Gingrich supported Bush's path to amnesty

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gingrich-supported-bushs-path-amnesty ^ | 112611 | Joel Gehrke

[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."

[nathanbedford]

First, let's understand that a Gingrich is not the sole author of that letter but one of 15 subscribers. I do not know how much input he had which affected word choice.

But I am not here to quibble, obviously the author of the letter resorted to "circumlocution" as I referred to in my original reply because they did not want to use the words "citizenship" or "amnesty." You want to ascribe a sinister motive to this path I do not believe that we have evidence to do so.

Gingrich is, of course, a politician. As such he is unquestionably aware of the decisive impact on elections which the Hispanic voting block will have in the future. My suspicion is that he would like to appease them without giving them voting power. If I were a Republican politician that is exactly what I would try to do. That would take the steam out of their potentially monolithic voting as a bloc without running the risk of increasing the size of the bloc.

Is that not what the language of the letter tries to do?

[SatinDoll]

Straight up, I will tell you what bothers me about Gingrich’s statements: he says everything except, “Let’s uphold the immigration laws”.

Newt Gingrich would invent an extra-Constitutional form of citizenship for illegal aliens, and anyone with sense knows that it is only to satisfy employers who do not want to pay a living wage to U.S. workers. SCOTUS would strike it down in a heartbeat.

I do not advocate splitting up families because the whole family should be deported. Children go with parents. Just because a person is born here doesn’t automatically mean they’re a citizen.

The 14th Amendment has bee misinterpreted time and again.

From the Holding of the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

Per Leo Donofrio - This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States. The “holding”, which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the “dicta“, which is not considered legal precedent...the actual holding of the court is limited to “the single question” of whether the children of aliens who have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States” are 14th Amendment citizens.

The holding does not specifically grant 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born in the US of illegal aliens, or even of those here temporarily (tourists and students). Numerous legislative attempts have been made on both sides of the Congressional aisle – as well as in a multitude of States – to clarify this holding by statute as to the children of illegal immigrants (aka “anchor babies”).

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-obama-administration-quietly-scrubbed-the-foreign-affairs-manual-in-august-2009-to-expand-the-holding-of-wong-kim-ark/

I am weary of excuses as to why we here in the United States cannot enforce our immigration laws, and no, I do not want a class of immigrants here like those from Turkey living in Germany. This is the U.S. and you are either a citizen, citizen-to-be, or a visitor-soon-to-depart.

[OddLane]

No, it's not.

I've seen Tamar Jacoby debate this issue numerous times, in-person, and have read her essays in City Journal-and elsewhere-many times, and I've never heard her once express the attitude that we shouldn't grant citizenship to the 20 million+ aliens living in this country illegally.

What's more, the idea that you can have a huge cohort of foreign nationals living and working in this country while denying them citizenship in perpetuity is so ridiculous that it beggars credulity that someone would actually offer this as a serious policy prescription.

I haven't even touched upon the fact that Gingrich's proposal would legalize the people who were rejected by the last amnesty.

To put that into proper perspective, one of the individuals regularized under the Simpson-Mazzoli ICRA was a chief conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

[nathanbedford]

"Straight up, I will tell you what bothers me about Gingrich’s statements: he says everything except, “Let’s uphold the immigration laws”.

----

"SOLUTIONS

1. Control the border.

The United States must control its border. It is a national security imperative."

---

"We need a system that enforces the rule of law, ensures that those who broke the law pay a stiff penalty, but also acknowledges that it is neither optimal nor feasible nor humane to deport every single illegal immigrant."

"We need a path to legality, but not citizenship, for some of these individuals who have deep ties to America, including family, church and community ties. We also need a path to swift but dignified repatriation for those who are transient and have no roots in America."

(http://www.newt.org/solutions/immigration)

[OddLane]

This,

I am weary of excuses as to why we here in the United States cannot enforce our immigration laws, and no, I do not want a class of immigrants here like those from Turkey living in Germany. This is the U.S. and you are either a citizen, citizen-to-be, or a visitor-soon-to-depart.

[swampfox101]

Why do u want to bother some folks with facts?

[SatinDoll]

I know what he said Nathan. It is double-speak. “Control the border...; enforces the rule of law...; path to legality!?” What the Hell!

We already have a President who selectively enforces laws, and we conservatives want him gone...like yesterday! Why trade Obama for another who uses words to wriggle around law and order just to satisfy his political donors, hmm?

[BarnacleCenturion]

"The letter goes out of its way to avoid the word amnesty"

And Bush never used the word amnesty.

But reasonable people know it for what it was:

"While in Congress in the 1980s and 1990s, Gingrich tended to support illegal-alien amnesties. Later, he made fairly specific arguments against mass legalizations. But recently, his statements have lacked any clarity about what he proposes actually doing with the millions of illegal aliens. Overall, his platform on amnesties is Unhelpful."

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/newt-gingrich.html

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

They’re discussing this right now on FOX. From what I’m hearing, amnesty was no where mentioned. It is about a temporary guest worker program.

[OddLane]

Roy Beck has him pegged.

The only time in his career where Gingrich ever expressed a hesitancy about embracing open borders was when he was on the cusp of taking power as head of the incoming Republican class of 1995.

There was a brief chapter in To Renew America,which I wish I had kept my copy of in retrospect, but other that there's no distinction between him and any of the other supporters of unfettered immigration and amnesty, whether it be Perry, or Hunstmann, or John McCain.

[org.whodat]

Convoluted , most often referred to as baffling with BS.

[9YearLurker]

Gingrich offers a wide open opportunity to citizenship for the bulk of the illegals who are here now. Just put together his three main points:

1) ‘legality’ for those who have been here for some sort of a long time,
2) a red card system whereby employers can chose to hire and make legal virtually any worker on the planet that they would like, and
3) his proposal that those here now can get in line for citizenship by applying for it while they are home visiting their old country.

Given 1 and 2, virtually anyone here can make a trip home and come right back with impunity, then go about their business here ‘legally’ until their citizenship comes through.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

You are correct and if I am reading this controversy correctly, Bachmann deliberately attempted to deceive.

[SatinDoll]

Have you read all 41 pages on the Red Card system?

It is about amnesty, period.

[nathanbedford]

Rather than form your opinion from someone else's opinion, why don't you form your opinion from the facts?

[nathanbedford]

You ascribe a sinister motive to Gingrich without justification. Why do you think he will encourage a voting bloc which will vote 70-30 against Republicans?

What evidence do you have?

[9YearLurker]

No, but I’ve read enough about it to know that it is a disaster.

In some ways it is worse than just amnesty because it opens the spigots to an endless inflow of the same pool of low-cost labor from which our present illegals are drawn, but with them now legal and free to move toward citizenship.

[Scotsman will be Free]

This will make no difference to the Newtbots. If newt came out and stated he was in favor of giving all illegals $110K jobs and waterfront houses for free, most newtbots would try and twist it into a conservative position.

[Scotsman will be Free]

Newt may have dodged using the word “amnesty” but anyone who refuses to see what the intent of his position is, is being purposefully obtuse. That seems to be the default position of all Newt supporters in reference to his illegal alien stance.