ONLY ONE CANDIDATE IS RIGHT ON THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES [Coulter Explains Support For Romney]

Newt wants to deport the illegals that are already here unless they are self supporting, have no criminal records, speak english, pay a fine and move to the back of the line in order to apply for citizenship. The rest he is in favor of deporting and securing our borders to block entry of any and all ilegals. Also, the only ones he is considering to remain in this country are the ones that have lived here for 25 yrs and they still have to follow a legal process. The others will be deported. They will not be allowed to use food stamps, medical freebies and etc. It is doable and vs the expense of deportation fees which are not cheap..it is the best plan out there. Most of the other candidates have similiar plans.
Some of the unemployed in America chose to live a life off the system and I am not talking illegals. They have lived that way from the cradle to the grave by choice. Our govt provides Americans with so many freebies..why should they look for work? foodstamps, free lunches, free after school care, free day care, free heatlh care and a check for unemployment in the mail. It is a disgrace. Also, I dont believe 25 million are REALLY looking for jobs. There are jobs they just dont want to take. Why should they? the unemployment checks work out just fine for them

That is an amnesty plan no different than the McCain-Kennedy or Hagel-Martinez amnesty plan. How many illegal aliens will this encompass? And exactly how will he deport the rest?

Candidates who respond that we should deport “criminal” illegal aliens and that “undocumented workers who play by the rules” should have their status regularized in some way by the federal government, i.e., pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line on a earned path to citizenship are supporters of amnesty. Trying to create two classes of illegal aliens is a distinction without a difference, except if you are intent on treating them differently, i.e., providing one group with an amnesty.

There are an estimated 2 million "criminal aliens." How do you define criminal alien? The vast majority of illegals in this country have committed multiple crimes including ID theft, working (it is illegal to hire illegal aliens and it is illegal for them to work here,) tax evasion, driving illegally, falsifying employment documents, etc.

Also, the only ones he is considering to remain in this country are the ones that have lived here for 25 yrs and they still have to follow a legal process.

Here is Newt's immigration plan. There is no mention of any time limit, 25 years or otherwise. We had a one-time amnesty 25 years ago in 1986, which means Newt wants to grant amnesty to those who missed the last one. In 1986 the USG estimated one million would apply, but the real number turned out to be 2.7 million. We now have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. When you reward something, you get more of it. Will there be a third amnesty beyond this one?

The others will be deported. They will not be allowed to use food stamps, medical freebies and etc.

That is already the law now. How will they be deported? Will there be a mass roundup of illegals? What do we do with their American born children. 300,000 to 400,000 "anchor babies" are born each year to illegal aliens. They are American citizens. They are entitled to Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

Our govt provides Americans with so many freebies..why should they look for work? foodstamps, free lunches, free after school care, free day care, free heatlh care and a check for unemployment in the mail. It is a disgrace. Also, I dont believe 25 million are REALLY looking for jobs. There are jobs they just dont want to take. Why should they? the unemployment checks work out just fine for them

You don't have a clue about what is happening to the economy of this country. Real unemployment (U-6) is closer to 16%. People are hurting. If you don't believe that we have a serious job problem in this country or that millions of people have lost their homes through foreclosures, you are living in some sort of fantasy world.

Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty alone would be $2.6 trillion. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.

Amnesty, from the same Greek root as "amnesia," forgives past crimes and removes them from the record for future purposes. In the context of immigration, amnesty is commonly defined as granting legal status to a group of individuals unlawfully present in a country. It overlooks the alien's illegal entry and ongoing illegal presence and creates a new legal status that allows the recipient to live and work in the country.

No, Ann is not wrong, you are.

As your own post demonstrates, Gingrich does NOT support e-verify, which is exactly what Ann said.

The fact that, according to you, Gingrich supports some other system that hasn't been put in place yet, is part of the point.

Moreover, while many groups are calling for adding a biometric component to the e-verify system, and even eventual replacement with a complete biometric system, the fact is that in the meantime e-verify is very important. The fact that Romney and Bachmann support the present system, which does include some biometric components, does not mean they don't support improving it.

Are you aware of Newt's strong efforts to completely kill e-verify, and that Newt is the reason that e-verify has been VOLUNTARY all these years? Does that tell you anything?

From HERE:

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WOULD NOT BE A TOPIC IN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES IF SPEAKER GINGRICH IN 1996 HAD TAKEN DIFFERENT IMMIGRATION POSITIONS

The political stars were in alignment in 1995-96 when the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (appointed by the Senate and the House, and chaired by Barbara Jordan) issued its recommendations to protect vulnerable American workers. The immigration subcommittees of both House and Senate quickly presented legislation to carry out the recommendations to cut legal immigration in half and to stop illegal immigration, primarily by removing the jobs magnet.

As Speaker of the House, Gingrich was in the pivotal position to help Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith push through the 1996 comprehensive bill that set up the verification program that eventually was named "E-Verify."

The Commission had found that illegal immigration was booming in the 10 years since the 1986 blanket amnesty because illegal aliens had found it was still easy to obtain and keep U.S. jobs.

What did Speaker Gingrich do?

Those of us involved in that fight know that we were constantly and desperately seeking support from Gingrich which didn't come.

Instead, Gingrich tried to kill the new job verification system entirely. Fortunately, the killer amendment he supported failed. No thanks to Gingrich, we have an E-Verify system today.

But the E-Verify system is entirely VOLUNTARY today because of another House vote which Gingrich won. That vote was to make sure that the verification system would NOT be MANDATORY for employers.

The nation's Big Business lobbies deemed it essential that employers maintain the ability to cheat the paper verification system and hire illegal workers. Speaker Gingrich saw to it that the ability continued.

I am heartsick every time I think of that lost opportunity in 1996. If Speaker Gingrich had thrown his considerable talents and power behind the bi-partisan recommendations and supported Lamar Smith, most of the illegal aliens who arrived since then would not have bothered. And most of the illegal aliens who arrived before 1996 -- with less than 10 years of roots in this country -- would have gone back home.

Illegal immigration would not be topic of the 2012 Presidential debates.

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.

"Ann, you'be got a line in to these stupid conservatives - can't you please get them to like me? And what does 'FUMR' mean? It's all over Free Republic!"