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 4 5 6 7 8 9

Okaaaay. So you’re saying that only immediate deportation will satisfy you?

cynccook on November 23, 2011 at 2:19 AM

No. I am telling you that your mis-characterization of what a true conservative want regarding this issue is off base. I identify myself as a true conservative, you clearly don’t know what we want. I explained it.

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Withhold highway funds to states who don’t require their troopers to check immigration status when detaining or pulling someone over. That’ll weed out the trouble makers real quick.

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 2:21 AM

We need a President who goes after cities and states who flaunt Federal immigration law in the same way the current president goes after cities and states who attempt to comply with it. All that’s necessary is to enforce current law. It’s absurd to suggest that we need to craft a new set of laws simply because the Federal Government doesn’t like the current ones. This is so easy.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 2:26 AM

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 2:26 AM

Agreed. Withholding Federal funds of any kind is always a good start.

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 2:28 AM

Do you even know what a blood-libel is? Also, have you been reading some of the comments here tonight?

cynccook on November 23, 2011 at 2:21 AM

Yes I know exactly what it is. I was alluding to the immediate, blood-thirsty image of this massive forceful ejection of the totally innocent group of hardworking immigrants with long-standing ties to the community, perhaps via…I don’t know…trains and concentration camps? And I managed to miss a single comment calling for that tonight.

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 2:30 AM

No to backdoor citizenship. No to amnesty. It is racist to make one set of rules for one demographic, and another set of rules for everyone else.

Laura in Maryland on November 23, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Exactly.

scotash on November 23, 2011 at 2:33 AM

Good night everyone!

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 2:33 AM

We need a President who goes after cities and states who flaunt Federal immigration law in the same way the current president goes after cities and states who attempt to comply with it. All that’s necessary is to enforce current law. It’s absurd to suggest that we need to craft a new set of laws simply because the Federal Government doesn’t like the current ones. This is so easy.
sartana on November 23, 2011 at 2:26 AM

Indeed. It’s the same reasoning we apply to those who demand we add more layers of laws (i.e. “gun control”) to prevent gun violence. Try enforcing existing law instead.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 2:36 AM

Gingrich had his “heartless” moment tonight. His poll numbers will fall.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on November 23, 2011 at 2:37 AM

What is says about him is that he, as a government agent, wants to facilitate whatever he considers to be positive and/or inevitable change. By nature his is not a conservative who would not accept government interference under any circumstances.

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 2:18 AM

I read recently on another website- the blogger made the point that both political parties in the US agree that it is the state’s proper function to redistribute wealth- Dems and Repubics just disagree on how much. It would seem that those of us who reject the tenet of wealth redistribution are without a party.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 2:40 AM

Gingrich had his “heartless” moment tonight. His poll numbers will fall.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on November 23, 2011 at 2:37 AM

I think so, too. I disagree with AP that he will get a pass because he said it sweetly or something. “Inhumane” actually trumps “heartless”. Newt already had the lobbyist money issue dogging him, but this will knock him down a notch or two.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 2:43 AM

Agreed. Withholding Federal funds of any kind is always a good start.

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 2:28 AM

Maybe, under a new President, the ATF could start some type of program where they pressure gun-sellers to sell high powered assault rifles to law-abiding US citizens… without tracing where they went!

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 2:44 AM

Not in this debate – but on many occasions – Newt has said he wants to build a fence – not a virtual, but an actual, physical sense – across the entire border, to be completed by January 2014. Perry proposes something like a decade to do the same.

BCrago66 on November 23, 2011 at 12:18 AM

That’s not Perry’s proposal at all.

capitalist piglet on November 23, 2011 at 2:45 AM

No. I am telling you that your mis-characterization of what a true conservative want regarding this issue is off base. I identify myself as a true conservative, you clearly don’t know what we want. I explained it.

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 2:23 AM

You are being too literal. I was making the point that those on this thread who are advocating immediate deportation no matter what the circumstances are setting themselves up as the conservative standard. That proposing anything short of that makes you a “liberal” who wants to “destroy America” by bringing in millions of “invaders.” The truth is that the situation is far more complicated than that.

cynccook on November 23, 2011 at 2:45 AM

Gingrich had his “heartless” moment tonight. His poll numbers will fall.

