E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
SCOTTSDALE, AZ -- Mitt Romney pledged to reform the nation's immigration laws in his first year as president while criticizing the Supreme Court's immigration decision on Monday in broad terms.
Romney told donors in Arizona that he would have preferred that their state have more discretion in enforcing its immigration laws following a ruling by the high court throwing out much of Arizona's tough immigration law.
"Now you probably heard today there was a Supreme Court decision relating to immigration and given the failure of the immigration policy in this country, I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less," Romney told some 200 donors seated in a hotel ballroom for his remarks. "And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws."
Throughout the primary campaign, Romney defended the immigration law here, which called for local law enforcement to check immigration documents for anyone who they suspected may be in the country illegally (among other provisions), as the right course for a state to take when the federal government has failed to address immigration.
The court invalidated much of the law except for one of its most controversial prongs: the requirement that authorities check the immigration status of individuals whom they detain and suspect of being in the U.S. illegally.
Romney didn't address that provision directly, pivoting instead to accuse President Obama of a failure to lead on immigration and creating a "muddle" of the issue.
"The president promised in his campaign that in his first year he would take on immigration and solve our immigration challenges, put in place a long term program to care for those who want to come here legally to deal with illegal immigration, to deal with securing our borders," Romney said. "All these things he was going to in his first year he had a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate but he didn’t do it. Isn’t it time for the American people to ask him why?"
Romney has not remarked publicly on the Supreme Court case or immigration today, but in addressing the topic of reform with a group of donors here who collectively gave more than $2 million dollars to the campaign, Romney pledge to forgo stopgap measures and reform the U.S. immigration system within the first year of his administration.
"In my first year I will make sure we actually do take on immigration, we secure our border, we make sure that we grow legal immigration in a way that provides people here with skill and expertise that we want," Romney said. "This is an issue that has to be tackled."
Leave a Comment:
Thomas…..The president ended two wars; no president has ever done that. No president has ever accomplished all he has accomplished in just 3 yrs. He didn't only make promises, he delivered them. Reps are very envious of him because of all his accomplishments and in such a short time. Things they couldn't achieve in 8yrs. He showed them how it is done & they hate him for it. GOP blocked him every time they could. But they could not block his caring nature. He cares for the people & they hate him for it. He ended two wars & gave health care to all citizens. We may never get it because republicans don't want us to have the healthcare, so they took him to court. How sad? It is extremely difficult to end war & very easy to start war. Anyone can start a war but not anyone can end it. He ended two wars & gave health care to all citizens. Troops are coming home where they belong & reps can't stand it. Reps have been using the war & our troops to get rich. Rep presidents always mess up the country & dems come in & clean it up. Read your history, educate yourself. It is true. It has been going on for decades. Reps always crave power, but they always mess up; they start wars, they run up our deficit beyond believe, they create massive inequality by giving everything to their rich friend. After, dems clean it up, they always want to come back to destroy again. Enough is enough. We are tired of cleaning up their mess & doing all the work.
Don't be fooled. Famous Reps strategy which has worked for decades is getting the public to believe in the exact opposite of what they are actually doing. Although they make the worse leaders, they are good politicians. Dems are great leaders but not good politicians. Reps tell us that they want to protect the constitution while they are destroying it. If we keep voting these right-wings into congress by 2025, we may not be able to recognize the constitution any more. They are going after voting rights, women rights, separation of church & state, workers rights, etc. The constitution doesn't only scare them, it terrifies them. The idea that there is a document out there that protects people's rights & doesn't limit rights is something they cannot stand.
