Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Newt Gingrich Facing GOP backlash Over 'Humane' Immigration Policy" (U.K. Guardian)
The Guardian (United Kingdom) ^ | 24 November 2011 | Ewen MacAskell (in USA)

Posted on 11/23/2011 9:05:05 PM PST by AmericanInTokyo

Conservative activists believe Gingrich's views on illegal immigrants has opened up the field for another GOP candidate...

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; borders; campaign; gingrich; illegalaliens; illegals; immigration; legalization; newtgingrich; openborders; primaries; regularization
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last
To: Logical me
Hopefully we won't need your vote.

You didn't need our vote to get McCain thru the primary either...How'd that work out for ya???

You guys are taking the wrong approach...It appears to me that you guys will vote for any Republican who wins the primary...

You'd be wise to support the candidate of those people who will NOT vote for just any Republican who wins the primary...

51 posted on 11/23/2011 11:09:51 PM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: newheart

“Do justice”

They broke the law. Where is the justice for that?


52 posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:13 PM PST by TheZMan (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2794639/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newheart
Somehow the concept of “Do justice. Love mercy. And walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8) does not line up especially well with the idea of putting 11 million Hispanics into cattle cars (Yes, plenty of Freepers advocate this) and shipping them back to Mexico.

Stop abusing the Bible with leftist HERESY and HISTORICAL REVISIONISM. Foreign invaders were not given amnesty. They were not treated compassionately. They were killed.

No one is calling for 11 million in "cattle cars". Buses will do, since we are deporting criminals, not murdering people. But such measures are not necessary, for the most part. Criminal invaders self deport from states that enforce laws. They will self-deport from the country.
53 posted on 11/23/2011 11:34:36 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newheart

I don’t believe in suicide, do you?

My biggest problems with illegals ... other than that they ARE illegal.

1. They come here to steal us blind-— they ride the US gravy train with multiple identities which “impoverished” illegals buy for several thousand dollars each. Vote-crazed candidates do not directly address this outrage—— probably b/c illegals vote several times each, using forged and faked ID’s. - “... but Perry won’t touch it with a ten foot pole since he collapsed over his in-state tuition handouts. Neither can be trusted to do what’s necessary....... cut out ALL benefits.

2. Illegals have no intention of becoming Americans. They pocket all the US benefits they can get, and want to force their culture on the rest of us. NO candidate EVER questions their loyalties........and the threat this poses to US N’tl security.

Do they really care about this country? Do they even understand this country beyond what they can GET from it. Read on.


DID PERRY MAKE A DEAL WITH LA RAZA to place Raza studies (Mexican-American studies) in Texas schools?

Raza studies have been taught in Arizona for a decade...... then they passed a law against it.... but it still goes on.

RAZA STUDIES One of the textbooks used is titled “Occupied America,” which was written by Rodolfo Acuña and includes a speech given by activist and university professor Jose Angel Gutierrez in which he says: “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him,” (pg. 323). The book also talks about the need for Mexico to re-take seven states in the Southwestern United States.

The following rather shocking quotes are taken directly from Occupied America (pg. 167):

“Supporters would execute all White Males over age 16,” (also known as the Plan of San Diego).

“The Southwest would become a Chicano nation.”

In addition to using taxpayer funds to enforce such polarizing beliefs in Latino children in traditional public schools, the organization known as La Raza operates 100 charter schools across the country.

The following is a select list of La Raza charter schools:

-La Academia Semillas del Pueblo (Los Angeles)

-Atzlan Academy (Tucson, AZ)

-Mexicayotl Academy (Nogales, AZ)

-The Dolores Huerta Prepatory High School (Pueblo, CO)

-Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School (St. Paul, MN)

In 2005 alone, $7.9 million in taxpayer funding was given out to these charter schools in the form of U.S. Department of Education grants. These schools stress Latino culture, the Spanish language, the re-conquest of the American Southwest, the establishment of the mythical Atzlan, and even Aztec math.

Anyone who comes here legally to become a part of the United States I welcome with open arms. To those who want to kill us, I will return the favor.


54 posted on 11/23/2011 11:36:55 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins
When America finally realize that we are not permitted by law to get rid of anchor babies, who are legitimate American citizens, then they’ll realize that we’re not getting rid of their parents, and by extension, their grandparents.
Sorry, but the ersatz kritocrats have not rewritten the Constitution here, yet. The Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, is about the children of legal immigrants. Congress can strip citizenship from each one of the criminal beneficiaries.
55 posted on 11/23/2011 11:37:34 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mari2525
Newt was in congress for 20 years. Never once has he introduced or co-sponsored a bill to enforce current laws. He sabotaged efforts to enforce immigration laws in 1994-6, when many Democrats were open to doing so. So why should we believe his election-year promise?
56 posted on 11/23/2011 11:42:48 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo

U.K. Guardian should mind their own business and take care of their own immigration problems...Just saying.


57 posted on 11/24/2011 12:16:41 AM PST by Goldie Lurks (professional moonbat catcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo

“Believe me, Newt’s crack wonk team is in full battle dress mode for this one, and will have some clever damage control narrative dusted off and pushed out there”

Is this the same crack team that failed to file the proper paperwork, meaning Newt’s name won’t be on the primary ballot in Missouri?


58 posted on 11/24/2011 12:16:50 AM PST by bwc2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
What's your plan?

Operation Wetback

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico

59 posted on 11/24/2011 2:34:39 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: newheart
Ever hear of the concept of self-deportation? Take away the bennies, the paid public educations, forcing emergency rooms to provide treatment, crack down on emplloyers, and guess what? Most will go back home.

And even then, so what if we have to still deport a few million? Do we give up on jailing lawbreakers because jail isn't pleasant?

I swear, I haven't seen such an outbreak of stupidity on FR in ages. All in the name of trying to spin away Newt's Beltway-addled mindset.

60 posted on 11/24/2011 3:01:58 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mari2525
Since Newt believes in securing the border, he doesn’t fit the definition of an open border Republican.

Newt also is opposed to a border fence. Which means his talk of securing the borders is just lip service.

61 posted on 11/24/2011 3:04:07 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo
Click to my homepage for full transcription, but here's the highlights of his remarks in the debate:

"...deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border"

"...ultimately you have to find some system – once you’ve put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here."

“...if you’ve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period. If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”

“The Krieble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don’t get a pass to citizenship."

“I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the US, we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers, but I would urge all of you to look at the Krieble Foundation plan.”

62 posted on 11/24/2011 4:07:02 AM PST by Lady Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagnabitt

American citizen children can not be deported against their will.


63 posted on 11/24/2011 4:18:39 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: newheart

I’m with you - I used to be more of hardliner until after I came to Christ, then started really pondering on what He would do. Closing the borders for control, and deporting the more recent lawbreakers is fine by me, but mass deportation of folks with roots seems a bit overboard. That’s why Perry’s “gaffe” seemed to make sense to me too.


64 posted on 11/24/2011 4:31:07 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

Despite what you say, Anwar al Awlaki was a US citizen, an anchor baby. So was the recently born child of a Mexican drug lord whose young wife crossed the border just for that purpose.

The law currently makes anchor babies inevitable; they are US Citizens.

And for anyone to say, “conress can strip” that away is acknowledgement that NOW things are as I say they are.

And congress cannot punish people by using a law passed after the fact: ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution. That means that all anchor babies now citizens will be citizens their entire lives. It cannot be taken from them.


65 posted on 11/24/2011 4:49:46 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo
"His proposal to allow most of the country's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to remain in the US"

Most? That is a gross distortion of what Newt actually said.

66 posted on 11/24/2011 5:16:24 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

Don’t bother posting what Newt actually said, there are too many here who are perfectly willing to tell what he actually means, as far as they are concerned. If Newt says he is for amnesy they will slam him, if he says he is for controlling the borders, they will say he is a lying beltway pol. It really is pointless to argue with those who do not want to hear facts, but prefer to deal in supposition.


