Posted on 11/28/2011 5:48:35 AM PST by heiss
What bugs me most about Gingrich’s amnesty thing is the depressingly familiar dishonesty. As Katrina reports, he says:
"I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally. But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties are so deeply into America that it would truly be tragic to try and rip their family apart." [emphasis added]
Put aside the problems with amnesty — implementation riddled with fraud, a magnet to future illegal immigration, insincere promises of future enforcement, playing legal immigrants for chumps, etc. What’s really grating is the Orwellian attempt to redefine words, telling people words don’t mean what they think they mean. “Path to legality” joins “regularization,” “normalization,” “earned-status adjustment,” and all the other sleazy euphemisms we’ve been hearing for years now.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I may be a sodpoodle - but I don’t ‘lap up’.
I do try to stay skeptical and civil. Not besotted with Newt - which is a good thing. Too often we project all our aspirations and invest emotions in candidates that are human and flawed.
Elected officials are not our parents, children, spouses or close friends - they are our employees.
I have hired and fired people based on performance - not promises.
Sorry, but I don’t like that policy.
“People CAN change their minds as they learn more and mature.”
Too bad we can’t apply this common sense attitude to several of our candidates... the conservatives are eating their young....
ABO
I’ll vote for anyone but Ron Paul. Well, I guess I’d even vote for HIM vs. BO.
Actually, I agree. Another 4 years of Obama will kill this nation.
Well, quite frankly, I'd say your skepticism could use a bit of overhaul.
Newt is playing the same non-amnesty amnesty game that McCain and Bush played last decade.
I would have more respect for him if he quit trying to parse what he is proposing.
The fact that he is playing the parsing game shows he is up to no good here.
Agreed.
It is not Newt's fault that "amnesty" seems to be the one word those of us on the right have turned into Newspeak. Strictly speaking amnesty means a general pardon or forgiveness of (some class of) offenses, which removes all legal rememberance of the offence, but as applied to immigration offenses, the word turns slippery in meaning just as the left's real-world Newspeak "health care", "climate change", and the like do. Sometimes the person using the word will mean strictly what the English word amnesty means, which would imply if their immigration offenses are completely pardoned or forgiven, and there was no legal rememberance of them, that theretofore illegal immigrants could seek citizenship -- and Newt's "Red Card" proposal is not that, it regularizes the legal status of those not deported (remember he did advocate some deportations) under a legal disability due to their past immigration crime -- sometimes (cf. Bachmann's attacks on Gingrich) the word is used to mean application of any measure short of deportation to illegal immigrants. Given that, his application of the word "amnesty" qualified with adjectives is almost necessary.
Long-time FReepers will recall I have often made a distinction between "amnesty-into-guest-worker-status" and "amnesty-onto-a-path-to-citizenship", and written in favor of the first, and with vehemence equal to any FReeper against the second. I think, given my commitment to preserving English against the encroachment of Newspeak, I should stop making that distinction.
Regularizing the status of illegal immigrants in any way that places them under a disability that prevents them from becoming citizens is not amnesty. It remembers their offense but on humanitarian grounds, for economic reasons, or perhaps simply out of recognition that our immigration laws combining lack of a guest-worker program and inconsistent enforcement have been broken for decades, applies a measure other than deportation.
Well, tough.
You have a lot of gall pretending Newt's critics are the ones engaging in Newspeak. We're not the ones playing word games here. Newt is the one who coined the phrase 'path to non-deportation'. But I guess you have to try and pretend the critics are wrong here. Pah.
Again, Reagan’s amnesty was to be the end of this nonsense. The borders were supposed to be secured then and Congress did not address that issue.
Enforce the laws that exist. People will leave if they cannot get a job or services. The truth is the American taxpayer can no longer afford to take care of every body who knocks at the door. They broke the law by coming here. The broke the law by working here. If they have id numbers then they broke those laws as well. If they have aa driver’s license they broke those laws too. I am done with all this molly coddling.
What the Newt is proposing is a statute of limitations on the law. That invites more illegals to enter and ride out the clock.
The illegals knew they weere violating the law when they came and that they still are in violation. Worried about splitting families? Deport all of them; no split up.
Open the illegal’s jobs to welfare recipients. If they don’t take the jobs, then off the dole.
Get these people off the taxpayer’s back.
Start with e-verify and severe fines for hiring illegals. They will deport themselves
This latest amnesty proposal would be hilarious if it didn't have such tragic consequences. 25 years equates to roughly the last amnesty. So, are we going to keep having a 25 year amnesty jubilee for illegals?
If you start fining companies and individuals that hire them a lot of money, and out troops on our southern border with orders to shoot to kill anyone crossing the border in our direction, (and actually provide bullets for the guns this time), you'll find that the problem will fix itself faster than you think,
Deport any illegal caught here. I don't give a single rat's ass how long they've been here sucking up freebies courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Fly him/her to the southern mexico border, so they will at least have a longer walk back.
and out troops on our southern border with orders to shoot to kill anyone crossing the border in our direction,
Yeah, that’ll get ya elected President! Shoot them Mezcans!
C’mon.
That’s why I’ve stated again and again that the border MUST be secured FIRST.
Why the hell not? They are invading our country? Or are you one of those globalists who doesn't believe in borders?
Or are you one of those globalists who doesn’t believe in borders?
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.