Posted on 11/24/2011 9:59:07 AM PST by Fred
Influential congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) said Wednesday that presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's immigration plan was a "form of amnesty" and that he disagreed with it, adding to the chorus of critics from the right.
In Tuesday's GOP foreign policy debate, Gingrich said he would support an immigration policy that would allow illegal immigrants who had lived in the United States for a long time, obeyed the law, and paid their taxes to become permanent residents.
“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who’ve been here for a quarter of a century … [and] separate them from their families and expel them,” Gingrich said. “I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties.”
He went on to say that he believed his policy to be the "humane" one.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Well said. The fact that Amnewtsty is defended by some on FR, the biggest collection of true conservatives on the internet, is scary indeed.
Not especially. One issue however, is all these fixes assume a significant majority actually WANT to join the party. My experience working at businesses that have employed illegal workers does not support that scenario.
Wow. Have you checked out the CEO of Numbers USA, Roy Beck, the writer of the blog you just sent us to? He’s won awards from the EPA, been called a good friend by John Tanton, who believes in white supremacy, and whose immigration policies have been called racist. Roy Beck has admitted to sharing ideas with Tanton.
Got a better source for the story than this? Otherwise, no thanks.
Post of the day.
I don't care how long it takes to get them out of here as long as they are seriously working on it.
Illegals must go.
It seems most FR critics are too lazy to read Newt’s plan and prefer to criticize out of ignorance and bias.
They’d rather mischaracterize the plan, insisting that any plan short of rounding up 20 million people and sending them home, is unacceptable.
Newt’s immigration plan is based on “3 Principles” and “10 Steps”, which are available here:
>http://www.newt.org/solutions/immigration<
Let’s leave the unworkable, bumper sticker notions to the liberals, and learn to thoughtfully explore meaningful solutions.
Newty was a member of Congress for that 1986 Immigration vote. Has anyone been able to locate what his vote actually was? I would guess that he voted for that first amnesty. Now he wants a second one.
It isn’t important that the same person came out and posted about this subject repeatedly. I’m glad Newt came out and stated what he would do about illegal aliens.
Immigration is an important subject that too many Republicans dance around because big donors exploit the cheap labor provided by illegals, and everyone knows politicians need donated money to run their elections.
Both Democrats and Republicans fantasize on potentially millions of new voters who will support them, as long as politicians are willing to piss on our laws. Speaker Gingrich did just that when he led the Republicans in the House of Congress.
Principles, folks, principles: a President who enforces the laws passed by Congress is what I want to see in the White House. If the law(s) are bad or obnoxious, there is no quicker way to impel timely repeal than with stringent enforcement. It is NOT the role of the President to pick and choose which laws should be enforced and which shall be ignored or subverted. We already have such a one in the Oval Office; let’s not vote in another.
"Instead, Gingrich tried to kill the new job verification system entirely. Fortunately, the killer amendment he supported failed. No thanks to Gingrich, we have an E-Verify system today.But the E-Verify system is entirely VOLUNTARY today because of another House vote which Gingrich won. That vote was to make sure that the verification system would NOT be MANDATORY for employers.
The nation's Big Business lobbies deemed it essential that employers maintain the ability to cheat the paper verification system and hire illegal workers. Speaker Gingrich saw to it that the ability continued.
I am heartsick every time I think of that lost opportunity in 1996. If Speaker Gingrich had thrown his considerable talents and power behind the bi-partisan recommendations and supported Lamar Smith, most of the illegal aliens who arrived since then would not have bothered. And most of the illegal aliens who arrived before 1996 -- with less than 10 years of roots in this country -- would have gone back home.
Illegal immigration would not be topic of the 2012 Presidential debates."
It would be something if this situation, the very monster he himself helped to create would be the cause of his demise. I can't think of anyone more deserving than Newt.
Just say no to RINOs like Newt
.
6. Create a path to earned legality for some of the millions of people who are here outside the law.There are currently anywhere from 8 to 12 million people living in the United States who entered illegally.
These people range from day laborers who arrived recently, to grandparents who have been paying taxes, supporting their families and obeying the law for decades.
