Posted on 12/02/2010 1:05:36 PM PST by WilliamHouston
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a bold goal for the next decade: Overhaul the country's immigration system so that every worker in the United States is legal.
"We are not going to deport 11 million people," Gingrich said Thursday as he kicked off his first forum on Latino issues. "There has to be some zone between deportation and amnesty."
A possible presidential candidate, Gingrich stressed that his target of establishing an entirely legal work force is "not a call for amnesty." Rather, he said, it's about applying common sense to the immigration debacle.
"Dos y dos son cuatro" (two plus two equals four), he said to chuckles. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Words have meanings. The Democrats and the mainstream media have hijacked the language surrounding the immigration issue to the point that we had Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security and our nation’s top immigration official at the time, testifying before Congress using the term “undocumented workers” to describe illegal aliens. John McCain and Barack Obama studiously avoided the term “amnesty” to describe their comprehensive immigration reform plans and despite the evidence, baldly declared that it was not an amnesty. Instead, they used such euphemisms as “getting to the back of the line,” “an earned path to citizenship,” and “coming out of the shadows.” The Democrats and pro-amnesty crowd know full well that the American people are against amnesty, hence the avoidance of the “A” word.
Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty.
Motivated by parochial self-interest, the pro-mass immigration, open borders, amnesty advocates have formed a powerful coalition including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labor union leaders, the Catholic Church, ethnic and racial groups, “moderate” Republicans, and the Democrat Party. The common thread that unites these groups is power, money, and the prospect of increased constituencies, even at the expense of our long-term national interests and survival.
Because Newt is mealy mouthing around at his pander to Hispanics meeting, and he actually is proposing some form of future amnesty rather than enforcement of the law and gradual self-deportation.
It's true Republicans don't have the power to set immigration policy at present, but it's more desirable to defeat all amnesty attempts by Dems, then begin to enforce the law once we again have the White House.
It's critical that we elect a president who does not support amnesty schemes, which Newt is supporting by eliminating all other options with his mealy mouthing around the issue.
So painfully, manifestly obvious, it's actually embarrassing that so many so-called "conservatives" -- even here, on this very site! -- evidently need plain, unvarnished facts such as these EXPLAINED to them, over and over and over again.
Just my $0.02:
Hey Newt you sack-less eunuch - Just what other laws will you selectively refuse to enforce?
Jess, I know your handle, and have seen you posting here for a long time now, but that doesn't mean that I'm current on your personal support, or lack thereof, for Governor Palin's presidential aspirations.
Granted, you were trying to prove a point in your response, but I believe the post you responded to (correct me if I'm wrong) provided a pretty thorough debunking of the "soft on illegal immigration" charge.
As for being a Palin supporter, why would you re-post that excerpt from the Univision interview, if you are? Surely, you understand that Gov Palin was on the stump for McCain at the time, and was compelled to support his weak immigration policy. That interview is simply a recording of her mouthing McCain's words - not elaborating on her personal positions.
I don't understand how any Palin supporter would throw out that particular snippet, knowing that her detractors eat that stuff up like red meat.
Sorry if I don't follow your reasoning.
As for myself, there are a couple of things that I would like for Palin to clarify to settle my mind, but I trust that when she declares her decision to run for office, that those clarifications will be forthcoming. Until then, I'm more than satisfied with what I've seen (and heard) so far from her.
“As for being a Palin supporter, why would you re-post that excerpt from the Univision interview, if you are?”
BECAUSE I WAS TOLD SHE DIDN’T SAY IT. I DON’T MAKE SHIT UP. I CITED IT. DEAL HONESTLY WITH IT. SHE SAID IT. I AM NOT A POLITICAL GAME PLAYER. IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE WHAT I AM SAYING REREAD THE THREAD OR LOOK AT MY POSTS. YOU BOTHERED TO LOOK UP THE QUOTE. JUST ON THIS ONE THREAD I SAID (AND I INVITE YOU TO PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO 140);
Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:35:21 PM · 205 of 246
jessduntno to November 2010
“Do you really think that she was expressing her unvarnished view in 2008 or do you think she had to toe the line set by the McCain campaign on it?”
