Thread: Romney Would Allow Illegals to Stay for Unspecified Time

The next President and Felipe Calderon have terms ending the same year 2012. It would be possible for them to cooperate on getting the Mexican illegal aliens out of here and reintergrated into Mexico.


The modus operandi for being an illegal alien is not uniform it sounds like you are assuming that they are all skirting the law the same way. Using the descriptors you gave above you could set up a separate checklist for each individual as they would be guilty of some but not guilty of others.


Another point is that some of the illegal aliens are eligible for existing regularization programs but have not bothered to use them yet.

Originally Posted by MW

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!

This article is based on the Tim Russert interview.

This has been debated and cleared up already, NUMEROUS times.

This has also been cleared up during the NUMEROUS times that Tom Tancredo has talked about his selection of Romney----and by Romney himself in other interviews.

Originally Posted by MW

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.

I like Duncan Hunter. However, he has NO chance of winning----his numbers are less than those of Tom. He should be like Tom and withdrawl now----or definitely after Iowa----so we do not get stuck with Hillary, Guliani, McCain, Huckabee, Obama, or Edwards. The situation is now getting URGENT, and it is time for him to pull out!!

I have never seen his policy for all of the illegals that are here, can you post that please?? The only thing that I have ever heard him talk about is the fence, I have heard nothing about the employers, illegals that are here, etc.

Originally Posted by MW

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.

Okay, again.....The interview that Populist posted above is AFTER the Tim Russert interview that is discussed in the article that you posted. Therefore, this has all been cleared up by Romney and Tancredo.

Hunter and Paul are NOT going to win.

It does not appear that Fred Thompson is going anywhere either.

Therefore, anyone who is supporting them is just guaranteeing more votes for the others----and assisting/guaranteeing that we get the WORST candidate in office.

I would trust Tom Tancredo's judgement more than any of yours-----and just like what was said on the radio show last night-------if Tom says that we should back Romney, than that is what we should do.

Here is a video of Mitt Romney at the Bush Libary and the beginning is what offends me. I am not a fan of HW Bush; he a CFR member and dangerous IMO. He supports Mitt Romney and that sealed Romney's fate as a possible traitor to U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Mr-2mff6Q

Bren wrote:

Okay, again.....The interview that Populist posted above is AFTER the Tim Russert interview that is discussed in the article that you posted. Therefore, this has all been cleared up by Romney and Tancredo.

In my mind absolutely nothing has been cleared up. The only thing that is becoming more and more apparent every day is that Romney will flip and flop in tune with the the direction of the politically correct winds. Duncan Hunter has never done that, he's always been consistent in his message.

A lot of folks that are throwing their support behind Romney do so while admitting that Hunter is our best choice. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. Let's be loyal to the candidate we know is the right choice! Why should we sell him down the river like yesterdays newspaper just because we're being told by the MSM that he has no chance? Geez folks, our giving up so easily on our loyalty certainly doesn't say much for our integrity or will to fight for who we want, not who MSM thinks we should support!

Tancredo and Sheriff Arpaio are both supporting Romney

Thats good enough for me , I've read the interviews , I've seen the
debates and I've studied all the candidates

With Romney you have a 80% chance he will be tough on illegals


Rudi sia 80% chance he will open the borders and grant amnesty

Huck 90% chance of amnesty

McCain 85% chance of amnesty

All dems 99.99% chance of amnesty

This one is a no brainer

Paul , Hunter , Kookcinich , Gravel , Keyes , are of no consequence
anymore , There numbers at this stage of the game are just to low

Who you want to support is your business ,

Here's my opinion. I don't think that the illegal aliens in this country should be allowed to get in line for anything. They have blatantly violated our laws and should never get another chance to live in this country. As far as I am concern, they should have to go home never to return. Only the people who have done it the legal way and have applied from outside the country, and who haven't invaded our soil should be considered to come here. To do anything else is amnesty for a bunch of criminals. Our government shouldn't even debate the issue.

I sure can't understand which side of the border he is on after all of this rethoric.

This is the age of a new dawning in America, anyone who does not believe the movement behind Ron Paul has no chance is not paying attention.

He raised more money than any of the other canidates in the last quarter, from grass roots Americans who want change, but we will not ever get that change until Americans have the guts to say enough is enough.
We want our country back and corporate America will no longer choose who will lead our country from here on out.

Also no one should compromise their beliefs in a canidate, if "MW" or anyone else believes Hunter is the best one to run America they should not give up on him, they or I have until that person steps forward and withdraws from the race because they feel it is right. Please do not put each other down for what we believe in.

Try to educate each other on all the canidates ( good and bad)and respect and allow everyone to have the right of choice for their canidate. This is America!

Remember....compromise got us George W. Bush, although I did not vote for him, I voted independant as I could not stomach Kerry.

When we settle for the least of two evils we get what we deserve.