Aslans Girl on November 23, 2011 at 2:37 AM

Yes. And that should send an important message to all of the other candidates in the 2012 race (including President Obama).

The American people want end ILLEGAL immigration NOW!

wren on November 23, 2011 at 2:47 AM

Yes I know exactly what it is. I was alluding to the immediate, blood-thirsty image of this massive forceful ejection of the totally innocent group of hardworking immigrants with long-standing ties to the community, perhaps via…I don’t know…trains and concentration camps? And I managed to miss a single comment calling for that tonight.

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 2:30 AM

So you’re saying that you didn’t read a single comment calling for immediate deportation?

cynccook on November 23, 2011 at 2:47 AM

I think so, too. I disagree with AP that he will get a pass because he said it sweetly or something. “Inhumane” actually trumps “heartless”. Newt already had the lobbyist money issue dogging him, but this will knock him down a notch or two.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 2:43 AM

No, this will help him with evangelical groups and garner him support with Hispanic Republicans that were still with Rick Perry. Newt is tough on illegal immigration and is right that we can’t round up a family’s eighty-year-old grandmother at supper time and deport her for entering the country thirty or forty years ago.

Punchenko on November 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM

I don’t see a problem with this. It only makes sense. I’m sorry, but it’s just not right to deport someone who has been here for 25 years and has a job/family/etc and is not a burden on the system. Makes no sense at all.

Deport criminals and those on the dole. Keep the ones earning a living. How can people be against this?

lorien1973 on November 23, 2011 at 3:04 AM

I think so, too. I disagree with AP that he will get a pass because he said it sweetly or something. “Inhumane” actually trumps “heartless”. Newt already had the lobbyist money issue dogging him, but this will knock him down a notch or two.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 2:43 AM

No, this will help him with evangelical groups and garner him support with Hispanic Republicans that were still with Rick Perry.

If you’re a bettin’ man, I suggest you don’t make too mnay of them until you see the end of the week polls. Look for a downtrend for Newt.

Newt is tough on illegal immigration and is right that we can’t round up a family’s eighty-year-old grandmother at supper time and deport her for entering the country thirty or forty years ago.
Punchenko on November 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM

Can’t let that go by without a -
STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!
(Would’ve been more OMG trembling good if you’d worked in “jackbooted thugs!”)

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 3:05 AM

Deport criminals and those on the dole. Keep the ones earning a living. How can people be against this?

lorien1973 on November 23, 2011 at 3:04 AM

Oh, honey. Go back and read all the comments. It’s been unbelievable.

cynccook on November 23, 2011 at 3:06 AM

Deport criminals and those on the dole. Keep the ones earning a living. How can people be against this?

lorien1973 on November 23, 2011 at 3:04 AM

It’s called “enforcing the law as written.” That’s how we can be against it. Doing something against the law makes one a criminal, and being here as an “undocumented individual” is against the law. You won’t find much stomach for changing the law after as many times as citizens and legal immigrants have been screwed over.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2011 at 3:08 AM

…we can’t round up a family’s eighty-year-old grandmother at supper time and deport her for entering the country thirty or forty years ago.

Punchenko on November 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM

You left out the part about loading them up on boxcars.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 3:10 AM

Besides, that eighty-year-old granny would never survive the Death Panels.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 3:11 AM

…we can’t round up a family’s eighty-year-old grandmother at supper time and deport her for entering the country thirty or forty years ago.

Punchenko on November 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM

You left out the part about loading them up on boxcars.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 3:10 AM

Not to worry, I’m betting the anti-law enforcement types are working up to it.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 3:13 AM

So what is the deal with Gingrich missing the filing date for MO?

Sounds like he is just string people along and doesn’t really plan to win.

Odd. Or maybe he is just so out of control he forgot?

petunia on November 23, 2011 at 3:13 AM

Besides, that eighty-year-old granny would never survive the Death Panels.
sartana on November 23, 2011 at 3:11 AM

Can’t have too many sent to the Death Panels, we need cheap lettuce!!

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 3:15 AM

When was the last amnesty? If they got here shortly after the last amnesty Gingrich is making the case they made to their family when they first crossed the Rio Grande… Republicans will give us amnesty someday.

petunia on November 23, 2011 at 3:15 AM

So Gingrich is so broke he can’t compete in MO? Well it is non-binding, but it isn’t a straw poll.

Gingrich isn’t ready for prime time.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68980.html

petunia on November 23, 2011 at 3:20 AM

So Gingrich is so broke he can’t compete in MO? Well it is non-binding, but it isn’t a straw poll.

Gingrich isn’t ready for prime time.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68980.html

petunia on November 23, 2011 at 3:20 AM

I got a feeling his cashflow problem isn’t going to improve a whole lot after this debate.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 3:24 AM

Unemployment drops as Alabama’s immigration reform enacted,
Nov 21, 2011

“Every county in Alabama saw a drop in unemployment, including Wilcox, Dallas and Bullock counties, where unemployment rates are greater than 16.5 percent.”

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 3:28 AM

Looking at the updated headline, I remember what really bugged me about the entire illiegal immigration portion of the debate. Romney attacked Newt for his plan, calling it “amnesty” but when asked what he would do about illegals living here he DODGED! I just don’t get this people.

I understand how you could be mad at Newt for his answer, but Romney apparently doesn’t even have a plan! Either he hasn’t thought about it or he doesn’t want to say it in front of a Republican audience. Either way, he stood there and ripped on the only one on stage who had the nerve to actually say something! The great wishy-washy guy who never takes a firm stand on anything stood there and attacked someone for taking a stand on something he refused to take a stand on! And was sooooooo condescending about it.

Romney supporters (and we all know who you are), what the heck would your candidate do about the illegals already here? Any ideas? Any at all? And yet you post here picking apart Newt’s (admittedly lame) plan while not even knowing what your own candidate thinks. Specifically because he’s too politically slick to say. Who do you think he was trying not to piss off? YOU!

And the rest of you. I asked several hours ago if anyone could say what their candidate plans to do about the illegals already here. I got a lot of responses, but not a single answer. I got a lot of personal opinions (many of which I agree with), but not one solid answer.

So how the heck can you be certain that you agree with your candidate’s plan. And if you do happen to know what your candidate’s plan is then why don’t the rest of us? Why were they to afraid to say it tonight? And if they’re afraid to say it in front of a friendly audience, what makes you think they’ll have the nerve to try to implement it when half the country disagrees with it?

What I see is a lot of projection. The same thing I saw when I talked to people voting for Obama. They liked the guy so they just assumed that he agreed with their policies. Well, that’s no way to pick a candidate.

I’m not saying Newt was right, or that his stance makes me happy to vote for him (although he is my guy). I’m just saying that the only reason he’s going to be attacked for the next few days about this is because he’s the only one who said what he was thinking.

29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 3:29 AM

“Every county in Alabama saw a drop in unemployment, including Wilcox, Dallas and Bullock counties, where unemployment rates are greater than 16.5 percent.”

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 3:28 AM

29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 3:29 AM

“Every county in Alabama saw a drop in unemployment, including Wilcox, Dallas and Bullock counties, where unemployment rates are greater than 16.5 percent.”

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 3:28 AM

STRAWMAN ALERT!

Yeah, that is easier than intelligent discussion. Thanks whatcat.

29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 3:31 AM

Newt’s answer will cost him. It shows how is flaky around the edges: think Nancy Pelosi ad.

Romney gave the only sensible answer.

Do we need a state healthcare mandater to defeat a national healthcare mandater?

A Mormon vs. a Muslim?

Whatever it takes!

Stepan on November 23, 2011 at 3:31 AM

I believe that. You don’t like the fact that they came into the country illegally…no matter the reason, and no matter that you would do the same.

right2bright on November 23, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Did he tell you they would “do the same”? Because if not, you are making wild assumptions that aren’t even true of Mexicans, most of whom remain in Mexico. Most of them haven’t “done the same”, and conservative American’s are probably far less likely to than they.

FloatingRock on November 23, 2011 at 3:31 AM

Deport criminals and those on the dole.

lorien1973 on November 23, 2011 at 3:04 AM

Illegal aliens.

sharrukin on November 23, 2011 at 3:33 AM

Looking at the updated headline, I remember what really bugged me about the entire illiegal immigration portion of the debate. Romney attacked Newt for his plan, calling it “amnesty” but when asked what he would do about illegals living here he DODGED!
29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 3:29 AM

Actually, he said he was for enforcing existing law, i.e. deportation, and against magnets such as Newt proposed.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 3:33 AM

Our house is on fire and you morons are worried about cleaning the kitchen….

