WP Comments on the GOP’s Detachment From Reality, Hope for Middle East Peace, and the Value of Immigration

Wednesday, December 5th, 2012

Following are some more recent comments at the New York Times from Winning Progressive on the GOP’s lack of seriousness or connection to reality, holding onto hope for a peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, and the value to our economy and fiscal health of increasing immigration.

In The Conservative Future, David Brooks attempts to find hope for the conservative movement by identifying a handful of writers and bloggers who are purportedly engaged in a “vibrant and increasingly influential center-right conversation.”  Winning Progressive thinks that, while it would be great if there were meaningful policy discussions occurring on the right, Mr. Brooks is holding onto false hope:

It is all well and good that there are apparently some folks on the right that are thinking about policy issues in serious ways. While I am sure I strongly disagree with the people you identify on most everything, it would be great if serious thinkers held greater sway in today’s GOP, as it is critical to the future of our democracy that we return to having two parties, rather than just the Democrats, focused on how best to improve our society, help people, and confront the serious issues we face.

Unfortunately, the thought that today’s GOP is going to “evolve quickly” is little more than sheer fantasy. And the reason is that today’s GOP has been overrun by a combination of religious extremists, self-interested billionaires, and people who are so trapped in the right-wing echo chamber of Fox “News” and its ilk that they have lost most all connection to reality. Those facts are not going to change quickly.

A great example is Lindsey Graham, who occasionally has shown flashes of reasonableness. His reward is that conservatives are targeting him in 2014. And so now Graham is grandstanding on the Benghazi nonsense. Or take Sen. Rubio who, with an eye towards 2016, has no idea how old the world is.

It will take a lot more than some writers, bloggers, and deep thinkers to bring today’s GOP back to reality.

In his column Grand Old Planet, Paul Krugman recounted how out of touch with reality today’s GOP has become.  Winning Progressive echoed those sentiments and argued that this recent election results were a victory for reality over fantasy:

Perhaps what made me most pleased about the recent election results is that they were a victory for reality over fantasy.

We can debate until the cows come home the various policy issues facing our nation, and no single election is likely to significantly change the outlines of those debates. But this past election presented a more urgent question – whether we were going to reward a party whose platform and strategies are so detached from reality.

Mr. Krugman has well laid out a number of those fantasies in this column. But there are plenty more, including birtherism, the lies that ObamaCare is a “government takeover of health care” and includes “death panels,” the claim that ending Medicare’s universal guarantee and replacing it with vouchers is somehow not ending Medicare as we know it, the fantasy that we can give nearly $5 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy and still balance the budget without raising taxes on the middle class, the claim that rape cannot lead to pregnancy, and the assertion that Solyndra and Benghazi involved major conspiracies and coverups by the Obama Administration.

The fact that today’s GOP is so tied to such myths says a lot about how far the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower has fallen. But it also says a lot positive about the American people that we rejected that failed party and its fantasies.

In Enough, Roger Cohen discusses the continuing pointlessness of the violence between Israelis and Palestinians.  We echoed these sentiments, but encouraged people to hold out hope for a peaceful settlement and offered some suggestions for a path forward:

This is right on. As I’ve argued previously, both sides are in a cycle of violence that is getting us nothing except more death, bloodshed, and suffering. We have to replace that cycle of violence with a recognition of three things: (1) that both sides have valid claims, (2) the blame game is pointless because there is more than enough blame to go around, and (3) the solution is two states, based on the 1967 borders with land swaps, international peacekeeping, and international aid to rebuild Palestine.

The question, of course, is how could we ever get to that solution. Here are a few thoughts. Palestinians need to realize that they can never win through violence, if for no other reason than that they are massively outgunned. Instead, Palestinians should follow the lead of the Civil Rights Movement and Gandhi and engage in active, non-violent civil disobedience. Israelis need to stop the illegal settlements. And the US and the rest of the international community need to use foreign aid to empower moderates who are operating in good faith and isolate and push out of power extremists on both sides.

