Posted on 12/17/2011 12:14:45 PM PST by ckilmer
My one problem with Newt is his idea of allowing people who have lived 25 years in the country to remain and to set that decision in the hands of local officials.
Why?
Consider.
That stand almost immediately got praise from both clinton and schumer.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/nov/27/picket-schumer-and-bill-clinton-plant-kisses-death/
Soon after, the LA Times ran a story that said 60% of illegals have been in the USA for 10 years or more. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/60-percent-illegal-immigrants-report.html
Why would partisan democrats praise newt’s idea. Why would the LA Times run the story that 60% of illegals have been in the country have been in the country for 10 years or more.
Because they would see clearly how Newt's plan could be gamed--just like Ronald Reagan 1986 amnesty was gamed.
In a conservative county most of the illegals would be pushed out because the 25 year rule would be strictly adhered to -- but in a county where most people speak spanish and 40% of the population is illegal — nobody will be deported. The LA Times suggests that they might draw the line at 10 years. But that's not the way it would work in practice. In high illegal counties soon enough people who have just stepped over the border would be allowed through. There won’t be anything the feds or the state can do because they locals will be the ultimate arbiter. What’s more these counties will become gateway counties into the country from other countries and they will attract illegals forced out of other parts of the country. Once legalized they could move on.
The result will be that florida and texas especially will rapidly shift over to the democratic column. That’s the big prize the democrats are counting on that will shut the republicans out of presidential politics and the direction of the country.
That’s why the most partisan democrats Schumer and Clinton had high praise for Newt’s idea.
Anybody who thinks about this plan for more than 5 seconds will realize how stupid and dishonest it is. Newt surely knows about the history and fraud and he still supports it. So he must be dishonest amnesty activist too.
Is handwritten lease or verbal testimony from neighbor enough evidence to prove illegal has been here 25 years? These issues will be defined by gov agencies and courts.
Every (non-white) person on this planet, with the help of La Raza/ACORN can provide necessary “proof”.
What about people who have been 20 years? Will they still be deported? Of course not. They are so close to 25 years (or whatever is the limit), that additional clarifications, at least by executive order, would be created.
So this would be absolute 100% blanket amnesty.
Occasional high profile murderer may be deported, that’s all.
Citizen boards are a joke. Everybody hate jury duty already, now another board? Why liberals in San Francisco should have the right to legalize 100M illegals? Of course, every illegal would go through San Francisco citizen board (remember, document fraud is so easy).
So this is absolute dishonesty.
If somebody does not understand the true nature of this (blanket amnesty), he/she is a total fool.
Newt’s “let’s secure border” is like “let’s reduce unemployment” Everybody is saying that, even Obama.
Newt has fought against employer verifications when he was in Congress.
The real solution is this:
- make sure no amnesty, ever, is forthcoming
- old-fashion fence in many areas (so future admin can not easily reduce security by executive order)
- e-verify (and jail executives who hire illegals)
- support strict state laws
- streamline deportation proceedings
Do you honestly believe the courts will let Newt’s “you can be permanent residents, but you can’t ever be citizens” stand?
I don’t care what Webster says. In this case PARDON = AMNESTY.
They may indeed cut it 10 years but they won’t have to because all the fraud perpetrated by the illegal aliens will simply be ignored. The residency requirements for the 86 amnesty were ingored.
Based on the postings today, I have started to wonder if Vanity means posted by a Paulbot.
Sometimes he is and sometimes he is not. It depends on the time and the audience. We really don't know what his real position is since he has been on all sides of the issue.
Newt described himself as a Green Conservative and a believer in manmade climate change that needed to be addressed by the USG immediately. Remember this interchange in had in his famous "debate" on climate change with Kerry that turned into a love-in?
Kerry-Gingrich “debate” on Global Warming
At one point, Gingrich said, "We're not arguing over whether it [a plan to fight global warming] should be urgent. We're arguing over whether bureaucracy and litigation is a better way to be urgent or whether science and technology translated by entrepreneurs into products is a better way to be urgent."
Finally, Kerry relented. "I'm excited to hear you talk about the urgency," he said. But "what would you say to Senator [Jim] Inhofe [R-Okla.] and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science?"
Gingrich didn't hesitate. "My message," he said, "is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere." The pro-Kerry crowd applauded.
"And do it urgently?" the senator pressed.
"And do it urgently, yeah," the former speaker replied. "I think there has to be, if you will, a green conservatism," he added.
April 10, 2007
I said publicly sitting on the couch with Pelosi is the dumbest thing I have done. But I never favored cap and trade and actively testified against it. I was in the U.S. House and Energy Committee the same day Al Gore was there to testify for it and I testified against it. Through American Solutions we fought it in the Senate and we played a major role in defeating it.
1989: Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) co-sponsors the ambitious Global Warming Prevention Act (H.R. 1078), which finds that “the Earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions,” that “global warming imperils human health and well-being” and calls for policies “to reduce world emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 20 percent from 1988 levels by 2000.” The legislation recognizes that global warming is a “major threat to political stability, international security, and economic prosperity.” [H.R. 1078, 2/22/1989]
1997: As Speaker of the House, Gingrich co-sponsors H. Con. Res. 151, which notes carbon dioxide is a “major greenhouse gas” that comes from “products whose manufacture consumes fossil fuels” and calls on the United States to “manage its public domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” [H. Con. Res. 151, 9/10/1997]
2007: Gingrich calls for a cap-and-trade system with tax incentives for clean energy. “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]
NANCY PELOSI: Hi. I’m Nancy Pelosi, lifelong Democrat and Speaker of the House.
NEWT GINGRICH: And I’m Newt Gingrich, lifelong Republican, and I used to be Speaker.
PELOSI: We don’t always see eye-to-eye, do we Newt?
GINGRICH: No. But we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.
PELOSI: We need cleaner forms of energy and we need them fast.
GINGRICH: If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need.
April 18, 2008
It will be cut to nothing, because the plan is unrealistic and unenforceable, and the will is lacking. Newt needs to shelve this half-baked idea.
Newt could be forced to back down from his claim to grant "legality" to that group once the facts were thrown in Newt's face and tell him that those people are here because he and others in Congress since that time failed to keep their word or do their job!
Newt is first and foremost a political animal and want's the top job.
Just like some of the wishy/washy folk in DC, he can be made to stand and fight - if, and only if, he knows there are others behind him (with pitch forks) to stand against the pro-amnesty filth, including those in the Church as it's only being done for money. Follow the money and you'll expose those who insist on keeping illegals coming here. It's not merely about being "hospital to travelers amongst us" it's about continuing to keep them coming for slave labor and illegal voting plus getting your tax dollars for having "disadvantaged" folk in our midst.
We need a path to legality, but not citizenship, for some of these individuals who have deep ties to America, including family, church and community ties. We also need a path to swift but dignified repatriation for those who are transient and have no roots in America.
This pure sophistry. And exactly does he intend to have a "swift" repartriation of the estimated 2 million "criminal aliens" that are here? McCain said the same thing only he used the word "immediately."
LLS
Newt's written plan contains no real criteria so you really can't say how many would receive amnesty.
The status quo is much preferable to Newt’s amnesty plan.
Newt is radioactive material. I agree with Ann Coulter.
Newt’s written plan does not include any mention of 25 years or any time limit at all.
He's been there through it all. I love these home made einsteins who sit around on a Saturday afternoon and think they can out think the guy who was there for so many years, and has been thinking about it longer than einstein maybe has been alive.
LLS
BUMP
Priorities. I’m way more interested in getting rid of the people who came here recently—the women creating anchor babies, the young criminals, the real problems. I also think it’s easier on technical grounds to get rid of the newcomers than the ones who have been here a long time. If we can’t close and bolt the door, keep new illegals out, and chuck the recent arrivals out, we don’t have any chance of getting rid of the old-timers. We’re so far from doing any of this that the issue of longtime illegal residents is sort of a moot point.
PARDON
“EXCUSE OR ABSOLVE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF A FAULT OR CRIME”
ASSESSING A $5000.00 TAX FOR A LIFETIME OF STEALING, LYING, NOT ASIMILATING AND REFUSING TO EMBRACE OUR AMERICAN CULTURE IS INSANE... AND IF IT IS A FINE... WHAT COURT WILL RENDER DUE PROCESS?
It is exactly as Mark Stein said. newt knows this plan is 100% unworkable... and it is amnesty no matter whether or not newt thinks that this insane 5 G's will make it something other than Amnesty... the result is the same end. Like with all things newt... when his ideas are seriously critiqued... most of them are unworkable at best. Look up gullible... you need to understand that word also.
LLS
No it doesn’t but he stated a criteria of 25year residence and that’s what I’m going on. Even 15-20 year should be enough to be a reasonable standard to shut up all but the most radical opponents. This is a problem that MUST be solved, and it’s going to hurt a little bit but right now it hurts a lot.
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.