Romney continues to push for long-term plan for young illegals.

sawyerloggingon said:

Lets say I am some rich guy with numerous homes around the world. One of my homes I haven't been too in years gets broken into by some homeless person and she has a kid born in it and they set up housekeeping. I show up there one day and call the cops but the cops say not only does the kid get to stay in my home but I have to feed clothe and educate him too, same thing with illegal immigrants is happening now.

Click to expand...

It's called living in a society. A few of us were tired of ****ting in ditches and living in caves. Yea, we have to help each other out every now and then for the betterment of the society as a whole, but it's worth it.

Thunder said:

remove the jobs..and they will stop coming.

Click to expand...

Or do the following and not only will they stop coming those that are here will leave-

1.Mandate E-verify.

2.Make those who hire illegals subject to the same laws that drug dealers,mobsters and other criminals who profit from and or use their money for illegals activities are subject to. That means subject to assets seizure and fortifier and prison time.

3.Make those who have been convicted of hiring illegals permanently loose business licenses and for a certain period of time be barred from getting a business license.

4.Require that in order to get and renew a state issued ID or state issued driver's license or federal government ID(military ID for example) one needs to present a birth certificate(or certificate of naturalization) and SS card.

6.Require that in order to enroll and re-enroll children into school the parents must present a state issued ID or driver's license. The parent must also present birth certificates and ss cards to enroll their kids into school. Schools failing to do this shall be fined and the appropriate people fired and or face possible jail or prison time.

7.Require banks,check cashing services and money wiring services to verify that the customer has a state issued ID or driver's license.

8.Require that in order to apply for welfare,food stamps, section 8 housing, tax payer funded education grants/aid, or any form of tax payer funded aid you must present a state issued ID or driver's license.

9.Require that in order to get a business license, food handlers permit,fishing and hunting permit or any other tax payer funded service you must present a state issued ID or driver's license.

10.Require that in order to buy,lease,sell,give or borrow a car both parties must state issued driver's license.

11.Require that in order to rent,sell,buy,give or borrow property/housing both parties much present a state issued ID or driver license.

12.Require police to verify the legal status of anyone they pull over.If they can spend a few seconds of minutes to check if someone has warrants then they can most definitely check to see if someone is here legally.

13.Require that those who deliberately aid illegals shall be fined and or thrown into prison,unless they are aiding in returning an illegal to the border.

Helix said:

the first step would be to address corporate hiring of undocumented labor and the treatment of those workers. if corporate entities were facing significant, enforced fines, they'd have motivation to figure out who was here legally or not.

as for kicking kids out of the country who have grown up and been educated here, i'm glad to see Romney doesn't want to do that. those kids identify as American, and many have little or no experience in whatever country they might be deported to. kicking a kid who is basically American out of the country right after graduation is the poorest way to deal with the issue.

Click to expand...

Not kicking those who were brought here illegally as minors only sends the message to other illegals to keep bringing your kids,thus encourages more illegal immigration.Those kids are not Americans. The fact they got to steal an education due to their parents illegally bringing them here does not change the fact they are here illegal and as such should be removed and sent back to their country or origin. Kicking them out is one of the best ways to deal with the issue regardless if they were brought here as minors, came here as adults or been here for 30 years. Kicking them out says you can't get away with coming here illegally and removes that incentive to come here illegally.

Thunder said:

remove the jobs..and they will stop coming.

Click to expand...

We're working on that.

jamesrage said:

Not kicking those who were brought here illegally as minors only sends the message to other illegals to keep bringing your kids,thus encourages more illegal immigration.Those kids are not Americans. The fact they got to steal an education due to their parents illegally bringing them here does not change the fact they are here illegal and as such should be removed and sent back to their country or origin. Kicking them out is one of the best ways to deal with the issue regardless if they were brought here as minors, came here as adults or been here for 30 years. Kicking them out says you can't get away with coming here illegally and removes that incentive to come here illegally.

Click to expand...

I strongly agree with you that there is a problem, but there is a much better solution than wasting taxpayer dollars rounding them all up, and putting troops on the borders. That solution is hefty fines, along with jail time, for employers who hire illegal aliens. When illegals can't work, they will deport themselves, and we can put our tax money towards better objectives.

Helix said:

kicking a kid who is basically American out of the country right after graduation is the poorest way to deal with the issue.

Click to expand...

If they didn't know it was going to happen, and for a long time in advance, they're too dumb to be allowed to graduated in the first place. The best way would have been to catch and deport the kid and the parents when they first crossed the border. It's nobody's but their own fault the best way didn't happen.

You shouldn't get to stay just because you and you family have managed to dodge the law for a long time and use services you're not entitled to. Screw these pouchers. There's nothing good or innocent about a family of criminals getting over on us.

danarhea said:

I strongly agree with you that there is a problem, but there is a much better solution than wasting taxpayer dollars rounding them all up, and putting troops on the borders. That solution is hefty fines, along with jail time, for employers who hire illegal aliens. When illegals can't work, they will deport themselves, and we can put our tax money towards better objectives.

Click to expand...

You have no concept of how much the illegal alien workforce contributes to this nation and how much we have come to depend on them. Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not sound policy.

iguanaman said:

You have no concept of how much the illegal alien workforce contributes to this nation and how much we have come to depend on them. Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not sound policy.

Click to expand...

What we are doing with illegals is not sound policy. That we have allowed ourselves to depend upon illegal/slave labor is the worst of policies. Giving it the complacent nod is not the answer.

I agree that going after employers isn't a standalone solution, couple it with denying services and the problem (at least the illegals part of it) will largely take care of itself.

clownboy said:

What we are doing with illegals is not sound policy. That we have allowed ourselves to depend upon illegal/slave labor is the worst of policies. Giving it the complacent nod is not the answer.

I agree that going after employers isn't a standalone solution, couple it with denying services and the problem (at least the illegals part of it) will largely take care of itself.

Click to expand...

and then we need to make it easier for people to come here legally. Have a job offer? No criminal convictions? You're in, either with a green card or temporary work visa. No more paying coyotes, no more sneaking in, no more criminals coming in with the people who just want a better life.

If we didn't have a dysfunctional Congress, that's how it would have been for the past 40 years at least.

Actually, it's fairly easy to get a work visa. Especially in the argricultural side. So many of the people using coyotes are doing so because they can't get another visa because they crapped on the last one (typically by overstaying).

"Finding a successful resolution will require the best thinking and goodwill of all across the political spectrum, the highest levels of statesmanship and the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children." - LDS leadership


The LDS leadership has endorsed the Utah compact.....

The Principles of the Utah Compact are

1.Federal Solutions. Immigration, including border policy is a federal issue.

2.Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement should have discretion. Local law enforcement should focus on criminal activity rather than violations of federal civil code.

3.Families. Stating opposition to policies that unnecessarily separate families.

4.Economy. Recognition of the economic role of immigrants. Advocates support for free market policies to maximize individual freedom and opportunity.

5.A Free Society. Recognition that immigrants are part of society. States the need for a "humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion

Utah Compact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"...But they said they understand that to get the nomination, Mr. Romney has to appeal to the Republican Party’s right wing. And they said it may behoove him to demonstrate that he departs from his church’s position on important issues...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/u...t-odds-with-mormon-church.html?pagewanted=all


Romney will say whatever he needs to say to get elected. So you will never know where he really stands on any issue....unless you know where the LDS leadership stands. And as it stands, the LDS leadership is pro-immigration and hispanics are it's largest group of new converts outpacing Catholics, especially in Central and South America.

Dittohead not! said:

and then we need to make it easier for people to come here legally. Have a job offer? No criminal convictions? You're in, either with a green card or temporary work visa. No more paying coyotes, no more sneaking in, no more criminals coming in with the people who just want a better life.

If we didn't have a dysfunctional Congress, that's how it would have been for the past 40 years at least.

Click to expand...

If they stand in line, and come here legally, then there is no problem. They can look for work.

danarhea said:

If they stand in line, and come here legally, then there is no problem. They can look for work.

