Posted on 11/27/2011 4:28:58 PM PST by presidio9
I have not taken a position on any candidate in the Republican primary but wanted to weigh in over Rep. Michele Bachmann’s recent attack on former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on immigration. The most recent criticism from Bachmann centers on a statement Newt Gingrich signed along with other conservatives and released back in 2004 by my organization, the National Foundation for American Policy, and the Manhattan Institute. The statement did not propose an amnesty. (A copy of the statement, published in The Wall Street Journal on February 6, 2004, can be found here.)
The “Conservative Statement of Principles on Immigration” begins by quoting Ronald Reagan in his farewell address to the nation: “I’ve spoken of the Shining City all my political life . . . [I]n my mind it was . . . teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.”
The statement of principles continued, “Conservatives believe in legal immigration. We believe that America grows stronger by welcoming those who seek to better their families, work in our industries, and find liberty and refuge from oppression.” The statement also strongly endorsed assimilation and teaching English and civics.
The signatories then stated opposition to illegal immigration. “Conservatives oppose illegal immigration. We believe there is a right way and a wrong way to immigrate to the U.S.”
An important additional point on
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The illegals rarely pay income taxes, but do manage to file lots of false tax returns for thousands each year.
Their kids get tens of thousands a year in free education, healthcare, housing, EBT cards and so on.
Stop all benefits to any non-citizen and insist all residents are benefit free for 5-10 years before getting citizenship.
Too many coming here are takers, not producers and that is a problem.
Newt is WRONG.
From that statement.
>> “It has become clear that the only viable approach to reform is combining enforcement with additional legal avenues for those who wish to work in our economy, while also addressing the situation of those already here in the U.S.”<<
IOW, Amnesty.
Where, exactly?
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/newt-gingrich.html
“Everyone who knows anything about the damage done honestly believes the government should or will mount a nationwide manhunt to deport millions of people . . . Any candidate who does believe that is fit to be President.”
Along with an electric fence that can kill.
The Wall Street Journal otta go in and apply for some government aid. See how far they get. Especially middle-aged white males.
Michele has attacked Perry, Cain and Gingrich; when is she going to attack the biggest RINO of the bunch, Mitt?
Nobody who signed the statement, including Newt Gingrich, was proposing an amnesty or even specifically endorsing the President’s proposal, only noting that it held “great promise to reduce illegal immigration and establish a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration that will aid homeland security and free up border-security assets to focus on genuine threats.”
Who you gonna believe, people...Stuart Anderson, owner of the National Foundation for American Policy, and the Manhattan Institute, or org.whodat?
Newt has outlined a ten-step solution for immigration on newt.org. It addresses your point about benefits.
Disagree with him where you like, but he is the only candidate with the balls to put a comprehensive plan out there, and take the political heat for it in order to get the discussion moving. I encourage all readers to take five minutes and read the section on immigration before posting on this thread.
Use of buzzwords and scare tatics without viable alternatives is a classic liberal tactic. In fact, Newt's plan would specifically deny citizenship.
Red Card = Amnesty.
Newt has a long history of protecting illegals and pushing for amnesty:
I guess the Tea Party and the future of conservatism has hit the skids. Supporting an illegal loving, climate change loving, ididvidual mandate loving, big government inside the beltway establishment smooth talker, seems to be the future.
How depressing.
YOU are wrong!
John Birch sees that as a winner. The rest of America, including "middle-aged white males" would be easily talked into voting against this. If Obama made this his primary campaign issue he could probaly make a good percentage of independants forget about the economy.
YOU are wrong!
Never ... she is his stalking horse, and probably doing so under the promise of being his VP.
yes,WE DO!
We believe that America grows stronger by welcoming those who seek to better their families, work in our industries, and find liberty and refuge from oppression.”<<
Yes....with those exact qualifiers....WE GET TO JUDGE...DO WE WANT U IN OUR FAMILY?...WE MUST DECIDE WISELY LEAST U DONT FIT INTO OUR GENERAL POPULATION...(if u haven't noticed...we pride ourselves in being from the USA)
The statement also strongly endorsed assimilation and teaching English and civics.<<<<<
YES!.....(as stated above)...WE WANT U TO BECOME ONE OF US....AMERICANS!....
THAT'S WHY WE CAN AND SHOULD PICK AND CHOOSE ....
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.