67 posted on 11/24/2011 6:36:05 AM PST by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton, "Paradise Lost")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: newheart
Most are not advocating “cattle cars”,and BTW,thats a disingenuous ploy meant to demonize your opponent before the argument even commences, I`ve heard many lefties use it,not a good sign, but here goes anyway.

I say we simply make it a federal offense to hire an illegal, punishable by one year in jail and massive fines. If they can`t get work, they`ll self deport in droves. What employer wants to save a few bucks at the risk of a federal penitentiary and loss of their business? If the illegal uses illegal ID they do hard time in a hell hole of a jail with "Bubba the butt hole buster" as a cell mate. We also make it illegal to give any assistance to illegals, no food stamps, housing, welfare, tuition, NOTHING at all. Make it impossible for them to survive here so they`ll have no choice but to go back on their own.

68 posted on 11/24/2011 7:28:29 AM PST by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ez

If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”

///////////////

How could they have been “paying taxes” and “obeying the law” if they are illegal?


69 posted on 11/24/2011 7:58:39 AM PST by luckybogey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Mari2525
Meh...I don't consider the liberal Wikipedia a valid source.

Check out sites like numbersusa.com and fairus.org for border security info (factual info with plenty of supporting data).

70 posted on 11/24/2011 8:36:28 AM PST by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: xzins
US citizens cannot be deported. True.

Their alien parents can be, however. And kids generally live where their parents want them to live.

If a 30 year old Jamaican woman (without US citizenship) is deported for being a drug dealer, the fact that she has a 4 year old kid born in the USA is not going to stop the deportation. Where the kid lives will be up to mom. She'll likely take the kid to Jamaica...or she could get a US friend or relative to take the kid in. If the kid goes to Jamaica, he/she would be in good company. There are thousands and thousands of born-in-the-USA US citizen children living abroad.

The “anchor baby” element really doesn't kick in until the child moves back to the USA, usually around high school age, and then later as a young adult, files a petition (IR-5) to bring the alien parents over, legally, as lawful permanent residents (green card holder). Of course there are visa ineligibilities for criminals, deportees etc. In fact in Jamaica Mom's case, she's out of luck since narcotics dealing is a permanent immigration bar.

71 posted on 11/24/2011 9:22:32 AM PST by Dagnabitt (Amnesty is Treason. So is immigration, legal or illegal, of Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: newheart

My plan always involved buses not cattle cars.


72 posted on 11/24/2011 9:50:41 AM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Newt does believe in a border fence, he just recognizes that putting a fence along the entire length of the southern border is not feasible, so his plan includes other ways to secure the border where there would not be a fence.


73 posted on 11/24/2011 10:21:47 AM PST by Mari2525
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Mari2525
Newt does believe in a border fence, he just recognizes that putting a fence along the entire length of the southern border is not feasible,

Hardly. India fenced off their entire border with Bangladesh. If it matters, it gets done.

Newt wants the typical half-measures to deal with illegal immigration, so we can pass amnesty again and reset the same clock we got after Simpson-Mazzoli - amnesty for those here and an incentive for more to come here and wait for the next amnesty.

74 posted on 11/24/2011 10:24:48 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

I know that during that 20 years, Newt voted in favor of Reagan’s amnesty bill.

I don’t know why Newt would have to introduce or co-sponsor any bill that says enforce the laws we’ve already passed. Seems rather silly.

I know in 1994-1996 Newt was pushing through the conservative agenda, i.e. the Contract with America. How and why did he sabotage efforts to enforce the immigration laws during just those 2 years in office? I take it he didn’t sabotage efforts to enforce immigration from 1980-1995, or in his last years in office, 1997-1999?

Maybe the Democrats were only saying they were open to the immigration issue to derail the passage of the conservative agenda? Sorry, I don’t believe Democrats nor do I trust them and I didn’t in the 1990’s either.


