Posted on 12/12/2011 4:48:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
After the November 22 Republican debate in Washington, D.C., many conservatives took issue with Newt Gingrich's proposal to establish a system of local boards of review to assess the cases of illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for twenty-five years. While his opponents on stage chose to focus on concerns that the plan would entrench a powerful new "magnet" for illegal aliens, others isolated the strangest aspect of Gingrich's proposal, which was his explicit description of such long-established illegal immigrants as "law-abiding citizens." How, people reasonably asked, can an illegal alien who has never been granted U.S. citizenship be called a "citizen" at all, let alone a "law-abiding" one?
Some of us shied away from putting too much emphasis on this odd phraseology. In my own case, I considered that "law-abiding citizen" is a hackneyed expression, and hence the kind of term that a candidate might carelessly toss off in the heat of a debate, particularly when he is coming under fire for his position, and is attempting to defend himself on the spur of the moment. In the context of a debate about illegal immigration, paths to citizenship, and the like, it was a poorly chosen phrase, indeed. Nevertheless, as I have devoted some energy to debunking the myth of Gingrich as a great debater who would mop the floor with Obama in a one-on-one confrontation, it was not at all surprising to me that the candidate most inclined to present himself (and, presumably, to see himself) as a great rhetorician would be the one most likely to produce the most absurd logical gaffes.
Suddenly, however, in the wake of the December 10 debate in Iowa, it is no longer feasible or reasonable to hold our fire on Gingrich's peculiar use of the notion of citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Heck, yes!
But I want the border closed first. This will never happen under Obama. I believe it will happen under Newt.
He and the other candidates are correct. Until the border isn't seeping through thousands of additional illegals a month, this continues to be nothing more than a verbal exercise.
I'm personally excited about his revoking hundreds of executive orders. He is one of the few folks to talk about it and the elimination of all the bogus, extra-constitutional Czars.
Diane Sawyer tried to change the time spent in the US, and Newt said, "I didn't say that."
Diane Sawyer tried to change the time spent in the US, and Newt said, "I didn't say that."
I can’t see the need to have this in Breaking News unless you want a hit piece on Newt that won’t get buried.
Well, in the 9th Circuit, that could mean you did NOT get arrested last week.
I can’t see the need to have this in Breaking News unless you want a hit piece on Newt that won’t get buried.
Give them a few days and I'm sure they'll even have documents to back that up!
Why do people keep saying he said they’d be US Citizens? Clearly he hasn’t said they’d be citizens. Just that they’d become legal residents.
I’m not defending his position, but at least call it what it is and describe the problem accurately.
If the choice is between Newt and Obama, I will leave that option blank and focus on state and local races.
After Newt sinks the Republican ticket (like John McCain) or destroys the Republican Party (like George W. Bush), I will be back to tell you I told you so.
Politicians who respond that we should deport “criminal” illegal aliens and that “undocumented workers who play by the rules” should have their status regularized in some way by the federal government, i.e., pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line on a earned path to citizenship are supporters of amnesty. Trying to create two classes of illegal aliens is a distinction without a difference, except if you are intent on treating them differently, i.e., providing one group with an amnesty.
“I just don’t see Newt doing much better than McCain.”
That is absurd...Conservatives and Tea Partiers are flocking to Gingrich. He is the last conservative standing.
Disagree? Who is more conservative?
Romney or Obama...everybody else is dead in the water.
Newt would have to get elected and get such a program financed and passed, a big challenge for today. I think we worry too much about one issue and throw out the baby with the bathwater. I can almost guarantee none of the others will do anything like no one else has in 30 years. Bush didn't, and he knew the problems it caused in Texas. Newt can and will fix the budget and that is what we need more than tweaking Immigration. If I'm on a panel to decide, the bloodsucker on food stamps with multiple ID's, and a few run in's with the law will go home anyway.
If you want a hard and fast law that everybody without papers goes home, then we will spend billions clogging the courts to get rid of people more law abiding than some in my family. My daughter works for a local Sheriff and sees this everyday. Many "citizens" should be beaten and shot, while some guy working at the mill lives next door and hides in the shadows and volunteers at the local church. I know about the murderers and rapists, but we don't do anything to them already. At least a panel would have some sort of filter to keep some judgement in the process.
Newt supports the position of pay a fine, learn English, and get your status legalized. The main difference between the two is citizenship. Newt does this to sell amnesty. He creates a second class of LPR status that will never be upheld by the courts. LPRs have all the duties and privileges of citizenship except the right to vote. They can work, receive entitlement and welfare benefits, have a driver's license, be drafted, sponsor their relatives to come here legally, etc.
Any legislation that allows illegal alliens to stay and work here is amnesty. Citizenship is not the issue. Newt uses it to fool and deceive. Newt supports amnesty.
RE: I can’t see the need to have this in Breaking News unless you want a hit piece on Newt that won’t get buried
_________________________
I was not the one who put it in the FR Front Page news. I just posted under the section of NEWS and POLITICS.
Ask the moderator why he/she deemed it worthy to be placed there.
It is true the dynamics of language, in our nation, is changing in unthinkable ways. Language sometimes gives an impression of one and then the question does arise, what is the intent of speaking other than English? Is it too make the English speaking nation uncomfortable, or is it more sinister? Since language is one of the keystones of a society, and all here know the story of Babylon, another question arises, regarding National Security, and why would our politicians not make it clear, English is spoken here?
Who is the enemy? With the current state of affairs, guess who is not. Much more difficultly based in language, and the enemy knows this. Otherwise language would be of no consequence (imho). Should one expect our politicians to rush forward to assure the public, English is our official language, and inform those illegally here English shall be officially the language spoken during the conduction of all business within the bounds of America? Regrettably no, though (imho) it would send a signal to the enemy. Our politicians had best know what they are doing, for the barriers to understanding and comfort are growing. Though when one looks at the flip side, a trap could be being set? Wonder if the trap works more ways than one? No doubt.
The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arizona proving that it does.
At least a panel would have some sort of filter to keep some judgement in the process.
First, Newt assumes the illegals will come forward and subject themselves to such a judgment. I doubt that the estimated 2 million "criminal aliens" will appear before these local community panels. And what do you think the panels in sanctuary cities like LA, SF, Chicago, Washington DC, etc will decide on who can stay and who must go? Newt's ideas are fantasy. They are uneforceable and unworkable. It is a fairy tale for those gullible to believe in such solutions.
The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arizona proving that it does.
At least a panel would have some sort of filter to keep some judgement in the process.
First, Newt assumes the illegals will come forward and subject themselves to such a judgment. I doubt that the estimated 2 million "criminal aliens" will appear before these local community panels. And what do you think the panels in sanctuary cities like LA, SF, Chicago, Washington DC, etc will decide on who can stay and who must go? Newt's ideas are fantasy. They are uneforceable and unworkable. It is a fairy tale for those gullible to believe in such solutions.
The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arizona proving that it does.
At least a panel would have some sort of filter to keep some judgement in the process.
First, Newt assumes the illegals will come forward and subject themselves to such a judgment. I doubt that the estimated 2 million "criminal aliens" will appear before these local community panels. And what do you think the panels in sanctuary cities like LA, SF, Chicago, Washington DC, etc will decide on who can stay and who must go? Newt's ideas are fantasy. They are uneforceable and unworkable. It is a fairy tale for those gullible to believe in such solutions.
If they were law-abiding they wouldn’t be there...
Do you also think that law-abiding tax-evaders should get off scot free for avoiding taxes for a couple of decades if only they pay taxes from now on?
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.