E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
MIAMI -- At his first public appearance since aggressively defending himself as "pro-immigration" at last night's final Florida debate, Mitt Romney took to the podium again today to argue that he and the Republican party are firmly in favor of legal immigration.
"First of all, with regards to immigration. I like immigration. I like legal immigration. I think its important for America to recognize that immigration is an extraordinary source of vitality of our nation. That bringing people of different cultures here creates opportunity and growth for the entire economy," Romney said. "We are not anti-immigrant. We are not anti-immigration. We are the pro-immigration, pro-legality, pro-citizenship party."
Romney's speech today, at which he was introduce by in Spanish by his youngest son, touched on a wide variety of other issues important to the Hispanic community, including economic growth in Latin America, US Policy toward Cuba and whether or not Puerto Rico should become the 51st state.
"What's happening in Latin America, whether its Mexico or the Carribbean, through Central America, through South America is such extraordinary growth economically, not to mention demographically, that there is a huge economic, political and military opportunity and series of challenges and obligations here in this hemisphere," Romney said, promising to maintain closer ties to the region, often largely ignored in U.S. foreign policy.
Romney also continued his appeal to South Florida's Cuban-American community, saying that a Romney administration would support Cubans seeking freedom upon the death of Fidel Castro -- a remark which earned him a standing ovation.
"There is a time coming soon, where Cuba will be free. That's going to happen. We're going to have to get organized for it. We're going to have to recognize that people there want freedom, as people do all over the world, and America can't sit back," Romney said. "I will not only say something when Fidel Castro finally leaves this earth, I will do something. I will be behind the voices of freedom here an the voices of freedom there. We will help Cuba become free."
Romney also touched on the controversial question of whether or not Puerto Rico should become the 51st state. Two days ago at a Univision forum, Romney said he "would not argue one side or the other" of the issue, and that his choice "is to let [the people of Puerto Rico] make their own choice."
Today, he said he would support a Puerto Rican effort at earning statehood, if the people of Puerto Rico supported such a move in a referendum, scheduled for November.
""I'm looking forward to the time when the people of Puerto Rico make their decision about becoming a state," Romney said."I expect the people of Puerto Rico will decide like [Governor Luis Fortuno] feels, to become a state, and I can tell you that I will work with him that if that vote comes out in favor of statehood we will go through the process in Washington to provide statehood to Puerto Rico. "
Leave a Comment:
And Democratic policies are pro-illegal immigration, and pro-voter fraud.
Why hardworking Latino voters stand being pandered to by Democrats is sad.
I am sure that Romney is interested in Cuban freedom. Americans have been interested in that since the rise of Castro. I am also certain that once such freedom is gained he will do all in his power to keep Cubans out of the United States. Castro is mortal like the rest of us, and there will probably be a "Cuban spring." Republicans will give lip service in Florida to these issues until the November election. Then is will be business as usual, and it will be "English first!" once again.
That depends...does the Cuban in question hit 95 on the radar gun with his fastball?
Romney has to be pro immigration otherwise he would have to pay a decent wage to keep the grass cut at all of his mansions, Mitt is a class act indeed.
Mitt is a panderer. He is pandering to the Cuban community in Miami. Considering the amount of democrat Latino's there are, I'm surprised he even has anyone to speak to. Maybe it's the curiosity... They are into styled hair... and I'm sure they want to see what a plastic complexion looks like in person.
If Puerto Rico becomes the 51st state, where in the heck would we put the 51st star on the flag?
Wayne -
Apparently six alternating rows of 9 and 8 stars each would work (the circular pattern alternative kind of gives me a headache....):
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us51star.html
A 51-star flag might look something like this...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_flag_51_stars.svg
Brianb-999431
Mitt is a panderer. He is pandering to the Cuban community in Miami. Considering the amount of democrat Latino's there are, I'm surprised he even has anyone to speak to. Maybe it's the curiosity... They are into styled hair... and I'm sure they want to see what a plastic complexion looks like in person.
BB what was Newt doing to the Jewish community? PANDERING& STROKING FEAR!!!
mitt the ripper will say one thing today, tomorrow it will be different. It depends on who he talking to at the time. I'm glad he's your candidate!
Obama Biden 2012!!!
You know as far as the Cuban immigrant goes, once here they are put on an automatic path to citizenship. Ever since 1966, the Cuban Act of Adjustment has made this possible, thereby ensuring their merging into daily life legally, having more opportunities and benefits than any other Hispanic or for that matter any other immigrant who comes here without papers. They can live and work here from day one.
This is a form of the Dream Act, a very generous act by the US Government, legislation, that has allowed Cubans to become successful, why can't we extend that to others? Why do conservative try to paint the Dream Act as some sort of amnesty, they have been very good at cultivating Cubans for their party, why do Cubans have special status? This would be something I'd like to here discussed by the candidates.
Thanks and Joanne and Da Noid! That flag thing would have bugged me all night!
Bob-1887910
Uh, yeah. Democrats are the Party of Satan. Republicans are the Party of God, which translates to Arabic as "Hezbollah."
Wayne-1656909
It's more symmetrical if the flag has an even number of stars. If Newt is elected president, they could pair up Puerto Rico with the Moon as the 51st and 52nd states at the same time.
Yeah, but how's Newt's english only thing gonna work if Puerto Rico becomes a state?
You're half right there Bob - up top
The Republicans are just as bad on this issue while you and me both pay for it all.
Romney is a neo-conservative, which is not conservative at all.
With the likes of William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Anne Coulter, Paul Wolfowitz, and Bill Kagan among his cheerleaders, you can bet Romney is bought and paid for.
These are the same folks who created, supported and defended Bush policy.
Steer clear of Romney.
Sick & delusional joke ... Bush saw the greatest influx of illegals across the Mexican border of all American presidents combined ... unbelievable given 9/11 ... and who along with Perry invented MS-13 ...