Click to expand...

What about the guest worker program?

Dittohead not! said:

"It would be overtaken by events," means, what again?

Click to expand...

It means why does he have to comment on Obama's policies, when he has his own that he is going to put in place in about 7 months... and they override anything Obama is doing right now to make it seem like he did something in the last 3.5 years... when in actuality, he's done more in the last 2-3 months attempting to look like he's doing something than he had for the prior 2 years...

Moot said:

Romney will say whatever he needs to say to get elected. So you will never know where he really stands on any issue....unless you know where the LDS leadership stands. And as it stands, the LDS leadership is pro-immigration and hispanics are it's largest group of new converts outpacing Catholics, especially in Central and South America.

Click to expand...

Don't forget southeast Asia... (including the Philippines...)

Now, the part I have trouble with is this comment "Romney will say whatever he needs to say to get elected"... What politician doesn't... seriously... this is an election, that's what they do... Should he be going around the country saying things that won't get him elected?

In 2008, Obama took positions on all sides of every issue. You've all seen the famous ones, where the withdrawal went from immediate to a few months to ending up keeping Bush's withdrawal... public funding for campaigns, or where he said he'd repeal NAFTA, then told the Canadians to ignore those comments it's just campaign rhetoric, etc... Since in office he's continued to change positions on numerous issues, like prolonged detention, keeping GITMO open, not holding tribunals in NYC for terrorists suspected of involvement with 9/11, the DC Gun ban, funding for PACs, public funding in campaigns, etc. Then just recently, he had a "change of heart" on gay marriage, back to the stance he originally took before going national to run for president, and suddenly discovered a program he wanted to subordinate the legislative process by issuing an executive order to create legalized illegal immigration...

Obama is the one who shamelessly says or does anything as a politician to appear like he actually cares at all...

Romney is the one who has been traveling the country consistently pushing for fiscal reform, for which his words have never fluctuated...

So, when Obama says he'll order the DOJ to ease up on pot busts and consider legalizing it, will Romney follow suit with his own Pot Agenda?

IndepCentristMA said:

It means why does he have to comment on Obama's policies, when he has his own that he is going to put in place in about 7 months... and they override anything Obama is doing right now to make it seem like he did something in the last 3.5 years... when in actuality, he's done more in the last 2-3 months attempting to look like he's doing something than he had for the prior 2 years...

Click to expand...

He has his own, which he will put into place if he wins, but we don't know what those policies will be until after he is elected.

Which, as is pointed out above, is how politicians get elected, how the last POTUS got elected, and probably how the next one will get elected as well.

Why? Because people like to hear their own biases supported, and so t he way to get elected is to support as many as possible, even when they're polar opposites.

IndepCentristMA said:

Don't forget southeast Asia... (including the Philippines...)

Now, the part I have trouble with is this comment "Romney will say whatever he needs to say to get elected"... What politician doesn't... seriously... this is an election, that's what they do... Should he be going around the country saying things that won't get him elected?

Click to expand...

LOL I think he already tried that when he ran against Ted Kennedy. Now he won't commit to anything.

In 2008, Obama took positions on all sides of every issue. You've all seen the famous ones, where the withdrawal went from immediate to a few months to ending up keeping Bush's withdrawal... public funding for campaigns, or where he said he'd repeal NAFTA, then told the Canadians to ignore those comments it's just campaign rhetoric, etc...

Click to expand...

In 2007 Obama voted to cut off funds for the war because it didn't include a firm timetable for withdrawal. So it's interesting that Bush came up with a withdrawal plan while Obama was campaigning to end the war.

Since in office he's continued to change positions on numerous issues, like prolonged detention, keeping GITMO open, not holding tribunals in NYC for terrorists suspected of involvement with 9/11, the DC Gun ban, funding for PACs, public funding in campaigns, etc. Then just recently, he had a "change of heart" on gay marriage, back to the stance he originally took before going national to run for president, and suddenly discovered a program he wanted to subordinate the legislative process by issuing an executive order to create legalized illegal immigration...

