Posted on 11/26/2011 8:38:29 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
WASHINGTON — Newt Gingrich isn’t backing off his “humane” immigration stance despite complaints from Republican hardliners and fellow Presidential hopefuls — he’s embellishing it.
The former House speaker issued “10 Steps to a Legal Nation” this week, expanding on his remarks during Tuesday’s GOP debate
(snip)
Those guilty only of sneaking into the U.S. would have a path “to legality, but not citizenship” similar to the existing naturalization process, plus a penalty fee of at least $5,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
“No, I’m correct. There is not a candidate out there saying we should not close the border down tight. Some favor a fence, and some a combination of a partial fence, technology, and troops.”
You said that “everyone is agreed” to secure the border, not that all of the candidates, despite their pasts, are SAYING that they want a secure border. Again, the proof is in the actions, and we simply don’t have a secure border. What you’re saying is like saying that all the candidates agree that we should have a strong economy - true, but meaningless.
My point being is whether these candidates have put their money where their mouths are. If they get all soft and compassionate about Illegals that are here, it’s really, really, hard to see how they can give shoot-to-kill orders at our borders...which will be necessary if we are to secure it.
Just won’t be done.
Tell me o wise one, where I fall short.
Huh? What are our immigration laws - chopped liver?
How 'bout we try what works for a change? All it takes is a president who demands it, and who will appoint the type of people who are determined to get it done.
That's Cain's stated approach.
None of them have been president yet, so you have no idea where they’d put their money.
All you can go on is what they say they believe. There isn’t one conservative who has stood up and said, “I want a totally open, free, and unimpeded border.”
There isn’t, is there?
Well, I’ll give you credit for not giving up on your boy Newt. You are a very persistent little Newtbot, aren’t you.
Turn me into the authorities! Since you have none of your own.
Or you could refute what I said. Do we deal with people (civil OR criminal offenders) collectively?
None of the candidates have said we do or we should.
I believe I've said nothing on that score that Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry or Santorum would disagree with. Can you cite any comments of theirs to the contrary?
If they are not enforced, which they have not been for at least 50 years, then they are not even chopped liver.
The problem is that we have failed to enforce our laws for a half a century. Those laws are effectively non-existent. We need both new laws and the will to enforce the laws.
We have lost an entire generation of Americans to abortion. They have been replaced by the children of immigrants who both want their babies and want them to be Americans. How their parents got here is pretty much irrelevant at this point because the children are Americans. They will have the right to vote.
Being a "deport them all" "conservative" is not going to be a viable plan. We need a new plan and at least Gingrich has offered one.
You must be living in some far-flung gated community where these people don't impact your day to day existence and livelihood.
How out of touch does someone have to be, to not realize that they're rapidly losing their nation to a foreign invasion, when it's occurring all around them?
There's a reason this issue is such a hot button topic on conservative boards. It's because we're slowly being strangled to death by it.
Actually, Gingrich’s position is surprisingly like the position I have taken on the issue in posts here at FR:
Secure the border, a guest-worker program, deportations of some illegal immigrants, and a means of legalizing the status of others without giving them a path to citizenship. (Mere amnesty, if you insist on that word, not amnesty into eventual citizenship.)
On his website, Gingrich affirms the primary objective is to secure the border. I don’t know why you can’t see it.
You don’t need to tell me how any of this lib crap works.
I read the damn article and posted the poll that was in the article. I didn’t like the way the questions were written... Hell, I don’t like the way most poll questions are written.
Enough of your nitpik nonsense...move on.
Because this has been explained to you before, I am calling you out as a shill. An unenforced $5000 "fine" is the functional equivalent of amnesty and you know it.
How Much Does it Cost to Deport 392,000 People?
When they do it themselves, not a dime.
There are a number of costs involved in the removal process. First, illegal immigrants must be apprehended, which requires local law enforcement,
Apparently you've never read the Constitution. We have SELF-GOVERNMENT, with enforcement in the last case by a national unorganized militia consisting of every adult male between 18 and 45 years of age. Deputize that militia. Pay them a bounty to round up illegals. Penalize them for false arrest or imprisonment (that funds the fees). When the illegals figure out that they are a source of income for the citizens around them, they will flee, in droves.
Done.
The key is to have Congress preclude the Federal courts from getting involved on behalf of illegals because they in fact have no such jurisdiction. Illegals should have no standing in a Federal court. Theirs is a matter of law enforcement to be entirely within the purvey of administrative government.
“None of them have been president yet, so you have no idea where they’d put their money.”
I can develop an idea pretty easily by what they have said.
You have 3 candidates essentially saying that they will enforce the law and that is it, at least for now.
You have the other candidates either with a record of coddling Illegals and/or with a plan to legalize them. Bush-43 also fits that bill.
Sorry, but I CAN AND WILL trust the first pack to secure our border much more than the second pack.
So to you the equation of ‘illegals’ with ‘immigrants’ is a “nitpick nonsense”.
I think it is a huge, major distinction. ‘Immigrants’ play by the rules and respect our laws. ‘Illegals’ break our laws and wreak havoc w our country from education to hospitals to the economy. That is no nitpick, nor is it nonsense. It goes to the very heart of the problem/issue. Conservatives recognize that, and don’t much care to be denigrated with charges of nitpicking and nonsense.
And who are you to command me to ‘move on’? Are you from ‘Moveon.org’?
How will securing the border cause illegals who are already here to pull up stakes and head home? Answer: it won't.
The only way to compel them to leave, is to cut off their ability to work, and to deprive them of illegal government welfare handouts. Do that, and they'll self-deport by the millions.
As Jim Rob, says, "it's not rocket science."
Read your own “compassionate conservative” gibberish and you may figure it out. On second thought, disregard. You’ve already shown that you don’t have two brain cells to rub together.
“The problem is that we have failed to enforce our laws for a half a century. Those laws are effectively non-existent. We need both new laws and the will to enforce the laws”
EXACTLY what they said to Rudy when he became mayor. In the course of a few years New York City became safer than many states, and safer than it had been even before World War 2.
There is NO REASON to give up on our laws just because we elect people that won’t enforce them...and I think that President Cain will surprise a LOT of people when he does start to enforce the laws.
By the way, the congress and prez can actually work on more than one problem at a time. Amazing isn’t it? So can the rest of the citizenry, so closing your eyes to everything else to focus on one subject really shows your lack of ability, doesn’t it.
America's sin of slaughtering its children has received the judgement of God to replace those children with people who both want their babies, want to work, and have a belief system that abhors abortion. If they are not co-opted by government handouts and liberal education, they will continue to believe in the abhorence of abortion.
When Israel sinned, God displaced them, and planted foreigners in their land to replace them.
Their descendants were the Samaritans. Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."
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.