Followed by McKook who pandered to illegals in 2008 with McAmnesty then after the McPalin ticket lost and badly ... McKook hates illegals again ...
Finally, Obama has deported more illegals than all American presidents combined ...
Wait ... Bush never existed ... well, that's what right-wingers believe ...
Gingerbread momma
Have you heard the phrase 'Political Refugee'? They have a special status in the Immigration Law. Illegal Aliens sneak across the Border or over stay their visas. Do you see a difference??
So what's the difference between a Cuban escaping Castro and a Mexican escaping the drug cartels?
Looks like the Mexican might be in more danger.
The self identified Cuban Americans are still sitting around longing for the day when Fidel is gone and they can return to their homeland...and politicans from both parties have pandered to them for decades, just like the pandering to the jewish community to the detriment of our nations interests
Heya, Mr. Romney.......I would think that 99.9999991 percent of American people are FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION but DO NOT support illegal immigration.
Maybe you should tell the American people what you plan on doing with the ILLEGAL POPULATION which is killing our Federal and States' bugets and how you are going to SECURE both borders IF YOU ARE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE.
Nah, you don't want to open a HORNET's nest, now do you ?
Slodon, yes I know and see the difference, but the Cubans today should not be considered Political Refugees, that is in my view a 'crock'. They have much political influence both here and in Washington and have played it to the hilt. This policy is also called 'wet foot, dry foot' and are the only immigrants who have that status. None of them today have any intention of ever going back to Cuba, they use that as a political bully pulpit. What happened in the 60's was totally different and the policy should be changed, but good luck with that.
Of course Romney supports immigration. There may be a huge influx of European Central Bankers to the US in the near future.
Come on people - this is a Republican speaking. 'Legal' immigration is always available to those that can afford it. Better question is at what price Romney thinks 'legal' immigration can sold ...
.
Hey if I supported lots of regulation, heavy handed enforcement and long waiting times for getting a gun, could I claim to be pro-gun?
Funny how that's not the case with immigration.
GOP wants less regulation for everything BUT, voting and immigration. Kinda tells you what they are afraid of, voters and foreigners.
Gingerbread Mamma: As a matter of fact some of them do go back to Cuba to take money and to show off to their relatives how well they fare at "LA YUMA." Is they are so in fear of political persecution, why do they go back in the first place? And do you think that the Cuban government detains them? On the contrary, they welcome them with open arms, as long as they bring dollars.
Now the hypocrisy of the redumblican candidates is to come to talk to the "LATINO" community in South Florida, and they direct their message to the Cubans. Screw the Nicaraguans, Salvadoreans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Costa Rican, Panamanian, Colombian, Venezuelan, Ecuadorian, Peruvian, Brazilian, Bolivian, Chilean, Uruguayan and Argentinean nationals who have been residing in this community for many years, we don't care about you, we care about the money and the power the Cubans have... (I left Mexico on purpose because no matter what the Mexicans do, right now they're the evil...
Bob1887910: And the Redumblicans want to accuse the democrats of voter fraud in Florida? Where were you in the 2000 rip-off? (Oops, I meant elections).
And Democratic policies are pro-illegal immigration...
What about George W. Bush and his "American Dream"? Part of the reason this economy is in the crapper is because of his stupid policy to make every illegal Mexican a homeowner whether he could afford it or not.
Google "Karl Rove" and "expanding the base". It was his idea to convert millions of illegal Mexicans into legal, home-owning, Republican voters to keep Republicans in power for another 20-30 years.
Bush encouraged the greatest influx of illegals across the Mexican border of all American presidents combined. Buried in the Patriot Act was a provision to make "Matricula Consular" ID cards valid ID for illegal Mexicans. Hell, Mexican banks don't allow these cards as valid ID! But American banks do. Using these phony Mexican IDs, illegal immigrants could open bank accounts, apply for welfare and even buy houses.
And now you want to tell me this is a Democratic problem...
I don't think we have to worry about the flag or Puerto Rico becoming the 51st State. Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a State. The US has occupied Puerto Rico for over 100 yrs. If they wanted to be a State they would have but just since 1967 they have voted it down. Why, because they don't pay federal taxes, but receive reduced welfare and other federal benefits. In other words they are what one would classify as a welfare state.
I know certain individuals love to blame Bush for all the problems, but the fact is illegal immigrants have always been allowed to buy homes, long before Bush came into office. All it takes to have a home is an ITIN number, job, and credit. ITINs are a nine-digit tax processing number issued by the Internal Revenue Service to individuals who are required to have a U.S. taxpayer identification number but who don't have, and aren't eligible to obtain, a social security number. Since the IRS doesn't require legal residency to obtain an ITIN, many illegal immigrants use this form of identification to pay U.S. taxes and buy homes.
The facts are illegal immigrant's aren't the ones not paying their mortgages. According to an article in NPR "The repayment record on loans to illegal immigrants is excellent with only about one-tenth has many default as subprime loans." Because there are stricter lending rules for them and they are required to have a large downpayment.
Romney changes his position from day to day depending who the audience is. Yes, other politicians may do some of the same, but to the degree Mitt does it is ridiculous. All hispanics need to do is look at all debates before Florida and see what he said. At least, Newt was consistent in this area. This you can't deny as its documented in video of the debates before Florida. You can't twist this if you wanted to or stand the chance of looking ridiculous in your vain attempts.LOL
EEngineer- THAT would be due to Jimmy Carter and his band of Merry Men! He's the one who dreamed up the CRA that forces banks to KNOWINGLY give out bad loans that will never be paid back.
We've had nothing but trouble ever since...
CLB
I agree that illegal immigration is not the driving or a major force in subprime lending, nor in the current financial situation we find ourselves in, but illegal immigrants did not help the situation either.