My advice to dems is simple. If you ever want to win, listen to your rep opponent. He/she will tell you what he/she is afraid of & how to win. Their biggest weapon is lie, distortion, & public brain wash. Something dems are not good at. Since, we don't want dems to join reps bad behavior, we have to beat them at their own game by calling them out on it every time, and no matter how time consuming it is. Second strategy is to listen to what they are running on & expose them for doing the opposite. Don't be lazy. If you look you will find every rep doing the exact opposite of what they are running on. It is the strategy which has worked for them for decades & they won't abandon it. They are schooled on this strategy, how to fool the public by not using facts, how to turn your worse behavior into a positive. When a dem has a bad record, they run away from it. However, a rep will make up a distorted version of that record & talk about it all the time in an attempt to fool the public. They don't believe in facts; they love fiction. They thrive in fiction. So if you do your research, you will always find the truth, the real version & then expose it. Tell the people the truth. If his main massage is creating jobs, look in his record, you will find multitude of job destruction. If his main message is protecting workers rights, look & you will find him destroying unions & worker rights, etc. As long as reps insist in lying to the nation, we the people have to be smart & expose them for who they are.
The media use to be very good at this but these days all the good journalists are gone; the ones we have now just buy into the lies because they are too lazy to do their own research. Reps should have any power for the next 20 yrs until they clean up their party & get their act together. On Obama's inauguration night, in GOP secret meeting, the GOP hashed a secret plan to overthrow Obama's administration by all means necessary. Dems were being too nice & too compromising. Before dems knew what was happening, GOP had a successful coup. GOP changed the vote in congress & change what was in the constitution. Majority vote in congress according to the constitution is more than 50 but they changed it to more than 60, which is unrealistic. This is why they can't get any work done multitudes of filibusters never seen before in our gov. And we thought the coup days were over. What do you call what GOP are doing to our gov, majority not getting anything passed, minority right-wings having all the power. We the people will make it clear in Nov that the power belongs to the people.
Great post, vbest.
Yammering on and on and on does not make what you say any more viable. In fact, if anything, the longer you wrote, the more dilusional I recognized that you are.
JudieV, really? You made the same demonstration in two words that vbest did in seven pages.
The Supreme Court "kicked the can" down the road as far as I'm concerned. When the Federal government REFUSES to do their lawful job, I say States should have the right to tell them, sit down, shut up and stay the hell out of our way while we do your job for you. We all understand Barack Obama (as he stated), is FAR TO BUSY scouting out vacation places for the little woman. This Dictator wannabe blatantly lied from the moment his hand hit the bible and took the oath. I remind everyone he promised to uphold the laws of the United States. Obama stands for One Big A-- Mistake America! I am totally looking forward to November and kicking his sorry butt to the White House curb!
amerigal,
Ponder this. The SC struck down some of the AZ law because it said "immigration is a Federal issue".
I believe being here illegally is not an "immigration issue" it is a "criminal issue". If only the SC could make the distinction.
"In my first year I will make sure we actually do take on immigration, we secure our border, . That's a start. If the borders are not secure it's like trying to fill a bucket with holes in it. Immigration is a federal issue. Giving the states more control over it is passing the buck. What good is checking status of immigrants if the illegals are not detained & deported? Grow a spine & quit pandering to those who's relatives are illegal aliens.
The borders have never been safer, Myth's lying which is the only item he brings to the table.
Are you serious, wallace. But but but...pandering is the only weapon Myth brings to the table. Without it he's completely unarmed.
The President has devoted more resources than any previous administration. And the administration's efforts have resulted in a real and significant reduction in the number of immigrants illegally entering the U.S. Most every responsible member of Congress will admit that it is not financially feasible, nor logistically possible, to build a physical "fence" or "wall" the full length of our southern border. As a result, the administration has significantly increased the number of border agents at the southern border, increased the use of electonic means of surveillance and interdiction, as well as significantly increased the number of deportations of those in this country illegally. This President, while not having introduced significant legislation reforming our national immigration policy, has done more to actually enforce our existing immigration laws than any previous President.
JRT: You are right that his policies have reduced illegal immigration. They have screwed up the economy so much that getting a job whether you are an illegal or not is very difficult. The "place paved with gold" is not as attractive as it once was. Why go to a place that has no jobs?
Does Myth himself know what the h3ll he's ever talking about from one minute to the next? First he says he'll take care of immigration then he says states should be the ones to decide. What a maddeningly annoying jackass.
Poor Myth he must give himself continuous whiplash with his constantly changing opinions even when he doesn't actually take one. Poor laughable idjit.
It's like when Myth splits hairs about outsourcing and offshoring jobs? Who's he kidding. The only people who are bigger lunkheads than this tool are people actually voting for idjit Myth.
Obama care is dead in the water..too many conservative justices...they don't think outside the GOP box....so the vote will go to the conservative side because they have the majority...for now..
We'll see.
Let's hope.
Oh yeah, Hope and Change. I HOPE for the sake of our futures that there is a CHANGE in the POTUS this election year.
How extremely erudite of you, Feisty and GT. You BOTH nailed it 100%.
Mr. Romney seems to miss the fact that one of the key purposes of the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear cases which question the constitutionality of a law, and to then rule on whether the law in question is constitutional or not, and to also provide direction to lower courts or lawmaking bodies how to resolve the case. With regards to the Arizona law, the U.S. government put forth the argument that in the U.S. Constitution it clearly states that the federal government is responsible for creating and maintaining a national immigration policy. Thus, the federal government is responsible for enforcing our nation's borders, and controlling those who enter and leave the U.S. States can create laws which are in-keeping with federal laws, and which are more restrictive. But they are not able to create laws which usurp the prerogatives, responsibilities and authority of the federal government when dealing with an issue that is clearly one well within the purview and responsibility of the federal government.
Now, there are many critics, including Mr. Romney, who have criticized the President for failing to address immigration as he had promised on the campaign trail. While this criticism is true, in-part, it is also false in others. Yes. The Obama Administration has not outlined any significant legislation that would reform our national immigration policy in the scope in which it needs to be overhauled. Our immigration system needs to be seriously and significantly streamlined, so as to allow a person requesting citizenship to learn the result of that request in a reasonable amount of time. We've all heard the 'horror stories' of would-be citizens being in "citizenship limbo" for a decade or longer while their citizenship application is bandied-out from one department to another within the Immigration Service. The Administration did, however, introduce "The Dream Act," which would have addressed the continuing issue of citizenship for those immigrants who were brought to this country as children, a point during which they did not have any real say in whether they would enter as a legal or illegal immigrant. Sadly, in the continuing story of partisan gridlock in Congress, the legislation met a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, where it remains to this day.
Where Mr. Romney is wrong and plainly dishonest is his allegation that the President has done nothing to secure the US borders. The Obama Administration has put more resources toward protecting and maintaining the U.S. borders, particularly the border between the U.S. and Mexico, than any previous administration. The result of the actions taken by the Administration is a significant reduction in the number of "illegals" successfully crossing our southern border. Additionally, the President has also directed Homeland Security, who is responsible for enforcement of immigration law and policies, to actually strive to enforce existing law, which has resulted in a signficant increase in the number of individuals in this country illegally to be returned to their country-of-origin. The President's recent policy shift is a clear attempt at the President to address the issue of those illegal immigrants who were brought here as children, and who have been productive members of society, have no criminal history, and have chosed to serve our nation in some manner.
Romney and the other Obama detractors should keep in mind that one of the key reasons the President did not introduce the sweeping legislation that he had promised, and that I'm sure he wishes he could have put forth, was that the U.S. and the World's economies were teetering on near-total collapse. I am, frankly, glad that the President chose to address some of the economic issues our nation was facing in 2009, rather than instead devoting himself to an issue that every President since Reagan has failed to address in a meaningful way.
If Mr. Romney wishes to make us believe that he is a staunch advocate of immigration reform, I would suggest he provide some substance to the issue, and actually describe what things he would reform with regard to immigration, and how he would go about doing it. Then, and only then, should the candidate be seen as a relevant and real challenger on the immigration front.