We need a system that enforces the rule of law, ensures that those who broke the law pay a stiff penalty, but also acknowledges that it is neither optimal nor feasible nor humane to deport every single illegal immigrant.
We need a path to legality, but not citizenship, for some of these individuals who have deep ties to America, including family, church and community ties. We also need a path to swift but dignified repatriation for those who are transient and have no roots in America.
We don't need a path to legality as Newt suggests. That is amnesty. Most of the illegals here already have no desire to ever become citizens but they have no problem breaking our laws. They just want to take work from our citizens and grab up benefits we taxpayers provide for our citizens. Besides, there is already a path to legality. It requires the illegals to return home and apply to enter the US from their home country.
Those who mischaracterize those of us who know amnesty and an open borders lib when we see one have must have some liberal reason for supporting him. Because there is absolutely nothing conservative about rewarding lawbreakers and Newt and his lib supporters realize that. Whether it is rewarding them with citizenship or rewarding them with special visas to work here, take jobs away from our citizens and have numerous children so they to get any and all the benefits our taxpayers provide.
We already have special work visas (H2A) for foreign nationals to do temporary agricultural work in this country. There is no reason for us to give the law breakers more incentives because Newt and his congressional cohorts have allowed them to keep stealing us blind for twenty-five years.
There is a system. But both republican and democrat presidents have refused to enforce the laws. We need a president who is willing to carry out the will of the people and enforce the laws that currently exist and not look to create special laws encouraging more illegality.
In other words, no Newt.
What's truly frightening to me, is the fact that just one year ago, Newt's name was mud on FR, and he was condemned as an enemy to patriotic conservatives by one and all.
It's disheartening to see that all he had to do was perform well in a series of televised debates, and all of his transgressions are now magically forgiven.
And people wonder why we get the sort of leadership we do.
I am in total agreement.
Bump. Absolutely no doubt about it.
Are you a troll? I know and have worked with Roy Beck. You are spouting the same crap that comes from the SLPC. Have you read any of Roy's books or how much do you know about NumbersUSA with more than a million members that almost singlehandedly killed the 2006 and 2007 amnesty bills. Roy is no racist. He has plenty of minorities working in his office. And don't buy the crap about John Tanton or the Koch brothers, who are demonized by the Left.
ROY BECK is Publisher of NumbersUSA.com, one of the five most visited advocacy group websites in the U.S. He is CEO of NumbersUSA which he founded in 1996 and which, with one million activists, is the nation's largest grassroots immigration-reduction organization. NumbersUSA was credited (blamed?) by some of the largest mainstream media as the most responsible for the defeat of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty in 2007.
Beck is a native of the Ozarks and a graduate with honors from the University of Missouri School of Journalism. From the 1960s into the 1990s, he worked for newspapers in Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Texas before serving as Chief Washington Correspondent for Booth Newspapers of the Newhouse chain. He has written four public policy books that received positive coverage in scores of newspapers and magazines. He appears frequently on all the national news networks and at congressional hearings and briefings. He was awarded the U.S. Army Commendation Medal (for non-combat service) in 1972. He and his wife have been married since 1970 and have spent two decades working with their church's youth, with annual trips, building housing for the poor and with monthly assistance to impoverished residents of their community.
Since you’re wed to your mythology, you’ll continue to mischaracterize his written plan.
You just tell us when you’ve figured out how to round everyone up and ship them out.
Maybe Obama can do that for you after he’s trounced your candidate?
“Dumbing Down” is not the exclusive mental territory of just the Dems and Libs and RINOs. Always, watch what a man DOES rather than what he says, particularly in Election Seasons, and particularly when it comes to career politicians.
Newt voted for the first amnesty in 1986. Oddly enough, McCain actually voted against it while he was in the House,
One in four new hires now go thru E-verify. AZ’s 2007 law, ruled constitutional this year by SCOTUS, makes it mandatory for businesses to use E-Verfiy and if they knowingly hire illegal aliens, they can lose their business license.
The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works.
Why should we legalize their status just because we can't deport every single one of them? What is the urgency of addressing it now since we haven't been able to secure our borders or track and deport visa overstays who make up 40% of all the illegals? How about we try something new like enforcing our existing laws?
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.