Romney Spox Refuses to Answer Questions About Romney's Position on Arizona's Immigration Law


Here's what happened when reporters asked one of GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney's spokespersons for a reaction to this morning's Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's harsh immigration law:

GORKA: "The governor supports the states' rights to craft immigration laws when the federal government has failed to do so. This president promised as a candidate to address immigration in his first year and hasn't, and waited actually 'til four and a half months before the election to put in place a stopgap measure."

QUESTION: So does he think it's wrongly decided?

GORKA: "The governor supports the states' rights to do this. It's a 10th amendment issue."

QUESTION: So he thinks it's constitutional?

GORKA: "The governor believes the states have the rights to craft their own immigration laws, especially when the federal government has failed to do so."

QUESTION: And what does he think about parts invalidated?

GORKA: "What Arizona has done and other states have done is a direct result of the failure of this president to address illegal immigration. It's within their rights to craft those laws and this debate, and the Supreme Court ruling is a direct response of the president failing to address this issue."

QUESTION: Does (Romney) support the law as it was drafted in Arizona?

GORKA: "The governor supports the right of states, that's all we're going to say on this issue."

QUESTION: Does he have a position on the law, or no position?

GORKA: "The governor has his own immigration policy that he laid out in Orlando and in the primary, which he would implement as president which would address this issue. Whereas Obama has had four years in the office and has yet to address it in a meaningful way."

The exchange, which comes via Politico, goes on like this for quite a while, but the Romney campaign spokesperson never actually answers the question. Like the immigration policy speech Romney gave last week, it's pure dodge. As far as I can tell, Mitt Romney's position on immigration is that he would have one, and that President Obama is wrong.

NEXT: Cyprus Seeks Bailout, Schaeuble Takes Obama to Task

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’ll go into Tulpa-mode here and say good on Romney’s guy for not answering. They were looking for a gotcha answer and he didn’t give it to them.

    1. I agree. TBH, Romney would turn out to be a decent President (though not a good one) if he actually were as hands-off as his political dodges would imply.

      Personally, I doubt we’ll be so lucky.

  2. Holy shit, the full exchange at Politico is turning my brain to jelly. They should’ve just used one of those sound board thingies and kept clicking the “states rights” button.

    1. the full exchange at Politico is turning my brain to jelly.

      Here, turn it to mush.

  3. Whatever.

    Vote for Almanian – 2012

    “Probably Won’t Get Elected, So What Does It Matter What I Think About This?!?”

    *I think states can make their own lawZz re: immigration, but I think AZ’s violated Constitutional rights (because it was too vague and broad) and had to be tossed*

    Almanian 2012 – Cause I Ain’t Obama OR Romney!

    1. Oh, I would totally vote for you, if I weren’t already voting for myself.

      1. See you at the after-election parties! I’m having Q – ribs, chicken and brisket. My minions and I will also be drinking beer and liquor (BYO.

        I’m a cheap motherfucker, which is why I’d make a great President, although I’m pretty sure I won’t get elected.

        What u having at your after-el party?

  4. I’m not gonna say “good on” a politician for not having a bublic policy position on something this important, however politicially expedient such dodging might be.

    It’s marginally better than flat-out lying, as Obama did 4 years ago on so many issues, but I won’t vote for a politician who ducks direct questions.

    1. What about the notion that it should just be left to the states in particular cases? Because that seems to be a policy that was articulated here.

      All the media want is an unthinking bumper-sticker soundbite.

  5. “I am an emptier vessel than Obama was when he was campaigning.”

    1. Yup. That’s what we’ve finally achieved in our presidential campaign. Who can be the emptiest?

    2. Exactly. Obama was an empty suit who turned out to be worse than ever imagined, and here’s ROMNIAC being even more of an empty suit.

      It’s not promising.

      1. The only advantage is that Romney is such a terrible politician, and so terribly transparent in his pandering, that he won’t have the type of aspirational following that Obama had and has.

        Romney is like artisanal mayonnaise: he’s on the table, but nobody particularly wants him.

        1. I hear that Ken likes artisanal Mayonnaise. And improperly secured mailboxes. So I guess that means he’ll be voting for ROMNIAC.

          1. You know, it’s only his say-so that His Armstrongness had an improperly secured mailbox.

            1. Scurrilous lies. Armstrong’s mailbox was secured by NASA’s crack team of engineers. And it wasn’t no government project, either. Their wage for a job well done was the right to bask in the glory of Neil Armstrong’s presence for minutes at a time. If that doesn’t motivate you, nothing will.

  6. Alt-text fail.

    1. “what immigrants? i don’t see any immigrants?”

