Replies

I am not a fan of Neal Boortz, but he makes a lot of sense in this column

Gingrich Shows 'Compassion' for Illegal Aliens He Helped Stay Rooted in U.S.

By Roy Beck, Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 10:56 AM EST

The mainstream news media is filled with awe that Newt Gingrich showed some "compassion" for illegal aliens in last night's GOP presidential debate. A look at his record while in Congress shows this is nothing new.

In fact, Gingrich's leadership in Congress is one of the reasons we have so many illegal aliens today who have been able to stay in this country for 25 years.

That's the supreme irony of Gingrich's pro-amnesty remarks in last night's debate. The man who helped ensure that illegal aliens from the 1980s and 1990s are still here in 2011 asked voters last night to consider the inhumanity of making illegal aliens leave this country after they have sunk such long roots here.

If, while Speaker of the House in the 1990s, Gingrich had shown any leadership in stopping illegal immigration, there would be very few illegal aliens still here from the 1980s and 1990s because they wouldn't have been able to hold payroll jobs.

Nobody pushed him last night to take a pro-amnesty stand. He volunteered it! By focusing on long-term illegal aliens, he took a big risk that the media spotlight (or at least the internet and talk radio spotlight) would shine on his long-term record with those illegal aliens.

What the spotlight will find is that Gingrich worked with Big Business lobbyists to make sure that employers could continue to hire illegal workers, and thus sink roots that would be used by pro-amnesty politicians to justify legalizing them today.

We hear the same arguments from the National Council of La Raza, from the ACLU, from the National Immigration Forum -- all of them cite the lack of past enforcement (which they impeded at every turn) as having allowed illegal aliens to sink such long roots that it would be unjust to make them go home now.

So, Republicans --- instead of insisting that your candidate seek revenge on people who sought freedom and opportunity many, many years ago; try demanding that your candidate promise to do something to stem the tide as soon as he’s sworn in. Shut off the water. Close the borders.

Seek revenge? I never realized that asking the laws be enforced was revenge.

Close the borders? Sure, great idea. However, when amnesty is coupled to closing the borders, history shows we get the amnesty without the closed borders.

So Boortz combines misdirection along with a demand we ignore the history of this subject.

If Neal actually think that Newt the chameleon actually plans on doing anything about the illegal alien problem, then he’s drinking bad kool-aid.

I am also not a fan of his. Let’s take his plumbing/basement flooding problem a little farther....

YES, you definitely SHUT OFF the water....(okay, I agree here)....

NEXT, his example relating to illegals here 25 years (how about 22, or 21, or 20...hey 15 is enough, idn’t it?)..he says we all just need to live with it and enjoy the wonderful contributions they make owning all those businesses and employing all those people (Ha!)...

NOW, back to the flooded basement. What do you really do AFTER you’ve shut off the water? Live with your new polluted basement pool? Just avoid it? Hell no. YOU GET RID OF THE DAMNED WATER! Only, Boortz don’t get to that little bit right there....

Boortz sold out a long time ago. He threw Palin under the bus, as well as a lot of other conservatives.

And moreover, all of this business about it being impossible to deport millions of illegals, or else force them to deport themselves, is a bunch of hooey!

Ike did it very quickly in 1954. Problem solved, at least until LBJ reopened the flood gates by signing the loathsome Immigration and Naturalization Act into law in 1965.

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico

Next question is.... Will Newt actually do all he says he will do.. if elected?..
Maybe better worded threatens to do?.. Perry as well..

-OR-

Will they be like Obama say one thing and DO completely another..?
Zero has proven you can get away with that..
Its a matter of who do you trust?..

OR being republicans will throw a few bones with a meat on them (like Bush did{tax cuts}) and ignore other things they SAID/promised...

THEN.... you got yer 200 year problem..

America has been dumbed down (by teachers Unions) past critical mass..
America may be too dumb to continue... and commits suicide..

I’m only a marginal fan of Boortz myself. But I agree with him. And sadly, I suspect that his suggestion “that a bit of realism needs to creep into this conversation” will be largely ignored. This ain’t 1954.

Turn off the magnets and let the chips fall where they may.

No E-Verify, no workee
No E-Verify, no public assistance

No need to create a police state to round up millions of illegals. No need for national ID. Make it inhospitable for illegals to remain or come here. Get rid of birthright citizenship to offspring of illegals.

Use all the money saved for real border security going after drug runners, terrorists and other scum.

So we’d better support Newt because the sky is falling? That’s the best argument he’s got? Sorry, not buying it.

Try to imagine what the world will think of us (and it does matter) if we suddenly start looking for people who entered this country illegally 25 years ago; people who then married an American citizen, started a business, raised several children – all citizens – and who is now a vital and integral part of the American economy and his community, not to mention a husband, father and grandfather. So we find these people, and start shipping them back to Mexico. Can you hear the screams from the international community? Try these two words: “Ethnic cleansing.”

