Posted on 12/13/2011 7:57:57 AM PST by 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. . . .
Heres 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 cant 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 wont be fooled again. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
We just oppose ILLEGAL immigration. People who break the law should not be given preferential treatment over people who follow the law.
I wonder if there’s any reason the writer repeatedly mentions ‘immigration’ when he is really referring to ‘ILLEGAL immigration’.
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.
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.
The bad Newt
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....
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).
Newt is NOT for amnesty. Wake up. Spreading this garbage does not do America any good.
“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.”
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.
No significant "additional" bureaucracy. Although "draft boards" are currently not being used, I don't believe they have been disbanded. Same principle here.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.