      1. “My dad came from Mexico, and you never saw HIM complain!”

    2. “Raise your hand if you like burritos!”

    3. Fixed that.

  7. So he thinks the states should be able to step in when the federal government doesn’t, but refuses to judge AZ’s particular effort. Yeah, what an asshole.

    “I don’t know and I don’t care, that’s their business” isn’t an empty suit suit answer, unless he happens to live in AZ. I’d be in favor of more feds having no opinion on state action other than that the state action is allowable.

  8. Spox for spokesmen or spox for the Vulcan-like?

    1. Nanoo nanoo, ProL.

      1. I don’t remember any spox on Mork Mindy.

        1. What is this MorkMindy that you speak of?

          1. Pam Dawber was from Michigan originally.

            Also, she had no tits, so they padded her like a high-schooler.

            And that’s about all I know about that…

          2. It was before the Ampersand War.

        2. Sit on it, Pro L.

          1. That’s right. Is there anything weirder than the fact that Mork and Mindy was a Happy Days spin-off? That’s akin to learning that Babylon 5 was a spin-off from Leave it to Beaver.

            1. Everything on TV is a Happy Days spinoff. Game of Thrones is a Happy Days spinoff. Didn’t you know that?

            2. It’s like the knowledge that in the ultra-boring world of Law ampersand Order : Original, everything on The X-Files is real, due to a guest appearance on XF by Munch, then still with the Baltimore PD.

  9. Romney’s position on immigration practically anything is that he would have one, and that President Obama is wrong.


    1. He could do worse than to state that his policy will be to do the opposite of whatever Obama does.

      1. Costanza’s rule of opposites

  10. To be fair, the spokesbot’s 10th Amendment position is closer to correct than Shikha Dalmia’s silly claim that “the constitution gives the feds ? not states — the ultimate authority to write immigration law”.

  11. romney should just answer like old white bigots since nobody of color is voting gop anyway

    1. Shoter Urine: derp

      Thanks once again for bringing your unique brand of stupid to the mix!

      And I’ll be sure to tell my Hispanic, Team Red congresstard that he’s not “of color”, since Urine sez so. I’m sure he’ll appreciate that.

      Bye for now, Urine!

  12. I think somebody wrote a whole book about Romney as a political figure.

  13. Husseinus Obamus Barackus Caesar blows on immigration. How much worse could Romney be?

  14. This is an area where Governor Johnson’s approach should get attention, but I won’t hold my breath.

    Johnson looks to be the only candidate who comes close to having a committment to freedom of movement.

  15. but the Romney campaign spokesperson never actually answers the question.

    He answered the question. He did not answer the question in such a way as to give the reporter the juicy copy he wanted.

    Cry me a river.

    I am clear where Romney is and I am not happy about it. But bitching about a spokesman whose job it is to prevent reporters who want juicy copy from getting it is a dog bites man story.

    1. You require instruction in the difference between responding to a question and answering a question.

      If some one asks you if you agree with the outcome of a Supreme Court decision and you say “I like donuts” — or stick your tongue out, or throw a glass of water at the person — you may have technically ‘responded’ to the question, but you did not ‘answer’ it.

      An ‘answer’ would consist of something like “yes, I agree with the outcome of the Supreme Court decision” or “no, I do not agree with the outcome of the Supreme Court decision” or “I don’t know” or “parts I agree with and parts I don’t.”

      The question was not answered. Whether a direct answer to such a simple and obvious question on a matter of public policy would have constituted something “JUICY!!!” is, I suppose, a matter of taste.

      1. Why does a Presidential candidate need to comment on the wisdom of an individual states’ policy? Does he need to have a position about my upcoming school levy too?

        1. The question is not about “wisdom,” it is about “constitutionality,” and it is not about an individual state’s policy, but the effect of federal constitutional law on the states’ policy prerogatives.

          A presidential candidate who will be selecting the nation’s federal judges for at least four years should have some notion about whether the majority or the dissent had the correct view of constitutional law in such an important and high-profile case.

    2. He answered the question. He did not answer the question in such a way as to give the reporter the juicy copy he wanted.

      Cry me a river.

      Yes, exactly. I’ll also sign onto Night Elf’s comment above.

      AZ tried something. It’s unconstitutional. What is it Romney is supposed to say again?

      1. “What is it Romney is supposed to say again?”

        Whether he is more in agreement with the majority or the dissenting view expressed in the Supreme Court opinions.

        1. Wouldn’t he need to study the opinions (which were just released today) before being able to make any sort of informed answer to that question?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.