Did Romney leave himself room to dangle an immigration amnesty? I’ve been predicting that if Mitt Romney secures the nomination he will at some point pivot away from his seemingly tough stance against illegal immigration in order to dangle a possible amnesty in front of Latino voters. But will he have to actually contradict himself to do it? Here is Romney’s answer to the immigration question at Monday’s debate [E.A.]:

ROMNEY: … In my view, as long as we communicate to the people of all backgrounds in this country that it can be better, and that America is a land of opportunity, we will get those votes. Now with regards to immigration policy, I absolutely believe that those who come here illegally should not be given favoritism or a special route to becoming permanent residents or citizens that’s not given to those people who have stayed in line legally. I just think we have to follow the law, I think that’s the right course.

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: And I have indicated I would veto the DREAM Act if provisions included in that act to say that people who are here illegally, if they go to school here long enough, get a degree here that they can become permanent residents. I think that’s a mistake. I think we have to follow the law and insist those who come here illegally, ultimately return home, apply, and get in line with everyone else.

Look, I want people to know I love legal immigration. Almost all of us in this room are descendants of immigrants or are immigrants ourselves. Our nation is stronger and more vibrant by virtue of a strong legal immigration system. But to protect our legal immigration system we have got to protect our borders and stop the flood of illegal immigration and I will not do anything that opens up another wave of illegal immigration.

Hmm. Not a lot of obvious dangle room there, I admit. Romney may have been spending more time with Kris Kobach than we thought. But … there’s always a loophole. Or two. Here are three: 1) Romney seems to be talking prospectively. “[T]hose who come here illegally.” What about those who already came here illegally? ‘That’s different,” a future Romney might say. “Those people are already here. We can’t deport them all …” etc.  2) Note that Romney didn’t rule out amnesty in so many words. He ruled out “favoritism,” which would seem to cover amnesty. But there’s always the Pence scam  plan, which pretends to avoid “favoritism” by requiring illegals in the country to make a brief symbolic trip across the border. There’s also the “back of the line” scam, which pretends there is only one “line” when there are in fact two–it lets illegals skip the often endless line to get a green card and permits them to go right into the much shorter citizenship line, all while continuing to live here. Romney doesn’t even say they’ll have to go to the back of the line. They’ll just have to get “in line.” No “special route”–but maybe a little shortcut in the normal route! The Rosie Ruiz plan. 3) Romney only forswears such a special route when it leads “to becoming permanent residents or citizens.” [Italics added.] But there are other forms of legal residence, and other forms of amnesty. For example, Romney could require illegals to “register” and give them allegedly “temporary” guest worker privileges that are, de facto, renewable indefinitely unless the recipient commits a serious crime. Those who’ve already come illegally would still get to stay legally, with their children becoming citizens–which would still be a magnet for more people to come illegally. It would do little to puncture the expectation that there will always be some kind of amnesty down the road, never a legal stopping point in the cycle of illicit migration and legalization. …

Those are just three loopholes. Maybe there are others. (Feel free to point them out in the comments section.) I’m sticking by my prediction. …