(The Politico) Ron Paul dropped his standard stump speech on Wednesday and aggressively courted Latino voters.

At a senior center in East Las Vegas, the Texas congressman told about 100 Hispanics that they have been unfairly made “scapegoats” for the country’s economic troubles. He said it’s “part of human nature” for newcomers to be shunned, but that prejudice toward outsiders worsens when unemployment is high. He said that illegal immigrants were being scapegoated in a manner similar to Jews in Nazi Germany because of tough economic times.

“When things go badly, individuals look for scapegoats,” he said.

“I just do not believe that barbed-wire fences or guns on our border will solve any of our problems,” he added.

I actually heard that last part on the radio during a newsbreak yesterday. And lest you think this is the Politico making things up with the Nazi reference, the same is reported in many outlets, including here and here. He also whines about requiring immigrants to carry any ID. I guess in Ron Paul’s world, I have no need to carry my drivers license, and can refuse to show ID for anything. Also, in the link in the second “here”, we learn

He also said the nation “overreacted” to the events of Sept. 11, 2001, as far as immigration goes, and that there is too much red tape for immigrants and others to contend with. He does not favor issuing national identification cards, either, he said.

Yes, there is too much red tape for legal immigration, but, this highlights yet another case where Ron is saying the US overreacted to 9/11. This all adds up to more reasons why Ron should simply go away, and there is no way he could ever be POTUS. Conservatives might hold their noses and vote for Romney, Newt, or Santorum (less so with Santorum), but they will simply avoid voting for Paul. He’s as dangerous for America as Obama is.

(Washington Times) Fighting to curry favor with Florida’s large pool of Hispanic voters, Newt Gingrich on Wednesday called for a guest-worker program for most illegal immigrants, but his campaign could not say whether those people would be on a path to citizenship – the key question in the immigration debate.

Under close questioning by Univision’s political host, Jorge Ramos, Mr. Gingrich said he would grant quick citizenship rights to illegal immigrants who join the military or to those who have been in the U.S. between 20 and 25 years. He said the rest of the estimated 11 million should be given access to a guest-worker program.

“With most of them? I would urge them to get a guest-worker permit,” he said, calling for a substantial rewrite of immigration laws that would cancel existing penalties and instead let illegal immigrants stay.

But his campaign said it was unclear whether at the end of that guest-worker period the immigrants would be allowed to stay and gain citizenship, essentially jumping the legal immigration line, or whether they would be required to return home.

On one hand, Gingrich is correct in that he previously said that it is unrealistic to deport every illegal, nor stop them fully from coming, and, yes, we could show some compassion to those who came to this country and attempted to be a part of America and do things like joining the military. It’s not like people didn’t just come to America in the past, without any sort of immigration programs and such. If someone is putting their life on the line to join the military to protect America, perhaps some accommodations could be made.

On the other hand, why pander to Hispanics who can’t vote because they are here illegally? Why pander to Hispanics who are here legally, but still can’t vote because they aren’t citizens? And a good chunk of Hispanics who are legal citizens tend to get a little ticked off when politicians want to give illegals who did it wrong a pathway to citizenship when they themselves followed the onerous and burdensome rules.

Do we want guest workers? Yes, we do. But it is a bad idea to suddenly give people who came to this country illegally guest worker visas after doing the illegal thing with no penalties. Let them leave the country and apply for a worker program that should be expanded. What Gingrich is doing is telling people who are thinking of coming to America illegally to just come on in, no problem, we’ll take care of you. He might want to rethink this line of thought.

(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-.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

(Fox News Latino) A senior member of the Obama administration said Thursday that the administration plans to change a rule to reduce the time the spouses and children of undocumented immigrants are separated from citizen relatives while they try to win legal status in the United States

Currently, undocumented immigrants must leave the country before they can ask the government to waive a three- to 10-year ban on legally coming back to the U.S. The length of the ban depends on how long they have lived in the U.S. without permission.

The official said the new rule would let children and spouses of citizens ask the government to decide on the waiver request before the undocumented immigrant heads to his or her home country to apply for a visa. The undocumented immigrants still must go home to finish the visa process to come back to the U.S., but getting the waiver ahead of time could reduce the time an undocumented immigrant is out of the country.

The waiver shift is the latest move by President Barack Obama to make changes to immigration policy without congressional action. Congressional Republicans repeatedly have criticized the administration for policy changes they describe as providing “backdoor amnesty” to undocumented immigrants.

It’s not so much Obama showing a clear lack of respect for the People’s House, ie, Congress, as it is 1) Obama attempting to create political issues with which to fight the GOP, and 2), and more importantly, the fact that Obama has never been a real leader, has no skills as a leader, and becomes petulant and therefore unwilling to do the hard work necessary to reach across the aisle and make accommodations with the opposition Party, who represent specific parts of the United States as laid out by the Constitution. Every other president has had to do this, and has worked, or at least attempted to work, with the opposition party. That’s too difficult for Emperor Obama. Funny how he keeps calling himself a “Constitutional Professor”: who’s constitution, Venezuela’s? Iran’s?

