world

Romney tweaks his stance on immigration; seizes upon Biden comment

72 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

72 Comments
Login to comment

Just another Romney flip flop...no new news here..

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Obama is going to stick with his amnesty stance.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Mitt Romney on immigration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGzS8Q9bl2s

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Romney is the Flip-flopping king. This isn't news anymore.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The Republican mittstake just keeps on giving and giving. Now with a month left to go he is tacking to the middle and will now lose votes in the racist states like Arizona. He is in a box and cannot get out. This is the perfect example of why the republican party is imploding.

After the Obama landslide next month the republicans will collapse.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Too little, too late Mitt.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Are there no conservatives on Japan Today who have enough backbone to call out Mitt's flip-flopping ?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Romney's stance(s) on immigration aren't clear, and that's clear. However, Obama's policy is also two-faced, on the one hand offering amnesty for some, while deporting more in his one term than Bush did in two, creating a large number of family hardships via separation.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

deporting more in his one term than Bush did in two, creating a large number of family hardships via separation.

@Herve: Not saying you are wrong or anything, just wondering where you get those figures from? Can you give us a link/source? Thanks.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

deporting more in his one term than Bush did in two, creating a large number of family hardships via separation.

Zen Student

Let me answer that for you because I guarantee you that Herve is getting the wrong facts. He is partially correct, but mostly wrong.

Obama has NOT deported more people in his single term than Bush has in his two terms. However, if you break it down to monthly averages, Obama is deporting more people than Bush has. It's something like 32,000 deportations / month for Obama and 20,000 for Bush.

So while on average, Obama has been doing more deportations of illegal immigrants, as a whole, Bush has done a lot more deportations than Obama has. Will Obama eventually overtake Bush..at the pace he's going, yes. But once his new legislation is put in to effect, it should reduce deportation and increase legal naturalization.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well, Obama being the ultimate master in creating the very word flip and flop. Anyone who doesn't see that we have a very serious problem with illegal immigration is sitting on a black cloud. Since Reagan, NO President, Republican or Democrat has done anything really to close the border, Obama is just as bad and I don't know if Romney would be better either, but I will say both parties suck when it comes to immigration and both parties exploit illegal immigrants, BOTH of them and if you looney liberals don't think so, then there is absolutely NO help to fix your insanity. Democrats want to increase their voting block by promising illegals free stuff and entitlements, sounds good, why not, so of course many of them would join the Democratic party. But Liberals are also to think that all Latinos think the same and follow the same parties. The Latinos are a very diverse group. Cubans in large part vote more Republican, Mexicans Democrats, so thinking that they will all vote Democratic shows how ignorants the Dems really are. As for Republicans, they need the labor, all the help, the jobs that are too low for many Americans that think they are too good for, these Hispanics will do almost any kind of manuel labor without complaining which makes them extremely valuable for or economy, in the restaurants and cleaning offices, this is a vital for the US economy. This is why both sides will do essentially nothing when it comes to closing the borders. Japan can close and maintain their borders, but the US can't and actually won't and because of that, both Presidents get a Zero from me.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Heh, right before the first debate Joey Plugs lets a little truth slip out by admitting that over the past four years the middle class has been ‘buried.’

Classic.

RR

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I always did find it disturbing to note how so many white American conservatives who are against immigration are actually descendants of immigrants themselves.  They wouldn't be 'American' if their ancestors hadn't been what they are against now.

But conservatives never have been accused of being logical...

BTW, is it true that Mitt's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, fled to Mexico with a group of his fellow Mormons in 1885 to escape America's anti-polygamy laws because he had four wives and 30 children? 

FOUR wives? How many cousins does Mitt have? Are Mitt's children all his own? Does even Mitt know?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

...>both Presidents get a Zero from me.

That would be President Obama and, er....

A bit of wishful thinking there, bass! : )

3 ( +3 / -0 )

FOUR wives? How many cousins does Mitt have? Are Mitt's children all his own? Does even Mitt know?

Although I wouldn't go as far as saying this, you do bring up a valid point about immigration.