Starting in 2001 there was a rapidly expanding illegal alien home loan racket. The top banks clamoring for business with cheap credit that was helped to be created by the "Commodities Futures Trading Modernization Act of 2000, led by Wachovia and Bank of America, launched aggressive campaigns to woo illegal alien homebuyers. Many quasi-governmental state Housing Authorities jumped in to guarantee home loans to illegal immigrants. The Washington Post noted, almost as an afterthought in a 2005 report : “Hispanics, the nation’s fastest-growing major ethnic or racial group, have been courted aggressively by real estate agents, mortgage brokers and programs for first-time buyers that offer help with closing costs. Ads proclaim: “Sin verificacion de ingresos ! Sin verificacion de documento !” — which loosely translates as, ‘Income tax forms are not required, nor are immigration papers.’”
So, it appears that many of the purchases made by the working class illegal immigrants were subprime as well as illegal. I agree that foreign home purchasers must meet stricter terms. Requirements may be for instance, you could be required to give a down payment of more than 30% and you may be required to show one year worth of liquidity reserves. Also, according to 2001 Patriot Act and the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, escrow and title companies, brokers, banks must report to the federal authorities any large deposits and money transfers over $10,000. So, foreign/illegal buyers must have documentation backing up their sources of income, taxes paid overseas, bank account statements, investment account statements, in other words, a paper trail. So, I doubt if many working class illegal immigrants were able to meet these legal requirements.
In addition, fraudsters also engaged in massive flipping rings starting prior to 2001 using illegal aliens as straw buyers.
Lloyd,
The CRA was pass in 1977, so it was almost 30 years before this problem materialized. Also, take a read of the CRA Community. First of all just the title tells you a lot, "Community Redevelopment Act." The main purpose of the law was to address redling the inability of poor people to get loans to purchase homes "in" the depressed area they lived in. First, a study by the Comptroller of Currency found that over half of the people who banks gave subprime loans qualified for conventional loans, nor were not in compliance with the CRA safety and soundness requirements for loans given in depressed area. Moreover, the CRA was not the cause of all those waterfront property condos or million dollar mansions in LA subprime loans to happen. Also, what took Lehman Brothers under were subprime commericial property mortgages that mostly were not in depressed communities. Let me take it a step further, subprime lending happened in several European countries which had nothing to do with the CRA. Think I am lying? Just google the housing bubble in Ireland, the UK and Spain. I can't remember all the others. A major asset bubble happened in Japan in the 90's known as the Japanese lost decade. It took them almost a decade to recover from that fiasco. One common thread in all these disasters, banks. Because they know the average American is not financially savy, banks want and have the resources and political pull to make sure the finger is pointed at anyone but them. Thank God that many investigations are coming to a conclusion to enable state and federal government prosecutors to make banks pay for their greed which nearly lead to the destruction of our economy. Lloyd just take a trip to the library that gives you access to paid research databases and look up credit default swaps and you will soon find out what created this fiasco. Don't believe the hype.
Pamela- I was in banking for many years (until it became a shake down every time a customer came through the doors...), I very familiar with the CRA and what it did. Carter passed this law as a good idea to get the blight areas of America into ownership to cause a pride thing to appear and invest in their own neighborhoods. BUT...
It didn't take 30 years to feel the effects- that happened almost overnight as sub-prime lenders started popping up everywhere to offer loans to almost anyone who could read and write.
The banks and lenders were trolling around America in every corner they could get to, to get the loans that they found they could make cheap easy money from- causing even more lenders to get in the game. Couple that with the flood of immigrants (yes- they were eligible too!) and you have a relative boiling pot ready to spill over.
The bankers kept getting rich- then it was discovered that they could "bundle" the loans and sell them off. Before that- they could only hide them within packages that were over all- a good risk for the buyer. Now they openly packaged them together as a stand-alone package of crappy loans that were bought, then sold again to Freddie & Fannie who dealt almost exclusively in sub-prime loans and government subsidized loans that were inevitably going to go belly up. Wall Street trading and banks selling- ALL to Freddie and Fannie caused a giant mess with us holding the bag! But wait! The best part is all the houses that were sold to people that could not afford them- so they either declair bankrupcy, walk away from the property or have the bank foreclose on the property. In any case- we are left to pay for the crap they leave behind!
Every president since Carter has advocated this program- making it that much worse.
Lloyd I worked in banking as well both in the private and fedeal sectors. I've written regulations policies and procedures while working at the comptroller of currency as well about 25 years ago. I respect your experience, but often bank employees are not intimately familiar with the CFRs related to housing lawslike the CRA. The CRA has provisions, the Safety and Soundness rules, that dictated risky activity as subprime lending should not have been used in implementing the law.
Moreover, prior to 2000 subprime lending did exist but it was limited as evidenced by the limited foreclosures that occured prior to then. After the Commodity Futures Trading Modernization Act of 2000, banks were given a vehicle to become grossly over leveraged as credit default swaps (insurance for securitized bundled credit securities) became legal instruments in the US and guess what Phil Gramm head of the banking committee also insisted that they not be regulated. They were used here yet not legally binding, but always legal in Europe and Asia. The head of the CFTC resigned as she forecasted what harm the legislation as written would have on our economy. The legislative history written on this bill is very interesting, you should check it out. Well, the result was the issuance and securitization of credit was went out the wazoo. Instead of people chasing credit; credit started chasing people. To top that off the SEC allowed bamks to increase their leverage twice in 2001 and 2004. I know people want to blame one party or the other but both are to blame. As you said Clinton and Bush via HUD increase the quotas for low income housing for Freddie and Fannie. I think before they came along it was about 30% and by the end of the Bush Administration it was 58% for low and moderate incomes. HUD has this responsibility inaccordance with The federal Enterprise Financial Safety and Soundness Act. This site won't let me post links but the last Bush quota proposed I could find can be found in HUD notice 04-133 dated 11/1/2004 and the Federal Register issued 11/2/2004. I could go on but dont want to bore anyone. This entire ordeal has been fascinating but tragic.
Lloyd was a bank teller.
