Romney on amnesty

(See, below, Romney’s remarks on amnesty on Meet the Press last month.)

Previously I had understood that Mitt Romney was clearly against amnesty. But lately I have found his statements on the subject to be unclear and ambiguous. His reply in last night’s debate on FOX was a case in point. If there is anyone who has a clear sense of what Romney’s policy really is or is not, please enlighten us.

- end of initial entry -

David G. writes:

It’s hard to believe that Mitt is the guy that Saint Tom passed the mantle to. I doubt that he is worthy of the Tancredo legacy. When asked in last night’s debate what we do with the 12 million illegals who are already in the country, after we have secured the border, Romney said that we would deal with them on an individual basis. That’s not only the wrong answer, it’s a vote-losing, judgment-questioning bad type of answer. It’s an answer that shows a total lack of focus on the issue and shows an inability to run to daylight when the holes open up, to use a football analogy. Anyone who has read Tancredo and supported him in spirit would be able to answer the question posed to Romney in last night’s debate easily. It’s a question that you hope you get asked if you are Tancredo’s heir-apparent. Romney seems to have a problem handling prosperity when its handed to him on this issue which makes me question his commitment to it as well as his understanding of it.

Romney’s response would cause an enlightened voter to think (a) There is no way to interview 12 million people, and/or (b) If we were to do such interviews, who would do them, how long would it take and who would pay for it? Result?—this guy has no clue. Next.

It took Fred Thompson to enunciate the Tancredo solution. Fred Thompson established himself as the most viable candidate on immigration with his answer of securing the borders, no amnesty and attrition of incentives to stay, leading to self-deportation. Fred has also talked in prior debates about the next generation of illegals lining up to come in as a result of Mexico’s failure to grow a viable economy. Too bad Mr. Thompson’s campaign lacks any form of elan necessary to win the thing.

LA replies:

Romney last night, as well as in a previous interview (on Meet the Press last month), spoke about illegal aliens “getting on line with everyone else.” What does that mean? To speak of illegals getting on line with everyone else COULD mean they must leave the United States, and that’s it, the next move is theirs. If they want to try to immigrate to the U.S. legally, they are free to start that process just like anyone else. But it also could mean (and it sounds that way to me) that there is a specific procedure laid out for illegals, as illegals, by which they “get on line” and become legal. And that’s the same as giving them some kind of legal recognition allowing them to commence that process. I find Romney’s ambiguity troubling, and he’d better straighten himself out on this.

* * *

Here, sent by reader Tww, is Romney’s position as he put it the Russert interview last month:

MR. RUSSERT: The Lowell Sun, your home—one of your hometown, state home papers, said this. “Governor Mitt Romney expressed support for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship.

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

This is George Bush and John McCain.

GOV. ROMNEY: Now let’s, now let’s look at those very carefully, OK, and you’re, you’re a careful reader. In the interview with The Boston Globe, I described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program, but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs. I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support—and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. And, of course, the Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don’t recall in that much detail. But they had very different proposals. My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country—the 12 million or so that are here illegally—should be able to stay [and] 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 say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally. And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate.

MR. RUSSERT: But they shouldn’t have to go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, whether they go home—they should go home eventually. There’s a set per—in my view they should be—they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there’s a set period where upon they should return home. And if they’ve been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they’ll be going home.

MR. RUSSERT: The children they had born here are U.S. citizens, so do the children stay here and the parents go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, that’s a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who’ve come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here, but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally. And likewise, if they’ve brought a child to this country or they’ve had a child in this country, that’s, that’s wonderful that they’re growing their families, but that doesn’t mean that they all get to stay here indefinitely. We’re fundamentally a nation of laws. And let me underscore something here that I think’s awfully important, because this immigration debate can sound anti-immigrant to a lot of people. It’s not intended to be that by myself or, I believe, by the vast majority of others that talk about it. We value legal immigration. We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education, but we are a nation of laws. And our freedoms and our liberty are associated with following the law. We have to secure our border, we have to make sure there’s an employment verification system to identify who’s here legally and who’s not. And then for the 12 million who’ve come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway.