George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico and fled to the States after the Mexican Revolution broke, in essence making him a Mexican war refugee (word's used by Mitt's own mother). They were dead poor and living on welfare for a year or so until George could get himself on his feet, and later went on to become Governor of Michigan and CEO for major auto company.

Knowing his family's history with immigrating back from Mexico and living on welfare, you'd think that Mitt would have a more progressive stance on immigration. But he has this "I GOT MINE" attitude, which doesn't resonate well with especially with Hispanics. He lived their story and still closes the door on them which is really sad.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Sushi

I always did find it disturbing to note how so many white American conservatives who are against immigration are actually descendants of immigrants themselves. They wouldn't be 'American' if their ancestors hadn't been what they are against now.

Once again, you are NOT paying attention and want to create your own personal narrative. Conservatives are FOR immigration, they are totally against ILLEGAL immigration as it should be. If you have NO borders, you have NO country.

FOUR wives? How many cousins does Mitt have? Are Mitt's children all his own? Does even Mitt know?

How many kids did Obama's father have? How many did his mom have?

@Luca

NOT wishful thinking, just not spinning and being a realist.

Funny, how many of you have been to Mexico? They have a very strict immigration policy when it comes to their own borders, but we should have an revolving door? That's just nuts.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Personally I'd like to see far more open boarder crossings between NAFTA countries. However, neither candidate even comes close. Obama has been substantively silent on the issue except in the past few months when it became advantageous to get the latino vote behind him. I don't see Romney's stance switch as any more or less politically motivated. Call a spade a spade and both candidates are using the latino community like tools.

Knowing his family's history with immigrating back from Mexico and living on welfare, you'd think that Mitt would have a more progressive stance on immigration.

And knowing US immigration history you'd think everyone should understand that the state of US immigration has changed dramatically in the past several decades and that Romney's positions aren't terrible out of sync with general public opinions. Majorities want to see more secure boarders while at the same time there are mixed opinions as to what to do with children who were transported to the US illegally.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@the Question

Call a spade a spade and both candidates are using the latino community like tools.

Yes, but here is the difference. Obama declared his pro-immigration stance months ago, and pledged on legislation that gives a group of illegal immigrants who meet a specific criteria a path to citizenship.

Romney had no stance. He waited and waited to see which side of the issue polled better. Here he is less than 5 weeks away from the election, an average of 4 points down in the polls, and desperately needs Latino votes...so what does he do? He changes his stance to favor a more progressive position that favors the Latino community. He's pulling a Romney '94 and changing his position to match his opponents position in order to poll better.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why is it when Romney changes his mind its called "flip flopping" but when a Democrats do it they are called "enlightened?" I have personally spoken to around a dozen LEGAL immigrants in the US and they hate ILLEGALS. Legal immigrants have to jump throw flaming hoops to gain their status while illegals think they can waltz into the US, demand treatment at hospitals, collect welfare, obtain driver's licenses and stick their brats in our schools -- well maybe the last one is okay since our schools stink anyway...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

demand treatment at hospitals, collect welfare, obtain driver's licenses and stick their brats in our schools -- well maybe the last one is okay since our schools stink anyway...

@Tatanka

Hold the phone...Its not like they are looking to open the flood gates and let anyone and their mothers into the country. What they are proposing is to allow mostly children and young adults who were brought over to the US illegally by their parents or relatives when they were children or too young to even remember, to remain in the US on the provision that they get an education, serve in the military, or hold a job.

The alternative would be to deport them to a country that is completely foreign to them, and some only speak English and the US is all that they know. I mean, how would you feel if you found out that you're really a Czechoslovakian citizen and you're going to be deported back to Czechoslovakia, after living (wherever you live) for the majority of your life?

