Skip to comments."Newt Gingrich Facing GOP backlash Over 'Humane' Immigration Policy" (U.K. Guardian)
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 ...
Newt also is opposed to a border fence. Which means his talk of securing the borders is just lip service.
"...deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border"
"...ultimately you have to find some system once youve 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 youve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period. If youve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, youve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I dont think were 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 dont get a pass to citizenship."
I do believe if youve 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.
American citizen children can not be deported against their will.
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.
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.
Most? That is a gross distortion of what Newt actually said.
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.
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.
If youve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, youve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I dont think were 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?
Check out sites like numbersusa.com and fairus.org for border security info (factual info with plenty of supporting data).
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.
My plan always involved buses not cattle cars.
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.
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.
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.
Newt is right on this one.
Sometimes a picture can express sentiments better than words can.
My plan always involved container cargo ships. Very efficient.
That's the best open borders boosters and advocates of law breaker sympathizers can come up with.
Truly self-embarrassing. If this person had any shame about them self they would be downright shameful as well.
I’ve read it. Point 6 is sure to fail. And point 10 though admirable would not last long.