Why Newt's Immigration Plan is the Death of Conservatives

12/17/2013 | Vanity

[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.

[narses]

Look at their accomplishments. Newt allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.

Romney, on the other hand, vehemently denied Ronald Reagan and aligned himself with Ted Kennedy and the left. Romney accomplished installing liberal big government programs, defended and promoted Roe v Wade and legalized abortion as “settled law,” advocated and implemented RomneyCare with its liberty killing government mandates against formerly free citizens and its taxpayer funded or subsidized and mandated abortion procedures. He ran and governed to the left of Ted Kennedy on the “gay agenda” resulting in gay marriage in Massachusetts. He appointed liberal judges and liberal appointees throughout his government. Under his “leadership” conservatism and the Republican party was all but destroyed in Massachusetts.

Romney is one evil liberal progressive. No way in hell will MittBots be allowed to support this abortionist, big government, socialist scumbag on FR!

Guess my message isn’t clear enough. I have to keep repeating it and zotting would be MittBots.

79 posted on Sat Dec 03 2011 19:59:37 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Jim Robinson

[bwc2221]

You can bet Newt's WWII-type community boards will be composed of a LaRaza member, a precinct delegate for the Democratic Party and either a Unitarian minister or a nun.

[bwc2221]

You can bet Newt's WWII-type community boards will be composed of a LaRaza member, a precinct delegate for the Democratic Party and either a Unitarian minister or a nun.

[big'ol_freeper]

You are aware that in 1986 Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to illegals who were in the USA...Let’s do some simple math 1986 + 25= 2011. So anyone here 25 years already has been granted amnesty. Newt’s plan does nothing to change the status of anyone. And he shrewdly knows it.

[kabar]

The way you solve the problem is attrition thru enforcement. You don't provide a second amnesty, which rewards lawbreakers and just provides an incentive for a third amnesty. We had a "one-time" amnesty in 1986 that was supposed to resolve this problem once and for all. The USG estimated at the time that 1 million would apply and the real number turned out to be 2.7 million. We now have an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. Amnesty doesn't work.

The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arizona proving that it does.

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.

[kabar]

Who said we only have a choice between Gingrich and Romney?

[PeterPrinciple]

The way you solve the problem is attrition thru enforcement.

---

Repeat LOUD and OFTEN..........................

[fabian]

O please...you are being overly dramatic. Obviously his plan will work as if companies are not allowed to hire them, they have to self deport! If they can prove they have been here for a quarter century...no big deal to allow them to stay, minus voting rights. Are you a Romney supporter?

[JCG]

Are you a Romney supporter?

I'll support the Republican regardless. (Gawd, that includes Ron Paul.)

----

Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it.
www.AnySoldier.com
(An entirely free service)

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

I agree to a point. The first step is to enforce and regulate the borders hard and fast.

Now we have all those people here what do we do? Find out who the hell they are. Give them 30 days to split.

If they stay, no welfare, must be employed and paying taxes for 10 years, all English speaking at a high level, then they can apply for citizenship.

They will be allowed to vote, but no ballots can contain Democratic Candidates, only candidates of my choice.

[newzjunkey]

There you go! You're injecting facts into the discussion!

[ckilmer]

what you say is exactly true.

However, problem with Newt’s plan is that it allows unlimited opportunity to game the law that he enacts. So the result will be something entirely different from that intended.

[newzjunkey]

Look... the plan is sequential. He'd secure the border by Jan 2014. Get after employers and implement eVerify. He'd make it easier to deport instead of the endless process we have now where "final deportation orders" are ignored.

You do all these things, one by one, authorized by different bills to make sure the American People can verify they've been done. You improve visitor and worker programs so people can travel here and do business here.

At the dead end, if there are a few people left who have been here 25 years with American family sponsors and strong community ties, that's where these citizen review boards come in and make a call whether that individual can stay without granting citizenship.

[ckilmer]

I’m not a paulbot. Ron Paul’s position on border issues is pretty liberal.