The question is what about the next step? Do we offer them citizenship, a pathway to citizenship, or just an indefinite VISA that allows them to stay as long as they meet their criteria? That's the issue that needs to be decided.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mirai, wrong again BOB. From Reuters," Obama has deported 1.06 million illegal immigrants through two-and-a-half years in office, Reuters reports. This puts him on pace for more deportations in his first term than George W. Bush's 1.57 million in eight years." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE78J05720110920?irpc=932

It's ironic that the great liberal One is doing/has done more damage to the hispanic community than the Evil-doer-in-Chief GWB, yet they support him anyway. Free phone anyone?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Tatanka,

" Why is it when Romney changes his mind its called "flip flopping" but when a Democrats do it they are called "enlightened?"

Please check the DNC NewSpeak dictionary 2012 edition. You'll find the R-word is "flip-flopping", but the D-word is "evolving". Yes, the new NewSpeak dictionary is very "progressive".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Herve

And as usual, you didn't read anything I wrote. But I will copy and paste it JUST FOR YOU,

quoting myself -just for you Herve:

So while on average, Obama has been doing more deportations of illegal immigrants, as a whole, Bush has done a lot more deportations than Obama has. Will Obama eventually overtake Bush..at the pace he's going, yes. But once his new legislation is put in to effect, it should reduce deportation and increase legal naturalization.

You can't just double Obama's total or cut Bush's total in half, because that would not be an apples-apples comparison. The best way to compare their records is to take a monthly average in which case Obama's deportation record is HIGHER, whereas the aggregate number is LOWER

.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Free phone anyone?

To hell with that. Where's my free gas, my free house, my free big screen TV and my free beer-pissing unicorn that "The One" promised me?

RR

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@mirai, apparently reading the source material is not your forte. Your twist or spin is irrelevant, however, and much like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Also quoted from the source, " Obama fell short on his promise to have a comprehensive reform bill in Congress in his first year. And despite his push of the DREAM Act in 2010, that bill failed in the Senate at the end of the Democrat-run 111th Congress." In case the point was missed, Obama 's Dream Act died in the DEMOCRAT majority Senate, during which time DEMOCRATS held majority in both houses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama declared his pro-immigration stance months ago, and pledged on legislation that gives a group of illegal immigrants who meet a specific criteria a path to citizenship.

He also pledged to close Guantanamo, end the wars, and review the invasive practices of the Patriot Act, that's how he got some of my libertarian associates to swallow the bitter partisan pill last time around. The only thing I take on faith is God, men need to back their words up with facts and example and Obama hasn't provided one shred of evidence to make me believe he's even remotely interested in wading into the immigration quagmire.

Romney had no stance. He waited and waited to see which side of the issue polled better.

You almost make him sound appealing. A politician with no resolute positions is one that's less likely to take a hard line position on anything which reduces the likelihood of anything substantial happening in DC. I would love nothing more than to see Washington sit on their hands for 4 years, that would give the rest of us time to get some actual long term planning done. As it stands I have to retool paperwork every other month thanks to the volatility of US economic legislation. Alas but Romney would probably follow the same general course laid out by Obama who, for his part, follows the same general path laid out by Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

True words from TheQ,

" He also pledged to close Guantanamo, end the wars, and review the invasive practices of the Patriot Act, that's how he got some of my libertarian associates to swallow the bitter partisan pill last time around. The only thing I take on faith is God, men need to back their words up with facts and example and Obama hasn't provided one shred of evidence to make me believe he's even remotely interested in wading into the immigration quagmire."

Kool-Aid kills brain cells.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"tweaks"

The Etch-A-Sketch wobbler strikes again!

Rmoney was before he was against being before he was against he was for it, but only after he tweaked his flip-flop whereapon, he changed his mind, then took it back. But only after he shook up his Etch-A-Sketch

This guy. What does he really believe?

I gotta admit, it would be interesting to actually find out one of these days.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@TheQuestion

You almost make him sound appealing. A politician with no resolute positions is one that's less likely to take a hard line position on anything which reduces the likelihood of anything substantial happening in DC

Not in this case. The reasons why Romney has not taken a stance on immigration is 1.) As mentioned, he wanted to see which side of the issue polls better. 2.) His donors are most likely split on the issue or 3.)There is no money riding on this issue so he really didn't care until he realized that he need Latino votes to win.

