|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
August 22, 2007Mitt Romney: BigotTeam Mitt has got a new ad: "Immigration laws don't work if they're ignored. That's the problem with cities like Newark, San Francisco and New York City that adopt sanctuary policies... Sanctuary cities become magnets that encourage illegal immigration and undermine secure borders." Get the connection... Too many non-white American's in the Big Apple equals 9/11 equals blame Rudy. Something says to me that the guy who sat in the Governor's mansion that was located in Boston, MA shouldn't be throwing stones from a glass house. Romney goes further: "Legal immigration is great," Romney says in the new ad. "But illegal immigration, that we've got to end. And amnesty is not the way to do it." ...equals Rudy supports amnesty. Give me a break. Is Amnesty the policy of the United States? Is it the policy of New York City? What bothers me most is that the son of George Romney, a true maverick and American heroe that tried to save the GOP from the far-right, is using such race bating southern strategy tactics. He knows better and continues to do it anyway, which makes him even more greasy in my book. I agree with Mayor Mike: "Let 'em come. . . . I can't think of any laboratory that shows better why you need a stream of immigrants than New York City." Being an expert of business and management, and a member of a church that had to migrate west to look for religous freedom, nobody should understand that better than Mitt Romney. Posted by Starbucks Republican at August 22, 2007 08:02 PMComments
yeah yeah we know. Republicans are SHOCKED! I think Mitt is not so much a bigot as a panderer.
Well the Republican party has already shown xenophobia in the collapse of immigration reform. The Republicans defeated it... not the Democrats. Romney is simply appealing to the 'winning' side. Shameful? Yes. Shrewd? Yes. Posted by: Hamilton at August 23, 2007 05:12 AMI agree completely... let's just get rid of all immigration laws. Then there will be no more illegal immigration at all, and we'll never have to hear anybody say it's a problem again. What could go wrong? Posted by: Justin at August 23, 2007 07:22 AMWhy am I agreeing with Marcus? Because he's mostly right. Everytime the INS/ICE starts actually enforcing immigration laws by cracking down on the workplace, phones start ringing on The Hill, and it doesn't matter which party. Those donors whose bottom lines so depend on cheap labor raise a big stink, Congresscritters of both parties start telling INS/ICE administrators how their budgets will shrink if they don't lay off businesses in their district, and enforcement quietly goes back to border-only, lax as that is. The only place I disagree with what Marcus said is his assigning of this behavior solely to the GOP. It's downright generic, and goes on nationwide. Those donors shovel out the money to incumbents. They don't give a hoot what party the recipient belongs to, as long as it produces results. That Congress as a whole is willing to keep sucking on that teat is evidenced by the fact that any single part of the immigration bill could have been offered as a stand-alone by either party, and none were. The idea that they must all go through as a "package" is BS. Posted by: Tully at August 23, 2007 10:25 AMWell, there it is right there. Congress for the most part is uninterested in making the kind of change that (let's face it) many Americans want to undertake. Let's all acknowledge the common ground that Tully and Marcus share. The immigration issue really isn't all that much of a "partisan" issue if you watch what congress DOES instead of what it says. Instead, it's an insider/outsider issue. Matt, I'd like to think you could do better than to call Romney a BIGOT for representing the views of a substantial portion of the electorate. This classic 20th century framing wherein you're bigot if you want our laws enforced is, frankly, grotesque. You know I'm no Romney fan, but if he gains support for honestly representing the legitimate resentment of Americans for immigrants who flout our laws, then good for him. It's the 21st century now, and I for one am not willing to let bigmouths yell me into silence by telling me I'm a bigot to want a coherent immigration policy. Every time the super-pro-immigration folks blithely play the BIGOT card to silence the legitimate concerns of folks concerned by an immigration policy that lacks coherence, they make an ugly populist backlash against immigrants MORE likely. Riddle me this...When it comes to immigration, how come the "tolerant" folks are the ones doing all the name-calling? Posted by: bk at August 29, 2007 01:53 PM |
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Three Quotes
The Choice, Based on Iraq Policy Even More Of A Surprise Castro Bows Out Kosovo Declares Independence Will Obama Take McCain's Funding Dare? Global Poverty Act Preservation Friday Band Taking on Obama Electoral Results Came Out As Expected?!?
|