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!
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.