I just hope that whoever the nominee is, the naysayers here will get behind that candidate and help he/she defeat Obama in 2012. If we don’t, I weep for the life my kids will have in what’s left of our republic 10-15 years from now. I’m putting my chips on Newt. If he’s not the nominee I will enthusiastically support whoever it is.

the_stoics on November 23, 2011 at 3:33 AM

Yeah, that is easier than intelligent discussion. Thanks whatcat.
29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 3:31 AM

LOL, you’re still steamed that I schooled you in some other thread? I’m pleased, but why don’t you just complain in the appropriate thread instead? Just amend your complaints there.
Ah, well…..

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 3:39 AM

Newt’s answer will cost him. It shows how is flaky around the edges: think Nancy Pelosi ad.
Romney gave the only sensible answer.
Do we need a state healthcare mandater to defeat a national healthcare mandater?
A Mormon vs. a Muslim?
Whatever it takes!
Stepan on November 23, 2011 at 3:31 AM

When Newt messes up, he messes up bigtime. I think most folks thought it was inevitable, while holding out some hope he had escaped that tendency.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 3:41 AM

Romney gave the only sensible answer.

Stepan on November 23, 2011 at 3:31 AM

Romney talks a good game but Bachmann has a consistent record of opposition to illegal immigration, plus she’s honest about it I think.

FloatingRock on November 23, 2011 at 4:04 AM

Romney talks a good game but Bachmann has a consistent record of opposition to illegal immigration, plus she’s honest about it I think.

FloatingRock on November 23, 2011 at 4:04 AM

And Michele Bachmann deserves bonus points for disagreeing with Newt on the ILLEGAL immigration issue at the debate tonight.

Michele Bachmann was the only candidate who correctly identified Newt’s position as being Amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants who have avoided being caught for 25 years.

Stay strong Michele!

wren on November 23, 2011 at 4:12 AM

Romney talks a good game but Bachmann has a consistent record of opposition to illegal immigration, plus she’s honest about it I think.

FloatingRock on November 23, 2011 at 4:04 AM

True but unfortunately she has little chance and Tancredo did endorse Romney in 2008. Just save all the Gold you can.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 4:13 AM

Sheriff Joe Romney. Well who 2 years ago would have predicted that. The man truly would eat his kids to be president.

Of course you realize as is his custom should he win the nomination, he will eventually have the same position as Newt and Perry that he criticises today.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 4:31 AM

At first I disagreed with your position. But then I noticed that you put ILLEGAL in caps, so now I’m compelled to reconsider.

BCrago66 on November 23, 2011 at 4:52 AM

CNN GOP National Security debate Video( 9 Parts)
================================================

Republican National Security Debate
Nov 22 201
*************
***************

http://www.youtube.com/user/VoteRonPaul12

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 4:55 AM

Two things of note on this issue and this debate:

1. Romney did not actually have courage to take a position. If you listen carefully to his answers, he projects being against what Newt said but he in fact did not take that position…his position is actually against Newt, not against what Newt was saying

2. Of course Newt is correct on this. If anyone thinks that is it morally right or legally right or that there is public support for the position of forcibly expelling a person who came here 20 or 25 years ago illegally and has since then been a good “citizen” that now has family and community roots, well they are wrong.

From a legal perspective, we have had both political parties, including Ronald Reagan that de facto approved a system where people that came here illegally were fully accepted into the workplace …that is we allowed this openly for over 3 decades

From a moral perspective, since we allowed illegal to work here virtually legally, now after 25 years we are changing our minds to the point where we will pick people up, including people that came here as small children and babies that know nothing about Mexico and that are culturally Americans, now we physically ripe them from their American lives and throw them out? No, Newt is correct,

georgealbert on November 23, 2011 at 5:16 AM

From a moral perspective, since we allowed illegal to work here virtually legally, now after 25 years we are changing our minds to the point where we will pick people up, including people that came here as small children and babies that know nothing about Mexico and that are culturally Americans, now we physically ripe them from their American lives and throw them out? No, Newt is correct,

georgealbert

Sniff sniff….that was beautiful, man. How could I have been so callous? Your attempt to justify illegal immigration by tugging at our heart strings has made me rethink this entire issue.

