Skip to comments.For Gingrich, Amnesty No Impediment to Nomination
Posted on 01/27/2012 5:26:34 PM PST by rmlew
One thing was missed in Newt Gingrich's victory in the South Carolina primary: Conservatives embraced a pro-amnesty candidate without batting an eyelash. This should come as a wake-up call to those who've been pushing a hard-line anti-illegal immigrant position in the Republican Party.
Granted, Gingrich didn't spend a lot of time discussing his position, which favors amnesty for those illegal immigrants who have been here for a long time, have deep family and community ties, and have paid taxes and avoided breaking other laws. But that's the point. He didn't have to spend a lot of time defending his position because so few conservatives cared.
Now Gingrich seems poised to win another Southern primary: Florida. The latest polls show him within a few percentage points of beating Mitt Romney again (and at least one poll shows him up by 5 points). Whether or not a Gingrich win is a good thing for Republican prospects in the fall, it could help lay the groundwork for future Republican victories by defusing an issue that is guaranteed to alienate the fastest-growing segment of the voting population.
Like other voters, most Hispanics care a lot more about jobs than they do about immigration. Still, they are turned off by candidates who portray illegal immigrants as criminal invaders who want a handout from U.S. taxpayers. Republicans have damaged their ability to woo an important constituency by insisting on a punitive approach to illegal immigration. In this election alone, it could cost Republicans key states critical to winning the presidency: Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.
Worse, in future elections, the perceived anti-Hispanic bias in the GOP could deprive the party of its edge in presidential elections in Texas and Arizona, where Hispanics already account for about a third of the population. Gringrich might keep that from happening.
Unlike Gov. Rick Perry, who was unable to articulate his own pro-immigrant stance, Gingrich is ideally suited to move the GOP toward a more politically viable -- not to mention humane -- immigration policy. Polls show that most Americans are opposed to deporting the 11 million illegal immigrants who already reside in the U.S. And Mitt Romney's position, which is indistinguishable from the radical anti-immigrant groups', is patently wrong; Romney believes that if we make life difficult enough on these people they will "self-deport." Nothing could further from the truth.
No matter how tough life in the U.S. is for an illegal immigrant, it is still better than returning home. Gingrich has called Romney's position an "Obama-level fantasy." He's right; and the sooner Republicans wake up to the reality, the better for the party and the country.
Gingrich is not simply pandering to the Hispanic vote on this issue. He understands that immigrants -- even those who've come here illegally -- are an important part of America's economic success. They don't take Americans' jobs; they create more jobs by keeping otherwise unviable industries in the U.S. Without immigrant labor, we'd have no agricultural or meat industry. Without an immigrant work ethic, our service industry would be a lot less productive and would cost customers a great deal more. And every immigrant worker spends money in his or her community that redounds to the benefit of native-born Americans in those same communities. And Gringrich understands that immigrants do much more than help the economy; they reaffirm American exceptionalism.
If he wanted to, Gingrich could help educate Republican voters on these facts. Better yet, he could talk about something that politicians in both parties often ignore: namely, the need to assimilate newcomers.
Every immigrant backlash in our nation's history -- and there have been many, including movements against Germans, Eastern and Southern Europeans, even the Irish -- has been driven by a fear that those coming to our shores would never become fully American. Newt Gingrich's amnesty proposal acknowledges that some illegal immigrants have already become Americans in every sense but a legal one -- and his proposal to embrace them offers the best hope to the GOP to turn around its image as the anti-immigrant party.
We’re pretty much finished at this point anyway.
Illegals are government growth hormone.
Newt is not pro amenesty. He is not offerring citizenship for illegals. He has the #1 priority of securing the border before anything else. He wants to accellerate the deportation of hardened criminals and make legal immigration easier. I suppose we could rely on illegals to self deport as Romney suggests. I’d sure like self ticketing and self tax audits too for that matter. :-)
But one remarkable thing—though none of the current 4 candidates still standing is particularly strong on immigration, I believe they have all (except possibly Paul) come out in support of border security, opposed the Dream Act, have agreed to e-verify, and are all talking about forcing self-deportation by drying up jobs and benefits for illegals. Santorum has even made favorable statements about ending chain migration and (I think) the visa lottery. These are stands past Republican candidates have seldom taken. That's major progress over the Jorge Bush/Juan McCain era.
BS, the SC primary was tremendously influenced by Newt's debate performance and the assists handed to him by the moderator. Illegal aliens and amnesty received little discussion in those particular debates.
And Newt's talking tough on enforcement and presenting a very nuanced (and impractical) position on amnesty.
He wants to accellerate the deportation of hardened criminals and make legal immigration easier
But minor criminals can stay.
I suppose we could rely on illegals to self deport as Romney suggests. Id sure like self ticketing and self tax audits too for that matter. :-)
Without jobs, people leave. Notice how the criminal invaders leave states that enforce laws no not letting them work or drive.