Either way, a candidate who has no stance on issues is never good, because all it means is that his political positions are on sale to the highest bidder. And this is why Romney's positions change with the wind. His donors tell him what positions to take...and when those position don't poll well with the public, he flips like a pancake. Then when his donors threaten to defund him for changing positions, he flips back. Look at the debate between him and Kennedy in 1994 on youtube and you'll get a very good idea of how little he cares about any given position.

People on here will say that Obama also flips on issues (which is true) but here is the biggest difference. The positions that Obama flips on (example: gay marriage, don't ask don't tell, etc) are social issues that have no money backing them. Obama doesn't have donors telling him to flip on gay marriage, because there is no financial gain for anyone if Obama flips on that position.

Obama, by nature , is a social conservative and really believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. He stated that early in his presidency. Obama flipped on gay marriage because he gave into public pressure. His grassroots base are made up of members of LGBT community and they pressured him to change to a more progressive position. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with a president changing his opinions on social issues especially when he knows that the majority want him to change his position and voted for him hoping that he'd take the progressive position...THAT'S DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

It IS wrong when a presidential candidate flips on a position just to rally more votes, AND especially if he is being paid to take a position by rich donors.

@Herve

Obama has deported 1.06 million illegal immigrants through two-and-a-half years in office, Reuters reports. This puts him on pace for more deportations in his first term than George W. Bush's 1.57 million in eight years

.

Spoken like a true conservative who has no concept of mathematics.

1.06 million is less than 1.57 million hence, Obama has deported LESS illegals than Bush overall.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In case the point was missed, Obama 's Dream Act died in the DEMOCRAT majority Senate, during which time DEMOCRATS held majority in both houses.

Herve Nmn L'Eisa, I don't know if you are American or not, but whatever: you are woefully ignorant regarding Senate rules. The final vote total in the Senate for the Dream Act was 55-41 in favor of passing it - one vote short of overriding the filibuster the Republicans had set up to ensure that the bill would go nowhere. That is, even with the support of three Republicans (and the opposition of five Democrats), the bill failed.

Those who continue insisting the Democrats controlled the Senate in the first half of Obama's term are either ill-informed or dissembling. (Those - and you know who you are! - who continue to insist that Obama controlled "all three branches of government" are simply foolish.) Schadenfreude would be seeing a President Romney trying to accomplish a single thing with a divided Senate and an equally intransigent Democratic Party if it would not be so damaging to the nation - but then, the Republicans long ago stopped putting the nation first.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Laguna

Dream Act was 55-41 in favor of passing it - one vote short of overriding the filibuster

So true. I totally forgot about that.

Those who continue insisting the Democrats controlled the Senate in the first half of Obama's term are either ill-informed or dissembling

Obama had control of the senate for like 6 months...after that, be couldn't pass ANY legislation (democrat or republican proposed) if he agreed with it, because the republicans filibustered EVERYTHING.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Here is what you can and cannot do as a candidate and a president:

Can do:

As a candidate take the unpopular position, but change to a more popular position as president (shows that you are listening to your people and that you are open to popular changes)

As a candidate take the popular position and keep the popular position as president (shows that you can keep your campaign promises)

As a candidate take the unpopular position and keep the unpopular position as president (yeah it sucks, but it shows that some degree of integrity in your beliefs)

Cannot do:

Take a neutral stance on any position (shows that your indecisive, weak, and/or you're for sale)

Take a neutral position as a candidate but change to an unpopular position as presiden (shows that you've been bought)

Take a popular position as a candidate but change to an unpopular position as president (shows that you've been bought)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"The Republican mittstake just keeps on giving"

The Democrat mistake just keeps on giving - U.S. gov't debt over $16 trillion now and climbing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Those who continue insisting the Democrats controlled the Senate in the first half of Obama's term are either ill- informed or dissembling.

From January 6 2010 CNN

Democrats struggle to hold critical 60-seat Senate majority

The fight over health care reform has clearly demonstrated that 60 votes is now the minimum threshold for passing major legislation through the Senate. Anything less leaves the majority party at the mercy of a minority increasingly willing to employ the filibuster to grind the legislative gears of the Senate to a halt.