That said, if the GOP plays their cards right (sometimes a big “if”), they can use Obama’s unilateral extension of unchecked power grabs against him during the General Election, and perhaps tie it in to the Congressional Democrats. Perhaps some videos of Democrats complaining about Bush unilaterally taking on new powers juxtaposed with Obama actually doing just that.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

(Washington Times) House Republicans are moving to subpoena a list of all immigrants whom the Obama administration has flagged under its secure communities program but failed to arrest for deportation, after the Homeland Security Department missed a congressionally imposed deadline to produce the information this week.

The Obama administration failing to be transparent and provide the requested information? Shocking!

Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, said he wants the data so he can see who is among the 300,000 people the administration has deemed too low a priority to detain under new deportation guidelines. He has scheduled a meeting for Wednesday for the immigration subcommittee to vote to authorize the subpoena.

“Why would DHS want to keep this information from the committee?” Mr. Smith will say at the meeting, according to an advance copy of his statement. “If there is nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they provide Congress with these documents? Are administration officials concerned that the requested information will show that illegal and criminal immigrants intentionally released by ICE have gone on to commit more crimes?”

The very fact that an Executive Office department is failing to deport people who are in the United States against the law should, really, be enough to remove those in charge, which, yes, includes Mr. Obama. They are charged with upholding the Constitution and laws of the USA. The oath of office does not give them latitude to pick and choose which laws they will uphold.

While the Homeland Security Department has set records for total deportations, it has shifted its emphasis away from rank-and-file illegal immigrants and toward those with serious criminal records or repeat immigration-law violators. Of the nearly 400,000 people deported in fiscal year 2011, 216,000 had criminal records.

As a result of the shift, though, illegal immigrants who are working or going to school in the U.S. and not running afoul of other criminal laws are under less of a threat of deportation.

You do, in fact, have to give Obama credit for increasing the deportation rates, and, yes, going after the companies that hire them. All very quietly done, so as not to annoy his open borders base. But, illegal is illegal: if Los Federales know where an illegal is, that person should be deported, criminal record or no criminal record. They broke the law.

(The Politico) Illegal immigrants in Alabama are signing documents allowing others to care for their children if the parents are arrested or deported, The Associated Press reports.

Many parents are responding to the state’s tough new immigration law by seeking legal power of attorney papers so friends and other acquaintances can care for their children if they are kicked out of the country.

“People are scared, and they want to be sure their kids are safe if something happens to them,” said Jazmin Rivera, a social worker at the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama who helps Spanish-speaking immigrants with paperwork.

Cristian Gonzalez, a 28-year-old living illegally in the state, told the AP she has informally asked the manager of the rental property where she lives to care for her 10-year-old daughter, who is a U.S. citizen, if she and her husband are arrested.

So, let me get this straight: multiple people have had contact with people who are breaking US law, and failed to report them to the appropriate authorities? Hmm, that makes them accessories to the crime.

State Sen. Scott Beason, who sponsored the law, suggested that the stories of parents signing documents to arrange for care for their children are designed to “pull on heart strings” and make people sympathetic to illegal immigrants.

The illegals could take them back to their place of origin. Looks like the Alabama illegals law is working.

(MSNBC) “We have, for decades, had a federal government that has absolutely failed in its constitutional duty to defend our border,” Perry said.

“I’m a governor. I don’t have the pleasure of standing on the stage and criticizing. I have to deal with these issues,” he later added.

Perry continued, “In 2001, we had this choice: Are we going to kick these children over to the curb and say you cannot have access to college? Because the fact of the matter is there’s no way they could pay the out-of-state tuition. And are we going to have them on the government dole over here because they’re not educated? Or are we going to have them in our institutions of higher learning, paying in state tuition, pursuing citizenship?

“So in Texas, we made the decision that it was in our best interest as a state — economically and otherwise — to have those young people in our institutions of higher learning becoming educated to be part of our skilled workforce.”

So, you provided illegal aliens with a taxpayer subsidized higher education, giving them the means to displace legal American citizens from jobs? Um, but, wait, said illegals with a taxpayer subsidized higher education cannot legally work in the United States, so, you’ve essentially provided them with a taxpayer subsidized higher education for no reason?

But, yes, you do “kick them to the curb”, preferably the curb in the country they came from.

As Allahpundit points out: Really? There are no jobs for illegals anywhere in Texas to earn tuition money? I was under the impression that there are quite a lot of jobs available to them, especially since Perry opposes e-Verify.

(Fox News) After suing Arizona and Alabama over their strict immigration laws, the Obama administration is seriously weighing whether to legally challenge similar measures in four other states.

