Bob Schieffer tried for all he was worth to get Mitt Romney to go out on a limb over President Obama’s policy to allow good students to get work permits and driver’s license. Romney continued to dodge the bullet. Amazing. Romney will not commit to specifics.
What is it that he would do with the Senate preparing to filibuster? Romney needs to be far more specific on this topic if he is to pull in Latino voters. He needs to specify what he would do especially dealing with a congress that wants to stonewall the Dream Act. Does think Romney think that Obama’s recent policy was the first choice? This is not the first time Obama has mentioned immigration as it pertained to youth people who are out of status through no fault of their own.
As for “securing the border,” that is a sound byte. The border will never be secured. We cannot put a dragnet around our entire country. What Romney must have really meant was to erect concertina wire and electric fences along our southern border to keep Hispanic illegal immigrants out. During the Obama administration border crossings have diminished each year. I don’t think for one minute he meant our northern border. Its time for people to start going on record and to stop hemming and hawing. We have all sorts of kids whose very lives depend on people to stop hemming and hawing.
Yes, Obama issued a stop gap measure. Good. It is an emergency measure.
Ha ha – I like the “Mitt won’t commit” part of your title. It would make a good slogan for his opponents to use to draw attention to his flip-flopping on so many issues.
But…I thought moderates liked compromise and non-partisanship. Mitts is just working with whomever is available.
Flip flops? Not at all. Its called moderation.
A filibuster is not a compromise.
Moderates aren’t flip floppers necessarily.
Cargo, did you have a nice father’s day?
Mitt Romney is behaving like a coward in my opinion. He knows his rabid base will start screaming. Forget doing the right thing morally and fiscally, just pander and stay safte, he has no chuztpah.
Cargo,
His stance on choice and health care is about as 180 as person can get. Evolving views are one thing, but completely disowning previous policies is simply disengenuous.
Well, I’ll be darned, Mitt finally allowed himself to be interviewed by Bob Schieffer!
Slippery non-answers. Sign of a true politician/ talk a lot but say nothing.
@Moon-howler
Who’s filibustering? I was talking about Mitts.
My Father’s day involved clearing out a house and filling up a thirty yard dumpster.
Anybody want to buy a 2500+ sq ft, fixer upper, as is house for $200,000? Has a garage and shed, with nice back yard and is in a neighborhood with $350-500K homes.
Where is this house? Is it occupied?
Mitt was acting like an ape discovering fire over order at WaWa, Geez. Shades of daddy Bush.
I haven’t seen the video but can expect Mitt not saying much on immigration. He’s fairly liberal so I expect for him to speak out against Obama but then continue those policies..
Sorta like what Obama did with Bush.
Romney is a coward, like most repugs. That is why he is their nominee.
@Starry, I think Mitt Romney is having a hard time fitting in to his new conservative digs because he doesn’t have a real conservative background. He also knows that if he criticizes Obama over the presidential order, he loses with the Latino community. He knows if he doesn’t condemn it, he catches it from the conservative base. On the other hand, I have heard lots and lots of people who would call themselves conservative who are perfectly ok with the new policy. They know it will help the economy to have goal oriented hard working young people enter the work force. The also know it is just the right thing to do.
Libs do not get to define the “right thing” for me. There is virtually no one that would disagree with making exceptions to deportation for exceptional cases, but Obama’s order makes it POLICY that ANYONE that lives here for 5 years and graduates from high school in the U.S. gets to stay. There are plenty of slackers that graduate from high school, so this policy does not necessarily identify goal-oriented, hard-working young people. It makes it easy for low-achieving people to stay here also.
I have hired several PhD foreign nationals and collaborated with many others in a variety of high-tech projects. Contrary to what George says in a previous thread, there is no shortage of PhDs at present. While it is true that there is a shortage when the economy is booming, there is also a glut in a slow economy (at least in my experience). Moreover these PhDs are able to earn citizenship here very quickly, relative to everyone else. So it is not at all clear that exempting all illegal aliens who graduate from high school from deportation will have a significant influence on high-technology professionals available in this country.
The last issue concerns the high cost of college tuition, which has increased at a rate greater than the increase in health care and energy. The U.S. decided to make college much more accessible and therefore made college loans freely available. Kids are coming out of college with huge debt, because colleges are taking advantage of the dollars made available by the government. So there is a bubble developing which is very similar to the mortgage bubble several years ago.
College loans for illegal aliens will exascerbate the problem by continuing to drive up the costs of a college education for everyone.
I’ve been reading through your older posts and am so glad you got into the Heydi story before this big one broke. Needless to say, I definitely think this was way overdue and totally support it (inasmuch as it would have been preferred that Congress TAKE ACTION as they are supposed to). Now I’d like to see this extended to my husband of almost 11 years! I guess we will have to be featured on the front page of the Post before much of a chance of that though.
Way overdue is right! Hi Twinad. Were your ears burning? I have referred to you several times. I have seen that several of our conservative friends have reacted well to the presidential edict. However too many have clung to old ideas that don’t even make sense.
I contend that many of our current policies are not laws but how personnel is responding to the law.
What changed for you all? In other words, what happened so that people applying say 6 months before you got a status change and you did not? It wasn’t a conggressional change was it?
@kelly_3406
Kelly, we have to decide if too many latino kids are dropping out of school too early or if we have too many slackers who are graduating. Can’t have it both ways. The young people also have to not have criminal records.
This was not a crowd who was high on the deportation list anyway. The paper work to be able to function as a legal resident, albeit temporary, is a huge deal. Perhaps it will be the carrot at the end of a stick for other students who would have dropped out of high school. There really is little incentive to stay before this.
As for PHDs, that simply isnt true as a uniform statement. It depends on the field. However, it is a separate issue. It is very difficult for students finishing up degree programs to switch out of student visa mode and in to other modes allowing full time employment.
I don’t think your college loan issue holds water nor do I think these young people will drive up the cost of colleges. Why should it? Check out how many international students are currently helping to balance the books at American colleges and universities. Spots are taken in some schools by as much as 1/3 of the student body. If these students are denied spots, then everyone’s cost goes up. In other words, colleges and universties are making money off of international students.
You are right, MH, it was an administrational change, not a congressional change, that caused the issue with my husband not being eligible for a change in status. Prior to April 30, 2001 an illegal immigrant could be sponsored by an employer or a spouse for legal residency. After the administrative change took effect, shortly after Clinton left the White House, the Bush administration did not renew it. To be fair, the Bush White House wanted to tackle full scale immigration reform. I’m sure when he did not renew the former policy, it was because he thought he could get comprehensive immigration reform passed. At any rate, as long as some kind of paperwork was underway (via an employer or spouse) by April of 2001, any illegal immigrant could seek a status change. After that date, only illegal immigrants that were “illegal” because, say, their student visa had expired, could become eligible for a change in status. Since we were not married until December of 2001, there has been no path for him to seek legal status.
Critical!!! Read comment from #16 (Twinad) as it relates to administrative policy change vs actual congressional change.
Maybe some of you all want to suck it in about Congress being over-ridden. I cannot stress how important it is to understand what Twinad is saying to us in the grand scheme of things. The president is not acting illegally any more than Bush did.
Bold on comment #16 is mine.