Democrats currently have exactly 60 members in their caucus; Republicans have 40.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-06/politics/senate.power.balance_1_vice-president-joe-biden-democrats-sen-roland-burris?_s=PM:POLITICS

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mirai, math and logic clearly are elusive for you.

What part of 1.06million in 2.5years (Obama) vs 1.65million in 8 years don't you get?? Did you bother to read the source article?

Lagoon, a) my nationality is irrelevant, b) who was the Senate Majority leader at that time? Was it D or an R? c)" even with the support of three Republicans (and the opposition of five Democrats), the bill failed. Notice that neither party was unanimous and the bill was rightly filibustered and failed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Democrats currently have exactly 60 member

Of which 5 or 6 were conservative blue dog democrats, like Joe Lieberman who may as well have been republicans because they vote with the right almost every single time....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Herve

Here are the actual numbers:

Quote from Politifact:

Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that's fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million

This is an unfair comparison because Bush spans a longer period. And we have no idea whether or not Obama will continue at the same rate.

Quote from Politifact:

If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead.

So it depends on how you count, which is what I am saying for the third time now.

Mirai, math and logic clearly are elusive for you.

Yes republican math makes no sense!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Mirai

I always wondered where liberals learn their math from. I am just sitting here watching you guys screw up the math, but it figures, Dems are horrible when it comes to math and looking at the current situation in America with the economy and when it comes to immigration and deportation, liberal math doesn't add up and it never will.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The other mistake that you liberals keep doing is labeling all Hispanics as a monolithic group, not all Hispanics are for voting for a Socialist President, they are a very diverse group, remember that, but for some reason, I feel that, that will go right over your heads.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Herve

" He also pledged to close Guantanamo, end the wars, and review the invasive practices of the Patriot Act, that's how he got some of my libertarian associates to swallow the bitter partisan pill last time around. The only thing I take on faith is God, men need to back their words up with facts and example and Obama hasn't provided one shred of evidence to make me believe he's even remotely interested in wading into the immigration quagmire."

Obama flipped and flopped on many issues, not only Guantanamo. This is President has a problem with keeping promises and never made immigration a big issue, now all of a sudden this (another distraction) being an election year, now he is so concerned about the illegal immigration and immigrants in general. This is one of THE dirtiest politicians in recent memory. He once said, marriage is defined by a man and woman and is a sacred sanctimony and thought that gays are equal, but should have civil liberties and now all of a sudden, he's for gay marriage, just like that. Even the majority of the gay community knows that Obama is doing all this because it's an election year. Obama is the absolute LAST person to call Mitt a flip flopper and as you said, there isn't an iota of evidence that Obama will do anything, because the man is just all talk, that is a fact.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

bass4funk says

liberal math doesn't add up and it never will.

A poor tit for tat regurgitation of President Clinton's already classic DMC speech last month where he exposed the Republican industry of lies and false information.

Speaking of false information

The other mistake that you liberals keep doing is labeling all Hispanics as a monolithic group, not all Hispanics are for voting for a Socialist President, they are a very diverse group, remember that, but for some reason, I feel that, that will go right over your heads.

A CNN/Wall St Journal poll this morning had Hispanics voting 77% to 23% for President Obama.

4 more years! 4 more years!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

there isn't an iota of evidence that Obama will do anything, because the man is just all talk, that is a fact.

...except singlehandedly save the auto industry, get universal healthcare for the country, KILL Bin Laden, and pull the American economy back from the brink of disaster your good buddy W. left you with. That is a fact!

4 more years! 4 more years!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Welcome to The October Surprise.

Let me guess, Romeo; Jack-booted Black Panthers roving white American suburbs taking guns and bibles away?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@hoser

A poor tit for tat regurgitation of President Clinton's already classic DMC speech last month where he exposed the Republican industry of lies and false information.

