The Giuliani campaign cites a Pew study on the illegal population in Massachusetts:
- Pew Hispanic Center Indicated That Between 2002 And 2004, Massachusetts Became A “New Large State” For Unauthorized Migrant Population, With A Total Of 200,000-250,000 Illegal Immigrants, Just One Of Six States To Earn Label. (Jeffrey S. Passel, “Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers And Characteristics,” Pew Hispanic Center, 6/14/05)
What they fail to note is that the study covers mainly years that Mitt Romney was not even Governor (Romney was governor from 1/2003 –12/2006):
- The Study Is "Based On Pew Hispanic Center Estimates Derived Principally From The March 2004 Current Population Survey And Census 2000." (Pew Website, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf, page 3)
In addition, they fail to note that New York State is named to the worst offenders list for the period, named among "Major Destinations" for illegals.
- New York State Is Lumped In With Border States Like California And Texas As "Major Destinations" For Illegals, Harboring Populations Of 300,000-2,300,000 Illegal Immigrants. (Pew Website, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf, page 13)
Obviously, New York City is the major population center of New York State. New York City enacted a sanctuary city policy that continues to this day.
Kevin A. Madden
National Press Secretary
Romney for President
Rudy Giuliani and his campaign are thrashing about today,responding rather poorly to the mayor’s full-throated defense of his sanctuary city policies in New York City. While campaigning in the border state of Texas yesterday (Texas, of all the places!), Mayor Giuliani said his sanctuary city policies were “the most successful” immigration policies in the country:
Giuliani Says That His Sanctuary Policies Protecting Illegals Immigrants Were "The Most Successful In The History Of The Country." "Back on track regarding the subject of illegal immigration Giuliani said, 'The policies that I utilized with regard to illegal immigration (in New York City) were, in the context of overall policies, probably were the most successful in the history of the country increating an orderly, legal, lawful society.'" (Jan Simmonds,"Giuliani On Why He Can End Illegal Immigration, Why Others Can't,"ABC News' Political Radar Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar,Posted 11/19/07)
And, you will remember this statement:
As Mayor,Giuliani Actually Invited More Illegal Immigrants To Come To New York. "[Mr.Giuliani said,] 'If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.'" (Deborah Sontag, "New York Officials Welcome Immigrants, Legal Or Illegal," The New York Times ,6/10/94)
A few thoughts that, as you will see, obliterate Mayor Giuliani’s position and pushback on the sanctuary city and illegal immigration issues.
To: You, national political reporter
From: KevinMadden, National Press Secretary, Romney for President campaign
Re: Rudy’s defense of sanctuary cities, weak illegal immigration pushback
Illegal Immigration levels increased in Massachusetts: Rudy Giuliani’s argument that illegal immigration levels increased in one state is a bewildering line of defense, and even underscores the core problems with his own poor record with regard to the enforcement of immigration laws.
There's no doubt that the population of illegal immigrants in this country has grown. The question is why, and what has each candidate done to prevent it?
Rudy Giuliani, as mayor of New York City actually publicly advocated and welcomed illegal immigration, even promising to offer lawbreakers a sanctuaryof protection. Mayor Giuliani publicly defended those policies while campaigning in the border state of Texas just yesterday, oddly enough. The mayor’s sanctuary city policies, that the so ardently defended, are directly responsible for the illegal immigration problem going from a problem of 3 million illegal immigrants to 12 million illegal immigrants.
In contrast, Governor Romney opposed the magnets of illegal immigration, such as driver's licenses and in-state tuition, and as president has pledged to stop federal funding to sanctuary cities that choose to ignore federal immigration law.
The difference between the two candidates on this issue is their record. Governor Romney took action and has made his case clear against sanctuary city policies and lax enforcement, while Mayor Giuliani embraced, advocated and continues to passionately defend his sanctuary city policies.
Sanctuary cities in Massachusetts: Localities are the entities that enact sanctuary city laws. Mayor Giuliani‘s city embraced and implemented the sanctuary city policy, not Governor Pataki.
The question is: what can one do to negate local sanctuary city ordinances? Governor Romney decided, as governor, to target the magnets provided by sanctuary policies: in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. He vetoed one and opposed the other.
On enforcement, the funding option wasn’t his best as governor, since these localities are ignoring federal law and local police departments weren’t under his direction. So, in the final year of his term, Governor Romney worked out an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to enter into a state-federal enforcement partnership that would allow for state police under his jurisdiction as governor to enforce FEDERAL immigration law.
This state-federal enforcement partnership was an important step in the right direction. There was great promise that the plan could grow and be used as an example of what states could do to enforce federal laws and negate sanctuary cities. The agreement took six months to finalize and unfortunately was rescinded by a pro-sanctuary governor who succeeded Romney.
The lesson? Elections have consequences. Governor Romney—a pro-enforcement governor—was replaced by a pro-sanctuary governor, and the result was a weakened public policy against illegal immigration.
Summary: Mayor Giuliani’s finger-pointing response on the issue of sanctuary city policies actually serves to underscore his weakness: if he is defending sanctuary cities in New York while at the border in Texas, why would he criticize sanctuary city policies that existed elsewhere in the country? Governor Romney deserves credit for at least taking action against sanctuary city policies in an enforcement capacity and seeking to eliminate the magnets.
Also, a President Romney would cut off FEDERAL funding to sanctuary cities for ignoring FEDERAL LAW and work to streamline the state-federal enforcement partnership program (called “the 287 (g)program inside the Department of Homeland Security) so more states could enter into enforcement partnerships like the one he fashioned for Massachusetts.