Skip to comments.Newt on immigration: What if we had local boards who could legalize certain illegals?
Posted on 05/19/2011 7:22:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I don’t know, guys. We’ve reached the point where the “Newt implosion” narrative has crystallized so thoroughly that every new story about him ends up being refracted through that prism. I don’t trust my own judgment at this point. Is this new bit genuinely toxic, as Ace’s co-blogger Gabe seems to think, or is it much ado about nothing?
Newt Gingrich, whose campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination has gotten off to a rocky start, risked fresh controversy on Thursday by suggesting that some illegal immigrants living in the United States “may have earned the right to become legal.”…
Gingrich recounted how World War Two-era U.S. draft boards chose who would serve in the military, saying a similar system might help deal with the millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.
“Because I think we are going to want to find some way to deal with the people who are here to distinguish between those who have no ties to the United States, and therefore you can deport them at minimum human cost, and those who, in fact, may have earned the right to become legal, but not citizens,” Gingrich said.
Here’s the complete quote via Radio Iowa:
This is, at the risk of as I do on occasion of getting into trouble with the news media, Gingrich said, in answering the question, and a few people in the audience chuckled. Im looking seriously at the way the Selective Service Act used to work in the 1940s and World War II where a local Selective Service board who knew the local people made the decisions because I think we are going to want to find some way to deal with the people who are here to distinguish between those who have no ties to the United States and therefore you can deport them at minimum human cost, and those who, in fact, may have earned the right to become legal, but not citizens.
That’s not totally alienating to the conservative base, right? You can imagine local amnesty draft boards designating illegals who’ve served in the military for special legalization privileges. (We already do it, kinda sorta.) As well as anyone else who has “ties to the United States,” which, er … could be millions of people.
Seriously, am I misreading this? Or does Newt know something about the imminent zombie apocalypse, leaving him willing to antagonize grassroots righties at every turn knowing that none of it will matter come Sunday? Exit quotation: “My reaction is if youre the candidate of very dramatic change, it youre the candidate of really new ideas, you have to assume theres a certain amount of clutter and confusion and it takes a while to sort it all out, because you are doing something different.”
Update: Greenroomer Patrick Ishmael e-mails to say that Newt made these comments in Waterloo, Iowa. And he is, apparently, a big Abba fan. So I guess this is obligatory…
I don’t understand Newt. At first I thought he was a staunch conservative but lately it seems he’s become a Rino. Maybe he was one all the time. But when he used to go on Sean’s show he said all the right things. Now when I hear him he doesn’t even sound like the same guy
Now if Newt had his way, it would be who you know that decides if you can be legalized or not. The man has lost his mind.
That’s as bad as Gary Johnson - prev. NM Gov. now announced Prez. candidate - accepting the endorsement of and appearing with Willie Nelson and the TeaPOT Party. He thinks with all that’s going on in this country he needs to worry about legalizing dope?
These fools might as well save their money and go home now.
He’s Sean’s good buddy - can’t wait to hear what Sean has to say about this! LMAO It will be hard for him to defend him.
People do NOT want illegals legalized - how do lawmakers not see this?
“People do NOT want illegals legalized - how do lawmakers not see this?”
That is the question I’ve been asking myself for 10 years now.
We have a government basically complicent in an invasion. And even when we do try and stand up (Minute Men) we’re demonized.
We have a government basically complicent in an invasion. And even when we do try and stand up (Minute Men) were demonized.
You’re so right. I live in NM and you should hear all the Hispanics that call in to the local radio show when the subject of illegal immigration, the DREAM act and amnesty are discussed.
I hear a lot of them, the vast majority, saying “my parents (or grandparents) came here from Mexico legally and everyone else can too”
I say there you go - in a nutshell, even people that originated in Mexico want these illegals to go home and follow the law to come back.
So he just blurts out every silly idea he has? Diarrhea of the mouth.
How about if we have local committees who decide which DC politicians are summarily yanked out of of office and tried for treason? /sarc>
It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged -- G.K. Chesterton
As far as Exporting them to Mexico (where 90% of them came from), how long is the border?
Do the math. 30 million Mexicans and their dependents in the USA. Fly them to Chiapas State 380 people at a time in a widebodied plane.
You can do that in 78947 flights. If you do it over a 6 month period that'll take just 3,036 flights per day. Split that up between 10 airports (3 in Los Angeles, 2 in Arizona, 1 in Colorado, 4 in Texas), and you'll have 304 flights per day from each of 10 airports for 6 months.
So, assuming each plane can do two round trips per day, that's 152 airplanes! You might want to split the dropoff points up as well. Pick 10 Mexican airports.
It is quite doable. What is lacking is the will.
Now, about buses, you'd need several thousand buses ~ they don't travel as fast and would get pretty dirty without some serious cleaning.
Again, quite doable with buses.
Going further, I live about 1.5 miles from a major Interstate crossing point. Traffic there is currently just short of 500,000 cars per day.
