Posted on 11/23/2011 9:05:05 PM PST by AmericanInTokyo
Conservative activists believe Gingrich's views on illegal immigrants has opened up the field for another GOP candidate...
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
And who also refuse to pledge their allegiance to their new found, albeit illegally, country. No allegiance, no fealty but only to their own country from whence to spewed forth. A country divided against itself cannot stand.
You must be a comedian by trade. You're funny.
Weeds also have roots.
Before you call me wrong for comparing people to weeds, let me pre-empt:
Jesus did it, and we are to “have the mind of Christ”.
References available upon request.
So, when the illegals all become Jamaican drug dealers with new babies, then we have a problem.
When they are older parents and grandparents, not newer illegals who Gingrich want to support, then they likely will have kids and grandkids old enough to keep them here.
You and I both know they’ll not be denied a visitor’s visa to visit family anytime they want.
I am aware of the reference in His parables. You might also note that He was using it in the context of His role in getting us to the Kingdom of Heaven and even said to let the weeds and wheat grow together to be sorted once the wheat was ready for harvest and finished with: 36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.
I get accused of using Scripture out of context, but I really try hard to keep my references within the intent.
God Bless
Can your point be made without the left-wing hyperbole?
I know in 1994-1996 Newt was pushing through the conservative agenda, i.e. the Contract with America. How and why did he sabotage efforts to enforce the immigration laws during just those 2 years in office? I take it he didn’t sabotage efforts to enforce immigration from 1980-1995, or in his last years in office, 1997-1999?
He killed the Smith-Simpson bill on immigration in 1995-96. He also helped scuttled the Jordan Commission.
Maybe the Democrats were only saying they were open to the immigration issue to derail the passage of the conservative agenda? Sorry, I don’t believe Democrats nor do I trust them and I didn’t in the 1990’s either.
Then you should look up the United States Commission on Immigration Reform (ie Jordan Commission) http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/
Can your point be made without the left-wing hyperbole?
Of course, though I would argue that it is not left-wing hyperbole, just hyperbole. Sadly though, even on this thread alone we have at least one who is in favor of cattle cars, and one who would prefer forced marches of 25 miles a day. The original cattle car comment came from another thread, but was actually used tongue-in-cheek by someone else to satirize some of the more fanatic "deport them all, no exceptions" posts. Perhaps that cattle car comment was more artfully posed than mine, but the tone of so many posts in this discussion is frankly, quite chilling.
After reading the firestorm of responses to me, I will venture a response.
I still believe that we are to "Do justice. Love mercy. And walk humbly with God." And my understanding is not, as has been suggested, "leftist heresy and historical revisionism."
Yes, we are to "do justice." If that's the end of the story, then even putting people into cattle cars and sending them back to Mexico would be justice. Although I am still trying to figure out exactly what the teenager who was brought here at the age of two is supposed to do. I guess, the consensus would be that he should immediately admit that he is here illegally, turn his parents and his siblings in to the authorities and head back to Mexico himself. He probably needs to learn to speak Spanish on the way, but who cares he is illegal, dammit, and is lucky we don't just toss him in jail and throw away the key.
But if justice is all that we are called to, there would be no human left on the planet. God would have simply destroyed the world at the Fall, or its inhabitants by the flood giving no inside information to Noah.
However, we are called to mercy, just as much as we are called to justice. That is not something I see in the forced deportation position, and I do see it in Gingrich's proposal. (For the record, I also see a degree of mercy in the self-deportation approach, elements of which can be found in Newts plan. Curiously though, Newt's plan has more traditional retributive and punitive justice than the self-deportation option.)
Newt's plan is not perfect. I doubt there is a perfect plan at this point.
He starts with controlling the border as a "national security imperative," and commits to providing the resources to accomplish it. So posters can argue that he is an "open-borders" guy, but they are wrong. Or simply lying.
He advocates a path to legality for some, but not all and takes a very sober-minded approach to distinguishing those who should go and those who can stay. But he is not advocating blanket amnesty regardless of how many times that accusation is posted against him. He is not advocating the abandonment of the rule of law.
