Bill Richardson Opposes Compromise Immigration Bill

Credit where credit is due, and today it goes to New Mexico Governor and presidential hopeful Bill Richardson, who says he will oppose the Immigration compromise because it is too onerous for immigrants:

Mr. Richardson initially said he would support the immigration compromise announced earlier this week. But on Wednesday, he said that after reading it in detail, he had decided to oppose it, saying the measure placed too great a burden on immigrants — tearing apart families that wanted to settle in the United States, creating a permanent tier of second-class immigrant workers and financing a border fence that Mr. Richardson had long opposed.

“This is fundamentally flawed in its current form, and I would oppose it,” he said. “We need bipartisanship, but we also need legislation that is compassionate. I’m not sure that this is.”

Thank you, Governor Richardson.


Gov. Richardson's decision hopefully will have a rippling effect.
He is the first major Democrat to call explicitly for defeat of the bill in its current form, a decision that he said would no doubt echo across the presidential playing field and in Washington. And his is a voice that carries particular weight: he grew up in Mexico, but went on to became a state governor who once declared a state of emergency in response to turmoil and violence on the border caused by illegal immigrants.

As for who's the latest to defend the bill? Trent Lott.

< The Only Poll That Matters Is Election Day | Cornyn Immigration Amendment Would Rely on Secret Evidence >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Flip, flop, flip, flop (none / 0) (#1)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:10:49 AM EST
    Here's this AP article from Tuesday morning, with this:

    he would vote for the bill if he were in Congress. But he said he would try to amend it to make improvements

    Presumably he changed his mind since then. Perhaps it would have been better for him if he'd read the bill first before commenting.

    Here's a fun question for TL: should BR resign his appointment as "special envoy" for the OAS? He was appointed by that group to discuss immigration matters.

    When BR speaks out about immigration matters, can we ever really be sure who he's speaking for? Is he speaking for himself, or for the OAS? Has any other presidential candidate been in a similar situation?

    Could he raise his right hand if he's saying something he believes in, and raise his left hand if he's speaking on the OAS' behalf?

    Sure.... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by LarryE on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:44:22 AM EST
    Flip, flop, flip, flop

    Yeah, right. And if he was a GOPper, you'd be telling us how his position "evolved."


    The bill wasn't released yet (none / 0) (#7)
    by fbihop on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:20:13 PM EST
    but he said he supported a compromise bill - as long as it was fair.  He saw the bill, saw it wasn't fair and made the right decision.

    Luckily, he is not like Pres. Bush who, as Stephen Colbert said, "believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday."

    As for the OAS smear, you probably already know that the United States are a member.    And in his speech announcing it, Richardson put much of the responsibility on the other countries, not the United States.

    It would be my goal to demonstrate to OAS member states that they have an equal responsibility to solve the immigration problem, and work together on many important issues.
    He's obviously speaking as an American -- unless you think America is not for all American citizens and only for the Republican party as many Republicans (as evidenced by recent the US Attorney firings) believe.

    No! (none / 0) (#2)
    by koshembos on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:59:18 AM EST
    As the bill is, Richardson is absolutely right. Going back home, fine and length time to legitimization are more punitive than called for.

    It's about time to open the southern border to market dependent labor movement while, at the same time, speed up legitimization of the more than 12 million workers the market already legitimizes.

    Best of both worlds.. (none / 0) (#4)
    by dkmich on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:53:42 AM EST
    He gets to cater to those who are desperate to control the cost and impact of this bill, and he gets to cater to the Latino vote because he's only doing it because he cares about them.  I think the immigration bill is a bad bill because it hurts labor in this country and it will cost according to CBO estimates, 126 billion dollars...  BUT, we can't afford health care in this country.

    I just can't believe it (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    The President was just on the tele in the rose garden going off on the Immigration Bill and people who forge documents.  Pfffft, when did document forgers start enraging him?

    Still No (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:41:42 PM EST
    Investigation on who was responsible for the Niger Forgeries.