Las Vegas Sun

December 21, 2014

Currently: 48° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Guest column:

Romney needs to define immigration policy

There’s a Chinese proverb that says, “When the wind of change blows, some build walls; others build windmills.” In the face of Hispanics’ emergence as the nation’s fastest-growing ethnic group, Mitt Romney has a responsibility as the GOP’s likely nominee to show our party how to harness the breeze instead of fighting it.

Until now, I’ve held my tongue. Respecting Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment (“Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican”), I’ve joined other Hispanic Republicans in giving Romney a “hall pass.”

I like Romney. I admire his record. In the spring of last year, I donated to his campaign. But in recent weeks, he’s heckled Hispanics with nativist rhetoric that could have been ghostwritten by his latest supporter, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Kobach, whose endorsement the tin-eared Romney campaign proudly proclaimed this month, engineered Arizona’s unconstitutional “show-your-papers” law and promotes a radical agenda of anti-immigrant crackdowns.

Like a suburban frat boy trying to sound tough among the townies, Romney makes it a point to use the word “illegal” as a noun for the 10 million undocumented persons believed to be living in the United States today.

Romney knows better. The phrases “illegal” and “illegal alien” vastly oversimplify what is a complicated issue, allowing an entire class of human beings to be defined solely by their behavior. It’s a vilification that’s widely interpreted by Hispanics as a hurtful slur and one that, coming from a role model like Romney, serves as a “dog whistle,” that signals the acceptability of far worse insults by some in his audience.

He’s even gone so far as promising to veto the Dream Act, a bipartisan and humane approach years in the making, that would extend a lifeline of hope to young immigrants whose only “crime” was to be brought here as children, with no more say in the matter than Romney’s own father when he, a dual citizen, was brought back into the United States by Romney’s grandparents, both of whom were American citizens who’d moved for religious reasons to Mexico.

The Dream Act would give some respite to this generation of innocents, conditioned on their service in the military, enrollment in college and maintaining a clean criminal record. A February 2011 impreMedia-Latino Decisions tracking poll found 85 percent of Latinos supporting the Dream Act, and Romney’s promise to block it is like fingernails on a chalkboard to us.

During last week’s debate in Tampa, Romney went so far as to suggest “self-deportation” as a means of addressing the nation’s broken immigration system.

Exactly what kind of conditions would be required before tens of millions of undocumented persons would agree to “self-deport”? How hostile would the cultural climate have to be for millions of men, women and children to flee from it?

And what about the rest of us, governor? What about my children, who are as proud of their American citizenship, history and heritage as your five fine sons? Would they be forced to grow up in the environment of hateful suspicion that “self-deportation” would require?

Like a battered spouse who stays silent in the vain hope that things will somehow change, I made excuses for Romney, crossed my fingers and, until now, kept my lips sealed — and among other Hispanic Republicans, I’ve not been alone.

No mas. I want to file charges.

The latest steps along Mitt Romney’s road to the nomination have been littered with words that may make him unelectable in the four states whose Hispanic voters put Barack Obama in the White House four years ago: Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Nevada. Seething Hispanic resentment against Romney’s loose talk could even be sufficient to trigger GOP losses in Texas and Virginia.

But, as he went into heavily Hispanic Florida, Romney suddenly changed his tune, serenading us with Spanish-language ads and appeals.

Sorry, sir, but we deserve a candidate whose position on immigration doesn’t evolve alongside the primary calendar — to say nothing of your attitude toward the millions of us who now comprise America’s largest single minority group. You’re either with us or you’re not.

Let me put this in language a Bain private equity investor can understand: If a comprehensive and sensible immigration policy isn’t even in your prospectus or contained on the term sheet, how can we take it on faith that it’ll be contained in the final closing documents?

Jacob Montijilo Monty, a Houston attorney, is a recognized expert in immigration and labor law and a Latino Republican political activist.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 2 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. "You're either with us or you're not." - Jacob Montijilo Monty

    If you are not an American first, then I, for one, am not with you. That statement of yours demonstrates the exact attitude that turns many citizens against illegal immigrants.

  2. There are points within the DREAM ACT that had been so harsh, that it bordered slavery for citizenship. And that is saying something coming from me! We need to understand WHY someone would oppose the DREAM ACT, which has great merit, but the Devil is in the details of it.

    Lawmakers have battled over the terms/conditions of the DREAM ACT for many years, it is a type of political football now, unfortunately. It is also a testament to the FAILED immigration enforcement in this country, putting greed and politics above the LAW that is on the books.

    Too many American employers were all too willing to exploit a population of illegal immigrants during the "boom" years without any repercution. Now the tide is turning while in the "bust" years. Our country's infrastructure cannot support these illegal people, we are watching systems overload and fail, as a result.

    It is shameful how some human beings will exploit the vulnerable.

    Let's support the innocent youth, but also put their parent's feet to the fire of accountability in the process. The child cannot become a legal citizen unless the parents become legal. That is only fair. If they are unwilling, out they go. Simple. It is a choice.

    My Mother's parents came here LEGALLY and were productive citizens and every one of their children added value to this great land, they not only supported themselves, but they were charitable and gave to others. What ever happened to that ethic?

    Blessings and Peace,
    Star