Discretion, Not Amnesty (Newt didn't propose citizenship - did not propose Amnesty)

The Corner ^ | 11/23/2011 | Andrew C. McCarthy

[TBBT]

All he said was, “Let’s be humane in enforcing the law.” That was my reaction last night when Newt Gingrich argued that the federal government should refrain from deporting illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. for many years if the effect would be the break up of a family.

I did not take him to be proposing a new law conferring amnesty. To do what the former Speaker proposed would require no change in U.S. law. All you’d need is the sensible application of prosecutorial discretion.

A successful immigration enforcement policy, easily implemented under current law, would secure the borders; use the capability we have to track aliens who enter on visas to ensure that they don’t overstay; and target our finite law enforcement resources at (a) illegal immigrants who violate federal or state criminal laws (i.e., other than the laws against illegal entry), and (b) employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and therefore provide the incentive that induces them to come. (An even better policy would deny illegal immigrants various social welfare benefits, but some of that would involve changes in the law so I put it to the side for present purposes.)

Such a policy would materially reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. — if they can’t work, many will leave and many won’t come in the first place. Such a policy would also call on government lawyers to exercise discretion (as they do in all aspects of law-enforcement) to decide which cases are worth prosecuting. Obviously, if an alien has been here illegally for a number of years but has been essentially law-abiding (again, ignoring the fact that it is illegal for him to reside and work in the U.S.), and if his ...

[Gaffer]

With it in place, they will infest our communities and entrench themselves completely - even more than now because, in the end, they are still now ILLEGAL. When they are legal, the ‘give-an-inch-take-a-mile’ syndrome will be operative and our courts will be inundated with legal-illegals seeing redress and constructive-citizenship. And, our liberal judges will gleefully comply. This is not good in any fashion.

[org.whodat]

You amnesty pushers are all the same, you get pissed when you get caught with your sneaky little scam.

[moehoward]

"They stay here all roads lead to amnesty, period."

Which is what Bachmann was pointing out.

[pogo101]

“Amnesty,” like trust or love, need not be some all-or-nothing concept. In my opinion, if a policy allows someone who sneaked into the country illegally to remain better off than a similar would-be immigrant who did NOT break the law, then it’s a form of amnesty.

[Raycpa]

“how long before the ACLU and the democrats take it to court and get them all made US citizens”.

No plan will satisfy them short of giving the entire world citizenship.

[montag813]

successful immigration enforcement policy, easily implemented under current law, would secure the borders; use the capability we have to track aliens who enter on visas to ensure that they don’t overstay; and target our finite law enforcement resources at (a) illegal immigrants who violate federal or state criminal laws (i.e., other than the laws against illegal entry), and (b) employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and therefore provide the incentive that induces them to come. (An even better policy would deny illegal immigrants various social welfare benefits, but some of that would involve changes in the law so I put it to the side for present purposes.)

Uh...Newt didn't mention any of that. Cain, Paul and Romney did. Newt focused on who should stay, not who should go, nor on employer sanctions, nor on AZ-style laws. Just amnesty. Game over.

[hellbender]

Not only that, but as long as illegals are here, they are spawning millions of "anchor babies" who, under present stupid interpretation of the law, are birthright citizens. That alone is reason enough to evict them all, the whole family at a time. Get their a$$es out. They have their countries. We want to keep ours.

Why the hell do you think 0bama and his commie henchman Holder are suing to prevent any enforcement of immigration laws? This is a planned invasion of the U.S. by hostile powers, damn it.

[buccaneer81]

They voted with impunity here in Ohio in 2008. Mexicans who used phony SSNs and utility bills as “ID” the registered and voted on the same day.

[org.whodat]

When they support the obummer plan they seem reluctant to say so., not a lot of difference, in newt, perry and willard, and obummer on the amnesty support.

[longtermmemmory]

it is still amnesty since it would allow for serial immigration.

This “rescue spin” is pointless.

