JANESVILLE, Wis. — Randy Braden doesn’t have a problem with President Obama’s decision to effectively stop trying to deport many children of illegal immigrants, but he does have a problem with the way he went about it.
The 60-year-old retired agriculture worker from nearby Milton is one of a number of people who turned out Monday for Mitt Romney’s “Every Town Counts” bus trip through small towns and cities that expressed a willingness to cut this group of illegal immigrants some slack — a sharp departure from the past when presidential candidates were given little wiggle room on the issue.
“It probably is the right thing to do; however, like a lot of things, it is a short-term fix,” Mr. Braden said, alluding to Mr. Obama’s announcement Friday that the Department of Justice would stop deporting some young adults who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. “If he was really serious about illegal immigration and reform, he should have been doing that the first two years in office” when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
The muted reaction on the ground — and Mr. Romney’s carefully modulated response over the weekend to Mr. Obama’s surprise order — could signal an unexpected shift in what has been one of the country’s thorniest political issues, a shift that comes as the ranks of illegal immigrants in the country have stalled for the first time in years.
While Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, faced some uncomfortable moments on CBS‘ “Face the Nation” as he declined to take a firm stand on Mr. Obama’s order, he also avoided handing Democrats an opening to attack him and undermine his standing with Hispanic voters or with hard-liners in his own party on border security.
“Given that the issue of what to do with young illegals divides Republicans, the response he gave was the only one he could have given,” GOP strategist Trevor Francis said. “It was effective, given the constrictions involved, because it allows him to expand his position on immigration as the campaign unfolds.”
After Mr. Romney staked out a strong position on illegal immigration in the early stages of the GOP primary contest, many GOP operatives and interest groups seemed relieved that Mr. Romney did not rise to the president’s bait in attacking the new immigration policy.
“Only time will tell if [the order] was a shrewd move or not,” said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has backed tough policies on controlling immigration. “It could cost more swing states than boost base votes for Obama.”
An analysis last week by the Pew Hispanic Center estimate that as many as 1.4 million children and young adults now in the country illegally could benefit from Mr. Obama’s order, including about 700,000 illegal immigrants ages 18 to 30.
In past years, some Republicans have supported Democratic efforts to create some sort of legal status for certain illegal immigrants, but it was a GOP-led filibuster that blocked a broadly written version of the so-called “Dream Act” in the 2010 lame-duck session of Congress. GOP strategists recognize that Mr. Romney must improve his standing with Hispanic voters — one of the fastest-growing voting blocs and one that could be decisive to several key swing states — to have a chance in November.
Mr. Obama’s Friday announcement has hung over Mr. Romney’s six-state bus trip, putting the former Massachusetts governor in the complicated position of trying to woo conservatives who support an aggressive anti-illegal-immigrant stance while trying to narrow the president’s significant lead among Hispanic voters.
There are a few signs, though, that Mr. Romney, who mentioned the president’s immigration order — briefly — for the first time on the stump late Monday, might have wiggle room on the issue, at least with some Rust Belt voters.
Diana Robinson, a “60-plus” retiree from Troy, Ohio, said she is fine with the president’s proposal and made a point of saying, “I don’t hate immigrants.”
But she also thought that if Mr. Obama were sincere about confronting the issue, he would have taken action during his first two years in office when Democrats controlled all the levers of power in Washington. “So I think it is politically motivated, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with it,” she said.View Entire Story
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Chief political writer Ralph Z. Hallow served on the Chicago Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Washington Times editorial boards, was Ford Foundation Fellow in Urban Journalism at Northwestern University, resident at Columbia University Editorial-Page Editors Seminar and has filed from Berlin, Bonn, London, Paris, Geneva, Vienna, Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Belgrade, Bucharest, Panama and Guatemala.
By Elaine Donnelly
Extending sexual misconduct to combat units
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
Television commentary, reviews, news and nonstop DVR catch-up.
Entertainment News and Reviews from Washington, D.C. and beyond.
Reviews, insights and commentary from an eclectic observer.
The world as veteran journalist Vance Garnett sees it, and saw it.
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal
Vietnam Memorial adds four names
Cinco de Mayo on the Mall
NRA kicks off annual convention