I want the border shut down and the illegals thrown out.

[BfloGuy]

NO ONE is talking about having them walk back to Mexico in the hot broiling Sun in June.

No. We should send them home on high-speed rail! One of the good ones -- with a snack car.

[kabar]

I agree to a point. The first step is to enforce and regulate the borders hard and fast.

Here is what we need to do in terms of enforcement remembering that 40% of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens came here legally and overstayed their visas:

 Secure the border;

 Enforce existing immigration laws to reduce the current illegal alien population and limit future illegal immigration, i.e., attrition thru enforcement. Enforcement would include: (1) ending the job magnet; (2) increasing coordination at the federal level by eliminating barriers to information sharing among agencies; (3) leveraging state and local enforcement resources; (4) fully implementing the US-VISIT Program to track and deport visa overstays; and (5) make mandatory and improve such programs as E-Verify and 287 [g] authority to assist employers and law enforcement in identifying illegal aliens;

 Ensure that anyone who enters this nation illegally is not rewarded by being permitted to stay and work here; i.e., no amnesty;

Now we have all those people here what do we do? Find out who the hell they are. Give them 30 days to split.

The devil is in the details. Sounds great until you realize the scope of the problem. I see no sense of urgency in dealing with those illegals who are already here in terms of legalizing their status. There is no need to legalize their status. We should invest our efforts in the enforcement our existing laws and making it very difficult for illegals to stay and work here. We can force many of them to self-deport. And we must take the measures necessary to cut the flow of future illegals.

If they stay, no welfare, must be employed and paying taxes for 10 years, all English speaking at a high level, then they can apply for citizenship.

That is amnesty. When you reward something, you get more of it. There are approximately 4 million intending immigrants waiting overseas for their turn to enter this country. They have completed all of the paperwork and background checks, physicals, etc. They have been waiting in some cases for a number of years depending on what category they are in. If you legalize those lawbreakers who disregarded and flaunted our laws and sovereignty who broke into this country, worked illegally, commited ID theft, tax evasion, driving without a license, etc. what kind of message does this send to those who obeyed our laws? Are the lawbreakers the ones we want as our citizens?

The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.

Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 310 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 130 million to 440 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.977 percent (2010 estimate), principally due to immigration.

We are importing poverty with our current immigration policies. 57% of immigrant headed households with children are on welfare. We are importing hundreds of thousands of high school dropouts every year.

They will be allowed to vote, but no ballots can contain Democratic Candidates, only candidates of my choice.

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2039, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

Since the 1965 Immigration Act, our pro-population growth immigration policies have fueled major demographic changes in a very short period of time. In 1970, non-Hispanic whites comprised 89 percent of the population; today they are 66 percent; and by 2039, they will be 50 percent. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues. The continuing and increasing flow of minority immigrants, mostly poor and uneducated, provide a natural constituency for the Democrats, which see them as their principal source of political power.

[muawiyah]

Hey, one train, one man, one time!

[newzjunkey]

Did you miss post 3 which demonstrates Newt's plan is also Bachmann's plan

Are any of you folks for real? Palin's plan from 2010 differs little.

Newt's just had the guts to lay it out and not dance around trying to trick you.

[Ron H.]

Not only do I also oppose Newt and his version of immigration reform with his so called 25 year plan is that it flies in the face of the law of the land. It will only encourage ever more illegals to come here to get in on the next wave of amnesties that would allow them to become legal as well.

For so many so called conservatives so eager to just ignore our immigrations laws, which are the laws of the land and we are sworn to protect and defend those said laws, to just ignore the ones they don't like and only obey the ones they do like is very troubling indeed. Anarchy will soon follow as the rule of laws continues to crumble under such a massive weight of selective enforcement. Not long after that we then become no better off that a banana republic.

So I say NO to anything that would give these disobedient law breaking invaders any sense of legal status and punish any politician that would attempt to do otherwise no matter who they are.

[Ron H.]

Newt nominated = Obama reelected

I happen to agree.