Romney's speech today, at which he was introduce by in Spanish by his youngest son, touched on a wide variety of other issues important to the Hispanic community,
----------------------------------------------------------
a little ESL mistook by the author...
Let's hear Romney push for the Dream Act.
MSN has probably had budget cuts too. They are short about a dozen type editors. Many posters actually write better than the professionally paid MSN authors... and most posters self-edit their own words. It's getting worse too.
... or someone said, "coffee and donuts anyone?", or my 130lb puppy is on the loose.
The part about "there is a huge economic, political and military opportunity and series of challenges and obligations here in this hemisphere," could have been worded better. I'm assuming he is talking about economic opportunities and a series of political and military challenges and obligations. I hope he really didn't mean military opportunities. But it still concerns me that he is talking about the military in regards to Latin America. I think Romney should be pressed on what military challenges or obligations might be faced in Latin America. We did enough in that area of the world in the 80s with Reagan.
Greg, NY, good points; agree, we did do enough of that in the 80's under Reagan. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum frequent reference to our "military" in the same sentences as Latin America gives one pause. Santorum often talks about the jihadists in Central and South America.
Ideology, 130 lbs, that's quite a "puppy" you've got.
Jack, my puppy, is a Landseer ... I am hoping and praying that he is full grown.
That's what he was supposed to do !
"Military Opportunity"? Ominous words people,,,,,
Greg in New York: You're missing Nixon and Ford. Don't forget the 70s, with coups all over Latin America while they were selling them 'democracy'...
Romney: the biggest hypocrite in recent memory.
And that includes a LOT of hypocrites!
One thing about Mitt if you don't agree with his "core" values today you can just wait until tomorrow because they seem to change daily, no one has ever accused Romney of having any integrity that's for sure.
Mitt Romney wants less government for the same reason thugs and criminals want less cops.
bigfinn excellent point, never heard that truth expressed that way before!!!!!!!!
It's easy to change positions when you have no integrity.
The only 'principles' Romney cares about are the ones that garner 'interest', whether your talking about finances or votes.
"I like immigration. I like legal immigration." Well, Mr. Romney, democrats like legal immigration, too. Please tell us when republicans will actually get around to reforming our immigration system instead of using it as a wedge issue every two to four years. While you're at it Mr. Mitt, wasn't it you who said you told your gardening crew, that you couldn't have illegals working for you anymore because you were running for president?
Hey Jody - What's wrong with democrats working on reforming it? Why is it you always want republicans to do the work? Is there something wrong with democrats doing some too? Let's see a reasonable reform package eminate from the democrat side for once....
I don't see how they can ever agree to comprehensive immigration reform, Jody, when they won't even go along with the Dream Act.
Yeah, comprehensive immigration.
Like we were supposed to get in 1986? We got 2.5 million new citizens, but no enforcement.
See, they fooled us once. And for goodness sake it was Regan.
Never again. You want to come in - do it legally.
Wh is that such a terrible thing to ask for?
But see there Jody, thing is it has been the Republicans. Regan did it. Bush tried but got shut down.
Funny how Clinton never really tried, nor has Obama.
Odd, right Jody?
We just finally got visas for my brother-in-laws who are Mexican citizens. It took 15 years. Two of them died waiting to come here. They're law-abiding hard working people and my wife has been a citizen of this nation for nearly 25 years.
There is something wrong with a system like that.
Spanky....it wasn't democrats that shot down GWB's immigration plan....you know that. Cute the way you framed your answer to make it appear that republican lawmakers want to allow more immigration and democrats stand in the way....cute....but entirely misleading.
BrianB, they were willing to work on it, they have tried--it's the GOP who blocks it. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything to the floor for a vote. Remember Bush and McCain, their own party turned against them so it wasn't the democrats who prevented reform. McCain didn't dare mention it in 2008 it was so toxic to the conservatives. It takes both parties to get this done and I haven't heard anything from the GOP indicating they actually want to do something besides build a fence. The GOP's idea of reform is build a fence, then we'll talk about reform. Well, if we do reform and do it right, we don't need to spend billions on a fence.
Kevin D, that's awful and yes, there's something wrong with the system.
NEVER gonna happen, too many votes to had if they just leave it alone or call for amnesty as the "dream act" mostly does. The dems should be doing something, they run all of the government except 1 house.
Isn't Mitt technically, an anchor baby? He should speak Spanish and be for immigration since that's what the Romney ancestors did.
Isn't Mitt technically, an anchor baby? He should speak Spanish and be for immigration since that's what the Romney ancestors did.
Jody, Republican President Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to illegals when he was in office. That was considered as an invitation to others to just waltz across our border and eventully be given amnesty so you get to stay. So to say that Republicans aren't for amnesty is not quite a fact when their god allowed it.
Maybe it's because the left wants to give the illegals amnesty, which is such a bad idea it isn't even funny. Both parties are guilty of pandering to the illegals and just letting them in. Yea, you can say obama has deported more than any other president. But can you believe he's trying to solve the problem while he's sueing our states (and allowing foreign governments into the lawsuits which breaks our soverignity) for trying to enforce the laws?
I'm not a Romney supporter, but his idea on cutting the jobs for illegals forcing them to self-deport is what I've thought should be done for years. It's already been proven to work in the states that have enforced E-Verify, SSC, etc.
But, the other part the right is missing is getting a decent guest work program up and going. We need one where the employer sponsors the worker, pays all medical, housing, etc. They come up without their family for the season, and then go home after the season. Fix the 14th amendment so the whole anchor baby thing goes away. If they want to come up to work, then give a seasonal path for that, but that alone.
Oh, also put a good tax on remittances. We need that money spent in our economy.
@AlexM,
There has never been a call from the left for amnesty. You are hearing an echo from the Reagan right. Reagan gave unconditional amnesty to 2.5 million illegal immigrants and "conditional amnesty" to 4 million more. The GOP at the time hoped that could make inroads with the rest of Latinos that they did with the high-born Cubans. They had several such initiatives under Reagan including reproachment with gays and support for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But all were dismal failures since the Latinos, gays, and elderly simply weren't buying.
