Skip to comments.Discretion, Not Amnesty (Newt didn't propose citizenship - did not propose Amnesty)
Posted on 11/23/2011 10:32:54 AM PST by TBBT
All he said was, Lets be humane in enforcing the law. That was my reaction last night when Newt Gingrich argued that the federal government should refrain from deporting illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. for many years if the effect would be the break up of a family.
I did not take him to be proposing a new law conferring amnesty. To do what the former Speaker proposed would require no change in U.S. law. All youd need is the sensible application of prosecutorial discretion.
A successful immigration enforcement policy, easily implemented under current law, would secure the borders; use the capability we have to track aliens who enter on visas to ensure that they dont overstay; and target our finite law enforcement resources at (a) illegal immigrants who violate federal or state criminal laws (i.e., other than the laws against illegal entry), and (b) employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and therefore provide the incentive that induces them to come. (An even better policy would deny illegal immigrants various social welfare benefits, but some of that would involve changes in the law so I put it to the side for present purposes.)
Such a policy would materially reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. if they cant work, many will leave and many wont come in the first place. Such a policy would also call on government lawyers to exercise discretion (as they do in all aspects of law-enforcement) to decide which cases are worth prosecuting. Obviously, if an alien has been here illegally for a number of years but has been essentially law-abiding (again, ignoring the fact that it is illegal for him to reside and work in the U.S.), and if his ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Would it be humane to deport someone who'd been here 24 years and six months? Apparently in Newt's world it is.
Please explain how EVERY federal law we have in this country can NOW be modified to include the option of “discretion”....I’m not so much worried about them potentially voting. I’m frickin’ pissed that they ARE voting dammit! You know it and I know it. I don’t want them here, period!
Newt has lost me as a potential voter. I’ll stay home. You go vote for me like a Democrat does....
It’s much simpler. Newt said he supports The Krieble Foundation’s proposals. I’d suggest folks go read up.....
Bachman clearly did not listen to what Gingrich said when she responded, and the rest tried to pile onto Bachmans misinterpretation in order to try to injure Newt. However, what he laid out was a policy statement on how to address the problem, which is actionable.
Mrs Rainman and I were talking about this, and the difference between what Newt said and what Perry said. First, Newt addressed Controling the Border, then the talked about getting rid of a huge chunk of illegals, but having some who would be allowed to stay .. as legal residents, not citizens. That is the same as permanent green card ... cant vote, but have to pay taxes. If they want the perks of citizenship, they would have to go thru the process ... so no amnesty.
Compare that with Perry, who is giving the benefits of citizenship (in-state tuition assistance) without addressing the fact that they are illegal. I have heard a lot on FR bitzen about Newt giving amnesty, but he did no such thing. I think the problem Newt has is he used the wrong adjective last night. He said Humane, and he should have used Actionable. No plan on illegals means squat if it is not actionable. He started this direction when talking about what went wrong under Reagan.
The operative question for those who hate Newt, is what exactly is your candidates plan. As Luntz said last night, nobody has advocated trying to send them ALL home ... but several of them have not really laid out what thier plans are either. They are hiding in the shadows, because NONE of them is going to be able to propose a realistic plan that will satiate those of you who want red meat on this issue.
I think Newts plan has several good componets ... 1) it is actionable ... not just pablum for those looking for sound bites. The first step is secure the border! What is wrong with that?
The second step is create a guest worker program. This addresses a lot of the agri-need for illegals. They can come for the season, work, then they go home. It keeps us from having apples that cost $10 each.
The third step is now what to do about those who are here. No place in his plan are they getting citizenship ... they may get permission to stay, but that is not citizenship. Most will be forced to leave immediatly.
The real question is, what is actually wrong with this plan, and who is proposing a better idea? On other threads they have even pointed to the fact that Sarah and Cain have both said basically the same thing.
Too many were listening to MB and MR - and they both KNOW he wasn’t talking amnesty. They were being political and not honest. Shame on them. They both do not have doable plan and Ron Paul was right - no way will ALL illegals ever be deported.
If it allows these people to stay here, it’s just another BS equivocation to keep from doing a job that should be done right - find them, remove them.
Nice try, but if you allow millions of illegals to stay, that’s amnesty.
Once they become legal they are eligible to apply for citizenship just like any other legal resident.
Why stay home? If Newt’s the nominee and you’re not going to vote for him - go to polls and vote for 0bama. It’s the same thing.
I fell for this sh!t with McCain and voted for him - I won’t again. This country will die because of these illegals and I will not be a part of it. I hope you enjoy your new ‘changed’ country because you are now ‘humane’....
This is what's called administrative amnesty, i.e. what the President is doing right now.
Worlds means things.
Sorry (again), but I have no sympathy for people who break the law . . . kinda' like finding a fugitive from the law that was finally found living a "good and proper" life in BFEgypt for 20 years. Should we not arrest the lawbreaker and bring him to justice?
I say cut the crap and throw them out. And unless you were on another planet, Gingrich said he'd let them be treated differently because they were good little citizens. We have a border that is poorly protected. If this person crossed it, throw him and his relatives back. No sympathy! Gingrich lost my vote last night.
Good God, when will this end!
McCarthy’s plan is a rational, realistic plan. That’s why it will never be accepted by many here.
Says who? The DOJ?
25 Years ago RONALD REAGAN granted amnesty to all the illegals in the USA.
Of course there was supposed to be strict enforcement too. Did not happen.
Controlling the border is the first step. Fining the snot out of employers of illegals is the second step. Problem solved.
Exite Civilis Ingeniarium!
So they can come here, drop a baby, and suckle at the teet of Uncle Sucker for the rest of their lives.
Seems like a good plan.
Oh brother! We’re being played again by one of DCs consumate liars. Make sure to be vague enough so that its easy to do whatever you want in the future and still say you didnt lie. We need leaders not weasels.
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.