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 ...
Yep. To deal with Illegals: (1) Call them just that: Illegal Immigrants. (2) Make 'E-Verify' work. (3) Fine employers of Illegals - heavily.
Why would you think that? Congress can determine whatever means it likes for establishing naturalization criteria and, certainly, illegal entry is a legitimate barrier the courts, including SCOTUS, should recognize.
Under Newt's expressed concept, red card holders can only apply for citizenship if they leave the country and apply from back home.
Thanks for proving my point!
Anybody who can't see that as clearly as the noonday sun on a cloudless day in June at the equator, I have a very good deal on a selection of New York bridges and tunnels.
It’s the ‘bot mentality, even here.
Pick a candidate, and put on blinders.
PS: what Newt says now as part of his sales pitch means ZERO. What counts is what will be argued in front of the SCOTUS, and in a billion years they will NEVER permit a “two-tier citizenship” to stand.
Again: noonday sun, bridges for sale in NYC.
And then accuse the other guy of having picked a candidate and having put on blinders.
I’ve been through more than one primary season on FR and this is the worst, and most embarrassingly anti-intellectual, ever.
And the really funny thing is that I haven’t even picked a candidate yet, either. Too early for that.
But I'll admit I'm shocked at how dumb, naive or duplicitous folks are who posit the “red card second class citizenship” with a straight face.
Newt can do it, but we know he's an exceptionally smooth liar who could argue both sides of any case with equal aplomb.
It’s a trip.
It’s getting rarer and rarer that the majority of posts on a thread have anything to do with the posted article or are in any way an attempt by the poster to make a substantive point or lay out an arguments on the merits for a candidate’s position or electability.
And look at this thread — I asked a poster if she had any points to make about the conclusions of the article and she somehow construed this as an “attack post”! (Actually, she wrote an “attach post.”)
Anyway, that’s just sad (and sort of hilarious at the same time). Here we are at one of the most well-known conservative debate forums on the internet, yet if you ask some people if they are or are not here to engage in the actual discussion — or you ask them what their thoughts are on this or that point made by the author — they scream that they have received an “attach post.”
But, like I said, their response makes my point very well. So, what’s not to complain about?
It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.
Yes.
Before the outrageous attempt to scuttle the Cain campaign, I had not been so optimistic about a field of GOP candidates in a very long time. It really seemed like we were flying high and had an embarrassment of political riches.
But it’s very necessary to let these candidates go through the fire.
This isn’t a bad thing. It’s a good thing. Especially if we take the opportunity to figure out where we stand on a particular candidate’s “warts.” Because those warts are not going away. We deal with them now or we deal with them later.
Some people seem to think if they don’t read the articles “against” “their” candidate, the articles and the issues they raise don’t exist. Zippity-do-dah!
I have no problem with posters who don’t want to read an article. But to get on a thread and then refuse to read, much less even comment SUBSTANTIVELY and RESPONSIVELY on the points made in the article, turns FR into no more than Twitter with more than 140 characters per tweet.
Yep, I’m all for fully vetting them now, and not leaving room for any october surprises.
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.