Thread: Please help me understand Tancredo endorsing Romney

Originally Posted by Populist

I don't think Tancredo betrayed us at all. Quite the contrary, he made a logical, practical decision. Tancredo said in an interview today that he had a long discussion with Romney, and endorsed Romney for three reasons:

-Romney has a viable plan against illegal immigration

-he believes Romney will stick with it

-Romney has the best chance of winning

With some polls showing McCain rising in New Hampshire, who do you want: Hillary, Obama, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee (amnesty on steroids) or Romney?

That's what I heard too Populist.

I just heard Tom say on Fox news that Romney said that those who are here illegal will have to go back. So something was said to make Tom comfortable with him. He also mentioned employers being accountable.

Originally Posted by Bren4824

While Romney was in office in Massachusetts--long before this issue became as hot as it is now:

--He stopped illegals from getting drivers' licenses

--He stopped illegals from getting in-state tuition

--He gave the police the authority to assist ICE to arrest and deport illegals.

Bren, he didn't stop illegals from getting licenses, he only publically opposed the plan. Big deal, anyone can publically oppose something, especially if they think it will help them politically.

Yes, he did petition for the 287(g) program, but it didn't get implemented until Romney was practically out of office. Then, his replacement nixed that new law. If Romney is as tough on immigration as all his supporters seem to think he is, then what took him so long to do it?
Contrary to popular belief, Romney doesn't have a viable immigration plan. He won't make people already here go home and get in line. He thinks they should be able to stay and work towards citizenship. HELLO! CAN YOU SAY PARTIAL AMNESTY?
I'm with Brightnail on this one. Picking flip flop head because he is the lesser of two evils means that the choice has been made for us, not by us, and we have to settle. I'M DAMN SICK AND TIRED OF SETTLING.

Did we all forget about the interview he did with Tim Russert?

America First 2008 Updates

Here is the immigration portion of Tim Russert's interview with Mitt Romney.

What Romney says is very revealing. First, he seems to totally not understand that hiring illegals is against the law and punishable by both fines and imprisonment.

Second, his program does not include removing illegals. He fudges this constantly by saying they are not to get special privledges but they are to get in line like everyone else. And they they are rewarded with a path to citizenship.

In short, in a Romney administration, no illegal aliens will be removed from this country, nor will the critical task of ending employment of illegals be accomplished.

Romney is one of the corporate elites who sees illegal aliens as a "problem" to be managed. Not as a critical step necessary to preserve the company. As most corporate CEO's, he has neither vision, or depth, but rather repeats back the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

His presidency would be catastrophic for the United States.

MR. 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.

GOV. 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.

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

GOV. 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.

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

GOV. 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.

MR. 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?

GOV. 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.

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

GOV. ROMNEY: Of course not.

MR. RUSSERT: Why not?

GOV. 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...

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

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

MR. RUSSERT: ...came down hard on employers.

GOV. 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.

MR. RUSSERT: We're going to take a quick break. More of our discussion with Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. He's running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States. We'll be right back.



Paul Streitz

amfirst@optonline.net



IF THIS IS ROMNEY'S "VIABLE" IMMIGRATION PLAN, THEN HE ISN'T THE CANDIDATE WE WANT

Romney's a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) look it up.

He will NEVER get my vote!

Originally Posted by Gogo

I just heard Tom say on Fox news that Romney said that those who are here illegal will have to go back. So something was said to make Tom comfortable with him. He also mentioned employers being accountable.

Yes, I did see that on Mitts site.......

Heres' the thing: Tom needs to be a MAJOR ACTIVIST in our movement when he leaves the House. What does this mean? It means that Tom's endorsement does not come without a price. If Mitt is elected, Tom needs to do what he has been oh so successful at doing. Holding their feet to the fire. If Mitt messes up, Tom needs to be on him like stink on Mexico. He needs to make sure that Mitt enforces the law or it is one term and done. This needs to be Tom's new role in the movement.

Romney applied for the program well before he left office, months I believe. But the bigger point is he did it -- in a liberal state at that. And he vetoed in-state tuition for illegals.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by Gogo

I just heard Tom say on Fox news that Romney said that those who are here illegal will have to go back. So something was said to make Tom comfortable with him. He also mentioned employers being accountable.

Yes, I did see that on Mitts site.......

Heres' the thing: Tom needs to be a MAJOR ACTIVIST in our movement when he leaves the House. What does this mean? It means that Tom's endorsement does not come without a price. If Mitt is elected, Tom needs to do what he has been oh so successful at doing. Holding their feet to the fire. If Mitt messes up, Tom needs to be on him like flies on Mexico. He needs to make sure that Mitt enforces the law or it is one term and done. This needs to be Tom's new role in the movement.

I believe Tom has the integrity to call it as it is and if Mitt doesn't do as promised he would call him on it and probably when he went for a second term.

OK I am loving opensecrets.org, when thinking about who is donating to candidates, you can search donors, you can search by companies... I put in just as an example Tyson, since they are very open borders here in Arkansas... only two candidates got donations from people at tyson... huckabee and romney
This is going to be fun, I want to find out all the military industrial complex and see who they donate to...
Keep it going lets see who really supports whom...

Originally Posted by Populist

Romney applied for the program well before he left office, months I believe. But the bigger point is he did it -- in a liberal state at that. And he vetoed in-state tuition for illegals.

Yes he did do it, but it wasn't until the last year of his office. So again I ask, what took him so long? He knew full well that his democratic replacement wouldn't enforce his new law.
We all know MA is a liberal state, which should beg the question of how romney got elected to a liberal state as a conservative? If he was a true conservative, he wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. He is a RINO and is no true conservative.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Heres' the thing: Tom needs to be a MAJOR ACTIVIST in our movement when he leaves the House. What does this mean? It means that Tom's endorsement does not come without a price. If Mitt is elected, Tom needs to do what he has been oh so successful at doing. Holding their feet to the fire. If Mitt messes up, Tom needs to be on him like stink on Mexico. He needs to make sure that Mitt enforces the law or it is one term and done. This needs to be Tom's new role in the movement.

Great... gives him 4 years to give 'em all amnesty by another name...double or triple H1b's (Lot's of IT folks are gonna LOVE that one..)...appoint about 200 MORE CFR members to important posts...and set the stage for the great NAU... No thanks...