This ones just for you, bud.

xblade on November 23, 2011 at 5:47 AM

xblade on November 23, 2011 at 5:47 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhpD8x2cp8M
Romney!!! Well, until the day after the convention.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 5:52 AM

xblade….is that really your name?? wow…

It is not a question of emotion, try thinking, even if it is a task for you. Say in your town on your street the cops and pols have allowed people to travel at 50 mph and they have allowed if for 30 years and then one day you are driving home going 49 mph and you get arrested, and sent to jail for a year for speeding. Will you do your time quietly or will you complain?

georgealbert on November 23, 2011 at 5:58 AM

wow…almost 600 posts on this issue…

good morning HA crew

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:01 AM

“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.”

another panel…everyone on that board will be called a racist xenophobe when they deny the first person…

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:03 AM

To hell with any quisling who aides and abets the invasion of America and an invasion by millions. There are more Mexicans here now than there would be Germans and Japanese if we had lost WWII.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 6:03 AM

morning joe:
huntsman is the guy!
===========================
of course they are going to pull for their guy….

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:03 AM

stop the flow of work and monies and they will leave
-someone earlier said on the debate thread

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:05 AM

huntsman > perry according to morning joe

lolololol

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:06 AM

Of course you realize as is his custom should he win the nomination, he will eventually have the same position as Newt and Perry that he criticises today.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 4:31 AM

That point really needs to be stressed. I hope everybody understands this. Romney’s a lying snake- he’ll say whatever he needs to say to get where he wants.

I think it should be a general rule that if a Republican tells you they oppose Amnesty- they’re lying. Unless that person makes explicitly clear- as Tancredo has- that they oppose Amnesty in any and all forms under any circumstances and it’s a major issue for them, not something they’re goaded into saying, then it should be understood that Amnesty is their default position.

It’s insane and stupid, but this is where we’re at.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 6:09 AM

morning joe:
huntsman is the guy!
===========================
of course they are going to pull for their guy….

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:03 AM

Propping up Huntsman hurts only one fellow RINO. So let them prop him up. Maybe he’ll win New Hampshire!
Tina Brown is on. Instant channel changer.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 6:11 AM

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 6:09 AM

Damn right it needs to be stressed. Romney cannot win the Presidency with a base that barely likes him and having turned away Hispanics. He will FLIP like you’ve never seen. Off the high-dive!! I look forward to seeing it.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 6:13 AM

If anyone thinks that is it morally right or legally right or that there is public support for the position of forcibly expelling a person who came here 20 or 25 years ago illegally…

georgealbert on November 23, 2011 at 5:16 AM

At which point does it become “morally or legally right” to repatriate an illegal? If they came only two minutes ago? Six months? Five years? When, oh Great Arbiter of Our Moral Universe?

Would you be so nonchalant about a stranger entering your own private home uninvited as you are about strangers entering illegally into our collective home?

Schmendrick.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 6:16 AM

BREAKING NEWS…….OBAMA RE-ELECTED.

All this angst and flailing about Romney and other candidates is pointless. The Ruling Class has spoken and they want Obama re-elected. You see while the “debates” rage on Donald Trump is getting ready to siphon off 10% of the GOP vote.

And now, to peel off the Northeastern states and throw them to Obama you’ve got Bloomberg threatening a run.

Then if that’s not enough we’ve got Crazy Ron Paul talking about running 3rd party and taking another 5-10% of the Far Right GOP vote.

Debate on, the die is cast.

PappyD61 on November 23, 2011 at 6:17 AM

Pappy, I’m less concerned about who wins the Presidency than I am about electing more Conservatives to Congress.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM

I can see Newt’s point about long-term illegal residents (illegal aliens) but his exercise of humane action can only be a follow up to very tough action designed to secure the border, catch and deport those we find, choke off opportunities for illegals to work here and cause them to self-deport. Then we can work out ways to deal “humanely” with the rest. Actual citizenship must be obtained through recognized channels. Otherwise, we are just kicking this can down the road (again) for another generation to deal with.

