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.
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.