Thread: We must find a way to make peace between two groups....

Originally Posted by googler

Ah a smart play indeed. A smart play to disappoint those on our side that are tired of waiting for a candidate that will finally take a stand and put his/her foot down on illegal immigration. He rather concern himself with not pissing off a population that is not supposed to be in this country than those of us (the majority of the country I may add) that want illegal immigration addressed after decades of neglect? Really??? You're right, there are plenty of youtube videos of him supporting amnesty, so it's all our there for you to see. I'm only 24 years old and so I'm surprised that someone such as yourself who has lived far longer than me is still tolerating this crap. Jeez, wake up already man.


By the way, so where was this so called smart play when he opposed Obamacare? Did he not supposedly now antagonize the other side? Why can he take a stand on issues such as supporting Israel, opposing gay marriage, obamacare etc. but not illegal immigration? Why not remain vague on everything and say, "Elect me and find out where I stand on all the following issues! It'll be a surprise!". What's so special about illegal immigration over other issues that it warrants this marvelous strategy of vagueness?

I've tried my level best to give you a clue of what's going on but you refuse to listen. He has taken a stand on illegal immigration, you're just not paying attention because everything isn't as specific as you and some other would like. Well, I've already explained the possible reasoning behind that. He has said repeatedly that he does not support amnesty. Furthermore, his words and actions prove he doesn't support the Dream Act and driver's licenses for illegals. Oh, and he has also said he fully supports attrition through enforcement. For goodness sakes, he even said the Arizona law should be a model for the country. By the way, there aren't a number of youtube videos of him supporting illegal alien amnesty. Actually, he has said over and over again that he does not support amnesty.

Just for the record, any conservative voter knows it would be a kiss of death for a Republican running for President not to openly oppose gay marriage and Obamacare.

Originally Posted by kathyet

And this is the short list it goes on and on, but wait I am still waiting for the truth, and about Romeny and Paul on amnesty Romney Wants it, Paul wants Attrition....

I think you have that reversed. Romney has called for attrition through enforcement and Paul has supported amnesty with his vote before.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

The problem is that he is not very vague on the issue of illegal immigration. He has said he supports amnesty. We have videos posted here. Unless you can show evidence suggesting something like a contrary view, then we can assume he will support amnesty.

No, he has never said he supports amnesty. Have you seen this video: Romney in 2007 on Immigration and Amnesty - YouTube or this one: Romney clarifies immigration position - YouTube ? By saying illegals shouldn't be getting a special right or deal basically means they should go home and apply in the correct manner. Is this the contrary view you're seeking? Romney never said he endorsed any amnesty plan put forth by McCain or Bush.

Originally Posted by MW

I've tried my level best to give you a clue of what's going on but you refuse to listen. He has taken a stand on illegal immigration, you're just not paying attention because everything isn't as specific as you and some other would like. Well, I've already explained the possible reasoning behind that. He has said repeatedly that he does not support amnesty. Furthermore, his words and actions prove he doesn't support the Dream Act and driver's licenses for illegals. Oh, and he has also said he fully supports attrition through enforcement. For goodness sakes, he even said the Arizona law should be a model for the country. By the way, there aren't a number of youtube videos of him supporting illegal alien amnesty. Actually, he has said over and over again that he does not support amnesty.

Just for the record, any conservative voter knows it would be a kiss of death for a Republican running for President not to openly oppose gay marriage and Obamacare.

Oh I'm listening, but you're trying hard to explain away his recent actions as some sort of "smart" strategy to not infuriate the other side. If there is a strategy, it is to remain vague on the issues so he can then pick whatever side he thinks will help him later on! Both Obama and Romney are similar in that regard. He'll say he's against outright amnesty, but then he'll also want to give concessions to the other side. There everyone is happy! Now vote for me. There's your so called "smart" strategy.


When he goes to speak to Americans one on one, funny how he simply states his supposed opposition to amnesty, but stops short of going into the "but" of his position. There's always some sort of catch to these fools' positions. When he did an interview with a newspaper, he stated, in a rather confusing way, his position. The reason so many people are unsure of where he stands on the issue is because of statements like these.


"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 here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country. "


So those that haven't been convicted of crime are differentiated from those who have? What's the difference when we're speaking about people unlawfully here no matter what their behavior was during their stay in the country. And register them? For what? If you're going to seek a policy of getting them out of this country, why are you going to register them for? Fast forward to present day, and we get more generalities and confusing statements from him on Arizona's law decision by the SC and on Obama's policy change. It's clear he is doing this to leave wiggle room for himself, so that in the coming months he can announce, say, a pathway for children of illegals without being lambasted for flipping sides.


