COLUMN: Tough talk takes root

People who accuse Mitt Romney of political inconsistency can cite many examples, but immigration isn't one of them. He's only gotten more strident.

During a CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate Wednesday night, Romney - vague and evasive on some other issues - couldn't say enough to assure potential voters that he will do the most to rid the country of the kind of people who used to care for his lawn in Belmont.

Romney attacked Rudy Giuliani for being soft on illegal immigration. Giuliani's sin, purportedly, was not doing enough to rid New York of "illegal aliens" when he was mayor.

The irony here is rich. Giuliani, by many accounts the most divisive New York mayor in decades, has been called practically everything in his career except soft. He must be as surprised as anyone to suddenly discover that he's a liberal.

The truth is, he was running a city that depends heavily on immigration, much like the rest of the country does, though Romney pretends not to notice. As the Globe reported a year ago, Romney employed a landscaping company heavily reliant on illegal Guatemalan immigrants to care for his yard in Belmont.

There is no evidence that Romney knew the workers were here illegally. There also isn't any that he tried to find out. He's too smart not to have wondered. His occasional contact with immigrants never seemed to affect his politics. As governor, he cut benefits for immigrants, even those here legally. He sought to empower the State Police to round up illegal immigrants. He endorsed wiretapping mosques, religious homes to many immigrants, effectively scapegoating them as dangerous to America.

It is too bad that the immigration question has quickly deteriorated into this meaningless food fight because it ranks high on the list of issues crying out for serious debate. But Romney has never shown any interest in the nuances of immigration reform. He isn't interested in addressing the issue, just in burnishing his tough-guy credentials.

"Romney has a long record of disliking all immigrants, unless they're cutting his grass," said Ali Noorani of the Massachusetts Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "This is the topic du jour for political scapegoating."

Of particular alarm to Romney is the idea that New York became a "sanctuary city" for immigrants. This seemingly benign term has become a lightning rod in the debate. To supporters of immigration, it implies accepting immigrants with open arms. To opponents, it smacks of endorsing porous borders and ignoring laws. There is apparently no acceptable middle between these extremes.

Massachusetts has seen firsthand the effects of rounding up illegal immigrants - earlier this year, in the New Bedford raid. That made us safer, didn't it?

It did have one effect, which was to tie immigration policy in knots. Governor Deval Patrick, criticized on all sides, has been trying to figure out what role the State Police should play in enforcement since before he was inaugurated. Last week, he issued what felt like the ninth revision of his policy. That's what happens when you try to stake out a nonexistent middle ground on this issue.

The moderate on immigration in the Republican race is John McCain, ironically the candidate with the longest record as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. McCain's sensible approach to providing a path to legal citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country was shouted down earlier this year, and it certainly won't be successfully revived during this election.

The senator has yet to show that he can bring his fellow Republicans around on the issue, but he has at least addressed a complicated issue thoughtfully. That's more than our former governor can say.

Perhaps Romney's political instincts are right. Maybe for Republican primary voters, no amount of immigrant-bashing is excessive. There's one question I'd like to see him address in the next debate though: After all the illegal immigrants get deported, who's going to cut your grass?