Tww offers his observations:

1. Romney buys into the “rounding up” nonsense

2. Describes the Bush and McCain proposals as “not technically an amnesty program”

3. Thinks the Bush/McCain proposals were “reasonable”

4. Believes that the people who come here illegally should be able to stay and sign up for permanent residency

5. Believes that a “great majority” should return home for a “set period” (does this mean that some would stay forever?)

6. Believes that all of those here illegally “should be given the opportunity to sign up and stay here”

7. Asserts that “we value legal immigration”

LA writes:

I had viewed the key parts of the Romney-Russert exchange on the Web several days ago, and I had trouble understanding what he was saying, and didn’t form any definite conclusion from it. Now that I’ve read the transcript, however, the problem is clear: Romney’s articulation of his position is incoherent, but he is definitely suggesting some kind of legal recognition of illegals:

“My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country—the 12 million or so that are here illegally—should be able to stay [and] 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 say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally.” [Italics added.]

If illegals presently in this country “should be able to stay [and] sign up for permanent residency or citizenship,” well, in order for them to do that, they already have to be legalized. They are being recognized as legally present in this country for the purpose of applying for permanent residency. And we know, as sure as we know the sun will rise tomorrow, that once they’ve been given this “provisional” legal status, it will never be taken away from them. As I remember, there was a similar discussion last spring regarding the Bush-McCain bill.

And then this:

“Well, whether they go home—they should go home eventually. There’s a set per—in my view they should be—they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there’s a set period where upon they should return home. And if they’ve been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they’ll be going home.”

They sign up for permanent legal residency HERE, and then they GO HOME? This is incoherent. It’s evident Romney has not thought this through at all.

Now the Russert interview was on December 16, four days before Tancredo’s endorsement of Romney. But last night in the FOX debate Romney sounded similar notes to what he said to Russert last month. Which means that Romney has no notion of what Tancredo’s endorsement means, he has no notion that Tancredo endorsed him on the condition that, among other things, he opposes the legalization of illegals. Does Romney think he will keep the support of Tancredo supporters if he talks this way?

And how about this:

“We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education, but we are a nation of laws.”

What happened to the idea, which Republicans used to believe in (prior to the advent of GW Bush) that immigrants come here FROM different cultures on the condition that they adopt the culture of this country? If Romney welcomes people coming her with different cultures, that means he welcomes the growth in America of different cultures.

LA writes:

Here is Romney’s immigration plan, released December 16, the same day as his appearance on Meet the Press. Here’s what it says about amnesty:

- Reject Amnesty. Governor Romney opposes amnesty or any special path to citizenship for those here illegally. He opposed each version of the McCain-Kennedy legislation as the wrong approach and a form of amnesty. Amnesty did not work 20 years ago, and it will not work today.

Yes, but on Meet the Press, Romney said that illegals in the U.S. could apply for legalization. For them to apply for legalization means that they come forward and present themselves at a U.S. government agency as persons who are illegally present in the United States yet who are somehow being given the right, as illegal aliens, to apply for legal residence. This means that the U.S. government overlooks their illegal status. Other persons applying for legal residence in the U.S. do not get their illegal status overlooked, because they are not illegally present in the U.S. Which means that under Romney’s plan the illegals are most definitely being given a “special path” to legalization..

LA continues:

The most positive way of understanding Romney’s confusing position—and this is purely a guess—is that the illegals register in the United States and then leave the U.S. in order to establish that they have admitted their illegal status and left the U.S. within the time allowed from the passage of the law. When they then apply for re-admission to the U.S., they can demonstrate that they properly left the U.S.

But this is a stretch. Obviously, Romney must spell out his plan in more detail.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 11, 2008 10:48 AM | Send