Thomas Sowell On Gingrich And Immigration

IBD Editorial ^ | November 28, 2011 | The great THOMAS SOWELL

[Kaslin]

Now that Newt Gingrich has become the latest in a series of Republican front-runners, he is getting the kinds of scrutiny and attacks that have done in other front-runners.

One of the issues that have aroused concern among conservative Republicans is that of amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially after Gingrich said that it would not be "humane" to deport someone who has been living and working here for years.

Let's go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.

There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively.

The usually sober and thoughtful Wall Street Journal, on issues other than immigration, outdoes Newt Gingrich's claim that it would not be "humane" to deport illegal immigrants who have been living here a long time. A Wall Street Journal editorial says that it would be "psychotic" to do so.

"No one honestly believes the government should or will mount a nationwide manhunt to deport millions of people," according to the Wall Street Journal.

What we have today is virtually the opposite of that. Cities that openly proclaim themselves "sanctuaries" for illegal immigrants put their own policemen under strict orders not to report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities, with the result that illegal immigrants who have committed crime after crime are free to stay here and commit more crimes, including murder.

[Windflier]

You might HATE his immigration proposal, but you have to respect the fact that he is the only candidate who has actually presented one.

Not so. Herman Cain presented his plan in all of ten seconds in the last debate, when he said, "Enforce the laws already on the books."

I think I like Herman's plan better than Newt's.

[Windflier]

I am waiting to hear someone, anyone, who can articulate a plan to rid our country of the millions who are here illegally no matter how long they have been here.

I like Jim Rob's plan myself:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2812556/posts?page=24#24

[moehoward]

"His opponents have reduced themselves to fearmongering the same way the left has..."

Funny, I've been thinking how leftist the proponents are appearing.

The truth is, Newt is talking out of both sides of his yapper on this issue.

[moehoward]

"It's quite another to make that concession before even taking a step toward securing the border."

There is a completely obvious reason for that. He is on record supporting the Krieble foundation policies. Policies that call for a simple documenting process and a free flow of 'workers'. Kinda silly to spend all that money and time to secure it, when you want to make it easier to cross.

[Chickensoup]

No, he is not, he is saying enforce the laws and they will leave.

[MN_Mike]

Thomas Sowell with a well served groin shot to the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

[presidio9]

Not so. Herman Cain presented his plan in all of ten seconds in the last debate, when he said, "Enforce the laws already on the books."

I think I like Herman's plan better than Newt's.

Actually Herman Cain is the only other candidate even pretending to have a plan. Unfortunately, like most Cain's proposals, it is strong on presentation, but it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of substance. In fact, you have summed up Cain's plan pretty completely.

You are obviously not familiar with the Gingrich plan, or you would have known that he prioritizes his reforms. Priority one id sealing the border. Priority two is enforcing the laws already on the books.

The reality is that even when the first two are accomplished, there may be as many as ten million illegal immigrants remaining in this country. A serious plan can not sweep this fact under the rug as Cain's does. So I commend Cain for having a plan, but I give him an incomplete.

I assume that Cain's finished plan would include some language along the lines of finding and deporting those immigrants. If this is the policy you endorse, I would be happy to debate this position with you. I am also assuming that Cain was joking about the electified fence remark, which would not work and is probably the one campaign issue that is guaranteed to make voters forget about the economy.

[presidio9]

The truth is, Newt is talking out of both sides of his yapper on this issue.

Please explain.

[presidio9]

I did read it. You should do the same. Also, look to 1986 to see the results of the last time we cut illegals some slack. Worked out real swell, didn’t it?

I don't think you did. I also went for a run this evening down by Battert Park. Lady Liberty is still standind, an so I assume the republic.

What I want to know is which candidate's plan for dealing with immigration reform you prefer. Be honest: I am VERY familiar with each and every one of them. I pay attention to politics and do my research before forming an opinion. Do you?

[Sonny M]

Bachman was impressive in foreign policy debate. Santorum is credible too. We do not have to pick amnesty activist. I was ready to forgive newt’s history of global warming, gun grabbing, serial adultery and bashing conservatives. But amnesty is deal breaker.

I liked Bachman up until she seemed to have formed some kind of bizarro truce with Romney where she doesn't attack him, but on immigration, I would support her, if she had a stated plan or goal (i.e. just say deport each and every one of them). She hasn't said that, she simply attacks, if she took the Tom Tancredo position, that would be fantastic, but she hasn't embraced that, she is instead just shooting holes. I am honestly curious what her actual plan is.

