Gingrich says he is 'not for amnesty,' defends immigration stance

The Hill ^ | 11/26/11 | Meghashyam Mali

[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.

[presidio9]

1. What's the need? Implement the simple 3-step plan I've posted and you don't need the Federal Bureaucracy that goes with Newt's plan.

As your plan is similar to Gingrich's it requires similar bureaucracy. The ideas that Gingrich is suggesting require nothing more that changes to ICE procedures.

You are beating around the bush on how you would proceed (other than offering the same solutions as Gingrich), so I am going to assume that you favor removing financial incentives in the hope that this alone will resolve the problem. Sort of how the two Bobs in Office Space proposed getting rid of Milton. That solution was oversimplified, and so is your. Regulations only go so far in a capitalistic society. At some point individuals either finagle a way around them, or are willing to take the legal risk. EVerify, and other plans may drastically lower wages, and even eliminate jobs to the point that millions of illegals will leave. Millions more will find a way to stay. A large percentage of illegals are employed essentially as private contractors (maids, caddies, delivery boys, painters, handymen, etc.). I can't even begin to imagine the extent of the bureaucracy it would take to go after these people. If you say can, you're lying.

[Lady Lucky]

My simple plan will force them to self deport.

Oh. Well, I certainly like that idea. As I've posted recently, if we had ten or twenty states with laws as tough as Alabama's, we wouldn't have such a problem. At least not until they all crammed into California, the last place Wisdom is found; at that point they'd pull a Palestine on us and we'd have to get physical.

States are better equipped to deal with the illegals, especially the border states. But ultimately, the fed govt must have their back, so to speak.

Far as I can tell, none of the GOP candidates has said he's against the states taking their own measures against illegals.

[Lady Lucky]

Santorumn wont even take a stand.

Which is rather odd for a man who'd go out on a limb to endorse profiling muslims. That took some guts.

Santorum just hasn't been pinned down yet, nor has Cain, on the matter of what to do about the 12 million already here. Their turns will come.

[xzins]

“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."

The truth is that if you've got kids and grandkids born here, they are staying, and they are inviting you for an extended Christmas, then Easter, then Memorial Day, then Labor Day stay. You'll be here all the time, anyway, so let's get it on paper.

[presidio9]

And yet the myriad of felonies that almost all of them have committed, from aquiring false IDs (Driver's License, SocialSecurity IDs, etc.) and using them to obtain social services (Also felonies) are forgiven them.

Again, Gingrich's plan would deport those with a criminal record. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence, while not specifically mentioned in our Constitution, is a fundamental premise of both common law and human rights, going back at least as far as ancient Rome. Or were you suggesting that we investigate all 15mm individuals to see if they've done anything wrong?

[mylife]

He and Bachmann seem to be getting pretty froggy.

Cain seems to be in retreat.

[South40]

IMO it is the FED that is the problem.

Which is why we do NOT need a pro-ILLEGAL alien president. We have one of those now.

Remember, Everify and some of these other proposals track US TOO.

You oppose e-Verify?! Like I have said, you really are transparent.

e-Verify would not 'track me'. I am self-employed. All it does is verify that an individual applying for work is qualified to work in the USA. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Only those who are pro-ILLEGAL alien wold.

[Jane Austen]

Why would Newt be so supportive of illegal aliens? He is smart and realizes the damage they do to our way of life. Perhaps it is because he really is a New World Order Globalist. Somebody posted that a DVD (by John Birch Society?) exposes him as one.

[SoConPubbie]

Far as I can tell, none of the GOP candidates has said he's against the states taking their own measures against illegals.

Actually, Perry has.

He came out against AZ1070 and the State Police, over which he has charge, practice a de-facto form of Sanctuary policies.

On the rest of what you are saying, yes, I would agree, it would be best for the States to take the lead on this issue, with the Feds building the COMPLETE border fence.

[Lady Lucky]

There is no legitimate reason any FReeper should oppose a law that sends ILLEGALs packing

No law does that. A judge does. I think that's a law!

[mylife]

E verify forces American Businesses to do the Feds job under penalty of prosecution, and you have to register with the Gov and prove that you the citizen are not a criminale.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

That’s a typical LIBERAL argument: “if you disagree with a person, then you hate them.”

And don’t even unload that lofty load of crap about spamming the threads. Anybody who disagrees with you is putting out “spam”? You clearly don’t know what the term means. Hit the ‘Abuse’ button if a person is posting unsolicited advertisements. And you’d do well to take your RINO can down the road.

[mylife]

Perry disagreed with the AZ bill saying that it was not the right fit for Texas.

He knew it would be challenged in court. Obama himself challenged it.
Perry took a different tack that could NOT be challenged.
He passed a law that PROHIBITED Federal,State and Local police from PREVENTING their officers from asking for proof of citizenship.

Perry’s law gives the discretion to the individual officer (empowers the individual) and precludes Federal, State and Local depts from preventing it.

[FormerLib]

I have to give Gingrich a nod for putting this out there.

And I don’t believe for one second that any of the other candidates would spend a penny in political capital to push for a tougher stand than the one Newt has described.

Several of them won’t even push THIS far. [cough-cough-Romney-cough]

[SoConPubbie]

You are beating around the bush on how you would proceed (other than offering the same solutions as Gingrich), so I am going to assume that you favor removing financial incentives in the hope that this alone will resolve the problem. Sort of how the two Bobs in Office Space proposed getting rid of Milton. That solution was oversimplified, and so is your. Regulations only go so far in a capitalistic society. At some point individuals either finagle a way around them, or are willing to take the legal risk. EVerify, and other plans may drastically lower wages, and even eliminate jobs to the point that millions of illegals will leave. Millions more will find a way to stay. A large percentage of illegals are employed essentially as private contractors (maids, caddies, delivery boys, painters, handymen, etc.). I can't even begin to imagine the extent of the bureaucracy it would take to go after these people. If you say can, you're lying.

No, the SIMPLE plan I have documented is not similiar to Newts and neither am I beating around the bush on this issue.

Newt's plan requires a new agency to enforce the new set of rules associated with his new type of legal residency and processing 12-30 million illegal aliens.

With regards to Private contractors, there is no need for a large bureaucrasy or a whole lot of new rules/laws. Simple force the General contractor/or business to run an E-Verify Online check for anyone that performs work for them. The only additional level of Federal bureaucrasy would be for spot-check verifications performed at random against employers. Couple the random spot-checks with automatic jail time for employers who break this law and you have affective deterrent.

How you get to E-Verify lowering wages is beyond me. I believe the opposite would occur, since employers that are currently cheating by hiring the cheap illegal alien will actually be forced by market forces to pay a living wage.

Your statement that millions would find a way to stay also is non-logical. If E-Verify is applied universally, for both employment and social services, there will be no way they can stay, because without jobs and social services, they'd have no food and the freebies would be removed.

[Lady Lucky]

[Those who entered legally and then overstayed their visas] are just as guilty and should be removed just as quickly as those who slither over the border in the dead of night.

Actually, I believe that's wrong. They are not just as guilty, because entering illegally is criminal and overstaying a visa is a civil offense. Or so I hear :)

[Lady Lucky]

Perry...came out against AZ1070

Didn't know that. I find it hard to focus on Perry, he seems innocuous to me, good basic conservative, pro-life, but somehow not giving it his all in this campaign. I'll have to take another look, to understand why a state governor would oppose the AZ law, the like of which would do his own state enormous good.

Incidentally, I've long been in agreement with him on the impracticality of a fence. The law is the fence. And it's full of gates. If people don't uphold the law, but let offenders pass through, they're opening gates, and they're not going to do anything differently with a physical fence, which also has gates. A fence is a pointless, expensive showpiece.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

OK, time to break out the RINO translator:

I don't agree with everything Newt is saying, but I respect a politician who treats a difficult and controversial topic with the gravity required, and comes up with a workable solution. In other words, you appreciate a politician who crosses the aisle, allows liberals and political lightweights to water down his positions, and capitulates on key principles. How Mcain-esque, you must be proud. Yes, let's all stand behind the next iteration of RINO mediocrity and embrace another 4 years of lame duck RINOs sitting on the sidelines while the DemonRats finish their work with the wrecking ball that they're taking to this country.

I have no doubt that this thread is going to attract plenty of anti-Gingrich spammers. You sound a lot like 0bama giving a speech and referencing Democratic grumbling and unease over his policies. "There's a lot of chatter going on out there." "We need to focus and stop grumbling." "All this chatter helps the other side."

I only wish that before you attack Gingrich, you name your candidate, and why you prefer his or her solution for immigration reform. It's really great that you allow us to grace your thread, but we're only welcome here as long as we follow your rules. It's really great to see you setting the rules, which Mod are you again?

[Paperdoll]

None of your beeswax, P9

[mylife]

Call for pause.

Some states made E-Verify mandatory for employers, and by 2009 President Obama was calling for it to be federal law.