Two months of traffic would generate four times the "lift capacity" needed to move 30 million illegals.
There are some preliminary steps that must be done however. First, seal the borders sufficiently to prevent casual border jumpers. Second, increase the penalties on employers hiring illegals ~ and here I'm thinking of something like 16 to 20 years for each count ~ and a count is "hiring an illegal for 1 hour of paid work". Arrest, try and convict a half a dozen executives at some business playing games. Arrest, try and convict some suburbanite hiring someone to do his lawn as well.
I think you'd get peoples' attention.
You'd get a lot of self-deportations out of that.
We also need to rent a building in Mexico Ciy for the purpose of providing a "remote appeals court" for these guys. The sole jurisdiction of that court would be immigration cases involving Mexicans. This is where they'd have to go to appeal a deportation. We could set up another similar facility in Korea, Thailand and other places to serve that part of the world.
That way we would no longer need to provide detention facilities ~ these people would be in and out much faster.
Another proposal is the development of a "prison" on the Mexican border. The front gate takes you to the United States. The back gate is just a wooden door. It opens onto a fence with a hole in it big enough for a man to walk through ~ INTO MEXICO.
The prison is designed to accommodate minor offenders under MAXIMUM SECURITY standards ~ except for that little door in the back.
Yup. I enlisted for US Army Infantry. Sure beat the draft.
Good point - that legal Hispanics who can legally vote don’t automatically support granting legal status to Hispanics who came here illegally. Yet Pres. Bush, Karl Rove, et al assume that Hispanics are a monolithic bloc. So to tap the legal Hispanic voters, they think they need to promise amnesty. And that those to whom they give amnesty will then vote for them. I don’t assume that. Immigrants who come here legally and assimilate don’t want to reward those who didn’t. Illegals granted amnesty will still vote Dem if they remain more interested in handouts than assimilation.
I listened to Newt on Ruch yesterday. All I heard Newt say was me, me, me. I did this and I did that. I was on this commission and that commission. Sounded more like Obama than Obama. All he did was toot his horn.
This guy is a world class stooge.
What the hell is wrong with these politicians? I am getting to the point where I am 100% certain that all politicians love the infighting. I am at about the 95% level now. ALL politicians could diffuse a good portion of this powder keg if they would just SECURE THE BORDER first!!!
After that, I believe a SANE discussion could be had on what to do with the people that FED GOV allowed to cross. If FED GOV wants to attack Arizona or any other states’ attempts on fixing this problem, then they are fully to blame for allowing it to get so bad to begin with.
Now as I understand it, FED GOV is probably going to win against Arizona because only FED GOV can deport, but can a state ask for a STATE ID and if one cannot be produced, can they kick them out of their state? “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”
Well they HAVE already shared a LOVESEAT.
LOL Exactly right.
When I saw Newt sitting next to that despicable woman, I was disgusted and that was the last straw.
That sounds like eviction court.
What other legitimate federal functions does Newt want to localize, while retaining spurious federal jurisdiction over local issues, such as education?
Newt is devolving even further.
Well, I do like THAT, but overall I still think we’d be screwed, and the US would disappear in a whimper.
Shut up, Newt.
Who knows? It’s hard to tell what Newt means anymore.
Perhaps he was a RINO all along?
Now he wants the Oval Office?
Ya gotta be kidding me.
I guess that in addition to being a left-wing Republican, he is now also a left-wing Catholic and has adopted the Bishops' Conference POV on illegal immigration.
As I recall the Democrats decided it was time to remove ALL the Republican homosexuals from public office, and they did so.
Egghead Washington insider. He’s a thinker and there are parts of his ideas to be appreciated. This one isn’t a good one, but it does nuance the problem.
We’re not going to get the immigration policy conservatives want. We’ll have to compromise in a smart way that preserves the best and discards the rest.
Newt Gangrene is an American sovereignty denying, One World Gov’t Globalist...
Newt’s agenda is the agenda of the United Nations, NOT the United States of America...
Newt is going after the maximum amount of votes...He doesn’t care which party or which country they come from...
Call it a “waiver” and file it under Obummercare.
Then Newt can go sit on a park bench with a crimalien and do a commercial about it.
I don’t care what anyone says. What the heck do people expect this time around anyway? Newt is the best possible Republican candidate we should expect. Of course that’s if his advisors are Lanny Davis, Susan Estrich, and James Carville. And so far, that sure seems to be the case, taking his statements into consideration.
Wow Newt, you go fella. If you’re not going to withdraw, this certainly is the next best thing.
I just hope young people don’t think he represents the Conservative stance. He’s not in danger of doing that evidently.
Newt was once a bright guy on the issues of Conservatism. Today his lights have gone out.
Are we going to apply this to all crimes? Just set up a board to decide who gets to skate? If I take up bank robbing can I get groups to rally for me to get my crimes to go away? How did we get to this point?
