Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich: "We are not going to deport 11 million people"
Posted on 12/02/2010 1:05:36 PM PST by WilliamHouston
click here to read article
Oh, for Pete’s sake, Jess. Get over yourself already. I’m done trying to have an adult conversation with you.
“Oh, for Petes sake, Jess. Get over yourself already. Im done trying to have an adult conversation with you.”
Well, you didn’t have an adult there to help you. You’ll get it someday.
Your friend, the Ass.
Go away Newt or go to hell. Either one.
We continue to have a problem in the DC area with foreigners (usually diplomats from Moslem nations) who hire in foreign women as maids and then don't pay them.
My secretary was part of a group that identified such women and made arrangements to free them.
The diplomats frequently find their diplomatic immunity REMOVED by their embarrassed governments and then have to stand trial and go to jail.
Sometimes there will have been murders involved.
If we could simply execute a few of these people (lawfully) I think it would stir interest in crushing the practice.
Eisenhower already handled an illegal immigration issue in the 50’s. The name of it may seem offensive - but this was a US Government operation and it worked. They never had to go after everyone, just a small percentage and the rest left on their own. Here is the operation described via Wikipedia:
“The zone between deportation and amnesty is amnesty.”
EXACTLY! That’s why there IS NO compromise.
No 2012 candidates who push amnesty of ANY kind for ANY illegal aliens!!!
She got stuck with McCain’s position in 2008. Palin will have to clarify her position for 2012 if she runs, but all her recent statements indicate a serious intent to control the border and not reward illegal behavior. It’s tone as well as words. Words have meaning, so does tone and it’s worth listening to the O’Reilly interview as well as reading it. After the 2010 elections I trust that Palin is with “us” (being Americans that believe in our founding principles and regular middle class people). No way she secretly desires to swamp us with Mexican immigrants . . . and she straight out says that Reagan made a mistake with amnesty.
I swear Kent... it boggles the mind.
The interview with O'Reilly you linked in your #125 is from July of 2010 and she is anything but clear:
Palin: Then let's keep it, then, then we won't complicate it any more. Let's keep it simple. And let's say no that if you are here illegally, if you don't follow the steps that at some point in immigration reform that we are going to be able to provide that will allow you somehow to be able to work - if you are not going to do that, then you will be deported. You will be gone.
She was clearly talking about some sort of amnesty scheme back in July, a year and a-half after the 2008 campaign ended. I hope she will clarify her position, but she definitely has not so far, unless you accept her clear reference to future "steps" for illegals to become able to work in the US as her position. And that is an amnesty plan.
Hopefully events will favor “us” to create a political climate to get the fence built and the employers penalized for hiring illegals so they self-deport. With the high unemployment we have, the time is right for economic nationalism politically. Bush I is the one that had the opportunity of a lifetime to close the border for security reasons. He was an open borders guy though.
I can read and hear. Palin still supports amnesty. The O'Reilly interview confirms that her position has not changed from her Univision interview. She just wants people to register and "play by the rules" so they can continue to stay and work here. She has been consistent on this position whether it is an interview with Lars Larson or O'Reilly. Playing word games may fool many people, but eventually she will be pinned down as she was in the Univision interview. And that will destroy her political ambitions. I warned her advisors at CPAC two years ago that she needed to distance herself from McCain. Instead she endorsed him against JD.
She’ll have to thread the needle of McCain and his position on amnesty. I expect she’ll do that well. Most conservatives know she is for the fence and against amnesty. You suspect she wants amnesty, but I don’t hear that from what she’s saying and how she’s saying it.
If she had endorsed JD over McCain I would not have been happy; not because I prefer McCain over JD, but because it would be wrong to accept the VP nod from McCain and then stab him in the back by endorsing his opponent in the next election. She dishes out enough red meat for conservatives. It would have made her look bad.
Obama and McCain say they are against amnesty. Unless you understand the Orwellian use of language, you will continue to be fooled by Palin and the others who support amnesty.
Here is the accepted definition of amnesty and the litmus test for any politician's language on the issue: Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty. Read Palin's interview again and see how well she passes the litmus test. She failed.
The use such euphemisms as getting to the back of the line, an earned path to citizenship, and coming out of the shadows, and "playing by the rules" are meant to fool and deceive. McCain coined a new one in his 2010 senatorial campaign, i.e., "regularization of status." The Democrats and pro-amnesty crowd know full well that the American people are against amnesty, hence the avoidance of the A word to describe their proposals. Can you cite one politician of any stripe that supports, by name, amnesty or is against securing our border? They all play word games knowing that fools and the gullible will believe them. "Pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line" is the mantra of the pro-amnesty crowd.