It has only been Beck, Limbaugh and that ilk who have claimed that the left was calling for amnesty or would have called for it if they had thought of it. But there has never been a call for a general amnesty from the left. You are repeating a lie.
If a Cuban lands in America and asks for asylum, he is IMMEDIATELY granted citizenship.
If a Haitian tries that, he is IMMEDIATELY ARRESTED, deported, and barred from entering the United States for 10 years.
In 1986, IRCA gave us two things:
1. The 'amensty' that Reagan worked so hard for and so earnestly believed in, was extended to about half of the people Reagan intended it for.
The AMNESTY part worked very well, and even today, NO ONE ever complains about the people who became citizens as a result.
2. As payment for 'amnesty', Reagan also had to agree to a draconian, dysfunctional, and highly bigoted immigration policy based on quotas severly restricting the number of brown people, Catholics, Latin Americans, and Philipinos that could enter the country as immigrants; and hamstringing businesses by making it against the law to hire immigrants without the approval of the federal government.
NO ONE, not even the biggest racist in America, believes that these draconian immigration rules have worked.
We put a QUOTA of 5,000 low-skill laborers entering the country at a time when American businesses hired 500,000 foreign born low-skill laborers year in and year out AND TAUGHT THEM WITH THE SKILLS THEY NEEDED TO BECOME VALUABLE EMPLOYEES.
Who knows better which person a factory should hire in 2012: the manager of that factory, or some bigoted politician who died 10 or 20 years ago?
"I also like illegal immigration when it benefits me and goes undetected. I had to FIRE that landscaper in New England who had illegals on his crew. Of course, I didn't KNOW they were illegals because I didn't really CARE to know. So maybe I am a bigger hypocrite than Newt. It's hard to tell."
How much are corporate republicans spending to keep Romney's tax fraud issues under wraps anyway? I haven't seen a number yet but it has to be astronomical.
Hey libtard, name one tax fraud by Romney.
I didn't think so.
He's just a piece of chicken @!$%#e (Romney). Why don't he show his papers if he has nothing to hide? Oh, yeah... we can start a movement, the "Taxers" (as the redumblicans came out with the birthers). Show us the Taxes...
Hey sonmanvb, Those corporate republicans are working OT to keep those frauds underwraps. What don't you understand? LMAO
The Republicans want less government for the same reason thugs and criminals want less cops.
Romney only provided one year of his tax returns. What he hasnt provided as support documentation for that one return is for the couple of offshiore accounts he has. Not going to judge until he discloses that documentation. However, offshore accounts have often been used for illegal tax avoidance. From its USB probe, USB admitted to the Dept of Justice conspiracy to defraud the IRS by hiding about $20 billion in revenues for the rich.
@somnmanvb,
Okay, I'll give you an example of tax fraud by Romney. One for which he should go to prison. He "forgot" to mention a number of items, including Swiss bank accounts and holdings in pass-thru shell corporations in the Cayman Islands, and participation in pass-through shell corporations in the Cayman Islands when he made his SEC disclosures as required by law. He amended them only when forced to disclose his IRS taxes which detailed part of these holdings. It is fraud to "forget" millions in holdings when you file your disclosures. Got it. Fraud!
I like immigration.
I like the Buena Vista Social Club. I like Desi. Babalou! I like little Havanese dogs. Do you like me now?
Next week, Romney will be in Arizona saying: I don't like immigration. I like Cowboys. I like rodeos. I like rattlesnakes.
Amy---when he comes to Maine, he will like lobsters and lighthouses!
Has your Tea Party governor endorsed anyone yet?
Who would want our Governor LePage's endorsement? Most Maine Republicans are embarrassed by him.
I'm sure Romney would tell us he likes lobsters and lighthouses and George Bush SR (still popular here, he and Barbara have a summer home in Maine and do philanthropy.) (Thanks for asking!)
Amy, I had the exact same thought about Arizona.
Hey and speaking of endorsements, girls:
"Ever wondered what the opposite of an endorsement is? It's this letter from Bob Dole on Thursday, blasting Newt Gingrich five days before the Florida primary.
Dole calls Gingrich a "one-man band who rarely took advice," who "had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall." He writes that "if we want to avoid an Obama landslide in November, Republicans should nominate Governor Romney as our standard bearer."
But the climax comes in a shining sentence that beggars description. During Dole's run for president in 1996:
"Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty ice-bucket in his hand — that was a symbol of some sort for him — and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it."
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/138211209.html
Come on, First Read, get on this story! What was up with the ice bucket? :)
Now, Joanne, in all fairness, we must let Gingrich defend himself over the ice bucket story:
Isn't this fun? I love what your Republican friend said about having to choose "the lesser of two evils."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/dole-releases-stinging-critique-of-gingrich/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema3
don't forget
"I LIKE TURTLES!!"
The ice maker in our refrigerator/freezer is broken and it is cheaper to replace the whole thing than to repair it---do you think I could get Newt to bring me some ice til I get a new one?
Dont like politicians pandering to a specific audience, Amy?
How about Obama shamelessly pandering to college students, telling them he will take his unlimited power and cut their tuition. Free money ! whoopee!
Thanks, Ames! Guess I'll scratch worrying about that off of my "bucket list" and go watch "The Iceman Cometh" this weekend!
Steeler Fan - I have FOUR ice makers in my freezer - two are white and two are blue and they each make a dozen ice cubes at a time and they're both a huge improvement over those old aluminum ones with the handle that you'd break your fingers on......but somehow the ice tasted better from them, didn't it? :)
I'm now "roughing it" JoAnne with the kind you have.
Not that I'm defending Newt--but seems to me if he was bringing the empty ice bucket to emphasize the point that money can be saved by eliminating waste in government, it is mean-spirited of Dole to bash him over that. Not that Dole was never mean-spirited.
