The Good Newt

New York Times ^ | Bill Keller

[WilliamHouston]

Immigration is a subject that brings out the best and the worst in Americans.

As taught to my fourth-grade daughter this semester, the story of the peopling of America encourages us to celebrate our identity as the land of e pluribus unum. It reminds us of the tolerance required to coexist in a culture of many cultures. It honors the courage to uproot your life so your children can have a better one. . . .

Here’s what Newt gets:

First, immigration is a rejuvenation of our economy, a source of invention and investment at the high end and of tax-paying, productive labor at the low end. So the foundation of a new policy should be the opening of more, and more-efficient, legal channels for the newcomers who will refresh our ingenuity and replenish our aging work force (and, by the way, pay to keep the Social Security funds filled for boomers like me).

Second, you can’t sell reform unless it begins with enforcement. Restrictionists rightly point out that the last major reform bill in 1986 promised not only legalization but tougher employer sanctions and beefed-up border controls. In a booming, labor-hungry economy, those things did not come to pass. Critics of legalization are justified in saying we won’t be fooled again. . .

[WilliamHouston]

Bill Keller of the New York Times is excited by Newt.

[NeilGus]

Few people (including conservatives) oppose immigration.

We just oppose ILLEGAL immigration. People who break the law should not be given preferential treatment over people who follow the law.

[skeeter]

I wonder if there’s any reason the writer repeatedly mentions ‘immigration’ when he is really referring to ‘ILLEGAL immigration’.

[heiss]

Well, New York Times is excited about Amnesty-Newt. THis should go on well /s

To the Newt-trolls here:
Newt is for amnesty, which is legalization of illegals. The details of his campaign time plan are not important. They will be fine-tuned with Senate’s ACORN caucus before the bill is signed, i.e. something betwene Newt’s amnesty and ACORN’s amnesty idea. You can be sure that Tea Parties (i.e. radical righwingers) will not be invited to those meetings.

Courts and future admins will fine-tune it further (guess which way).

In the past, Newt blocked e-verify.

He is unacceptable amnesty hack, the biggest threat to our country. Everything else can be changed in the future. Amnesty is permanently changing the country.

Choice is yours.

[heiss]

Well, New York Times is excited about Amnesty-Newt. THis should go on well /s

To the Newt-trolls here:
Newt is for amnesty, which is legalization of illegals. The details of his campaign time plan are not important. They will be fine-tuned with Senate’s ACORN caucus before the bill is signed, i.e. something betwene Newt’s amnesty and ACORN’s amnesty idea. You can be sure that Tea Parties (i.e. radical righwingers) will not be invited to those meetings.

Courts and future admins will fine-tune it further (guess which way).

In the past, Newt blocked e-verify.

He is unacceptable amnesty hack, the biggest threat to our country. Everything else can be changed in the future. Amnesty is permanently changing the country.

Choice is yours.

[Fiji Hill]

The good Newt

The bad Newt

[Leep]

This is how the leftist media intentionally manipulates the conversation through outright lies,distortions, and or lies of omission.
The same way they claim the right-wingers are anti-government when the reality is we are anti-BIG-government...on and on and on....

[mmichaels1970]

Bill Keller of the New York Times is excited by Newt.

No he isn't.

There are plenty of reasons the thought of President Newt Gingrich makes me shudder. But on this hard, defining American issue, he’s shown a combination of brains, heart and guts that puts the rest of his party to shame.

He simply likes Newt on immigration (or illegal immigration). I'm currently taking Keller's advice and reading for myself on Newt's site.

Not sure how I come down on Newt's 10-point plan yet, but I'm certainly not going to base my opinion on Bill Keller.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Newt is for amnesty, which is legalization of illegals."

There is nothing implicitly bad about "legalization". What is bad is "a path to citizenship". I'm OK with "legalization" if the most it involves is permanent residency with NO path to citizenship (i.e. if you accept it, you will NEVER be allowed citizen status, NEVER vote for a (Democrat) candidate for office). Your children will become citizens if born here. No "go back to your home country and apply (ahead of others who have NOT violated US law)". Just permanent residency (call it a "red card").

And of course, the borders MUST be secured FIRST. And I mean PROVEN secured by a 90% drop in attempts to cross (99% would be better).

[Logical me]

Newt is for amnesty, which is legalization of illegals

Newt is NOT for amnesty. Wake up. Spreading this garbage does not do America any good.

[tumblindice]

“Newt is NOT for amnesty.”

If it waddles like a duck & quacks like a duck, I say just put it on my bill (said the duck).

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=375541

“During a CNN debate two weeks ago, Gingrich called for a “humane”
immigration policy that would grant legality for an untold number of illegal
immigrants, something that sounds a lot like amnesty to conservative critics.”

[Georgia Girl 2]

I don’t oppose immigration. I just oppose trying to absorb the entire underclass of Mexico. We should be trying to attract the best and brightest from around the world not the dregs of every third world country.

[mmichaels1970]

If it waddles like a duck & quacks like a duck, I say just put it on my bill (said the duck).

Here is what Newt's website says on that:

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.

I'm still looking hard at his proposals and I really don't think I like the additional bureaucracy of "citizen's review boards" set up by Congress. But it doesn't at all sound like amnesty to me.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I'm still looking hard at his proposals and I really don't think I like the additional bureaucracy of "citizen's review boards" set up by Congress. But it doesn't at all sound like amnesty to me."

No significant "additional" bureaucracy. Although "draft boards" are currently not being used, I don't believe they have been disbanded. Same principle here.

[Prokopton]

He is unacceptable amnesty hack, the biggest threat to our country. Everything else can be changed in the future. Amnesty is permanently changing the country.

This is critical. Whether Obamacare gets repealed next year or four years from now, it can always be reversed. Amnesty, on the other hand, is forever. Obama cannot get amnesty passed, this is clear. However, Gingrich just might be able to get amnesty passed with the help of the weak, effete, Republican elite and the Democrats. If this happens, 20 million new, uneducated, government dependent, Democrat voters will insure there will not be a conservative "revolution" for many generations, if ever. In this, on of the most important issues facing our Country, Gingrich poses a greater threat than Obama.

I am concerned about the prospect of four more years of Obama, although he could be reigned in if we had Republican leadership with guts. I am fearful that Gingrich will place our Country permanently in jeopardy. This is the dilemma Gingrich supporters have not addressed.

[tumblindice]

Yeah, sounds like another Czar will be needed ...

And I’m sure our disgruntled foreign guests will be lining up to avail themselves of the privilege of running this bureaucratic gauntlet, and paying five grand, in the mess you described.

How about just getting out the razor and agreeing to enforce our immmigration laws? Too simplistic? Not enough federal aparachniks would be needed?
If we can do all of what Newt described, why can’t we just locate them, put them on a bus and send them back where they came from?
Because a predicate to either of these choices is that the border will be secure. Right?

The perfesser’s plan looks familiar (to me): like a lot of fancy footwork (that no one will attempt to enforce) so that the GOP and Donks can grant amnesty. (By the way, Gary Busey just declared his support for Gingrich. Maybe he could be the Czar?)

Well, my lunch break’s over. Good luck squaring this circle. You’ll need it.

[mmichaels1970]

And I’m sure our disgruntled foreign guests will be lining up to avail themselves of the privilege of running this bureaucratic gauntlet, and paying five grand, in the mess you described.

Well he seems to address this in Point 5

We can build on the universal system of biometric, tamper-proof visa documents that all visitors must have, and invite a private-sector firm with a proven track record to monitor the guest worker program.

For guest workers, the new tamper-proof, biometric cards will replace the e-verify system, which has some promising elements, but is too error-prone. Employers will be able to swipe prospective employees biometric cards, and immediately be able to confirm that these workers are in the country legally.

Once a legal guest worker system has been built with real-time, 24/7 verification, there will be no excuse for employers hiring people illegally. At that point the economic penalty on illegal employers should go up substantially.

The new guest worker program should be designed using the proven principles oand it should be easy, convenient, inexpensive and practical for both workers and employers.

So I guess, if you don't line up, you don't get one of these new-fangled fancy "biometric, tamper-proof visa documents".

Once again, sounds difficult to pull off. But I am glad to at least see specifics. And to me it is NOT amnesty.

[CowboyJay]

"There is nothing implicitly bad about "legalization"."

Short-sighted, and wrong. Conservatives are supposed to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences and learn from past mistakes. It's what seperates us from the progressives.

[heiss]

So people of CA can legalize 100m illegals who provide some shady evidence that they have been here illegally 20 years?

I think Newt is even more dangerous than o.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Short-sighted, and wrong. Conservatives are supposed to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences and learn from past mistakes. It's what seperates us from the progressives."

Sorry. Disagree. I think it is possible to develop a program that defuses most of the negatives. The biggest one is, of course, citizenship (and the concomitant voting allowed with it). What are these "unintended consequences" that you so astutely see that I don't??