This all seems hopeless today. But if someone had told you 20 years ago that we would have twice elected an African American President and had voters pass marriage equality in three states, I’d bet you would have thought they were crazy. So let’s keep hope alive.

In More Babies, Please, Ross Douthat argued that the declining birthrate in the US is threatening our country’s long term financial health.  Rather than having more babies, however, Winning Progressive urges that we welcome more immigrants to our country:

Instead of people having more babies, why don’t we just reform and loosen our immigration laws so that more people, mostly of working age, come to our country?

Immigration has always been the life blood of our nation, from the Polish, Irish, and Italian immigrants who came in the late 1800s and early 1900s to the Latino immigrants of the past couple of decades. And many more people want to come to the U.S. from other countries but either cannot get their way through our broken immigration system, or do not want to risk coming here illegally. As more people immigrate to an area, economic activity and jobs are created to provide basic goods and products to them. And having more young, working age people in the system will help support Medicare and Social Security for decades to come.

Unfortunately, our nation has taken a turn towards opposing immigration over the past few years. States like Arizona and Alabama have instituted cruel “self-deportation” policies that seek to make life so difficult for immigrants that they will “choose” to leave. And at the federal level, the GOP continues to obstruct sensible policies like the DREAM Act.

Rather than having more babies, let’s turn this anti-immigrant sentiment around and return to our nation’s better values of welcome the “poor, huddled masses yearning to be free.”

So I Crawled out of my Binder….

Friday, October 19th, 2012

(By The Pragmatic Pundit)

To say…I TOLD YOU!!! 

I fell asleep watching MSNBC  and woke up to “Morning Joke” and someone saying, “Robme owned the argument on the economy.”

Is it me?

I keep waiting for a little forthright journalism.  It isn’t as if the man doesn’t have a governing record.  He was Governor of Massachusetts!  Here’s what that record tells us:

Job creation:

Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth during his time as governor. Job growth was just 0.9 percent, while the national average was better than 5 percent.  Only Katrina-ravaged Louisiana saw a bigger decline in its labor force.


The Washington Post reports:

during the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas….”

Massachusetts lost 14 percent of its manufacturing jobs; double the rate that the entire nation lost. In fact, Romney vetoed legislation that would have banned companies doing business with the state from outsourcing jobs to other countries.


He enacted the biggest tax increase in Massachusetts’ history, increasing corporate taxes and state fees by $750 million a year.

Romney left Massachusetts residents with $10,504 in per capita debt, the highest of any state in the nation when he left office in 2007. Debt increased by 16%.  The state ranked second in debt as a percentage of personal income.


As Governor of Massachusetts, in 2006, Romney signed an agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency that would have permitted State Troopers to arrest and seek deportation of suspected illegal immigrants they encountered during the course of their normal duties.

Soon after signing an executive order, Romney left the governorship to run for President.  In his television ad he said, “As President, I’ll oppose amnesty, cut funding for sanctuary cities and secure our borders.”

I could go on and on.  The man doesn’t have an honest bone in his body.  Personally, I believe anyone who lies as much as he does has a mental problem.  Mitt’s mendacity should matter!

The Debate

Regarding the debate, if I hear one more person focus on what they should have said, didn’t say and the issues that went unmentioned, I might scream.  The debate was an hour and a half.  We’ve watched the President for more than 4 years and listened to Mitt’s lying, flip-flopping, etch-a-sketchery for what seems like forever.

I’m grateful for the “plant” who inquired about Benghazi, because nothing was greater for me than the moment when President Obama looked Mitt in the eye and declared, “I AM THE PRESIDENT!”  Booyah!!

Then there was the sole Black man’s question that focused on his “disappointment”, stating, “you let me down”.  This is a declaration that simply drives me nuts.  I can’t reconcile the idea that so many people seem to behave as if we sent Zeus to Washington armed with the Blade of Olympus….capable of fixing an economy and system that has been broken for decades.  I’ve been saying since 2010 that it’s time to stop whining.