Don' take my word for it. Read it for yourself. www.newt.org/solutions/immigration.
Newt is not the perfect candidate, and as I have said, he does not have the perfect plan. But it is reasonable. And, in my view, it more reflects the values that this nation is built on than any plan I have seen.
Say what you will about Newt, but he is a shrewd politician. He recognizes that no Republican will win without serious Hispanic and independent support in several swing states. Marco Rubio has made it clear that the continual, irrational call to deport them all is going to hurt the GOP's chances to boot the current occupant of the White House. Given that, providing a path to legality for productive people who would prefer repatriation and who have "deep ties to America, including family, church and community," is, in my opinion, far preferable to allowing the continued occupation of the White House by those who really do intend to destroy this nation.
And for those who have graciously offered to be embarrassed for me, please don't worry. When I feel it necessary I am perfectly capable of being embarrassed on my own behalf. But this ain't one of those times.
The law currently makes anchor babies inevitable; they are US Citizens.
The law is unclear, and there is no Constitutional basis. Thus, Congress can and should fix this.
And congress cannot punish people by using a law passed after the fact: ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution. That means that all anchor babies now citizens will be citizens their entire lives. It cannot be taken from them.
People can and do lose benefits, to which they were not entitled, all the time.
Good post - it’s refreshing to have someone take the time to explore the more salient angles. I think most of the combativeness is due to folks wanting what they want and expecting it to “just happen”. Newt/Cain/Perry/Bachmann are all viable replacements for Obama and we need to focus on ousting him then putting pressure on whoever ends up in the WH to seal the borders, then look at what we have and devise a plan (not a comprehensive plan, but a step-at-a-time plan) to see who can be gotten rid of and to deny benefit to the remaining illegals.
Since when is it “doing Justice” to have a second set of legal circumstances apply to a special class of people?
We have a constitutionally republican form of government. This means, “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Our immigration laws are the result of The People’s desire for orderly immigration of foreign nationals, particularly to avoid the kind of travesty we now have and should correct immediately by enforcing our laws. To imply, as you have, that it is unmerciful iw flat-out wrong. What part of illegal don’t you get?
Right now, in many communities, there exist two levels of laws: one for citizens, another for illegal aliens. Two citizens in my community were murdered by illegal aliens. The then Chief of Police, a Hispanic, let them go on their own recognizance before all the evidence was in, and of course the two perps vanished.
Does that sound like the families of the victims have Justice?
I have been in line at the DMV and witnessed people who could not speak English and who did not have a green card, getting a drivers license. My nephew stepped up to get his license, and had to present a birth certificate! That is not Justice, it is preferential treatment and in my state ordained by law!
Does this strike you as “just” and equitable?
Newt Gingrich would invent an extra-Constitutional form of citizenship for illegal aliens, and anyone with sense knows that it is only to satisfy employers who do not want to pay a living wage to U.S. workers. SCOTUS would strike it down in a heartbeat.
I do not advocate splitting up families because the whole family should be deported. Children go with parents. Just because a person is born here doesn’t automatically mean they’re a citizen.
The 14th Amendment has bee misinterpreted time and again.
From the Holding of the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Per Leo Donofrio - This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States. The “holding”, which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the “dicta“, which is not considered legal precedent...the actual holding of the court is limited to “the single question” of whether the children of aliens who have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States” are 14th Amendment citizens.
The holding does not specifically grant 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born in the US of illegal aliens, or even of those here temporarily (tourists and students). Numerous legislative attempts have been made on both sides of the Congressional aisle – as well as in a multitude of States – to clarify this holding by statute as to the children of illegal immigrants (aka “anchor babies”).
As I pointed out, I felt that Newt's item 6 was doomed to failure. Those that want to become citizens presently suffer hardships to become either legal or citizens. This is from my experience and, of course, is anecdotal. But I'll sure lay odds that this observation applies generally. That leaves the vast majority in the twilight, in many cases becoming a drain on American society in ways not readily apparent. They do use the backdoor free health care(I am not objecting to that just pointing it out) and because of their situation they burden human services which would otherwise not assign resources to people not legally here. So, in two ways, at least, point 6 is sure to fail. They don't want to be legal, and they can't meet the self-sufficiency requirement of point 6.