“To the extent we find state laws that interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration law, we are prepared to bring suit,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa. “The department is currently reviewing immigration-related laws that were passed in Utah, Indiana, Georgia and South Carolina.”

“In reviewing these, the department is proceeding consistently with the process followed and the legal principles established in United States v. Arizona,” she said. “Based on that review and applying those principles, the United States will decide whether and when to bring suit challenging particular state laws.”

Wonderful. People are sick and tired of the federal government failing to enforce the laws of the land in respect to illegal aliens, which includes those who have overstayed their visas, not just sneaking into the country from nations all over the world, yet, Team Obama plans to bring more suits. This may play well with his unhinged base (which doesn’t realize that the illegals are taking their jobs), but their is not data showing that this increases the likelyhood that US citizens of Hispanic descent will vote Democrat

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees federal immigration policy, criticized the administration’s move.

“The administration should be working with states, not against them, to enforce our immigration laws,” he said. “This latest attempt to challenge a state’s efforts to enforce the rule of law, while turning a blind eye to cities and states that knowingly harbor illegal immigrants through sanctuary policies, is undermining the very same rule of law that our country was built on.”

Yeah, but in Democrat World, the Law is politics, and can be ignored for potential votes.

(Newsmax) Presidential candidate Rick Perry on Wednesday apologized for saying that anyone who opposed giving tuition breaks to the children of illegal immigrants “did not have a heart.”

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, the Texas governor said he had made a poor choice of words during the Sept. 22 presidential debate, but he stood by his view that the decision in his state to extend tuition breaks was the right one.

“I was probably a bit over-passionate by using that word and it was inappropriate,” Perry admitted. “In Texas in 2001 we had 181 members of the legislature – only four voted against this piece of legislation – because it wasn’t about immigration it was about education.”

So, he “sorry” for calling all you folks who think that people who come to this country illegally should be deported, regardless of age, and shouldn’t have public money spent on them, shouldn’t be given easy breaks for in-state tuition, and shouldn’t take up spaces in colleges that could be filled by, you know, American citizens, “heartless”. But, he still thinks he’s right and you’re wrong, it’s just that he used the wrong word to describe you heartless SOBs.

The rest of the interview was pretty good, you can read it and watch the video over at Newsmax, but, people will still remember the “heartless” comment. Call me crazy, but, Perry pulled a Democrat gaffe, which is when a Democrat tells the truth and says what they really think. And you can expect Perry’s GOP opponents to hammer him during the next few debates for that comment, and put him on the spot regarding his belief that we should educate the kids of illegals, and give them a pathway to citizenship. Said pathway always seems to mean that we won’t deport the parents, because that would be “mean”, and separate the kids from their parents.

Perry wasn’t really sorry, except for getting caught saying what he really thinks.

Meanwhile, a federal judge upheld key parts of the Alabama illegal immigration law, including the provision to check the immigration status of students.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU. Please sign the drill now petition.

Rick Perry went out on a limb Thursday by refusing to back off his support as Texas governor for granting in-state tuition to some of the children of illegal immigrants, and painting critics of the law as heartless — remarks that landed him in the crosshairs of his GOP rivals.

The three-term Texas governor said he still supports the program “greatly” and that the Lone Star State needs “to be educating these children because otherwise they’ll “become a drag on society.”

“If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Mr. Perry said.

I guess I’m heartless. Of course, this isn’t about heart: it’s about The Law. The intention of the Founders, the fuddy duddy old powder wig wearing men of yesteryear, was to create a nation of Law, not a nation of Men. And as soon as we start thinking strictly with our heart strings, reason and law go out the window.

Sure, the kids of illegals aren’t at fault for being brought to the United States by their law breaking parents. That doesn’t mean we are responsible for educating them, and especially not giving them in-state tuition. In most states, including Texas, it is damned hard to get in-state tuition of you came from another state. A college kid would need to change their residence and pay for the college all on their own without help from someone outside the state in order to be even considered for in-state tuition (which is subsidized by the taxpayer).

The stance also put Mr. Perry at odds with a chunk of the audience, which booed, and opened him up to attacks from the Republican field, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who said the law carries an annual price tag of $22,000 per student and acts as a magnet for illegal immigrants.

“If you’re a United States citizen from any one of the other 49 states, you have to pay $100,000 more,” Mr. Romney said, alluding to the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition at the University of Texas over four years. “That doesn’t make sense to me. That kind of magnet draws people into this country to get that education, to get the $100,000 break. It makes no sense.”

And that kind of stance concerns me in that Perry could be in favor of passing some sort of DREAM Act legislation, giving the children of illegals a quick pathway to citizenship while subsidizing their lives. And a DREAM Act would also mean that we’d use our hearts to say “well, the kid is trying to be a citizen: it’d be mean to deport their families.” It’s a dangerous road which uses emotion over law, and changes/creates law with emotion.

Michelle Malkin says this wasn’t even Perry’s worst moment in the debate.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.