Gingrich: Let’s face it, we shouldn’t be deporting illegals who have been here for 25 years; Update: Romney camp rips Gingrich for supporting “amnesty”

posted at 11:07 pm on November 22, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Breitbart TV, the most buzzworthy answer of the night. Some people on Twitter thought it was a breakthrough on immigration for a Republican debate, others thought it would blow a hole in his candidacy the same way Perry’s answer on in-state tuition did to his in September. What you’re seeing here, in fact, is really just a rewrite of the latter’s infamous point about heartlessness by a guy who’s much slicker at debating. Neither one is endorsing citizenship for illegals, just greater integration of those who have been here long enough that uprooting them would cause great personal disruption. Gingrich’s position is arguably more defensible than Perry’s since he’s not calling for any taxpayer subsidies; Perry’s is arguably more defensible than Gingrich’s since he’s focused on kids who were brought here by their parents, not people who crossed the border illegally of their own volition. I think Newt’s going to get away with this partly because of the difference in tone — his answer seems even milder than it is thanks to the standard set by Perry’s “heartless” remark — and partly because, as we get closer to the general, the base will tolerate a bit more centrism on immigration in the name of wooing Hispanics in the general. We nominated McCain, didn’t we?

How we’re going to decide who’s been here “long enough,” I don’t know, just as I don’t know how sustainable it would be to have a two-tiered system of citizens and illegals made quasi-legal but presumably not allowed to vote under Gingrich’s system. The pressure to amnestize the latter would be enormous. We’ll hear more as Newt is inevitably grilled on this. But lest you think this will kill him among the base, here’s a tantalizing tidbit breaking late this evening from RCP. Is Newt about to land the Palin endorsement? Quote:

While Palin has characteristically kept her cards close to her chest, advisers suggest that the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee is likely to endorse before someone emerges as the inevitable nominee — and that Newt Gingrich appears to be best-positioned to secure her support.

“They speak very favorably of Newt and what they see as his credentials as compared to Perry and Romney,” one member of Palin’s inner circle said of the former Alaska governor and her husband, Todd, who has long served as her unofficial chief adviser.

Two clips here, one from the debate and the other, via Greg Hengler, shortly afterwards as he elaborates on the immigration answer.

Update: Since we’re on the subject of potentially game-changing endorsements, are you ready for this? From C-SPAN’s Steve Scully: “Sources indicate Mike Huckabee is set to endorse Mitt Romney, adding another key element to Romney’s Iowa strategy. Stay tuned”. How can Huck endorse Mitt before he hosts that candidate forum on Fox on December 3?

Update: Huckabee vehemently, and I do mean vehemently, denies that he’ll endorse anyone in the primary. Yikes.

Update: Philip Klein was in the spin room after the debate. Here we go:

“Newt Gingrich supported the 1986 amnesty act, and even though he conceded that was a mistake, he said that he was willing to repeat that mistake, by extending amnesty to immigrants who are illegally in the country today,” Romney adviser and spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in the spin room following the AEI/Heritage Foundation debate in Washington, DC. “Mitt Romney is against amnesty, and Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty.”…

I asked [Gingrich spokesman J.C. Hammond] to compare this position to conservatives who would define amnesty as legalizing anybody who had ever come here illegally.

“Newt is for a local, community review board where local citizens can decide whether or not their neighbors that have come here illegally should find a path to legality, not citizenship,” he said. “Two distinctly different things.”

Not even a uniform national standard, then? Huh.

Follow the link and read the full exchange between Klein and Romney spokesman Fehrnstrom, who tried to duck his question about what Mitt would do with longtime illegals no fewer than six times.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 9

“I’m prepared to take the heat for saying let’s be humane in enforcing the law.”

So was Perry.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 11:10 PM

How’s that Newt train looking now?

catmman on November 22, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Eat your heart out.

mythicknight on November 22, 2011 at 11:10 PM

I hate to say it, but he is right. As much tough talk as there is about illegals, it would be very difficult to toss someone out who has been living an honest life.

bloggless on November 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM


He’s right.

As much as I hate the whole ‘Amnesty’ thing, we can’t send people back to a country they haven’t been in for 25 years.