Extrafishy on November 23, 2011 at 6:23 AM

And now, to peel off the Northeastern states and throw them to Obama you’ve got Bloomberg threatening a run.

A Bloomberg run hurts Obama, not the Republican. You can’t seriously believe a Republican who does NOT live on either side of Central Park would vote for him.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 6:24 AM

THE PAPPY PLAN would solve this problem.

1. Seal the border.
Saves entitlements, state budgets, local tax dollars. Public education costs., etc.

2. 10% across the board Federal spending cuts.
“shared sacrifice”, easy to understand and easy to defend.

I know, i know, too common sensey to happen.

PappyD61 on November 23, 2011 at 6:26 AM

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 6:11 AM

she does irk me…

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:26 AM

Who’s the guy in the glasses arguing with Joe and shutting him up? He’s like Pat Buchanan. Laughed in Joe’s face when Joe said Huntsman will do well in South Carolina.

Whoever he is, HE won’t be back on the show.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 6:31 AM

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 6:31 AM

dan senor…worked in the bush administration…he’s doing what should be done on that show, call BS on morning joe and his crew….

talk about delusional with the huntsman love

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:33 AM

Oh boy,….Mittens might have a ClusterFark,from last night!!
=============================================================

Video Clip of the Night from what’s his name
Nov 22 2011 at 9:59PM
*************************

Wolf Blitzer started the night by confirming that Wolf really was his first name.

In the introductory statements, Mitt Romney confirmed that Mitt was his first name.

Except that it’s not, it’s Willard. Which leads to the Tweet of the Night from @AshleyRParker:
——————————

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Twitter-@AshleyRParker-Mitt-Romney-Name.jpg

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/video-clip-of-the-night-from-whats-his-name/
=================

Cnn/Gop Debate Part 1
Mitt begins to speak at(1:23-1:50)
***********************************

http://www.youtube.com/user/VoteRonPaul12#p/u/9/DsQEJQyifsI

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:34 AM

Bloomberg peels off just 5%, Trump pulls 10%, Paul pulls 5%…..

20% off the GOP total, and who of the Peggy Joseph/Obama Stash demographic would vote for any of these three guys?

And electing more Conservatives?

Go ahead cant hurt but I talked to a State Senator yesterday about this scenario and he thinks there is a strong possibility that the European bank contagion/exposure may spread to US banks before the elections in November and if that happens……..not good. And that threat to banks is well beyond Congressional makeup issues.

PappyD61 on November 23, 2011 at 6:35 AM

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:34 AM

ooopsie

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:36 AM

Breaking News on FoxNews: Senator Thune to endorse Romney today.
If I had to bet money, I’d pick Romney-Perry.
And Romney WILL flip on his amnesty talk. Bet the farm on that.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 6:37 AM

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 6:37 AM

hmmm

the way the sparks fly between those two, i wonder….

still shooting for a perry/gingrich, gingrich/perry team until the fat lady sings…

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:40 AM

Romney is much more likely to pick Virginia’s Governor. Perry? About 1 in 1,000.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 6:43 AM

the way the sparks fly between those two, i wonder….

Don’t forget Reagan-Bush was very ugly, too.
I’m voting Perry, mind’s made up. Then the ultimate Republican ticket as always.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 6:43 AM

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:34 AM
ooopsie

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:36 AM

cmsinaz:Morning,that went over me head,when they were introducing
themselves last night!:)

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:43 AM

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:43 AM

i only watched the last 20 minutes myself…

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:46 AM

Well,ahem,might as well put dis up!
===================================

Wednesday, November 23, 2011
RomneyCare: Mitt vs The Truth
(Video)
***********
***********

Mitt Romney hasn’t been compelled to defend his record on health care. Now is the time to make that happen. Voters will be going to the primaries and the caucuses in just a few weeks.

http://www.rightklik.net/2011/11/romneycare-mitt-vs-truth.html

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:46 AM

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 6:43 AM

good point

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:46 AM

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:43 AM
i only watched the last 20 minutes myself…

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:46 AM

cmsinaz:Well,you didn’t miss too much,I posted the 9 parts,
of the debate above!:)

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:48 AM

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:48 AM

thanks good buddy…

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:49 AM

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:48 AM
=========
thanks good buddy…

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:49 AM

cmsinaz:Anytime:)

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 6:54 AM

When was the last amnesty? If they got here shortly after the last amnesty Gingrich is making the case they made to their family when they first crossed the Rio Grande… Republicans will give us amnesty someday.

petunia on November 23, 2011 at 3:15 AM

The Reagan-signed amnesty law was passed in 1986. Newt didn’t just pull that 25-year number out of a hat. He’s basically saying the illegals who came in after that amnesty, betting that of course there would eventually be another, were right. And that’s exactly what will happen if we grant another one. Millions more will come, expecting that “their turn” will come around.