And Illegal immigration is as much a conservative issue as those other issues, yet Romney chooses to put it in the back seat. You can ask him now what he thinks of gay marriage or abortion and he'll give you a straight answer, but ask him about what to do with the children of illegals and he won't give you straight up honest answer. He's working the details out with his campaign how to best reward them all the while apparently saying he's against amnesty.

Originally Posted by MW

No, he has never said he supports amnesty. Have you seen this video: Romney in 2007 on Immigration and Amnesty - YouTube or this one: Romney clarifies immigration position - YouTube ? By saying illegals shouldn't be getting a special right or deal basically means they should go home and apply in the correct manner. Is this the contrary view you're seeking? Romney never said he endorsed any amnesty plan put forth by McCain or Bush.

Here are the transcripts for those videos,

For the first,

....

They said THE ISSUE is illegal immigration and it's an important issue. clearly we want to welcome people into our country legally but we do not want to say to twelve million people who come here illegally that they all get to stay. That's simply not fair, its not the right course, and that's why I oppose amnesty in any form and will fight to make sure that we respect the law, we keep legal immigration alive and well but we stop illegal immigration.

....

And here is the second,

....

Romney: I've said that people who come to the country illegally should not have a special pathway that is preferable to those that stand in line in their home countries to be able to come to this country. They should not have a special preference with regards to becoming a permanent residence or citizen.

Q: Governer, do you draw a distinction between somebody who has been here twenty five years, and as speaker Gingrich said last night, a member of their church, a tax paying member of the community? Do you draw a distinction between those individuals and people who have come more recently?


Romney: You know there is going to be great interest in finding how far we can apply amnesty and I just think we make a mistake as a Republican Party to try and describe which people who have come here illegally should be given amnesty ... to be able to jump ahead of the line of the people who have been waiting in line. My view is that those people who have waited in line patiently to come to this country legally should be ahead in line and those people who come here illegally should not be given a special deal or a special accelerated right to become a permanent resident or citizen.

...

Now in the second video, he somewhat carelessly poses amnesty as being an accepted platform in the Republican Party. He also poses illegals as being in some "line" to become permanent residents or citizens. This is clearly careless and really needs further clarification, especially compared to the previous video from 2007. I guess the second video was sometime this year, 2012.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

Here are the transcripts for those videos,

For the first,



And here is the second,



Now in the second video, he somewhat carelessly poses amnesty as being an accepted platform in the Republican Party. He also poses illegals as being in some "line" to become permanent residents or citizens. This is clearly careless and really needs further clarification, especially compared to the previous video from 2007. I guess the second video was sometime this year, 2012.

I can't find anything to suggest that Romney thinks Amnesty should be "an accepted platform for the Republican Party." Please be specific in providing the information. I believe the "line" he's talking about for illegals begins in their own country. It amazes me how some folks will attempt to pick apart anything they consider questionable but seem to completely ignore the positive things he has said repeatedly and the actions he has taken as a Governnor to fight illegal immigration.

http://2012.republican-candidates.or...mmigration.php

Being a Californian and retired from the High-Tech Industry this is a little observation to Googler and MW. Having watched and read Googler's blogs he reminds me so much of the young engineers that I have worked with over the years. The same reason that attorney's don't like High-Tech people, especially engineers on a jury. They have a tendency to see things as black or white, there is no grey area.

I think Googler wants to see facts for himself as to the truth of Romney's feelings towards illegal immigration. Vagueness or the grey area does not solve the issue and Googler becomes fustrated. Unfortunately we are dealing with people and politics which can be more complex then machines.

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

Being a Californian and retired from the High-Tech Industry this is a little observation to Googler and MW. Having watched and read Googler's blogs he reminds me so much of the young engineers that I have worked with over the years. The same reason that attorney's don't like High-Tech people, especially engineers on a jury. They have a tendency to see things as black or white, there is no grey area.

I think Googler wants to see facts for himself as to the truth of Romney's feelings towards illegal immigration. Vagueness or the grey area does not solve the issue and Googler becomes fustrated. Unfortunately we are dealing with people and politics which can be more complex then machines.

You're right. I attribute googler's naive attitude toward politics to his youth. Right or wrong, that's my personal observation. Honestly, I was more like him than I care to admit in my youth ...... that is where politics is concerned. However, I am now much older, and I'd like to think wiser, these days.