Posted on 11/23/2011 9:28:58 PM PST by South40
DES MOINES — Having just taken his place at the front of the Republican presidential pack, Newt Gingrich now faces a potential backlash from conservative activists here in Iowa over an immigration proposal that he called “humane” but that his opponents quickly decried as providing “amnesty.”
The former House speaker appears to have alienated some of the conservatives who had warmed to his candidacy by saying Tuesday in a candidates debate that he would allow millions of illegal immigrants who have settled in the United States to become legal residents.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Thank you TP. And I do yours. I do not support rewarding ILLEGAL aliens in any way. That is a conservative position.
Do you have a realistic solution for the current 20 million illegals here now?
Yes. Elect a president who will enforce existing immigration law. In the interim, states should pass laws similar to that of Alabama.
I don't but Newt's made the most sense to me.
While I am certain both you and I want what is best for this nation this is where we disagree. I think we should not be rewarding these lawbreakers in any way. Punish employers who hire them, stop giving them incentives to come and be here and they will go.
If you were let go by your employer today would you stay in the building indefinitely or would you leave?
The law is absolute, inalienable and revealed.
Statutes are codified by man and are either in harmony with the Law or are in rebellion against it.
This issue was not part of any candidates platform in 2000. It is a construction of FUD since 9/11.
While citizenship is not a right, the entire process has been corrupted by liberals and their policies have somehow become the official policy of the right. And what we are going to get is a full Amnesty that resembles the 1964 civil rights act.
The GOP owned the civil rights issue until we allowed racists to scare the GOP away from the issue.
Now, we are repeating the same error with a new race we intend to just use for cheap labor.
And history repeats.
Some of us are wise enough to learn from history and BIBLICAL enough to know BAD statutes on the face.
Like the NRA says today “Enforce the laws on the books”? NO!
They are bad, and all violate the 2nd amendment. The immigration issue is the same error we make on every issue.
Just like we regulate abortion instead of abolishing it.
Gingrich is correct and everyone else is either fool, liar or selfishly evil.
Period.
I have a cousin who was murdered by an illegal alien, but hey, so long as we have an immigration policy that suits your particular religious bent, that’s just fine isn’t it?
Time will tell concerning the Alabama law. It's a state's attempt not federal. Plenty of little Americans are getting hurt by this law. They wont forget come voting age.
I'm afraid the republicans are saying goodbye to the Latino vote.....forever.
Illegal is ILLEGAL wether or not they are CATHOLIC!
Additionally, you say people are being hurt by the Alabama law. Who? Please elaborate and provide credible sources.
You assume all Latinos are anti-sovereignty. If that is the case, then that is the big problem we need to address because they are going to be the majority very soon...and even sooner if Newt has his way.
McCain got 31% of the Latino vote last time.
I recently read that Obama has a lock on 44% of the electorate. The Latino vote is important to us.
And I suppose it would make you feel better if he was killed by someone whos great grandfather came on the Mayflower?
Do not confuse the issue.
That is the same exact argument used by gun control advocates.
Such an individual would likely be of great interest to longevity researchers.
not much of that around here
politics over truth and reason
there are legitimate reasons for various partisans to attack Newt on some issues on behalf of their chosen candidate
but on immigration, Bachmann is the only one who really stands out from the crowd
shame she never got off the ground
hence...I’m down to my tagline
Or Dr Who....
That means 69% voted democrat.
I have yet to hear Bachmann or Santorum clearly outline or even bring up valid points of HOW they are going to FIX the illegal immigration situation. Perry has good ideas on how to enforce the border...all Michelle says is “we have to secure the border”
Perry and Newt come up with plans to deal with illegal immigration ( not amnesty) point by point...whether you like their points or not, at least they outline something.
Bachmann and Santorum just keep saying “ we can’t have illegals in this country” (duh.) They have yet to say clear cut ideas of how to fix the border and immigration. they don’t even have at least the guts to say”deport them all” if that’s what they want.
I have no respect for anyone that will not discuss a clear cut plan and defend it or even respond to their opponents plan except to keep screaming “that’s amnesty.” that is just political posturing.
There is no confusion to be seen here. I believe in strong borders, you appear to believe in none even though the scum crawling over that invisible line in the sand are murdering our loved ones daily, you are fine with that.
Conservative my ***!
Sorry, but it’s Newt or Myth. That’s your choice. Cain WILL NOT be the nominee. Keep repeating that until it sinks in.
Myth has proposed a path to FULL citizenship. Newt has proposed an eminently sensible plan to distinguish between those with roots and those without them. The former get to stay, but do NOT get citizenship. The latter get thrown out.
I’d love to throw them all out.
Will.
Not.
Happen.
Time to get real.
Hank
If he were running, yes.
He will.
Myth is still likely to get the nomination. What the purer-than-thouers here fail to understand is that the establishment despises Gingrich. Few elected representatives support him. The big $ people want nothing to do with. Why? He’s not reliable for them. Myth is.
And Frankly, Cain would be too. You don’t get much more of an insider than Fed Reserve Board. People who fancy him the ultimate outsider tend to ignore that little fact about him.
Any would be better than Obama. But Newt is my guy. He was when he was at 2% in the polls...and he still is.
I want to see him taking on Obama. No amount of sniping from people who’ve done 1/100th of what he’s done in his career will convince me otherwise.
Hank
I have advocated - and I’m completely serious - allowing border guards to shoot-to-kill anyone crossing the border. It’s a violation of our sovereignty.
I also favor a fence. I’d even go for Cain’s electified fence. I support strict sanctions on employers also.
But the country is NOT going to deport otherwise law-abiding people who’ve been here for a long time and have families. Even if WE think it’s the right thing to do - guess what, we’re in the minority.
Newt’s plan of a case-by-case evaulation with NO citizenship at the end of the rainbow makes as much sense as anything I’ve head that’s likely to ever happen.
What many here don’t seem to realize that the important goal is to make sure illegals never get citizenship. So long as that’s part of the package, who really cares about anything else?
And believe me, it will be a VERY hard fight with those who think they should get full citizenship. Remember McStain was for just that....pay a fine, become a citizen. Newt’s plan does NOT - I repeat, does NOT - grant citizenship. He’s playing chess while the wild-eyed purists are playing an emotional game of checkers. He knows demographics are hurling us toward true amnesty if we can’t somehow stop it. Work permits with the understanding there will be no citizenship is the way to do it.
I know, I know, deport them all.
Yawn.
Hank
I have advocated - and I’m completely serious - allowing border guards to shoot-to-kill anyone crossing the border. It’s a violation of our sovereignty.
I also favor a fence. I’d even go for Cain’s electified fence. I support strict sanctions on employers also.
But the country is NOT going to deport otherwise law-abiding people who’ve been here for a long time and have families. Even if WE think it’s the right thing to do - guess what, we’re in the minority.
Newt’s plan of a case-by-case evaulation with NO citizenship at the end of the rainbow makes as much sense as anything I’ve head that’s likely to ever happen.
What many here don’t seem to realize that the important goal is to make sure illegals never get citizenship. So long as that’s part of the package, who really cares about anything else?
And believe me, it will be a VERY hard fight with those who think they should get full citizenship. Remember McStain was for just that....pay a fine, become a citizen. Newt’s plan does NOT - I repeat, does NOT - grant citizenship. He’s playing chess while the wild-eyed purists are playing an emotional game of checkers. He knows demographics are hurling us toward true amnesty if we can’t somehow stop it. Work permits with the understanding there will be no citizenship is the way to do it.
I know, I know, deport them all.
Yawn.
Hank
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.