Posted on 11/25/2011 9:23:02 PM PST by moonshinner_09
Finally, there is a voice of reason on immigration among the front-runners for the Republican nomination, who until last week's debate seemed to be competing with one another to see who could take the craziest stand against Hispanic immigrants.
Newt Gingrich, the front-runner of the moment as conservative Republicans seek an alternative for ideologically zigzagging second-place contender Mitt Romney, broke with the pack in the Nov. 22 CNN debate of Republican hopefuls by stating an obvious: It is realistically impossible, economically risky and ethically wrong to seek the deportation of all 11.2 million undocumented immigrants in this country.
Gingrich said that ultimately, the United States will have to find a system where, after securing the border with Mexico and launching a guest worker program to fill jobs that Americans won't take, "you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here."
"If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out," Gingrich said.
For people who have been in this country for 25 years, Gingrich offered a "red card" program that would allow them to stay in this country, but not to get citizenship. Others who arrived more recently would be deported, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
I do, however, hate very much what they, and those who enable them to stay here, are doing to our nation.
Oldplayer
What's that definition of "insanity" again?
Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
The federal bureaucracy definitely DOES NOT want to know how many millions of previously "forgiven" illegals have permanently joined the dozens of welfare and free money programs.
So no point in asking any of our elected corrupt or incompetent criminals.
Bachman, Perry, Romney, Cain and Gingrich have all determined that until the border is first secured, a perky policy on immigration isn’t going to be a serious one of any consequence. They all agree that “some”, but not all illegals will in the end be allowed to stay. Hotair clarifies that Bachman has said those words that “some can stay”. Romney will NEVER frog march illegals, and the other candidates want the southern border shut, but have certainly indicated that once it is closed there will be exceptions who will be staying. A hard discussion but reality is what it is.
Gingrich brings common sense to immigration debate
______________________________________________________________
AMEN!!! HALLELUJAH!!! I hope more people begin to realize this. He’s the only one who has come up with a logical solution to a very complex problem that the last 5 Presidents ignored until it is now out of control. GOD BLESS NEWT GINGRICH!!!
Si se puede....Si se puede....Si se puede.....
The DNC voiced its full support for Newt
______________________________________________________________
Don’t kid yourself; they fear him. He will mop the floor with Obozo in the Debates.
I'm supporting Herman Cain because I'm heartless, and inhumane. I lack compassion for everyone, and need so-called “Conservatives” constantly apologizing for my Conservatism. We all know Conservatives are violent people who have radical extremist views. That's why Mexico said it was worried about it's citizens here illegally safety. I mean just look at the statistics showing how many anti-illegal immigration U.S. citizens have been killing illegal immigrants because of our radicalism, compared to U.S. citizens being killed by illegal immigrants.
TO: ALL NEWT BASHERS: Will all you brilliant people PLEASE tell us YOUR workable solution to this mess that every President since Ronald Reagan has ignored and thereby created this monster? Come on; don’t say something stupid like “Deport them all” unless you are willing to offer to help car pool 11 million of them back to Mexico.
Let’s hear your solutions.
As do many of his supporters.
No Newt. No Amnesty. No Thanks.
Sure he will, in the same debates where Obummer will mention Newt’s support for global warming, his long history of support for “green causes”, his betrayal of the tea party, his healthcare mandate support, cap & trade, and, last but not least, his amnesty proposals.
Mandatory checking by employers to make sure employees are in the U.S. working legally; a border fence; enforcement of currently existing laws. If they can’t get work here, they’ll leave.
Not true. The only one proposing amnesty (currently, anyway) is Newt. Sorry.
Furthermore what do you want to do with the illegals and how would you get 11 to 30 million out of this country? Our current laws are unenforceable.
Do I look like I care what Newt’s definition is? If you are forgiving someone’s crime and allowing them to stay in the country, that sounds like the normal definition of amnesty to me. Most of them don’t want citizenship anyway. And they certainly don’t need it to vote if they’re in a Dem state.
And how do you know the laws are “unenforceable”? Have you tried to enforce them lately? I haven’t seen that happen. Maybe give more freedom to the states to go ahead and pass their own Arizona style laws? Maybe make it mandatory for employers to check immigration status? Maybe make it a crime to hire an illegal or rent an apartment or sell a car to them? Maybe build a border fence, deploy the national guard, and stop being nice to them? Let’s deport whoever we get ahold of, regardless of what church denomination they go to or how nice and “hard working”, REAL EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW.
What happens next is that living here becomes a real hassle. So. They. Self. Deport.
Yes he has a history...don't we all? and don't we all have pivotal places where we changed our outlook as well? Of course we do. Why is it when a politician sees the facts as they are and not what they were people still hold them to their former opinions or stances?
Good grief I don't think the same way after joining FR....good things do come when people want to know how things really are...and take the time to investigate these.
I did just that with Newt and too many are blowing him off without the realization of where he once was, what changed his positions, and how he came about those changes to stand where he does today....and it's worth finding out..and then look at what you find..
He’s made those “changes” in time for an election cycle, and not even all of them. It was in May of this year when he mentioned he was for a Health care mandate. It wasn’t too long ago when he double crossed the Tea Party and also attacked Paul Ryan’s plan. Certainly, people can “change”, but he has a pattern of behavior that has NOT changed. You shouldn’t let yourself be snookered by a smooth talking politician. Lying is what they do for a living.
All of that is a moot point. This Election will come down to a Referendum on Obozo. And right now, most Americans would vote for a can of Spam before they’d vote for him. The average American is not a FReeper. They don’t give a sh** about what Newt thinks about Global Warming and Green causes or really what he thinks about his NOT-Amnesty proposal. We think everyone thinks like FReepers do and the don’t.
You’re right, they don’t think like we do. But the conservative base thinks like we do. No excitement = less turnout. And as for the people at large? They’re going to see a white guy, a known serial adulterer, basically being shown on TV as having exactly the same positions as the President before he was against them. Not going to work out, no matter how smooth Newt is.
And think about this. Who else did we elect just to sound good and pander to moderates and latinos? John McCain. He was the safe candidate. He lost both groups even worse than Bush did. When we stand on PRINCIPLE, people FOLLOW THE LEADER.
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.