Skip to footer

Obama vs. Romney 101: 5 ways they differ on immigration

Immigration could be a pivotal issue in the 2012 presidential race, and Barack Obama knows it. Mr. Obama's positions on immigration issues, such as a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and greater discretion in deportations, are in line with those favored by most Latino voters. Republican challenger Mitt Romney has tried to cast himself somewhere between the staunchest anti-illegal immigration activists of his party and Obama.

Obama is seeking to press his advantage among Latino voters, particularly in swing states like Colorado and Nevada, which could prove crucial in November. Polls suggest that more than 70 percent of Latinos favor Obama. Here are the two candidates' positions on comprehensive immigration reform, the DREAM Act, deportations, the border fence, and employer sanctions. 

1. Comprehensive immigration reform

Jim Young/REUTERS/File
President Obama arrives to deliver remarks on immigration reform at Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso, Texas, May 10, 2011.

  • By Daniel B. Wood Staff writer

Obama says his support for comprehensive immigration reform has been limited only by Congress's inability to put a bill on his desk. In 2007, then-Senator Obama voted for the comprehensive immigration bill backed by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts, Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, and President Bush. The bill never reached the floor for a vote, but it would have provided a path to citizenship for 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants, established a two-year guest-worker program, added 20,000 border patrol agents, built 370 miles of border fencing, and revamped the federal employment-verification system.

In 2010, after Arizona passed its anti-illegal immigration Senate Bill 1070, Obama made halting efforts to put immigration reform atop his agenda, proposing solutions in a July 1 speech that echoed the failed Kennedy-McCain bill. But he was unable to make significant headway. 

The lack of immigration reform, he told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) on June 22, "has given rise to a patchwork of state laws that cause more problems than they solve and are often doing more harm than good."

Former Massachusetts Governor Romney has said he is similarly committed to federal immigration reform. But he has laid more stress on enforcement. "That means both preventing illegal border crossings and making it harder to illegally overstay a visa," he said in an address to NALEO on June 21. "We should field enough border patrol agents, complete a high-tech fence, and implement an improved exit-verification system."

Romney has sought to put immigration reform in a economic context, suggesting changes designed to help American business. "I'll work with states and employers to update our temporary-worker visa program so that it meets our economic needs," he told NALEO. "And if you get an advanced degree here, we want you to stay here. So I'd staple a green card to the diploma of someone who gets an advanced degree in America."

He also vows to cut bureaucratic red tape to allow families to stay together. But he does not favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in America. 

This puts him at odds with many Latino voters, and Obama sees an opening. “The immigration issue could be pivotal in the presidential race,” says Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. “A strong Latino turnout is critical to Obama's victory, and a successful exploitation of the immigration issue by his campaign could ensure a second term in the White House.”

1 of 5
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.