Palin should have stayed out of the AZ GOP primary period. Endorsing Maverick McCain will come back to bite her big time once McCain goes back to his old ways of slamming Reps and joining hands with the Dems. I also predict that McCain will not endorse Palin should she choose to run in 2012. And he will stab her in the back silently and skillfully behind the scenes.
Palin should have stayed out of the AZ GOP primary period.
I agree but it would have been hard. She’d have the press asking her if she endorsed McCain and she would have to answer with the old “I respect John McCain and JD Hayworth and will let the voters decide.” McQueeg would have blown a stack and may have hurt her politically and openly rather than the “behind the scenes” stuff you are talking about.
I also understand what you are saying about words used around amnesty. My view is that Palin isn’t doing what you think she is. The O’Reilly interview was high pressure on her; O’Reilly pressed hard. I think she came off very well, because she stood her ground on border control and no amnesty without looking like a Pollyanna that thinks that we can deport 11 million illegals in a month. She doesn’t have a campaign organization right now, so she doesn’t have position papers and how to finesse difficult issues or explain difficult issues, vetted by campaign managers etc. She has to shoot from the hip and she is really good at it. We’ll see what her position is when she has the lay of the land closer to primary vote time and has decided what to press for and what not to. No way any Republican survives the primaries with an open border stance right? (but see . . . McCain . . . if we split the conservative vote we get a RINO).
Don’t have to deport ‘em.
Just have to cut ‘em off from work and benefits and THREATEN them with deportation.
Then they’ll self-deport.
She did not come off very well among those of us who know the immigration issue. She has hurt herself among organizations like NumbersUSA, FAIR, CIS, and my own organization. She is considered to be a pro-amnesty advocate and if she throws her hat in the ring, we will target her. The issue of amnesty is a game changer.
The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty alone would be $2.6 trillion in just entitlement costs. 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.
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 dont 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.
Palin could have used the attrition thru enforcment response. It is a phony strawman to think that anyone proposes deporting 11 million illegal aliens in a month or that we need to have mass deportation. Palin is trying to have it both ways. She is deluded if she thinks she will receive a majority of Hispanic votes or more than 40% for that matter.
I hear you loud and clear. If you push her to the right side of the issue that’s good. If you push her to a position that hurts her in the general election when she’s really with you already that’s bad. Has anybody from the organization sat down and talked with her or lobbied her? Odds are good that Palin is the President in 2013.
Also, can amnesty pass if we have a Republican Congress and Senate?
The reality is that our position is a winning one politically. Most of the American people agree with it. If Palin cannot take a principled position on the issue for fear of being hurt by her stance, then she doesn't deserve to be President. Reps lose when they try to play identity politics.
Has anybody from the organization sat down and talked with her or lobbied her? Odds are good that Palin is the President in 2013.
I have spoken to some of her advisors two years ago at CPAC. Obviously, it didn't work. They said that they were taking her down to the border to see what was going on. Unfortunately, the border is not the real issue.
Also, can amnesty pass if we have a Republican Congress and Senate?
Not if we have the same composition as the upcoming 112th Congress. It almost passed in 2006 (Hagel-Martinez) when the Rep controlled Senate passed it (The Reps voted 32-23 AGAINST it), but it died in the Rep controlled House thanks to James Sensenbrenner. Bush and Rove were pushing hard for amnesty, despite the objections of most of their party.
The House had passed an enforcement only bill (HR 4437) earlier but it died in the Senate thanks to Bush and McCain and the Dems.
As the Hispanic population grows from its current 16% to a projected 30% in 2050, the pressure will become greater to surrender. Since 1965, our current immigration policies have been changing the demographics of this country quite rapidily. 87% of the 1.2 million legal immigrants that enter the US annually are minorities, as defined by the USG. By 2023, half of the children 18 and under will be minorities and by 2042 half of the country will be minorities. Even without an amnesty, the Dems are well on their way to becoming the permanent majority party.
Good post. Palin is the one you need to reach because she stands a very good chance at being President. Personally, I trust that Palin is a patriot, a conservative and a fighter, so I think she will be on the right side of this issue when it matters. Reagan got suckered and she knows it. In Reagan’s day, if we had enforcement, and if we had stopped any more illegals from coming in, the 3 million amnesty wouldn’t have been country changing. The problem is if people think it’s the same situation today, they are wrong. There are many more illegals. I also think it’s a tough issue politically and I’m happy to let Palin win without insisting that she make it a big deal for her campaign and her image. But if she wants to correct Reagan’s mistake by a fence, enforcement and amnesty, I agree with you, that is the wrong position.
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.