Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DoughtyOne

I have no dispute with your well-reasoned arguments in Post 32, and I even share some of your concerns. My reaction was to your earlier, more flippant reference to Gingrich’s past marital problems, which reflected more personal venom than principled argument. While I don’t think Newt Gingrich is the best candidate we could hope for, he is certainly no Marxist and I would enthusiastically support him against Obama.


41 posted on 12/13/2011 5:25:27 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: Always A Marine
I have no dispute with your well-reasoned arguments in Post 32, and I even share some of your concerns.  Thank you for this reaction.  I appreciate it.

My reaction was to your earlier, more flippant reference to Gingrich’s past marital problems, which reflected more personal venom than principled argument.  I believe what you were witnessing, was my delayed expression of impatience with the premise this guy is trustworthy because he stated he would sign a pledge.  It bothered me that Newt thought he could get a pass for his actions, if only he made one more pledge.

While I don’t think Newt Gingrich is the best candidate we could hope for, he is certainly no Marxist and I would enthusiastically support him against Obama.  While I don't necessarily view this reasoning to be unustified, it does none the less trouble me.  Is he a Marxist?  No.  Is he as bad as Obama?  No.  Would he do the damage to our nation that Obama would?  No.  Could he none the less do considerable damage to our nation?  Quite possibly so...  I'll give you what I think to be a serious example.

In 2000, the illegal immigrant population was thought to be around 8 million people.  In early 2001, an adjustment was made, and the official figure was pegged at around 9 million.  This nine million people had entered the nation since around 1990, since the 1986 immigration reform was implemented over a few years, widing up roughly around mid to late 1989 to 2000.

By 2000 George Bush was telling folks he wanted to give these folks a pathway to citizenship, and even using the term Amnesty.  This telegraphed to foreign nationals, that if they could only get into the United States, they too could be a part of any amnesty.  After Bush was elected, we saw some of the largest flows of illegal immigration we've ever seen.

One nine month capture rate for only one sector along our souther border, totaled over 900,000 people.  Traditional capture rates of between 10 and 20% of total crossers, were estimated by border patrol agents.  Capture rates for one year looking like 1.2 million it was only natural to think the actually crossings must have been positively massive.

Time magazine estimated 3.5 million illegal aliens were crossing the border per year.   I don't try to claim that number.  None the less, if even 1.5 million were crossing per year (and I do think that is conservative), that's 15 million new illegals after one decade.  Added to the 9 million here in 2000, we're talking about something in the neighborhood of 25 million illegals here by 2010.  And if the actual flow was more like 2.5 million, we're looking at around 35 million illegal immigrants in country, and that's not even talking about the births to 25 to 35 million illegals.

If Newt does follow through with granting these people a pathway to citizenship, and then grants and additional flow of two million per year more legal crossers as part of his fix, we're looking at massive numbers of new citizens within a decade or two.  Allowing the traditional chain immigration to take place, that sees a number of family members be able to apply and enter the U.S. to join their family members already here, could more or less swamp our nation in short order.

What happens if 25 million illegals are naturalized, and their dads, moms, grandparents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters and their families are allowed in?  25 million suddenly become 100 to 125 million within 20 years.  If that figure is more like 35 million to start with and each person brings over five family members, we're talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 to 200 million people naturalized in just twenty years.  Mexico, Honduras, Guatamala, the list goes on.  And if as I said, they increase legal border crossings via green card, in ten years that's 20 million more on top of that, and 40 million more in 20 years.

Newt has stated he wants to see the long term illegal immigrant given a route to naturalization and citizenship.

Do you begin to see why I don't see him as a great alternative to Obama?  That's just one issue.  He has shown that he doesn't grasp the global warming issue either.  While he says he gets it now, he has still been making some comments that infer he thinks some sort of green-house fix must combine the economy and big business.  He's still out there in la la land on the subject.  This troubles me considerably.

What happens if Newt gets it wrong on five major issues over the next four years?  Doesn't that result in a very negative future for our nation anyway?

I do not trust this guy.  He truly thinks he's a Conservative.  I don't doubt that.  I'm still not buying that he is.



42 posted on 12/13/2011 7:06:01 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson