ROFL
Posted on 11/22/2011 7:54:13 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Edited on 11/22/2011 8:03:27 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
“Where are all the people who were criticizing Perry for having a more conservative immigration stance than Newt?”
Here I am!
I’m for Cain.
It is abundantly clear the MSM won’t go after Newt Gringo much on this because they AGREE WITH HIM!!! Perhaps Neuter can run as Obama’s VP if things don’t work out in the primary?
I agree with you 100%.
What has the GOP done so far? What part of common sense don’t you get? Are you actually living in a dream world where ALL the illegals will be deported? Anyone that makes you that promise, is a conman for they know all they have to do is tickle your ears and they have you.
Perry’s stance is NOT more conservative than Newt.
Bachman clearly did not listen to what Gingrich said when she responded, and the rest tried to pile onto Bachman’s misinterpretation in order to try to injure Newt. However, what he laid out was a policy statement on how to address the problem, which is actionable.
Mrs Rainman and I were talking about this, and the difference between what Newt said and what Perry said. First, Newt addressed Controling the Border, then the talked about getting rid of a huge chunk of illegals, but having some who would be allowed to stay .. as “legal residents”, not citizens. That is the same as permanent green card ... cant vote, but have to pay taxes. If they want the perks of citizenship, they would have to go thru the process ... so no amnesty.
Compare that with Perry, who is giving the benefits of citizenship (in-state tuition assistance) without addressing the fact that they are illegal. I have heard a lot on FR bitzen about Newt giving amnesty, but he did no such thing. I think the problem Newt has is he used the wrong adjective last night. He said Humane, and he should have used Actionable. No plan on illegals means squat if it is not actionable. He started this direction when talking about what went wrong under Reagan.
The operative question for those who hate Newt, is what exactly is your candidate’s plan. As Luntz said last night, nobody has advocated trying to send them ALL home ... but several of them have not really laid out what thier plans are either. They are hiding in the shadows, because NONE of them is going to be able to propose a realistic plan that will satiate those of you who want red meat on this issue.
I think Newts plan has several good componets ... 1) it is actionable ... not just pablum for those looking for sound bites. The first step is secure the border! What is wrong with that?
The second step is create a guest worker program. This addresses a lot of the agri-need for illegals. They can come for the season, work, then they go home. It keeps us from having apples that cost $10 each.
The third step is now what to do about those who are here. No place in his plan are they getting citizenship ... they may get permission to stay, but that is not citizenship. Most will be forced to leave immediatly.
The real question is, what is actually wrong with this plan, and who is proposing a better idea?
Absolutely, it is. It’s not want we want but, we too, have to being realistic and not pie in the sky.
Perhaps you want to check out the debate for yourself. I have learned many comments are biased regarding some candidates - to push their own candidate. See what Newt or any candidate says himself is always the better way.
Thats not true.
This article is from 11/9/11, talking about how apples are rotting on the trees because the season was late and the illegals moved on to other crops, and the locals who are unemployed dont want to work for those wages.
Reagan was not right 100% of the time. Look at what happened when he did it?
It was just as bad as bailing out of Beirut after the Marine Barracks were hit.
He’s right. Mass deport of Mexis is not going to happen.
Fuss and fume all you like, but thats one policy that will
not happen.
Perry not only wants to control the border, he has tried within the limits of the power of a governor to do so. He has also passed voter ID legislation and pushed anti-sanctuary city legislation (which the legislature wouldn’t pass). I could go on, but I doubt that it would be useful.
Newt’s “plan” is simply a way of slowly stepping toward full legalization, as were the Bush/McCain initiatives.
Being able to remain in the US is itself the single greatest “perk of citizenship”. Newt’s “plan” is only “actionable” because it is what the CFR and the current political class want. And I don’t think “humane” was a mistake. It is simply a way of trying to guilt opposition into silence.
I think this, combined with all the rest of Newt’s baggage, is going to sink him.
I’m waiting for someone to ask about the ‘fairness’ to all those who came here legally. To obtain U.S. citizenship is not easy, it’s time consuming, and many times it’s pretty expensive.
How about THOSE people, Mr. Gingrich?
Maybe post #352 tells us why newt shot himself in the foot?
Ok, just want to be clear with your position, you don’t think they are worthy of human dignity because they came here illegally. Is that correct?
He has a lot of baggage.
First Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, now (ugg) Newt. This is a recipe for Romney.
Okay folks, all of you who were buying the Gingrich swill, how’s your courage now?
Rabscuttle385 and Hijinx, I know you two weren’t having any of it. Hopefully those that were will wake the hell up.
Newt can talk a great game, and then he’ll have a couch session with Pelosi, front for illegals, and basically do whatever the hell he wants that isn’t what we should be doing.
Not now, not ever will I support Newt Gingrich.
I’ve back the last Republican I ever will that has made it more than clear that they will help the Left install their agenda.
Sorry, but F U Newt.
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.