your hometown, state home papers, said this. "Governor Mitt Romney expressed support for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship.

"'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 paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.'"

This is George Bush and John McCain.

ROMNEY: Now let's, now let's look at those very carefully, OK, and you're, you're a careful reader. In the interview with The Boston Globe, I described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program, but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs. I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support--and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. And, of course, the Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don't recall in that much detail. But they had very different proposals. My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country--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 say 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.

RUSSERT: But they shouldn't have to go home?

ROMNEY: Well, whether they go home--they should go home eventually. There's a set per--in my view they should be--they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there's a set period where upon they should return home. And if they've been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they'll be going home.

RUSSERT: The children they had born here are U.S. citizens, so do the children stay here and the parents go home?

ROMNEY: Well, that's a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who've come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here, but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally. And likewise, if they've brought a child to this country or they've had a child in this country, that's, that's wonderful that they're growing their families, but that doesn't mean that they all get to stay here indefinitely. We're fundamentally a nation of laws. And let me underscore something here that I think's awfully important, because this immigration debate can sound anti-immigrant to a lot of people. It's not intended to be that by myself or, I believe, by the vast majority of others that talk about it. We value legal immigration. We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education, but we are a nation of laws. And our freedoms and our liberty are associated with following the law. We have to secure our border, we have to make sure there's an employment verification system to identify who's here legally and who's not. And then for the 12 million who've come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway.

RUSSERT: Your views have been complicated by your own situation. This was The Boston Globe back in December of '06. "As Governor Mitt Romney explores a presidential bid, he has grown outspoken in his criticism of illegal immigration. But, for a decade, the governor has used a landscaping company that relies heavily on workers like these, illegal Guatemalan immigrants, to maintain the ground surrounding his pink Colonial house." That was a year ago. A year later, The Boston Globe came back and the same company and illegal immigrants doing the same work. Did you report that company to authorities saying--a year ago--saying they're using illegal immigrants?

ROMNEY: Oh, it was, it was on the front page of The Boston Globe; a reporting was not necessary. But I have to clear up the most egregious error in that article. It said my house is pink. I would not have a pink house, I assure you. In an effort to--let me, let me describe the circumstance. And that is the very issue I just mentioned, which is we need an employment verification system in this country. I hire a landscaper to take care of my leaves and, and mow the lawn, and, and the landscaping company hires people to work for them. We're certainly not going to have an America where a homeowner is expected or even thought of going out and saying, "Gosh, I see some workers here who have an accent. I want them to bring papers so I can inspect them." As a matter of fact, I think that's against the law in this country. And so, in this case, the, the landscaper, or the contractor has a responsibility to ensure that their workers are legal.

So after the first story came out, I met with the--excuse me, my son met with the landscaper and sat down with him and said, "Look, you're a good person, and you're a friend, and--but we can't possibly have someone working at my dad's house that's not a legal alien, and so you have to be absolutely certain anybody working here is legal." And he assured us that he, he would do just that. And he failed in that effort. He, according to the paper, he tried, he got documents, apparently, from all the people who, who he had work at our property. Apparently one or two of them had falsified their documents. That's the very reason why we so desperately need in this country an employment verification system, so that an employer who's hiring people can know who's here legally or illegally. If we don't have that, what it's going to say to an employer is, you better not hire someone that has any accent because if you do, it's possible they've counterfeited their documents and you're going to get whacked and the people you work for are going to get whacked.

RUSSERT: Would you then be in favor of a mandatory prison term for any employer who hired an illegal immigrant?

ROMNEY: Of course not.

RUSSERT: Why not?

ROMNEY: Well, a mandatory prison term? No. But here's what I would do. I'd say once you've put in place an employment verification system--and that's a big phrase to describe something pretty simple. I'd say to anybody who's coming here legally, they get a card with their name, biometric information, a number and their work status, and you--once you have those cards in place--that the only ones that can get them are people that are here legally--you then say to employers, "If you want to hire someone that's not a US citizen with a valid Social Security number, you ask for the card. You then verify it on the computer, and you can hire them if it's a valid card if they have a card. If they don't have a card and you hire them anyway, then you're going to be subject to the same kind of sanctions you get for not paying your taxes. And that's typically fines, very substantial fines, they get larger and larger. But a first offense employer hiring someone who's not legal, putting them in jail, I, I doubt that's...

RUSSERT: But if you wanted to end illegal immigration, if you...

ROMNEY: Well, I'm sure, I'm sure, I'm sure...

RUSSERT: ...came down hard on employers.

ROMNEY: I'm sure capital punishment would come down hard as well, but I'm not, I'm not suggesting that kind of penalty. But I do believe that, that sanctioning employers with substantial fines--and potentially worse if, if they were egregious, continuous offenders could be called for. But what employers tell me, and I, and I talk to a lot of people in small business, they say, "It is almost impossible for us to know who's here legally and illegally." In fact, there's a federal law--you'll find this interesting--a federal law prohibits an employer from, quote, "discriminating against a document that's given to them by someone applying for work." So if they look at something that looks like it's a forgery, they're not allowed to discriminate against that document. This puts them in a real catch-22, typical government work. And what we have to do instead is say, "We're going to allow you, as employers, to finally have access to an employment verification system that says who's here legally and who's here illegally. If you hire an illegal, now we're going to whack you hard with fines and penalties," and potentially even worse if they're repeat offenders



Read more at the American Presidency Project: Mitt Romney: Interview with Tim Russert on NBC News' "Meet the Press" http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index ... z1efzTr1q0

Originally Posted by Justthatguy

You guys who support Romney should ask yourselves this question: If Romney is really what he claims to be on the issue of amnesty than why has he flipped flopped so many times in the past? It's because he actually supports amnesty. What else could it be? You think maybe he changed his mind? No way. He just changed his advertising.

Did you watch the last debate ? Romney has stayed on message regarding this Issue for a long time. The only electable person left that can beat Obama Is Romney. Do you seriosly think Ron Paul or NEWT could beat him ?? It Is becoming Increasingly clear that Romney Is our best hope of getting the worst President of a generation out of office. TS