Thread: Romney silent as millions line up for amnesty

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

I respect everyone that wants to play different degrees of the "pretend everything is OK game" however one big danger here is that Republican support for a Romney victory could be turned into the claim of support for amnesty if the elites handle this very strategically. If Romney swings more openly to amnesty before election day and conservatives say "I will support Romney and his amnesty to get rid of Obama" then that will be big trouble.

W

While I can't speak for anyone else, I will certainly say I'm not playing a "pretend everything is OK game" ...... far from it. Romney has said over and over again that he does not support amnesty for illegals. He has said it loudly and clearly for so long that a reversal of his position at this point would probably cost him any chance he has at the presidency. Furthermore, he stands with us on no tuition for illegals, no driver's licenses, a national E-Verify, enhanced border security, and the enforcement of our immigration laws. He strongly believes that any benefits to illegals only serve as magnets. I only say he "strongly believes" it because I've heard him say it so many times in the past.

Everyone has to make up their own mind as to whether they trust his word or not. Personally, I see Romney as good man with many good intentions, however, while I believe him honorable, I will admit that I don't agree with him on everything. Why do you think Romney may possibly become more supportive of amnesty as election day gets nearer? How would it benefit him to change a position he's held for so long and been so adamant about? IMHO, such a move would be political suicide, don't you think?

Originally Posted by MW

While I can't speak for anyone else, I will certainly say I'm not playing a "pretend everything is OK game" ...... far from it. Romney has said over and over again that he does not support amnesty for illegals. He has said it loudly and clearly for so long that a reversal of his position at this point would probably cost him any chance he has at the presidency. Furthermore, he stands with us on no tuition for illegals, no driver's licenses, a national E-Verify, enhanced border security, and the enforcement of our immigration laws. He strongly believes that any benefits to illegals only serve as magnets. I only say he "strongly believes" it because I've heard him say it so many times in the past.

Everyone has to make up their own mind as to whether they trust his word or not. Personally, I see Romney as good man with many good intentions, however, while I believe him honorable, I will admit that I don't agree with him on everything. Why do you think Romney may possibly become more supportive of amnesty as election day gets nearer? How would it benefit him to change a position he's held for so long and been so adamant about? IMHO, such a move would be political suicide, don't you think?

But you yourself have said he's refused to take a hard stance on Obama's amnesty for millions of illegal children for fear of angering Hispanics. So why exactly do you believe Romney won't employ the same "smart strategy" in his first term when he's already thinking about his re-election and the Hispanic vote? He's not going to do anything that will piss of Hispanics and hurt his chances right? Or are you going to be here four years from now telling us that it was indeed all part of Romney's awesome strategy to not anger Hispanics so he can get re-elected. That we should all give him a second term because you believe he'll take care of the problem then.

Bill and MW, thank you for your responses. I have high regard for all on this website, what unites us is the common goal, that of controlled legal immigration. Should Romney be lagging in polls near election time, the "silent majority" may be worth a gamble to take Obama out, if he were to outline a very strong stance near the election.

Of course, my circle is much smaller than yours, Bill. Do you feel a strong silent majority is out there?

Originally Posted by googler

But you yourself have said he's refused to take a hard stance on Obama's amnesty for millions of illegal children for fear of angering Hispanics. So why exactly do you believe Romney won't employ the same "smart strategy" in his first term when he's already thinking about his re-election and the Hispanic vote? He's not going to do anything that will piss of Hispanics and hurt his chances right? Or are you going to be here four years from now telling us that it was indeed all part of Romney's awesome strategy to not anger Hispanics so he can get re-elected. That we should all give him a second term because you believe he'll take care of the problem then.

Once again, googler, you're failing to quote my exact words. I didn't only say Hispanics, I said "Hispanics and illegal alien supporters." Furthermore, by not quoting my full comment, or at least the sentence that the words were used in, you leave the possibility that my words could be taken out of context. As for your question, it has already been answered in an early post on this thread. However, I will attempt to elaborate.

Campaigning for president and actually sitting in the Oval Office are two very separate situations where different tactics are employed. The campaigner has no power, whereas the President of the United States does. For example, did Obama tell us, when he was campaigning against McCain, that he was going to eventually go around the U.S. Congress and pass his personal version of the Dream Act? No he didn't, he also didn't make it known that he supported gay marriage and letting gays serve openly in the military. IMO, the gay marriage thing could have made a difference. There are a lot of things he didn't say when he was campaigning because he knew it would turn off a lot of potential voters. Campaigning for office is a game of words and calculations where one mistake in judgment, a misstep if you will, could cost you the whole shooting match.

