Posted on 05/19/2011 7:22:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I don’t know, guys. We’ve reached the point where the “Newt implosion” narrative has crystallized so thoroughly that every new story about him ends up being refracted through that prism. I don’t trust my own judgment at this point. Is this new bit genuinely toxic, as Ace’s co-blogger Gabe seems to think, or is it much ado about nothing?
Newt Gingrich, whose campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination has gotten off to a rocky start, risked fresh controversy on Thursday by suggesting that some illegal immigrants living in the United States “may have earned the right to become legal.”…
Gingrich recounted how World War Two-era U.S. draft boards chose who would serve in the military, saying a similar system might help deal with the millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.
“Because I think we are going to want to find some way to deal with the people who are here to distinguish between those who have no ties to the United States, and therefore you can deport them at minimum human cost, and those who, in fact, may have earned the right to become legal, but not citizens,” Gingrich said.
Here’s the complete quote via Radio Iowa:
“This is, at the risk of — as I do on occasion — of getting into trouble with the news media,” Gingrich said, in answering the question, and a few people in the audience chuckled. “…I’m looking seriously at the way the Selective Service Act used to work in the 1940s and World War II where a local Selective Service board who knew the local people made the decisions…because I think we are going to want to find some way to deal with the people who are here to distinguish between those who have no ties to the United States and therefore you can deport them at minimum human cost, and those who, in fact, may have earned the right to become legal, but not citizens.”
That’s not totally alienating to the conservative base, right? You can imagine local amnesty draft boards designating illegals who’ve served in the military for special legalization privileges. (We already do it, kinda sorta.) As well as anyone else who has “ties to the United States,” which, er … could be millions of people.
Seriously, am I misreading this? Or does Newt know something about the imminent zombie apocalypse, leaving him willing to antagonize grassroots righties at every turn knowing that none of it will matter come Sunday? Exit quotation: “My reaction is if you’re the candidate of very dramatic change, it you’re the candidate of really new ideas, you have to assume there’s a certain amount of clutter and confusion and it takes a while to sort it all out, because you are doing something different.”
Update: Greenroomer Patrick Ishmael e-mails to say that Newt made these comments in Waterloo, Iowa. And he is, apparently, a big Abba fan. So I guess this is obligatory…
None of this surprises me in the least. He recently was asked why he cheated on his wife and he replied “ I got so caught up in saving the country that I lost my moral footing ” which MSNBC had a field day with being so idiotic. Back in 1995 during the high stakes budget government shutdown battle he nuked his own side with :” I think the WH seated me on the back of the AF1 plane as retaliation for the shutdown ” which made a great SNL skit to use to characterize Republicans as shallow idiots. .
Newt may be a smart guy but you don't want him near a camera or recorder. He is dangerous.
Plus he is also a loser, remember he resigned in 1998. What the hell is he doing trying to run anyway?
Another problem (there are many others) is that "sanctuary cities" do not report crimes that illegals commit even when federal law requires them to do so. Whatever requirements (income, entitlemants, crimes) you write into the law, there are those who will ignore them.
For selective law enforcement, we have
I won't even mention rogue courts.
Newt is just as serious a contender for the Republican ticket as Trump was.
No thanks.
READ MY LIPS-————RINO
Newt lost his mind years ago.
” Newt is insane. “
Completely.
Agree. The more I hear from him, the more I'm convinced he's got to be trolling for the Beltway tin gods.
Who would serve on such a board? Well, lessee, how about responsible, standup, foursquare, community-service, Chamber of Commerce types? You know, guys who know how to meet a payroll?
The guys who caused the problem in the first place!!!!
Get lost, Newt.
Another is that they refuse to acknowledge that the perps in many unsolved "stranger-murder" cases, officially of "unknown" ethnicity, are in fact known statistically (by comparison with similar crimes which the victims survived to give descriptions of the attackers) to be young black men.
In the 1990's, young black men were responsible for 91% of all murders in which other blacks were the victims, and half of all murders in which non-blacks were the victims. (This last was the figure that crime statistics were being munged to conceal and obscure.)
Since the number of murder victims (about 24,000/year) was almost exactly half black and half nonblack, that meant that the one takeaway that crime statisticians were forbidden from discussing in public was that young black men were committing 75% of ALL the murders in America, and that they were "murdering out" at a rate equal to half the rate at which they were murdering other blacks (usually other young black men) in the drug turf-wars of those years.
Hey, does this qualify for Holder's "courageous" and "honest" discussion of race in America? If so, I wish he'd tell his statisticians to quit lying by omission.
Oh, and the verboten statistic, then, was that black criminals were murdering 6000 nonblack citizens every year ......ten times the rate at which nonblack criminals were murdering black citizens ..... a nice comparison with the 4700 blacks total who were lynched in the U.S. from 1865 to 1962.
And since 1990, the number if illegal aliens has gone way up (thanks to a great extent to the 1986 amnesty). There are those who would like us to believe that there is no corresponding problem in crime, but they are not fooling me. Since many crimes among those "living in the shadows" are not reported, even if we could get true crime statistics, the truth is even worse.
The left is pushing “change” full steam ahead and the right is simply putting on the brakes to “slow that change down”, not because they actually disagree with that change but because they can make a dime off playing the part of the “controlled opposition”. Over the past 50 years what has the right ever been able to reverse. There is only people like Ron Paul who want to dismantle big government.
All of these programs they start they have no intention of stopping, its all about growing the size of government. They see this “change” as nothing more than a means to an end, if they see a chance at winning the future growth (demographics is destiny — something the boomers never understood) they will take it selling you out in a new york minute.
Well, the math is correct. Sorry I did not get back to you till now. Now, with that plan in place, how many riot police will be required? Not to mention the number on people that will be needed to process the deportations. I agree with you something needs to be done but after 20 years of neither party taking up the issue forgive me if I dont hold my breath.
sjb, I never had a chance to get back to you on this thread about immigration from way back. A bit old, but still relevant. I was just reviewing all the FReeper comments today on this one. I appreciate that we archive these threads and try to keep not only current, but connected to historical past and realities—for our own sake and for objectivity, lessons learned, and due diligence. My favorite of Reagan: “Trust But Verify”.
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.