Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich on self-deportation "Romney shows no concern for 'Humanity' of illegals"
Posted on 01/25/2012 9:45:33 AM PST by VU4G10
Gingrich: Romney shows no concern for 'Humanity' of illegals"..
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
” ... The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country. ...”
And they won’t be grandparents, which was the point.
Some things are easily overlooked, and others are simply missed.
The most logical reason that long-term inhabitants of the US will not return to some former residence is family ties.
Your tagline is indeed very important. It’s something I try to keep in mind when I make my political decisions.
I have a core set of values. People may not agree with them, but they made sense to me, and I adopted them. To sell out those values, and support someone who doesn’t agree with them, is impossible for me.
Illegal immigration is something I have been against since before Reagan granted his amnesty. I opposed letting 1 million stay (when I thought it was only 1 million), and I haven’t changed my mind today, when it’s between 20 and 35 million.
The best interests of our nation are not served by allowing a large body of illegal immigrants to stay here. The provision of a legal document does not cure the ills that come with illegal immigration.
1. broken laws
2. occupation of regions of our nation
3. the break down of law and order
4. the lack of responsibility for folks who can run to Mexico rather tan face the music here when they break the law
5. the bankrupting of our health care institution
6. the bankrupting of our education systems
7. strain on government services, food stamps, welfare, housing, monetary subsidies
8. the drain on the middle class, as it is forced to pay taxes and fees to support poor people, who take take take, then work under the table for income in addition to that
9. the corruption of our legal process, as first one party then the other pander to illegals to get their votes (why does a Republican candidate make appearances on Univision to explain his immigration policies) (why is it more important to pander to between 20 and 35 million illegals who supposedly can’t vote, than to pander to around 200 million legal citizen who can)
10. corruption of the legal process in the United States (since when do we issue a fix to illegality, prior to the penalty for the crime being served/paid) (why are we not enforcing our laws rather than creating fixes to reward the perps)
On top of these problems, the McCain/Kennedy bill in 2007, set up a very generous work visa program, that would have allowed two million Mexican nationals to enter the United States legally each year. Anotherwords, it would have made the flow of two million Mexican nationals into the United States each year, legal.
My biggest fear is that Newt would adopt that rotting excuse for reasoned legislation. So far his plan sounds just like it.
Folks, people here on work visa permits, can start the process for citizenship after six years here. How many of those two million legal entries per year would ever go home?
Do we want to adopt a plan that allows massive numbers of Mexican nationals to swamp our nation, while the immigration quotas from Northern Europe and the rest of the planet remain constant?
Where is the equity in that? Is that moral? Isn’t it actually racist at the end of the day?
I am a Citizen of the United States. I am a law and order Conservative. My first concern is how immigration impacts our nation, and whether that immigration makes us stronger or weaker.
If certain aspects tend to be destructive, then I have to stand up and be counted as disagreeing with them.
We are to the point, that all immigration should be stopped for twenty years or so, so that the people who are here can be assimilated. The immigration from terrorist states must end. We must seriously tackle the issue of bodies of people who have been taught in their institutions that the United States is evil, or that infidels deserve to die.
We have seen all the warning signs we need to see, and yet we’re barreling through them at maximum warp drive.
This insanity must end, or as a people we will. We’re down to one candle folks. It’s flickering. What’s it going to be?
Some of the same people who see Newt as extreme, grandiose, harsh, zany...criticize him for not being in favor of draconian measures to deal with illegal aliens.
One size does not fit all. Trying to make it so would be catastrophic, and we’d lose face trying to put it into practice against a constant parade of pathetic victims trotted out daily by the Dems, while the media hammered us. Newt’s plan is sensible and feasible, and less imperfect than the alternatives. Makes the best of a bad business, as the old timers used to say.
I realize that’s unpopular thinking around here, so for the record I do understand all parts of “illegal.”
I don’t like this. I can’t just forgive these types of remarks.
Romney may be lying,....ugh
A lot of people are thinking that. Have you read his proposal to deal with the illegals, on newt.org? It's a good idea to check it out before concluding he is dishonest or stupid.
Perry was excoriated for making remarks like this.
Your tagline reminds me of this “be very careful you do not become what you say you hate the most”.
Not to mention increasing demands for political representation, proportionate to their numbers. That's one "politically incorrect" topic nobody wants to broach, even as government and foundation funding continues to pour into the coffers of La Raza and the like.
Newt proposing amnesty will only encourage more illegal immigration and only make a very bad problem worse. No talk, no proposals until the border is secured and the laws are being enforced, period. Newt will regret proposing amnesty for illegals.
I just read it again at your recommendation. Pie in the sky BS, the end of the excellent E-verify program and amnesty.
Management at FR would like us to refrain from knocking Newt for the time being so I’ll decline further responding on this subject.
I know and rightly so. I was one of the those doing the excoriating.
He is NOT proposing amnesty. Read it at newt.org.
To be accurate, he said that Romney lived in a world of “Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and automatic $20 million a year income with no work”.
Romney has offshore accounts. On the other hand, I don’t like the suggestion that people who earn dividends and capital gains on their investments “do no work”. That is definitely OWS language, not conservative language. Conservatives have never been against enojoying the fruits of your labors.
If Gingrich was attacking any other republican this way, it would be easier to complain about it.
“Management at FR would like us to refrain from knocking Newt for the time being so Ill decline further responding on this subject.”
My response to Newts position on immigration is the same as management’s: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2811255/posts?page=52#52
I don’t care for the 80% part.
80% of new immigrant citizens vote for the Democratic Party.
I believe, because it hurts to think otherwise, that most Freepers understand they are making a profound sacrifice supporting Newt Gingrich. The goal is laudable — stop Mitt Romney. I wish they’d just admit that this is what drives the argument, rather than trying to justify the unjustifiable statements.
Hell, even when I was at my most adamant in defending Romney back in 2008, I never once told anybody else they were wrong to vote against him, or faulted them for not believing what Romney was saying. Whoever we pick is going to be a flawed candidate, as CONSERVATIVE Mark Steyn said yesterday on Rush’s show, and we just have to accept that, but it does us no good to deny it and pretend otherwise.
I’ve never seen conservatives so excited about defending a guy based on what he did back in 1983, while ignoring the past 3 years, or what was said last week. On the other hand, I wasn’t here in 2000 when apparently there were big fights over George Bush.
I was all over this issue the first time Newt brought it up and cratered in the polls. Enforcement now, secure the border now, then once that is done maybe we can talk. This is bedrock conservative principles. If Newt wants to lose conservatives there is no better way to do that then proposing amnesty for illegals before enforcement is even tried. Newt voted for the 86 amnesty, which was sold as a ONE TIME ONLY amnesty and now without ever trying enforcing our laws he wants another amnesty? I think not.
Actually, in this thread, conservatives seem more to be complaining that Gingrich is calling them inhumane, not that he disagrees with them.
Gingrich may have a rational plan. That doesn’t mean he has to attack those who disagree with him as being inhumane, or call them “anti-immigrant” as if they don’t like any foreigners.