We can fine them, we can tax the hell out of them, we can do a lot of things, but we have to draw a line somewhere.

cntrlfrk on November 22, 2011 at 11:12 PM

This will definitely be a distraction for Newt, he will have to put forth some tough policies on dealing with the border and illegals who collect social services, but a Palin endorsement would completely knock this controversy out of the media cycle.

I had a feeling Palin might endorse Newt after her face lit up when Greta asked about him after one of the debates. She has had nothing but glowing words for him since.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 11:13 PM

I’d still be shocked if Palin endorses in the primary, but if she endorses Newt, Romney’s toast.

davek70 on November 22, 2011 at 11:13 PM

How many other crimes are we willing to forgive because the perpetrator evaded capture twenty five years?

Take the heat? No, pander.

Speakup on November 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM

As much tough talk as there is about illegals, it would be very difficult to toss someone out who has been living an honest life.

bloggless on November 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM

As much as I hate the whole ‘Amnesty’ thing, we can’t send people back to a country they haven’t been in for 25 years.

cntrlfrk on November 22, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Stupid. We do it for spies that may have never even been in the countries we send them to. Is there some exception to the laws of physics that makes gravity work harder on illegal aliens the longer they have been in the country?

This is stupid sentimentalist BS.

alexwest on November 22, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Newt is right

jp on November 22, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Don’t matter– Brooks are Frum are stil gonna call you a heartless bastard, Newt.

Pasalubong on November 22, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Newt is unacceptable.

When a nation subjects the law to politics and expedience, it’s finished.

Newt has taken pride in basically telling us “Damn right we’re finished.”

And so we are. Hands washed.

rightwingyahooo on November 22, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Hard to live an ‘honest life’ breaking the law the entire time. That long and you are also dealing with things like identify falsification , identity theft, lots of undeclared income (you know, the kind of stuff they got Al Capone on), etc.

Hardly an ‘honest’ life; productive and non-violent maybe.

michaelo on November 22, 2011 at 11:17 PM

He is right. I’m thinking of the 80 yr old grandma I know, husband dead, kids and grand kids take care of her. It would be a death sentence for her, to deport her.

tinkerthinker on November 22, 2011 at 11:17 PM

He is right.
So was Perry.
So was George Walker Bush.
So was George Herbert Walker Bush.
So was Reagan.

carbon_footprint on November 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Newt is right

jp on November 22, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Newt is wrong.

Wow – that was hard!

alexwest on November 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM

So what about 24 years—21, 18, 14 what the f is the cutoff? But it is okay for people in the Philippines and India to wait forever because they are geographically more distant?

Newt identified the problem with his initial answer about Reagan getting snookered. The problem is now ten times worse and we are only presented with straw man arguments.

arnold ziffel on November 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Neither one is endorsing citizenship for illegals

Worse, they’re endorsing some sort of official second class status. In any case it’s an illegal alien magnet.

FloatingRock on November 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Perry or Newt!

El_Terrible on November 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM

@alexwest, yeah. It’s called conservative compassion. That’s kind of what Americans are known for. Not sure what you mean about your spy comment. That’s also how elections are won. Appeal to the most people.

bloggless on November 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Speakup on November 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Great post, and I agree.

theaddora on November 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM

While Palin has characteristically kept her cards close to her chest, advisers suggest that the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee is likely to endorse before someone emerges as the inevitable nominee — and that Newt Gingrich appears to be best-positioned to secure her support.

I’ve heard the same thing said about everyone else on a weekly basis as each candidate temporarily takes the lead in the polls.

Hiya Ciska on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Newt hurt himself. We heard McCain say much the same in 08. And, in essence, he’s made the same statement as Perry’s “heartless” statement. Bachmann and Cain both have a chance here to make a comback. DD

Darvin Dowdy on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Hardly an ‘honest’ life; productive and non-violent maybe.

michaelo on November 22, 2011 at 11:17 PM

As long as the productivity stolen from legal immigrants and citizens isn’t taken into account – then that is a wash.

alexwest on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

How ’bout we close the border before we start talking about Amnesty Lite™, mmmkay?

OhioCoastie on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Heads up to Newt. They are not going to vote for you. They are not here legally, are not citizens, and cannot vote for you.

