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.
They won’t do what they say.
That is what I am saying.
I could care less what he says now, his past shows us he cannot be trusted.
I like my plan because it benefits the American taxpayer and American family. And because it does not involve rewarding the ILLEGAL invaders that Newt wants to make legal.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Jim Robinson is not running for president. I agree with everything he is saying, but attacking Mitt Romney’s opponents without offering an alternative guarantees that we end up with Mitt Romney.
“If it comes down to Gingrich Vs. Romney, then no question... Go Newt!!!” -Jim Robinson
Not a solution.
Your plan, my plan, and Jim's plans are irrelvant if no candidate is planning on implementing them. You are wasting all of our time.
I like my plan where I'm married to Jennifer Connelly.
With the low cost of travel today, phone calls, webcams, etc., geographic separation doesn’t mean nearly what it used to. If you came illegally and have grandchildren now, your children are all grown up. You can visit them once or twice a year just like people who live on the other side of the country do, talk with them on the phone every night, see new pictures every week.
Where in the world did you get that idea?
Yes, Yes, That speech is “contingent” on Mexico being like Canada.
You know he is not for open borders.
OK, I’ll name my candidate as Rick Perry. And I won’t attack Newt on this issue, he and Rick both have workable solutions on the immigration issue. Here in Texas, immigrant workers, both legal and not so legal, have been invited here to work for at least the last 45 years that I can recall. Most, if not all of them caused no trouble, nor did they start to “milk” the system until the last decade or so. No candidate is going to “round ‘em all up” and deport them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But just to be clear: if border security is accomplished, you can envision some sort of path to citizenship for people who are here illegally.
Rick Perry: Sure.
Mexico like Canada...bwahahahahahaha!!!!
You’re right. Even if they did not succeed in their lawsuit, Gingrich has said not a word about changing the currant interpretation of birthright citizenship. There are hundreds of millions of people in this world who would jump at the chance to be second-class residents here and see their children be citizens, hundreds of millions more than we can absorb.
Not a solution either but neither is amnesty.
So “limited amnesty’ statement happened in some alternate universe ?
Amnesty is amnesty.
Correct. Even if that were possible logistically, and even if Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the WH, liberals would still have the option of tying things up in the courts for decades. And suggestion that includes a "round up" can't be taken seriously.
Again, every point you mention is included in Gingrich’s 10-step plan. You really ought to read it.
You plucked that out of a 4 page article as proof that he is for amnesty?
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.