And to the commenter who claims that all these illegals are “culturally American,” are you kidding? There was a story in the news just last week about how California school administrators had sent home some kids for daring to wear U.S. flag t-shirts to their U.S. public school on Cinco de Mayo. The school felt that the display of U.S. patriotism in a U.S. school on a Mexican national holiday was inflammatory, and causing the students’ safety to be at risk (an appeals court agreed with the school). A lot of those “culturally American” kids were threatening the kids wearing the U.S. flag on the “culturally American” kids’ national holiday (Cinco do Mayo). And you must have also missed all those “culturally American” protestors a year or so ago, marching in the streets with their sea of Mexican flags (until the La Raza PR flacks got involved) demanding amnesty and threatening to “shut down the U.S. economy” until they received all their “rights.” Or how about that woman who was acting as a spokesperson for one of the amnesty groups; she’d been living and working here for over 20 years and had even had a baby here (fathered by another illegal Mexican), and she still couldn’t speak English? It’s true that some illegals have assimiliated, but for many more, the only thing American about them is their address.

AZCoyote on November 23, 2011 at 6:56 AM

So where do we draw the line? 10 years? 1 year? 6 months if they sneak in get married and get knocked up? Do we now ignore laws when it makes us “feel good” ie the 80 year old granny who snuck in? Stupid.

Seal the borders, aggressively deport remaining illegals as they rear their ugly heads.

Alden Pyle on November 23, 2011 at 6:56 AM

I can live with Newt’s position in theory. Lord knows what images we’d see on TV of Republicans destroying families.

Things are what they are. For me the primary thing is securing the border and stopping the swarm of illegals crossing. That is number one! Second is going after employers and deporting those who have arrived within the last few years. They will not be hard to find compared to someone who has lived her for 25 years.

Shut down the flow! Secure the border! Deport those who have just arrived! That solves half the problem right there.

JellyToast on November 23, 2011 at 6:57 AM

AZCoyote on November 23, 2011 at 6:56 AM

well said

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 6:59 AM

Interesting……………………………..

Newt taking heat for “humane” immigration stand at CNN debate
Nov 23 2011 at 5:26AM
***********************
***********************

WASHINGTON–At the CNN GOP presidential debate on Tuesday, current front-runner Newt Gingrich called for a “humane” immigration policy and said he was “prepared to take the heat” for his stand.

And he’s getting it.

In the spin room after the two-hour encounter, rival camps stripped any nuance from Gingrich’s position on giving a break to long-term illegal immigrants to the U.S. and drilled in on his “mistake.”

“Amnesty is not the way to deal with it,” said Alice Stewart, communications chief for Michele Bachmann, a comment echoed by the other camps.

The eight rivals met for a rare debate here, focusing on national security and foreign policy in a session co-sponsored by The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

Gingrich’s immigration policy threatens his front-runner surge far more than the controversy over the million dollars plus he got from his Freddie Mac boondoggle.

There was metaphorical cheering in the green rooms from Gingrich’s competition as he talked about a pathway for long-term illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. The group think: Gingrich took a position that will be taken as offering amnesty, which will kill him with social conservatives–whose votes are crucial in GOP primaries.

The gist from the spin room: Social conservatives are window shopping. Gingrich is enjoying a boomlet as the current “flavor of the week.” But his lead–as has been true of all the Republican 2012 contenders who peaked way too soon–is fragile and he is not strong enough to stand a controversy on a bread and butter policy issue. Newt’s position was seen as an inexplicable mistake.

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Howard in the spin room said Gingrich has been talking about for some time having “local citizen boards” —modeled on the old draft boards–decide who can stay and who should be deported.