Now you are quoting Carter??? ROFL

A CNN/Wall St Journal poll this morning had Hispanics voting 77% to 23% for President Obama.

18 percent of Latinos in New York identify themselves as liberal, 21 percent moderate and 31 percent conservative.

That's just an example, once you break down the numbers, but if you take in each state where there is a huge Hispanic pop, you will see they are very different and they do NOT all follow as Dems.

...except singlehandedly save the auto industry, get universal healthcare for the country, KILL Bin Laden, and pull the American economy back from the brink of disaster your good buddy W. left you with. That is a fact!

No one told him to bail out GM! And what about the Stock Holders? What happened to all their investments? They lost everything, it became worthless thanks to Obama and Oh, yeah, American Airlines is in trouble too, why not buy and clean out all the shareholders there as well. Obamacare, God willing will be defunded and gutted hopefully as much as the House will try to do once they get it on their desk and least they will have to seriously revise it, before it gets to the Senate. Back from the brink????? $16T, 8.1% unemployment, 1.2 GDP growth, printing money, borrowing from China, spending 60 cents on every dollar we spend, welfare up 19%, disability claims up, AA credit rating, this is what we got from Obama and you call that good?? I wouldn't even call it passing!

That's a fact!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Herve Nmn L'Eisa, your original point:

while deporting more in his one term than Bush did in two

Your evidence:

" Obama has deported 1.06 million illegal immigrants through two-and-a-half years in office, Reuters reports. This puts him on pace for more deportations in his first term than George W. Bush's 1.57 million in eight years."

It says he's on pace, but your original statement said Obama has already passed Bush. You'd have to show evidence that Obama has in fact surpassed Bush.

my nationality is irrelevant

Canadian. Usually not relevant, but if you repeatedly state that no country should ever meddle in the affairs of another, it might make some people wonder why you would be debating American politics with Americans. Practice what you preach.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@SuperLib

Give up! I've tried!. They're using the same mathematical formula that Paul Ryan is using to calculate his tax policy...you know the one...tax cuts across the board (especially the rich) yet still create 12 million jobs and reduce the deficit. Must be fun living in bizarro world where 1 + 1 =5

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Since Reagan, NO President, Republican or Democrat has done anything really to close the border . . ."

And there's a very simple reason for this. No president has seen the issue as a national priority. Because it's not.

Immigrants, legal or otherwise, drive this economy by doing much of the backbreaking, dangerous, tedious labor that "homegrown" Americans are just too lazy to do themselves. If the positions didn't exist, immigrants wouldn't come to the U.S. to fill them.

Conservative hand-wringing regarding immigration reminds me a bit of Jack Nicholson's famous rant in "A Few Good Men."

"Boys, we live in a world that has fields to be picked and lawns to be mowed. And those fields and walls have to be worked by men (and women) with a work ethic. Who's gonna do it? You, Mr. Ryan? You, Mr. Romney?

"We immigrants have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for so-called bleeding of the U.S. social welfare system, and you curse illegal immigrants (of the brown-skinned variety). You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the cost of providing education and healthcare to the children of illegal immigrants, while tragic, probably propped up this economy. And our existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, props up this economy...

"You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want us in those fields and on those lawns. You need us in those fields and on those lawns."

What amuses me to no end is how many vocal critics of the illegal immigration "crisis" (coff! coff!) themselves partake of the fruits of undocumented workers, then feign ignorance later with a coy, "I swear all their paperwork was in order. I really didn't know." Horse puckey.

If there's any one thing that I know to be true about the most shrill of Conservatives in this fractured, train wreck of a Republican Party, it's that they have single-handedly raised the bar for brazen hypocrisy on virtually every issue they insist is a national priority.

And I truly believe that the rank-and-file base of the GOP are gradually starting to realize this and understand they've been sold a bill of goods consistently for the past 30 years. It's in this climate that Mitt Romney finds himself seeking the highest public office in the land.

