world

Romney won't say if he'll overturn immigration order

23 Comments

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

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

The conservatives know no shame in this department, their partisan outrage is comical to say the least. Karl Rove wrote the book on dirty tricks.

chuckle-worthy, the trite stereotypes non Americans have.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Politics aside, seriously those that actually are actually applauding this tactic by Obama should be very, very leery as to how this will turn out in the future for all Americans right or left if this really does become the de-facto way our republic will be governed in the future by the executive branch.

Heh, an executive order preventing Obamacare from being implemented. That is if the Supreme court doesn't overturn it. I'm sure all the libs out there will support Romney doing that, after all, they support Obama deciding not to enforce so many other laws. So why not that one too. Most Americans would be happy about that too.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Romney's candor does not improve when it comes to his plans for reorganizing the Federal Government.

So will there be some (Federal Departments) that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-yes-ill-eliminate-whole-departments-but-i-wont-tell-you-which-ones/2012/03/26/gIQAAbIdcS_blog.html

Well, HUD might not be greatly missed, but then there is Education and the EPA. One can be pretty sure Defense and the litany of intelligence services are safe; what about Parks? Do we have any clue? No. Will he give us any clue? Apparently not. Broad swaths of abrupt change this man promises - "legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals such that they know what their setting is going to be" - but it might be nice to know on which side the coin will fall.

福袋 he wants to be. What he will do is what his overseers in Congress dictate.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm sure Romney (and Rubio as well) would love to have the ability to advocate for such a step, but the political reality is that they cannot.

Well that would be if they were inclined to actually felt to be bound to follow the laws that Congress has passed and not pick and choose which ones they could duly ignore by issuing Executive Orders. Obama's setting up some very bad unintended future consequences with this action.

Just Imagine a Romney Presidency where Executive Orders are issued to not enforce EPA regulations regarding coal fire power plants so they may stay on the grid and other environmental regulations so that new refineries can be built so the economy can grow again and employment increases (hey, sounds like a good idea actually). Executive orders that refuse to enforce authorized Government hiring positions to shrink the Government. Executive Orders that de-fund Headstart, AMTRAK and Public Television. Lot's of ways a Future Conservative President can destroy big government without that pesky Congress approval and enforcing the laws on the books thing we have now. Good enough for Obama, good enough for the next President.

Politics aside, seriously those that actually are actually applauding this tactic by Obama should be very, very leery as to how this will turn out in the future for all Americans right or left if this really does become the de-facto way our republic will be governed in the future by the executive branch.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Still, punting on an issue like this is rather pedestrian: it affects a relatively small number of people, and none of them can vote anyway. It is his attitude towards his budget plan that is vastly more mendacious. Romney has already drunk the Norquist Koolaid by refusing any tax increases, even those matched 10:1 with spending cuts. And, of course, he'll maintain a robust military while whipping Iran and whatever other nefarious actors who may rear their heads. He'll also balance the budget. How, one might ask? An interviewer Sunday tried to pin Romney down on specifics, and his answer was as vacuous as the one for the immigration issue:

ROMNEY: Well, we’ll go through that process with Congress as to which of all the different deductions and the exemptions — SCHIEFFER: But do you have an ideas now, like the home mortgage interest deduction, you know, the various ones? ROMNEY: Well Simpson Bowles went though a process of saying how they would be able to reach a setting where they had actually under their proposal even more revenue, with lower rates. So, mathematically it’s been proved to be possible: We can have lower rates, as I propose, that creates more growth, and we can limit deductions and exemptions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-no-need-to-detail-how-ill-pay-for-massive-tax-cuts-just-trust-me/2012/06/17/gJQAJi4IjV_blog.html

Mathematically, many things have been proven possible, but the same problem always arises: in theory, theory and practice are equal, but in practice, they are not.

Romney could sharpen his campaign slogan with: "Vote for the guy who will do unspecified things with immigration and taxes!" Better than that, he should just outsource his campaign homepage to Rand Paul - because that's where the mathematics come in.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

For those more audially inclined, the pertinent phrase is at mark 1:20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HAQ3pNHwj4

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Of course there is a political aspect - and a large one at that"

Agreed. The conservatives know no shame in this department, their partisan outrage is comical to say the least. Karl Rove wrote the book on dirty tricks.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"So, its ok for Obama to go ahead and announce this, rather like the gay marriage thing, which is nothing more or less then politics, but Romney, refusing to take a position on it, is the one in the wrong?"

Molenir,

A politician without an opinion is as likely as a piss-head refusing curry.

Romney is refusing to take a position because he knows either way will lose him votes§.

Who's playing politics?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Obama's action has the added virtue of being the right thing to do. These people are here through no fault of their own, have gone through the American education system and are embarking on their road to a productive adulthood. Rounding them up and sending them back is too un-American to be an option. The step is necessarily short-term (only Congress can write the required legislation), but it gives these people some breathing room.

Of course there is a political aspect - and a large one at that, but why blame Obama for the failings of the GOP? I'm sure Romney (and Rubio as well) would love to have the ability to advocate for such a step, but the political reality is that they cannot. Bringing into sharp focus this choice is no foul whatsoever.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Oh... and dont forget the BLATENT politics on this one! He can play the humanity adn moral rights card all he wants. Those that believe that deserve him!!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Another SLAP in the face of America by Obama. His "My Way OR My Way" tactics are all to familiar at this point. If he cant follow the law to get his way he just does it. Another Supreme Court review in the works...

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Just looked at polling the last 2 days since Obama made his announcement on illegals. Heh, apparently his disapproval ratings have gone up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Oh, my. not another exploding cigar.

RR

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Obama adviser David Plouffe, sent by the White House to four television talk shows, contended that Obama’s action, which appeals to Hispanic voters who are critical to the president’s re-election effort, was not “a political move.”

Apparently this was actually uttered with a straight face.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"forcing him to decide between possibly alienating Hispanic voters... and stoking anger with conservative Republicans"

This is a no brainer. Possibly alienating Hispanic voters is a no-no. He'll need them. Stoking anger with conservative Republicans is the ticket! Who else are they going to vote for? Obama? Ha ha

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is red meat to ubber Conservatives - for many, it is a line not to be crossed. Even Rubio's watered-down DREAM bill, which lacks a path to citizenship, is too much for these people. If Romney as president proposes something similar, he'll face a challenger from the right in '16, so he won't. The best I can see from him is some kind of guest worker program, but while that would relieve low-paying employers, it would do nothing to aid those DREAM seeks to aid: the motivated, educated portion of the undocumented class.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Have to admit it, Obama scored on this one. Mr. Romney is "damned if does, and damned if doesn't" on this one. If Mr. Romney wins the election it will be interesting to see what he does with this.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What a snake, how can you not have a position on something? It's still a flip-flop, just a "pre-emptive" one.

So, its ok for Obama to go ahead and announce this, rather like the gay marriage thing, which is nothing more or less then politics, but Romney, refusing to take a position on it, is the one in the wrong?

I suspect Romney is ok with it. Indeed, if he goes with Rubio, who supports a modified version of the DREAM act, for his VP choice, he would be essentially coming out in support of it. But Romney isn't an idiot. He knows theres a lot of people in his party who are already uncomfortable having him as the candidate. If he came out in favor of amnesty for illegals, he would be alienating them. Obviously he would still get many of their votes, simply because they can't stand Obama, but the excitement and motivation to help push Romney over the top, would be lacking. Staying quiet on this issue is in fact no different then Obamas decision to come out and do something on this issue, when he had repeatedly stated he had no authority to do so. Its politics, pure and simple.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

What a snake, how can you not have a position on something? It's still a flip-flop, just a "pre-emptive" one.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Easing immigration procedures would reduce illegal immigration and take power from the human trafficking cartels. Honest people would stop being swept up with the bad apples. Of course, violent crminals excluded. Getting acceptance into the culture, is a harder issue.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

A big tax cut if they self-deport.....................so no one can say he flip-flop on his stated policy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

...by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution, with legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals such that they know what their setting is going to be, not just for the term of a president but on a permanent basis.

Translation: He'll do whatever Tea Partiers in Congress dictate.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Well, Obama did pull the rug under Romney's feet on this one.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Not stupid is he ?

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