Is Mitt Romney really as anti-immigrant as he sounds?


Fred Barnes suggests Mitt Romney “would be wise to move away from his harsh position” on immigration in the primaries because he “can’t afford to lose the Hispanic vote as decisively as John McCain — who won just 31% of it — did in 2008.”

“According to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn’t as anti-immigrant as he often sounded.”

E.J. Dionne: “How many other ‘private’ positions does Romney hold that we don’t know about?”




  1. To Mr. Peter Schorsch:

    The answer is emphatically, “No!” While I admire and appreciate your work herewith, this headline is misleading, the reporting is incomplete and it includes the kind of editing mistakes you rightfully criticize over at the (St. Petersburg) Times.

    Mitt Romney is not anti-immigrant though he has articulated his position on ILLEGAL immigration. To anyone trapped in the echo chamber, take the time to read Mr. Romney’s own position statement on the immigration question:

    Regarding principles, Mr. Romney clearly states that we do not grant enough visas to highly-skill job creators and innovators; laments that the law requires us to send away the great majority of the more than 300,000 foreign students who are earning advanced degrees at U.S. universities; and explains that it is too difficult for businesses to secure visas for foreign workers to make up for labor shortages and gaps in skills.

    Regarding action, Mr. Romney is proposing that we raise the caps for highly-skilled workers and he is proposing that we grant permanent residency to eligible graduates with advanced match, science and engineering. Curious positions for someone who is allegedly “anti-immigrant.”

  2. “Anti-immigrant”? Let’s allow 20 million immigrants in every year. It will boost the economy, improve our schools and make better y use our underutilized highways.
    After all, hasn’t the 1.3 million per year done wonders for the country? Let’s have more!
    How about 200 million?


− three = 3