Would I like to see complete transperancy in political campaigns? Of course I would, however, as a realist who has been around the block a time or two, I know it's not going to happen. I honestly believe all politicians hold things back that they think may be harmful to their campaign. The American public is comprised of a very diverse group of voters and very seldom, if ever, is a voter going to agree 100% with any candidate running for public office. Why would any candidate for public office be 100% transperant 100% of the time when he knows his or her opponent is not? Wouldn't that place him at a disadvantage, especially knowing that the majority of voters wil never align with him on all the issues? Yes, I would say, using your term, a "smart strategy" is appropriate.


Texasborn did an excellent job in an early comment that I also believes partially answers your question.


Texasborn wrote:

I suppose many of us are sensitive to the campaign rhetoric and feel, rightfully so, that it should reflect the candidates true beliefs and intentions. Unfortunately, this isn't reality as much as we would like it to be. Politics is a chess game with each candidate making moves which often are diametrically opposite the position that they espoused mere weeks or months ago. This creates a voter environment of confusion and resentment because we're not hearing what we would like to hear, at least in the moment. To get a true understanding, one must step back and away to see the bigger picture of what a candidate represents and is likely to support in the future. Obama, at least for me, was an open book even before he took office. And I didn't like what I was reading. I saw an anti-American liar with a fabricated persona and a past deliberately obfuscated so as to pass muster by all but those willing to look closer. I knew in my bones that Obama had a bad plan for this country, one that would transform it into something that we would no longer recognize. In retrospect, there is vindication for sounding the alarm way back in 2008. We can and should question and vet Romney as this wasn't done for Obama whatsoever. However, we know FAR more about Romney in the short time that he has been campaigning than we have learned about Obama in four years! Romney isn't perfect but I know in my gut that he isn't anti-American and truly does have the best interest of the country at heart. Not so with Obama/Soetoro. This much is obvious to anyone paying attention. I don't know about everyone else, but my mother didn't raise a fool. The path ahead couldn't be more clear...and it doesn't lead to Obama!

I hope you don't mind me quoting you, Texasborn.

Originally Posted by MW

Once again, googler, you're failing to quote my exact words. I didn't only say Hispanics, I said "Hispanics and illegal alien supporters." Furthermore, by not quoting my full comment, or at least the sentence that the words were used in, you leave the possibility that my words could be taken out of context. As for your question, it has already been answered in an early post on this thread. However, I will attempt to elaborate.

Campaigning for president and actually sitting in the Oval Office are two very separate situations where different tactics are employed. The campaigner has no power, whereas the President of the United States does. For example, did Obama tell us, when he was campaigning against McCain, that he was going to eventually go around the U.S. Congress and pass his personal version of the Dream Act? No he didn't, he also didn't make it known that he supported gay marriage and letting gays serve openly in the military. IMO, the gay marriage thing could have made a difference. There are a lot of things he didn't say when he was campaigning because he knew it would turn off a lot of potential voters. Campaigning for office is a game of words and calculations where one mistake in judgment, a misstep if you will, could cost you the whole shooting match.

Would I like to see complete transperancy in political campaigns? Of course I would, however, as a realist who has been around the block a time or two, I know it's not going to happen. I honestly believe all politicians hold things back that they think may be harmful to their campaign. The American public is comprised of a very diverse group of voters and very seldom, if ever, is a voter going to agree 100% with any candidate running for public office. Why would any candidate for public office be 100% transperant 100% of the time when he knows his or her opponent is not? Wouldn't that place him at a disadvantage, especially knowing that the majority of voters wil never align with him on all the issues? Yes, I would say, using your term, a "smart strategy" is appropriate.

Here's the problem with your theory. When responding to a question regarding Obama's amnesty, Romney, instead of simply saying that it was not the right move, he went on to say that a long term solution is needed for the children brought here illegally as opposed to Obama's temporary measure. Was that part of this brilliant strategy or a gaffe? What possible long term solution is there for these people. Just enforce the laws. Or is Romney simply making them believe he is going to be compassionate, but once in office do a complete 180 and completely forget about this "long term solution" and thus pissing off Hispanics AND illegal alien supporters.

Originally Posted by googler

Here's the problem with your theory. When responding to a question regarding Obama's amnesty, Romney, instead of simply saying that it was not the right move, he went on to say that a long term solution is needed for the children brought here illegally as opposed to Obama's temporary measure. Was that part of this brilliant strategy or a gaffe? What possible long term solution is there for these people. Just enforce the laws. Or is Romney simply making them believe he is going to be compassionate, but once in office do a complete 180 and completely forget about this "long term solution" and thus pissing off Hispanics AND illegal alien supporters.

