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?
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.