This is a pretty big endorsement, considering that the GOP primary season is heading into South Carolina, a state with a large illegal immigrant population, and which has passed an Arizona type law
(Washington Times) Mitt Romney collected the endorsements Wednesday of the architect of Arizona’s immigration-crackdown law, marking the final step on a journey that has taken him from lukewarm support of legalization to the Republican presidential field’s most ardent opponent of amnesty.
And with Mr. Romney inching closer to wrapping up the GOP’s nomination, it sets up what would be the strongest contrast ever between the two major parties’ candidates on immigration.
“Romney stands head and shoulders above the crowd,” Kris W. Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state and the architect of the Arizona law, told The Washington Times, praising Mr. Romney for treading where other Republican candidates have refused to go. “Immigration is one of those issues that will appear to be a hot button — some elected officials who are afraid of offending anyone will avoid taking tough stands on immigration, and he took a tough stand.”
With all due respect, standing head and shoulders above this crowd is not saying much. They all have a mixed record on the subject.
- Newt has been decidedly squishy on deportations (though, he does make sense in the real world: is it truly feasible to deport the 11-20 million illegals, some of whom actually attempt to be a part of the American experience?)
- Ron Paul is against deportation and the border fence, was pro-amnesty prior to the mid-1990′s
- Perry has a mixed record, becomes inarticulate on the campaign trail, signed legislation allowing in-state tuition for illegals, and called people “heartless” for not wanting to give cheap education to illegals.
- Santorum has been pretty strong on immigration, and is probably one of the best left in the race.
- Jon Huntsman has had a mixed bag. He’s said the border fence “repulses him” and vetoed legislation which would end in-state tuition for illegals. He does want to secure the border with manpower, and is heavily in favor of using E-Verify.
Then there is Romney.
- Good: Pro-fence
- Good: Against amnesty
- Good: For increasing legal immigration
- Bad: not a big fan of deportations, would rather illegals apply for legal status
- Good: won’t let illegals applying for legal status jump to front of line
- Good: signed an executive order that would have allowed state police officers to make arrests for immigration violations
- Good: Opposed the 2007 shamnesty bill
- Good: opposes the DREAM Act
- Bad: didn’t shut down the sanctuary cities when he was Governor
- Good: wants States to be more involved in crafting legislation to deal with their own illegal aliens
- Good: Pro use of E-Verify
- Good: against all amnesty legislation
That’s actually a pretty decent record and policy stance. We’ll soon see if this crops up on the trail in South Carolina.
“He has held the line 100 percent on this amnesty stuff,” said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, which grades the candidates on the issue.
Well, not that much. NumbersUSA grades Mitt a C+. Everyone else gets some form of a D, and Ron Paul gets an F, one step up from Obama’s F-.