I disagree, because you are using a technical definition of amnesty and that’s not how the issue plays out in the public debate.
The bottom line is that Gingrich does propose to allow some illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. and get a “path to legality,” which, apart from his policy, will make them eligible to seek citizenship.
That is all.
I think when someone says a politician is for amnesty, he is trying to tag the person as being for blanket amnesty.
I think Newt has made it clear, that there are some people in this country, who have been here over 25 years, (not 10, not 5, not 20), but 25 who should be given a path to legality.
He also says that the immigration issue is one that might be best to deal with as we did with local draft boards.
Newt has a plan on his website. You can call it amnesty, you can call it what you want. Bottom line is that ROmney has distorted the man’s opinion.