Posted on 11/25/2011 11:40:23 AM PST by TBBT
Did Newt Gingrich really propose a general amnesty in this week’s foreign policy debate? Or does his plan have more to do with general-election strategy than replacing a decade of Republican rhetoric on the issue of immigration? My column for The Fiscal Times today looks carefully at what Gingrich actually said during the debate, and also what the problems would still be with his proposal:
First, consider how Gingrich framed the quoted statement above, to which the candidates and activists reacted. “So I think you’ve got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “that starts with controlling the border….” In other words, Gingrich didn’t propose anything that would replace or subordinate securing the border as the first step in any immigration reform.
What happens once we secure the borders to the 11 million illegals inside the country? Gingrich’s plan calls for discretion in the application of deportation, not a blanket forgiveness of illegal status, as was the case with the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which Gingrich has called a mistake. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, writing in the National Review Online, called Gingrich’s position “common sense” not amnesty and noted that it would not even require a change in the law to implement.
In other words, Gingrich still wants to wait on any other policy changes until the border gets secured. In that, his position is no different than any of the other Republicans in the field — and that’s going to take a long time to accomplish, whether we’re talking about a physical wall or a high-tech barrier system that can shut down the flow of border jumpers...
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Clemenza’s Immigration Plan: Deport Bigboy Newt to Saudi Arabia so that he can change his religion a fourth time.
More excuses or another fraud. Why do we have to always go with the chumps. It is so annoying. Here is your choice folks: Cain, Bachmann or Santorum. That is three choices that you have. Pick and let’s get on with things. I am so sick and tired of folks pushing the liberals. Perry, Romney, Newt, Paul, Huntsman are all the liberals of the Republican Party. They should just change to Democratic. Perry is a Democrat as it is anyway. Al Gore? Really.....disgusting!!!!
Newt's own words.
I have found that the side engaging in wholesale destruction of the clear meaning of words and concepts in a debate is the side that is up to no good.
Let’s just stop with the ‘11 million pretense’. There are at least 30 million illegal immigrants embedded in the US at this point.
There is a one-word summation for all of that fancy talk. Pandering.
How gullible or just plain stupid do you have to be to believe the ‘they’ll be legal but not citizens’ BS? When has any politician ever kept such a promise? During the first amnesty debate they said if we legalized the ones already here, that would be the end of it. Instead, we got a massive flood of new ones. They always say if we’ll go along with the legalization plan, they’ll secure the border. We get the legalization, and the border remains unsecured. Once these illegals are legalized [and there will be NO reliable way to tell how many have been here twenty-five vs twenty-four, eighteen, or eleven yrs. etc], if the pols don’t change their minds and make them citizens, the courts will. Anybody who says otherwise is naive or dishonest.
The HotAir RINOs continue to spin furiously on behalf of this fake phony fraud. Pathetic.
I agree with Newt. Moreover, not one of the GOP candidates would call for reporting every illegal alien. It’s just never going to happen.
I agree with Newt. Moreover, not one of the GOP candidates would call for reporting every illegal alien. It’s just never going to happen.
I agree with Newt. Moreover, not one of the GOP candidates would call for reporting every illegal alien. It’s just never going to happen.
“Legalizing” illegals is a form amnesty. That was what Gingrich was advocating during/after the recent CNN debate.
In 2008, McCain was running around claiming his allowing illegals to stay unfettered was not amnesty.
==
Those of us not addled by the near-frantic efforts to shape Newt into a viable anti-Romney spot this immediately as just another Beltway bait-and-switch. And we have seen this 'it isn't amnesty' nonsense countless times as well. You really have to think, just how gullible does this bunch think we are? This spin isn't even original, it's last decade's immigration reform sh** sandwich served up with a fresh pickle.
I will give Newt some credit - his term 'path to non-deportation' is exploring uncharted territory in amnesty doublespeak. At least he felt compelled to come up with a new way to lie to us.
Quick poll question: How many have actually read the article? How many are just flaming ignoramuses?
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.