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 ...
"He would've supported probably the Newt Gingrich position on immigration. My father never would have broken up a family to try and make, in fact, a point on immigration. And so he would have applauded Newt Gingrich on that. "
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gingrich-supported-bushs-path-amnesty
LINE-1:Everyone who was enraged by Bill Clinton’s statement “It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is", but still defends Newt because it depends on what the meaning of the word 'amnesty' is.
After all, if Newt doesn’t use the word 'amnesty' it’s not really amnesty - right?
LINE-2:
Everyone else.
Let’s not forget Bush’s position on illegals ultimately killed that last shred of any conservative support for him.
As I recall, Lindsey Graham called opponents of amnesty “bigots.” Perry just said “heartless” and Gingrich claimed “inhumane,” I believe was the word. At any rate, the American people are so confused nothing will change or much happen.
The word ‘humane’ is nothing but a alarmist lefty buzzword right up there with ‘heartless’.
Did you ever think you'd see freepers supporting amnesty? I'm grateful, actually, because it exposes an entire sub culture here where actual conservative principles are secondary to a candidate and the want to win.
I liken it to the old marriage phrase, 'men marry women expecting they won't change, and women marry men expecting they can change them'
Anyone expecting Newt or any other illegals apologist to change their establishment stripes is not living in reality. Period.
One of Bush’s cronies, Linda something, also made a similar remark back in the day.
Isn't that precisely what the Rudybots did the last presidential go round? And didn't they get banned because of it?
All you'll get is being called inhumane and heartless.
Newt Gingrich wins endorsement of New Hampshire Union Leader | 6:56 a.m.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-union-leader-20111127,0,7345879.story
You are right in that Newt isn’t standing on a soap box yelling to the heavens for amnesty or he’d be lynched. However, we all know where his plan would go, and so does Newt. He is disengenuous(PC talk for lying cockroach), at best, and we and he know it.
I wouldn’t vote for the man if he came right out and said amnesty, but I’d have more respect for him than I currently do with his hide the bacon bullroar.
I believe that Newt knows exactly where his plan would lead, because he isn’t a stupid man. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether he is a traitorous swine or something else.
Good for Gingrich. This is the same plan that I believe Perry backs too. IF it had passed we would not be in the mess we are in today. There is NO amnesty mentioned in this plan for those that are able to comprehend the facts. Best plan put forth by anyone. Myth/Fact: Ten Key Myths About the Border Security and Immigration Reform Agreement
Office of the Press Secretary ^ | 5-18-2007 | White House
Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 9:25:11 PM by deport
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 18, 2007
Myth/Fact: Ten Key Myths About the Border Security and Immigration Reform Agreement
White House News
1. MYTH: This is amnesty.
•
FACT: Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. This proposal is not amnesty because illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status.
• FACT: To apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind those who applied lawfully, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.
• FACT: Workers approved for Z visas will be given a temporary legal status, but they will not enjoy the full privileges of citizens or Legal Permanent Residents, such as welfare benefits and the ability to sponsor relatives abroad as immigrants.
2. MYTH: This proposal repeats the mistakes of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. •
FACT: The 1986 Act failed because it provided amnesty for 3 million immigrants, did not adequately secure borders, did not include a workable employer verification system, and created no legal avenue to meet the labor needs of the American economy.
• FACT: This proposal addresses every one of the shortcomings from 1986: •
No Amnesty: Illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law and pay a fine to be eligible for a Z visa.
• Border Security: Border security benchmarks must be met before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect. These triggers include: constructing 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers at the border and increasing the size of the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents.
• Employer Verification System: An Employment Eligibility Verification System must be ready to process new hires before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect.
• Temporary Worker Program: A temporary worker program will relieve pressure on the border and provide a lawful way to meet the needs of our economy.
• FACT: The 1986 Act offered green cards after just 18 months, but under this proposal, green card applicants must meet a number of responsibilities – something which will take most candidates more than a decade.