If they have been here for 25 years, then they should have had built up enough money to go home and petition for legal entry. Instead they just became more and more immoral as they continued to remain outside the law.

With unemployment pushing 9% (19% in reality), when exactly would be the right time to crack down on illegal aliens?

Wake up Newt, this is not an issue to die on.

astonerii on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

How’s that Newt train looking now?

catmman on November 22, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Looks courageous. If you don’t agree, vote for someone else. He’ll do fine in life either way.

RBMN on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

He is right.
So was Perry.
So was George Walker Bush.
So was George Herbert Walker Bush.
So was Reagan.

carbon_footprint on November 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM

You are making the Democrats’ job very easy. We are screwed with people like you anywhere near the voting booth.

Cowards to the left of me, traitors to the right.

rightwingyahooo on November 22, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Here come the stawmen.

Opposing amnesty doesnt mean rounding up illegals and deproting them. All the “real” and “true” conservatives go moderatee if it accomodates their guy, while they ream Romney for not being perfect on every issue for twenty straight years.

swamp_yankee on November 22, 2011 at 11:21 PM

How many other crimes are we willing to forgive because the perpetrator evaded capture twenty five years?

Take the heat? No, pander.

Speakup on November 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM

All misdemeanors just about every felony except kidnapping and murder. It is known as a statute of limitations.

Hiya Ciska on November 22, 2011 at 11:22 PM

For the smartest man on the stage, Gingrich must realize that determining who in that 11 million fit his standard will be tough. But in the end, even if 70% of the 11 million gets amnesty, he still is committed to forcefully deport 3.3 million people. Does anyone REALLY REALLY REALLY believe that 3.3 million people wont be able to make a case that deporting them would be just as heartless?

Nope, Gingrich was being too clever by half and just lost the nomination to Romney.

csdeven on November 22, 2011 at 11:22 PM

NEWT!!!

El_Terrible on November 22, 2011 at 11:23 PM

So when do you get deported? 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?

Or do you have to have a baby here and then you get automatic amnesty?

scotash on November 22, 2011 at 11:23 PM

I was trying to keep an open mind about Newt but it’s closed now.

Bachmann/Paul 2012!

FloatingRock on November 22, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Yeah, maybe the 25 year illegals can’t vote for Newt, but their kids can.

bloggless on November 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Palin would lose all respect and credibility if she endorses Newt. If you are going to endorse Newt then you might as well shut your trap about crony capitalism and the permanent class in Washington. It doesn’t get any more Washington or insider, than Newt Gingrich.

milemarker2020 on November 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM

amnestize

Is that a real word? Never mind. Of course Newt is right here. And note that he was careful to distinguish the people who’ve been here for decades from the latecomers.

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM

So breaking the law for 1 or 2 years….you get deported.

Breaking the law for 25 years, you get citizenship.

Almost seems like Newt is telling people the more time you’re a criminal the better your reward.

Sigh.

angryed on November 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Newt nails it. If he gets the nomination he wins the Presidency easily I thinks.

El_Terrible on November 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Immigration is the tip of the Newt iceberg.

Next comes cap and trade. Then comes insurance mandates.

But the real clincher is the ethics vioaltions. If the “Tea Party” realy thinks putting up the ultimate political beltway insider, lobbyist, retread, and a shamed former speaker who was drummed out of his speakership after a series of ethic violations and a $300,000 fine, the “Tea Party” has jumped the shark and really has no business in retail political

swamp_yankee on November 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM

How ’bout we close the border before we start talking about Amnesty Lite™, mmmkay?

OhioCoastie on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

It won’t matter if we close the border. As long as they know we won’t send them back, they will keep finding a way in. If we send them back, then they will stop coming and start self-deporting. When you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. And the opposite is true.

JannyMae on November 22, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Alabama has shown us that the key to “deporting” all the illegals is to dry up all the advantages to being here illegally. Once that is done the illegals will self-deport as there is nothing here for them as illegal aliens. I think that we do need a stronger border but all this other stuff is a distraction from the illegal alien issue and the issue of our economy in general. Newt and Perry should have just stayed away from this issue.

LtBarnwell02 on November 22, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Said this in the other thread. 25 years ago we had the last amnesty. Newt voted for that one as well.

txmomof6 on November 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Pandering 101

WisCon on November 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM

greater integration of those who have been here long enough that uprooting them would cause great personal disruption.

