I'm actually quite certain he means every word of it, just like Zero meant he would close Guantanamo, and Bush I meant he would not raise taxes, and clinton meant he would not tax the middle class, but in the real world, what you say you want to do, and what you actually get through Congress are two different things. We all know that. That's why we are only talking about "principles" and "ideas" that would guide someone's decision-making. Here's what he says he believes.
Newt believes America must be a nation of laws. The first duty of the federal government is national defense, and it is inexcusable that we haven’t secured the border. In his 21st Century Contract with America, Newt pledges to control the southern border by January 1, 2014, waiving any regulations and pushing aside any bureaucracies that get in the way.
However, when your proposal has fundamental flaws, all Congress can do is make those flaws even worse.
Right now, there should only be talk of securing the border, no talk of any kind of amnesty (or, if you prefer, Newt's term of 'path to non-deportation').
Simpson-Mazzoli was supposed to be the end of the illegal immigration problem. But all it did was lead to more illegal immigration as millions came to this country to await the next amnesty.
As long as amnesty is on the table at the same time as border security, those deciding on whether to come to this country illegally will have a powerful incentive to come here, and those who seek to continue to profit from cheap third-world labor will have a powerful incentive to block true border security and enforcement.
This article shows what can happen when no amnesty is on the table and the laws are enforced without corrupt influences.
That is the path we need to try and push this country back to. Not Newt's path of kowtowing to those interests.