Well, Hell's Bells. You can sit there all you want and talk about a technical definition of amnesty, but the fact is that Newt did propose an immigration policy that allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. Sorry, Newt, but, rightly or wrongly, that is very easy to characterize as "amnesty," and someone who was truly a savvy politician, as opposed to a motormouth, would know that. It doesn't matter whether it is technically amnesty or not. As presented, it is a policy that many do not agree with.
Moreover, when Newt announced this proposal, he prefaced it by saying something like "I know I'm going to get into trouble [with conservatives] on this." IOW, Newt knew VERY WELL that what he was about to propose could and would be characterized as amnesty, no matter what he said about.
On that basis alone, I think Gingrich -- and Hannity -- gave up any basis whatsoever for complaining about Gingrich's immigration position being characterized as amnesty. Gingrich knew that was going to be a problem and he went there, in the way he did, at the time he did, with the words he did, anyway.
Gingrich took the risk that he would be unable to persuade people that his policy did not amount to amnesty (and regardless of the technical definition thereof), and now he had to pay the piper.
That is all.
And that is typical Newt. Say something in such a way that it requires millions of hours of detailed analysis and explanation to get out the liberal stench that accompanied the original explanation.
Bingo! Give the man a cigar...