Thread: Romney Would Allow Illegals to Stay for Unspecified Time

Romney Would Allow Illegals to Stay for Unspecified Time
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
December 21, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential candidate, would allow illegal aliens to apply for permanent residency but would also require them to go back home after a "set period" of time, he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday.

After four days of questioning from Cybercast News Service, however, the Romney campaign was unable to specify how long that "set period" would be.

On "Meet the Press" Romney said: "Well, whether they go home - they should go home eventually. There's a set period - in my view they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or for citizenship. But there is a set period whereupon they should return home."

In light of these comments, border security advocates have questioned whether there is a difference between the application for permanent residency Romney suggests and the "pathway-to-citizenship," which he has staunchly opposed.

"It sounds like he wasn't really sure," John Vinson, president of Americans for Immigration Control (AIC), told Cybercast News Service. "It's just as clear as mud what he believes about illegal immigration."

Among questions submitted to Romney's campaign by Cybercast News Service on Monday morning was one that asked how long the "set period" would be that Romney envisions in which illegal aliens would be allowed to stay in the country.

The Romney campaign responded to other questions about his immigration position submitted by Cybercast News Service but not that one. Asked again by Cybercast News Service to answer the question on Thursday, the Romney campaign did not respond.

During the "Meet the Press" interview on Sunday, Romney did not waver from his comments in a November 2005 interview with The Boston Globe, in which he called the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill supported by President Bush a "reasonable proposal" that was "quite different" from amnesty - a charge leveled by critics of the bill.

In 2007, Romney strongly criticized a similar bill for "comprehensive immigration reform" that died in the Senate. Romney also told the Globe in 2005 that he had not formulated his own proposal.

During the "Meet the Press" interview, Romney said, "Those people who had come 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."

Romney campaign spokesman Matt Rhoades told Cybercast News Service in a written response Tuesday afternoon that, "Gov. Romney has consistently opposed amnesty or any special path to citizenship or permanent residence for those here illegally."

"To become eligible for permanent residence, he believes they should get at the end of the line with the millions of people who have applied to legally come to the U.S.," Rhoades continued.

Rhoades' answers, however, did not specify whether Romney envisioned the illegal aliens 'getting in line" inside the United States or outside the United States. Rhoades further said Romney never changed his position on the Senate proposals for a pathway to citizenship.

"Gov. Mitt Romney has not changed his position and believes the U.S. Senate agreement on immigration reform was 'the wrong approach' and a 'form of amnesty,'" Rhoades added.

Vinson, whose group advocates stricter immigration laws and tougher enforcement of the borders, sees little difference in Romney's view of providing permanent residency and creating a pathway to citizenship.

"He said the amnesty bill is reasonable, but he didn't agree, or I can't tell what the man is saying," Vinson said. "People are going to question what he thinks, if indeed he knows what he thinks. It's a cut-and-dry issue. You either let them stay or encourage them to go back home."

Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a pro-border enforcement group, did not criticize Romney or any other presidential candidate, but Mehlman said he was against any permanent residency program.

"If you're here illegally, there should be no option for getting legal authorization," Mehlman said in an interview.

Mehlman also said he was disturbed at the idea of calling the 2005 bill a "reasonable" plan and that it is not "amnesty."

"Our view has always been that McCain-Kennedy and the so-called comprehensive immigration bill were amnesty," Mehlman said.

Rhoades defended Romney on this point as well.

"Gov. Romney opposed each version of the McCain-Kennedy legislation as the wrong approach and a form of amnesty," he said. "He believes amnesty did not work 20 years ago and it will not work today."

Just before leaving the governor's office in December 2006 to campaign full-time, Romney signed a memorandum of agreement with federal officials to allow Massachusetts State Troopers to enforce immigration laws. He also opposed granting driver's license and in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

Still, Romney's "Meet the Press" interview sparked criticism from conservative commentator Michelle Malkin and The American Spectator, a conservative magazine.

They accused the Republican presidential candidate of giving "Clintonian" answers to the questions about immigration and gun control.

Campaign officials also admitted Monday that Romney inaccurately said during the NBC interview that the National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed his campaign for governor in 2002 when, in fact, his Democratic opponent had a higher score with the Second Amendment group.

Throughout his campaign Romney has been dogged for being a "flip-flopper," because as a candidate in Massachusetts he was pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-homosexual rights but moved to the right on all three issues after entering the GOP presidential primary.

Other Republican candidates have stumbled on the immigration issue in the eyes of conservative voters. Arizona Sen. John McCain strongly supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has faced scrutiny for supporting New York City's "sanctuary city" policy that prohibits police officers from enforcing federal immigration laws. More recently, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has been criticized for supporting in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens in his home state.

Romney's Web site calls for "implementing an enforceable Employee Verification System. Issue biometrically-enabled and tamperproof card to non-citizens and create a national database for non-citizens so employers can easily verify their legal status."

