Skip to comments.Gingrich supported Bush's path to amnesty
Posted on 11/27/2011 12:54:59 AM PST by Fred
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich signed a letter in 2004 praising President Bush's plan for comprehensive immigration reform -- which gave illegal immigrants a path to citizenship -- according to Rep.Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who released the Gingrich letter today.
"President Bush has proposed a new legal path to work in the U.S. through a temporary worker program that will match willing workers with willing employers," Gingrich wrote, along with 14 other co-authors. They added that "the president has shown courage by calling on Congress to place reality over rhetoric and recognize that those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave."
To challenge their conservative critics, Gingrich and the others wrote that "the status quo is unacceptable and clinging to the status quo -- or tougher versions of it -- is neither conservative nor principled." They argued that "it has become clear that the only viable approach to reform is combining enforcement with additional legal avenues for those who wish to work in our economy, while also addressing the situation of those already here in the U.S."
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
Gingrich Amnesty = Dubya’s Amnesty (Rove)
Not a surprise at all.
Newt is one of those ultimate insiders who think government should be more efficient and that there are government solutions to most problems.
Newt is a party line backer.
We know where Gingrich got his "humane' talking point. It's recycled from when he and others were hawking the Bush amnesty scheme.
“Gingrich supported Bush’s path to amnesty”
I view this as a flawed statement.
There is no such thing as a path to amnesty, as in the path to citizenship, or a path to guest visas.
Amnesty implies that you need no path...You are already here
and can stay.
"combining enforcement with additional legal avenues for those who wish to work in our economy, while also addressing the situation of those already here in the U.S."
"Congress can fulfill its role by establishing sufficient increases in legal immigration and paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to stay, assimilate, and become part of America." (Emphasis supplied)
As one whose very first vanity years ago on Free Republic was a complaint against Bush's immigration policy, I think I have standing to point out that this letter is not a call for amnesty. It may be a call for a reform which will inevitably lead to amnesty but it is not a call for outright amnesty. There is no call for citizenship for illegals merely because they are here. In fact, there is no call for citizenship for illegals for any reason.
If we are going to oppose Gingrich because of his immigration policy, let us at least understand his position.
Full disclosure: I have spoken out in support of Gingrich.
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Willardville mighty Mittens has struck out.
Newt Gingrich Gets Big New Hampshire Endorsement Fox News 3 minutes ago
AP Fox News has learned that former speaker of the US House and current GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich will receive the coveted endorsement of the highly-influential New Hampshire newspaper The Manchester Union Leader,
With Newt I am faced with a dilemma. I want to like him but he keeps making it difficult for me. It is clear to me that he is soft on illegal immigration. Also I once read a comparison of him with Bill Clinton, both policy wonks and bad managers.
But then I face the “on the other hand.” He has the best debating skills on the stage (as long as he controls himself.)
He is also the only candidate (as far as I can tell) who seems to have some passion about doing something about the judicial dictatorship that afflicts us.And he is the only one who has made an issue about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. (The last Christian church in Afghanistan was demolished last year - under the “protection” of American troops.)
So I’m in a wait and see mode.
The headline is a lie.
The letter does not support amnesty. It generally supports Bush's approach and that approach might in turn have supported amnesty but the letter which is held up as an indictment of Gingrich for supporting amnesty simply does not do that.
Nor do we know, at least I do not know, what the state of play of Bush's program was at the time the letter was written. It might be that there was no call for amnesty when the letter was written I am simply not that well-versed in the give and take from so many years ago. In any event, it is absolutely clear from the carefully chosen language in the letter, that it does not explicitly endorse making citizens of illegals.
The headline is false, the letter does not endorse amnesty. The letter assumes that Bush endorses amnesty, but if he did at the time, this letter does not explicitly endorse that part of Bush's plan. The headline reads:
Gingrich supported Bush's path to amnesty
Nowhere in that letter does Gingrich support Bush's path to amnesty. The letter goes out of its way to avoid the word "amnesty" and even the word "citizenship." Intellectual honesty requires that, if the allegation is that Bush's plan supports amnesty, the details should be made available in the article showing that Gingrich's endorsement of Bush's plan could have no other reasonable meaning. The article does not even attempt to do so.
My comments make good sense.
It makes very good sense to know what the hell it is we are talking about and not jump to unwarranted assumptions.
Even more concern I have than Newt’s amnesty stand is his statements on global warming. Newt is on record favoring action to counter global warming = higher taxes!
As someone who lives in Germany, I am somewhat aware of the facts on the ground here.
Why would anyone support amnesty?
It was the Reagan amnesty for 6 million illegals that got us the 20+ million we have now.
Do we want to commit national suicide?
No nation has ever deliberately given up its culture, traditions, and demographics. Are we the dumbest nation ever or what?
Don't worry, we already know they're clueless hacks.
Ya think there might have been a reason that was done, just out of curiosity?
If you look at Gingrich's "solutions" page you will see that he calls for "objective" standards by which community boards must judge the worthiness of the applicant to stay in America.
I do not understand how one can make the more subjective criteria, such as church attendance, "objective." I understand that one might demand documentary evidence to support that assertion that one has been in the country for 25 years. I am less concerned about that feature.
But what about the problem of subjective interpretation? Can we really believe that a board of review in Berkeley will not consciously subvert the entire process and rule that every applicant meets the criteria? If that becomes the case, as I believe it will, the underground telegraph will soon inform every illegal alien they should go to a sanctuary city like Berkeley to get a good report. Ultimately, the entire process is subverted.
I think Gingrich's suggestion is unworkable but I do not think that that, in logic, compels the conclusion that he therefore wants amnesty. He has explicitly denied that he wants amnesty. I don't like what he wants but I at least want to accurately describe what he says he wants.
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.