Gingrich is ideally suited to move the GOP toward a more politically viable — not to mention humane — immigration policy.
I’m with Newt on his Immigration Policy. If the GOP does not lean more toward the Gingrich/Perry policy than it does the Romney/Bachmann Policy, we will be the minority Party from here on out. End of story.
I doubt there are a million senior citizen illegals. Read Newt’s plan. It is NOT amensty at all.
Go look up Vortigern or how well Rome did when they allowed the Goths to settle.
You are full of crap. No one in their right mind believes every single illegal will be rounded up and sent packing. Will not happen ever without massive civil disorder and civil war.
I live in Las Vegas, there are 300,000 illegals here. Are you guys coming here with your rubber band guns to move every single one of them out? I didn’t think so. And don’t get me wrong, they are a scourge, I had my offices gasoline firbombed by illegals (I could have burned alive) and another set cleaned out my storage locker, but unless you guys are willing to go to bloody war I don’t think anything Gingrich has said is out of line with reality.
So go vote for pandering Romney you morons, cause I guarantee he won’t do a damn thing.
If the millions of illegals already here are granted amnesty, the end of the story will be a huge increase in citizens and Dim voters, and a new Dim majority that could last for several generations.
The notion that granting amnesty for humane purposes will win large numbers of Latinos over to the Republican party is pie-in-the-sky nonsense and self-destructive.
So go vote for pandering Romney you morons, cause I guarantee he wont do a damn thing.
Manichean lunacy. There are other candidates. And even if there weren't I am an American and Conservative before a Republican and I have the God Given adn Constitutional protected right and duty to point out the mistakes of politicians.
How is Gingrich putting all those people in the military, when..
The Pentagon proposed budget cuts on Thursday that would slash the size of the U.S. military by eliminating thousands of jobs, mothballing ships and trimming air squadrons in an effort to shift strategic direction and reduce spending by $487 billion over a decade.
The funding request, which includes painful cuts for many states, sets the stage for a new struggle between President Barack Obama’s administration and Congress over how much the Pentagon should spend on national security as the country tries to curb trillion-dollar budget deficits.
US Army chief ‘comfortable’ with smaller force as Pentagon prepares cuts
Make no mistake, the savings we are proposing will impact all 50 states and many districts across America,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told a news conference at the Pentagon. “This will be a test of whether reducing the deficit is about talk or action.”
Romney supports a much wider form of amnesty.
Yeah, he's open borders. /s
Surrending to illegals is the new conservatism!
Newt & Perry know the score.
Romney's new found immigration views is shameless pandering. He employed illegals and even proposed free tuition at state schools regardless of legality based on test scores; the Dems legislature rejected it on class warfare grounds... too many rich kids would score high.
Next you’re going to tell us he’s divorced! Who knew?
This was nothing than you wanting to post an attack on Newt on the sidebar under the guise of “breaking news.”
In other “breaking news:” Truman actually defeated Dewey, despite the misprint.
The Reagan Amnesty window wrapped up around 1990. Just how many illegals does Newt think were here prior to that and didn't sign up? That's only 22 years ago.
“Local Communities” deciding....can see it now...the city council of some barrio getting it’s own bag of green cards to hand out. Yeah that’ll work Especially when they contract out the process to La Raza, Acorn, etc.
Aren’t many illegals voting already in all reality?
The immigration debate is unimportant until after SOMEONE builds a secure, patrolled fence.
Let’s get that done, because opponents of the fence keep using the amnesty debate to get conservatives fighting one another, and that blows up plans to get the fence built.
This nation cannot defend itself with 6 Army divisions (the equiv of 32 combat brigades - inf, arm, arty, avn, eng).
If Newt is the nominee and doesn’t win, it doesn’t matter what we think about illegals one way or the other.
If Newt wins, then he’ll end or reverse the Army drawdown.
Once again, the makeup of congress will be MORE important than who resides in the white house (hut?).
The president does not make law, congress does.
The only immigration “REFORM” I will accept is to begin vigorously enforcing the laws already on the books without exception.
The idiots who voted for Gingrich in South Carolina didn’t know what his stance was on illegal immigration. They just liked it that he slapped around the moderator. This will not fly in the general election. People are looking for a calm, smart, mature leader and manager who has a viable plan for controlling spending and getting the economy moving. They don’t want someone who’s into histrionics and bombast and grandiosity. That gets old pretty fast. Four years ago they voted for a egomaniac who promised the planet would heal itself and the ocean levels would fall if he were elected. Never again.
This is not “amnesty” and it’s not a “radical change in our culture.” Amnesty was what Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both did because neither one of them was able to make a permanent, rational change in our immigration system and they simply passed the problem along.
Gingrich is actually suggesting something that will deal with the current backlog of illegal immigrants - expelling some, while giving others legal residency but not citizenship, based on the decisions of local citizen boards and upon fulfillment of certain conditions. He is also creating a guest worker and visa program that will make it easier to come here legally and also easier to leave legally when the time comes, thereby taking away any excuse for illegal entry or illegal residence on the part of either the individuals or their employers.