Click to expand...

Obama didn't change his position in as much the GOP blocked all his efforts to close Gitmo and hold tribunals in NYC. Nor did he agree with the SCOTUS ruling on PACs. I don't fault him from changing his position on Gay marriage since it isn't that much different from his position on civil unions for Gays. In fact, I thought it was a good move and so do the polls.

Obama is the one who shamelessly says or does anything as a politician to appear like he actually cares at all...

Click to expand...

Wow, did I hit a nerve?

Romney is the one who has been traveling the country consistently pushing for fiscal reform, for which his words have never fluctuated...

Click to expand...

ROTFL

clownboy said:

What we are doing with illegals is not sound policy. That we have allowed ourselves to depend upon illegal/slave labor is the worst of policies. Giving it the complacent nod is not the answer.

I agree that going after employers isn't a standalone solution, couple it with denying services and the problem (at least the illegals part of it) will largely take care of itself.

Click to expand...

Many nations do it. Where do you think all those muslims in France came from? They let most of their immigrant laborers in legally but the end is the same, they fill a need and most all are better for it. That's why we do it isn't it? We are actually lucky to have latin americans instead of muslims. So calm down and get a grip. These are not some sort of alien being... they are people, mostly hard working people who deserve a place in country they are helping to build.

Gimmesometruth said:

"Self-deportation", I would guess....you know, making it so unbearable to be brown that you leave the country you grew up in.

I guess it is viewed as "voluntary Missionary work", that is probably how Mittens relates to it.

Click to expand...

Geezums...would people stop fracking using the race card every single fracking chance they get? Its old and its stupid as all hell.

There are more races that are in the US illegally than just hispanics!

Perhaps we must accept the new reality. Just as SSM is arriving wether anyone likes it or not, so is catering to one of the largest voting blocks, directly ir indirectly. Both these go beyond politics and into the murky realms of Humanism. We have gone through many "unthinkable" changes in our history. Even I, a mere child of 68, have seen enourmous change which was passionately resisted.

One of my quotes of myself is: "it won't be better and it won't be worse, it will just be different"

((PHILOSOPHIZING ALERT))

Moot said:

In 2007 Obama voted to cut off funds for the war because it didn't include a firm timetable for withdrawal. So it's interesting that Bush came up with a withdrawal plan while Obama was campaigning to end the war.

Click to expand...

Right... like when he went around in 2007 saying "I voted against this war", when in 2003 he wasn't in Congress to be voting on it... so he was flat out lying... then he changed it to "I didn't vote for this war" (which was true, because you werent there... but falsely gives the impression you are on record as voting against something we have no confirmed position on)... Then he said he was for an immediate withdrawal... then he changed it to, yes it would take some time to safely withdraw the troops... then he changed it to in my first year in office I will bring all the troops home... to then change it to a timetable, not a specific timetable but a timetable for withdrawal... So when he gets into office, he uses the very same timetable of the guy he criticized the entire time... even to the point where after the big campaign scuffle over McCain's comments about how some troops would remain in Iraq for like 100 years, as the troops in Germany and Japan had... Where Obama chastized him for suggesting leaving a permanent base in Iraq... then when he issued the withdrawal plan he would use, he just reclassified the name of the soldiers he would be leaving behind in Iraq PERMANENTLY...

Moot said:

Obama didn't change his position in as much the GOP blocked all his efforts to close Gitmo and hold tribunals in NYC.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? He wasn't blocked on this... he came out and expanded the patriot act (which he said he would repeal on day 1), and then crafted a plan to legalize "Prolonged Detention" of the prisoners at GITMO and other similar facilities...



Rachel Maddow can call him out on it... you can, too... this was his doing, not by pressure from either side... This is what happens when you con everyone into thinking youre the peace candidate... then get into office and have the responsibility of having to actively maintain that peace, with the full knowledge of the threat alerts, and the facts of the cases that aren't released to the general public... You tend to go protective...

I can credit Obama for doing the right thing on a lot of these matters... However, it clearly represents several "CHANGE"d positions... or did they "Evolve", I'm having trouble keeping track...

