Barack Obama’s change in immigration enforcement is entirely political. I know this because a series of Republican politicians put out well crafted press releases yesterday carefully worded to appeal their base in the next primary said so.
Mitt Romney’s first reaction was not to say anything about the substance of the issue, but to argue that Obama’s action make a compromise over immigration harder to get to.
This, apparently, because Congress was just about ready to offer such a compromise. Obama went and ruined it.
He also argued that this is problematic because it is an “executive order” that can be reversed by the next president. Despite being the only currently feasible “next president,” he declined to say whether he’d reverse the order. Ah, that Mitt Romney.
By the way, it isn’t actually an executive order.
I’d love to go after Romney’s position on the issue. However, just like Romney, I don’t know what his position is.
18 Comments
C’mon Tedski …
He’s waiting for the Koch Brothers to tell him what his position is … and Billionaires don’t work weekends.
Oh I am sure the POTUS’ actions here have absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming SCTUS ruling on SB1070 or an election he is trying to win?
Right……..
Our glorious leader would never do anything so political to win votes in his re election…….or would he?
Bruce, the fact that the base of your party will not embrace comprehensive immigration reform until the border is “secured” (whatever that means) is the reason that the 2008 GOP nominee went back on years of common-sense opinions related to the topic AND renounced his OWN legislation. It is also the reason that current leaders of your party thwart any efforts to address this issue in an all-encompassing way. Romney has advocated for the ridiculous notion of self-deportation and walked back his initial positive reaction to Rubio’s version of the DREAM Act because of the reactionary views on immigration that hold sway in your party. Hispanic voters support Obama by wide margins now (and will in November) precisely because Republicans, even those who know better, have been playing craven politics with this issue for the last several years.
It’s the economy stupid
AZ Bobcat, what exactly is “comprehensive immigration reform?”
It means taking on all the issues associated with immigration in one comprehensive bill, Jodi. Our Senator McCain had such a bill in the hopper prior to his 2008 run, but went back on it when right-wingers in his party screamed about “amnesty.”
Mitt Romney is a coward. Always has been, always will.
And taking on all the issues translates into???
Does that mean open borders, amnesty,no arrests of people already here?
Please tell me something tangible as your previous statement and Raul Grijalva sure haven’t been tangible when one asks for refine. What exactly do you want?
Until I hear what is proposed by reform, I don’t know if I can support it or not.
Jodi, could you stop it with all the buzzwords? We all know that “open borders” is a meaningless, political catchphrase. As for “amnesty,” the term has been so misused by nativists that few have any idea what it means anymore.
As for the Congressman, he has signed on to actual legislation on the issue, so his positions should be clear and “tangible” to anyone who can read.
That’s why I’m asking for specifics and not generalizationa like “comprehensive border reform.”
Do your homework, Jodi. The US Congress has considered legislation that addressed the myriad of issues (employment, border enforcement, paths to citzenship, etc.) surrounding immigration policy as recently as 2007. A simple Wikipedia search will show you the components of those various bills, including the one proposed by John McCain back in 2005…that he backed away from when he ran for president a mere three years later.
Since Obama was elected and the right wing took over the GOP agenda, it has been impossible to take on this issue with any seriousness. This has been due to the unrealistic and almost hysterical emphasis the grass roots of the party place on “securing the border first” before they are willing to consider any other issue related to immigration.
The topic of immigration is one that has many strands and it is very unlikely that it will be addressed with any rigor as long as one of our two major parties has abandoned its former willingness to discuss the issue in a reasonable and practical way. What we get instead is McCain’s hypocrisy on the issue and Romney’s inane ideas about “self-deportation,” even as people who know better (Rubio, Jeb Bush, even Karl Rove!) counsel against treating the issue like a political shiv.
Really Jodi, just because you know nothing serious about this topic doesn’t mean nobody else does. It’s one thing for people like you and Bruce Ash to play the troll on site threads which receive thousands of posts, but on a site like this, and especially on a topic with such deep local ramifications, you can’t help but seem shallow. And you do.
I remember a press conference where Speaker Weiers (now the apparent target of an FBI probe) told reporters that his goal was to “secure the border.” When someone asked what this meant, he merely repeated the phrase “secure the border” or some such minor variation on the phrase. This is the kind of bunk that passes for deep thinking on this issue.
Attack me for asking questions and you still haven’t given any specifics… I am well studied on the subject and I voted for President Obama and if in CD 8 I’d support Ron Barber, so don’t you dare package me with Bruce Ash. I’m telling you that “comprehensive” is being used as such a vague term and obviously you still can’t get specific and give an answer rather than refer me to Wikipedia…
Jodi, Take a look at post 11 by Arizona Bobcat; what more do you want? Someone to type up the complete text of the various comprehensive bills which have been proposed and introduced by Republicans and Democrats alike? You can spew all you want, but that doesn’t make your contribution anything more positive than Bruce Ash’s customary trolling. If you’re well-studied, as you claim, you know the answer to the questions you insist on repeating. So what is your game then, Jodi? And who do you think you’re kidding?
There have been comprehensive bills?
Whenever someone asks a question like that Jodi, my response is let there be Google.
Or for that matter, let there be Thomas (the congressional legislation search engine.)
Do your own research.
TexAS said there’s been various bills. Nothing has ever stuck or even gotten momentum.