Let the train wreck continue on to its inevitable conclusion....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

yet still create 12 million jobs and reduce the deficit. Must be fun living in bizarro world where 1 + 1 =5

Ok, so what about the 32 million that don't have a job and reduce the deficit? How? $16T you see it going down? NO, quite the opposite!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

" This is an unfair comparison because Bush spans a longer period. And we have no idea whether or not Obama will continue at the same rate."

It's only unfair because the numbers (which you have altered ) don't support your oPINE-yarn. " If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead." So, these numbers also put Obama as deporting more by a 3:2 ratio. Given the 1.6 million Obama's policy has already deported in 42 months plus the additional six months averaged at 32.8K, that already puts Obama "clearly in the lead" in the deportation race, in just the first lap. Ok, to level the playing field, how about comparing the numbers for the great Evil Doer's first term and Obama's first term. That would be fair, wouldn't it?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SuperLib, multinational, get it?

Yes, on pace to match. Splitting hairs.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Superlip, " no country should ever meddle in the affairs of another, it might make some people wonder why you would be debating American politics with Americans. Practice what you preach." BTW, I CAN vote. But you're mixing apples and oranges, pal. There's a world of difference between individuals engaging in political discussion(as here) and governments and their agents/agencies meddling in national affairs vis-a-vis military weapons and "aid" that goes to dictatorships.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Notice that neither party was unanimous and the bill was rightly filibustered and failed.

Herve, "rightly" is quite subjective here. Republican efforts to attract the Hispanic vote were rather intensive under Bush; they've faltered badly since then. Many Americans do not subscribe to the "rightly" part of your statement - that a minority was able to sabotage the will of the majority of the Senate regarding the status of people close to them - and they will let this be known on voting day.

18 percent of Latinos in New York identify themselves as liberal, 21 percent moderate and 31 percent conservative.

Bass, there are forests and there are trees, and it might behoove you - and the GOP- to learn to distinguish between the two. You are very correct in that the majority of Hispanics are conservative Catholics, and the very fact that the GOP cannot attract this group is damning in itself. The rest of your rant on economics was similar. People listen to and notice specifics. Deporting a felon is not the same as deporting a law-abiding resident; rescuing GM is not the same as propping up American Airlines. Facts based on logic have strength. You might want to familiarize yourself with them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Laguna,

" "rightly" is quite subjective here."

Yes, it IS subjective, and IS my opinion.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The positions that Obama flips on (example: gay marriage, don't ask don't tell, etc) are social issues that have no money backing them. Obama doesn't have donors telling him to flip on gay marriage, because there is no financial gain for anyone if Obama flips on that position.

So the multimillion dollar benefit dinners held by Hollywood A listers wouldn't have anything to do with it? So the massive sway of the LGBT community has on young voters doesn't seem advantageous during a contentious election season when previously he made no indication he had strong feelings on the issue of gay rights.

I'm okay with bashing Romney, I really am, but when people cheer on Obama in the same breath I get a little bit riled. You can't in good conscience really say that one is better than the other when they are, in terms of legislative and political substance, almost exactly the same. Romney has, historically been, a pretty stringent centrist when not having to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the Republican party and Obama has been largely centrist when not having to appeal to the dregs of the Democrats.

And lets be honest. I doubt anybody's going to be able to bribe Romney relative to the massive wealth he's already accumulated. His shifting stance appears to be entirely politically motivated rather than financially.

It IS wrong when a presidential candidate flips on a position just to rally more votes, AND especially if he is being paid to take a position by rich donors.

But that's precisely what he did. Even a year back the weak economy was making everybody question the presidents reelection which is when we got all this talk of marriage equality and immigration reform, topics Obama avoided like the plague from 2008-2011. I'm not saying that's bad, but I'm saying that what Romney does is not worse. Both do what is politically advantageous, they're cut from the same kind of cloth. Obama is considerably more charismatic, Romney is considerably more business like. Substance wise they're virtually the same, they're only stylistically different. I think that's why Romney doesn't bother me nearly as much as other people given my years of white collar work, I've had to sit around people like both of them and tend to judge them based on what they bring to the table. And neither bring anything worth mentioning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Laguna

I am more aware of that then you might know.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Republican efforts to attract the Hispanic vote were rather intensive under Bush; they've faltered badly since then.

