From NumbersUSA:
"Gov. Romney sent a powerful positive message to unemployed American workers in construction, service and manufacturing by refusing to budge from his long-term insistence on strong enforcement to get illegal immigrants out of U.S. jobs. He did so in the face of a tough audience question about "productive" illegal immigrants and in response to attacks by Pres. Obama about Romney's support for "self-deportation." Romney noted two primary ways that a country can enforce its immigration rules and said he rejects the one that involves mass roundups and mass deportations. Instead, he said, he would take away the jobs and benefits magnets and allow most illegal immigrants to come to their own conclusion on moving back to their home countries. Obama, unfortunately, indicated that he opposes both enforcement options, except for deporting criminals who are "hurting the community." Although Obama touted success in controlling illegal border crossings, he promised nothing to even discourage millions of tourists and other visitors from over-staying their visas and competing against Americans for jobs. Obama inaccurately described an Arizona law as authorizing police to stop people for looking like they might be illegal immigrants and he accused Romney of saying that should be a model for the nation. Romney disavowed any such position -- something independent fact-checkers have been confirming for months -- but said he does believe the model for the nation is the Arizona law that requires all employers to use E-Verify, a federal system that ensures that jobs go to Americans and legal immigrants.
"Less than 5% of the seven million illegal immigrant workers are in agriculture. Most are less-educated and in construction, manufacturing, service and transportation occupations. The majority of the 20 million Americans who can't find a full-time job are also less-educated and looking for jobs in those same occupations. NumbersUSA does not endorse candidates, but on the issue of giving Americans priority over illegal immigrants for U.S. jobs, I found Romney's debate comments to be very encouraging and Obama's to be dismaying. However, in their comments about legal immigration, both candidates failed to show any understanding that it can be a source of unfair competition to American workers."
"Please. The last poster, George, is so off base it's not funny. The workers that illegal immigration is most unfair to are the ones who are seeking the same lower-requirement jobs as the immigrants take. That's why Gov. Romney's position on making it difficult for employers to continue to employ unlawfully-present foreign nationals is the right one."
Obviously, you have no clue who I am targeting. Not Romney, not Obama...I am targeting Numbers USA. When an American, especially a white American complains about a skilled immigrant competing for "his" or "her" job, it is a sense of entitlement and white privilege unless he or she is better qualified and has a higher GPA and SAT score than the foreign student or prospective foreign student. All Numbers USA wants to do is reinforce this privilege and help mediocre Americans like Abigail Fisher. By the same argument that Fisher is making, whiy should a full fee paying student from Asia be denied admission if his or her SAT score is 1500 vs 1100 for Fisher? Why should a job go to an American with a GPA of 3/4 when the foreign student has a GPA of 4/4? Because he or she is a US citizen or even worse because he or she is a white American? That is privilege or white privilege. Numbers USA believes that a white or any other American with a 3/4 GPA or even a 2.5/4 GPA should be given a job over someone with a 4/4 GPA. That is also what Grassley, Durbin and Sanders believe. And that is a sense of entitlement and a sense of privilege.
Posted by: George Chell | October 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM
"You have to ask yourself, do we want another four years of the head of the executive branch refusing to work with the legislative branch, or do we want someone with a proven history of being able to do so?"
Really!! I think the Senate minority leader made it clear on the very first day that his objective was to make the sitting president as one term president. It is funny when the party of no talks about refusing cooperation.
Posted by: DhKh | October 17, 2012 at 07:27 PM
You must have missed the "NumbersUSA does not endorse candidates" part.
"Although Obama touted success in controlling illegal border crossings, he promised nothing to even discourage millions of tourists and other visitors from over-staying their visas and competing against Americans for jobs."
That's a winning argument but it goes further: Obama encourages and rewards prospective illegal entrants and residers. It's not just neglect; he actively undermines the system.
Posted by: Jack | October 17, 2012 at 05:39 PM
Please. The last poster, George, is so off base it's not funny. The workers that illegal immigration is most unfair to are the ones who are seeking the same lower-requirement jobs as the immigrants take. That's why Gov. Romney's position on making it difficult for employers to continue to employ unlawfully-present foreign nationals is the right one.
0bama does not want to do anything about immigration, or he would have done so, as he had promised he would, pre-election 2008, during the first two years -- when he had clear majorities in Congress. Instead he forced an unwanted healthcare bill on the country, and managed to get rid of his super majority in the process due to the widespread mis-content, and outright anger, on the part of many people who heretofore had not been involved or outspoken about politics.
I think that had 0bama wanted to work with both sides -- or even his own side, he could have, on this issue and others too. But 0bama instead chose not to, and in fact his own party in the Senate has failed to even put his budgets up for a vote.
Romney has a clear history of being able to work with both sides of the aisle, witness his ability to work with Democrat super-majorities in the General Court (a/k/a legislature) in Massachusetts. The ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the General Court back then were far higher than 0bama had in Congress in 2008-10. Romney knew the Democrat lawmakers wanted a health care bill, and he was opposed to it, being a free-market, free-enterprise Republican. But he also knew the political realities in Massachusetts. Had he vetoed the Massachusetts healthcare bill, the Democrat support for it was so strong he would have been over-ridden. Unlike 0bama, Romney decided to work with the lawmakers, and was able to get provisions struck, and other provisions inserted in the legislation, that protected the taxpayers and patients in the Commonwealth.
You have to ask yourself, do we want another four years of the head of the executive branch refusing to work with the legislative branch, or do we want someone with a proven history of being able to do so?
Vote Romney/Ryan on Nov. 6.
Posted by: Mario Kitty | October 17, 2012 at 01:36 PM
What about Romney's promise to staple green cards with diplomas for STEM graduates. Do NumbersUSA endorse that too? Just curious.
Posted by: DhKh | October 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Whether for or against, there must be one equal policy that applies to all immigrants.The current administration however wants to portray in news media that it supports immigration, while clearly harassing legal immigrants with overzealous Neufeld memos to declining visas at consulates and denying ordinary visitor visas for dependents of legal permanent residents, all the while cherry picking some cases for deferred approvals with employment authorizations. This clear tatic is nothing but pandering for votes with a carrot stick since once elected, blame game to congress can start. Please vote for the actions, not words or cheap vote tricks!
Posted by: Legally Losing Immigrant | October 17, 2012 at 08:41 AM
"However, in their comments about legal immigration, both candidates failed to show any understanding that it can be a source of unfair competition to American workers.""
Yes, to provide a sense of entitlement, mostly white entitlement..."unfair competition"...as Abigail Fisher talks about unfair competition from less qualified minorities as I had suggested earlier. And yes, Obama should run these ads in those states plus Virginia.
Posted by: George Chell | October 17, 2012 at 08:22 AM
This should be part of an Obama Ad in Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.
Posted by: Another Voice | October 17, 2012 at 07:24 AM