Posted on 11/25/2011 8:03:56 AM PST by TBBT
Newt Gingrich did not walk on stage at Tuesday's Republican presidential debate planning to make a bold new statement on immigration. In debate prep, the former House speaker spent a lot of time with national security advisers discussing the issue of religious freedom abroad -- a topic he has tried to showcase recently -- but didn't discuss immigration at all.
Besides, when Gingrich made his now-controversial remarks -- that he would permit some long-time illegal immigrants to stay in the United States permanently -- he wasn't saying anything he hadn't said earlier in the campaign. It's just that back then Gingrich was an also-ran and nobody was listening. Now, Gingrich is leading the polls, and people are paying close attention to his every word.
Here is what Gingrich said Tuesday night when the discussion turned to illegal immigrants: "I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them."
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
Gingrich is pushing the entire immigration debate far to the left with his hideous position. Now there’s no difference between the democrats or republicans on immigration: they both want complete amnesty. Any candidate who supports anything but amnesty will be regarded as a nazi or a KKK member by the media and now by both parties.
Thanks Newt.
I think your view is a little extreme.
-—” they both want complete amnesty”-—
Then vote Democrat, liar. Only Romney and Paul have called for complete amnesty, and even they have recanted.
Everyone else except Bachmann is for selective deportation. Bachmann has yet to answer whether she would deport every single illegal immigrant, though.
If you can’t see the difference between deporting millions of illegals and securing the borders vs. the Democrats’ plan, then there is no hope for you.
“Anyone suggesting that is my position is simply false,” Gingrich said.......there is no path to citizenship in my Tuesday night comment on immigration,” Gingrich told Newsmax. ....”There is a path to non-deportation for certified, very long-term community members but they would not have the right to vote.”
The goal of his plan, Gingrich said, is to gain control of the border in 12 months while ensuring that English is the official language of the U.S.
government. He wants even faster rules for the deportation of criminals and a guest worker program “outsourced to American Express, Visa or MasterCard to minimize fraud.”
Only in that context would a citizen panel “evaluate applicants and certify if they have been here so long and have such deep family ties they should be allowed to have” legal documents.
But that does not give them a path to citizenship or to voting in U.S.
elections, Gingrich stressed.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich Tells Newsmax: No Amnesty, No Citizenship
Newsmax.com
I am so tired of feeling like I am such a S.O.B. for just wanting SOMEONE to follow the LAW.
If legal documents = green card aka permanent residency, that is a path towards citizenship. Even if legal residency means a temporary work permit, they're having kids in country who qualify for citizenship. There's a question of equity here. There are millions of foreigners trying to get work permits in the country. Why should illegal aliens get preferential treatment?
It seems most FR critics are too lazy to read Newt’s plan and prefer to criticize out of ignorance and bias.
They’d rather mischaracterize the plan, insisting that any plan short of rounding up 20 million people and sending them home, is unacceptable.
Newt’s immigration plan is based on “3 Principles” and “10 Steps”, which are available here:
>http://www.newt.org/solutions/immigration<
Let’s leave the unworkable, bumper sticker notions to the liberals, and learn to thoughtfully explore meaningful solutions.
I think his timing was good; better to discuss this now than keep on evading the issue. ALL of the candidates would essentially have the same position, if they were honest about it. Saying “enforce the law” (a law which even when enforced doesn’t work and doesn’t do anything about the backlog of millions of illegal immigrants who have been here for decades) is a weasel’s way out, and the “deport them all” nutcases may feel really macho pounding this out on their computer keyboards, but it’s simply not going to happen and in fact it shouldn’t happen.
Gingrich is moving the debate beyond “the border” and to redefining our immigration policy and dealing with problems that everybody else has wanted to shove under the rug.
Oddly enough, I also think this will ultimately end in breaking the grip of the anti-immigration zealots on the GOP. Nobody else has ever dared to take them on, just as nobody in the Dem party has ever dared to have a realistic discussion of it for the opposite reason, they are scared of driving off their “everybody in the Third World should emigrate to the US at US expense and go on welfare” crowd, an important part of their base.
Until people can start discussing the subject and coming up with plans, nothing is going to change.
Most, if not all, of the candidates - to include Newt - support closing the border first. They’ve taken the position of aggressively enforcing the laws already on the books etc...
My view is that if you the do the above and perhaps throw in some Alabama twist, then you eliminate the problem via attrition/self-deportation.
The question still remains - after all the above shows success - should we have some type of guest worker programs, visas etc.? I don’t think that that notion is such a big deal...
If a 25 year old crime is solved and they arrest the person, he goes to court and, assuming someone can still be found guilty for committing a crime these days, he will go to jail. This also takes people away from families, but the law is the law. They don’t waive the punishment because the person who committed the crime has a family. When a person breaks the law they set themselves, and their children, up for consequences. It’s that simple.
As a conservative I can live with granting immunity to illegals already here under these conditions.
First immediately seal and shore up the borders. Then stop or significantly curtail all legal immigration for a period of time. Any illegal caught or convicted in crime gets immediatley deported with no option of ever returning.
No illegal can ever obtain citizenship or voting rights until a 20 year crime free record is obtained. Any illegal who signs up to return voluntarily to country of origin will still be eligible to apply for future legal entry with a clean record.
Every illegal must sign up and be identified in the US register otherwise will be deported if they refuse or neglect to to so.
I can go with Newt or Perry on this issue if spelled out with restrictions and conditions to be met which would be fair and not too hard on decent minded illegals but spares not the criminal elements among us.
Enforce the border. But more important than anything: Defeat Obama, win the House, win the Senate, throw-out Obamacare, shut down Depts of Education, EPA, energy, and ETC, ETC, ETC. and then Fire 40% of federal employees in the first 90 days, throw out all Obama executive edicts in first 48 hours. Begin full investigation of Obama presidential eligibility and get court order to open all of his citizenship, birth, education, and travel records. Then try him for treason. Then have a public hanging. Well, this is what I would do.
RINO’s are corporatists not conservatives.
Conservatives believe in rule of law, believe that investors not tax payers should be put at risk in all business ventures, believe in defending USA sovereignty first not global business, believe in using our military when necessary to defend the USA’s ports and borders not global nation building and preemptive police actions.
The criteria is straightforward. Conservatives believe that rights and freedoms should be directed to the distinct benefit of US citizens, not global entities.
We need a plan that is fair to them first ~ you can get around to the foreigners at some time in the future. They'll always be there.
Also meant to say - in addition to my above comment - that no, I don’t think Newt or most of the others support amnesty. To call it amnesty is a bit of a stretch...
Thanks for the link to Newt’s plan. I didn’t see the # for: #_ Stop All Immigration For 5 Years. /sarcasm
I will give him credit though, he has a plan.
(RINO = Republicans Implementing Nuances Of Socialism)/sarcasm again
Newt has moved up into the middle of my list of preferred candidates and yes, I would vote for him any day over Barry.
I think you need to clean it up a bit ~ put in there the part about 20 million unemployed Americans getting jobs first, and in the meantime every foreigner without a valid visa gets dumped over the nearest border ~ I think that would swamp the courts sufficiently to get the job done.
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.