Good ones! New state, new views and not just the scenery. When in Nevada, he'll like Casinos, gambling and Elvis impersonators.
I still make ice the old-fashioned way.
Newt was a "busy" man at that time, he was juggling at least 3 bimbos, the Ice was for his testicles.
But the bucket was empty, does that say something about his testicles?
Romney's speech today, at which he was introduce by in Spanish by his youngest son...
====
And why was that? Did you give your speech in Spanish? No...so in other words you are pandering just as you claim Newt does from State to State and pimping your children to boot. Is this a test for him to see if he can get a job in the WH? If you can't speak it, why are you having him to do it? If you were to be in the Oval Office, is your son going to be allowed to introduce them to you in Spanish, or will it be English only?
We'll see you if you push all you're going to for Cuba when you're in Montana. We'll look to see if you're given that same standing ovation.
Well old Mittens better get ready, because, besides being a Morman, which is not a popular thing with the Southern vote, he won't be able to flip flop on his immigration issues, sorry dude, down here that dog just won't hunt.
Lip service - the ugly truth is that certain businessmen (like some of those who run hotels or restaurants) and some farmers don't really want to deport illegal immigrants because they are a significant part of their work force, they work for less money, and the employer doesn't have to report it and pay payroll tax.
If everyone doing the hiring was more diligent and the penalites were steeper it would go a long way towards easing the problem.
TNSEVOL, that's true; it's exactly why the GOP doesn't really want to reform the laws. It was either Mississippi or Alabama that passed a law similar to AZ's and the farmers didn't have anyone to pick their crops because the workers headed to another state.
Jody and TNSEVOL, that recently happened in Alabama and before that in Georgia, the farmers were crying there were not enough workers to pick the harvests. In AL there were some Americans hired to do the work and they lasted but a day, never to return. The conditions these unfortunates have to work under is deplorable, and they have not changed in years.
Harvest of Shame, a 1960 documentary presented by Edward R. Murrow, shows the plith of the migrant workers and closed with these words from Mr Murrow, "The migrants have no lobby. Only an enlightened, aroused and perhaps angered public opinion can do anything about the migrants. The people you have seen have the strength to harvest your fruit and vegetables. They do not have the strength to influence legislation. Maybe we do. Good night, and good luck."
Unfortunately, little if anything, has changed since 1960.
Romney conveniently avoids the issue of the estimated eleven million already here. Then he criticizes the president's inattention to countries south of our border, after the party heaped criticism on him for spending too much time there. Either Romney is ignorant of current events or, as usual, he easily lies and deceives.
Affinity---Romney seems to think they will all "self--deport". I was really surprised last night to hear the other candidates go along with this idea. Somehow the jobs will all dry up because the corporations will magically comply with the laws they have ignored for years and all the illegals will get up and go home. Including the ones brought here when they were 5, who hardly speak a language other than English and have no connections to their country of birth.
Who's Mitt Romney hiring as his top advisers — Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Un?
According to NBC's Andrea Mitchell, a "top Romney adviser" says that if Mitt loses Florida on Tuesday, "we're going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries and come up with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich."
Personally I can't think of a better way to be perceived as an entitled elitist than to have your supporters announce that, unless you win, the voting shouldn't count. And it's not just Romney's team.
Establishment Republicans are in "full panic mode," as Newt called it yesterday, filling the press with hopeful speculation about a "brokered convention." That's when no candidate has won a majority of delegates at the ballot box and the GOP insiders get to pick who they want.
It's the perfect outcome for folks who prefer a Politburo over a polling place.
But that's how desperate the establishment is to nuke Newt. The terrified look on the face of GOP pundits as they talk about a possible Newt victory reminds me of the babysitters in the "Friday the 13th" movies waiting for the guy in the hockey mask to kick in the door.
The horror, the horror . . .
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220127smoke_gets_in_mitts_guise/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Newt Gingrich is not just getting outspent by Mitt Romney and his allies on the Florida airwaves, he's getting creamed.
The Romney campaign and a super PAC supporting him is spending nearly quadruple the amount that Gingrich and the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, has spent to air television and radio ads ahead of the state's Jan. 31 primary.
So far, Romney has bought $5.6 million worth of airtime and the pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, has shelled out a whopping $8.2 million, according to a Republican media buyer who is tracking ad spending in the state.
Compare that to $837,000 spent by the Gingrich campaign and the nearly $3 million of airtime bought by Winning Our Future, a super PAC supporting the former House speaker, and it's easy to understand one reason why Gingrich has slipped in the most recent polls in the Sunshine State.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/newt-gingrich-takes-a-backseat-to-mitt-romney-on-the-florida-airwaves/
Good point, Dangerfield---it is as if they are saying "you can vote for whoever you want to, as long as it is Romney." Reminds me of when Saddam Hussein would announce his election results.
My "polling" group just does not like Romney. Period. They were unhappy with Newt's performance last night, but as of 3:30 this afternoon, they are going to still go for the angry Newt. (However, the still wish the former Florida governor was the one running)
Good point. I also think FL isn't SC plus Gingrich really did poorly in both of this week's debates. Gingrich constantly reminds everyone how smart he is; apparently, he figured no debate prep was necessary and worse, didn't bother to look under his own rug. I just don't see Gingrich being the eventual GOP nominee.
Florida republicans might wish Jeb Bush was running but the rest of the country doesn't care to see another Bush in the White House for a long time.
Romney's position on immigration has changed from just ten days ago in South Carolina. It will change again soon. He is the man for every side of every issue. He offers Republicans many choices. There used to be a TV game show To Tell The Truth. Only one of three people was the actual one, the others tried to fool the guest celebrities into believing they were the real person. Romney could play that game as solitaire, then not rise at the end either. The real Mitt Romney no longer exists.
It doesn't matter. Absolutely anyone would be a better leader of this country than Obama. The last 3.5 years proves it.