Boortz is an a$$hole. First, I suggest he read Newt's written stance on immigration. There is no mention of 25 years, which happens to be 1986, the date of the "one-time" amnesty never to be repeated. Here are the criteria Newt uses to determine if someone should be allowed to stay, aka amnesty:

There are currently anywhere from 8 to 12 million people living in the United States who entered illegally.

These people range from day laborers who arrived recently, to grandparents who have been paying taxes, supporting their families and obeying the law for decades.

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.

We need a process that can distinguish at the human level.

Congress must charge the Department of Justice to establish a “citizens’ review” process for those here outside the law. It would establish committees to process these cases in individual communities and determine who will continue on this path to legality, and who will be sent home. Congress must define understandable, clear, objective legal standards that will be applied equally during this process. While this process is ongoing, those here outside the law will be granted Temporary Legal Status for a certain, limited period of time until all have had the opportunity to apply and appear in front of committees.

Applicants must first pass a criminal background check, and then the local committees will assess applications based on family and community ties, and ability to support oneself via employment without the assistance of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs.

The government will rigorously enforce a requirement that all individuals seeking this path to legality must be able to prove that they can independently pay for private health insurance. If an individual cannot prove this, they will lose the ability to stay in the United States.

Furthermore, proficiency in English within a certain number of years, similar to the requirement for naturalization, will be required for anyone who seeks continued legal status in the United States.

Once an applicant has been granted the right to obtain legal status, he or she will have to pay a penalty of at least $5,000.

Moving forward, those who receive this status will have to prove on a regular basis that they can support themselves without entitlement programs and pay for health insurance or else risk the ability to stay in the United States.

This is old wine in new bottles. Newt, like McCain-Kennedy, is proposing that illegals pay a fine, learn English, and be legalized. Newt say they can't be citizens, at least not right away. In his 2nd principle, he states, "Under no circumstance can a path to citizenship be created which would allow those who have broken the law to receive precedence over those who patiently waited to become residents and citizens via the legal process. Those who adhered to our immigration law cannot be usurped by those who violated it." This is similar to McCain-Kennedy's back of line nonsense. McCain and Kennedy strenuously declared that their plan was not amnesty.

Note that nowhere in Newt's plan does it specify the actual criteria of who can stay and who must go. There is no time limit. Newt and Boortz are playing games with the extreme case of 25 years, i.e., those people who entered the US during the 1986 amnesty and didn't qualify.

Leaving the decision to local communities like LA and SF would be a disaster. Newt's "plan" is unworkable and uneforceable. Like McCain, he wants to deport the 2 million "criminal" aliens immediately. This doesn't pass the laugh test.

Newt is creating another class of LPR with the main exception being that they can never be citizens. I find it hard to believe the courts and the Left would ever sanction this. And even New's new class would be eligible for SS and Medicare and EITC and subsidies for Obamacare. In fact, illegals are using welfare now thru their American born children,

Aside from the many flaws in this plan, implementing it will be nearly impossible. With 12 to 20 million illegals or more, what kind of administrative operation would be necessary to process such numbers? ICE can't handle the current workload.

I posted this comment to dirtboy on a similar thread:

If the only law an illegal has broken in a couple of decades or more was coming here a couple of decades or more ago AND they've been good, established, law abiding, tax paying members of the community ever since, then figure out a way to make them pay for breaking the law decades ago and leave them be.

Those people have shown by how they have lived their lives that they are worthy enough to be here, but they are the only exception.

By all means, use every legal pressure (follow the law!) available to make all those here illegally self deport and most certainly will. And if they don't, follow the law and make it happen for them.

However, there needs to be some option for those who fit the above criteria, but do NOT grant any of them amnesty and give them citizenship and thus reward them for what they've done.

Instead, perhaps they could earn a limited citizenship, something like that of convicted felons who have served their sentence?

But, as much as we might like to do it, rounding them all up and automatically booting them all out, no exceptions, isn't going to happen.

He’s a citizen and all that

Really?

“This is about saving our Republic.”

In that case, what is Newt’s policy on LEGAL immigration?

America has admitted 10 million new immigrant citizens in the last eleven years.

80% of them vote for the Democratic Party.

Does Newt support 800,000 new Democrats arriving each year?

Newt is very wrong on this. The longer illegals are squatting here, the more compounded are their crimes. One year here illegally equals one crime but 25 years here amounts to 25 years of criminal activity.

I’m particularly amused by Bachmann’s (and other’s) claim that letting these people go through a process to gain legal residency status in America would be a “magnet” for more illegal immigration. Earth to Michelle. Our country is a magnet. Our way of life, our freedoms, our opportunities … all a magnet; a magnet much more powerful than giving some long-time illegal (but otherwise law-abiding) residents a break. What is Bachmann’s solution? Are we going to combat illegal immigration by making the United States a country to which nobody wants to emigrate? Seal the borders! Take the same actions to protect our borders that Mexico takes to protect theirs!

This needs to be repeated, in case anyone missed it.