A long terms solution could mean making them immigrate in the legal way which would mean sending them back to their home countries.

Where in the hell are the 90 percent? I think it more like 10 percent. These folks are crooks. Why do you think they voted for them to get pay for life? They knew what they were doing. They knew the day would come that the people would vote them out of office. However this election comes out, the people are screwed and they planned it that way.

Originally Posted by MW

A long terms solution could mean making them immigrate in the legal way which would mean sending them back to their home countries.

Just to refresh your memory and everyone else reading our little debate, this is what Romney said (people need to be reminded of his own words lest they give him a free pass):

“I'd like to see legislation that deals with this issue, and I happen to agree with Marco Rubio as he considers this issue. He said that this is an important matter, we have to find a long-term solution. But the President's action makes reaching a long term solution more difficult,” Romney said.

"If I'm president," he concluded, "we'll do our very best to have that kind of long-term solution that provides certainty and clarity for the people who come into this country through no fault of their own by virtue of the actions of their parents."

If you read the last part "people who come into this country through no fault of their own", you get the feeling he is prepared to give them some sort of free pass given that they being here illegally was not their own fault. A compassionate long-term solution is certainly what he has in mind, but you believe otherwise despite what he's said about the children who are not at fault. You can't tell me that any of what he's said in those statements signifies he's prepared to do anything other than deal with the issue in a "compassionate" manner that won't let the affected people down.

The first thing we need to do is to make sure that Romney is elected. Once that happens he can be persuaded to go to work to combat the illegal immigration problem. The OUST OBAMA COALITION is working hard to make this happen, but we need help. Please join us. Google the name and check out the website. After November it will be too late for us all. God bless!

Googler we have seen Obama in action and we know there is absolutely no hope of him enforcing our Immigration Laws. With Romney at least we have hope. Hope at the least we will have a voice at the table. Read this article that I posted in News about a bill that is going through our California Government. It only needs our Senate Vote before being passed and sent to Jerry Brown for signature. Once passed it will need the presidents ok.

Gut-and-amend bill seeks 'safe harbor' for illegal immigrants
With only days left before the California Legislature adjourns for the year, lawmakers are breathing new life into a failed initiative campaign calling for creation of a five-year program to allow undocumented workers to live and work openly in the state.
Senate Bill 901 was gutted and amended this week by Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, D-Sylmar, to propose the "safe harbor" plan for up to 2 million undocumented immigrants.
The bill's contents previously set guidelines for a program that pays owners of high-polluting vehicles to retire them.
The immigrant "safe harbor" measure needs approval by both houses before the Legislature adjourns Aug. 31, after which Gov. Jerry Brown would decide its fate by vetoing it or signing it into law.

"It shows that we're a compassionate state, a state that's willing to take the lead on a difficult issue, immigration, which Washington has failed to address for nearly a quarter century," Ben Golombek, Fuentes' spokesman, said of SB 901.
The safe harbor program would not be a pathway to amnesty, citizenship, voting rights, a driver's license or any other benefits, Golombek said.
But Barbara Coe, founder of the nonprofit California Coalition for Immigration Reform, said that providing worker rights to undocumented immigrants is a "slap in the face" to native-born Americans and to legal immigrants.
"Of course it offends me," Coe said of the new bill.
"Federal immigration law mandates immediate deportation of illegal aliens -- end of subject," she said. "Enforce the law."
Fuentes' bill is meant to assist California residents who are not documented immigrants but have lived in the state since 2008, have not been convicted of a felony, are not members of a terrorist organization, and are willing to undergo a background check and to pay a fee for administration of the safe harbor program.
SB 901 could generate $325 million in new California income taxes by giving participants the green light to seek employment, Golombek said.
The program could not be implemented unless the federal government agrees not to spend time or money apprehending, detaining or deporting its participants, SB 901 would require the governor to seek such concessions from the president and federal immigration officials.
Fuentes and other supporters launched a petition drive last December to place the safe harbor program before voters, but they failed to obtain the 504,760 voter signatures needed to qualify for this year's November ballot.
Fuentes received the final word only a few weeks ago that the safe harbor program could be created through legislation, without a statewide vote, which prompted the gut-and-amend of SB 901 so late in the legislative year, Golombek said.

As a fellow Californian can you show me another way of saving our state? Do you feel safe that Obama won't approve and support this action if passed?