3. MYTH: The government will not and cannot meet its promise to crack down on the hiring of illegal workers. •
FACT: Before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect, an Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) must be in place and ready to prevent unauthorized workers from obtaining jobs in the United States.
• FACT: Employers will be required to verify the work eligibility of all employees using the EEVS, and all workers will be required to present stronger and more readily verifiable identification documents. Tough new anti-fraud measures will be implemented to restrict fraud and identity theft.
• FACT: Employers who hire illegal workers will face stiff new criminal and civil penalties. For example, the maximum criminal penalty for a pattern or practice of hiring illegals will increase 25-fold, from $3,000 per alien to $75,000 per alien.
4. MYTH: This proposal would cut in half the amount of fence authorized by the Secure Fence Act of 2006. •
FACT: The Secure Fence Act of 2006 – which authorized the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing; more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting; and increased use of advanced technology – will remain unchanged.
• FACT: At least half of the additional fencing authorized by the Secure Fence Act must be built before the temporary worker program and Z visa could go into effect.
5. MYTH: The trigger period will cause a rush to the border. •
FACT: To be eligible to apply for a Z visa, illegal immigrants must prove they were in the country prior to January 1, 2007.
• FACT: Anyone caught crossing the border after the new law passes will be fingerprinted and permanently barred from receiving work or tourist visas from the U.S., creating a strong disincentive to illegal immigration.
6. MYTH: By providing an opportunity for citizenship to illegal immigrants already here, the bill will exponentially increase extended-family chain migration. •
FACT: The proposal reforms our immigration system to create a new balance between family connections and our national interests and economic needs.
• FACT: Visas for parents of U.S. citizens are being capped, while visas for siblings and adult children are eliminated.
• FACT: To help keep our economy competitive, a new merit-based system similar to those used by other countries will give preference to attributes that further our national interest such as: job offers in high-demand fields, ability to speak English, and education.
7. MYTH: The temporary worker program is bad for American workers. •
FACT: The temporary worker program relieves pressure on the border and meets our economic needs by allowing workers to enter the country to fill jobs that Americans are not doing.
• FACT: The program protects American workers by requiring U.S. employers to advertise the job in the United States at a competitive wage before hiring a temporary worker.
• FACT: To ensure “temporary” means “temporary,” workers are limited to three two-year terms, with at least a year spent outside the United States between each term.
• FACT: A cap of 400,000 is set on the program, which can be adjusted up or down in the future depending on demand.
8. MYTH: Illegal immigrants will come out of the shadows and on to the welfare rolls. •
FACT: Z visa workers are not entitled to welfare, Food Stamps, SSI, non-emergency Medicaid, or other programs and privileges enjoyed by U.S. citizens and some Legal Permanent Residents.
• FACT: In order to apply for and maintain Z visa status, workers must remain employed.
9. MYTH: Government agencies will not be able to share information to pursue immigration violators. •
FACT: Under this proposal, there will be unprecedented information sharing between Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure that immigration laws are respected and enforced.
• FACT: The new Employment Eligibility Verification System, which employers will be required to use for all employees, will rely on unprecedented information sharing across Federal and State databases, including Social Security records, passport and visa records, and State driver’s licenses.
• FACT: For Z visa applicants, DHS has authority to share information with law enforcement about terrorist aliens, security risks, and criminal aliens, including aliens who lie on their applications and aliens who commit fraud.
• FACT: Under this proposal, DHS will receive Social Security Administration “no match” information on individuals and information on multiple uses of the same social security number by more than one individual.
10. MYTH: Senators are being asked to vote Monday on a lengthy bill that they will not have time to read. •
FACT: Monday’s vote is only a procedural vote to bring the bill to the floor for debate, not a vote on the bill itself.
• FACT: This bill is the product of months of extraordinary negotiations between Senators from both parties and Cabinet-level officials.
“Now he’s turning it against Conservatives to try and sneak through to the nomination.”
