Romney dropped out to position himself for VP or for 2012.

I agree.  Though at this point, I figure he probably is being honest...he took enough heat (and rightfully so, in my opinion) to know that going back to that old ideal isn't going to fly. 

I have a visceral distrust of a politician who takes a principled stand on an issue (amnesty, even though he claimed that it was not amnesty), and then claims to have changed his view during an election. However much I disagreed with McCain's pro-amnesty position, I did respect him for taking what was, and still is, an unpopular position. He now claims that he will put border security first. That is all well and good, but did you notice that he has left open the amnesty idea. He has not repudiated it. I can see a time, down the road, when a President McCain declares that the border is now secure and starts to push the McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan.

The first job of a politician is to get elected. They will all say and do whatever it takes to win. I long ago learned to judge them based on what they have done not what they say they will do.

I agree on all counts, though I think #2 can take care of #1 well.

One thing I'd add is a huge and hefty tax on remittances.  Part of what makes illegal immigration so attractive is the ability to send money earned here over the border to folks in Mexico.  That is money that disappears from our economy.  It is typically earned as cash, so it is not taxed, and there is nothing gained from it by way of sales tax or local spending since it gets up and disappears across the border.

In 2006 a total of $62.3 billion (with a "b" ) was sent south to Mexico and Latin America in the form of remittances.  That is a lot of money that was earned here which simply vanished into thin air.  A hefty surcharge on such things would help us recoup some lost revenue, while providing a bit of a disincentive to those who would consider crossing illegally to take advantage of that.

I would like to see the estimation on how much of this was earned as "cash" without taxes being paid on it.

Without remittance more people would  be trying to get into the US, not less. Remittance is a key economic stabilizer in many developing nations, most of this is legal activity, additional taxes on everyone who uses remittance is not the answer.

World Bank Study:

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2005/06/08/000012009_20050608121914/Rendered/PDF/wps36380rev.pdf

“It is expected that the volume of workers’ remittances will surpass $110 billion dollars in 2004. Workers’ remittances constitute an increasingly important source of income for many families, especially poor families, whose relatives have emigrated to other countries in search of better employment opportunities. Moreover, after foreign direct investment, workers’ remittances constitute the largest source of external financing for developing countries. For 25 developing countries, remittance flows represented more than 5% of their respective GDP in 2003.”

The Law of Unintended Consequences hurts us all too often.

Thanks,

Higgs