If you ask me, too many Americans are confused.  One cannot believe, on one hand, the government does not create jobs and then turn full circle and rail against the President for lack of job creation.  One the other hand, one cannot believe businesses are the “job creators” and then accept that businesses, who have been enriched by the present economy should be exempt from creating jobs.  It is impossible to reconcile an objection to outsourcing of jobs and then embrace someone who has a history of doing exactly that.  How do people place confidence in a man who makes taxation the center of his economic plans who has himself spent a lifetime not only avoiding taxes for himself, but helping foreign companies avoid contributing to the American treasury? Heck, Romney won’t even release his own tax returns.  So what can anyone possibly be undecided about?

And women?  Don’t get me started, I haven’t enough time.  My son-in-law is on his third tour of duty in Afghanistan and by now my daughter is in surgery with a wounded warrior, so that leaves me to make certain my little grandsons are not running around with AK-47s.  Just think, if they weren’t in the 47%, I could crawl back in my binder and sleep all day long.

2nd Presidential Debate Liveblog

Tuesday, October 16th, 2012

Below are some in the moment thoughts about the second Presidential Debate.  Our take is that President Obama stood up proudly for his record, offered a positive vision, called out Romney’s lies in a calm and cool way, and, most importantly, showed some real fire in the belly.

Keep in mind that the post-debate impressions spread by the chattering classes in DC often shapes voters’ views about who won or lost a debate, so let’s all go out there and trumpet President Obama’s strong performance in social media, with your friends and family, in letters to your local newspapers, and by signing up to volunteer for the Obama campaign.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

I missed the first 25 mins of the debate, and tuned in to Romney lying about his tax plan. What a shock.

Is Romney also going to give us all magic unicorns? No. In reality, he’s going to raise taxes on the middle class and take away our Medicare and Social Security.

Nice. President Obama ties Romney to the House Republicans, while linking Democratic policies to economic growth under President Clinton.

So what will Romney do first – produce his tax returns, or tell us what tax exemptions he will eliminate?

If Romney cannot stop his own Bain Capital company from shipping jobs overseas, then why would we think he would create American jobs as President?

The only “sources” that Romney can claim supports his mystical tax plan are blogs and articles written by Republicans.

Let’s see if Multiple Choice Mitt takes a position on Lily Ledbetter Act. He has refused to in the past, because his party opposes every effort to achieve gender equality.

The difference between Romney and W. Bush is that Romney is offering the Bush agenda on steroids.

Romney simply lied about access to contraception. He vowed to “get rid of” funding for Planned Parenthood, and supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed any employer to deny its employees health insurance coverage for contraception.

President Obama has the real record of supporting actual small businesses.

President Obama has taken steps to make Medicare more efficient, without cutting benefits. Romney opposes those efficiencies, and wants to eliminate Medicare.

Under President Reagan, government employment increased significantly. Under President Obama, the GOP required massive layoffs of state and local government workers, which is largely what is holding the economy back.

Here’s how reactionary Romney is on immigration – he vowed to veto the DREAM Act, and wants to make life so difficult for immigrants that they will “voluntarily” leave the country through “self-deportation.

Here’s the details on President Obama’s sensible policy to stop deporting DREAMers – law abiding immigrants who were brought here by their parents when they were children.

And the Obama Administration took on Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB1070 all the way to the Supreme Court, while Romney calls Arizona’s law “a model for the nation”.

Romney’s “blind trust” is not blind - as he said, “blind trusts are an age old ruse.”

Nice to see the moderator call Romney out for being flatly wrong about Obama’s statement on Libya.  Here’s what President Obama said in a Rose Garden statement on September 12 – “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

Back in April, Romney went and kissed the ring of the NRA leadership, buying into their silly conspiracy theories rather than calling them out for opposing sensible gun safety legislation.

On jobs, Romney could begin by making sure his Bain Capital companies stop shipping American jobs to China, like Sensata is doing in Freeport, Illinois.