JTR: You are stating two items that contradict each other -"Additionally, the President has also directed Homeland Security, who is responsible for enforcement of immigration law and policies, to actually strive to enforce existing law, ....The President's recent policy shift is a clear attempt at the President to address the issue of those illegal immigrants who were brought here as children, and who have been productive members of society, have no criminal history, and have chosed to serve our nation in some manner.
How can he be enforcing the law and not enforcing the law on certain cases? His oath of office was to enforce the laws, not choose which to enforce. The old saying "ignorance of the law is not excuse" is valid. What would you do if you discovered that something you did was illegal, but you did not know it while you were doing it?
Everything from driving faster than posted signs to taking the life of another person can be a crime. The great thing about humans is that we can exercise discretion. Not every crime is equal, not every punishment is equal.
For example, if you take someone's life through no fault of your own, we don't deem that a crime in America. Likewise, if you cross the border illegally through no fault of your own, we shoudn't deem that a crime.
Have you seen an executive order saying that "we are not going to enforce speeders exceeding the speed limit?" If you take a life through no fault of your own there has to be proof that it was "no fault of your own." If you have a motive for doing so it is a crime. If a family moves onto your property and lives for awhile and you find out they are there do you kick out the parents and leave the children or give the children inheritance since they did not know they were there illegally?
So by immigration reform, do you mean reform the laws so that all of those sneaking into our country can just walk in unquestioned and all of those already here be given amnesty and a good job that our legal citizens are struggling to find, or do you mean making a real effort to protect our borders and to return the negligent law no-biding aliens back to wherever they come from?
What is it really that we want in our reform? Because I hear a lot of confusion in what the right thing to do is.
If we could get Romney to talk in policy positions rather than empty sound bites we could have a real national discussion. Not going to happen because Mr. Romney doesn't want to step up to the plate.
From what we know of Romney's plan, you just pegged it. He said any veteran and anyone with an advanced degree gets permanent work visa. The only people he wants to get rid of are those who work low paying manual labor jobs. So he'll give your "good job" to someone who came illegally and leave you picking apples.
That's Obama's plan. Those with a criminal record can't stay. It's one of the 5 main requirements of the Obama plan.
That's a clear contrast between the two candidates. Obama standing on conviction wins again. Poor poor Mitt never left the dugout.
You didnt mind thats all obama did before you elected him, and dont seem to mind that thats all he does now. So what's the difference? Is it because romneys weathly or because he's white?
You should read my post in the article about the media pushing Romney for his empty answers. I made the case there that Romney's base is the exact same way. Two responses: "Well, Obama did...." and "I'll tell you after I'm elected".
It's amazing that so many people support Romney when his entire campaign is based on you not liking Obama more than you care about your own best interest.
Not voting for obama IS in our best interest.
@ trudat6445: do you know what Romney stands for? I just hear you and others say how much you hate the President....but rarely say anything positive or significant about Romney. It doesn't seem as though you're SUPPORTING something...but rather blindly CRITICIZING something else.
It'll be nice, I guess, to hear when Romney comes out and says something. Then maybe all of us can decide which side will help the country more. But so far, all I've heard from Romney is that he'd do things the opposite of the President. Hope he has a plan in there, somewhere....and we get to see it before the election.
Romney was successful in MA, only far left nutbags who spin facts think otherwise, obama has been successful at nothing. Ill take my chances on 4 years of romney than what we have right now.
You bots claim congress wont work with obama, but put no accountability on obama for not working with congress either. But either way, the fact remains that with obama in office the country is in gridlock, whether you blame him or not, that is a fact. If the only way to get something happening in the country, and the best thing for the country is to remove the cause of gridlock from office, then i am willing to do that.
Blame the gridlock on whatever you want, and i know what youll blame, racism of course. But obama is the center of gridlock, so he is ineffective and is hurting the country.
If a 3rd party vote was viable then id be all in favor, but its not viable so we have gridlock vs non-gridlock, i know gridlock is fine with libs because all you want to do is point fingers at any cost, but gridlock is NOT acceptable for the country.
