Posted on 11/29/2011 2:00:02 PM PST by Notwithstanding
O'REILLY: All right, let's go to immigration. Border fence, would you put a border fence from Brownsville to San Diego if you were president?
GINGRICH: Yes. Absolutely.
...
O'REILLY: Would you move the National Guard down to the border in certain precincts that are dangerous and would put the U.S. National Guard to back up the border.
GINGRICH: Sure, I would use whatever -- look I would use whatever resources we needed to... I think it's a national security imperative and I would take whatever resources were needed to get the job done.
...
O'REILLY: Would you support a registration of illegal aliens.
GINGRICH: Yes, I would support a universal registration of those who are here illegally. And I think the immediate -- you'd have immediate deportation if you did not sign up within a certain time... I wouldn't support putting them in jail because I don't want our taxpayers subsidizing them in jail if they are here and not obeying law. Let's kick them out.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
O'REILLY: All right, let's go to immigration. Border fence, would you put a border fence from Brownsville to San Diego if you were president?
GINGRICH: Yes.
O'REILLY: Ok.
GINGRICH: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: Would you move the National Guard down to the border in certain precincts that are dangerous and would put the U.S. National Guard to back up the border.
GINGRICH: Sure, I would use whatever -- look I would use whatever resources we needed to. I've said, you know 23,000 Department of Homeland Security employees in the Washington D.C. area. I'd move half of them to Texas, New Mexico and Arizona if we need the manpower.
O'REILLY: Well, that would just frighten the people not to come here because they'll being the federal employees. I mean, President Bush did not want to --
GINGRICH: I would be willing to use -- I would be willing to reinforce, there's a profound reason to not get the military too close the drug dealing because of its enormous potential for corruption. But I think as reinforcement for local sheriffs, as reinforcement for local law enforcement and for the border patrol you certainly would use whatever level of military you use to make sure we had overwhelming power.
O'REILLY: Ok because President Bush was not -- did not want to do that. He did not for whatever reason and he never clearly articulated it.
GINGRICH: Right.
O'REILLY: He did not want to use the National Guard to get down there and help Arizona in particular which is just awash with the whole of the stuff. And Arnold Schwarzenegger the Governor of California flat out refused to do it when he could have called out the National Guard. They refused to do it. Do you understand President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger's reluctance?
GINGRICH: No. And I think that's -- they have to explain their reluctance. What I can tell you is we have -- we have a crisis in national security. We've have it since 1986 when President Reagan wrote that he was signing the Simpson-Mazzoli in his diary in order to get the border controlled. For a quarter of a century we failed. I've said it at Newt.org, you can see it right there one of my top priorities is we would have complete control by January 1, 2014. I think it's a national security imperative and I would take whatever resources were needed to get the job done.
O'REILLY: Ok. Now the 11 million -- this is an estimate but I think it's accurate -- the 11 million illegal immigrants already here have to be dealt with in some way. My program which I've had up on BillO'Reilly.com for years says you start with registering, you give illegal aliens a time period, maybe a month, maybe two months that they have to register at the post office with their name, their address and their status, all right. And if they have a Social Security number or something like that they have it. If they don't register within the time period that the government decides it's a felony. It's a felony all right, would you support that?
GINGRICH: Well, look I want to deport the people who don't register, I don't want to put --
O'REILLY: No, no but you have to find out where they are and who they are.
GINGRICH: Right.
O'REILLY: And we don't know where they are and who they are they are living in the shadows.
GINGRICH: Right and if you're saying --
O'REILLY: Would you support a registration of illegal aliens.
GINGRICH: Yes, I would support a universal registration of those who are here illegally. And I think the immediate -- you'd have immediate deportation if you did not sign up within a certain time. I just the way you frame it Bill. I wouldn't support putting them in jail because I don't want our taxpayers subsidizing them in jail if they are here and not obeying law. Let's kick them out.