However, a similar system already exists. (See Related Story)

The Romney Web site goes on to say his policy would "not give amnesty or any special pathway to those who have come to this country illegally." It also calls for following through on the congressionally authorized fence along the Mexican border, withholding federal funds from "sanctuary cities," cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, and encouraging legal immigration.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp ... 1221a.html

How in the world could Tancredo throw his support behind this guy? He obviously supports what many of us would consider amnesty!

And this is the man Tancredo wants us to support? BS What a sellout. He sold us out. I am really dissapointed in his decision

Did they mistake Romney for Hillary in this article?

Every other paragraph offers a different opinion.....

"First of all, the so-called War on Terror isn’t a war on terror at all, it’s a war on the Constitution and Bill of Rights; a war on the rights of the American people." ~Lynn Stuter, researcher, analyst

Before you jump to conclusions, listen to Tom Tancredo discussing his endorsement and the details of Romney's MTP interview, which Tancredo discussed in detail with him. He clears up a lot of this. Bottom line: illegals have to go home after they get their affairs in order, are not here indefinately, and believes in attrition through enforcement. As Tancredo notes, Hunter & Paul are not going to win; Romney is the best choice to carry on the cause.

Listen here:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-95271.html

Populist wrote:

Bottom line: illegals have to go home after they get their affairs in order, are not here indefinately, and believes in attrition through enforcement.

That's not what the article is saying! Furthermore, that's not what Romney said in his interview with Tim Russert.

We're not a bunch of deaf naive idiots, we can read and we have ears that work.

MW,
Don't miss the point. That article is one source, as is the Tancredo's J & K interview. Lsten to what Tanc is saying in total. He makes a logical argument. As much as we all like Hunter, he's not going to win.

Populist wrote:

As much as we all like Hunter, he's not going to win.

I respect Tancredo a lot, but he's not a physic. Hunter won't do well in Iowa, and he knows that. That is why he has been spending his time in New Hampshire and South Carolina recently. I hate that some folks have already given up on him before the real fight even starts.

mw I'm with you. Hunter is not my first choice, but I would like to see him remain a viable choice for all of us.

I am upset with Tancedo, but that was his choice and I am sure he had his reasons. It won't make me vote for Romney. It's Paul or Hunter for me.

Just me, and just a feeling, but I think Romney seems to be all over the map about what he would do. That strikes me as someone who doesn't have a true belief in what he is saying or a definite course of action.

It bothers me that anyone wants to every give these people citizenship.
To be honest, Ron Paul, may be in favor of their 'going to the end of the line' or whatever - but I'm opposed to it.

They have broken our laws - lots of them.

They have caused misery both physical and financial to American people.

They have made a mockery of our laws and our justice system.

They have shown a complete disdain and lack of respect for America and it's people.

They have had their bite at the apple - stolen bite - they shouldn't have another chance.

The problem is Romney having a good idea but being inarticulate at the moment that he is being interviewed.


The Democrats are looking at the current illegal aliens and talking about setting conditions for citizenship. The Romney position is that the illegal aliens should not be able to stay indefinitely but assuming they have not commited non immigration crimes should be given a few years to leave.


It is not just Romney if you speak with the leadership of the major mmigration reduction organizations NumbersUSA, FAIR or CIS they are not talking about immediate deportation either. The first thing planned is to give them the opportunity to register themselves during 120 days at pain of immediate deportation if caught afterwards. Then make being here without authorization progressively difficult. Instead of their being deported en masse or having to look over their shoulder not knowing how long they can be here or when to leave they can plan for a specific time.


Romney if he wins also can not exert much control until he assumes office. The best we or Romney can hope for is that by the end of the next Preidential term most of the illegal aliens wll be gone and set policy accordingly.

Why a few years?

I'm understanding maybe what a non-immigration crime is - but working with fake ID, not paying taxes, driving illegally, driving without insurance, using the welfare system - are not small crimes. Some should be, if they aren't, a felony. By the time you add up all the monies, tax evasion, fraudulent use of the sytem, it would be grand theft.

That's time enough for all of them to have anchor babies? Time enough for those anchor babies to become adults - voting adults and able to then 'reunify' with their familes.

While I understand it isn't going to happen overnight. There should be a absolute statement that they can't continue to break the laws while they are here. That they will never gain citizenship - even if we determine the anchor babies are citizens. They should be told if they do not self- deport within months, not years, their assets here will be confiscated. They if they don't self-deport within months, not years, they will be considered felons.

It just doesn't sound right. It sounds like we are being softened up a little at a time. We haven't even had a vote of any kind, and already some seem willing to accept - 'staying here a few years', etc. By the time he is inaugurated, we will be accepting complete amnesty - an inch at a time.

There may be a reason it will take some time, but there's no reason not to make them understand they will not benefit from staying here.

What next presidental term? Pres. Bush's or the next president?