@ trudat6445: again....all you've actually said about Romney above, were the first five words in your 5 paragraph response. Which was my point: You really don't know who he is or what he's for. Instead you and others seem to enjoy spending more time whining about, and working against Obama....than helping the country continue moving forward. Sad.
Within a couple of hours of the Supreme Court upholding the validity of officers asking for immigration papers if the individual is arrested for another offense, the Obama administration stated that the Homeland Security will no longer cooperate with Arizona law officials. Didn't Obama take an oath to uphold and protect the constitution? With this very statement, he is in violation of that oath. This should be an impeachable offense and congress should begin impeachment proceedings immediately!
Why would the Fed pay to support one state's new 1/4 law? Why should someone in Ohio pay for a law that the people (or at least the elected officials) put into place to benefit AZ?
As The Invasion of America via The Wide Open -- just walk across and pop out as many babies as you can -- Mexican Border marches on .....
You couldn't write this stuff. Nobody would buy it because the critics would scuttle it. What am I talking about? That the President of the United States would jump into bed with the cartels and refuse to do his duty to protect the jobs of Americans partly because he has two relatives who are in the country illegally and he must protect them. But the real fantastic part of the narrative is that anyone would consider reelecting him.
The Mitt-wit subscribes to the 50 country policy. You know...where each state sets their own rules and regulations. Under the Mitt-wit plan, eventually you would need a passport to travel from state to state. Or maybe pay a toll everytime you cross a state line or take out a new marriage license since the state that you are visiting doesn't recognize your state's licensing. The list goes on.
The list of idiotic fake examples you could make up goes on and on, btw, mitts not a libertarian.
You dont seem to mind obama saying he wont enforce the laws, saying he will no longer have a relationship with AZ because he didnt get what he wanted (like a spoiled child), and most importantly, suing states that attempt to enforce the laws that every other country on the planet enforces.
Obama's Newsflash- All liberals show support for Obama's illegal alien policies by immediately handing in your job resignations and demand your boss hire an illegal alien. Then immediately go to the welfare office to start collecting your welfare checks and food stamps. Yours truly Obama I expect the Feisty redhead to be the first in line
No thanks I'm a Liberal and love my carreer.
However
I would promote that all Americans withhold paying their mortages for 3 months, save the money in a credit union just to screw the people that f#$%k up our country.
Thats something I would support.
There not enough police or courts in this country to kick us all out of our homes.
And there's not a dang thing they could do about it....Ohh boo hoo you ruined my credit rating; got news for you....it's already crap & it's nothing more than a peice of paper to keep me down and in line.
I was in a U. S. border town two years ago doing research, and there was no construction going on in this border town, in New Mexico, save one small job. They were expanding the maternity ward at the hospital because it couldn't handle the number of latinas who were jumping the border while in labor. The policy was to take them to the closest American hospital and stablize them before deporting them, but if they delivered on the way or at the hospital then they could stay with their American newborn. I repeat, you can't write this stuff as fiction. Nobody would buy it.
moak, most of the idiots on here that argue for the rights of illegals are liberals in the north who have no concept of the real issue of illegals in the south. They dont care, as we all know libs live in a fantasy world anyhow, so being 2000 miles from the problem is irrelevant to them, they will make up the rules that people dealing with the issues have to abide by.
Libs are perfectly content sitting in the safety of their wealthy towns and spending other peoples money while others deal with issues that libs want to believe dont exist. They take the concept of 'suspension of reality' to a new level.
Right: We need to live in fear of the worst and defend against those who might take advantage of us. Who is trying to take advantage of us? EVERYONE!
Left: We need to live inspired lives. Helping those who can't help themselves even if that means some may take advantage. Who is trying to take advantage of us? Bad people.
See, we don't lump everyone in a pile and say they're all bad. This is why the right gets (sometimes unfairly) labeled as bigots, racists and sexists. Because your mindset is one of intolence by demographic.
If being illegal is a demographic, then you are correct i am intolerant of them.