O'REILLY: Well, I'll tell you what it would do, I understand that but the deterrent then becomes much higher if it's a felony and you're sentenced to two or three years in a federal penitentiary which you can build all right, that's a deterrent for anybody coming in here. It's not only deals with people who are thumbing their nose at your order but it also prevents people from coming in here. But all right be that as it may it can be massaged. All right so they register under President Gingrich. You know where they are, and they ones that don't are immediately deported, picked up or whatever. And you would order the states to comply. Sanctuary cities, what would happen to San Francisco if they told President Gingrich we're not going to do it. What would you do to them?
GINGRICH: Look, we're going to propose a bill that cutoff all federal funding to any sanctuary city or sanctuary state. They get no money of any kind from the federal government, period as of that moment and if San Francisco wants to bankrupt itself and some fantasy it's fine.
O'REILLY: All right, so you would take a tough approach and you're not sending anymore federal money on any level to anybody that doesn't aggressively support the federal law. Ok. Final --
GINGRICH: Including by the way I would reward, let me just say, I would reward and encourage South Carolina, Arizona and those states that are correctly using local law enforcement and I would withdraw the federal lawsuits because they are doing the right thing trying to help us find people who are here illegally.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2011/11/29/newt-gingrich-explains-his-illegal-immigration-policy?page=2#ixzz1f8Ink7WN
Fat chance.
He could add AL to the reward category. IF states like CA, CT and other blue states want them, let them have them all. And pay for them with no help from the federal taxpayers whatsoever.
but but I could never vote for Newt he’s for amnesty.. I’ll stay home and pout (sarcasm off)
So basically he’s trying to take Cain’s position and deny his own. His dishonesty is profound.
The problem is that Newt is only saying what we want to hear after realizing the reaction when he declared himself in favor of amnesty.
Ginrich is a socialist wipe.
He’s in a hurry to destroy our national sovereignty by any means possible. Keeping 30 million invaders here with their illegal children is one sure way.
Both he and Perry are now backpedaling like mad on their earlier statements.
This heartless, inhumane xenophobe ain’t buying it. Whig Newton has been all-in for global progressivism and open borders for decades. With pubbies like him, who needs dumbocrats?
You can’t read, it seems.
I believe Newt is telling the truth with his thoughts on immigration. Where he differs with a lot of people is when it comes to deportation and the family has been here for say 25 years. That part is certainly open to discussion but for the rest I agree with him. If one thinks he is a liar and does not believe him so be it. Thats politics.
This is the final battle for the tea party. If we elect another progressive like Newt we are done.
Yep - you might want to join the reform party.
You can always vote for Ross Paul.
The anit newt dingbats are here in full force
He must be onto something
Only libtrolls talk like this
Newt? Progressive? hardly- he BALANCED THE FEDERAL BUDGET ONCE BEFORE AND CAN DO IT AGAIN
Like.
>> “ His dishonesty is profound” <<
.
No Shiite!
>> “he BALANCED THE FEDERAL BUDGET ONCE BEFORE AND CAN DO IT AGAIN” <<
.
No Troll, he did not.
His budget disregarded half of the spending, the part that went to debt service. No balanced budget from Noot.
Like lies?
Then support Noot.
Where did this ‘registration’ question come from?
How do you register illegal aliens and why?
Well, he's explained it, and it still doesn't wash, for the fact that he's trying to satisfy both sides of the debate, which doesn't do a thing to pull out the lynchpin that is keeping the whole problem alive.
You have to turn off the magnets that are drawing the illegals here in the first place. Threats of imprisonment or deportation aren't going to scare them off. They've been laughing at those empty threats for over 30 years, and getting away with it.
We have to STOP giving them state and federal welfare benefits, and PREVENT them from working, by mandating the use of the E-Verify system.
That is the SIMPLICITY of the solution. As long as they can find food, shelter, medical assistance, and jobs in this country, THEY WILL COME, AND THEY WILL STAY.
The first candidate that gets a grip on this fundamental aspect of the illegal immigration problem, and makes it the central plank of their solution to the problem, will shoot to the top of the polls.
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.