Posted on 11/26/2011 1:01:37 PM PST by presidio9
GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich defended his immigration stance Friday, claiming that he was "not for amnesty."
“I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally,” Gingrich said at a town hall event in Naples, Florida according to media reports.
“But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties run so deeply in America that it would truly be a tragedy to try and rip their family apart," said the former House Speaker.
Gingrich has been under fire from some anti-illegal immigration groups since last Tuesday's GOP debate where he spoke out against deporting many illegal immigrant families.
During Friday’s town hall, Gingrich said that if elected he would make securing the border a priority and would support efforts to make English the country's official language.
He said he would also establish a guest-worker program to allow migrants to work in the U.S. But under such a program, businesses which hired undocumented workers would be hit with fines.
"I would have very, very stiff economic penalties for anyone who hires somebody who is not legally inside the system," Gingrich vowed.
At last Tuesday’s GOP debate, Gingrich said that he supported efforts to allow tax-paying illegal immigrants without criminal records to remain in the country or gain citizenship.
“If you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period,” Gingrich had said. “If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”
"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families which have been here a quarter-century," he added. "I'm prepared to take the heat for saying let's be humane in enforcing the law."
Gingrich has faced criticism for his comments from other Republicans. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (Minn.) said in an interview that Gingrich had the “most liberal position on illegal immigration of any of the candidates in the race.”
Influential Iowa congressman Rep. Steve King (R) described Gingrich’s proposals as a “form of amnesty”
“I wouldn’t agree with him on that policy,” King added, suggesting that Gingrich had hurt his chances of winning his endorsement prior to the Iowa caucuses.
The furor over Gingrich’s immigration stance comes as new national polls place him ahead of Romney in the GOP field.
The term “amnesty” implies that those here illegally are facing some sort of criminal prosection. We both know that this is not the case. For practical reasons, it is also not a feasible scenario in the near future, regardless of who wins the nomination. The term “amnesty” in American politics generally implies citizenship for immigrants who are here illegally. In our legal system, it usually implies a “one time only” forgiveness of sins, such as a tax amnesty. That’s not what Gingrich is proposing.
Gingrich’s solution would seal the border, deport criminals, facilitate the integration of highly skilled professionals, and define litmus tests for those seeking legality. These tests include ALL of the following: a criminal background check, community ties, proficiency in the English language, and an ability to support oneself via employment without the assistance of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs. Applicants who meet these qualifications will have to pay a penalty of at least $5,000 and have to prove on a regular basis that they can support themselves without entitlement programs and pay for health insurance or be deported. Most importantly, these people would not be granted citizenship (and the right to vote that comes with it). The only path to citizenship to be granted would be for those who did not come here themselves, but were brought here at a young age by their parents. Those people could obtain citizenship in return for a period of military service.
What you are doing here is attacking a sensible vivification with buzzwords. It is a favorite tactic of liberal politics, and it is the primary reason why we have been unable to reform entitlements like Social Security after fifty years of knocking our heads against the wall.
Instead of attacking Gingrich, you should be talking up your preferred candidate, and the strategy he or she is proposing. I won’t hold my breath though.
Perry attacked the base. He did this to himself.
It most certainly is. But we're not supposed to believe that because RINO Newt said:
"I am not for Amnesty for anyone"
John McCain said the same thing and Americans did not buy it. We're not buying it now.
Really nice sidestep.
I am merely pointing out that there are laws that make the issue more complex than you imagine.
Those days are numbered...even in Texas. The ability to defend your own home is limited by the number of ACLU lawyers standing by waiting to remove you from your rights while giving them to non-citizens.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/texas-digest-family-of-mexican-teen-killed-by-1192050.html
http://flermuzzle.blogspot.com/2009/02/mexican-illegals-sue-texas-rancher.html
There really are. It's getting disgusting to read these threads.
So, you solution appears to be one of the following two options: To do nothing, and assume that the problem will solve itself. Or to round up the illegals, put them in cattle cars, and ship them south. The second is untenable, for a variety of reasons, and will doom the GOP for a minimum of two generations. If you prefer the first, you're probably suggesting that a person could be shipped south as soon as they were legally identified. This will amount to a trickle. What is required is an intelligent plan to address the problem and the balls to suggest it in the middle of a political campaign.
There's a reason I keep asking people attacking Newt for alternatives. They are few and far between.
He was for illegal immigration before he was against it!
He said a "path to citizenship for those here ILLEGALLY". And in spite of your protestations, that is amnesty.
Besides, I thought this thread was about Gingrich.
I responded to your post#34 wherein you said, “Yes, and Perry has never been for amnesty, or open borders.”
I corrected you and provided a direct quote from your hero proving he is for a "path to citizenship for those who are here ILLEGALLY, aka, amnesty.
I guessing most of that is already fenced.....
There is no legitimate reason any FReeper should oppose a law that sends ILLEGALs packing and lowers the unemployment rate for American citizens. And when I see one who does, yes, I find that disgusting.
Indeed...PRESENCE ITSELF IS THE BIG PROBLEM.
I accord.
Over time 20 million illegals can be deported. Just give the cops the power to do an immigration check automatically every time they pull over some one.
The security net won’t catch all of them but get enough of them to make a large dent and deter others from trying and encourage those already here to leave voluntarily.
Require all employers to do an immigration check before hiring.
Combine that with cutting off ALL bennies to the illegals and you’ll see them flee in large numbers back to their countries of origin or sneak into another.
One is either in violation of a law or one is not. The only people that want to talk about the complexity of the issue are those that WANT the invasion to continue or they are supporting a politician that wants the invasion to continue.
The only people he suggested offering a so-called "path to citizenship" to were young people who were brought here by their parents. These could obtain citizenship through military service, the same as young people elsewhere around the world. He makes his position quite clear to anybody who bothers to read the article:
“I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally,” Gingrich said at a town hall event in Naples, Florida according to media reports.
“But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties run so deeply in America that it would truly be a tragedy to try and rip their family apart,"
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.