Here’s an example of what Romney’s Bain Capital is doing to every day Americans by shipping their jobs overseas.

If Romney cares about 100% of Americans, why did he tell his wealthy donors that he does not care about 47% of us?

President Obama knocked that closing answer out of the park – absolutely beautiful how he showed passion for every day Americans while making clear that Romney doesn’t care.

President Obama’s Impressive List of Accomplishments

Tuesday, October 16th, 2012


Over the past three-and-a-half years, President Obama and Democrats have successfully enacted significant progressive legislation and executive policies that have, among other things, created 5.2 million private sector jobs over the past 31 months, kept our nation safe and taken out Bin Laden, made a fairer and more just society, advanced gender equality, and rescued the American auto industry.  At stake in November 2012 is whether these accomplishments will be repealed by the GOP, or whether we will be able to continue to focus on moving our country forward in 2013 and beyond.

Unfortunately, the message of the significant progress that has been achieved so far during the Obama Administration won’t get out unless we progressives talk to our neighbors and friends, write letters to our local newspapers, and use social media to help keep other voters well informed.  In order to help our readers do so, below are links to Winning Progressive’s coverage of just some of the Obama Administration’s progressive accomplishments.  Please share widely.

List of 2009-2010 Democratic Accomplishments

Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Rescuing the American Auto Industry

Closing the Medicare Doughnut Hole

The Successful 2009 Stimulus

Credit Card Industry Reform

Fighting For Small Businesses

Ending Combat Operations in Iraq

Ending Abusive Health Insurance Industry Practices

Expanding Health Insurance Coverage to 32 Million More Americans

Making College More Affordable

Reforming Wall Street

2011 Health Care Reform Benefits

Eliminating Co-Pays on Contraceptive Services as Preventive Care

Challenging the Defense of Marriage Act in Federal Court

Rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline

Finalizing Air Pollution Rules That Will Save 13,000 Lives Per Year

Increasing Vehicle Fuel Efficiency to 35.5mpg By 2016 and 54.5 by 2025

Implementing a Sensible New Immigration Policy for “DREAMers”

Obama DOJ Wins Significant, Though Not Complete, Victory Over Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law

American High-Speed Rail Moving Forward

A Good Friend of Labor

Obama’s Record of Support for Israel


Obama DOJ Wins Significant, Though Not Complete, Victory Over Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law

Tuesday, June 26th, 2012

While the Supreme Court on Monday did not issue its long-awaited ruling on health care reform, it issued another very important decision regarding the validity of Arizona’s anti-immigration SB 1070.  That controversial law, passed in 2010, sought to get undocumented immigrants to leave the state of Arizona through a strategy of “attrition through enforcement.”  In particular, the law established state law provisions making it illegal for an undocumented immigrant to reside or work in the state, requiring state and local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of people they had a “reasonable suspicion” were undocumented, and effectively forcing immigrants to have to carry papers to demonstrate their status.

The Obama Administration Department of Justice rightfully challenged the constitutionality of SB 1070 in federal court, largely on the grounds that federal immigration law, and the need for a single, consistent immigration law that applies throughout the US, preempts efforts by states to establish conflicting or inconsistent immigration requirements.  In the case of Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court on Monday, with one significant and problematic exception, agreed with the Obama Administration’s arguments.

Here are the details:

Confirms Federal Primacy on Immigration: 

At its core, the Arizona decision is important because it reaffirms that immigration is an issue of federal law which preempts efforts by states, such as Arizona, to establish their own immigration laws and policies that conflict or are inconsistent with federal law.  As the Court explained:

The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled. Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws. Perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad. . . . . . The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.  (slip op. at 3, 4)

Given the primacy of federal law on immigration issues, the Court invalidated three portions of SB 1070 on the grounds that they were inconsistent with, and preempted by, federal law.  First, the Court found that Section 3 of SB 1070, which made it a state misdemeanor to fail to complete or carry alien registration papers, was preempted by federal law, which makes it a crime for an immigrant to willfully fail to register, but not for failing to carry registration papers  (slip op. at 9-11).

