Posted on 11/23/2011 7:34:31 AM PST by heiss
Isn’t the solution to improve the laws or regulations, rather than to give up to pro-illegals (”the Newt approach”)?
In recent days, I’d come to despise that pro-illegal panderer/adulterer. He is a good debater and would be ok VP (going to Sunday talk shows) but his judgement is horrible. He would no doubt push Amnesty and Global Warming Acts if here were in WH.
Aside from Ron Paul who is the only choice, it’s beginning to look like Gov Perry is not only a lesser of evils, he is likely going to be the only lesser of evils!
Semper Watching!
*****
It doesn’t have to be mass forced deportation. stop the services for illegals, don’t allow them to live and work here and they will self deport. Mexico’s poor is Mexico’s problem.
This is better to post as adhere’s to the Plan and the staus we are at today...not ten or fifteen years ago.
Newt said at the debate..and that with a plan....
....”I think you’ve got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border,....“I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the US, we should deport you...... I do believe we should control the border.... ...I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers.
Everything you say is true.
When are you going to demonstrate the feasibility of what you want by winning an election? You know, just one.
Processes and rules can be changed. Many of these are just rules or guidelines. No hospital should be forced to pay for the care of illegals.
Likely the same exact ones who post the we must have total unquestionable party unity and vote for the GOP nominee no matter who it is {Mitt included} threads. This of course in their eyes is so the liberals don't take over the White House. Newt will say or do anything needed for the publicity moment. Thus the reinvented Newt we have seen over the past couple of years.
He's new, he's interchangeable & comes complete with new accessories. There is Global Warming Newt. Compassionate to illegals Newt. Nancy's friend Newt. Conservative Newt. Just slide in the chip and then press play for the desired Newt position you can hear today. Media package included at no extra cost for this limited time offer. The I resign my position Newt available at a later date.
The executive branch is responsible for border security and INS and as far as I remember, Newt has never been in the executive branch of Government.
Mass deportation is unworkable and if there was such an exit - it would resemble the holocaust - the Media would be out in force at every train station and bus terminal. Rioting and a breakdown of civil order.
Full employment for attorneys is the engine for INS and this Administration’s failures.
The first effort by the next POTUS should be securing the borders and then to identify all existing illegal residents when applying for work, hospital care, welfare and unemployment benefits.
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 Reagan’s bill gave amnesty to the then current residents in exchange for sealing the border.
The border wasn’t 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.
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/texas-drug-wars-sneak-peek.html
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.
To change laws, you have to elect a majority in a legislative body.
Why do you think you have not been able to do this? Why isn't Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter President? Why isn't JD Hayworth a US Senator from Arizona?
It's not because you can't argue your point well, or because you aren't clear about what you want.
It's because your position is unpopular, and is electoral death for candidates who adopt it.
Do you know what happens when you call INS, or whatever they call it now, and report an illegal?
Newt did not support amnesty. He did say to provide a pathway to legal if they have been here for many years, have a family, paid taxes, etc, that he could see a way to keep them here. He did say that illegals should be deported.
Pap. Substitute ANY other country here. "My husband 'commanded' me to come to Bermuda illegally, so the Bermuda government better damn well embrace my arrival and continued residence." Pffft.
I'd be thrown out on my ass, as would said 'commandant' husband, and rightly so.
No it won’t. Another “Trail of Tears”. not going to happen.
“So I think you’ve got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border, as the governor said. I believe ultimately you have to find some system — once you’ve put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program,........”
1. CONTROL THE BORDER. In case you didn't notice, this is NUMBER ONE.
2. Guest worker program.
3. THEN, he talks about a way to deal with long time residents with ties, jobs, families, on a case by case basis, to remain here legally SHORT OF CITIZENSHIP.
We are NEVER going to deport all illegal aliens, nor should we. It's not practical, humane, nor even possible. To have the opinion that we just kick out ALL illegals, is just plain IGNORANT. Discussion with anyone with that opinion is like having a discussion with the “Flat Earth Society”.
You can't judge Newt with soundbites. You need to listen to his complete answers.
If you go to the Border Security sites you REALLY see the warzone and the hoards of illegals coming over...you also learn that our guys hands are tied more times than not.
If they aren't being supported by the nanny state programs they will eat better in Mexico.
And perhaps if most of them went back, they would be inspired to fight the corruption in their own country and lift it out of third world status, instead of bring the USA down to that level.
If we stopped all services save life and death care to illegals, as well as fining employees and daily enforcing it, most illegals would self-deport. Families or not. Most are here for the freebies and jobs.
Now, if your wonderful illegal is seriously no burden on the taxpayers or job seekers, he will stay. Say, if he has a company himself and his kids all speak English and he pays for his own needs. He won’t self deport.
But all the freeloaders will.
Never abandon the good because it isn’t the perfect. Newt’s plan is amnesty. Central Americans know that all you have to do is to get here and lay low. Eventually you will be allowed to stay. Newt’s idea encourages everyone who’s not here to get here. Newts idea lets countries like Mexico just outsource their poverty. It’s wrong.
What Newt wants is to settle the issue...open discussion which yp to now has been impossible beacuse of the push for cap and trade on an International level. He's opposing that but still wants it open for conversation and debate to settle matter...I agree.
BTW what about the living here 20 something years who still demand government print paperwork in Spanish? What about second generation grown up who still no speak English? We paid for their education remember that? The parents didn't come here to become Americans they came here too be illegals working in the USA UNDER THE TABLE taking benefits while doing so and if they get caught or in legal trouble they do one of several things like go back home till the heat is off, or move to another state with new someone else STOLLEN I.D. and right back in.
Can you or I do this and avoid jail? No we can't live without a trace number so why are you wanting to enable them too do what we can't? If I did the things illegals do including signing official papers under penalty of perjury with false information I'd be under the jail.
I totally support Newt for President. I cannot believe some of the comments from some of the posters. Some seem to live in a cocoon of stupidity.
I heard him say “pro family” policies cannot separate families. A straw man; when the person is deported, he takes his anchor babies with him.
You should post more often. Your clarity and common sense are needed here on FR to help dilute the Knee JERK reactions of others.
and a “cone of stupidity” as well.
It’s a choice to be separated from family; take your anchor babies, and leave.....family remains intact.
Can you post a reference?
I pulled the relevant USC this morning, and it said ten years except for fraud, which is seven.
If they support themselves, they stay. If not they go, no matter how long they have been here.
Governor Jan Brewer!!!!! She kicked butt!!
Newt is to the left of Perry on this. I wonder how Newt feels about his global warming nonsense in light of the latest tranche of emails that has emerged...
I wish DeMint were running.
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.