Posted on 11/26/2011 1:17:08 PM PST by Politics4US
If Newt Gingrich is a "policy wonk" as his friends proclaim, he is a very lazy one. He should have read the Kriebel Foundation's "Red Card Solution" before endorsing it as a non-amnesty solution to our immigration conundrum.
The so-called Red Card Solution purports to create a new guest-worker program that solves all of our immigration problems. It strengthens border security, helps employers fill low-skilled jobs, bars criminals from participation and does all of this by "empowering the private sector" without use of taxpayer dollars. Maybe in the fine print it also wipes out the national debt.
The problem is, it does none of those things, and anyone who takes time to actually read the full 41-page "white paper" instead of the press handout will see this.
Buried deep in the proposal is a statement that ought to send a chill up the spine of any American who opposes amnesty. The plan makes endless statements that foreign nationals who participate in our work force through the Red Card non-immigrant visa are "on a totally separate track" from immigrants seeking citizenship. Yet, in the fine print the proposal admits that this is not actually true. Any worker could apply for a green card – and thus a path to citizenship – after completing several years in the program. The sole hitch? They could not go to the head of the line.
So, the Red Card program does not convey citizenship, but it does establish a legal path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the country. Memo to Newt: That's not a back-door amnesty program, it's a front-door amnesty program.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Oh crap, here we go again.
As we secure the border, we must make an aggressive and serious effort to deport all criminals, gang members, and any other threats to our society as quickly as possible. We must also tap into the ingenuity of the private sector to better validate who is in the United States legally.
Newt opposed the DREAM Act. However, he did agree with part of the legislation which allowed those who came to the United States illegally as children to serve in the U.S. Military to earn their citizenship, just as foreign nationals are today allowed to do the same.
Furthermore, Newt has proposed giving local communities the authority to allow those with long established roots in the neighborhood a legal residency status, but not citizenship. Newt believes local communities are at a better vantage point to determine if those there illegally should stay or go. Under this system, we will send home those with no family or community ties and quickly deport those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts, while providing minimal disruption to families and communities.
Read Newt’s 10 step immigration plan here.
Can anyone show me Newt endorsed the “Kreible” plan?
Such an “apartheid” red card would be slapped down by the SCOTUS in about one year of it being enacted, and all of the red-carders would be granted full citizenship.
A Newt lover from Drumrass
Rose to the head of the Rino class
By reciting quite bright
And sleeping at night
With his tongue up the SPEAKERS A**!
Here is my own fictional take on what may come:
Fernando Ortiz was a ‘landscape engineer’ on Long Island who had demanded to be able to vote, on the basis that he had been paying state and federal taxes for ten years. Actually, he had been stopped from casting a ballot by a poll watcher who had suspected his citizenship status, and (illegally, as it turned out) demanded proof of his identity and legal qualification to vote. Ortiz had won a multi-million dollar settlement against the Republican Party of New York in the subsequent “racial profiling and ethnic intimidation” civil suit, but he did not stop there.
Instead, with massive support from the ACLU and various Hispanic “immigrants rights” foundations, he had pressed his demand to be allowed to vote all the way to the Supreme Court…and he won. The Supreme Court, in its famous 5-4 decision, ruled that negligence in securing America’s borders against illegal immigration on the part of the federal government, could not be held against “undocumented workers who played by the rules and paid their taxes,” once they were established in America—legally or not. The federal government had not taken reasonable efforts to secure the border, and had not pursued “undocumented workers” in the USA. Instead, it openly permitted them most of the benefits of citizenship, and it collected their taxes. “No taxation without representation!” was the cry heard all the way to the Supreme Court. The State of New York had then sleep-walked through an aimless and desultory case for denying the vote—and citizenship—to “undocumented workers.”
Following Ortiz v. New York, a stunned America woke up to discover that there were not only an amazing twenty-two million illegal aliens hiding in plain sight across the land, but that eight million of them immediately qualified to vote. In a nation split 50-50 down party and ideological lines, these eight million new voters were recognized to be the certain majority-makers in future elections, and both parties set record lows for cravenness in pandering to their “needs.” Chief among their “needs” were liberal new family reunification laws, and these instant citizens—illegal aliens only a year before—began bringing the remainders of their families to the USA. Legally.
Overnight, wavering Democrat states became locks, and swing states with large Hispanic populations went solidly “blue.” The result was the recent election which had brought Gobernador Deleon to power in Nuevo Mexico, and had also brought radical Democrats to power in the White House and both houses of congress.
Thus had come the political tsunami which swept all before it, a tidal wave triggered by an undocumented lawn maintenance worker named Fernando Ortiz.
From “Domestic Enemies: The Reconquista.”
This is why Newty is a POS and a Progressive. This is not a local issue. If this idea were to take hold, illegals would just head to sanctuary cities, get citizenship and then move on to other places in the country. What do you think San Fran would do with the power to decide citizenship?
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” Saul Allinsky, Rules for Radicals
Do you disagree with Tancredo’s analysis that Gingrich’s plan is a front-door amnesty because it provides a legal path to citizenship for illegals?
Do you have any thoughts whatsoever on the points made by Tom Tancredo in this article?
In particular, Tancredo’s conclusion that Gingrich’s plan is amnesty, since it allows those who came here illegally a path to legality and from there to citizenship?
Just sayin'.
Was Newt Gingrich crazy to suggest that the United States needed a more "humane" immigration policy? Crazy like a fox, perhaps. Gingrich's gambit wasn't a Rick Perry-style stumble or gaffe: it was a cleverly calculated maneuver. Already dominating Mitt Romney among Tea Party conservatives, he decided that a highly visible move to the center on an issue that is not likely to decide the 2012 election could score him points with GOP voters who wonder if he's as "electable" as Romney.
Many Tea party conservatives, Newt reasons, know that he's more conservative than Romney, and won't let the immigration issue alone sway their votes. After all, he's already thrown them plenty of "red meat" on Obamacare, Iran, and other bellwether issues. At the same time, by suggesting that he's able to reach out to Latino voters in the general election, and has an actual immigration plan to compete with Obama's, he could well win over many moderates who are otherwise still stuck on Mitt.
Why would I need Tancredo or anyone to make any analysis of what Gingrich says for me? Can you not think for yourself? I can. Nothing you have to add will change my opinion of Newt.
I am for President Elect Newt Gingrich.
So global warming scam, individual mandate and amnesty are ok?
NO
Good Lord, woman, don't read ANOTHER THING! EVER!
Because, according to you, every author is trying to tell you what to think and you are so weak, they just might succeed if you don't avoid their powerful words.
Sad.
Looks like that's really what Free Republic is becoming: a place where people post articles that no one reads because they really don't want to engage the larger debate that is out there.
Apparently, because some are too afraid their minds might be controlled by the words on a page. That the author is "trying to tell them WHAT TO THINK" and this must be resisted by NOT READING THE ARTICLE. That's just very weird.
If you don't want to debate the points made in the articles that are posted, why do you get on a thread?
You do realize that that makes it even more imperative that you try to make cogent, persuasive counterarguments to the author's points.
For one thing, you are going to need the practice.
Get this. I don't have to do a damn thing but to just read truth, rather than the insistant bashing posts on Newt, there is nothing you have to say that will presuade me to any of your opinions on Newt.
Good grief, yourself, I see you do not take your own advice and ignore completely what Newt actually has said, as there are NUMEROUS posts and links to enlighten you, how many more do you need?
My fellow NEWT supporters are doing a fine job of feeding you, and not much more I could add to their opinions, but sadly no one can make you eat.
President Elect Newt Gingrich.
YAWN.......ZZZZZZZZZZZ.
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.