Turning what against conservatives? We can not afford or live through four more years of Barrack Obama. This country will be destroyed and as far as I am concerned we are at critical mass. Yet, the conservatives on FR are whining about how smooth, clever, and smart Gingrich is and using it as a negative. Maybe, just maybe Gingrich has the ability, experience and knowledge to beat Obama.
Good STRAT, we take the senate. Note the dims are already working on stopping the blood letting in the Senate by the latest ‘insider trading’ scandal, they are attempting to knock off a couple of the repubs.
How can we hope to define the bounds of the government of a people if we can’t define which human beings are “the people” and which are not?
How can we define the limits of the government of a nation if we can’t define the phisical limits of the nation itself?
How can we talk about the purpose, size, powers, and scope of the government if we don't know who are the governed?
...
...
And as for those who say that we can't possibly deport all illegal immigrants; I have two things to say:
1) Si, se puede!; and,
2) When a billion Chinese soldiers show up, will we say that we can’t possibly repel a billion Chinamen China-persons? That, clearly, no serious person would suggest that we should try to repel a million Chinamen China-persons.
It is not sophistry to ask people to put aside distortion of language and deal in facts, indeed, that is precisely the opposite of sophistry, that is the cure for sophistry.
We have had FReepers on this thread accuse Gingrich of explicitly promoting amnesty, and "wanting" amnesty. That is why reply number 20 was written. Other FReepers are more "sophisticated" they merely insinuate that Gingrich wants amnesty but they do so in language and tone that admits of no discussion because there is no other explanation. That too is sophistry.
What I had done is the opposite of sophistry. I have declared my history of supporting Gingrich; I have pointed out flaws in Gingrich's immigration policy, indeed, I have spent several paragraphs in reply #20 detailing the ways in which is plan will be subverted. Under these circumstances to be told that "even you" admit that his plan leads to amnesty is a perversion of what I wrote. If you had written, "especially you" it would have been appropriate to the context and fair.
I have reviewed this entire thread in vain seeking a poster who reveals his preference for a candidate. This is the second time I approach the subject. The point is that we are not undertaking to select a candidate against the perfect model but from a finite field. If you object to Gingrich's plan because it is imperfect, I would applaud you for pointing out the imperfections. I would applaud you even louder for comparing it to your own candidates plan. But then FReepers would have to name a candidate and set forth his plan.
I wonder if they would be accused of sophistry if they did so?
What I do not applaud is attacking Gingrich for what he did not say. Instead of having resort to what Gingrich actually says and what his plan actually says, we have a caricature of his plan and imputations of evil motive. But that is not "sophistry", evidently.
Suppose your candidate is Rick Perry, shall I mischaracterize his plan and then call him a Rino and when you object and put the actual language of the plan (if he had one) on the thread, shall I then accuse you of sophistry?
Then perhaps I, rather than you, would fail to see the irony.
We are in the process of picking a candidate from among a finite field I believe the field has now been reduced to Romney and Gingrich. I am sure others have their paladins. I believe the candidate should be selected on the basis of three tests: (1) electability (as John F. Kennedy said, "first you gotta win." And we simply got to win against Obama if we are to save the Constitution and the Republic) (2) conservative bona fides (that's what this argument is about) (3) vision.
That is why when we criticize one candidate we must compare him to another candidate or to the field of candidates and not against the perfect. We must compare one candidate's plan to another candidate's plan. To borrow a line from Herman Cain, "oranges to oranges". An exercise which engages in mischaracterization does not advance this process. I am interested in advancing the process. That is why I stipulated the faults in Gingrich's plan and even set them forth in several paragraphs. I am not interested in defending Gingrich on false charges where the perfect is an ever moving target.
Those who want to play that game are sophists and they are not interested in advancing a decent process for the selection of a candidate.
I am interested in assessing Gingrich's plan and deciding how it rates against other candidates' plans. Having done that, I am interested in deciding whether that totally disqualifies Gingrich-or any candidate-or whether the candidate is nevertheless attractive on the basis of conservative bona fides and vision,all compared to the rest of the field.
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.