75 posted on 11/24/2011 10:52:05 AM PST by Mari2525
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: newheart
Somehow the concept of “Do justice. Love mercy. And walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8) does not line up especially well with the idea of putting 11 million Hispanics into cattle cars (Yes, plenty of Freepers advocate this) and shipping them back to Mexico.

Newt is right on this one.

Sometimes a picture can express sentiments better than words can.


76 posted on 11/24/2011 11:45:38 AM PST by Ron H. (No to Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Huntsmen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232

My plan always involved container cargo ships. Very efficient.


77 posted on 11/24/2011 11:49:12 AM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long
.... Stop with the sensationalism.

That's the best open borders boosters and advocates of law breaker sympathizers can come up with.

78 posted on 11/24/2011 11:50:59 AM PST by Ron H. (No to Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Huntsmen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo; newheart
I am truly embarrassed for you.

Truly self-embarrassing. If this person had any shame about them self they would be downright shameful as well.

79 posted on 11/24/2011 11:55:41 AM PST by Ron H. (No to Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Huntsmen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: newheart

I’ve read it. Point 6 is sure to fail. And point 10 though admirable would not last long.


80 posted on 11/24/2011 12:00:16 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CT
.... But remember how many of these people celebrate Cinco Demayo over Independence Day.

And who also refuse to pledge their allegiance to their new found, albeit illegally, country. No allegiance, no fealty but only to their own country from whence to spewed forth. A country divided against itself cannot stand.

81 posted on 11/24/2011 12:00:52 PM PST by Ron H. (No to Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Huntsmen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
Hopefully we won't need your vote.

You must be a comedian by trade. You're funny.

82 posted on 11/24/2011 12:03:27 PM PST by Ron H. (No to Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Huntsmen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: trebb

Weeds also have roots.

Before you call me wrong for comparing people to weeds, let me pre-empt:

Jesus did it, and we are to “have the mind of Christ”.

References available upon request.


83 posted on 11/24/2011 4:11:06 PM PST by ExGeeEye (It will take a revolution to reinstate the constitution. (HT FtP))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Dagnabitt

So, when the illegals all become Jamaican drug dealers with new babies, then we have a problem.

When they are older parents and grandparents, not newer illegals who Gingrich want to support, then they likely will have kids and grandkids old enough to keep them here.

You and I both know they’ll not be denied a visitor’s visa to visit family anytime they want.


84 posted on 11/24/2011 8:15:28 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye
Before you call me wrong for comparing people to weeds, let me pre-empt: Jesus did it, and we are to “have the mind of Christ”.

I am aware of the reference in His parables. You might also note that He was using it in the context of His role in getting us to the Kingdom of Heaven and even said to let the weeds and wheat grow together to be sorted once the wheat was ready for harvest and finished with: 36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.

I get accused of using Scripture out of context, but I really try hard to keep my references within the intent.

God Bless

85 posted on 11/25/2011 4:10:20 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: newheart
cattle cars

Can your point be made without the left-wing hyperbole?

86 posted on 11/25/2011 7:16:41 AM PST by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mari2525
I don’t know why Newt would have to introduce or co-sponsor any bill that says enforce the laws we’ve already passed. Seems rather silly.
He never called for enforcement.

I know in 1994-1996 Newt was pushing through the conservative agenda, i.e. the Contract with America. How and why did he sabotage efforts to enforce the immigration laws during just those 2 years in office? I take it he didn’t sabotage efforts to enforce immigration from 1980-1995, or in his last years in office, 1997-1999?
He killed the Smith-Simpson bill on immigration in 1995-96. He also helped scuttled the Jordan Commission.

Maybe the Democrats were only saying they were open to the immigration issue to derail the passage of the conservative agenda? Sorry, I don’t believe Democrats nor do I trust them and I didn’t in the 1990’s either.
Then you should look up the United States Commission on Immigration Reform (ie Jordan Commission) http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/

87 posted on 11/25/2011 10:19:39 AM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Jagdgewehr; Jane Long; goldstategop; Dagnabitt; napscoordinator; MrEdd; AmericanInTokyo; berdie; ...
cattle cars

Can your point be made without the left-wing hyperbole?

Of course, though I would argue that it is not left-wing hyperbole, just hyperbole. Sadly though, even on this thread alone we have at least one who is in favor of cattle cars, and one who would prefer forced marches of 25 miles a day. The original cattle car comment came from another thread, but was actually used tongue-in-cheek by someone else to satirize some of the more fanatic "deport them all, no exceptions" posts. Perhaps that cattle car comment was more artfully posed than mine, but the tone of so many posts in this discussion is frankly, quite chilling.

After reading the firestorm of responses to me, I will venture a response.

I still believe that we are to "Do justice. Love mercy. And walk humbly with God." And my understanding is not, as has been suggested, "leftist heresy and historical revisionism."

Yes, we are to "do justice." If that's the end of the story, then even putting people into cattle cars and sending them back to Mexico would be justice. Although I am still trying to figure out exactly what the teenager who was brought here at the age of two is supposed to do. I guess, the consensus would be that he should immediately admit that he is here illegally, turn his parents and his siblings in to the authorities and head back to Mexico himself. He probably needs to learn to speak Spanish on the way, but who cares he is illegal, dammit, and is lucky we don't just toss him in jail and throw away the key.

But if justice is all that we are called to, there would be no human left on the planet. God would have simply destroyed the world at the Fall, or its inhabitants by the flood giving no inside information to Noah.

However, we are called to mercy, just as much as we are called to justice. That is not something I see in the forced deportation position, and I do see it in Gingrich's proposal. (For the record, I also see a degree of mercy in the self-deportation approach, elements of which can be found in Newts plan. Curiously though, Newt's plan has more traditional retributive and punitive justice than the self-deportation option.)

Newt's plan is not perfect. I doubt there is a perfect plan at this point.

He starts with controlling the border as a "national security imperative," and commits to providing the resources to accomplish it. So posters can argue that he is an "open-borders" guy, but they are wrong. Or simply lying.

He advocates a path to legality for some, but not all and takes a very sober-minded approach to distinguishing those who should go and those who can stay. But he is not advocating blanket amnesty regardless of how many times that accusation is posted against him. He is not advocating the abandonment of the rule of law.

Don' take my word for it. Read it for yourself. www.newt.org/solutions/immigration.

Newt is not the perfect candidate, and as I have said, he does not have the perfect plan. But it is reasonable. And, in my view, it more reflects the values that this nation is built on than any plan I have seen.

Say what you will about Newt, but he is a shrewd politician. He recognizes that no Republican will win without serious Hispanic and independent support in several swing states. Marco Rubio has made it clear that the continual, irrational call to deport them all is going to hurt the GOP's chances to boot the current occupant of the White House. Given that, providing a path to legality for productive people who would prefer repatriation and who have "deep ties to America, including family, church and community," is, in my opinion, far preferable to allowing the continued occupation of the White House by those who really do intend to destroy this nation.

And for those who have graciously offered to be embarrassed for me, please don't worry. When I feel it necessary I am perfectly capable of being embarrassed on my own behalf. But this ain't one of those times.

88 posted on 11/25/2011 10:21:27 AM PST by newheart (When does policy become treason?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Despite what you say, Anwar al Awlaki was a US citizen, an anchor baby. So was the recently born child of a Mexican drug lord whose young wife crossed the border just for that purpose.
They are deemed citizens by the Federal bureaucracy, a mistake which Congress can rectify.

The law currently makes anchor babies inevitable; they are US Citizens.
The law is unclear, and there is no Constitutional basis. Thus, Congress can and should fix this.

And congress cannot punish people by using a law passed after the fact: ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution. That means that all anchor babies now citizens will be citizens their entire lives. It cannot be taken from them.
People can and do lose benefits, to which they were not entitled, all the time.

