Posted on 11/24/2011 7:18:49 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
At the top of the Republican presidential pack, Newt Gingrich is poised for what some call the “Perry Plunge” for supporting part of the pro-immigrant DREAM Act.
Like former frontrunner Rick Perry, Gingrich became a target of criticism among fellow Republicans at Tuesday night’s nationally televised debate for saying that some people should be allowed to stay in the United States even if they’re here illegally.
(snip)
Gingrich’s comments were quickly blasted on conservative websites like Free Republic. The outrage with Gingrich underscored the danger of having a soft line on immigration as well as the tenuousness of leading the Republican field.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
How long do you think judges and democrats are going to allow illegal aliens to remain second class citizens who can't vote? You do know that the misinterpretation of the 14th means their offspring are automatic citizens?
Under Gingrich's plan no one will be deported, no matter how long they've been here. It's simply a foot in the door to another mass amnesty, just as Bush/Kennedy was.
Barack is that you? Newt didn't propose Mass-amnesty!
Stop the smears.
I may eventually be proven wrong, but I think they have’t attacked Newt’s weight because he will personally call out the reporters and editors on the matter. And most reporters and editors are like big, ugly rats, and they run when they become the target.
Interesting video. Here’s my question: What conclusion do you draw from this, policy-wise? Reagan flat-out advocates amnesty in that video. Do you think we should support amnesty because Reagan did? Should we accept a candidate who is pro-amnesty because Reagan was and turned out ok? What should our position on amnesty be?
If you wish a “reasonable exchange of ideas” on the subject of a guy who says one thing while doing the precise opposite, you are a serious part of the problem. I’m not trying to invite an exchange. My purpose was to put some FACTS about this guy’s record out there.
I was once a supporter and he was my Rep for some time. I did several interviews with him over the years. As a panalist, I asked him a question in a 1990 debate here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIo8FJJMps8.
Listen to the groans as Newt starts to answer. Those are his constituents who didn’t believe him back in ‘90.
You could be the poster boy for the old saw that “Being too open-minded puts one at risk of having one’s brain fall out.”
There were many who supported the intent of Reagans supporting “Amnesty” at that time for the deals that were stuck for doing so. Needless saying the democrates didn’t keep their end of the bargan as usual.
The republicans have yet to see they need stop gaps from the democrates always failing to come thru....that’s possible if they’’d really want to get the job done...one could easily then assume they do not want to...or just haven’t the will to put the work in to do that.
Well, speaking of side issues like Newt’s fatness, I’ve also pondered as to how well the prospect of having Calista as First Lady will go over with women voters, were Newt to be the nominee. Being a sort of side mistress for a few years before wife number two exited the scene... how well will that play when the media decides to put a big spotlight on it?
Once again you’re invite is anything but that...I’ll pass again.
Newt’s plan:
SOLUTIONS
1. Control the border.
Notice that in his plan, Step “ONE” is secure the border. Do you people not listen? He said that the other night. Please pay attention.
BTW this is the year 2012...not 1990....things have definately changed in our country from that time and so have all the candidates who are running. A grasp on 9/11 and the economic fall should be an eyeopener for most.
Very, very weak. Not far from Obama.
He's dead wrong on these points:
1. There MUST be a wall, not a controlled border. An impenetrable wall (yes Virgina, it's possible...Israel has one, there used to be one around Berlin too)
2. Every illegal caught/identified by law enforcement must be deported, within 30 days, no matter WHAT their "family ties".
3. Proof of legal residency must be provided to access ANY government service to include welfare, food stamps, SCHOOLS etc.
4. Employers caught knowingly, or NEGLIGENTLY employing illegals should face a fine of $25,000 per incident AND imprisonment of not less than 10 years PER INCIDENT.
5. A guest worker program must be implemented which includes full background checks in the country of origin, biometric tracking AND FULL RESIDENCY RIGHTS while in the country. That residency cannot exceed 7 months out of every year.
For you to come onto this forum and shill for Gingrich or any other amnesty weakling is disgraceful.
They are trying to kill Gingrich. I think the left fears him, because he can make Obama look sick in debates. Romney wins the independents - but maybe Newt can too, he has the ability since he has been pink on some issues. I’d rather have Newt over Romney, in the degrees of trust Newt is more to the right and Romney is all over the road, a political drunk driver.
Yet Romney looks like Patton compared to Obama, the country needs help.
The fact about the 12 million illegal immigrants, if the laws were ever enforced in this nation - and the illegals could not find work because of sanctions against employers, they would go home. It has been proven and it is as simple as that, and far less would come. Right now very few illegals are entering due to the invisible recession - so there is some upside and much validity to the economic argument.
So long as businesses can earn a smuggler’s profit, and violate the law, there will be a demand for low wage illegals who never complain and work seven days. Because they have no choice. That really should be stopped. I always marvel how the Democrats proudly brag about their wondrous representation of the downtrodden African-Americans, yet allow millions of illegals to take jobs that the unemployed hordes of blacks could and should have. Has anyone asked that question?
BTW this is the year 2012...not 1990....things have definately changed in our country from that time and so have all the candidates who are running. A grasp on 9/11 and the economic fall should be an eyeopener for most.
Ahhh, the Cain strategy, Trash your opponents with lies, very presidential.
Absolutely correct! Some of the morons attacking Newt are not thinking beyond Ron Paul or whoever it is they THINK should be in the race. Actually, I believe some of them are masquerading as conservatives while being either libs or libertarians. And by the way - libertarians are not conservatives, IMO.
No, I am not wrong. Again, this is a tactic of the Left to redefine the meaning of words. Obama and McCain claim their plan is not an amnesty. Instead, the illegals must pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line on an earned path to citizenship. Allowing people to stay and work here is an amnesty. They are rewarded with the objective of their crime. Most did not come here illegally to become citizens. Their American born children and grandchildren will be US citizens thru birthright citizenship.
Definition: Amnesty, from the same Greek root as "amnesia," forgives past crimes and removes them from the record for future purposes. In the context of immigration, amnesty is commonly defined as granting legal status to a group of individuals unlawfully present in a country. It overlooks the alien's illegal entry and ongoing illegal presence and creates a new legal status that allows the recipient to live and work in the country.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: The textbook example of an amnesty. The 1986 law's path to citizenship was not automatic. The legislation stipulated several requirements to receive amnesty, including payment of application fees, acquisition of English-language skills, understanding of American civics, a medical exam, and registration for military service. Individuals convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. No one disputes that this act provided amnesty. Supporters said it would be a “one-time” amnesty. It was estimated that one million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million.
We’ve had work visas etc. for years and years where they come here to work and then go home....it was never considered Amnesty because it isn’t.
As someone who issued such visas, yes we have temporary work visas with the operative word being temporary. There is a beginning and an end. They don't confer permanent residency nor do the provide a green card, i.e., Legal Permanent Residency status. LPRs can do about everything a citizen can except vote. There is also a five year waiting period before you can become eligible for such benefits as Medicaid and food stamps.
Newt has said their must be stiff penalities for those who break the laws which will be newly established....the current laws aren’t and cannot be enforced without streamlingin and changin it’s outdated model. Newt wants to do that....and so do those who are trying to change the immigration system and bring it into this century of operation where it’s effective.
Pure horsepucky. We already have stiff penalties for those who broke the law. It is not a matter of being outdated but having the political will to enforce them. Sanctuary cities are illegal but the federal government and most states do nothing about it. Very few employers are fined for hiring illegals. SCOTUS upheld the AZ mandadatory E-Verify law this year. Obama has started a de facto amnesty by taking the 300,000 immigration cases for pending deportation and reviewing them to winnow out just "criminal aliens" and allowing the rest to stay and work here. In fact, Obama will have the feds issue work permits to illegal aliens thereby legalizing their status.
There isn’t an American who is familiar with the immigration laws who don’t want to see them changed to fit what we’re dealing with now....it’s an antique uniforceable system as it now stands.
Not so. We need to change our legal immigration policies to cut down on the numbers and have a merit based system rather than the kinship system we have now. We bring in 1.2 million legal immigrants a year now--more than the rest of the world combined--and another 500,000 enter illegally. 25% of the adults who enter as part of the 1.2 million lack even a high school degree. We are importing poverty and high school dropouts. Almost 57% of all immigrant headed households with children use at least one welfare program. Milton Friedman said that, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.
Newt does address this as well and of course you are right this must be stopped and a good part of why the illegals continue to come here. Cut that out of the equation and a huge dent would be made in them coming here.
So, in your book anyone who doesn't agree with Newt on this issue is either blinded by their passion for another candidate, a lefty or stupid.
In your book it's NOT POSSIBLE to be opposed to this plan on principle.
The problem with Perry is that he could articulate his position in a lucid manner. Newt does not have that problem and Newt, by the way, is correct. His position is beneficial to the conservative cause and is realistic and is just.
“And it is disingenuous at best to suggest that what he said this week doesn’t confirm his previous ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ position.”
Let’s get CURRENT shall we?
http://www.newt.org/solutions/immigration
1. No “comprehensive” plan can work. President Bush could not pass one during six years with a Republican Congress. President Obama could not pass one with a Democratic Congress. Immigration reform can be outlined as a complete proposal but has to be passed in a series of steps, with each one understood and passed on its own merits.
http://www.newt.org/solutions/immigration
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.