ANYBODY BUT obama IN 2012!
Yeah, keep saying that Paul W. and you'll get A. Hitler or G. Khan, or H. Hoover, or U. Grant or Mitt or Newt.
Better get used to it: Obama 2012. LMAO
IMHO, thanks for the invitation. Taking you up on it:
Etc, etc, etc.
BTW, Hoover and Grant were better presidents than Obummer, because they were actually American ideologues and not socialist/progressive ideologues.
Merriam-Webster definition of Legal as
1 : of or relating to law
2a : deriving authority from or founded on law : de jure
2b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact
2c : established by law
Merriam-Webster definition of Illegal as
: not according to or authorized by law
: unlawful, illicit; also
: not sanctioned by official rules
You libtards need to get better at vetting your victims better. . .
Buffet is not running for office and as a private citizen owes fascists nothing.
Buffet is not running for office and as a private citizen owes fascists nothing. He is the wealthiest man in the United States and the third most wealthy man on the planet. Fortunately, he also has a soul and a coscience. Republicans believe that the wealthy are motivated by greed.
sonmanvb
Apparently you "contards" don't know what the word "average" means.
Nope, average is not on their mind.
sonmanvb: Which proves the President's point anyway you look at it!!! More then likely Warren Buffett pays what Mitt pays, compared to his secretary tax bracket they're getting away with murder. No matter how you slice the rich get over much better then the poor and the lower middle class.
interviewed a contractor,who would install a new roof for me.the redneck told me he had a 20 yr old family business,and he insinuated his crew were good ole boys(yeah like me lol). well...the crew showed up,then the interpeter left, good thing i can speak broken spanish. lmao...yeah we want that fence.thats how we keep stuff "out tha yard."but u see, there is a gate.and as long as proper protocal is achieved, some may enter.
Pander bear Romney first he's for it then against it and now for it and then against it. Latinos, don't trust any of those GOP/TP liars. Their interests are not yours and your interests are not theirs. They will say anything, yes, anything to get elected.
Hey Baldy, Romney isn't pandering. Even us hardcore Tea Party folks believe in LEGAL immigration. That's the part that libs entirely miss, somehow. It's the freeloading illegals that Romney and the rest of us who actually pay taxes dislike. As for Latinos, I have several in my extended family. They live in New Mexico and Arizona, and they dislike the illegals as much as any other taxpayer does. In fact, since they're being overrun by illegals, they probably dislike them even more.
Had to check recent polls...
Ron Paul is at 14%
Santorum is at 13%..
But we'll talk about Santorum more than Ron Paul....why....I cannot figure this out.
Because Ron Paul is a crazy old man with unworkable and unacceptable ideas. Why should the media waste time on him? The kind of story about Santorum is not one your hero Paul would want as it is mostly negative. But in the minds of some bad publicity is better than no publicty at all, isn't that right?
And I really don't see why we care how much Romney makes...he made it legally and he pays his taxes. Why hound a guy because he is very successful?
The issue isn't that it's legal, the issue is it's wrong... Someone making 21 million dollars a year paying 15% tax... And that happened because of the Bush Tax cuts . whiv reduced the capital gains from 35% to 15%. Only the extremely wealthy gained from that, and it was largely ignored. But 10 years later we know that the wealthy saw their income increase by 275% and the deficits grow, and you can bet there's a correlation.
I paid 35% last year, made $350K... why is it I have to pay 35% and he pays 15%.. Total BS..
And it's not I should be paying less, I'd agree with that if we weren't running a 15 trillion dollar deficit, but we are.
I have a question that seems to never be answered. Maybe those that support Romney can provide a rational, logical, and reasonable explanation of how exactly this can work.
In the debate, Romney claims that the idea of "self-deportation" will work and is viable as illegal immigrants who cannot find work will eventually self-deport and leave the country voluntarily. This leads to my question...
How can someone self-deport if they have no money to buy a ticket for travel? Romney offers no plan for how this happens. For example, if I am an illegal immigrant, and I now find that I cannot find work but I might be stuck somewhere like Michigan or Washington, how would I A.) get enough money to buy a plane ticket to get me back to my homeland if I am not allowed to work to make money and B.) have enough money to try to get a place to live back home once I get there if I do not have a job that I could save money so that when I step off the plane, I am not homeless in an airport.
The practicality of Self-Deportation is severely lacking. Are illegal immigrants supposed to turn to crime to get enough money together to self-deport?
My point is that if one wants to set up a plan that includes self-deportation, then one should have maybe an organization set-up (it does not have to be tax payer funded but maybe non-profit) to handle it. Presumably, if a person is wanting to self-deport, that person is at the limit of their trying to survive in this country without a job. So, an organization that takes care of self-deportations is necessary or else you are just inviting crime to happen. For every illegal immigrant that comes to them saying they want to self-deport, the organization would A.) make sure they are not just arrested and sent to prison (why would anyone voluntarily turn themselves in to sit in a jail cell until the government deports them, instead, they should be treated better for at least coming forward voluntarily), B.) Buy them a one-way ticket back to their home country (this also would include getting them a passport or something because someone here illegally might not have a passport for their homeland and then might be faced with detention back in their home country, hardly a motivation to self-deport, especially if their home country has harsh detention centers), and C.) Provide 1-month rent of an apartment and food back in their home-country (nothing expensive) but at least something that lets people know, if you do self-deport because you are out of money, you do not have to arrive in your home country homeless, without a job, and with no money for food. (That alone might keep people from wanting to self-deport...to arrive in a country with no where to go and likely, not near their home town). I know people might object to the last one but really, how many of you would just travel to a foreign country, even if it is your homeland, with no money?
Can anyone explain if the candidates that have stressed self-deportation have asked where the illegal immigrant will get the money to self-deport? And, if the candidate suggests they will just go to the US Immigration Services and turn themselves in to be placed in a holding cell, why don't they say that?
