Mitt's "Chain" Stupidity

I have to pick my spots when it comes to saying anything about Willard Mitt Romney, I know; he just provides so much nonsense to refute that I can’t possibly answer all of it.

Instead of refuting his idiotic criticism of the tax proposals of John Edwards in this story, though (a “new bike”?), I want to take issue with what he said about illegal immigration, to wit…

"I ... don't think it makes sense to have an immigration policy that says that if an illegal couple — a couple that comes across the border illegally — has a child here, that child becomes a U.S. citizen, that then the whole family gets to come in, if you will, through 'chain migration'," he said.

I conducted numerous searches using the terms “chain” and “migration” in the context of illegal immigration into this country, and I found nothing, which isn’t surprising (the term actually reminds me of that scene in the Woody Allen movie "Take The Money And Run" where the members of the work gang are all trying to escape while manacled at the ankles).

I think a vastly more common scenario, however, as opposed to illegals conceiving in this country or giving birth soon after they cross the border, is something like what is described in this AP story, where the writer visits children in a Brownsville, Texas school house, all of whom are illegals (with Brownsville the first destination for these kids and other illegals).

I think this excerpt is noteworthy…

Smugglers are telling parents to separate from the children once they cross the Rio Grande, he said. Even if they are caught by the Border Patrol, the children are all but guaranteed to be in a safe, comfortable home within a day or so and placed with a relative or friend within a few weeks or months.

The parents can meanwhile seek “voluntary departure,” which means they can leave without a deportation order on their record — which would prohibit them from entering the United States within the next 10 years and subject them to jail time if they are caught. They can then try to qualify for a visa or attempt to sneak in again.

If they were caught together, the entire family would be detained at one of the federal government’s new family facilities, such as the T. Don Hutto facility in Taylor that has been criticized for prison-like conditions. There would be no chance of avoiding removal proceedings.

And I don’t see how Romney can assume that every illegal couple that has a child in this country can automatically stay along with the child. Short of a congressional law on immigration (which didn’t pass, of course), this matter is up to the discretion of local courts and legislatures, some of whom may be less sympathetic than others to the plight of these people (see 7/28 update, however). And it’s obvious that the climate in this country is against supporting the type of scenario Romney describes (with the kids stuck in the middle, which is so often the case when the adults can’t make up their minds – Romney didn’t specify the particular area of the country he was talking about, of course).

“Chain migration,” huh? The next time Romney says anything this dumb, I wish someone would take that three-legged stool of his and smack him over the head with it, lest he create another “penumbra of angst” for no good reason.

And speaking of immigration, I’m sure Smerky is all bummed about this.

Update 7/28: The Inquirer ran this editorial today concerning the Hazelton decision, noting that U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled that "federally enacted immigration rules can't be superseded by local ordinances." He also said that Hazleton's law was unconstitutional "in that it would violate the civil rights granted to anyone in this country, even those who entered illegally."