Second, the Court struck down Section 5(c) of SB 1070, which made it a state crime, punishable by a $2,500 fine and six months in prison, for an undocumented immigrant to knowingly apply for, solicit, or perform work.  The Court ruled this provision was preempted by the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) which, among other things, makes it illegal for employers to hire or recruit unauthorized workers and imposes various civil and criminal penalties for violations. While IRCA imposes some civil penalties on undocumented immigrants engaged in illegal employment, it primarily focuses enforcement on employers, not undocumented employees, and the Court ruled that a state cannot change that focus.  (slip op. at 12-15).

Third, the Arizona Court found federal preemption of Section 6, which authorized state police to arrest, without a warrant, any person who the officer had probable cause to believe that the person has committed an offense that makes him or her removable.  That provision conflicted with federal law, which authorizes arrest for a deportable offense only upon issuance of a federal warrant, and gives state officials a role in such enforcement only upon an agreement between the federal government and the state about how to enforce such laws. (slip op at 15-19).


Upholds Papers Please Provision, Though Notes Limits:

The downside of the Arizona decision is that the Court rejected a preemption challenge to Section 2(B) of SB 1070, which requires state and local police to make a “reasonable” attempt to determine the immigration status of any person who was stopped, detained, or arrested on some other legitimate basis if the police has a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the US.  This provision, in essence, allows state and local officials to hyper-vigilantly enforce certain laws (such as jaywalking or traffic infractions) in a discriminatory manner as a pretext to demand proof of immigration status from people of certain races or ethnicity.

The Court effectively ruled that it was premature to determine that Section 2(B) is preempted or otherwise invalid because that provision had not yet been interpreted by state courts. The Court did, however, strongly suggest that state courts needed to interpret the provision to prevent police from prolonging a detention simply to verify immigration status.  In addition, the Court implied that Section 2(B) could run into constitutional problems if it was shown that police are enforcing it in ways that target people because they are of a certain race or ethnicity.


Strongly Suggests Legality of Obama’s DREAMers Policy:

The Arizona proceeding did not, of course, involve President Obama’s recent policy regarding DREAMers – young, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children by their parents, have been in the US for at least five years, and are law abiding and willing to attend college or serve in the military.  But portions of the decision suggest that the Court would plainly find the policy legal.

Conservatives have attacked President Obama’s DREAMers policy as an illegal exercise of Executive authority by deciding to not enforce immigration laws against DREAMers.  But as nearly 100 law professors have explained, the policy is a perfectly legal exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which allows a Presidential administration to decide the best ways to spend limited resources.  The Court echoed the validity of such exercise of discretion in the immigration context, explaining that:

Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.  . . . .   Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the  community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state maybe mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.   (p. 4)

The Court made a similar point in explaining that allowing a state to have its own immigration laws could lead to “unnecessary harassment of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed.”  Such language suggests that the Court would be receptive to an argument that the decision not to pursue deportation against DREAMers is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.


What It Means For Other States:

Five other states – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah – have passed laws with provisions similar to at least some of the provisions in SB 1070.  The Constitutionality and validity of each of those laws is being challenged by the ACLU and others.  As the ACLU documents in this helpful infographic, portions of these laws have already been struck down by federal district or appellate courts.  The Arizona ruling bodes well for the ACLU getting those lower court rulings upheld during any appeal, and potentially striking down additional portions of those laws.


What Does Romney Think?:

Mitt Romney has been exceedingly vague regarding his views on the Supreme Court’s decision, failing to say whether he agreed with any or all portions of the decision in a statement released by the Romney campaign after the ruling was issued.   Similarly, a Romney campaign spokesperson dodged the question of the candidate’s view on the decision twenty times in an interview yesterday.

