Can your point be made without the left-wing hyperbole?
Of course, though I would argue that it is not left-wing hyperbole, just hyperbole. Sadly though, even on this thread alone we have at least one who is in favor of cattle cars, and one who would prefer forced marches of 25 miles a day. The original cattle car comment came from another thread, but was actually used tongue-in-cheek by someone else to satirize some of the more fanatic "deport them all, no exceptions" posts. Perhaps that cattle car comment was more artfully posed than mine, but the tone of so many posts in this discussion is frankly, quite chilling.
After reading the firestorm of responses to me, I will venture a response.
I still believe that we are to "Do justice. Love mercy. And walk humbly with God." And my understanding is not, as has been suggested, "leftist heresy and historical revisionism."
Yes, we are to "do justice." If that's the end of the story, then even putting people into cattle cars and sending them back to Mexico would be justice. Although I am still trying to figure out exactly what the teenager who was brought here at the age of two is supposed to do. I guess, the consensus would be that he should immediately admit that he is here illegally, turn his parents and his siblings in to the authorities and head back to Mexico himself. He probably needs to learn to speak Spanish on the way, but who cares he is illegal, dammit, and is lucky we don't just toss him in jail and throw away the key.
But if justice is all that we are called to, there would be no human left on the planet. God would have simply destroyed the world at the Fall, or its inhabitants by the flood giving no inside information to Noah.
However, we are called to mercy, just as much as we are called to justice. That is not something I see in the forced deportation position, and I do see it in Gingrich's proposal. (For the record, I also see a degree of mercy in the self-deportation approach, elements of which can be found in Newts plan. Curiously though, Newt's plan has more traditional retributive and punitive justice than the self-deportation option.)
Newt's plan is not perfect. I doubt there is a perfect plan at this point.
He starts with controlling the border as a "national security imperative," and commits to providing the resources to accomplish it. So posters can argue that he is an "open-borders" guy, but they are wrong. Or simply lying.
He advocates a path to legality for some, but not all and takes a very sober-minded approach to distinguishing those who should go and those who can stay. But he is not advocating blanket amnesty regardless of how many times that accusation is posted against him. He is not advocating the abandonment of the rule of law.
Don' take my word for it. Read it for yourself. www.newt.org/solutions/immigration.
Newt is not the perfect candidate, and as I have said, he does not have the perfect plan. But it is reasonable. And, in my view, it more reflects the values that this nation is built on than any plan I have seen.
Say what you will about Newt, but he is a shrewd politician. He recognizes that no Republican will win without serious Hispanic and independent support in several swing states. Marco Rubio has made it clear that the continual, irrational call to deport them all is going to hurt the GOP's chances to boot the current occupant of the White House. Given that, providing a path to legality for productive people who would prefer repatriation and who have "deep ties to America, including family, church and community," is, in my opinion, far preferable to allowing the continued occupation of the White House by those who really do intend to destroy this nation.
And for those who have graciously offered to be embarrassed for me, please don't worry. When I feel it necessary I am perfectly capable of being embarrassed on my own behalf. But this ain't one of those times.
Good post - it’s refreshing to have someone take the time to explore the more salient angles. I think most of the combativeness is due to folks wanting what they want and expecting it to “just happen”. Newt/Cain/Perry/Bachmann are all viable replacements for Obama and we need to focus on ousting him then putting pressure on whoever ends up in the WH to seal the borders, then look at what we have and devise a plan (not a comprehensive plan, but a step-at-a-time plan) to see who can be gotten rid of and to deny benefit to the remaining illegals.
Since when is it “doing Justice” to have a second set of legal circumstances apply to a special class of people?
We have a constitutionally republican form of government. This means, “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Our immigration laws are the result of The People’s desire for orderly immigration of foreign nationals, particularly to avoid the kind of travesty we now have and should correct immediately by enforcing our laws. To imply, as you have, that it is unmerciful iw flat-out wrong. What part of illegal don’t you get?
Right now, in many communities, there exist two levels of laws: one for citizens, another for illegal aliens. Two citizens in my community were murdered by illegal aliens. The then Chief of Police, a Hispanic, let them go on their own recognizance before all the evidence was in, and of course the two perps vanished.
Does that sound like the families of the victims have Justice?
I have been in line at the DMV and witnessed people who could not speak English and who did not have a green card, getting a drivers license. My nephew stepped up to get his license, and had to present a birth certificate! That is not Justice, it is preferential treatment and in my state ordained by law!
Does this strike you as “just” and equitable?
Newt Gingrich would invent an extra-Constitutional form of citizenship for illegal aliens, and anyone with sense knows that it is only to satisfy employers who do not want to pay a living wage to U.S. workers. SCOTUS would strike it down in a heartbeat.
I do not advocate splitting up families because the whole family should be deported. Children go with parents. Just because a person is born here doesn’t automatically mean they’re a citizen.
The 14th Amendment has bee misinterpreted time and again.
From the Holding of the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Per Leo Donofrio - This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States. The “holding”, which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the “dicta“, which is not considered legal precedent...the actual holding of the court is limited to “the single question” of whether the children of aliens who have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States” are 14th Amendment citizens.
The holding does not specifically grant 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born in the US of illegal aliens, or even of those here temporarily (tourists and students). Numerous legislative attempts have been made on both sides of the Congressional aisle – as well as in a multitude of States – to clarify this holding by statute as to the children of illegal immigrants (aka “anchor babies”).
As I pointed out, I felt that Newt's item 6 was doomed to failure. Those that want to become citizens presently suffer hardships to become either legal or citizens. This is from my experience and, of course, is anecdotal. But I'll sure lay odds that this observation applies generally. That leaves the vast majority in the twilight, in many cases becoming a drain on American society in ways not readily apparent. They do use the backdoor free health care(I am not objecting to that just pointing it out) and because of their situation they burden human services which would otherwise not assign resources to people not legally here. So, in two ways, at least, point 6 is sure to fail. They don't want to be legal, and they can't meet the self-sufficiency requirement of point 6.