Skip to comments.The Gingrich Amnesty
Posted on 11/23/2011 7:34:31 AM PST by heiss
Missed the debate because of wrestling practice, but its hardly surprising that Newt would support amnesty for illegal aliens. After the Pelosi global-warming ad and Dede Scozzafava and right-wing social engineering, is it any surprise hed adopt the lefts line on immigration too? He earned a career grade of D from Numbers USA (they calculate back to 1989). Heck, even Barbara Boxer has a career grade of D+.
.. So the Gingrich Amnesty would cover illegal immigrants here when Congress passed IRCA. That is to say, it would pick up where the previous amnesty left off, legalizing precisely those people who didnt qualify for IRCA. This just underlines what a chump you have to be to support any deal offered you by amnesty supporters.
Which is why enforcement first is the only way to go: consistent, unapologetic, across-the-board enforcement of the immigration law at our consulates overseas for visa applicants, at the borders, and inside the country, especially at the worksite without preconditions or deals or grand bargains.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The iimmigration laws and regulations are obsolete....however... Newt did address that these need to be streamlined and remove the obstacles so that what is there is ‘effective’..the key word being “effective”. As it now stands it’s dysfunctional in every way.
This is the first comment I have posted in YEARS on FR - I just can’t stay silent on this one.
I support Newt 100% on this stance, and believe this position will work for him for two reasons. #1, Conservative Christians like myself are Christians first and foremost in their lives. It may not be the most conservative immigration position, but Newt’s plan is humane and it is not godly to tear families apart. You have to look at deportation on a case by case basis. #2, I truly think this stance will help him with other Christians and force them to look past his past marital problems, by seeing that he does have a heart after all. It has definitely warmed up my perception of him!
Think carefully about what Newt said. He said,
Is it inhumane to deport an illegal immigrant who came to the United States 25 years ago,
Why did he choose 25 years ago and not 20 or 30.
People assume that 25 years was just a number that Newt pulled out of his ass.
It is not.
Think back about about what happened 25 years ago.
That would be 1986.
That was the year Ronald Reagans bill gave amnesty to the then current residents in exchange for sealing the border.
The border wasnt sealed and millions more Mexicans and other poured over the border.
The people who came after 1986 were illegal. But the people who came before 1986 were legalized if they bothered to come forward.
On what evidence do you say that? Operation Wet Back in 1954 got rid of 1 million illegals and most left just from the threat. We could easily do this again if the politicians were on board like the US citizens are.
Ok. So what would you do with the illegals who have been here 15, 20 or more years who have established themselves, bought homes, have careers, own businesses, paid taxes, raised children, have settled into this country and are no burden to the citizens of this nation? There is no way in hell they can be rounded up and sent back to wherever they came from. There has to be a line drawn on which illegals get to stay and the main issue should be: are they a burden upon the citizens of this country? And there must be enforcement of immigration laws. Stop the inflow of illegals. Otherwise, the problem will never be resolved. Anyone who says they should all be deported, jailed, shot or whatever is just not being realistic or honest about the matter. Newt and Perry are correct. Romney and Bachmann are hypocrites. They would not say what they would do with those here now.
This is an interesting vid.
I watched a couple of episodes of Texas Border War on Dsc. Apparently they have pulled the videos.
Guess Zero and Jan the Man didn’t like Dsc showing them during election season. Maybe Newt and Romney should be forced to watch it.
Thanks for posting that video.
Rick Perry gets it!
How did it go with Mr. Amnesty himself, Jose McCain? He won by landslide?
So you are openly saying that winning elections is all that matters. Heck, why not just go demanding that minimum wage is $500, every family gets a free house and every illegal on the planet can come here? Maybe 100M new illegalos will vote for us then.
We have principles and we can argue our positions (rule of law being one of them). Reagan didn’t accept your pessimistic view. He had his views and he defended them and Americans accepted those. He won them over.
Besides, majority of americans oppose illegal immigration. It is only our RINO elite and dems looking for cheap labor or cheap votes.
“not godly to tear families apart”
Nobody is demanding families to be torn apart. Anybody is free to follow illegals where ever they go.
And there's the fatal flaw of Newt's "argument."
Very well said.
Well said - right to the point.
Hanky wringing is the refuge of those who won't fight for the constitution and the nation.
No, not at all.
Look, I'm very sympathetic. Up here, the only time we see an illegal alien is if some Quebecker who has overstayed gets drunk and we trip over him passed out.
But in the most important election in my lifetime, when getting rid of Obama is the main issue, it's very reasonable to ask you and the others for whom this is issue #1 to demonstrate to the rest of us that taking your position on immigration is not a guaranteed loser for a candidate.
I say it is. I say no one has won, and many have lost, elections by taking the hard restrictionist position that you favor.
I say that if a candidate who could otherwise beat Obama takes your position, he will lose.
If you can prove me wrong, great. Try your best.
I don't think you can do it. You sure can't do it by calling me names.
I agree on this point, he should have said “otherwise law-abiding” or “like law-abiding citizens.”
Technically they are breaking the law every day they are here illegally. I don’t like hearing it glossed over, even if he does have but a 30-second window to speak.
However, many (e.g., many wives and children) may have had no practical alternative but to come here when commanded by the head of their household.
I think if welfare recipients can be reviewed for workfare fitness on a case-by-case basis, illegal residents can also. And it would probably be better if this were done by the state rather than the federal government; indeed the welfare/workfare requirements are applied on a county level in my state. But certainly it is feasible and the alternative of mass deportation is not.
I am openly saying that winning the November 2012 Presidential election, if the Democratic nominee is Barack Obama, is more important that your position on illegal immigration.
Besides, majority of americans oppose illegal immigration
In the abstract, they do. If they favored doing anything about it, I imagine the electoral record would look very different.
It is only our RINO elite and dems looking for cheap labor or cheap votes
It's mostly Republicans who are looking for the cheap labor, and that coalition you described is a fairly robust majority of the voting population.
Newt’s plan is not amnesty, he clearly said illegals would not get citizenship, but they would get “residence rights.” There are many bad illegals, believe me, I know, and they need to be deported - but it is not reasonable (or Christian) to just make a decision to deport millions of people after some have made a life here for decades.
The SCOTUS has already held that illegals cannot be denied emergency care.
Maybe, but they can be identified and hence, deported afterwards.
Non-emergency care msy be denied for anybody.