Speel chek is awr frend.
You are entirely missing the point. Saying Congress can rectify something does not change the citizenship status of those already U.S. citizens.
The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
Of course those anecdotes you provide are not justice. They are a product of a PC culture and willful violation of the law. But mass deportation will not solve that. And even Gingrich’s paths to legality will not solve that. It is corruption plain and simple and will always exist.
As for Wong, no amount of argument that the Supremes got it wrong is going to change it. It will take another case (and I seriously doubt that any case related to Obama’s citizenship is going to be the one.)
And I simply disagree that guest worker visas would be a separate class of citizenship.
I don’t think Newts plan is perfect. But at this point i prefer it to any I have seen. I do not believe this nation is ready for the civil unrest that will accompany the forced deportation of 11 million people. But a reasoned path to legality along with strict guidelines as to who becomes eligible may work. I know that the response will be that we already have strict guidelines—if you. Are illegal that’s it. But I do not think that a.pproach is feasible, affordable, or, as Newt put it, humane. Anyone is free to disagree.
I didn’t say “forced deportation”, did I? Don’t put words in my mouth!
Alabama has successfully managed to make illegal aliens leave on their own. That is a good example of what I want to see nationwide.
Why should it be horrifying for foreign nationals to return to their country of origin? Mexico is not a cesspool. Neither is Honduras, or the the Dominican Republic, or Ghana, or any other place from which so many illegal originate.
With unemployment so high, we don’t need guest workers, so visas for them aren’t practical.
As for your mis-statement about “the Supremes got it wrong”, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not understand their “Holding”. SCOTUS did not “get it” wrong. To be born under the jurisdiction of the United States means just that - parents here legally, legal residents intending to become citizens.
Illegal aliens here from Mexico are described by the Mexican government as Mexicans. They are under the sovereignty of the Mexican government. Here illegally, under the sovereign protection of Mexico, their children are all born Mexican citizens - NOT U.S. citizens.
Eisenhower had over a million Mexicans deported in the 1950s. It is entirely feasible to do that again, but I firmly believe the majority will voluntarily self-deport. The majority of illegals do not want to become citizens of the U.S. - they just want the freebies that come from the generosity of Yankees who don’t realize they’re being snookered.
If only the distinction between holding and dictum were that clear cut. Language within the context of a holding may or may not have the weight of holding. That is the subject of future cases and legal journals.
In either case I am not disputing that we are discussing a class of individuals who are here illegally. I might even reluctantly stipulate the potential illegality of a minor child that has lived here most of his or her life. I am talking about, and I think Newt is talking about a path to legality for certain classes of individuals but not all. So wholesale deportation is, IMHO, not the best answer.
I used ‘wholesale’ in deference to your discomfort with ‘forced.’ But I don’t think forced is a wrong choice of words despite the fact that you did not explicitly use it . Force can take many forms and not all are bad. I know you advocate self-deportation. And I have considerable sympathy for that approach. Remove the magnets and many illegals will leave. Of those that remain it would still be more humane to distinguish between those with real, long-standing ties and roots who are otherwise productive members of the community and those who ar only here for the freebies. A path to legality for the former and a path back to the border for the latter would be just fine with me.
Any chance you have some empirical evidence that “most” are here just to snooker us and have no desire to naturalize?
We either follow the laws we have, such as our immigration laws, or we continue down the Obama path of picking and choosing which laws we will uphold.
Illegal Aliens Get Millions In Monthly Welfare Checks
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jul/illegal-aliens-get-monthly-welfare-checks-0
Illegal Aliens Get More Welfare Benefits Than Citizens
http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/selwyn-duke/7042-illegal-aliens-get-more-welfare-benefits-than-citizens
Try googling “Illegal Aliens and Welfare” for more of these articles.
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.