Thread: Please help me understand Tancredo endorsing Romney

Originally Posted by Ronster

Well, I was leaning towards Ron Paul. However, because of Tancredo's endorsement I am now thinking Romney. Tancredo is a true patriot, and that is why they will not let him win. If Tancredo says Romney then that is good enough for me.

VOTE MITT ROMNEY!!

Right on, Ronster: We need to get united. As I drive away with Hunter bumper stickers on my car. but I do agree with you.
Romney08

Originally Posted by usanevada

The question of birthright citizenship is about a 100 degrees removed from the presidency

It will have to be reiterpited by the courts or the 14th changed by congress

Exactly what I was thinking. Someone will have to take this to the Supreme Court and have them decide the original intent. That should get rid of the anchors.

"I was sorry to see Tancredo withdrawal, however, I'm very hopeful that it will benefit Hunter in the long run. Honestly, I don't see how anyone on ALIPAC could read the Tim Russert interview and support Romney - it just boggles the mind. "

NW,

I agree with you, this tread is blowing my mind.

You are ignoring the message Tancredo is sending, loud and clear. He said Hunters numbers at times were lower than his. He wants to endorse someone ELECTABLE that will keep up the fight with the Dems and can win! He has more successes on his belt than any.
The more you dis Mitt, the higher up the ladder he goes for me. Right now he is a shining star!

We all have to go with our gut feelings - the feelings I had when I saw Ralph Nader shrugging off the effect he had in the elections when it was pointed out to him that the votes he got would have made a big difference in not letting Bush win, or the feelings I got one morning when I woke to Mitt Romney and his wife being interviewed before he announced he was running.

My feelings say I am not going to do a Ralph Nader and vote for someone that I don't feel stands a chance just to prove a point. I will vote for Mitt Romney and not waste my vote, anything to stop the democrats.

This is coming from a 30 year registered democrat!

Martha wrote:

The more you dis Mitt, the higher up the ladder he goes for me. Right now he is a shining star!

Did you read the Tim Russert interview? If so, than illegal immigration can't be one of your key issues. Romney clearly states that he supports amnesty. That is a fact that no amount of rhetoric is going to erase. I mean geez, it came right out of the horses mouth.

MW,

Has Hell frozen over???

We AGREE on something!!!

Romney does not clearly state he supports amnesty, and I've read the Russert interview. He is on the record as supporting enforcement. What he has clearly stated is that he does not support special pathways for illegals, unlike Giuliani and Huckabee -- both of whom openly support amnesty. And even if what Romney said to Russert should be clarified ('signing up') who would be easier to influence. Think about it.

PineStrawGuys wrote:

MW,

Has Hell frozen over???

We AGREE on something!!!

Yep, it's a rare day indeed.

Actually, we probably agree on more than you think. We just seem to have huge disconnect on Paul and Iraq.

Originally Posted by MW

How anyone could seriously consider Romney is beyond my comprehension. Did you guys read the information Sippy provided? If not, I would suggest your read it closely!

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 (isn't that exactly what McCain has said). 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." (note that he said "as they would from their home country, not 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 (Romney's idea of what is and isn't amnesty doesn't align with our thoughts), 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 (that's amnesty folks), 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 (once again, the call for amnesty), 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

And for you folks who keep saying Tancredo and Romney had a long discussion on the issue. Well, I don't personally call one hour a long discussion.

Excerpt:

[quote:3endkt9u]In an interview on MSNBC, Tancredo said that he had an hour long talk with Romney and discussed all the immigration issues. He said that they did not agree on all the issues, and he mentioned the H-1B issue, but he said that Romney was in agreement on the major points with him.

IMHO, Tancredo support of Romney is even a bigger disappointment than his support of the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

I was sorry to see Tancredo withdrawal, however, I'm very hopeful that it will benefit Hunter in the long run. Honestly, I don't see how anyone on ALIPAC could read the Tim Russert interview and support Romney - it just boggles the mind. [/quote:3endkt9u]

I agree MW- I feel so betrayed. I am so shocked that so many people will just vote for Romney because Tancredo supports him because he is the most "electable". This makes me sick and the reason I started this thread. I have been a loyal Tancredo supporter WELL before most people knew who he was. I cannot believe he of all people if pulling the "lesser of the evils" and "most electable" cards. I have a pit in my stomach and a lump of my throat and I am just supposed to vote for Romney who is for amnesty-like you said has anyone read the Russert transcript. He wants illegals to register and apply for citizenship without leaving-sounds like amnesty to me.

This is thje same B.S. language we all fought congress and Bush on numerous times and won. Now we are supposted to follow Tancredo's endorsement and vote for Romney who has publlicly endorsed the same amnesty? What is wrong with everyone? I feel like I am dealing with the OBL and John McCain not people who are supposed to be anti-amnesty. I just don't understand.

Nicole