Posted on 11/28/2011 3:51:13 PM PST by Kaslin
Now that Newt Gingrich has become the latest in a series of Republican front-runners, he is getting the kinds of scrutiny and attacks that have done in other front-runners.
One of the issues that have aroused concern among conservative Republicans is that of amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially after Gingrich said that it would not be "humane" to deport someone who has been living and working here for years.
Let's go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.
There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively.
The usually sober and thoughtful Wall Street Journal, on issues other than immigration, outdoes Newt Gingrich's claim that it would not be "humane" to deport illegal immigrants who have been living here a long time. A Wall Street Journal editorial says that it would be "psychotic" to do so.
"No one honestly believes the government should or will mount a nationwide manhunt to deport millions of people," according to the Wall Street Journal.
What we have today is virtually the opposite of that. Cities that openly proclaim themselves "sanctuaries" for illegal immigrants put their own policemen under strict orders not to report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities, with the result that illegal immigrants who have committed crime after crime are free to stay here and commit more crimes, including murder.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Either is preferrable to Barak Milhous Obama.
I’d vote for Paul (and have at every ballot appearance). But I wouldn’t expect much, as I won’t, for whomever is elected. The changes required at this late date, if enacted, would result in anarchy. We have grown a dependent class that is now beyond control...for want of a better word. In other words, our once great American culture has been diluted through years of liberal education and illegal immigration to a budding anarchy. Sad, but it is what it is.
There is nothing before the jump, or after the jump, to lead one to that conclusion.
Therefore, I wonder how you got there. What did you see that I didn't?
No. I don’t hate them. I’ll repeat myself. I don’t respect ideas that will assist in the destruction of the republic. That you do is a bit disturbing.
According to Roy Beck of Numbers USA, as Speaker, Newt actively worked to undermine the enforcement of illegal immigration laws:
second from the last paragraph on page 2.
That is one of the few bad pieces written by one of my favorite “minds”. I kept waiting for “the plan”. He makes the case of why the Gingrich position is wrong, and what is legally (and morally) correct, but lacks the balls to tell us how he would accomplish the obvious ....how he would arrest and deport, or cause everyone who is here illegally to leave.
I am waiting to hear someone, anyone, who can articulate a plan to rid our country of the millions who are here illegally no matter how long they have been here.
Those who advocate holding the line and deporting all of them NEVER put forth a plan to do so...they just blather on, do nothing, kick the can down the road, and the problem remains. I am so utterly sick of placard wavers with no plan to deal with illegal immigrants. Sowell included.
SEAL THE FREAKING BORDER!!! NOW!!!
Rant over.
This is perhaps the one political position that could not only guarantee Barak Obama reelection, but the DNC all branches of government for the next two or three generations.
Mittens supported it too, long before the 2012 elections. Bachmann has the best NumbersUSA rating of the bunch.
I'd pay big bucks to see Dr. Sowell debate the Usurper and Chief.
Sounds our disagreement is based on the fact that you have not actually read the Gingrich plan, or you don't understand its full ramifications. Please tell me how you think it will "destroy the republic."
Unfortunately, he is 81.
You posted,”Kinda sounds like Dr. Sowell is in Newt’s corner”
No actually the opposite. he is saying there is NO right to stay here if you come illegally, period. Sowells says longevity here, illegally, doesn’t confer any more rights,
Not sure how you think he agrees with newt if you read the article
“Unfortunately, he is 81.”
Maybe 81 years young!
Here I fixed it for you
No. He didn't propose amnesty. But he did propose that some illegals could stay, without important consequences.
Which amounts to conceding important ground even before the war begins.
Newt's position encourages every illegal in the country to stand pat and wait it out. He knows that, if we ever get serious, and he hangs in there long enough, there'll still be a door open for him.
Moreover, it does nothing to discourage any new illegal from entering the country.
It's one thing to secure the border, enforce existing immigration/employment law, cut off benefits to non-citizens and deport every criminal who comes in contact with the law -- then, after millions self-deport, arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to how to deal with the remainder.
It's quite another to make that concession before even taking a step toward securing the border.
Newt's position is a cop-out.
I did read it. You should do the same. Also, look to 1986 to see the results of the last time we cut illegals some slack. Worked out real swell, didn’t it?
Regardless of age, this guy always writes stuff I wish I had put into words right after I read what he said.
All this worry about Mexican illegals, amnesty, and who they're going to vote for is besides the point. 911 proved there are people who would do us great harm; "...everyone who comes across the border from Mexico is not Mexican. It is the height of irresponsibility to leave that border open and the people who cross it a protected group."
Yeah, I could see that tickling those looking to be tickled.
One point of his I particularly like, though I am for coming down on both parties, is this:
“Punishing employers who hire illegals is punishing an accessory to an illegal act more harshly than the one who committed the illegal act in the first place.”
Didn’t say that he agreed with newt on the illegal issue. Reread the second to the last paragraph on page 2, and give it some thought.
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.