89 posted on 11/25/2011 10:26:20 AM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: newheart

Good post - it’s refreshing to have someone take the time to explore the more salient angles. I think most of the combativeness is due to folks wanting what they want and expecting it to “just happen”. Newt/Cain/Perry/Bachmann are all viable replacements for Obama and we need to focus on ousting him then putting pressure on whoever ends up in the WH to seal the borders, then look at what we have and devise a plan (not a comprehensive plan, but a step-at-a-time plan) to see who can be gotten rid of and to deny benefit to the remaining illegals.


90 posted on 11/25/2011 12:19:53 PM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: newheart

Since when is it “doing Justice” to have a second set of legal circumstances apply to a special class of people?

We have a constitutionally republican form of government. This means, “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Our immigration laws are the result of The People’s desire for orderly immigration of foreign nationals, particularly to avoid the kind of travesty we now have and should correct immediately by enforcing our laws. To imply, as you have, that it is unmerciful iw flat-out wrong. What part of illegal don’t you get?

Right now, in many communities, there exist two levels of laws: one for citizens, another for illegal aliens. Two citizens in my community were murdered by illegal aliens. The then Chief of Police, a Hispanic, let them go on their own recognizance before all the evidence was in, and of course the two perps vanished.

Does that sound like the families of the victims have Justice?

I have been in line at the DMV and witnessed people who could not speak English and who did not have a green card, getting a drivers license. My nephew stepped up to get his license, and had to present a birth certificate! That is not Justice, it is preferential treatment and in my state ordained by law!

Does this strike you as “just” and equitable?

Newt Gingrich would invent an extra-Constitutional form of citizenship for illegal aliens, and anyone with sense knows that it is only to satisfy employers who do not want to pay a living wage to U.S. workers. SCOTUS would strike it down in a heartbeat.

I do not advocate splitting up families because the whole family should be deported. Children go with parents. Just because a person is born here doesn’t automatically mean they’re a citizen.

The 14th Amendment has bee misinterpreted time and again.

From the Holding of the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

Per Leo Donofrio - This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States. The “holding”, which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the “dicta“, which is not considered legal precedent...the actual holding of the court is limited to “the single question” of whether the children of aliens who have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States” are 14th Amendment citizens.

The holding does not specifically grant 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born in the US of illegal aliens, or even of those here temporarily (tourists and students). Numerous legislative attempts have been made on both sides of the Congressional aisle – as well as in a multitude of States – to clarify this holding by statute as to the children of illegal immigrants (aka “anchor babies”).

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-obama-administration-quietly-scrubbed-the-foreign-affairs-manual-in-august-2009-to-expand-the-holding-of-wong-kim-ark/


91 posted on 11/25/2011 12:38:22 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: newheart
A gracious reply and an optomistic viewpoint.

As I pointed out, I felt that Newt's item 6 was doomed to failure. Those that want to become citizens presently suffer hardships to become either legal or citizens. This is from my experience and, of course, is anecdotal. But I'll sure lay odds that this observation applies generally. That leaves the vast majority in the twilight, in many cases becoming a drain on American society in ways not readily apparent. They do use the backdoor free health care(I am not objecting to that just pointing it out) and because of their situation they burden human services which would otherwise not assign resources to people not legally here. So, in two ways, at least, point 6 is sure to fail. They don't want to be legal, and they can't meet the self-sufficiency requirement of point 6.

92 posted on 11/25/2011 1:36:17 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
optomistic - optimistic

Speel chek is awr frend.

93 posted on 11/25/2011 1:43:15 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Congress can rectify.

You are entirely missing the point. Saying Congress can rectify something does not change the citizenship status of those already U.S. citizens.

The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.

94 posted on 11/25/2011 1:47:30 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Of course those anecdotes you provide are not justice. They are a product of a PC culture and willful violation of the law. But mass deportation will not solve that. And even Gingrich’s paths to legality will not solve that. It is corruption plain and simple and will always exist.

As for Wong, no amount of argument that the Supremes got it wrong is going to change it. It will take another case (and I seriously doubt that any case related to Obama’s citizenship is going to be the one.)

And I simply disagree that guest worker visas would be a separate class of citizenship.