With the debate, people finally heard it. Gingrich’s rivals did not tear him apart from their podiums. Why do anything when they thought Gingrich shot himself in all ten toes?

Here is what Gingrich said:

GINGRICH: I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them.
(More……)
===============

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/11/newt_taking_heat_for_humane_im.htm

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 7:03 AM

Oops,sorry,Linky glitch malfunction!

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/11/newt_taking_heat_for_humane_im.html

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM

Seal the borders, aggressively deport remaining illegals as they rear their ugly heads.

Alden Pyle on November 23, 2011 at 6:56 AM

We should have sealed the border 30 years ago, but we didn’t. I think we should accept some responsibility for that moving forward. Those crying amnesty have something in common with democrats, they’re happy to keep kicking this can down the road.

mike_NC9 on November 23, 2011 at 7:08 AM

Best reason I ever heard for not being deported was from an Estonian.
He jumped ship in 1947 and was here until he died. He got nailed in Miami in 1971 and told them. “You cannot deport me. My country is a parking lot”.
Got away with it too.

katy the mean old lady on November 23, 2011 at 7:12 AM

Shut down the flow! Secure the border! Deport those who have just arrived! That solves half the problem right there.

JellyToast on November 23, 2011 at 6:57 AM

Do that at and ensure illegals cannot get jobs or benefits and the rest will take care of its own. No deporting necessary.

CW on November 23, 2011 at 7:14 AM

lorien1973 on November 23, 2011 at 3:04 AM

I can be against it because I fail to see how dodging the law for 25 years becomes justification for no longer having it apply. Illegals have reaped the blessings of living in this country for a quarter century–I owe them nothing, certainly not “compassion.” I hope the 80-year-old grandmother someone mentioned upthread has the decency to thank us for a good run as she boards the bus to go home.

DrMagnolias on November 23, 2011 at 7:21 AM

I hope the 80-year-old grandmother someone mentioned upthread has the decency to thank us for a good run as she boards the bus to go home.

Heh.

lowandslow on November 23, 2011 at 7:29 AM

Newt is closer to being right on this issue and he was right that he will pay the price for it. I’m for Mitt and and am no fan of the nutty professor. But the fact is that it long past time for us to recognize and even welcome people who have been living and working here for decades as Americans.

No, it is not ideal that they arrived illegally, but pragmatism must trump rigid adherence to stupid laws at times like this. Our ICE is a cluster-fark, making it a ridiculous exercise in bureaucracy to apply for and gain citizenship. Life moves faster than the glacial pace of government and this is a case where our laws should be made to conform to reality.

Of course, Mitt gains by pandering on this and Newt loses. In the end that’s well and good with me. But only from a cynical electoral perspective as I know that Mitt will be a great POTUS and Newt if he were the nominee would be a disastrous candidate.

MJBrutus on November 23, 2011 at 7:33 AM

I have compassion. And I can agree with a little of this BS on a case by case basis.
Like the 80yo grandma.
But these people, needy or not, have helped ruin our economy by depressing the wage market.
The ones taking ‘free’ govt services have NEVER paid enough taxes to make up for the drain they are on our society.
At some point, the orphanage America has become, cannot take anymore.
So are we going to continue cooking the Golden Goose?
I can understand & partially agree with Newt.
But seriously, anyone taking welfare, food stamps, tuition $$, etc. who is an illegal really deserves very little, if any charity.
We can’t save the whole world.
At some point, these people have to clean up their own damned house.
And by letting the sad sacks stay here illegally, we invite more of the same.

Badger40 on November 23, 2011 at 7:36 AM

Not one single candidate will deport illegals who have been living productive lives in the U.S., if they say they will, they are lying.

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 7:37 AM

When it’s USA vs Mexico soccer in a packed LA stadium, & the crowd is 95% for Mexico, & they boo our national anthem, I’m sure they’re all very recent immigrants, right Newt?

itsnotaboutme on November 23, 2011 at 7:38 AM

Of course, Mitt gains by pandering on this.

Obama gains when Mitt panders. Because he’s going to once again take an opposite position once he’s suckered the anti-amnesty crowd secured the nomination.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 7:40 AM

We shouldn’t favor one immigrant group over another period and that is what we do regardless of borders.

tomas on November 23, 2011 at 7:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8 9