But Romney has made his views on this issue known numerous times in the past.  In particular, during the GOP primaries, Romney described SB 1070 as a “model” for the nation, and he selected as a campaign adviser Kris Kobach, the virulently anti-immigrant Attorney General of Kansas who developed the self-deportation (or, as the Court referred to it, “attrition through enforcement”) strategy of getting immigrants to “voluntarily” leave the US by making life difficult for them.  In the past, Romney has specifically noted his approval of the self-deportation strategy.

* * * * * * * * * *

While the continued validity of the papers please provision of SB 1070 is troublesome and requires continued judicial and political efforts to get all of SB 1070 reversed, the Obama Administration DOJ won a significant victory on Monday over Arizona’s anti-immigration policies.  Now it is up to all of us to make sure that in 2013 we have a President and Congress that will be able to enact a far more sensible and humane immigration reform policy than that being promoted by Mitt Romney and by conservatives in states such as Arizona.

Questions for Mitt Romney on Immigration

Sunday, June 24th, 2012

Last week, President Obama and Multiple Choice Mitt Romney both gave speeches to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (“NALEO”) in which they addressed economic and immigration issues.  In his speech, President Obama outlined the economic issues at stake in this election, explained the importance of his new DREAMers immigration policy, reiterated his call for Congress to pass the DREAM Act, and explained why we need immigration reform and a Congress that will stop obstructing such reform.

Multiple Choice Mitt, meanwhile, was in full-bore Etch-a-Sketch mode.  Romney did reiterate some of his anti-undocumented immigrant policies, saying that he would:

re-double our efforts to secure the borders – that means both preventing illegal border crossings and making it harder to illegally overstay a visa.  We should field enough border patrol agents, complete a high-tech fence, and implement and improve exit verification system.

But gone was much of the anti-immigration rhetoric that Romney spewed during the GOP primaries.  In its place was praise for legal immigration and a softer tone on undocumented immigrants.   Romney also promised a “long term solution” for DREAMers but, outside of a promise to provide a “path to legal status” for anyone who serves in the military, he offered no details as to what that “solution” would purportedly involve.

What Multiple Choice Mitt did not address in his speech is whether he still supports the reactionary anti-immigration positions that he has long espoused, or whether he is willing to support sensible and humane policies to address the status of the approximately 11.5 million undocumented immigrants who are hard-working, taxpaying residents of the US.  So, in this edition of Questions for Mitt Romney, we ask:

* Does Romney support President Obama’s DREAMers policy?  It has been more than a week since that policy was announced, and Romney still refuses to give a straight answer as to whether he supports it, though a campaign adviser says he thinks Romney would repeal it.

* Does Romney still believe that the DREAM Act should be vetoed because it is a “magnet for illegal immigration”

* At a time of limited budgetary resources, does Romney believe it is good policy for the US government to be spending an average of $23,148 of taxpayer money to deport each DREAMer?

* Does Romney support the decision of the office of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Romney’s 2008 Arizona campaign chairman to arrest a six-year-old girl on suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant?

* Does Romney still support the strategy of “self-deportation,” which seeks to make life in the US so hard for undocumented immigrants that they “voluntarily” choose to leave the country?

* Does Romney still believe that Arizona’s harsh anti-immigration law is a “model” for the nation.

* Is Kris Kobach, the virulently anti-immigrant Attorney General of Kansas who crafted the self-deportation strategy, still an adviser to the Romney campaign on immigration issues?  What role would Mr. Kobach play in a Romney Administration?

The simple reality is that Mitt Romney has a long track record of taking extreme reactionary positions on immigration issues, and during the GOP primary Romney espoused views that led blogger Steve Benen to justifiably declare Romney “the the most right-wing candidate on immigration of any competitive presidential hopeful in generations.”  Nothing about Romney’s speech to NALEO last week changes the reality that, when it comes to immigration, a Romney Presidency would be marked by extreme anti-immigration policies of self-deportation, not the sensible and humane policies demonstrated by the DREAM Act.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Earlier editions of this series include Questions for Mitt Romney on health care reform, the NRA and guns, Jerry Falwell and Liberty University, Robert Bork, and Ann Coulter.