Posted on 11/24/2011 12:16:51 AM PST by AmericanInTokyo
Washington, United States
The Republican candidates differ on their ideologies in various foreign policy issues in the second Republican presidential debate.
Newt Gingrich, who more recently has emerged to the top of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, said that during his government did not expel immigrants without legal permission but already have a life founded in the United States.
The applicant added that the Republicans can not say that his party is in favor of the family when separating parents from their children who were born in the country and have citizenship.
Gingrich, also supported the antiterrorism law known as the Patriot Act, passed after the attacks of September 11, 2001, which has been criticized by civil rights advocates.
In contrast, Congressman Ron Paul said that the law "is not patriotic because it undermines our freedoms."
Paul holds libertarian stances advocating cuts in aid to Israel, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and the decriminalization of drugs.
The Congress is supported by a solid core of people who support him and admire his position of opposition to the current foreign policies. Either way, Ron Paul has not been able to be among the first places in the race for the nomination.
Since the candidate Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, opposed the cuts and suggested that the money is withdrawn the militia could be used to fund public health programs of Obama, which are repudiated by the Republicans.
Also, the wide range of issues gave room for many errors, especially because most applicants do not have considerable experience in international affairs.
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Governor Rick Perry of Texas and businessman Herman Cain so far have supported a role not so popular in today's candidacy.
Through the debate, the chances of Cain and were damaged with an incoherent response to a question from an interviewer about Libya. Perry, equally, to damage his campaign can not remember the names of the three federal agencies that wanted to eliminate.
This was the second debate, in less than two weeks, on foreign policy in a campaign dominated by internal affairs.
("NEWT GINGRICH WILL NOT EXPEL THE HISPANICS")
(Above per machine translation, approximation of the English.)
SPEAKER GINGRICH'S MOMENT OF GLORY VIA YOUTUBE LINK on Spanish language Univision comes at the 00:28 mark where the announcer in voice-over translates/states Newt's debate position regarding allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the United States legally. Followed by some analysis of that position.
here comes the next wave.... all knowing how to fill out those welfare forms and carrying 10 social security numbers.
Gee I wonder if that dual citizenship guy who worked for McCain that was a top advisor to the Mexican Government, is also working for Gingrich now. Or maybe with Perry or Romney, who knows? All I can say is, what a MESS. Forget this "Cain-Gingrich 2012" business of the last few weeks, folks. Someone stepped in deep dog doo-doo.
Reprehensible that this kind of INK and also TV IMAGERY and STATEMENTS are being read and seen all across the region south of the border, giving people new hope to continue to violate our borders or try to sneak additional family members in under Gingrich’s plan. Talk about “market pull.” Sheesh.
Yep.
25 years, don’t speak any english, still waves the Mexican flag at soccer games.... they are really getting into the USA spirit now.
Gingrich: “...once you’ve put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here. If you’re here – if you’ve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period.”
Here’s a transcript. Hopefully everyone has read it thoughtfully before concluding, like some journalists, that Gingrich “will not expel” any illegal residents.
“I did vote for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. Ronald Reagan, in his diary, says he signed it – and we were supposed to have 300,000 people get amnesty; there were 3 million - but he signed it because we were going to get two things in return: We were going to get control of the border and we were going to get a guest worker program with employer enforcement.
“We got neither. So I think you’ve got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border, as the governor said. I believe ultimately you have to find some system – once you’ve put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here.
“If you’re here – if you’ve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home. period. If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”
“The Krieble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don’t get a pass to citizenship. And so there’s a way to ultimately end up with a country where there’s no more illegality, but you haven’t automatically given amnesty to anyone.”
“I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you’ll have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave, given the fact that they’ve been law-abiding citizens for 25 years.”
“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them.”
“I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the US, we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers, but I would urge all of you to look at the Krieble Foundation Plan.”
“I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.”
Newt is getting ahead of himself with a simplistic and incomplete answer.
Our country must first stop the leak by securing our borders. Then Newt and the other candidates should be stating their policy positions in connection with the millions of illegal aliens in our jails. After these more important policies are implemented, then to place before the American people what to do with the law-abiding illegal aliens living in our country. "Law abiding" with the exception that they jumped the line to get into the USA.
Our Federal government is NOT implementing laws already on the books for immigration policy. The federal government is not supporting the States to carry out the laws, but instead is supporting stealth socialism, open borders, and one world government. Bad news for all of us!
"...deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border"
"...ultimately you have to find some system – once you’ve put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here."
“...if you’ve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period. If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”
“The Krieble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don’t get a pass to citizenship."
“I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the US, we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers, but I would urge all of you to look at the Krieble Foundation plan.”
Got it? Now let's try the thought experiment. Take Mr. Cain. Does Herman Cain think we should not:
control the border?
have a guest worker program?
have a review board for the people who are here?
deport those who came here recently and have no ties?
have very severe penalties for employers?
consider the Krieble Foundation plan?
What parts of the above do Cain, Perry or Bachmann reject?
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/newt-gingrich.html
On further reading, it doesn’t get any better.
Even as he says it isn’t amnesty, Mr. Gingrich describes and endorses amnesty.
He has fallen down the Perry Hole and won’t crawl out.
Y’all come! We need lots of illegals here to build the houses nobody will buy, and work in the gardens behind those houses that nobody will live in. Any job you don’t do, the unions have first dibs on, so if you can’t get into a union and you are a legal resident of US citizen, you’re screwed.
How many US refugees can Australia take on?
Perhaps the author of that quote should read my post 15. Gingrich offered specifics:
control the border
guest worker program
review board
deportation in specific cases
very severe penalties for employers
He also suggested considering the Krieble Foundation plan which is even more “specific.”
At the site you linked, after it says “overall” his platform is “unhelpful,” among the evidence offered:
Gingrich says that enforcing the current law would eliminate 80 per cent of the problem
and
“an illegal should receive an amnesty only in exceptional circumstances.”
That seems pretty specific to me. There’s more specific stuff there, as well, including mention of a verification program.
Also, it says “Unlike many who talk about the need to secure the border, Rep. Gingrich has recently been very strong and specific about doing so.”
If you read that far...
Lady Lucky, an excellent post but you are talking over the heads of those that just want to play “gotcha” with Newt and refuse to take the time to understand the facts. It is amazing how so many read or listen to one short clip and fall into the msm frenzy which has destroyed many good candidates. I see you have done your homework
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
