Quote of the Day: After Initial Fumble On SCOTUS Arizona Immigration Law Ruling Romney Begins Moving Towards Center On Immigration Reform
Our political Quote of the Day comes from First Read which notes that after an initial fumble, presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney has begun to shift on immigration reform in light of the Supreme Court’s slap-down of Arizona’s immigration law, which Romney heartily endorsed during the primaries.
*** Mitt be (not so) nimble, Mitt be (not so) quick: If there is a constant criticism about Mitt Romney and his campaign from both the left and right, it’s that they’re not nimble — especially when it comes to dealing with issues they’d prefer to ignore. And yesterday was a perfect example of this. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona’s immigration law shouldn’t have been a surprise and even though Romney was holding a fundraiser in Arizona (of all places!!!), it took the candidate and campaign hours to finally tell the public what they thought of the decision. First came a press release that didn’t signal if Romney agreed with the decision (and which parts). Then came a seven-minute press scrum in which a Romney press secretary refused to comment on the merits of the SCOTUS decision. And finally came Romney’s remarks at the Arizona fundraiser in which he appeared to disagree with the thrust of the ruling. “I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less,” he said, per NBC’s Garrett Haake. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Much of a president’s job is crisis management, and the only way to succeed is being nimble. That Team Romney seems to struggle with this aspect of the job is a potential warning sign for a challenger against an incumbent president.
*** Romney transforms into George W. Bush on immigration? But here is one place where Romney HAS BEEN nimble… Also at that Arizona fundraiser, Romney said — for the first time — that he would tackle immigration reform in his first year as president. “In my first year, I will make sure we actually do take on immigration; we secure our border; we make sure that we grow legal immigration in a way that provides people here with skill and expertise that we want,” he stated. That’s a remarkable transformation for a candidate who has used illegal immigration as a weapon against John McCain (in 2007-2008) and Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich (in 2011-2012). The only recent comparison that comes to mind is when then-candidate Obama used free trade (and NAFTA) as a weapon against Hillary Clinton in the primaries and then has signed free-trade treaties as president.
And so the inching towards the center begins.
Share This
“we secure our border; we make sure that we grow legal immigration in a way that provides people here with skill and expertise that we want”
That’s not a shift to the center. That’s the conservative position. What am I missing here?
Securing the border was always part of the package. Ronald Reagan’s immigration reform (which I covered as part of my job on the San Diego Union) was supposed to secure the borders, offer a path for those already here and crack down on employers. They tried the first, did the second and never did the third. But any solution has the two components. The problem is that some conservatives say focus first and only on the borders and later get to the rest of it and many don’t believe they would get to the second part but only want the first part. Romney has moderated (oops that word!) his position since the primaries, but given his record on tossing away past positions the question is: if he gets in will he revert to the primary position Romney, the Massachusetts Romney or the 2012 general election campaign Romney? But this is a shift, at least verbally. Now the question is what direction will he move in from here? He’ll have to be more specific and just having his press aides repeat one sentence over and over reframed is going to be toxic with him with Latino voters.
With every passing year and every passing decision by SCOTUS, it is becoming much more apparent that our founders did not foresee the wide interpretation of their words in future decisions. No where in the constitution does the word “immigrant” or “immigration” appear that would preclude a state from enforcing laws, either federal or state. Article 1, section 8 only mentions immigrants in one short statement and that is the fourth sentence of that section:
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
When the framers of the constitution wrote that document, that stated congress would establish uniform rules for naturalization. Now SCOTUS in different decisions have interpreted those words to mean enforcement of laws that the federal government refuses to enforce. One has to wonder if Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the rest would agree that coming into America without following the rules of naturalization is within the laws of the country.
And one has to wonder how the millions on the waiting list from countries other than those of hispanic origin view America as the land of opportunity when they are being held back due to following immigration laws. Would your ancestors been able to come to America had the same environment existed then that exist now. I doubt mine from Sweden would have qualified.
As for Romney and any others with his point of view, anyone today with a moderate point of view that accepts compromise and moderation in laws is a flop flopper, has no back bone and should never be in a position of leadership. Only those with positions that a carved in stone should ever be elected to congress or the presidency.
Joe I’m sorry but I’m still not seeing it. He describes the “immigration reform” he refers to like so: “we secure our border; we make sure that we grow legal immigration in a way that provides people here with skill and expertise that we want.” He says nothing about a path for those already here, at least in the quoted part (I don’t know if the original text is available anywhere).
Both of those things (securing our border and strengthening our legal immigration system) are things he talked about during the primary. See, for example: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/17/transcript-fox-news-channel-wall-street-journal-debate-in-south-carolina/
Romney: “Look, I want people to know I love legal immigration. Almost all of us in this room are descendants of immigrants or are immigrants ourselves. Our nation is stronger and more vibrant by virtue of a strong legal immigration system.
But to protect our legal immigration system we have got to protect our borders and stop the flood of illegal immigration and I will not do anything that opens up another wave of illegal immigration.”
Romney has changed positions on some issues, and deserves the “flip-flopper” label in some respects, but I also think the label is being applied inappropriately in many contexts. I realize that you are not applying that label here, but this doesn’t even represent a shift of any sort. Not even a shift of emphasis. It’s substantively the exact same thing that he said before.
Of course Mitt can be expected to make any “adjustments” necessary to gain as many votes as possible, regardless of how much flip-flopping and negative campaigning is involved. I’m sure we haven’t seen the worst of it yet by any stretch.