I don’t think Newts plan is perfect. But at this point i prefer it to any I have seen. I do not believe this nation is ready for the civil unrest that will accompany the forced deportation of 11 million people. But a reasoned path to legality along with strict guidelines as to who becomes eligible may work. I know that the response will be that we already have strict guidelines—if you. Are illegal that’s it. But I do not think that a.pproach is feasible, affordable, or, as Newt put it, humane. Anyone is free to disagree.


95 posted on 11/25/2011 1:48:42 PM PST by newheart (When does policy become treason?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: newheart

I didn’t say “forced deportation”, did I? Don’t put words in my mouth!

Alabama has successfully managed to make illegal aliens leave on their own. That is a good example of what I want to see nationwide.

Why should it be horrifying for foreign nationals to return to their country of origin? Mexico is not a cesspool. Neither is Honduras, or the the Dominican Republic, or Ghana, or any other place from which so many illegal originate.

With unemployment so high, we don’t need guest workers, so visas for them aren’t practical.

As for your mis-statement about “the Supremes got it wrong”, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not understand their “Holding”. SCOTUS did not “get it” wrong. To be born under the jurisdiction of the United States means just that - parents here legally, legal residents intending to become citizens.

Illegal aliens here from Mexico are described by the Mexican government as Mexicans. They are under the sovereignty of the Mexican government. Here illegally, under the sovereign protection of Mexico, their children are all born Mexican citizens - NOT U.S. citizens.

Eisenhower had over a million Mexicans deported in the 1950s. It is entirely feasible to do that again, but I firmly believe the majority will voluntarily self-deport. The majority of illegals do not want to become citizens of the U.S. - they just want the freebies that come from the generosity of Yankees who don’t realize they’re being snookered.


96 posted on 11/25/2011 2:54:53 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

If only the distinction between holding and dictum were that clear cut. Language within the context of a holding may or may not have the weight of holding. That is the subject of future cases and legal journals.

In either case I am not disputing that we are discussing a class of individuals who are here illegally. I might even reluctantly stipulate the potential illegality of a minor child that has lived here most of his or her life. I am talking about, and I think Newt is talking about a path to legality for certain classes of individuals but not all. So wholesale deportation is, IMHO, not the best answer.

I used ‘wholesale’ in deference to your discomfort with ‘forced.’ But I don’t think forced is a wrong choice of words despite the fact that you did not explicitly use it . Force can take many forms and not all are bad. I know you advocate self-deportation. And I have considerable sympathy for that approach. Remove the magnets and many illegals will leave. Of those that remain it would still be more humane to distinguish between those with real, long-standing ties and roots who are otherwise productive members of the community and those who ar only here for the freebies. A path to legality for the former and a path back to the border for the latter would be just fine with me.

Any chance you have some empirical evidence that “most” are here just to snooker us and have no desire to naturalize?


97 posted on 11/25/2011 3:41:57 PM PST by newheart (When does policy become treason?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: newheart

We either follow the laws we have, such as our immigration laws, or we continue down the Obama path of picking and choosing which laws we will uphold.

Illegal Aliens Get Millions In Monthly Welfare Checks
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jul/illegal-aliens-get-monthly-welfare-checks-0

Illegal Aliens Get More Welfare Benefits Than Citizens
http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/selwyn-duke/7042-illegal-aliens-get-more-welfare-benefits-than-citizens

Try googling “Illegal Aliens and Welfare” for more of these articles.


98 posted on 11/25/2011 3:53:56 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Speaker Gingrich has a deep history of supporting AMNESTY
99 posted on 11/26/2011 2:26:06 PM PST by Fred ("The terrorists' want to kill us, so we need to kill them first!" http://hermancain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: newheart
Since you saw fit to include me in your general response,why not a specific response to my very logical, humane and extremely reasonable solution,a solution that many other reasonable people have supported? Or is a specific response a bit too logical and reasonable for your consideration?
100 posted on 11/26/2011 4:06:23 PM PST by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson