The Candidates
From Indiana’s Journal and Courier:
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney proposed Thursday to offer foreign students attending U.S. colleges and universities the chance to remain legally in the country upon graduation.
The former Massachusetts governor, who spoke at an invitation-only luncheon in southwest Iowa, has criticized Democrats as well as Republican rivals for their views on immigration reform.
“Our immigration laws are upside down,” Romney said. “It makes no sense at all that we have concrete borders with people who have skills and education, but we’re wide open to people who have neither.”
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
LOVE IT.
If I had a penny for every student I knew with a doctorate and VISA headaches…these are the world’s best and brightest, and we’re making them jump through years of hoops and red tape.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
[...] post by Jason and software by Elliott [...]
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Not to mention the cost savings to companies who want to hire these post-doctoral candidates. Anyone have any idea how much it hurts a small bio-tech startup to pay through the nose for its employees’ VISA status?
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Mitt is the man!
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Just another reason why I support Mitt. This guy is smart, innovative, and articulate.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Fantastic idea. I’d expand it to anyone holding a legitimate college degree from any country.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
This is an important issue. The current immigration system discourages students who have established roots from staying in the US and contributing to it. Instead many will return home and the US won’t receive the benefit of their education.
Meanwhile we are subsidizing every illegal unskilled immigrant to the tune of $15,000 per year through government expenditure. That contributes a lot to the trillions of dollars in US debt (interest rate pressure).
The influx of unskilled labor is discouraging innovation as it is cheaper to hire an illegal immigrant (serf) than automate repetitive processes in agriculture/industry/service sector. We are falling behind because we are getting rid of the incentive for American businesses to innovate.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
I appreciate the thought, but what’s the idea here? What is he proposing?
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
This is sort of off-topic, but I can’t seem to find the recent thread where someone said that Romney was simply unelectable, so I’m going to respond to it here. I’ve been digging around in Lexis Nexus a bit, and I’ve basically discovered the general contours of Romney’s 2002 race. One point in particular that I think absolutely routs the notion that Romney is unelectable, is the response of voters to the last 2002 Massachusetts debate. Some key quotes from a Herald article on the subject “Nearly 44 percent of likely voters said they watched the debate. Among that group, Romney holds a 7-point lead over O’Brien, while voters who didn’t see the televised clash back O’Brien by a 5-point margin.” And then most illuminating this: “Among independent voters who viewed the debate, Romney holds a whopping 63-19 percent lead. Romney’s lead among independent voters who said they didn’t watch the debate is at 10 points, the same level as five days ago.” That’s a 34 point swing. 34 points. In one night. There are barely words to describe the depth of that shift. Get Romney before the American people, against a Democratic opponent, and you’ll be weeping with joy.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Matt, I hope you’re right, in the sad circumstance Rudy loses the nomination to him.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 am
Its a bit misleading to use stats from his 2002 Gov.’s debate to try and extrapolate on Romney’s overall electability in the race for the GOP nomination. In his run for Governor in 2002, especially in the debate, Romney proclaimed himself to be a “pro-choice” candidate. He also issued leaflets saying that “all citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation.”
Obviously, Romney has flipped on both issues since then and obviously numbers from 2002 wont reflect that. Almost immidiately his favorables with independents will go down.
“Get Romney before the American people, against a Democratic opponent, and you’ll be weeping with
joy.”
In a televised debate, Hillary CLinton would eat Romney’s lunch. Look at it now, whenever Romney attacks Clinton on Iran (bad idea by the way when you are 3rd in the polls) she fires back at him, and addresses him as a flip-flopper. It will be 2004 all over again, but carried out to the 10th degree by the Clinton political machine.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:41 am
Wrong. It ain’t 2004. Calling Romney a flip-flopper will only work during the primary. Changing your mind about abortion is NOT the same as being indecisive about the war. Think about it. When Romney has the nomination, he will have the pro-life vote locked up. If Clinton raises questions about Romney’s past position on abortion during the general election, she can start kissing her moderate pro-choice votes goodbye. Its brilliant. Romney is a genius.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:25 am
Nathan,
He is proposing this:
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 am
Absolutely ridiculous Geoff. Everyone in Massachusetts knew Romney’s positions before that final debate. These leaflets he handed out, weren’t distributed during the debate. Those numbers are pure pre-post debate. Independents went into the debate favoring him by 10 points, they left it favoring him by 44. It had nothing to do with any of those factors you mentioned. And Shannon O’Brien is a fine debater. Have you ever seen Hillary debate? Have you ever seen her speak extemporaneously at all? She’s a disaster. I mean, is it even possible to take someone serioujsly who suggests that Hillary would “eat Romney’s lunch” in a debate? Are you even attempting to have a thoughtful discussion here?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 am
Jason, Murphy, cwpete, Matt, etc.
How about this: http://mainstreamiowan.blogspot.com/2007/03/enough-of-multiple-choice-meandering.html
Its ok for you Romney supporters to bash Giuliani recently for his support in the past for public funds for abortion for poor women, but ITS OK FOR ROMNEY…..your fake, flip-flopping, phony, pandering, pretty-boy politician.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 am
sorry… I get carried away sometimes (as you already know)
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
KT,
I think you’re completely missing the substance of the abortion discussion, and getting a tad emotional too.
Romney used to be pro-choice. He is now pro-life.
Giuliani used to be pro-choice. He is still pro-choice.
Do you see the difference? If Romney were running as a pro-choice candidate, I would bash him quite equally.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
KT,
Romney *never* supported public funding of abortions as Giuliani once did. Forcing me to pay for someone else’s abortions is abortion at a whole new level.
This is old news. There is nothing new here. If it is not possible for Mitt to convert to the pro-choice side, how then could it be possible for Rudy to flop on public funding of abortions? Why is it that some Giuliani supporters can be forgiving of his moving to the right on certain abortion issues while at the same time throwing Mitt under the buss for it?
If it is OK for Rudy supports to be cool with the six marriages between the Giuliani’s, why would they care so much about Mitt converting to the right on abortion? Does he need more wives to have more credibility?
Hmn.. Maybe I need to trade up my “starter wife” of 10 years & two kids for a younger wife with a larger breast size. I could do that again in another 10 years! Then I’d make a good politician for the Republican party of “family values!”
Man, what hypocrites we can be!
As you can see KT, I can get carried away also..
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Sorry guys, but he DID previously support public-funded abortion and now criticizes Giuliani for the same thing. it goes to show how Romney, very steadily and plottingly, changed his positions and morphed into this Reagan-like conservative as he gradually prepared to run for president and then finally did. The guy has a major image problem and its his own doing..
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Wrong KT. Yet another distortion of Romney’s position. Here are some quotes on the issue. “I am not in favor of government funding of abortion. I don’t think government should either promote or prevent abortion.” - at his campaign kickoff (Feb. 3, 1994, Globe).
“I believe even among poor Americans they can get the money together to have the procedure.” - stating his position that charitable organizations and personal savings, not federal funds, could be used to pay for abortions (May 27, 1994, Globe).
Then in 2002, Romney pledged to maintain the states abortion laws. His supposed “support” for public funding for abortion was phrased in this manner: “This state made that decision. This state does provide Medicaid funding for abortions, and that’s something which I would keep in place.” It’s a substanceless statement which is perfectly consistent with his previously expressed position and his pledge to have a moratorium on abortion laws. Try again.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:
Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES
Do you support “state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women”? YES
In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after pill.” Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES
Try again Matt.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Okay, thanks Jason. I think that this is a sound idea, but there are probably some in the party that might view it as a national security threat.
March 24th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Geoff,
Unless my understanding of the English language is quite flawed, Romney’s “support” of abortion funding was rather clearly explained by both himself and by Matt. Romney ran on a pledge to not fight or promote abortion nad his “support” of state funding was nothing more than him keeping his word.