[hellbender]

target our finite law enforcement resources at (a) illegal immigrants who violate federal or state criminal laws (i.e., other than the laws against illegal entry)

I.e., exactly the selective enforcement policy the 0bama commie admin. is following. Bye bye, Newt. Go write another trashy "history" book, traitor.

[org.whodat]

Yes, and if you ask them they will all tell you they have been here twenty five years and have forty grand babies. And the paid the hospital bills on everyone of them. LOL

[montag813]

>The second step is create a guest worker program. This addresses a lot of the agri-need for illegals. They can come for the season, work, then they go home. It keeps us from having apples that cost $10 each.

We have such a visa program already. Greedy growers avoid it because they can pay less with illegal slave wages. Btw, labor costs are only 6% of retail cost. DOUBLE wages and you won't get anywhere near "$10 apples." You really drank the Kool Aid from the big glass.

[Grampa Dave]

Rush discussed this 25 year limit this morning.

How will it be determined.

Will we ask illegals how long they have been here?

If so even pediatric illegals will be say 25 years.

[moehoward]

I’ll see that and raise you.
It is imperative non-citizens are never allowed to vote, and in areas it is currently allowed, to be stripped of that right. ID must be shown at all polling places. For some time now Illegals and legal immigrants have been voting in local elections resulting in obvious outcomes.

[anglian]

Newt Gingrich - The Americano’s First Hispanic Forum and Gala in Washington, D.C. December 2-3.

Opening Panel with Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11208416 “We have to find policies that extend to every American, and that includes people who are not yet legal . . . In the next five to ten years everyone living and working the United States will be legal.”
Says legal workers to stay, but gangmembers and felons to be deported.

[montag813]

The real question is, what is actually wrong with this plan, and who is proposing a better idea? On other threads they have even pointed to the fact that Sarah and Cain have both said basically the same thing.

Nonsense. Cain backs AZ-style employer sanctions and enforcement, and detailed it last night. Cain opposes the Dream Act and amnesty, which Newt supports. I am not aware of Palin's stance, but she is not a candidate.

[Sudetenland]

What Newt suggested in nothing more than common sense and very much in keeping with conservative values. He's right, how can the party of family values suggest that these long established families should be broken up over something they did a decade or more ago?

How is it that entering the country illegally well in the past remain punishable without any consideration as to how they came to be here, what they have done sense they arrived, and with the sort of "one-size fits all" solution that we continually criticize the left for imposing on us all?

These people have been studiously ignored by our government and law enforcement for decades, now suddenly we are going to punish them for something they did 10 or 20 years ago with the tacit approval of, or at the very least the indifference of those who were charged with enforcing those laws.

Every crime in America except for murder has a statute of limitations, why should illegal immigration be any different? How are these folks who have worked hard, become established in their communities and are raising their children to become good citizens a detriment to our society? I'd rather have twenty hardworking otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens in my neighborhood than some criminal who has managed to escape punishment until the statute of limitations has run its course.

I love the way the Newt detractors like to home in on a single facet of what Newt said and, as Michele Bachmann did repeatedly last night, distort the entirety of Newt's statement. Sorry Michele, he did not say he'd allow all 11 million illegal aliens to remain and no matter how often you repeat that lie, it still won't be true and it is wrong to make such a straw man argument.

I see the straw man arguments cropping up on this thread as well. Newt's figure of "25 years" was nrnot intended to be the decisive number and anyone who latches onto that is just as guilty of intellectual dishonesty as was Michele last night. He was quite clear that discretion should be used in making that decision. They would be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Again, how is it that armed robbery, or even rape has a statute of limitations (laws vary from state to state, but in most states there is such a limitation), but entering the country illegally does not? The concept is absurd.

[Gaffer]

Tru Dat....the Democrats fight picture IDs tooth and nail here, but we beat them....finally...

[org.whodat]

I tell you what will work, build a fence, with land mines and armed guards, and have asset forfeiture for all employers. Stop the birthright BS, no country in the worlds does this crap. Blacks law, you are the citizen of your fathers home land when born, worked for hundreds of years.