Personally, I would prefer a multi step approach, starting with strict border enforcement (a fence), widespread e-verify, cut off funding to sanctuary cities, jail or prison to those who hire illegals, mass deportations of illegals, and no path to citizenship to anyone who is in the country illegally. Thats what I would like, I would like to see if thats her positions too, but she has not stated such.

Santorum, I'm not to crazy about, he is absolutely not a federalist, and views the tea party as "them", he likes them, but he is clear, that he is not one of them, and he does come from the Bush school of "compassionate conservatism". He also has a tendency to drift left in election years on economic issues, and there are a few other gripes I have with him, he reminds me a bit of Huckabee.

I would give my right arm, to have a Tom Tancredo in this race right now.

[Sonny M]

I wouldn't call Sowell's words an endorsement, but they weren't an attack either.

On free republic, anything thats not an attack on a republican, is a sign of an endorsement, and that means the person saying it must be a RINO.

I'm joking (sort of), but the way things are now, if anyone says anything either positive or even neutral or just not attacking, of anyone but a particular freepers preferred candidate, its like a bloodbath.

I saw a thread where DeMint was called a RINO, because he dared say nice things about Perry, and the Palin supporters went nuts (ignoring the fact that DeMint had praised Palin often and repeatedly and never said not one negative thing about her). Its getting weird here.

Sowell was called a RINO when he talked about Perry, and didn't thrash him, he didn't endorse him, he simply didn't trash him, and spoke somewhat positively, that was enough to send people on edge.

[Scotsman will be Free]

That’s why I stated “Kinda”, because I realize that I could be reading more into it than is there. I didn’t view the article as an endorsement, either, but thought that paragraph was rather odd in the context of the article.

[Scotsman will be Free]

My solution(s) is irrelevant as I’m not a policymaker nor am I running for office.
Currently, no candidate has stated that they will handle the problem exactly as I would, nor would I expect them to. However, anyone, including your boy Newt, who advocates for letting illegals off of the hook simply because they’ve managed to avoid being deported for 25 years is not getting my vote. I don’t believe in giving illegals goodies. Your candidate does. In that regard he is no different than Perry or Romney. They aren’t getting my vote, either. Newt has many other problems, but it is obvious to me that you are too enamored with the man to see past the end of your nose.
Good day.

[RWGinger]

What I thought Sowell meant was what he wrote, that no canididate is perfect. I don’t see sowell mentioning Reagan’s act towqrd illegals as sowell saying he agrees with newt. After all reagan thought we were going to secure the border and not allow anymore illegals in.

i disagree with those who say we can’t round up and deport 11 or 20 million illegals. The truth is we won’t have to, eliminate jobs and any benefits they are now getting and they will go back. we see this happening in those states that enacted stricter enforcement. Alabama being the latest.

there is nothing IMO inhumnane about enforcing our laws.

[okie01]

but thought that paragraph was rather odd in the context of the article.

We're agreed on that. That paragraph just kinda lies there, begging for an interpretation, doesn't it?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Thomas Sowell On Gingrich And Immigration: Let's go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country. There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively. The usually sober and thoughtful Wall Street Journal, on issues other than immigration, outdoes Newt Gingrich's claim that it would not be "humane" to deport illegal immigrants who have been living here a long time. A Wall Street Journal editorial says that it would be "psychotic" to do so.

[DoughtyOne]

It IS amazing what claims are made about simply enforcing the laws of the United States. Our immigration laws are not oppressive. They are reasoned, and passed by a majority of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress, and the President of the United States.

Newt and the WSJ, seem to wig out on some flight of fantasy when it comes to the illegals who reside in the United States.

[YankeeReb]

Sowell cuts through the noise as usual. It sounds like he’s saying it’s either Newt or Romney , and that Newt is the better of the two but either is better than Zer0. Whoever the president is we need a more conservative congress.

[presidio9]

Whoever the president is we need a more conservative congress.

Indeed.

[sickoflibs]

There would be a practical problem in deporting millions of illegals in a short period of time for sure. However the example is always used as a strawman, It goes :"We cannot deport them all so we must give amnesty to most of them" . This straw man is similar to Linsey Graham-nesty's straw man about a constitutional amendment to stop giving birth-right citizenship to illegals. He did it purposefully to get the idea shot down.

Step 1 : Deport them when they apply for government aid, use a taxpayer ID instead of a SS number and when they file civil lawsuits against Americans or in general make themselves obvious.
Step 2 : Pass a federal law to stop illegals from getting birth-right citizenship as with diplomat's births now. Call it the 'Keeping undocumented families together' act.

Simple ?? Republicans are just stupid.