I have been for anyone who walks the walk on stopping illegal immigration. According to wikipedia Mitt Romney made a deal with ICE "that would have allowed Massachusetts State Police troopers to arrest and seek deportation of suspected illegal immigrants they encounter over the course of their normal duties." And vetoed in-state tuition for illegals.

Ron Paul has made some bold and great pledges. He has said that he would end birthright citizenship and welfare for illegals. I believe he would quickly secure the border. I think he is serious about ending and reversing illegal immigration, though - as digger pointed out - also concerned about extending government.

The problem now is that Paul will not win. If Paul's vote is counted as anti-immigrant - a big plank for him - then his vote might have gone to Romney in New Hampshire. Strategically, I think, if we want an anti-Amnesty nominee we have to ask Paul to get out and endorse Romney. He has brought up what real the real conservative views are; he has mentioned that were previously against nation building and big spending. He has done a great service. It is unlikely that Paul would ever - due to Iraq and healthcare - endorse Romney. But, we now need him to be practical and bow out so that we can have a hope of getting an anti-immigration nominee.

What cha'll think?

www.culturism.us

The problem I have with Romney is that his actions against illegal immigration came at the end of his term. He signed local enforcement legislation a few weeks before leaving office knowing full well his predecessor would repeal them. It smacks to me of disingenuous action. If he were truly concerned, wouldn't he have put forth this stuff at the beginning of his term as governor?

so do you wont to send the mexicans home or what, we dont need a wall we need more troops on the border to stop them comeing in to are country

Nobody has said anything about "sending the Mexican's home". There are plenty of law abiding legal residents and American citizens of Mexican decent here. This is entirely about illegal aliens from any country.

Distorting it by making it about people of one race is false and is what the illegal alien supporters would have you believe.

We have laws in this country and limits on immigration because it needs to be orderly and done in a way that allows our infrastructure to absorb the new influx of people.

Destroying the health care, welfare, education and other systems we have in place - and driving down wages of people - by allowing a massive influx of those coming here illegally is simply unacceptable and impacts all of the people of this country that are already here legally.

Mexico is brought up again and again - by those on both sides of the debate - simply because statistically, by a huge margin, the current wave of illegal aliens are coming here from Mexico.

This has nothing to do with race however. Mexican does not equal illegal.

This has nothing to do with race however. Mexican does not equal illegal.

Mexican not illegal!

I believe he would quickly secure the border.

I don't think Romney can be trusted to do anything he says. He is a politician who will say and do anything to get elected. When pushed he capitulates or mitigates which would mean amnesty, cracking down on employers, another costly useless government program that produces nothing and accomplishes nothing at great cost. And since this issue seems to be controlled by the courts anyway such as the courts requirement to give illegals medical care, education and other benefits even when states like California vote to eliminate benefits, Romney's views mean nothing because he would appoint mitigated judges who make the same insane decisions. Newt's the same. At least Paul doesn't spend a lot of useless money to accomplish nothing.