We do that every day with American born criminals, AP, it’s called prison. By comparison, for foreign criminals the “punishment” is just “being sent home”.

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Newt doesn’t have the courage to offend the hispanics, even though they aren’t going to vote GOP anyway. He’s another big government republican like Bush. He probably also believes in winning “hearts and minds” in Pakistan.

keep the change on November 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM

csdeven on November 22, 2011 at 11:22 PM

As wrong as you can be sometimes, when you are “on” you really are. I mean that sincerely. Are there two csdevens?

arnold ziffel on November 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Absolutely nothing wrong with his answer. Bachmann’s a clown.

nickj116 on November 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

So when do you get deported? 10 years? 15 years? 20 years?

Or do you have to have a baby here and then you get automatic amnesty?

scotash on November 22, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Right. And how exactly do they prove that. They dont have visas, travel documents. They dont even have birth certificates.

How do you stop a guy that came here 3 years ago from getting his family to vouch for him and say he has been living in the underground economy with them for 15 years.

They have no records. No drivers licenses. No tax docs.

swamp_yankee on November 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Thanks God for Newt’s cleansing moment of honesty! This dangerous Progressive illegal alien lover and a La Raza mole, just like Perry exposed himself for what he really is. Thanks you Mitt for being honest for once!

Igor R. on November 22, 2011 at 11:28 PM

I like how all the Romney bots act like right wingers all of a sudden (but I’m not calling everyone who disagrees a Romney bot.)

El_Terrible on November 22, 2011 at 11:28 PM

He is right.
So was Perry.
So was George Walker Bush.
So was George Herbert Walker Bush.
So was Reagan.

carbon_footprint on November 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM

And that’s why we have so many here now. Because YOU and those people are/were WRONG.

What part of the meaning of the word illegal eludes you and the rest of the bleeding hearts here?

JannyMae on November 22, 2011 at 11:28 PM

I think Newt’s going to get away with this partly because of the difference in tone — his answer seems even milder than it is thanks to the standard set by Perry’s “heartless” remark — and partly because, as we get closer to the general, the base will tolerate a bit more centrism on immigration in the name of wooing Hispanics in the general. We nominated McCain, didn’t we?

AllahP, it is your hope that Newt will get away with it but I don’t think so.

Perry was excoriated unfairly on conservative forums and was made a pariah for his “heartless” comment. Now Gingrich says the exact same words but in a sugar-coated format – and that is expected to appease the anti-illegal immigration crowd?

What I find most annoying is that Perry is probably the candidate with the strongest “actual” record on fighting for tighter border controls – and yet we had the likes of Bachmann, Romney, Santorum, Michelle Malkin… tearing into him.

Let’s see them defend Newt now….

TheRightMan on November 22, 2011 at 11:28 PM

You are “inhumane” if you are in favor of enforcing the law. So when President Newt is running the show, will he have ICE only go after illegals who have been here under a certain amount of years and the employers of illegals who have been here under a certain amount of years?

The longer you’ve been getting away with crime, the more Newt loves you.

Buddahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 11:28 PM

There wouldn’t be as many illegals if we didn’t have such a inefficient bureaucracy when it comes to visas.

V-rod on November 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Let’s not forget that we have illegals here from more than Mexico: ME “students” who have over-stayed their visas, Central Americans, Chinese smuggled in container ships, etc.

Newt’s response was probably most realistic, given the numbers of illegals extant here. Guest-worker status minus citizenship and voting rights works for me.

At the same time, there has to be an e-verify enforced by both employers and the federal government.

onlineanalyst on November 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM

How many other crimes are we willing to forgive because the perpetrator evaded capture twenty five years?

Take the heat? No, pander.

Speakup on November 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM

A large amount other than Murder. It is call Statute of limitations.

That is unless one takes it that every day that they wake up on American soil they are braking the same law and then when caught they get one counts for each day of being a illegal alien. Or the day they are caught is the same as when they first came with no difference.

tjexcite on November 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM

You don’t need to deport anyone Newt. What you do is make them self deport. And you do that by making life for them unbearable in the US. This means no free health care, no free education for their kids, no food stamps, no drivers licences, etc.

When you have a party and there are those last few guests that refuse to leave, do you call the cops on them? No. You just start giving hints like cleaning up, putting away the wine, putting leftover food in the fridge. Eventually they clue in and leave on their own.

angryed on November 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Ron Paul voted against the Reagan amnesty and opposed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty.

He is the only conservative in the race not grouchy Newt or Perry.

Spathi on November 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM

As wrong as you can be sometimes, when you are “on” you really are. I mean that sincerely. Are there two csdevens?

arnold ziffel on November 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Well, everyone can be wrong sometimes. For instance, you saying I am wrong sometimes is proof that you are wrong sometimes.

;-)

csdeven on November 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Is Newt about to land the Palin endorsement?

Move em on, head em up. Keep them doggies movin.

SlaveDog on November 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Newt doesn’t have the courage to offend the hispanics, even though they aren’t going to vote GOP anyway. He’s another big government republican like Bush. He probably also believes in winning “hearts and minds” in Pakistan.

keep the change on November 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Newt has the courage to say that its stupid to make deporting every illegal alien your policy and the brains to know that just because you can’t deport them all doesn’t mean you give them citizenship.

El_Terrible on November 22, 2011 at 11:30 PM

I’d still be shocked if Palin endorses in the primary, but if she endorses Newt, Romney’s toast.davek70 on November 22, 2011 at 11:13 PM

If Palin endorses someone who sold his principles for Freddie Mac gold it would run contrary to everything she’s stood for in public life.

Basilsbest on November 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM

swamp_yankee on November 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

What the ? You’re making sense for once. Is it backwards day?

angryed on November 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Newt killed his chance tonight for the best possible reason: he showed his true colors. Conservative don’t support amnesty, and conservatives will not support Newt.

Igor R. on November 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Newt is right about redcard solution. It is a solid idea.

AshleyTKing on November 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM

I thought Perry nailed it when he said, it was “just a intellectual exercise until we secure the border”.

Yea, let’s turn off the faucet before we worry about the flood.

Once the faucet is off, we can start by deporting every illegal alien currently in prison or county jails. Then we can focus on gangs. Then we can focus on those currently getting welfare. Then we can focus on those who repeatedly drink and drive. Somewhere in all of this, we can crack the whip on those who knowingly employ illegal aliens.

Once that is done, and that 20 million is is now chopped down to something managable and we can have a serious discussion about what to do next.

Hog Wild on November 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Perry was excoriated unfairly on conservative forums and was made a pariah for his “heartless” comment. Now Gingrich says the exact same words but in a sugar-coated format – and that is expected to appease the anti-illegal immigration crowd?
TheRightMan on November 22, 2011 at 11:28 PM

You and I agree on this one. Newt should be held to the same standard as Perry on the question, as should all the candidates.

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Newt is right about redcard solution. It is a solid idea.

AshleyTKing on November 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM

The right solution is employer sanctions. A proven method causing the illegals to deport themselves.

Igor R. on November 22, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Seems a little unfair to people in prison who have served 25 years for “one mistake”. Thanks for the moment of clarity, Newt. You just lost my vote, and mine is very important here in South Carolina.

SouthernGent on November 22, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Newt has the courage to say that its stupid to make deporting every illegal alien your policy and the brains to know that just because you can’t deport them all doesn’t mean you give them citizenship.

El_Terrible on November 22, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Come on. You know better than this. This is how liberals works. They take baby steps. Let people who’ve been here 25 years stay. No citizenship. For now. Then in a few years, hey how about just a green card. Then a few years later, well they have a green card, can’t deny citizenship. And that 25 years is so long, how about 15. Then 10. Then 5. Then 5 minutes.

That’s how it works.

angryed on November 22, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Once that is done, and that 20 million is is now chopped down to something managable and we can have a serious discussion about what to do next.

Hog Wild on November 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Usually “serious discussion about what to do next” means “amnesty”. You can get rid of the vast majority of them through simple e-verify like solutions and employer sanctions.

Igor R. on November 22, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Is Newt about to land the Palin endorsement?

Move em on, head em up. Keep them doggies movin.

SlaveDog on November 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM

If Palin endorsed the ultimate Washington insider, largest recipient of federal government largesse in the Republican field this early in the game, I would be very surprised. But I was surprised she didn’t run, so obviously I don’t understand her thinking.

txmomof6 on November 22, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Newt has the courage to say that its stupid to make deporting every illegal alien your policy and the brains to know that just because you can’t deport them all doesn’t mean you give them citizenship. El_Terrible on November 22, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Newt didn’t have the brains to understand the importance of removing the magnet. You don’t even address the issue of deportation until the border is closed.

Basilsbest on November 22, 2011 at 11:34 PM

If Newt’s gonna push Amnesty I’ll vote for Cain, then Bachmann, then Romney. We don’t need another Republican President teaming up with the Democrats trying to ram Amnesty down our throats.

DaMav on November 22, 2011 at 11:35 PM

i was waiting with baited breath to see if Newt, or someone, would start talking about barry’s half-uncle (or whatever). The guy who violated his visa, seems to have had a more or less productive life…or at least not caused any massive damage.

Except of course the job he has could be filled by a citizen.

Now then of course we have his half-aunt who has been in public housing for some years, and says she’ll be persecuted back in Kenya

There’s two little test cases for Newt to think about

r keller on November 22, 2011 at 11:35 PM

How many other crimes are we willing to forgive because the perpetrator evaded capture twenty five years?

Take the heat? No, pander.

Speakup on November 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Well, except in the most highly proscribed circumstances, pretty much everything except for murder. It’s called the statute of limitations.

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Recall the genesis of gay marriage:

First it was let gays have benefits at work.
Then let gays have the right to adopt kids.
Then the right to have civil unions.
Then serve in the military openly.
Then gay marriage.

This was a 20-30 year process.

Same with illegals. You give amnesty for someone who is here 25 years. Within a decade, that will be changed to open immigration to anyone from Mexico.

angryed on November 22, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Strangely enough, the Natalie Wood bollocks has made me aware of something.

The statute of limitations on 2nd degree murder is 6 years.

But you come across the border 20 years prior and you’re still a criminal? Only if you’re engaged in illegal activity.

Enforcement is good. But exporting 11 million is logistically difficult, and it clogs the court systems. Controlling current immigration is more important than what we do to people who have been here for years.

Nethicus on November 22, 2011 at 11:36 PM

“… just greater integration of those who have been here long enough that uprooting them would cause great personal disruption.”

Personal disruptions are one thing…

… What if they legally own property, own a business that employ thousands, have children who have died in miliary service, are the neighbor that your kids play with and watch your home as their own, work for and have a legal government contract, own the house you live in, or are your wife or husband?

Not so easy, is it…?

… I live in So. CA and these are all realities, not just a hypothesis.

Yes, we must secure the border first, then empty our jails and the streets of the gang bangers, rapists, and those who owe allegience to a foreign country…

… After that, come out of the shadows, don’t be afraid, we will work with you, and by the way, here is a Republican voting registration card.

Newt is not wrong…

… he is an adult dealing rationally with a very serious problem this contry faces.

The MSM and the Democrats can’t have it both ways…

… and the can choke on it!

Seven Percent Solution on November 22, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Is this Newt’s arrogance getting the better of him? Does he expect the base to embrace his most excellent brilliance just because….it’s him? Sounds an awful like Mr. Narcissist Himself.

Out of 300 million, these candidates are our choices? Great.

conservative pilgrim on November 22, 2011 at 11:38 PM

Newt didn’t have the brains to understand the importance of removing the magnet. You don’t even address the issue of deportation until the border is closed.

Basilsbest on November 22, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Newt is WORSE than Perry on immigration. He actually used a “heartless” comment earlier this year, before Perry. Newt is unacceptable because of immigration and a myriad of other progressive issues.

Igor R. on November 22, 2011 at 11:38 PM

he’s right.

And they’re working on my house tomorrow. You know why? They do good work and show up everyday…unlike the last fat ass.

Even my spanish is getting better.

tlynch001 on November 22, 2011 at 11:38 PM

And Newtie, you know very well 90% of the illegals you will give voting rights to will vote Democrat for life.

angryed on November 22, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Well, except in the most highly proscribed prescribed circumstances, pretty much everything except for murder. It’s called the statute of limitations.

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 11:36 PM

FIFM

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 11:39 PM

If Newt’s overall economic policies seem credible, few voters will care about immigration, one way or the other. And the dirty little secret is, for a quick economic recovery the more hard-working entry-level workers the better–legal or not. Back when we were enjoying great prosperity, the illegals were here just like they are now. They were not the problem. They’re not what brought down the economy. They’re what made restaurant meals, asphalt roofs, packaged meats, professional landscaping, etc. cheaper than it normally would’ve been. The vast majority didn’t come here to go on welfare.

RBMN on November 22, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Igor R. on November 22, 2011 at 11:33/11:33 PM

Speak for yourself. You’re just afraid of brown people.

mike_NC9 on November 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Is this Newt’s arrogance getting the better of him? Does he expect the base to embrace his most excellent brilliance just because….it’s him? Sounds an awful like Mr. Narcissist Himself.

Out of 300 million, these candidates are our choices? Great.

conservative pilgrim on November 22, 2011 at 11:38 PM

I don’t know if he was tired of lying or is actually really stupid. In either case, I predicted here three days ago he would self-destruct in two weeks, and he just has.

Igor R. on November 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Remember, it was no accident that Newt sat on that couch. He knew what he was saying in that commercial. What he didn’t know was how offensive it was going to be found.

keep the change on November 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM

And Newtie, you know very well 90% of the illegals you will give voting rights to will vote Democrat for life.

angryed on November 22, 2011 at 11:39 PM

So…we should only grant citizenship to people who will swear an oath to vote Republican? Sure, nothing unreasonable about that.

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Neither one is endorsing citizenship for illegals, just greater integration of those who have been here long enough that uprooting them would cause great personal disruption.

It doesn’t matter how long they’ve been here, illegal is illegal.

RedRobin145 on November 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

The MSM and the Democrats can’t have it both ways…

… and the can choke on it!

Seven Percent Solution on November 22, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Could be a brilliant move by Newt. Plus he’s beating Romney at his own game.

SlaveDog on November 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Time for conservatives to dump Newt, send the same damn message we’ve been sending for ten years — NO AMNESTY. Sooner or later they have to listen.

DaMav on November 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

RBMN on November 22, 2011 at 11:39 PM

WRONG. My entire family was looking at Newt to address a lot of his previous statements and actions… for us, he just stepped on a landmine.

Big mistake.

alexwest on November 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Igor R. on November 22, 2011 at 11:33/11:33 PM

Speak for yourself. You’re just afraid of brown people.

mike_NC9 on November 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM

A proven La Raza tactic: accuse all opponents of controlling illegal immigration of racism. Not worth any additional response.

Igor R. on November 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

How come noone followed up on Newt’s point that the Congress, which he subsequently led, did not deliver on the 2 things Reagan was promised in exchange for signing the 1986 amnesty? Did he forget who was in charge of the House for a few years in the 90s when Congress could have lived up to what they promised in Simpson-Mazzoli?

txmomof6 on November 22, 2011 at 11:42 PM

A guy who is on his third wife and cheated on the other 2 should not be our nominee. How are we going to discuss traditional values with a straight face? That is just the beginning.

Conservatives have trashed Newt for years for adopting one liberal idea after another. Global warming, amnesty, health care mandates, you name it. That is all going to be dredged up again and it should be. We would be on defense throughout the entire campaign with him when we need to be going after Obama.

The only candidate out there who can credibly debate Obama and who doesn’t have these skeletons is Romney. Cain is gone and Perry is just not a good enough communicator.

echosyst on November 22, 2011 at 11:42 PM

It doesn’t matter how long they’ve been here, illegal is illegal.

RedRobin145 on November 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

100+ trillion

Problem is that none of the “viable” GOP candidates agree.

conservative pilgrim on November 22, 2011 at 11:44 PM

WRONG. My entire family was looking at Newt to address a lot of his previous statements and actions… for us, he just stepped on a landmine.

Big mistake.

alexwest on November 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

It was all well-known, he never tried to hide it. I’m SO glad he was too stupid to know how dangerous this issue is for him. “Newt’s moment of honesty saves America”.

Igor R. on November 22, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 9