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 ...
Some of us realize the folly of proposing border security and amnesty simultaneously - mainly because we don’t actively seek to be deceived.
Of course I wouldn’t go to one of your links dirtboy....why would you imagine most would?
Heres the plan dirt...see for yourself...and dont bs us....you were serious bot for Palin...if you arent favoring someone by now...well I dont trust your veracity on that comment
Anyhow...nite...and heres some reading...i will defend what I am prone to and cede flaws
Any proposal that begins with words to the effect of, "First we secure the border, then...", or, "Once we secure the border..." is spurious. Such proposals make border security a conditional bargaining chip for follow on policies and actions. As long as that remains the case, those follow-ons remain negotiable and a matter of discourse and debate which will never be resolved, ergo, the prerequisite of securing the border will never be addressed.
What we need right now is for the candidates and the discourse to focus on how best to secure the border. This should be the exclusive concern, and is indeed, a Constitutional mandate. The politicians need to understand that regardless of what takes place afterwards, the border MUST be secured. Once that has happened, we can openly debate and discuss how best to approach the remaining crimmigrants, but until then, such discussions are little , more than political masturbation.
Secondly, Newt's "timeline" of 25 years is ridiculous. What kind of documentary proof is a crimmigrant going to provide to establish he's been here for 25 years? A fake driver's license? A bogus social security card? Either we're going to accept questionable documentation at face value, or we're going to spawn a whole new bureacracy dedicated to doing nothing more than validating the documents provided...
Take another bite, zombie. Your brain is obviously not engaged for anything as difficult as reading, let alone comprehending, what is posted on the thread.
You were long one of the leading advocates for fighting illegal immigration, to the point of getting banned. I sent Jim Freepmails pushing for your re-instatement. And now, you turn around and trash me for holding to the stance that you were once banned for? FR has changed for the better on this subject - it even let the fight against Bush's and McCain's amnesty - and you apparently have altered your stance to support Newt on this, instead of critically evaluating the problems of simultaneously pushing for amnesty and border security.
That's pretty low.
How about enforcing the laws on the books. We can do this by electing a conservative president who will enforce the laws which means not Newt, nor Perry, and not Mittens.
We have only had dems and amnesty RINOs in office since Reagan left. We have not seen anyone as president who wanted to defend our country against the invaders by enforcing our laws. That is what needs to change. We need a conservative president willing to enforce the laws already on the books.
That is the solution.
Well stated, but it goes beyond even that.
Simpson-Mazzoli was sold as an end-all solution to illegal immigration. But the amnesty pimps got their amnesty first and then never got around to the enforcement side of the equation.
And who are the folks Newt wants to provide a 'path to non-deportation?' Why, the first folks to come over the border since the last amnesty.
So Newt is looking to further the pattern on how DC handles this problem - by creating incentives to come over the border and wait for the next amnesty.
There should be NO discussion about what we will do with those already here until the border is secured. And not Obama/Napolitano/McCain secured - but truly secured, with benchmarks set in advance so our politicians don't just declare the problem to be solved without it actually being solved.
Newt is for Amnesty. He changes the definition because he knows that no one will like what he proposes if he calls it what it really is. So he uses semantics to try to confuse those who don’t know any better.
This definition is much more apropos to the subject:
Just because they don’t get citizenship doesn’t mean it isn’t amnesty. If they are not held accountable to the law as it existed at the time they violated it, they are getting amnesty. The law they violated REQUIRES deportation and anything else IS AMNESTY.
You and Newt may have your own pet name for it, but we all know what it really is.
I marvel at anyone who can pretend Newt is doing anything but serving up the same stale GOP establishment amnesty sh** sandwich with a fresh pickle.
Newt does. He calls it a path to non-deportation.
Probably the most brazen exercise in doublespeak yet in the amnesty debate.
And that's saying something.
The red card program that Gingrich advocates would let employers hire anyone from anywhere.
Further, Gingrich would have local compassion boards (my name, not his) grant whatever illegals they’d like the right to stay illegally.
Finallly, Gingrich would let any of all those newly legalized get in line for citizenship while on a visit back at their homeland.
Put together, those three points to his program offer citizenship to pretty much any and every illegal, though they might simply be here legally for awhile while waiting for citizenship to come through.
It is realistically impossible, economically risky and ethically wrong to seek the deportation of all 11.2 million undocumented immigrants in this country.
No, it isn’t impossible, not economically risky and it damn sure isn’t unethical.
Since those assumptions are so very wrong, everything after that is bs.
Let's test your theory for purity. Spend a couple days compiling a list of every law you broke over the last 25 years, then turn yourself in to accept punishment/fines for all of them.
ROTLOL Not one of these yo yos can do the right thing regarding illegals. All they want to do is keep the gravy train rolling.
Purist - someone who upholds a conservative principle inconvenient to a RINO pimp.
For third-world wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Oppenheimer
Newt jumped the shark on illegal immigration. As an influential member of the 1986 congress that passed the last amnesty, Newt knows full well that the 1986 promise was a "one time only amnesty" that came with a promise to secure the boarder and enforcing the laws. We are still waiting on the promise to be full filled. No GOP candidate can survive being soft on illegal immigration, even if they get the nomination conservatives will simply sit out the general election rather then vote for amnesty.
I supported Newt but Amnesty for illegals is a deal breaker. I fully expect his poll numbers to drop much like Perrys' did. And I don't think glowing reviews from communist journalists are going to be of much help with the voting GOP grass roots.
Very simple, control the boarder and enforce existing laws. No need to go door to door, no mass deportations. Whenever an illegals pops up, detain him and after a case review send him/her home. Which by the way was what the 86 Congress (Newt was a member of the 86 congress) promised would happen.
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.