Skip to content

Mitt Rommey Sees Politics Over Immigration Order, I See Logic And Moral Reasoning

June 17, 2012

This blog has been consistently supportive of the Dream Act on the national level, and bills proposed in Wisconsin that would have achieved the same type of result.  I have long advocated that undocumented students who came to the country before age 16, and have the required scholastic ability be allowed access to public financial aid for college.  

In June 2011 I asked the question, and answered it.

Why should a bright and capable young person, who has successfully completed high school, and possesses the ability to attend a state university be denied in-state tuition rates simply because they came to Wisconsin from another country with their parents, having no ability as a child to make life decisions? Why should anyone wish to force these capable young and keen minds into a permanent economic underclass that will be their fate unless they find the education to meet the requirements of the ever-changing economy?

It is not logical to deny young minds that are college ready the opportunity to meet the challenges of the early part of the 21st century by denying them access to the UW system. Often money is the factor that denies certain demographics learning opportunities. While some may look at the in-state and out-state rates and say it is still possible for these immigrants to attend misses the mark about fairness and decency. This matter is not only about economic fairness, but about the way we treat each other as members of society.

Are we short-changing society a cancer researcher, novelist, civic leader, or teacher by keeping a young person out of college? We will never know if these young minds are not allowed to reach their full potential.

The mass deportation theories, and crazed rants of those opposed to brown people are met here with smirks. 

There are some facts about immigrants that America will just have to adjust to, since they are not about to be reversed, nor should they be.

Whether you describe it as the dawning of a post-racial age or just the end of white America, we’re approaching a profound demographic tipping point. According to an August 2008 report by the U.S. Census Bureau, those groups currently categorized as racial minorities—blacks and Hispanics, East Asians and South Asians—will account for a majority of the U.S. population by the year 2042. Among Americans under the age of 18, this shift is projected to take place in 2023, which means that every child born in the United States from here on out will belong to the first post-white generation.

Therefore I was very pleased with the statement and resolve shown by President Obama this past week when addressing the needs many people living here have with immigration issues.  Especially young people who were brought here by their parents, and have proved themselves to be–in every respect–Americans.

Granted the scope of what Obama stated was less broad than where I am headed on this blog, but the issues are important, and need to be aired, again.

The President stated that young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally before age 16 and spent at least five continuous years here would be allowed to stay and apply for work permits if they had no criminal history and met other criteria, such as graduating from high school or serving honorably in the military.

All this leads me to Bob Schieffer who interviewed Mitt Romney for CBS’s “Face the Nation” where this dialogue unfolded.  

SCHIEFFER: “[W]ould you repeal [Obama’s immigration] order if you became president?” …

ROMNEY: “This is something Congress has been working on, and I thought we were about to see some proposals brought forward by Senator Marco Rubio and by Democrat senators, but the President jumped in and said I’m going to take this action … [H]e was president for the last three and a half years and did nothing on immigration. Two years he had a Democrat House and Senate, did nothing of a permanent or long-term basis. What I would do, is I’d make sure that by coming into office, I would work with Congress to put in place a long-term solution for the children of those that have come here illegally.” …

SCHIEFFER: “But would you repeal this?” …

ROMNEY: “[M]y anticipation is I’d come into office and say we need to get this done, on a long-term basis, not this kind of stop-gap measure. What the president did, he should have worked on this years ago, if he felt seriously about this he should have taken action when he had a Democrat House and Senate, but he didn’t. He saves these sort of things until four and a half months before the general election.” …

SCHIEFFER: “So he did it for politics.”

ROMNEY: “Well, that’s certainly a big part of the equation.” …

Not so fast, Mitt.

Ever consider the fact that since Congress is so incapable of even agreeing on what day of the week it is that there needs to be strong leadership from the White House?

How about doing what is right when in office, and making the tough calls based on logic and moral reasoning? 

Which is precisely what President Obama demonstrated.

I have been watching with amusement for many years the way most conservative elements of the GOP have used immigration for short-term gain. The fact they are sowing seeds that will produce long-term pain for their party, and a continuing legacy of dreadful policy options, seems not to be of concern.

Mitt Romney is the latest conservative (wannabe) who is making that same mistake.

  1. June 17, 2012 11:36 PM

    Executive orders are not against the process. In fact, they are very much a part of the process.

    Meanwhile violating open meeting laws, not following the legisaltive process with roll calls, (etc.) do, in fact, run counter to the process of good government.

    As much as you might want to spin this into some political point for the right, there is none to be had.

    There is no way to compare what Walker did with what Obama did. It is laughable that you try.

  2. Patrick permalink
    June 17, 2012 10:31 PM

    I did not say Obama had broken any laws. Congress makes law on immigration, the executive is to enforce it. Why are you so upset when Walker–in your mind–circumvents “process,” but when Obama does the same you think its cool? Just because you approve on the issue doesn’t make it right.

  3. June 17, 2012 7:53 PM

    Please cite which law was broken when Obama acted? These actions are taken by all presidents, and are not in any way illegal. You may disagree with the issue involved, but there is nothing wrong per se with this act.

  4. Patrick permalink
    June 17, 2012 7:19 PM

    The President should enforce the laws, not just the laws he chooses to enforce. We are a nation of laws.

    To suggest that illegal aliens living in America deserve special treatment or should benefit because others have broken the law flies in the face of everything progressives should stand for. There are millions in Darfur, for example, who would scream that illegal aliens deny them the fair chance to come to America and follow our laws and prosper.

    Since Obama is not willing or unable to muster the leadership needed to change the law, he is simply subverting the will of the body elected to represent the American citizens.

    It is so interesting that one leader, Obama, can ignore laws and change them by imperial dictate, but you don’t give a rip. All that prattling on about the law, the constitution, and the process we have to hear here is a load of hypocritical crap, isn’t it? Typical.

  5. June 17, 2012 3:48 PM

    I agree that leadership from the white house is needed…. but it shouldn’t take 31/2 years to get it – suspiciously while the “leader” is getting hammered just before the election and is sucking up to the Hispanic vote to try to get re-elected.

    I feel sorry for the young immigrants involved, who do need some justice, but for the right reasons – not to garner votes. .

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: