Posted on 01/26/2012 1:29:37 AM PST by AmericanInTokyo
For General Discussion.
He explained his steps for citizenship on one of the debates. It seems very fair.
Does it really matter that much?
All of the candidates say they’re going to seal the borders (whether all of them have the spine to do it, is a different story).
Nobody is going to deport all illegals. So the differences will be in what pathways to citizenship are there for those who remain.
"Gingrich ataca política migratoria de Romney "Washington, 25 ene (PL) El aspirante a candidato republicano a las elecciones presidenciales Newt Gingrich criticó hoy la política migratoria de autodeportación propuesta por su principal rival, Mitt Romney, la cual calificó de inhumana. La iniciativa, que busca privar de todo tipo de empleos a los extranjeros indocumentados para forzarlos a regresar, por su voluntad, a su país, fue considerada por el expresidente de la Cámara de Representantes una fantasía "propia del presidente Barack Obama". Según indicó en una entrevista desde el estado de Florida, donde ocurrirán comicios primarios del Partido Republicano el venidero 31 de enero, la propuesta es una muestra que Romney no se preocupa por el aspecto humano de la gente."
They will have to do something here because there are jobs (fruit groves for one) that people will not take. Secure the border-work on the internal problems.
What I seem to hear is that Gingrich had been singing several different tunes on this same subject. Make them permanent residents and that’s all, or “quick citizens.”
Confusing.
It seems to me this is a very important issue, has been for years and we keep getting more of the same and an horrible drain on our country as if a spigot cannot be turned off, it was even as an issue risen in the very face of King Obama himself on Arizonan soil yesterday by a courageous woman, Governor down there who is under literal invasion. At any rate, my analysis of this position is that it is, or could be categorized under that of, traditional “compassionate conservatism”. Such as per John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney under his governorship, Bush/Rove, etc.
I’ve mostly just heard him talking about sealing the border by any means necessary, by 2014. Also vigorously enforcing measures like E-Verify, establishing English as the official language of government, etc.
Beyond that, he’s been a realistic and admitted that some people will inevitably be allowed to stay—particularly those who’ve been here for 20-25 yrs or more, but that they’d have to pursue citizenship. This is reasonable.
I really don’t see what’s so controversial about any of this.
Look, sealing the border is obviously the most important part—none of the internals get resolved until after that happens.
Who do you think has the balls to actually do it? Vote for that person.
From everything I gather, Newt’s stance is very close to what Palin endorsed. Many in the PDS brigade slammed that as ‘pro amnesty.
The thing that they then and the pro-Obama crew today faol to grasp (due to an inability or unwillingness to think critically) is that the plan results in practically no actual citizenship given to current illegals.
The key point is that they go to the back of the line.
Now look HONESTLY at that line. It is an ever growing line filled with tens if not hundreds of thousands of people across the globe who are applying for citizenship the right/legal way.
And as new people get in that line every day, they do so AHEAD of the illegals at the back. Over and over.
The end result is that until people stop trying to come to America, the illegals at the back will never make it to the front.
The fact of the matter is that Newt, like Palin before, neutralizes the Dems ‘you hate immigrants’ By in fact providing a very real ‘path to citizenship’ that they scream and demagogue for. It’s just that the path takes longer to walk than the lifespan of the illegal on it.
Legal immigrants don’t have that problem. They come just fine like they always have.
And in the mean time, the rest of the things are put into play. A fence, deportation, laws that leave illegals without work, a place to live, state bennies etc.
I’m not seeing a problem here.
As soon as citizenship can be pursued, you can bet Democrats will be force feeding it to them.
(You didn't really think Newt Gingrich wouldn't have a position paper, did you?)
Yeah, I’m aware of that possibility. So obviously reasonable measures need to be set up so Dems can’t do that.
But quibbling over any of this is senseless speculation. No viable solutions to illegal immigration can happen until the border is sealed, period. So for now, I’d rather opt for the candidate who I think actually has the nerve to do it.
I want to know what Newt plans to do about LEGAL immigration.
10 million new citizens in the last 11 years.
5 million new Green Cards in the last 11 years.
500,000 temporary work visas each year.
Unemployment is 8.5%, but Newt wants more legal workers?
New immigrant citizens vote 80% for the Democratic Party, but Newt wants more immigration?
These numbers are economic suicide for America and political suicide for Conservatives.
Afraid I will have to admit to being one of those purists. I do not believe in this particular “fait accompli”. Just because our politicians, on both sides of the fence, allowed 12-20 million illegals into this country does not mean that we need to accept them as citizens. Deny them jobs and benefits and they will go back on their own. Two or three times, this century, the government has sent non-citizen Mexicans back to Mexico, following one of our wars. It can be done. This country, in this condition, cannot absorb this many third-worlders right now. If a US President is going to allow this, it will not be one that I voted for. If this is Newt’s stand, then he will not win because I voted for the SOB. I did not vote for McLame and I will not vote for anyone who does not favor moving the border back to its original place. PERIOD.
“And in the mean time, the rest of the things are put into play. A fence, deportation, laws that leave illegals without work, a place to live, state bennies etc.”
Gingrich is going to do all of these things? Or is he saying he will do all of these things, while at the same time, talking a different tune out of the other side of his mouth to our Latin voters. Sorry for the cynicism, but I have seen ZERO evidence of any politician trying to do any of these things.
Actually I don’t expect Gingrich personally to do them. I do however feel he will not prosecute AZ or any other state, I do not feel he will actively campaign to stop laws protecting Americans and I doubt that he will interfere with any number of conservative efforts to address the problem. All of which is a damn side better than we have now or have had for a long time.
I do however, think that he is the best of the available options. If you have a better solution/candidate currently running with the ability to win, please discuss.
Since our other option is the Road Warrior scenario, which we may end up in regardless, I thing giving Newt a shot before the descent into chaos is a good idea. Romney sure as hell isn’t going to do it...he’s too busy hiding his own illegal laborers on the homestead.
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.