I hope so ... isn’t that her strength? Are you suggesting she wasn’t herself? Look, I already said, in 3 different posts, that I thought she was the leader at this point in my book. Anyone who has been here more than two years and read ANY of my posts know that I believe that. What is your problem? You might want to reconsider that career in campaign management if you think it’s a good strategy to have people wondering about her forthrightness. I believe she said it because she said it. WTF?
AND;
Thursday, December 02, 2010 1:49:40 PM · 140 of 246
jessduntno to November 2010
“This is from a quick google. I don’t know why people think she’s soft on immigration.”
Hold on. I didn’t say it was true, I just said that if she did think that, she was wrong. However, you can also pretty easily find the following interview with Univisión anchor Jorge Ramos;
IF SHE DID THINK THAT SHE WAS WRONG.
AND;
Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:05:45 PM · 172 of 246
jessduntno to BillM
“This is the constitutional solution.”
Couldn’t agree more ... except I would go back to profiling and make sure there are no illegals here, period. Break out the green card if in doubt.
“It therefore is Sarah’s solution.”
She is on record not being that clear, such as the Ramos interview I have already quoted. But, not being an absolutist, I can tolerate differing with her opinions on some matters. This is one.
I MAKE THE POINT SHE IS NOT AS CLEAR AS I AM AND WE DIFFER, BUT I STILL SUPPORT HER.
SATISFIED?
Newt is right. The illegals will not be deported. This is why I condemn baby Bush for his whorish idiocy selling out this nation just to keep low-paid labor for his palsy walsies.
I completely understand why Clinton flooded this nation with illegals who make voter fraud much easier for the Dems, and all vote Dem when they gain citizenship, as well as their kids voting Dem.
I am baffled why Bush would flood us with illegals, except that I am not baffled. Despite his 3 or 4 conservative actions except, he is a globalist New World Order crook politician whore who happily sacrificed our rights, lifestyle, earnings for short term profits for Goldman Sucks and for his oil buddies, and on and on.
We, the little people, are screwed up the ass whoever is in charge. Things aren’t all that much different from serfdom in feudal Europe. Your lord gets his ass kicked, and you are still slinging mud raising spuds but for a different guy on a different horse.
Same here. Democrat. Republican. The middle class is still screwed up the ass while they scratch each other’s backs and crush our savings and lifestyle. It’s a game. It’s all rigged. We can’t win.
Oh and by the way. Your comment;
“As for being a Palin supporter, why would you re-post that excerpt from the Univision interview, if you are? Surely, you understand that Gov Palin was on the stump for McCain at the time, and was compelled to support his weak immigration policy.”
No one is compelled to compromise themselves intentionally and i wouldn’t vote for them if I thought they would.
I believe she has changed her position, which is giving her far more credit than do you.
This kind of talk is far more likely to turn people off than anything I said. She sounds like another mealy mouth in that paragraph of yours and she isn’t. You oversimplified and make it sound as if we should keep her hypocrisy to ourselves and not talk about it. WRONG.
Eleven Million? Not since the mid 1980s. And rewarding criminal behavior encourages criminal behavior you slack jawed nitwit.
No need to shout.
Jess, I think you're being a bit hyper-sensitive about someone leveling a small criticism at you. You're splitting hairs, and ignoring some salient facts in order to make yourself right in this argument.
Why not just simply say that her statements on illegal immigration have evolved closer to your personal views, but that they don't quite parallel yours 100% at this point?
I really don't know why you have to make this into a federal case. There's really no need for this among like-minded supporters.
Peace.
“Jess, I think you’re being a bit hyper-sensitive about someone leveling a small criticism at you. You’re splitting hairs, and ignoring some salient facts in order to make yourself right in this argument.”
