Gingrich opens door for illegal immigrants (Washington Times)

The Washington Times ^ | 25 January 2012 | Seth McLaughlin

[AmericanInTokyo]

MIAMI — Fighting to curry favor with Florida’s large pool of Hispanic voters, Newt Gingrich on Wednesday called for a guest-worker program for most illegal immigrants, but his campaign could not say whether those people would be on a path to citizenship - the key question in the immigration debate.

Under close questioning by Univision’s political host, Jorge Ramos, Mr. Gingrich said he would grant quick citizenship rights to illegal immigrants...

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

So let me get this straight ... a few days ago, Newt was running anti-illegal-immigration ads aimed against Romney.

But after blowback from FLA GOP Hispanics (Rubio, et al), he immediately pulls the ads and is now all gung-ho for "Pathways To Citizenship" for illegals, and mocking Romney's plans to increase the self-deportation flow via actually enforcing existing laws.

What's the proper term for simultaneous FlipFlopping + Pandering?

A Flippander?

Panderflop?

Flipanderflop?

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Or was Newt’s pulled ad one that claimed that Romney was *anti-* immigrant? If so, then maybe it’s just a simple flipless pander.

[ckilmer]

Congress must charge the Department of Justice to establish a “citizens’ review” process for those here outside the law. It would establish committees to process these cases in individual communities and determine who will continue on this path to legality, and who will be sent home. Congress must define understandable, clear, objective legal standards that will be applied equally during this process.
.............
This is the key language where the USA would get screwed. The problem here is not that Congress would set out clear guidelines—rather the problem is that local would have the ultimate AUTHORITY to determine “who will continue on this path to legality”.

It absolutely does NOT matter what guideline the Congress lays down. It will be obeyed to the letter in American counties. But in counties that have heavy illegal populations —distant congressional directives will be totally IGNORED.

If you don’t get this then study what happened to the Reagan law that was passed in 1986. The border enforcement part of the law was totally ignored and the Mexicans saw the law as a surrender and began to pour over the border.

[ckilmer]

Congress must charge the Department of Justice to establish a “citizens’ review” process for those here outside the law. It would establish committees to process these cases in individual communities and determine who will continue on this path to legality, and who will be sent home. Congress must define understandable, clear, objective legal standards that will be applied equally during this process.
.............
This is the key language where the USA would get screwed. The problem here is not that Congress would set out clear guidelines—rather the problem is that local would have the ultimate AUTHORITY to determine “who will continue on this path to legality”.

It absolutely does NOT matter what guideline the Congress lays down. It will be obeyed to the letter in American counties. But in counties that have heavy illegal populations —distant congressional directives will be totally IGNORED.

If you don’t get this then study what happened to the Reagan law that was passed in 1986. The border enforcement part of the law was totally ignored and the Mexicans saw the law as a surrender and began to pour over the border.

[ckilmer]

yeah this is right.

[fightinJAG]

Courage, my man!

Thanks for the kind words.

[zeestephen]

Chain Migration - which is the official term for extended family immigration - is central to our current predicament.

In 2010, 75% of new Green Cards were issued to family members of recent immigrants.

I support a money based immigration policy.

Applicants should be ranked by salary, with a strictly enforced minimum pay level.

If some American company is willing to pay you $150,000 a year, that’s good enough for me.

If this guy loses his job next year, tough, go home.

Foreign business owners and foreign entrepreneurs would be a more complex issue, but something like a guaranteed, bonded minimum tax contribution each year would be sensible starting point.

If these guys or women can stay above the minimum financial requirements for three years - BINGO - welcome to the USA fellow citizen.

[ckilmer]

Below is the key provision in Newt’s proposal to let in illegals.
............
“
Congress must charge the Department of Justice to establish a “citizens’ review” process for those here outside the law. It would establish committees to process these cases in individual communities and determine who will continue on this path to legality, and who will be sent home. Congress must define understandable, clear, objective legal standards that will be applied equally during this process.
“
.............
This is the key language where the USA would get screwed. The problem here is not that Congress would set out clear guidelines—rather the problem is that local would have the ultimate AUTHORITY to determine “who will continue on this path to legality”.

It absolutely does NOT matter what guideline the Congress lays down. It will be obeyed to the letter in American counties. But in counties that have heavy illegal populations —distant congressional directives will be totally IGNORED. These counties will let in EVERYONE—especially from countries of the county’s dominant ethnic group. These counties will become counties that attract illegals from all over the USA. Further these counties will attract and give entry to illegals from all over the world.

If you don’t get this then study what happened to the Reagan law that was passed in 1986. The border enforcement part of the law was totally ignored and the Mexicans saw the law as a surrender and began to pour over the border.

[zeestephen]

Excellent points.

If a written law is not enforced, then what’s the point of the law?

If the Constitution can be whimsically interpreted by any federal judge, then what’s the point of a Constitution?

[HiTech RedNeck]

And voila, lots of Nuevo Mexico Cities and the like.

It would be ugly. Ghettos.

If there is a bright side of it, the ghettos concentrating the “ex illegales” in a few small spots will reduce their electoral impact versus spreading out.

But I think Congress is going to barf at the idea of these ghettos. And as now, nothing will be done.

[HiTech RedNeck]

There can’t be multiple contradictory policies. You can’t pander if you can’t deliver.

Newt is an idea guy, and sometimes his ideas are brilliant. Other times they stink. This looks to be one of the stinkier versions. But he’s not utterly unreasonable, for example how he backed off of global warming.