Well the Illegals paid the coyotes anywhere from 500 to 2500 to get them across the border. Now they can get a bus ticket for about $50 and cross the border in the opposite direction. I see no problem. And believe they will leave if no jobs are available. Just look at Alabama and Arizona. They can take their Anchor Babies with them.
While I am not on the side of the illegals, where do they get that $50? Do they rob me as I am pumping gas?
Yes, they might have paid a lot of money to get smuggled into the country but if they have used their resources and can't find a job so they want to go home, that means that they probably have no money on hand. Do you think they are so smart to have saved for that bus ticket home? I doubt it.
My point is that without addressing that problem of how someone that wants to get home affords the ticket, you are inviting crime out of desperation as the only alternative.
JRS
Where did they get the 500-2500 to get here?? Then of course there is Shanks Mare. Or they can turn themselves into the Immigration Service and get a free ride. That is of course if Obama is deporting them. Or they can have their family in Mexico or where ever to send them the money. After all the Illegals have been sending a few BILLION across the border every year.
They should ransack the businesses of those who brought them illegally or those who hired them knowing that they are illegal... You pay for me to come, par for me to return...
Most likely, they got the money to get here from either a job or family back home (or illegal activities).
However, the Self-Deportation argument says" Cut off Access to Jobs here" (which I agree with)" and those without family, who are single are likely to self-deport.
The main question then becomes if you cut off means of earning money here (even though it is illegal, cutting a lawn or working on roofing is better than crime such as stealing), how will those people have money to get back home. You are placing them in a situation where the only solution seems to become doing something even more illegal. That does not address those that have no family to contact to send them money and how they would do that with no address...
Back in Benjamin Franklin's time, people had to come to the US and stay just two months and then were granted citizenship. Yes, laws have changed and I understand that. It's just that this idea of self-deportation seems half-baked because you do not provide incentives to voluntarily turn themselves in (to be placed in jail with Immigration) and the only incentive is cutting off being able to work which would seem to invite crime in areas with large illegal immigrant populations.
If you also started some organization that takes care of just getting them back home and set up, in the long run, money would be saved by the jobs they are not taking but at least you give them incentive to self-deport because right now, I don't see how someone can buy a ticket if they ran out of money by not being able to work unless they get that money illegally as well.
Having businesses who violated the laws pay a fine to help fund sending illegals back home is a good idea as someone pointed out and is a step in the right direction but you cannot just stop them from working and think they will self-deport...that is inviting the law of unintended consequences to come in and work because you stop illegal immigration but instead of self-deportation, you create an environment for more crime a people try to get enough money illegally to self-deport.
@JRS
maybe that's the whole idea. If communities are plagued with immigrant crime, the country will be clamoring for effective measures. This will give the government a free hand in enacting draconian rules. I have a feeling this has more to do with the long game than what people realize.
Two things...
first, if the purpose is to increase illegal immigrant crime to make it possible to invoke severe measures to handle the problem, that sounds like something out of a movie. I for one do not want to be a victim of violent crime because some politician cannot think of a sound and complete solution.
Two, if my choices are Become a victim of crime or let the person work in roofing or something to get enough money to get back home, while I do not agree with them having broken our citizenship laws, I would much rather that be the only law they broke and let them work to get enough money back home than to have them turn to crime to get enough money to buy a ticket home. Besides, for any US Citizen that did go to college or past college, it is not like they are really taking your job or my job for I will never be roofing or cutting lawns. Instead, in working in the sciences, my job is pretty secure as a citizen.
I wish someone at MSNBC or another news network would read these and ask the candidates this directly at the next debate because I still have yet to have anyone reasonably explain where the money comes from to buy a ticket home to self-deport if you prevent someone from obtaining money through a job.
Newt's immigration grandmother attacks on Mitt sounds eerie like Media Matters and newt's own attack on Paul Ryan's medicare plan. Granny over the cliff, really Newt!?!
Romney / Rubio 2012
This man is a waste of human life, as in he has no humanity. If he is willing to treat a dying man like this, how do latinos think he will treat them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEveeouWJ_Y
Newt Gingrich has no right to offer any amnesty or path to citizenship to any person, as he is not paying for the unfunded mandates for their children's education, or family health care, food stamps, federal housing or other welfare or even a stint in America’s prison system. Nobody in this country should be financially supported by taxpayers, who entered this country illegally or should they get any kind of amnesty? Although President Obama by his special orders has already accomplished this, by deporting criminal aliens and other aliens are allowed to remain here. Problem is to get any job, you have to show your stolen ID and therefore that person has already committed a felony. They are already have stolen millions of jobs with forged or stolen Social Security numbers, birth records--now they want New Mexico provide or re-issue Drivers License?
What next allowed voting in state and federal elections, just like United States citizens? Isn't anything sacred anymore? Mind--illegal aliens have been voting in our elections, using fraudulent Absentee ballots and procured picture ID of a legal citizen in the same family? Fight back and join the TEA PARTY. Go to www.numbersUSA.com, www.judicialwatch.org and www.heritagefoundation.org for stomach churning details of where your taxes are going, for any person who slips past the border or flies in from foreign counties. Hopefully citizen’s voters recall or throw out of office every pro-illegal alien, anti-sovereignty Governor, Judge, Police Chief and city administrator, who is an advocate for wide open borders. If you read the Liberal press, you will never learn the truth or facts. The potentates of each party are to blame for the encouragement of the illegal alien occupation.
http://www.brittanicus-enoughisenough.blogspot.com/
Tea Party...Hell No.
Numbersusa.....Yes
Let the people vote to decide this immigration issue and then mandate the Fed to abide by the decision whichever way it goes.
Orange - You elect your Congressman to do just this, represent you on these matters. That's why we are called a Republic and not a Democracy.
I agree Don, however, the issue is so hot and so important to this country, the politicians should be smart enough to let us decided. It is the smart thing for them for another reason......they don't have to take a stand either way. We will still be a republic but a reasonable republic