Really? This is what you call a small criticism?
“Report”? That’s a laugh. That was as sneaky as anything I’ve seen in the liberal MSM.”
Being compared to the liberal MSM is not a small criticism, my friend. And it was dumb. Especially considering I cited it well enough for YOU to find it.
“Why not just simply say that her statements on illegal immigration have evolved closer to your personal views, but that they don’t quite parallel yours 100% at this point?”
I did. You didn’t see it or want to hear it. You have me wrong. You had me wrong. You still do. I edon’t like being called a sneaky liberal (or LIKE one) thanks.
It's entirely fair for you to draw your own conclusions from her public statements. It's what everyone does, and it's the risk that all politicians take whenever they open their mouths. Different people are going to take the same statement differently. One can only hope that the majority of those listening will hear what you intended for them to hear.
She sounds like another mealy mouth in that paragraph of yours and she isn’t.
You see? You and I read the same thing, and take away something completely different. I believe that Sarah stayed within the fence posts of McCain's immigration policy while she was on the stump because that's just what you do when you're the VP nominee. I don't fault her for that one bit.
You see her as having changed her position, where my perception is that she's only beginning to fully articulate her position to the American people. In my way of looking at it, Sarah's always been tough on illegal immigration. She just had to fully shake loose from McCain before she could differentiate her views from his.
I think we can agree that however she got to her current stance - she got there, and that's all that matters.
**It’s just not likely to happen. Sorry, folks — that’s just the way it is.**
Google “Operation Wetback” and you will find we can do mass deportations, and we have done it.
Prediction: We will do it again.
It wasn't dumb, Jess. You should have provided the context in which Sarah made that statement (including the time-frame), but you didn't. That omission cast Sarah's statement in an unflattering light, and bolstered your argument. The MSM does this all the time, and for the same reason. I believe that I rightfully called you on that.
I will agree with you, though, that it wasn't exactly a "small" criticism. Touche' on that one point, though I still think you're overly agitated with this conversation.
Such a waste. Newt has some great ideas, and a very solid knowledge of history. But on this issue he is just plain stupid.
No one needs to deport illegal aliens, and no one has ever said we need to in some mass program. Look at why illegal aliens are here — they get jobs, social benefits, freebies, and are coddled by politicians. Take all that away, deny them the jobs and benefits, and they will leave. They can’t afford to stay. Their families in Mexico will have to send THEM money if they are denied the ability to make and take money in the US.
It really is that simple.
With respect, because I've got a lot of it for you, let me modify your statement.
The GOP is most definitely interested in someone who wants to out-McCain McCain. However, conservatives aren't, and I daresay the American people aren't. The tipping point is very finely balanced.
“I will agree with you, though, that it wasn’t exactly a “small” criticism. Touche’ on that one point, though I still think you’re overly agitated with this conversation.”
Oh. OK. Let’s just leave it here. I’ll continue to be a supporter ... you continue to be a shill. How’s that?
Well, I'll be... You just cannot help but be an ass about this, can you? I've done my best to have a civil conversation with you, but you insist on continuing with your juvenile tantrum. And now you've resorted to calling me names.
Fine. Have it your way, but remember that what you've posted here tonight is a record you can never walk away from.
“Fine. Have it your way, but remember that what you’ve posted here tonight is a record you can never walk away from.”
Gosh. Is this going on my permanent record? What name did I, the sneaky, liberal press type call you?
I’m a supporter. Clear eyed. You are a shill, instructing poor little me on how to politically phrase things to further “your” candidate, as if she needs help. I don’t think she does, I think she needs to be kept on her toes. You jumped on me, you idiot, now own it. Go back and read your posts, it’s there to see. And please, no more condescending crap like this, like you are the jolly type who made a small error and I am the dunce. And keep the advice. I don’t need, didn’t ask for it and sure as hell won’t take it.
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.