Romney Outlines Tougher Immigration Stand in Direct Mail Piece
Mitt Romney doesn't mince words when it comes to immigration. The former Massachusetts governor values legal immigration, but wants to curb illegal immigration in the country, according to a spokesman for his campaign.
In Columbia, residents have received direct mail pieces outlining Romney's stance on illegal immigration, a subject that has been a big issue for South Carolina.
Last year, the state said it had to write its own immigration laws because the federal government had failed to take action against the flow of illegal immigrants into the country. On Dec. 23, a federal judge blocked portions of the law, saying it conflicted with federal laws.
In the one-page flyer that is expected to be mailed out statewide, Romney details his plans to stop illegal immigration, according to Ryan Williams, a spokesperson for the Romney campaign. "The mailer talks about putting an end to magnets or benefits that illegal immigrants have, ensuring a tamper-proof system that allows employers to check the status of their employees and creating a strong border fence," Williams said.
Time and time again, Williams said that voters have brought attention to the very serious problem of illegal immigration in the United State. "The Obama administration is opposed to common sense immigration laws," Williams said. "With Romney's plan there would be no magnets, no jobs, no holes in the borders."
Williams said right now it is easy for illegal immigrants to come in to the country and also for them to find jobs and to support their families, even though federal law prohibits the employment of undocumented workers. "Employers need an easier way to check who is legal and who is not," Williams said.
Romney's plan also address the need to enforce the law with employers who knowingly hire illegals.
On Saturday in LeMars, Iowa, Romney said he would veto the Dream Act, a bill that would provide legal status to some undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children, according to a Huffington Post article.
Several media reports said his statements have drawn criticism from immigration advocates. A Capitol Hill blog said his remarks could disqualify him in the minds of many Latino voters.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Immigration-Related Dissertations - 2010 (Memorandum)
2. H-1B Visas a Symptom of Special-Interest Influence in D.C. (Op-ed)
3. Libertarians on Citizenship (Blog)
4. Prometheus Unhinged (Blog)
5. Looking to One's Own Backyard (Blog)
6. Three Developments in Nonimmigrant Worker Programs (Blog)
7. Old News About Latino Voters (Blog)
8. Criminals Start Small (Blog)
9. Bipartisanship in Immigration (Blog)
10. 'You Can Fool Some of the People...' (Blog)
11. Mexico Protects Its Interests with a Friend of the Court Brief, and a Friend in Court (Blog)
12. Let's Focus on Aliens and Jobs, Less So on Aliens and Voting (Blog)
13. Editors: Let's Take Immigration/Marriage Fraud Seriously (Blog)
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment