Gingrich urges action against illegals

Washington Times ^ | Monday, February 21, 2005 | By Ralph Z. Hallow

[XBob]

82 - "I would not trust Gingrich as far as I could throw him.
I think Newt has become unpopular with some for plainly stating the truth. Perhaps his "subtlety and nuance" need some work, but he's a good rep."

I gave up on trusting Gingrich years ago, when he repeatedly argued that the Social Security Tax was not a tax, and should not be counted when calculating 'tax rates' on people.

[XBob]

82 - "I would not trust Gingrich as far as I could throw him.
I think Newt has become unpopular with some for plainly stating the truth. Perhaps his "subtlety and nuance" need some work, but he's a good rep."

I gave up on trusting Gingrich years ago, when he repeatedly argued that the Social Security Tax was not a tax, and should not be counted when calculating 'tax rates' on people.

[potlatch]

OOOH, this is good!! People like Gingrich speaking out will be a help, I hope!

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Amazing how many people around here want to bash Newt. I like his ideas and what he said. Now we need some follow up!

Newt has a lot of good conservative ideas, which he did follow through on when he was in Congress. On immigration though he's all over the board contradicting himself. At least with Tancredo there's consistentcy from start to finish.

[Smartaleck]

14th amendment......for those who can't get enough.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=365

About half way down the page.

"Whatever may be the contemporary vitality of the special public-interest doctrine in other contexts after Takahashi, we conclude that a State's desire to preserve limited welfare benefits for its own citizens is inadequate to justify Pennsylvania's making noncitizens ineligible for public assistance, and Arizona's restricting benefits to citizens and longtime resident aliens.

First, the special public interest doctrine was heavily grounded on the notion that "[w]hatever is a privilege, rather than a right, may be made dependent upon citizenship." People v. Crane, 214 N. Y., at 164, 108 N. E., at 430. But this Court now has rejected the concept that constitutional rights turn upon whether a governmental benefit is characterized as a "right" or as a "privilege." Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404 (1963); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S., at 627 n. 6; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262 (1970); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971). Second, as the Court recognized in Shapiro:

"[A] State has a valid interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its programs It may legitimately attempt to limit its expenditures, whether for public [403 U.S. 365, 375] assistance, public education, or any other program. But a State may not accomplish such a purpose by invidious distinctions between classes of its citizens. . . . The saving of welfare costs cannot justify an otherwise invidious classification." 394 U.S., at 633 .

Since an alien as well as a citizen is a "person" for equal protection purposes, a concern for fiscal integrity is no more compelling a justification for the questioned classification in these cases than it was in Shapiro.

We agree with the three-judge court in the Pennsylvania case that the "justification of limiting expenses is particularly inappropriate and unreasonable when the discriminated class consists of aliens. Aliens like citizens pay taxes and may be called into the armed forces. Unlike the short-term residents in Shapiro, aliens may live within a state for many years, work in the state and contribute to the economic growth of the state." 321 F. Supp., at 253. See also Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. California, 71 Cal. 2d 566, 581-582, 456 P.2d 645, 656 (1969). There can be no "special public interest" in tax revenues to which aliens have contributed on an equal basis with the residents of the State.

Accordingly, we hold that a state statute that denies welfare benefits to resident aliens and one that denies them to aliens who have not resided in the United States for a specified number of years violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The matter is "somewhat" clarified or confused as the case may be here:
[Footnote 32] Rejected state interests included preserving limited resources for its lawful residents, deterring an influx of illegal aliens, avoiding the special burden caused by these children, and serving children who were more likely to remain in the State and contribute to its welfare. Id. at 227-30.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/31.html#t32

Stated...When confronted with a state statute that authorized local school boards *****to exclude from public schools alien children who were not legally admitted to the United States, the Court determined that an intermediate level of scrutiny was appropriate and found that the proffered justifications did not sustain the classification.**** 29 Inasmuch as it was clear that the undocumented status of the children was not irrelevant to valid government goals and inasmuch as the Court had previously held that access to education was not a ''fundamental interest'' which triggered strict scrutiny of governmental distinctions relating to education, 30 the Court's decision to accord intermediate review was based upon an amalgam of at least three factors. ****First, alienage was a characteristic that provokes special judicial protection when used as a basis for discrimination. Second, the children were innocent parties who were having a particular onus imposed on them because of the misconduct of their parents. Third, the total denial of an education to these chil dren would stamp them with an ''enduring disability'' that would harm both them and the State all their lives.***** 31 The Court evaluated each of the State's attempted justifications and found none of them satisfying the level of review demanded. 32 It seems evident that Plyler v. Doe is a unique case and that whatever it may doctrinally stand for, a sufficiently similar factual situation calling for application of its standards is unlikely to be replicated.

(Note ....it isn't always clear without more reading whether the courts are referring to aliens and or illegal aliens equaly without specific language to such.)

Quite a bit here on the 14th overall.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/#annotations

[F16Fighter]

"We gotta bird-dog this guy Newt, and shut down his act ASAP."

Yeah, Newt's off his rocker.

Imagine putting the spotlight of the Bush Administration for their ignoring the illegal immigration problem and border security since 9/11.

Who else do you want to "shut down"? Any Freepers in mind?

[lainde]

bttt

[Happy2BMe]

Unless President Bush does a complete 180-degree turnaround on his nonexistent border protection policy and tells the OBL to get off his train, Republicans won't be driving any trains around here for a very long time and you will definitely see another historic shift in 2008 . .

Free Republic Opinion Poll: If you could choose the number one priority issue for Bush's second term (after national security/defense), what would it be?

Composite Opinion
Stop Illegal Immigration	27.6%		960
Fight for Judicial Nominees	26.3%		918
Cut Spending, Reduce Government	18.3%		639
Reform Taxes, Social Security, Medicare	12.1%		421
Defend Right to Life, Family Values	6.8%		237
Stop Voter Fraud	3.4%		118
Other/Undecided/Pass	1.7%		59
Repeal or Reform the Patriot Act	1.5%		51
Medical Malpractice/Tort Reform	1.4%		49
Repeal McCain/Feingold (CFR)	0.9%		32
	100.0%		3,484
Member Opinion
Fight for Judicial Nominees	27.0%		730
Stop Illegal Immigration	25.9%		699
Cut Spending, Reduce Government	19.7%		532
Reform Taxes, Social Security, Medicare	12.2%		329
Defend Right to Life, Family Values	7.1%		192
Stop Voter Fraud	3.1%		84
Other/Undecided/Pass	1.9%		50
Medical Malpractice/Tort Reform	1.2%		33
Repeal or Reform the Patriot Act	1.0%		27
Repeal McCain/Feingold (CFR)	0.9%		24
	100.0%		2,700
Non-Member Opinion
Stop Illegal Immigration	33.3%		261
Fight for Judicial Nominees	24.0%		188
Cut Spending, Reduce Government	13.6%		107
Reform Taxes, Social Security, Medicare	11.7%		92
Defend Right to Life, Family Values	5.7%		45
Stop Voter Fraud	4.3%		34
Repeal or Reform the Patriot Act	3.1%		24
Medical Malpractice/Tort Reform	2.0%		16
Other/Undecided/Pass	1.1%		9
Repeal McCain/Feingold (CFR)	1.0%		8
	99.8%		784

[Dustbunny]

We are with you Newt!!

Get on the band wagon and scream it from every direction!

[Happy2BMe]

TOM TANCREDO GETS BUSH'S APPROVAL.

=====================================================

Q: Karl Rove, the White House strategist, got so mad over your immigration stance that you were told not to darken the White House door. What's your relationship like with the president these days?

A: My wife and I went to the holiday ball at the White House. No one dances at this ball, because there's no room, and you get stuck waiting in this line... Luckily, we were by the cocktails and the canapes. Finally we got into the room with the Christmas tree, and the president comes up to me and says, "Tommy, I tell you, buddy, thanks for all the help out there." And I'm thinking, "Help out there?" And I say, "Thanks -- anytime." And I realize later that he's talking about the fact that I was the Bush co-chair in Colorado, an honor I did not seek. That was the sum total of my communion with him.

A FReeper's Guide To Immigration Reform

TOM TANCREDO GETS BUSH'S APPROVAL.

=====================================================

Q: Karl Rove, the White House strategist, got so mad over your immigration stance that you were told not to darken the White House door. What's your relationship like with the president these days?

A: My wife and I went to the holiday ball at the White House. No one dances at this ball, because there's no room, and you get stuck waiting in this line... Luckily, we were by the cocktails and the canapes. Finally we got into the room with the Christmas tree, and the president comes up to me and says, "Tommy, I tell you, buddy, thanks for all the help out there." And I'm thinking, "Help out there?" And I say, "Thanks -- anytime." And I realize later that he's talking about the fact that I was the Bush co-chair in Colorado, an honor I did not seek. That was the sum total of my communion with him.

A FReeper's Guide To Immigration Reform

[JustAnotherSavage]

BTT

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Tancredo in 2008.

[Happy2BMe]

I'm now hearing from reliable sources that Newt is 'HOT' on turning back illegal immigration from Mexico (all of a sudden) because it *WILL* be the ticket into the Oval Office in 2008 and he is testing the waters to see how many remember what he was very instrumental in loosening on the American People.

Hint: Starts with an "N"

[cynicom]

Newtie for prez.

[jwalsh07]

Hi Johnny.

I can see it now< Newt and Hillary seeing and raising the number of troops on the southern border. :-}

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Sounds to me as if Newt is just being an opportunist but I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt for now.

[seastay]

wasn't the Germany wall to keep people in, not out?

[daguberment]

"Let's be serious about sealing off our borders or [else] have open borders,"

Gee, Newt, do you think it's time for something as forceful as this? I think we need to wait until the "immigrants" are cooking tacos in your gazebo. Can we wait until that point before we get really excited about this problem. Memo to Newt... "contract with America".. Protect our f**king borders Newt.

[billbears]

Oh yes, how dare Newt points out the blaring insufficiencies in the Republican party when it comes to criminal activity (i.e. illegal immigration). Doesn't Newt realize that standard GOP mantra is to call for another amnesty that shall not be called amnesty? Let's slander Newt as much as we can. BTW, what's he done beside leading the '94 Contract for America in the House? Good grief, Republicans back then actually argued against such things as illegal immigration and massive healthcare plans way back then...what progress the Republican party has made since then...

[international american]

BTTT