“Long term solution”: please don’t let it be a form of a Pelosi-ism: we have to vote Romney in to see what we voted for”
A bit of a continuation of my previous post, lamenting that Romney’s Comms Director, Tommy Schultz, couldn’t answer my question. So, I went to the Romney site, Issues, Immigration to see what he had to say relative to my question:
- A Strong Stand Against Illegal Immigration
Mitt Romney will protect legal immigration and the 4.5 million who are waiting in line to enter the United States legally by taking a strong stand against illegal immigration. He believes that illegal immigration must end and has a proven track record of advancing that goal.
OK, he’s FOR legal immigration (er, very FEW are really against that, and most of those bring up that perceived the assimilation rate is not high enough), and against illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration – there is no age limit or originating location to have this legal state of being. This includes that entire class of people that Obama is now wishing to exempt from the Law. “Prosecutorial discretion” entails a person here, a person there – singular cases widely scattered and over a space of time. What Obama has done is essentially labeled almost 1 million people as “no longer illegal” with a unilateral decision – done in the Progressive vein of the Administrative State via his stroke of the pen in complete disdain that the American people, thrice in the last few years, have said NO to the DREAM Act.
So, Tommy, is Romney going to follow suit, by simply parsing words but essentially agreeing with Obama that “these people are illegal, but these people are not”?
- Enforce The Law
Mitt Romney believes in the rule of law and will fully enforce federal immigration law. As governor, he authorized state police to assist the federal government in immigration enforcement.
Then why won’t he say that? Why won’t he just come out and say how he would apply this stated stance relative to Obama’s new policy? Or does this mean that once the election is over, any illegal alien within the reach of the law will be deported (as the law states)? Why isn’t he bringing this up, Tommy?
- Oppose Amnesty
Mitt Romney opposes amnesty because he believes that it acts as a magnet encouraging illegal immigration. The last amnesty law passed in 1986 granted legal status to 2.7 million illegal immigrants. In the decades since, the illegal immigrant population has quadrupled. Mitt believes that an amnesty should not be permitted to happen again. Illegal immigrants who apply for legal status should not be given any advantage over those who are following the law and waiting their turn. Mitt absolutely opposes any policy that would allow illegal immigrants to “cut in line.
So here is his stated amnesty position – “should not be permitted to happen again” which is EXACTLY what Obama is doing using that hackneyed phrase “for the children”. While Romney has rightly decided to deride the “repudiation blame game”, is it in the cards for him to take away this political tool from the “play on the emotions” Democrat play book? Does he have the cojones to do that?
Look, let’s drop the Politicalese – amnesty is amnesty regardless of the pretty words you substitute in and wrap around your avoidance of it. At least be honest – Mr. Romney, if you are going to follow Emperor Hussein’s lead in granting “amnesty by other means”, be upfront and say so. Do NOT let the rest of us make mincemeat out of those who speak for you – that’s not fair to us and not fair to them when YOU are the responsible party. And don’t try to be ‘coy’ by saying nothing now and dropping the amnesty bomb on us later. You really mean that amnesty must not be permitted to happen again”? Then SAY so – that NO form of amnesty is allowable.
Can he give those of us that are “enthusiastically challenged” a reason to vote for him? What IS that ‘long term’ solution that Mitt brings up now?
“Long term solution”: please don’t let it be a form of a Pelosi-ism: we have to vote Romney in to see what we voted for”.