Moot said:

Nor did he agree with the SCOTUS ruling on PACs.

Click to expand...

No.... he opposed public financing against Hillary (when he was at an obvious funding disadvantage)...

Then against McCain (where he had the obvious funding advantage) he changed his stand on it, and took the public financing...

Then... eventhough he opposed PACs... while president he went out and raised funds setting up the largest PAC there is... while no one oposed him...

Flip, flip, flippity flop, he don't stop...

Moot said:

I don't fault him

Click to expand...

For anything... you've given him the liberal pass on all criticism... the guy can do no wrong (except all the obvious things he's done wrong)...

Moot said:

from changing his position on Gay marriage since it isn't that much different from his position on civil unions for Gays. In fact, I thought it was a good move and so do the polls.

Click to expand...

The polls? Which polls... the problem with this consideration is that people in swing states like IA, MN, WI, OH, MI, PA, NC, FL, etc. don't support that position, and many states are having gay marriage ballot initiatives coinciding with the presidential election... so we will see what the people have to say on that issue... at the only polls that count...

Moot said:

Wow, did I hit a nerve?

Click to expand...

Anytime someone continues to advance false premises aggrivates me... it just weakens us as a nation, a people, and more specifically the quality of the discussion on this site...

The movie "Giant" is fairly interesting in regards to this subject. Esp when Dennis Hopper marries a Mexican woman.

IndepCentristMA said:

Don't forget southeast Asia... (including the Philippines...)

Now, the part I have trouble with is this comment "Romney will say whatever he needs to say to get elected"... What politician doesn't... seriously... this is an election, that's what they do... Should he be going around the country saying things that won't get him elected?

In 2008, Obama took positions on all sides of every issue. You've all seen the famous ones, where the withdrawal went from immediate to a few months to ending up keeping Bush's withdrawal... public funding for campaigns, or where he said he'd repeal NAFTA, then told the Canadians to ignore those comments it's just campaign rhetoric, etc... Since in office he's continued to change positions on numerous issues, like prolonged detention, keeping GITMO open, not holding tribunals in NYC for terrorists suspected of involvement with 9/11, the DC Gun ban, funding for PACs, public funding in campaigns, etc. Then just recently, he had a "change of heart" on gay marriage, back to the stance he originally took before going national to run for president, and suddenly discovered a program he wanted to subordinate the legislative process by issuing an executive order to create legalized illegal immigration...

Obama is the one who shamelessly says or does anything as a politician to appear like he actually cares at all...

Romney is the one who has been traveling the country consistently pushing for fiscal reform, for which his words have never fluctuated...

Click to expand...

If you mean further tax cuts for the rich paid for on the backs of the rest of us. That part is exceedingly clear. He just won't say how he is going to do it.

jerry7 said:

In the interview Romney stated that the first step is actually securing the border. And because the people affected by Obama's Executive Order need to reapply every 2 years before that second year is up his administration will have enacted permanent immigration rerform through the legislature. This is undoubtedly the right way to go. Even Obama admitted months ago that he did not have Constitutional authority to change the law through EO. So Romney did answer that he wouldn't repeal Obama's order. He just didn't say it in a nice 30 second sound bite.

Click to expand...

Actually, the quote you are referencing was edited by FOX News to make it look like Obama admitted that, when that is not the case at all. Here is what Obama said in the clip that was dishonestly cut out by FOX News:

The notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things is just not true. What we can do is to prioritize enforcement — since there are limited enforcement resources — and say, we’re not going to go chasing after this young man or anybody else who has been acting responsibly, and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the DREAM Act passed.

Click to expand...

As you can see, Obama was actually saying nothing about changing the law through an executive order, but changing the way it is enforced because Immigration does not have the manpower to enforce all of it. But leave it to FOX News (Which is not a news channel at all, but the propaganda arm of the Republican Party) to edit the clip to make it look like something completely different than what it actually is. Once again, this is not news, but propaganda.


John Stewart skewers the crap out of FOX News for their dishonesty too.