Otherwise, you will probably get genuine “amnesty” from Obama in the next four years, with no significant changes made to the broken immigration system (except for an open door for more Muslims) and a set up for a repeat in another 25 years.
Better bend over and kiss your FReeper ass good-bye
I don’t have any use for Romney or Gingrich. I’m down to Santorum or I’ll be skipping the presidential slot on the ballot and concentrating on the house and senate races.
Seems to me that Gingrich is too willing to say whatever a crowd wants to hear. This crap about a base on the moon in 10 years is laughable at best and I’m a very pro space FReeper. Business won’t do it because the space and moon treaties prevent them from ever owning any natural bodies in space. At best, business would do it under government contract.
Some are no doubt, but I have no guess as to how many. It's believed that about 1/3 of the Latinos in the US are here illegally. And they are about 15% of the population (including the illegals), but the voting stats say they are only just under 8% of actual voters.
So, a much smaller percentage of Latinos in the US are voting than for other groups. Apparently there are large numbers of illegals not voting, though we know some are.
Might I suggest that you rearead the Constitution and Federalist Papers over the weekend?
My friend's brother later joined the police department and worked his way up to Captain.
You need to learn the meaning of the word amnesty, which has nothing to do with citizenship:
“Amnesty (from the Greek amnestia, oblivion) is a legislative or executive act by which a state restores those who may have been guilty of an offense to the positions of innocent people, without changing the laws defining the offense. It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense.”
As soon as a liberal judge decides that having a policy where former illegal immigrants is unconstitutional (as he/she surely will) a border fence won't matter. Via chain immigration, the influx of immigrants will be unbelievable.
As soon as a liberal judge decides that having a policy where former illegal immigrants cannot become citizens is unconstitutional (as he/she surely will) a border fence won’t matter. Via chain immigration, the influx of immigrants will be unbelievable.
“So it’s “very weak” to secure the border, streamline deportation, streamline visitor visas, ....”
Check out https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html, which gives Newt a D on immigration issues, behind Santorum (A-) and Willard (C+), but ahead of Paul (D-).
I support Newt over those three, but he’s weak on immigration. (Though admittedly still ahead of Bush/McCain.)
In California between 1952 and 1988, Republicans won every Presidential race except 1964 (Goldwater).
Democrats have won the last five elections. You don’t think Hispanics were the difference.
And your solution is to have the whole country follow the path of California.
We need to stop focusing on the 20-25 year illegals, and start worring about the 24 hr illegals!
YOU ARE CORRECT! Looks like for many, talk is cheap (and unrealistic).
YOU ARE CORRECT! Looks like for many, talk is cheap (and unrealistic).
YOU ARE CORRECT! Looks like for many, talk is cheap (and unrealistic).
We need to focus on the WELFARE-sucking illegals who sit home all day while their “men” are out on the construction/grass cutting/mulch laying/leaf blowing jobs.
I worked at a local health department in nursing school in N. Virginia. The place was ENTIRELY patronized by illegals and really no one else. It exists now for them. I could count maybe 10 or less Americans in the place.
They are there, in line, every single day. They are receiving WIC, free car seats, free birth control (which they gladly accept but never use), free immunizations, free healthcare for their kids, free maternal care.
It’s disgusting. I saw 13 year olds pregnant.
If we stopped these non-stop SIGNIFICANT handouts ...what then? We are allowing them to come here, settle here with all the “help” to do so we can muster. After they settle with the help of all these freebies, THEN they enroll their brats in our schools ...THEN they park it in our hospitals for all the free maternity and other hospital care they can get.
THIS ISSUE IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED IN OUR PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES!!!!!
Did Newt Gingrich’s plan state that there is to be zero tolerance for illegal immigration. If not it is amnesty.
Does it even make sense to discuss Mitt Romney's "positions"? If you don't like one of them - just wait a while.
“The president enforces the law”.
Ah, not this one, I would like to see him personally “Enforce” some of the alleged laws he has pushed!
What laws he does “Enforce” are selective and politically motivated.
In reality the “President” does NOT enforce anything, that is left to the alphabet agencies he stacks with his sycophants as directors.
Thus we end up with constant changes via “Law” being “Reinterpreted” with each change of agency head.
Loads of fun for lawyers, not so much for business and the public.
“Congress mandates enforcement and funds it.”
Again, not too true of late, our congress ignores most existing law to ingratiate themselves to special interest groups by passing “New” redundant laws.
Valid laws are left unfunded, or the funds allowed to be “Redirected”.
Czars and illegitimate offices are created, and congress does NOT force their de-funding.
At present our system is badly damaged, if not broken.
The (ignored) constitution is rendered moot under these circumstances.
I will stand by my statement, the intent was clear.