Posted on 12/02/2011 12:33:07 PM PST by presidio9
Immigration has always been a hot-button issue for both sides of the aisle, and in the 2012 presidential election, things are not going to be different. That's why former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is making headlines for advocating for a more "humane" approach for dealing with the roughly 11 million illegal aliens in this country.
Gingrich, who is rising in most polls, endorsed a version of amnesty that would grant long-term undocumented aliens a "red card" visa, allowing them to gain legal status without earning U.S. citizenship.
"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," he argued.
"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."
He also backed certain provisions of the DREAM Act, which would award a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who serve our country in the armed forces or attend college and have a spotless background.
Because of this position, Gingrich is feeling major heat. Some have editorialized his position as damaging. Others are calling it a "stumble." One conservative columnist, Thomas Sowell, wrote on National Review Online that Gingrich's position is "more baggage that he needs to overcome."
But the former speaker is right. This country has become the greatest in the world thanks to immigrants who left their nations in search of America's promise. If you want to come here and work hard, there should be a process in place for you to do that. And if you've been here for, say, 25 years and pose no threat, you should be allowed to stay, not forcibly be sent back.
It takes courage to say what Gingrich said. In the GOP primary races, candidates tend to err on the side of unrealistic but popular proposals. They say what they think the right wing wants to hear, not what is workable.
The reality is that if you're a Republican who lives in a state that is flush with immigrants, including illegals, you need to make tough decisions that while on a chalkboard might seem questionable, in practice are necessary. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a perfect example of a conservative who can look at the issue without ideological blinders, defending an executive order that protected illegals who report crime from getting deported.
Despite the firestorm Gingrich is feeling from his opponents, most of the candidates criticizing Gingrich for his position have staked out similar ground in the past.
After Gingrich made his comments at a Republican debate, GOP front-runner and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pounced. But he has taken positions in the past that mirror Gingrich's, and has yet to provide a clear answer on what he would do about immigration.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) blasted Gingrich as having the most liberal position out of the entire field, but in a September debate, Bachmann expressed the same core conviction: You can't deport 11 million illegals, many of whom have been living here for decades. She, like Romney, has not given specifics about how illegals would be treated under her presidency.
But Gingrich's position could help his candidacy — and his party. It's much like that of President Ronald Reagan: "If you have come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period," Gingrich has said.
Not only will Gingrich's stance do well in the general election, where getting at least 25% of the Hispanic vote is critical, it will help him in key primary states — even Iowa, where immigration has become a front-burner issue.
Immigration is a great thing. We want the Chinese scientists, the patent creators, the Andrew Carnegies and the Greek diner owners like my father who were elated when they found out that they could work seven days a week in the U.S.
But most importantly, we want a President who has the smarts to find solutions and the guts to say them out loud. Gingrich is a guy who often says what is impolitic because he thinks it's right. It's refreshing, especially when most politicians are afraid to buck the status quo. His stance on immigration is looking like a breakthrough moment for an old face now quickly becoming the comeback candidate.
Perhaps if he would take a page from some of the other candidates and do away with some of the agencies. I find it galling that there are so damn many agencies that duplicate their scope and services. I really liked Herman Cain’s plan. Romney’s was so complicated I couldn’t even read it without drool hanging from the corner of my mouth and my eyes were glazed over.
Personally, I think the individual income tax should be eliminated and a national sales tax implemented. No tax (as Herman Cain said) on USED goods, no tax on real estate, medcine, or food. NO death tax, either.
LLS
LLS
Hey super. Gingrich agrees with you.
This is the last post of yours posting in that ridiculous line by line format that I am reading or replying to. If you want to converse with me, please return to the normal convention of the English language, as every other person on this web forum manages to do. I am asking nicely for the second time. Your format fills up my entire screen, so that I am unable to read the posts immediately before and after it.
Thanks.
Agreed that there is a heirarchy among illegals, with the newest arrivals getting the sh*ttiest jobs. All of these people would be deported under the Gingrich plan. Unfortunately, EVerify does not apply or is ineffective against the large percentage of illegals who are working as private contractors for individuals. These include people who have been here for decades, work as home nurses for the elderly, as nannies, as delivery boys, as gardeners, as prostitutes, as caddies, as handymen, most of all as maids, and the list is endless. They have no official employer, and they have no added incentive to leave when you start enforcing the laws.
BTW, I was not accusing you of favoring mass deportations or using racist language, I was just making a point.
Entrepreneurial illegals who aren't dependent on an employer are in the minority. The vast bulk of them find employment with existing businesses. And even if they were the majority, that's no argument against enforcing the use of the E-Verify system to weed out illegals from the American workforce.
Besides, taking away illegals' ability to obtain regular employment is only half of the equation. We must also remove their access to every sort of state and federal welfare benefit to destroy their incentive for coming (or remaining) here. Even self-employed illegals would be hugely impacted by that.
Look, I could waste more of my time pointing out why your opinion is wrong. I have lived in border states, and elsewhere. In red states and in blue. In the north and in the south. I currently live in NY, the state with the third largest populations of illegal immigrants. We are one of the bluest states, where labor unions have a large voice. Consequently, one of the things we actually do well here is in enforcing laws against hiring illegals. Filed under the "it has to be seen to be believed department," a sting operation cracked down last week on strip clubs who were hiring illegal Russian dancers. I disagree with you vehmently on the idea that "the vast bulk of [illegals] find employment with existing businesses," but I'll leave it at that. It is extremely difficult to find reliable demographic information on groups that are trying very hard (or not so very hard) not to be noticed in society. OTOH, as your argument actually helps Gingrich's plan in the long run, by making the potential number of illegals to be leagalized shrink, its just not worth fighting.
You haven't proven what I said was wrong with better logic, facts, or reason, so I'd have to agree with you there.
Here's the unvarnished truth.
Most illegals here are unskilled laborers. Most don't have much education, and few have any sort of command of our language.
They mostly work under the table, or obtain fake I.D. to work for unscrupulous business people who will NOT double check the validity of the documents their illegal workers present to them.
As one who's been hiring skilled and unskilled workers for almost two decades, I know this game first hand.
Businesses who hire these people, do so with a wink and a nod, because the handshake agreement is that they'll get the labor for cheap, and won't turn in the person who's enabling them to undercut their law-abiding competition.
That is the way the game works.
Now, let me ask you. Do you really think you could fully support yourself in this country on $10 to $15 an hour? Few can, and those with women and children to support, have NO chance of surviving on those wages.
How do they possibly manage?
Well, you and your neighbors subsidize them with the state and federal taxes you pay. People love the fact that Jose cuts their grass for cheap, but they never stop to realize that Jose is only getting part of his pay at the front door of their house. He's picking up the rest of his paycheck at the local welfare office, and getting food stamps in the mail.
Cut off those subsidies, and Jose will be in serious financial trouble. So much so, that the wife and kids will have to go home to Mexico, if he's to somehow keep it going.
Enough. I think you see the logic in this.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I have been over this debate so many times in the last few weeks that I just don't have the energy for it. Feel free to check my posting history, if you are interested.
In the mean time, as your point actually HELPS my candidate of the moment, Newt Gingrich, by making the argument that very few people will stick around for the chance at legalization, it is a waste of my time to persue this any further.
1) illegal mexicans have no rights (they shouldn't but activist left wing justices have granted them such) and I do not care about their “families”... born and bred in illegal surroundings, creating a crime upon their very breath inside our borders.
2) We can and will deport these people... they are not good Americans... they are NOT Americans period... and they create crime and woe wherever they prey.
3) Ike did it and we will be forced to... because we value our society and the one in mexico is a third world sh!t hole of murder and mayhem... just like the communities that encourage these illegal invading enemies to stay within their confines.
Not all illegals fit this description... but the many do. If they have been here "25 years" then they can speak English and know our History and our societal mores and can become citizens without a problem... if not... they never intended to assimilate... they intend on reconquesta and living the marxist good life!.
Conservative believe that a person must be responsible for his or her actions. These people violated the very tenants of our society by entering here illegally and they must stand and accept the responsibility of their own illegal actions and lives. Try to get away with what any of these people have done and try it in Mexico City... and leave a last will and testament... you are going to need it... then get back with me about harsh rhetoric and ill treatment by deportation. That dog will not hunt.
LLS
So either you agree with the Gingrich plan, or you believe that he is lying. Noted.
Now why do you want to be like that?
LLS
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.