BTW i like your typical liberal self back-patting, the left do everything they do for votes, the left is full of the most selfish people on earth, the left doesnt do things to help those who cant help themselves, the left gives away other peoples money for votes, not for humane reasons.
The left lumps people into a pile because they consider them too stupid to vote independently, that is why they work strictly through voter blocks, which is completely racist.
There Romney goes again doing his pandering routine.
Hey wait a minute now he has promised to give us something better than obamacare and lots of banking and high tech jobs (for india) in just 100 days...he don't need no stinkin' legislature to solve our problems..lmao
Hey mittens here's a free lesson about our republic that you and rick perry have forgotten...these are soverign states not countries and they don't get to make up their own border control policies otherwide what to prevent California from banning travel from red states they consider 3rd world? Do you really wanna go there folks?
Yea he should learn to trample on the laws like obama does.
I am from the south. I can promise you that the states gave up any rights they had in 1865. Now they have responsiblities, not rights. Immigration law will never be turned over to a state even though it is primarily the problem of individual states. This president and all others have sought to enforce the laws they wanted to. It just leaves a hole that cannot be closed. Who knows, maybe I will be opposed to the next law that is not enforced.
Ahhh, yet one more of Romney's 'I'd do it different' responses. He has really NO position on anything....he just criticizes his opponent.
Heaven help our country if he's elected. No one (including Mr. Romney himself) knows what he stands for.
He sent out a spokesman to answer questions about a pretty significant ruling, he wouldn't do it himself.
The spokesman couldn't or wouldn't answer a simple question: does Romney agree or disagree with the ruling?
He'll address immigration, health care, taxes, defense and entitlements when he gets into office but he just won't tell you how.
I disagree. Romneycare stands for one thing. Money. Get your bribe into the RNC right away. Romneycare is for sale, and you can be a part owner for $50,000 or more.
He would be our first Time Share President.
I guess Romneycare is too stupid to realize that the majority of the justices handing down this decision were appointed by his teatard heroes, Reagan, Bush, and Dumbya.
"Gosh, we don't want people from Mexico coming here. You know, we'll look at that problem right away. We will fix that problem, and then we'll look at the other problems, and fix them, too. Gosh. We don't want to have problems, and we do."
When the Feds fail to do their job, the states should be allowed to take care of local business. AZ is being invaded by foreigners and the Feds cannot or will not stop this invasion. The state should have the right to raise a militia to stop this invasion. AZ should DE-magnitize their state-make AZ so unfriendly for illegals that they go to either NM or CA. That I am sure they can do.
POOR judgement call, as this is obviously a NATIONAL issue called illegal immigration. It plagues all the states and it won't go away any time soon. It appears that uncle Mitt would rather sweep the dirt under the mat than address it directly. What kind of character does this speak to in a man that would be our President? We need a cohesive plan - not 50 plans.
Illegal immigration is just that, ILLEGAL.
Why did Bush let in so many? Why did Regan give them amnesty? Why does the right wing blame Obama for a mess made primarily by GOP?
Bush did many things wrong. Regan was in a different time and also made a huge mistake. Why are libs incapable of learning how regans mistake shouldnt be repeated?
When you tell them it is ok to come here, what makes you think they will stop coming? They have already destroyed their countries, that is why they have to run from them, why do you want them to destroy ours?
Reagan's amnesty was tied to securing the border which congress dropped the ball.
How have illegal immigrants destroyed their own countries?
Who fault is the state of mexico if not mexicans?
Who fault is the state of haiti if not haitians?
Who fault is the state of guatemala if not guatemalans?
Shall i go on? Or is this just another instance where a lib is going to claim that no one should ever be held accoutanble for anything?
Republican plan:
1 Block immigration reform (Bush and Obama administration filibusters)
2 Blame Obama for not passing immigration reform then cry wahh wahh wahh - no immigration reform
Dem plan:
1 Block states from enforcing the laws
2 Sue states when they enforce the laws
3 Give away the country for all the votes they can muster
Tru, your first two points are Supreme Court rulings, the third is kind of silly seeing as how Reps let in way more illegals than dems, and actually gave them amnesty.