[fightinJAG]

I think you’re right.

I don’t think we have an alternative, candidate-wise, but we sure as shootin’ could be raising a bigger ruckus about this than we are.

As it is, we are sending the message, as I hear so often hear, that conservatives simply “don’t care” about anything except beating Obama.

I totally want to defeat Obama. But there’s more that needs to be done.

[fightinJAG]

hear = here

Sorry.

Ugh.

[Bigg Red]

I totally want to defeat Obama. But there’s more that needs to be done.

&&&
Ditto!

So disgusted with what we are left with here in terms of candidates. The only real conservative still in the race is Santorum, and he just does not have the money to compete with the Newt Romrich

[ckilmer]

Yeah, I’m not against newt but if you support newt —you have to know that he is just as capable as Reagan of doing boners that totally screw up the country as happened in 1986 with Reagan’s amnesty bill.

Therefor if you support newt, for the sake of the republic, you also have to be quite willing to get into his face.

[freedomfiter2]

Exactly, we don’t need new laws to address the illegal immigration problem, we simply need to enforce the laws we already have. Newt is being dishonest.

[ckilmer]

If there is a bright side of it, the ghettos concentrating the “ex illegales” in a few small spots will reduce their electoral impact versus spreading out.
..............
No what will happen is that it will create small countries inside the USA. The USA will further balkanize and crack up.

[AmericanInTokyo]

It can be called, rationalizing, slippery slope, or "situation ethics". It is hard to take and defend a position, if you have a contradictory dog in the game somewhere else. For what I have known about FreeRepublic for my 12 years here so far is that it has been extremely, almost 80-90% anti-illegal immigration, pro-deportation (either systemized, or auto-deport based on cutting off the "bennies"), no automatic US citizenship for anchor babies, fedgov money crackdown on sanctuary cities, English Only in Government, no drivers license for illegals, no in-state tuition breaks for illegals, photo voter ID to discourge illegals from voting, increased local enforcement, detention-on-the-spot and cooperation with I.C.E., like through 287(g), more state-level power returned as in in Alabama, Oklahoma, Arizona and Georgia, employer sanctions, and hermetically sealed border first and foremost. To find the candidate who will adhere to that, and there are those out there, is the challenge. I would start by saying for 2012 we need to make sure every GOP we nominate for house and senate shares these values, and if they don't they be ousted in the primary. Then we need to oust each and every Democrat who does not adhere to these values, who votes in favor of continued Aztlan-ization, and the corruption of the American political system and demographics through rampant, sanctioned illegal immigration which translates into a massive, future, Democrat Party entitlement-consituency vote bank to keep the in power for the next 500 years.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And I am 110% ready to be part of a Freep of Newt if he strays.

Newt is not an utter ass, however. Backing off of global warming after the Nancy photo-op (that ole horndog — Nancy never returns MY calls!) proved that, I believe. Newt is an idea guy and some of those ideas will be grand (like the 49 states offering to PAY Nevada to take nuclear waste instead of wishing it on Nevada by force through Uncle Sam) and some will be howlers like the idea of local amnesty centers.

[AmericanInTokyo]

It can be called, rationalizing, slippery slope, or "situation ethics". It is hard to take and defend a position, if you have a contradictory dog in the game somewhere else. For what I have known about FreeRepublic for my 12 years here so far is that it has been extremely, almost 80-90% anti-illegal immigration, pro-deportation (either systemized, or auto-deport based on cutting off the "bennies"), no automatic US citizenship for anchor babies, fedgov money crackdown on sanctuary cities, English Only in Government, no drivers license for illegals, no in-state tuition breaks for illegals, photo voter ID to discourge illegals from voting, increased local enforcement, detention-on-the-spot and cooperation with I.C.E., like through 287(g), more state-level power returned as in in Alabama, Oklahoma, Arizona and Georgia, employer sanctions, and hermetically sealed border first and foremost. To find the candidate who will adhere to that, and there are those out there, is the challenge. I would start by saying for 2012 we need to make sure every GOP we nominate for house and senate shares these values, and if they don't they be ousted in the primary. Then we need to oust each and every Democrat who does not adhere to these values, who votes in favor of continued Aztlan-ization, and the corruption of the American political system and demographics through rampant, sanctioned illegal immigration which translates into a massive, future, Democrat Party entitlement-consituency vote bank to keep the in power for the next 500 years.

[AmericanInTokyo]

FR very slow tonight, sorry for the double post.

[fightinJAG]

I do feel we are hurtling toward disaster.

I pray not.

[fightinJAG]

Keeping him on the reservation entails him understanding from the get-go that he had to earn the vote of conservatives over severe reservations.

Instead, there’s thread after thread of people proclaiming that they “don’t care” about [fill in the blank with any Newt foible/weakness/utter failure].”

Is it really useful, and helpful to the ultimate goal of keeping a President Gingrich on the reservation, to go that far? I don’t think so.

Rather, I think Gingrich is sitting there pinching himself and thinking, “God, these conservatives are easy.”

He won’t give a hoot in the White House about what conservatives told him they couldn’t care less about during the campaign (such as Freddie Mac).

People seem to think that the only way to support this man is to act as though he’s perfect, all the while knowing he isn’t.

It won’t hurt Newt to know he had to earn the nomination and that he’s really not very trusted by conservatives. And it would help our country if he does get elected.