Romney on Immigration . . . The whole enchilada
By jjfuller72 Posted in User Blogs — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A compilation of Romney's quotes/stances on immigration and related issues. There's been debate here and elsewhere about this just being a new "tough on immigration policy" that he's moving to the right on this . . . but as far as I can tell, he's been solidly consistent on this one all the way through.
This Speech given at the Heritage Foundation on September 14, 2005 (link is to streaming video and streaming or downloadable audio--mp3 of Romney's 35 min speech followed by 20+ min of a Q&A session--Topic was actually Homeland Security, but during the Q&A session the topic of illegal immigration came up)--transcription of quotes below is my own:
"I would like to see us, as a nation, bringing in fewer illegal immigrants."
"I do not like the idea, therefore, of Amnesty; because, I'm afraid, that when you have a regular Amnesty program, of one form or another, you will create a greater incentive for people to come into the country illegally."
"In my state I've said that I will veto any legislation which calls for a drivers license for illegal immigrants."
"I recently had a bill on my desk last year that said that we should give kids of illegal immigrants who lived in our state a tuition break for our state colleges and universities and I said "No" I vetoed that, it's one of my few vetoes that has stood up.
It's not that those kids deserve to be discriminated against . . . they don't.
But I didn't want to create any incentives to have people move to our country illegally. Now, why is that?
I'd like to have more people come to our country legally. I love immigrant populations coming to this land. They've been an enormous source of our strength."
"Now I realize that there are some states that rely on immigrant populations to carry out agricultural business. Maybe Pres. Bush's idea of a guest-pass program may be the right answer for that kind of setting . . . but to have that turn into a permanent citizen status or to encourage illegal immigration is something that we should take care to avoid."
Source: Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer Nov 1, 2005
"A bill to let children of illegal immigrants pay the same lower tuition rate at state colleges as other MA residents sparked a political sparring match between Democrats and the Romney administration. Romney chastised critics for advocating a bill he said would encourage illegal behavior. Romney said the state's focus should be on helping legal immigrants. Giving children of illegal immigrants a tuition break would act as an incentive to draw in more illegal immigrants to , Romney said."
Lowell Sun Online
"I don't believe in amnesty," Romney said, using a word voiced by Republicans to describe widespread forgiveness of illegal residency in the
But at the same time, Romney said illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship. "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country," Romney said. "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."
Boston Globe April 10th, 2006 borders should be made more secure to keep illegal immigrants from entering. He also said he opposed an amnesty program that would automatically grant citizenship to the approximately 11 million illegal immigrants already in this country.
"I think that route is not acceptable at this stage," he said. "We should report illegal behavior."
Instead, Romney said, illegal immigrants should be identified and required to apply for green cards, which would allow them to live and work in the United States. Those whose applications are accepted could stay, the rest would be returned to their native countries.
Boston Globe June 21, 2006
Governor Mitt Romney is seeking an agreement with federal authorities that would allow state troopers to arrest undocumented immigrants for being in the country illegally.
Under the agreement Romney is seeking, troopers would have greatly expanded powers: They could check an immigrant's legal status during routine patrols such as during a traffic stop and decide whether the immigrant should be held. "It's one more thing you can do to make this a less attractive place for illegal aliens to come to work," said Romney.
English Immersion Program: bostonherald.com, 7-16-03"Watered Down English Immersion Law Incurs Governor's Wrath"
BOSTON, MA - After the Massachusetts legislature carved out exemptions to a voter-approved English-immersion law for immigrants, Governor Mitt Romney called their action an act of "unfathomable arrogance" and vowed to oust legislators who backed the move. An overwhelming 68% percent of voters approved a ballot initiative last year requiring that immigrant students be placed in all-English classes instead of bilingual classes. But on July 14 the lawmakers voted to override the governor's veto of several newly created exemptions, including one for "two-way" programs, a form of bilingual education in which students of different cultures learn each other's languages simultaneously. Branding the loopholes as a capitulation to "special interests," including teachers unions, Romney said he wants immigrant students to learn English first. About 51,000 students in the state have limited English skills
The voter-approved law allows for "two-way" programs but requires that students be able to speak English first. The legislature rolled back that part of the law and another part that limited the programs to older students. Opponents of "two-way" programs charge that they help native English speakers who want to learn Spanish, but are a detriment to students who need to learn English.
"Individuals in the legislature or elsewhere who believe they are smarter than the voters, I'm going to campaign to find people to take their place," Romney said
Not surprisingly, this watered down version has had it's shortcomings (Boston Globe, May 21,2006). However, one must admit, that achieving a rather large percentage of fluency at the first assessment is better than trapping kids in bilingual education programs indefinitely.
One reason for the failure is a lack of support for the measure by the educators themselves . . . as the article states: "A state survey in December and January, which the Globe obtained, found that more than half of the 52 school systems educating the vast majority of non-native English speakers did not set up separate classes to teach English as a second language."
The Romney quote by AP writer Steve LeBlanc is interesting. There is no link for that quote, though. From what source did you find that quote?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Mitt_Romney_Immigration.htm
This is the place where I found this. I did a search for the article but couldn't find it. "On the Issues" tends to be pretty spot on with their sources though.
As a governor, he hasn't weighed in on the senate bill as far as I know. I would guess that he's leaning more toward the house version. His move to request the federal exemption so that Mass state troopers could arrest illegals for being illegals shows that he's probably going to come out pretty strong on this issue.
More legal immigration = more Democrats.
I'm sorry, but its true.
New Jersey, California, etc.
Those states which are the destinations for immigrants are also the most liberal, and always have been.
Texas or Florida? These have huge numbers of legal immigrants but aren't overwhelmingly liberal. The "legal immigrants=more liberals" really dumbs down the dynamics of immigrants and politics.
Many have argued that immigrants are natural conservatives, and that we ought to welcome them as people who will wind up voting Republican.
Looking at the data, that does not seem to hold up. Those states with a high perentage of immigrants are not simply liberal, they have become more so over time. A quarter of Californias population is now foreign born, and a state which once elected Reagan as governor is now solidly Democratic.
Perhaps conservative immigrants tend to gravitate towards conservative states, while liberal immigrants gravitate towards liberal states.
There's been plenty of analysis of this. Most immigrants who go on to become citizens, and then go on to vote, vote Democratic. This is also true of at least the first generation of native-born. Most Hispanics vote Democratic, and they have done so for decades, while Asians have gone from voting for Republicans to now giving most of their support to Democrats.
I might try to find links later, but do you really doubt this?
And among Hispanics, the GOP has only a handful of victories amongst them in significant statewide races. Jeb may have done it twice in Florida. W did it once or twice in Florida (whereas in Texas his best was, at most, 49%). Pataki did it in New York once. I'm not sure, but Senator Martinez probably did so in Florida in 2004. Other than that, its been mostly landslide double-digit majorities for Democrats.
Texas has become solidly red for one reason -- the state GOP routinely wins 70+% of the white vote. Texas has simply followed a general Southern trend where the state's conservative white population realized that the Democratic party had abandoned their values. It is true that the GOP does better with latinos in Texas than they do in California, but let's not delude ourselves into believing something that isn't true. President Bush has faced the voters of Texas four times now, and his best showing with the state's latino population was at most 49%, while he lost by double-digits the other two times. Now it should be noted that the 49% performance (if it was that high in 2004) is excellent for a Republican, but it has not carried over to other Republicans. Gov Perry and Senator Cornyn lost the Hispanic vote handily. As the state's electorate becomes more Hispanic, it will obvioulsy become more important to do better with latinos, but so long as the GOP can continue its dominance with white voters in Texas, it will be able to avoid a Calif-style collapse, where the state's white population is much-less conservative.
Florida is a special case because of Cubans; the sole Hispanic subgroup that often goes Republican. But there is question if even that will last, as younger Cubans are less Republican. I think I remember hearing that Jeb may have actually carried the non-Cuban hispanic vote in his reelection bid in 2002, and while that would definitely stand as a significant performance, we'd be wise not to assume it will continue after the very-popular younger Bush brother leaves office. Also, the state's white population continues to generally vote Republican, though not nearly by the margins they do in Texas.
Its important to break it down by state. With the exception of Florida, hispanics generally vote Democratic in every state where they have significant numbers. But how decisive is it? As I just said, the effect in Texas is muted by the overwhelmingly pro-GOP white vote. Increased and more pro-Democrat participation of latinos in California has definitely helped turn the state blue. The same is true of Illinois and New York, but in each of those states the white population is more liberal than in most other states. It seems that the states where the Hispanic vote has the potential to be the most decisive are narrowly-red states, like Florida, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. On the other hand, there isn't any state where immigrant-driven population growth is helping the GOP.
And I didn't say that 'more immigrants = more liberals.' I said it equals more Democrats. Though I think the Barone-esque talk of Hispanics being natural Republicans is a bit overwrought, I do agree that there is a strong element of cultural conservatism in the latino communities. Majorities of them, for example, vote to ban gay marriage when given a chance, yet they also turn around and vote for some of the most leftwing politicians who spit on those conservative, Catholic values. There are a lot of reasons for this, and at the bottom of the list would be the explantion that its because Republicans have been 'mean.'
That idea has been at the heart of speculation as to why Mexican immigrants in Texas tend to be more conservative and more Republican than those in California. But remember, even in Texas most latinos still vote Democratic, so its doubtful that there is a single state where the net effect of immigration is positive for the GOP.
I take no pleasure in saying these things. I wish it weren't so, but even if it weren't, that would be just one less reason to oppose perpetual mass immigration. But to stick with the electoral/political effects, I just can't see the GOP having any chance so long as the annual flow is as high as it is now. So obviously, I think the situation will only get worse if we increase that flow even more. Less immigration and more assimilation (which would likely be easier with less imm) is the GOP's best option and best bet.
Does Gov. Romney support S.2611, the Senate "comprehensive immigration reform" bill?