Mark, illegals have more rights than citizens because libs want them protected at all costs to pander for the latino vote.
The first 2 points are only an SC ruling since yesterday, holder and obama have been doing them for quite some time.
Now obama wont work with AZ on immigration issues (the spoiled brat he is), seems like he is still using plan 1 and 2.
Tru, illegals certainly do not have more rights than citizens. I'm not sure how you can make such an obviously false statement.
You can make the claim that Obama panders but that doesn't that also mean that every republican president since Reagan, and every GOP Congress by extension, also pandered? Or was that somehow different?
After reading the comments regarding states rights or certain protections under the U.S. Consitution, I realize either the authors of such were taught civics by far left leaning teachers or received no education in the Constitution at all.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to make laws governing immigration given to any of the branch of the Federal Government. Congress is given the power to enact laws concerning naturalization. But naturalization and immigration are two completely different issues. Under the 10th amendment, the states are left with constitutional authority to deal with immigration.
When necessary we have the right to amend the Constitution.The process may be started by 2/3's vote in each house of Congress or application to Congress by legislatures of 2/3 of the states. Either way 3/4 of the states would then have to ratify the amendment(s).
I ask you wouldn't it be better for "We the people" to decide what is right than a stalemated Congress or 7 people in black robes who believe they are deity or a president who thinks he's king.
Our founders knew what they were doing. Let us follow the Constitution and change (amend) it when needed. We the people have the power; let's use it.
You forget a couple things. Everyone in both chambers of congress and the executive branch are elected to represent "we the people". There is a view that only states elect represented officials but that's not you it works in America.
The other thing is the argument given for border protection is granted to the federal government under the Constitution.
So you are way off. I know conservatives are ok with redefining anything that doesn't fit their worldview, but that only makes it "Right" not correct.
You are wrong on all counts and are exactly whom I worry about --- little understanding of the Constitution.
The first draft of the Constitution did not refer to "We the people" but rather to the people of the 13 states. Actually the first draft of the Constitution included these words: "We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia..." The intent was the people of the various sovereign States through their State delegates and not the people as a whole would ratify the Constitution.
A committee of 5 were appointed by the founders to update the style but not empowered to change material points. This committee shortened the Preamble to "We the people" but the committee never thought it to be a revision.
As far as your direct election argument, senators until the passage of the 17th amendment were elected by state legislatures. Today senators as congressmen from the start are voted into office by the people of the state. Neither is voted in by people as a whole (we the people), meaning not evey U.S. citizen votes on every congressmen or senator.
And today the President is still elected by the Electoral College.
Also please reference for me where the Constitution grants the federal government the powers to protect states borders. Take a look at Article 1 Section 8 of the Consitution ---
So your argument is based on the first draft of the Constitution? Not the version that was ratified by the states? And you think that argument has merit?
Is that how conservatives think? EveBy your argument, only those states mentioned are actual states under the Constitution.
Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Your election argument is so convoluted that it's hard to parse. You are talking about a direct democracy which I never mentioned. Maybe, the reason you don't understand the Constitution or the concept of ratification and amendment is because you bend any point to fit your worldview then you can defend your position based on whatever changes you made to the original comment/Constitution to fit your views.
I understand the civics lesson. However, I suggest that since Romney represents the "party of Lincoln", he might want to check history. If he does, he will most probably learn that Lincoln took the country to war in an attempt to clarify the differences between a state's rights and the power of the federal government.
BTW, if Romney would have bothered to do some research, he would also have learned that the government under this President has done "something" to stop the flow of illegal entries into this country. We have increased border agents by the thousands and have deported over 350,000 illegals since the President took office. Of course, the right, especially Mr. Romney would never seek out the truth. It is just a little too inconvenient for his narrative.
Romney and the republicans offer very little to the citizens of this country. Unless of course, you are white and a member of the elite. Then, things are looking pretty good for you.