Agreed, to busy in 2010 electing Marc Rubio to the Senate, Susana Martinez the current Governor of New Mexico and running Ted Cruz 2012 election from Texas for the Senate seat.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

TheQ , " You can't in good conscience really say that one is better than the other when they are, in terms of legislative and political substance, almost exactly the same". Absolutely agree. Two sides of the same coin.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass, btw, my post early today quoted another post. Yes, it was an incomplete list of unfulfilled pledges.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just cannot see the US electing a heretic as president. Americans is an unusually religious country for the 21st century, so electing one who holds heretical Christian beliefs must sure be unthinkable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah_So - Who is the heretic?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

LFR,

On your assumptions:

"We immigrants have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for so-called bleeding of the U.S. social welfare system, and you curse illegal immigrants (of the brown-skinned variety). You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the cost of providing education and healthcare to the children of illegal immigrants, while tragic, probably propped up this economy.

Doesn't quite pan out with what is deemed to be the landmark research on the topic that was done by the non-partisan National Research Council. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.

They found out the following and it applies to most illegal immigrants as they fit into this exact catagory:

The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that each immigrant without a high school degree will cost U.S. taxpayers, on average, $89,000 over the course of his or her lifetime. This is a net cost above the value of any taxes the immigrant will pay and does not include the cost of educating the immigrant's children, which U.S. taxpayers would also heavily subsidize.

The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997), p. 334.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5779&page=R6

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It'll be interesting to see how Obama explains this 2007 video which just surfaced n which he praised the Rev Jeremiah Wright as "a great leader." I'm sure he'll wiggle out of it somehow.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Better yet, I want to hear what Obama has to say about that he believes in socialized income redistribution back in 1998. I can see the sweat already forming on his brow as he tries to take a sip of his bottled water.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I can see the sweat already forming on his brow as he tries to take a sip of his bottled water.

I'm amused by the cartoon world you live in.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm amused by the cartoon world you live in.

You mean the same cartoon created in Hollywood by the looney liberals from borrowed money from China?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You mean the same cartoon created in Hollywood by the looney liberals from borrowed money from China?

Yeah, that's right. That's your cartoon.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yeah, that's right. That's your cartoon.

Yep, the cartoon the liberals keep making again and again and again, kinda like the gift that keeps on giving.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

bass4funk - You'll have 4 more years to sit and stew about your cartoon scenarios come November. In fact, I can see Rush Limbaugh now, quietly weeping at the foot on his steel-reinforced bed. As we speak, Romney's engineering team is feverishly re-writing commands into the CPU they keep behind his left ear to put him back into CEO mode.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Herve Nmn L'Eisa: SuperLib, multinational, get it?

I saw your comments on Quebec. Practice what you preach....don't meddle.

Yes, on pace to match. Splitting hairs.

Usually it is a minor issue, but you stuck you your main point more than once. If you know you are inaccurate, you should stop the message.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

One of my fIlthy rich cousins, also Mexican American tried to suggest that I listen to Rush Limbaugh!! We are both Latinos, but he makes $$$$$$$$$$ and poor me only make$$?? So BassFunk has a point but sorry folks, I already sent in my overseas US election ballots for Obama!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

All legal immigrants hate all illegal immigrants?? So I should hate my own father who broke his back for our entire family to have a better life in the USA ?? I should forget all the blood, sweat and tears my own father shed after leaving Mexico to work like a poor slave in California and Arizona???? Sorry, some of us legal immigrants do not hate illegals, especially if they were illegal once upon a time but my father will always be father legal or not so may Both Republicans and Democrats use their brains a bit more if they really want to understand Latinos in these coming elections!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I can't see either Romney or Obama doing what needs to be done, placing troops or supporting localized militias at the border. They can't do anything to upset the Mexicans who are now Americans you see, forget Mexico. If they were Americans now they would support closing off the border, but I have never seen any support of that from any Mexicans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites