Romney Won’t Revoke Temporary Visas For Young Illegal Immigrants

October 2, 2012

Comments

Mitt Romney has criticized President Obama’s decision to grant temporary visa’s for some classes of younger illegal immigrants, but he told The Denver Post yesterday that he would not revoke the visas granted if he became President:

(CNN) - Young illegal immigrants offered a two year deferral from deportation under President Barack Obama will be allowed to remain in the country if Mitt Romney is elected president, the GOP nominee said in an interview published Tuesday.

Previously, Romney had not specified how he would handle the estimated 1.7 million people who could qualify for the new rules, which went into effect in August.

“The people who have received the special visa that the president has put in place, which is a two-year visa, should expect that the visa would continue to be valid,” Romney said in the interview. “I’m not going to take something that they’ve purchased. Before those visas have expired, we will have the full immigration-reform plan that I’ve proposed.”

To be honest I’m not even sure Romney would have the authority to revoke visas that are already granted. He could end the program, but that would seem to be about it. As for his “immigration reform plan,” as with much else I’m waiting to see the details.

9 responses to “Romney Won’t Revoke Temporary Visas For Young Illegal Immigrants”

john personna

October 2, 2012 at 9:42 am

This is getting to be a textbook “how not to run a campaign.”
Fiona

October 2, 2012 at 9:52 am

“I’m not going to take something that they’ve purchased.”

This phrase strikes me as odd. I didn’t realize folks were buying these visas.

You can’t really say Mitt’s flip flopped on this one. He’s just refused to answer one way or another. I guess he decided it was worth riling his base this once for a chance at the center.
C. Clavin

October 2, 2012 at 9:55 am

Of course what he told the Denver Post and what he says behind closed doors may very well be two different things…as we have seen.
Tsar Nicholas

October 2, 2012 at 9:59 am

You can’t unspill a glass of spilled milk. Romney’s smart enough to know that.

As for the “details” of Romney’s immigration plan, are they actually necessary and appropriate? Is is politically realistic to provide them? Whatever the details would be the liberal media from one flank and the xenophobic wing of the GOP from the other flank both would nitpick and browbeat them to death. Heads they’d win, tails Romney would lose.

The overall outline has been known for months. Basically it’s the broad Chamber of Commerce plan but minus the guest worker program for illegals, plus a path to a green card and eventual citizenship for young illegals who serve in the military, plus an e-verify system. Most of it is good. Some of it is bad. One item — not granting amnesty for existing illegal workers — pretty much makes the whole thing a fairy tale, however. A little of it is indifferent. Romney also says he opposes in-state tuition for illegals, but whether he’d actually have the cojones to push to preempt state laws to the contrary is doubtful and politically speaking would in any event be muy loco.

Of course if the media-Democrat complex gets its way the only relevance Romney will have concerning immigration is as the occasional talking head pundit or op-ed author.
David

October 2, 2012 at 10:06 am

It pretty much fits every thing else he says he wants to do. He has plans, but won’t tell us what they are until he is elected.
john personna

October 2, 2012 at 10:09 am

@Tsar Nicholas:

As for the “details” of Romney’s immigration plan, are they actually necessary and appropriate? Is is politically realistic to provide them? Whatever the details would be the liberal media from one flank and the xenophobic wing of the GOP from the other flank both would nitpick and browbeat them to death. Heads they’d win, tails Romney would lose.

The beautiful thing about this paragraph is that it sums up the tragedy of the whole campaign.

Substitute “immigration” for “economy” or “foreign policy” or anything you want. When you are running against an incumbent you are running against an established record. People understand it, and don’t need “details.” On the other hand, when you wish to diverge from the status quo, to change course, you kind of need to say how. You need to say where you are going. “Some other course” isn’t really something voters are going to choose. It is Curtain Number 2.

Which would you rather have, the President you know, or Curtain Number 2?
john personna

October 2, 2012 at 10:09 am

(I called “specifics” the joke-word of Romney2012. “Details” works just as well.)
MBunge

October 2, 2012 at 11:24 am

@Tsar Nicholas: “The overall outline has been known for months.”

I’ve come up with an overall outline for how to finagle a threesome with Christina Hendricks and Connie Britton. The details, however, are proving to be a bit trickier.

Mike
al-Ameda

October 2, 2012 at 10:46 pm

Not to worry, he’ll be backtracking on that statement soon enough.