Skip to comments.I dreamed of trolling against Newt in my maidenform bra and all I got was this big old zot
Posted on 01/20/2012 7:33:09 PM PST by Hoodat
ORANGEBURG, S.C. Newt Gingrich on Friday backed at least a portion of the Dream Act, saying that he would grant a path to citizenship to illegal immigrant youths who agree to sign up and serve in the U.S. military.
Thats a much tighter standard than the full Dream Act, which President Obama wants. That legislation would allow legal status and an eventual path to citizenship for children and young adults who join the military, but would also apply to those who go to college a much broader class of people.
I am opposed to anybody who came here illegally getting citizenship. Thats entirely wrong, the GOP presidential candidate and former House speaker told a young man who asked about illegal immigrant students. The only exception I would make is if young people, the ones you are dealing with, are willing to join the American military and serve the United States.
Speaking a day before South Carolinas GOP primary, Mr. Gingrich said that would put them on par with any other foreign-born legal resident who joins the U.S. military, and who under the law has a path to citizenship.
Mr. Gingrichs stance puts him in between Mr. Obama and GOP rival Mitt Romney, who has said he would veto the Dream Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I just don’t get Newt. He does good, and then shoots himself in the foot. I cannot believe he is supporting any part of the dream act. And I saw a video of him last night talking about replacing Obamacare with another similar plan. Are there any true conservatives left who want to run for president. Sheesshh.......
My sentiments exactly. And with McNewt as the nominee, we may actually lose.
And that's one of the more ridiculous ideas I've heard since the illegal alien debate became so prominent. Those boards in some communities would approve most everyone, and boards in other communities would approve almost no one, if they really have any authority to approve or disapprove.
Or, they'd have to make the guidelines so rigid that the local boards would be mostly rubber stamps so illegals of similar circumstances would not be treated differently in different communities.
It's a dumb idea that would result in mountains or lawsuits unless most all were approved in all communities.
As someone who has called Romney some pretty vile names I have to wonder why this very important fact can't even be discussed here. It seems all discussion of Romney is verbotten (sp)--he's the enemy, and any DISCUSSION of who he is beyond anti-Mormon stuff is out of the question.
I seem to recall a website where everyone heaped praise on Sarah Palin for starting a business and meeting a payroll. I seem to recall a website where Obama was bashed relentlessly for living only in the world of academia and government/'community leadership.'
I seem to recall a website where we wanted Washington insiders out, and people who were actual businessmen were in, and where capitalism was championed--real capitalism, not government payouts, but where failing companies were reorganized and all the realities (some not so comfortable) that entailed.
I keep looking for that website, where having money wasn't a crime particularly when the rich were giving much of their money to charity (in Romney's case, this includes many non-Mormon causes). That same site praised Sarah Palin for her devotion to her husband and kids through good times and bad.
Not sure what happened to that site. I keep finding this other one, where a serial philanderer and do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do Big Government guy who took money from the hated Fannie Mae when he wasn't in government or teaching (not that there's anything wrong with either, but one needs more varied experience) is being toasted as a conservative icon.
Hey, buddy. He looks snazzy in those sweater vests. You take that back.
Hey, buddy. He looks snazzy in those sweater vests. You take that back. :-)
You are adopting the left-wing media's La Raza talking points. There is not a choice between amnesty and "deporting 12 million people". There is a middle ground. Attrition by enforcement. Madatory national E-Verify coupled with harsh AZ-style employer sanctions. Cutting off all welfare benefits for illegals. Increase workplace raids to Bush levels and then double them. Let the states like Arizona and Alabama enforce the laws the Feds refuse to enforce. Deport as many illegals as possible. And ban in-state tuition for illegal aliens.
So newt proposes that if an illegal joins our military, serves our country and risks his or her life on our behalf, that makes him soft on immigration?
Newt is blowing smoke up your ass. He has previously supported the DREAM Act - which had ZERO verification that an illegal was actually brought here as an child. Just as in 1986, such an act would result in millions more crossing the border and then later claiming they were brought here "by no fault of their own".
Tell you what ill take a legalized immigrant marine for my neighbor over any damn Legal occupier scum that not only wouldnt serve our country but wants to destroy it.
Again, false choices. Illegals do not want to serve in the military. The vast majority come here, take American jobs, and send 70% of what they earn back home. And Dick Durbin's rhetoric that we "need" these "Dreamers" to fill our military positions is absurd. We are CUTTING BACK positions, not adding them (SEE: Military Cutbacks Undermine Major Rationale for DREAM Act). Will illegals get preferential treatment for them over U.S. citizens. The entire argument is absurd, and a smokescreen by supporters of blanket amnesty to get folks like YOU to lower your guard and trust them.
Of course, that's the big idea: remember his "humane immigration" policy from the November debates? We can't send folks away who have been living here "a quarter century". It's "anti-family". So, in that case, one doesn't even need a citizen board to use any discretion at all - just prove that one has been here for 25 years and has started a family here, etc. (of course all will be forgiven about using false identity documents, etc.). People can all it whatever they like (especially if it has compassionate or humane in the title), but it's still amnesty. If you hide out long enough and have kids, you get the golden ticket.
Ugh. For real?
The premise people like Gingrich (and Dick Durbin, and Luis Gutierrez) use for this position is absurd and unworkable.
You're finally getting Newt.
He is a technocrat. Full of "ideas" but they all involve tinkering with Gov't.
He doesn't really have the vision to return power to the power notwithstanding his "soaring" rhetoric.
Newt is unsteady and will disappoint. Guaranteed.
Should be “power to the people”.
True, and establishing guidelines for which people are given legal status is one aspect of immigration law that would have to be done centrally or chaos would result.
This local board nonsense is a totally dumb idea and an insult to every citizen in its pretense that local communities would have some meaningful decision making role.
Newt's a disaster waiting to happen on the immigration issue. We'll have to have a Congress to keep the next president in check, whoever it might be.
I think it’s down to if we aren’t going to have a candidate who is completely for us, at least it’s fun to cheer for one who is so good at being against them. This is a strange election, good reason to oppose any one of them but we can’t, we have to pick one and support them, this is all there will be now.
Youre really on an anti-Newt rampage tonight. Who are you supporting? Mitt or Santorum or Paul
Look, if FR is not your cup of tea just move on. Continue trolling and you will be moved along and I can guaranfreepingtee you that.
401 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 6:15:59 PM by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
If you search “citizen immigration boards” on youtube, you will see him talking about it over several debates.
Romney is the enemy, after fighting him for so many years it gets tiresome to listen to his cult people and having to repeat ourselves.
Yeah...like Sharon Angle, Chrisine Odonell etc...etc...It called you actually have to get the majority of votes to actually win. Just wanted to give you heads up on how democracy works. You don’t get majority of votes you don’t win...aka once in a life time thing.:)
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.