Newt Gingrich could face ‘Perry Plunge’ over immigration stance

Put another way, they have entered our country to work and have done so for years, often without receiving the benefits earned by those working beside them, in order to provide for their families.

That is their choice. They are lawbreakers multiple times and must bear the consequences. People may rob banks to get money to feed their families. Should they be prosecuted? Must we take into consideration the motivation for the crime in order to hold the person accountable under the law?

Look, you no doubt think I’m an addle-headed liberal, while I think you have no sense of fairness. But sometimes there IS a middle ground in these matters.,

You are certainly using the logic of a liberal. It is all about emotion. Obama uses the same kind of logic demanding that we raise taxes in addition to cutting spending. He also wants to tax the "rich" more so that we can spread the wealth around.

For example, what if you’re talking about a 35-year old man whose parents brought him here as a 10-year-old child, and both are now dead, while he has managed to graduate from high school and college, and is now a respected, say, EMT, teacher, or accountant in your home town. By your standards, he’s to be sent home, regardless. By mine, he’s to be given a chance to ‘fess up and be given a green card, and yes, even a path to eventual citizenship. Oh, and bear in mind that he might have married an American citizen and be the father of two or three American citizens as well.

LOL. The parents must bear the consequences for their actions. Their child has benefitted by being allowed to be better educated than he would have been in his country of origin. Yes they should be sent home. The "child" (for the libs it is always about the children) can apply in his home country for immigration to the US. This is where the line begins. If the "child" is married to an American citizen and has US childern, he will be able to get in much easier than most.

If you can’t see some sense in treating some cases differently, then you simply have no sense of fairness. At least that’s the way that I see it, but maybe you can convince me otherwise. Yes, it’s amnesty, I’ll concede that point, but it’s a hell of a lot different from the blanket amnesty that the word tends to be associated with in these discussions.

As someone who has actually issued visas, individual circumstances are taken into consideration. More than 60% of those receiving green cards today are change of status cases. The fact is that once you get into this country, it is very diffecult to deport you. You are given legal counsel at taxpayer expense and as a lawyer friend who used to be in DOJ told me, "It is not over until the immigrant wins." You should save your sympathy for the 50,000 American citizens who have been killed by illegal aliens since 9/11. This does not include the hundreds of thousands who have been injured by them or victims of their crimes.

>>Even a squater can become owner of the land he is on if he can prove he lived there so many years and paid taxes on it...

Most crimes have a statute of limitations.<<

Yes, both cases are examples where the laws are crafted to create some sort of rational compromise. In the case of the squatter, unused land is put to use and in the case of a stature of limitations, we recognize that some old crimes are not so egregious that they should screw up a person’s life years later.

The extension to the illegal immigration issue it the “rational compromise” concept. We shouldn’t put a statute of limitations on it, nor treat them as though they have squatter’s rights, but we should find a way to handle these cases with some sort of fairness in mind. As the poster above points out, we weren’t enforcing the border for a long time, and I would add that an unenforced law is no law at all. We need to enforce what we have, and write new law to clean up the mess we’ve made thus far.

And kicking Perry and Gingrich out of the GOP for holding that position will reduce the GOP to a minority party in short order. We are close to restoring common sense to this entire matter, but insisting on complete deportation is irrational and will lead to handing the matter back to those who’ve messed it up so badly in the first place.

The way the far-right of the GOP talks (and on most issues, I’m in that number, by the way) the Democrats don’t have to say a word to get the Hispanic vote. All they have to do is stand mute and let us do the talking. Once we’re done, no Hispanic in his right mind would vote for the GOP.

I gather you think that Hispanics (a phony designation of the 1970s to create another victim class) are in favor of illegal immigration. The Dems will get the Hispanic vote regardless. They get 65% now and will get even more of it in the future. And illegal immigration is not just an Hispanic problem. India and China are closing in on being at least one-third of the illegals. Immigrants and minorities vote Democrat. FYI: 54% of Hispanics self describe themselves as white.

There are electoral consequences to the rapidly changing demographics of this country fueled by immigration, legal and illegal. We are being colonized. When you reward something, you get more of it. See the studies below that indicate that Hispanic voters are Dems not so much do to the immigration issue, but due to the fact that they have 50% out of wedlock birthrates and 50% school drop out rates. They are Democrats because it is the party of free stuff.

Latino Voting in 2010 Partisanship, Immigration Policy, and the Tea Party

Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2039, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

Since the 1965 Immigration Act, our pro-population growth immigration policies have fueled major demographic changes in a very short period of time. In 1970, non-Hispanic whites comprised 89 percent of the population; today they are 66 percent; and by 2039, they will be 50 percent. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues. The continuing and increasing flow of minority immigrants, mostly poor and uneducated, provide a natural constituency for the Democrats, which see them as their principal source of political power.

Newt is not about having a conversation, he is about pandering in much the same way that McCain did. It won't work. Latinos won't vote Rep because they are a true Dem constituency with 50% out of wedlock birthrates and 50% school drop out rates. This is the social pathology for failure in this country and greater government dependency. 57% of immigrant headed households with children, legal and illegal, are on at least one major welfare program. And there are electoral consequences:

Latino Voting in 2010 Partisanship, Immigration Policy, and the Tea Party

Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects

I post for my own pleasure. I don't care if people respond or not. If you choose to benefit from my wisdom or opinion, great! If not, who cares? I don't need or want validation from other posters, Do you?

OPEN BORDERS? What a LEAP! I'm not for open borders! Newt isn’t for open borders. Newt, Step ONE. Secure the border. How is that open borders.

I don't suffer FOOLS well, so it's better just to ignore responders.

I’ll tell you what, I’m really starting to like Newt more and more. I sit on the edge of my chair wating for his responses during the debates, and his knowledge of the subjects is solid. I think a debate between him and Obama would be quite entertaining.

1. There MUST be a wall, not a controlled border. An impenetrable wall (yes Virgina, it's possible...Israel has one, there used to be one around Berlin too)

Nice... and I thought it was always a conservative notion that imminent domain was a vile practice that shouldn't be used.

And yet you're calling for just how many miles of private property to be stripped from it's owners?

Dang, I thought we banned Communists from this site. (Comrades, seize the filthy kulaks' property for the good of the proletariate!)

It’s the same concept of a person owing a bank $10,000... and finding that they are having problems paying. For that is the debtors problem.

But when the person owes the bank $10,000,000,000... then if the person can’t pay, then it’s the bank’s problem.

If we had a few thousand illegals, it’d be their problem. But we don’t, we have tens of millions. That means that it’s *OUR* problem.

"Dang, I thought we banned Communists from this site. (Comrades, seize the filthy kulaks' property for the good of the proletariate!) "

Are you implying that I am a Communist?

Or, that the seizure of a 400yrd buffer along the border is the equivalent of the seizure of of property deep within the mainland for the purposes of crony enrichment?

I take it you would prefer an open border in the interests of preserving the property rights of a few ranchers in TX?

Do you support the seizure, via imminent domain, property for military bases? Is not illegal immigration a national security issue?

Careful who you call a Communist. Be aware the ownership and leadership of this forum supports a wall.

Building a wall... and seizing personal property are two different issues, if you haven’t noticed.

You can buy the land if the owners wish to sell. If they don’t, you can build the wall around their property... putting them on the other side of it.

But instead of that, you advocated the seizure of the property for the good of the masses.

And that’s a Communist idea right there.

"And that’s a Communist idea right there."

Then I guess our founders and all those in the State Legislatures who ratified the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment, were Communists.

The US Constitution SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS the taking of private land for public use, with "just compensation".

Perhaps a little study on your part will adjust your position on this matter.

Oh, and there were no communists when the BOR was ratified.

The inter-state hiway system, public irrigation, sewage, power and phone distribution...and darn near EVERY military base in use today came about as a result of Eminent Domain condemnation.