Regarding Newt, as far as I am concerned he had his chance, he had the support and he might have been able to head this country down the right path and we wouldn’t be in the financial mess we are today- BUT he blew it!!
The entry point to the panals is from the country of origin.
Ditto. And for that reason, I also don't trust candidates who don't open their yaps. I want to know what I'm voting for, even more than who I'm voting for.
Yep, Gingrinch is another open borders guy and has been for a long time.
Just one more reason why I will not support him.
I will not support a candidate who refuses to do something serious about our immigration policy.
No more Jorge Bushes or Juan McCains.
Zero tolerance on border crossings. When we have stopped the invasion, if we decide 300 million + people isn’t crowded enough, we can then determine who we want to legally allow in (and it shouldn’t be millions of tomato pickers or millions of Africans to enroll in welfare programs).
This one is problematic. They have already immigrated here illegally.
Also, making convicted crimes as the criteria for getting access to the legalization process seems like a very low bar. I think we need a process that screens out those that:
1) Will be on the public dole once legalized.
2) Will eventually become voters that vote for welfare state.
I have already seen problems with legal immigrants worshipping government after getting handouts.
Yeah, ... I don't see any potential problems with this idea ...
Aside from the military option, I think the idea is that established boards would know who has developed positive ties to the community, and not people “flocking” to a place. Painful as the immigration problem is, we have to consider what it might be like to try to deport 12,000,000 people.
Really think about it. Arrest, capture, imprisonment, transportation, getting countries to accept a huge load of people, etc. Sounds kind of expensive—higher taxes?? 12,000,000 men, women and children. Kind of sounds like a police state action.
None of this surprises me in the least. He recently was asked why he cheated on his wife and he replied “ I got so caught up in saving the country that I lost my moral footing ” which MSNBC had a field day with being so idiotic. Back in 1995 during the high stakes budget government shutdown battle he nuked his own side with :” I think the WH seated me on the back of the AF1 plane as retaliation for the shutdown ” which made a great SNL skit to use to characterize Republicans as shallow idiots. .
Newt may be a smart guy but you don't want him near a camera or recorder. He is dangerous.
Plus he is also a loser, remember he resigned in 1998. What the hell is he doing trying to run anyway?
Another problem (there are many others) is that "sanctuary cities" do not report crimes that illegals commit even when federal law requires them to do so. Whatever requirements (income, entitlemants, crimes) you write into the law, there are those who will ignore them.
For selective law enforcement, we have
I won't even mention rogue courts.
Newt is just as serious a contender for the Republican ticket as Trump was.
READ MY LIPS-————RINO
Newt lost his mind years ago.
” Newt is insane. “
Agree. The more I hear from him, the more I'm convinced he's got to be trolling for the Beltway tin gods.
Who would serve on such a board? Well, lessee, how about responsible, standup, foursquare, community-service, Chamber of Commerce types? You know, guys who know how to meet a payroll?
The guys who caused the problem in the first place!!!!
Get lost, Newt.
Another is that they refuse to acknowledge that the perps in many unsolved "stranger-murder" cases, officially of "unknown" ethnicity, are in fact known statistically (by comparison with similar crimes which the victims survived to give descriptions of the attackers) to be young black men.
In the 1990's, young black men were responsible for 91% of all murders in which other blacks were the victims, and half of all murders in which non-blacks were the victims. (This last was the figure that crime statistics were being munged to conceal and obscure.)
Since the number of murder victims (about 24,000/year) was almost exactly half black and half nonblack, that meant that the one takeaway that crime statisticians were forbidden from discussing in public was that young black men were committing 75% of ALL the murders in America, and that they were "murdering out" at a rate equal to half the rate at which they were murdering other blacks (usually other young black men) in the drug turf-wars of those years.
Hey, does this qualify for Holder's "courageous" and "honest" discussion of race in America? If so, I wish he'd tell his statisticians to quit lying by omission.
Oh, and the verboten statistic, then, was that black criminals were murdering 6000 nonblack citizens every year ......ten times the rate at which nonblack criminals were murdering black citizens ..... a nice comparison with the 4700 blacks total who were lynched in the U.S. from 1865 to 1962.
And since 1990, the number if illegal aliens has gone way up (thanks to a great extent to the 1986 amnesty). There are those who would like us to believe that there is no corresponding problem in crime, but they are not fooling me. Since many crimes among those "living in the shadows" are not reported, even if we could get true crime statistics, the truth is even worse.
The left is pushing “change” full steam ahead and the right is simply putting on the brakes to “slow that change down”, not because they actually disagree with that change but because they can make a dime off playing the part of the “controlled opposition”. Over the past 50 years what has the right ever been able to reverse. There is only people like Ron Paul who want to dismantle big government.
All of these programs they start they have no intention of stopping, its all about growing the size of government. They see this “change” as nothing more than a means to an end, if they see a chance at winning the future growth (demographics is destiny — something the boomers never understood) they will take it selling you out in a new york minute.