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 5 6 7 8 9

When there were those massive marches against AZ law 1070, I’m sure all of the tens of thousands of marchers were very recent immigrants, right Newt?

itsnotaboutme on November 23, 2011 at 7:41 AM

Our ICE is a cluster-fark, making it a ridiculous exercise in bureaucracy to apply for and gain citizenship.
MJBrutus on November 23, 2011 at 7:33 AM

No wonder – if people are going to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to apply for and gain citizenship, they went to the wrong agency. That would indeed slow things down a bit.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 7:43 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

We’re not expecting that the candidates themselves should do this. We have ICE and Sheriff Joe for that.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 7:43 AM

I’m sure when nominee Romney gives his speech basically repeating what Gingrich-Perry have said, it will be hyped similar to the Obama “speech on race” or his “Berlin Tiergarten” speech.

Marcus on November 23, 2011 at 7:44 AM

Gingrich says he doesn’t want to give them the right to vote. How long will the courts uphold that once they are here LEGALLY? They will not stand for second class citizens, nor should they. That is not America. We don’t have second class citizens, not since the Civil War and Jim Crow. It’s all or nothing. America needs it to be nothing or we will become a third world country like Mexico. Gingrich can go to Hell.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 7:45 AM

My mom is from Germany and has been a legal immigrant for 50 years. she chooses to retain her German citizenship. I think she has to fill out papers every 10 years.

tomas on November 23, 2011 at 7:45 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

We’re not expecting that the candidates themselves should do this. We have ICE and Sheriff Joe for that.
sartana on November 23, 2011 at 7:43 AM

All that requires is a candidate who wont tie their hands in rejecting enforcing existing law.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Our ICE is a cluster-fark, making it a ridiculous exercise in bureaucracy to apply for and gain citizenship.

MJBrutus on November 23, 2011 at 7:33 AM

Good, it should be that way. What part of “ALL FULL UP!” don’t you understand.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 7:49 AM

If his statement was that we should not be deporting illegals who have been here for 25 years, he is right, they already had their amnesty. But since they failed to make themselves legal when the chance was there, I guess we need to deport them.

Secure the border. Start putting illegal hiring employers in jail. I would bet just 3 months in jail would be enough to stop 99.2% of all current illegal hiring companies to stop hiring illegals. Day worker spot checks where immigration officials or local police go to the places where day laborers stage waiting for someone to come hire them and check for legal status.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 7:43 AM

But they won’t. At best they will be allowed to apply for green cards and apply for citizenship. Like it or not, it is the reality. The only difference between the Right and the Left here is an open border and instant voting privileges.

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 7:51 AM

Secure the border. Start putting illegal hiring employers in jail. I would bet just 3 months in jail would be enough to stop 99.2% of all current illegal hiring companies to stop hiring illegals. Day worker spot checks where immigration officials or local police go to the places where day laborers stage waiting for someone to come hire them and check for legal status.
astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM

Sounds like a good plan to me.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 7:53 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

We’re not expecting that the candidates themselves should do this. We have ICE and Sheriff Joe for that.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 7:43 AM

the problem with Newt’s statement isn’t the idea behind it itself.

The reality is, the people that have been here 5+ year and have decent jobs, don’ use entitlements and haven’t been convicted of crimes, are not likely to leave or be forced out.

But we don’t say that. the idea is to take a get tough stance, end sanctuary cities, step up border enforcement and enforcement against hiring illegals (e-verify and other measures). Stiffen the fines for businesses that hire illegals. Speed up the deportation process. Take away ability of illegals to get entitlements.

then, we will slow the tide of illegals coming in and there will be a lot of self-deportation among the illegals. And – it is unlikely that these things are going to effect people who have grown roots in a community and have productive jobs. Those people likely have some form of fake papers (e-verify won’t touch them as that is only upon hire), they aren’t using entitlements where they are likely to get caught and deported, etc. Yes, a few here and there will end up getting deported – but that is the risk they took coming here illegally. For the vast majority of these “productive” illegals who have been here a long time, getting tough on illegal immigration is unlikely to effect them.

But when you start by saying “we’re not going to do anything if you’ve been here long enough, you are already starting with a weak position, and it is only going to get watered down from there. When you start making classifications, you open up to “well, why is 5 years here ok but not 3 years?” and other nonsense. And, you are signalling to the illegal community that you have no intention of being serious about enforcement.

that is the problem with this mindset.

When you start from the position that it is inhumane to deport someone who has been here illegally for 5 years, you are very unlikely to want to deport someone who has been here illegally for 2 years. All of these things are arbitrary lines, just like national boundaries are arbitrary lines drawn up by men.

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 7:53 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.

DrMagnolias on November 23, 2011 at 7:21 AM

No, her and her family — who were born here and are here legally — will give the Democrats enough votes to take back the government and allow her to stay. Meanwhile, you and I get to enjoy a generation of socialist policies and further decline. In the end, Newt played the issue right; is now a stronger candidate going into the GE; and has actually knocked Romney’s chances down a peg after Mitt’s weaselly non-answer on the issue. Remember: You can’t win without Hispanic voters. Mitt Romney has proven himself unelectable.

Punchenko on November 23, 2011 at 7:54 AM

Gingrich: Let’s face it, we shouldn’t be deporting illegals who have been here for 25 years

 
Stop worrying about votes, please. You don’t have to deport them. You just have to pass a teensy little law saying that in six months there will be a $5000/day fine for each illegal employed at your business (period, knowingly or not), retroactive back to the date the legislation was signed into law, and continuing until they are no longer employed.
 
There would be no “deportation” needed.
 
This isn’t hard. Stop letting their demographic get in the way.

rogerb on November 23, 2011 at 7:54 AM

Whatever did happen to ‘law and order’ Republicans?

Respect for the law comes first, and to respect it the law must be simple to understand and enforced. There is a single standard applied to all people, not something that gets a sliding scale based on ‘local boards’ or ‘well they have been breaking the law this long it would be heartless to enforce it now’.

From that comes the simple order of society to know that those who continually break laws will not get a pass from doing so, no matter what the circumstances.

If you want to change the law on the enforcement side to ‘protect’ those gravitating towards magnets of jobs and benefits, then craft laws to go after those offering such enticements to foreigners to break our civil order and laws. Make them harsh to get the point across, like a ’3 strikes and you’re out’ law for those who continually do not screen their worker pools to remove illegals from them and certify that they only get people who can legally work here. The first offense is a fine, a warning and a few months in the pokey for everyone in the hiring chain in a company from wherver it starts. CEO, Board of Directors, it matters not: whoever sets company policy and all of those who enforce it without pointing out it breaks the law, they must go. The second offense a stiffer fine of 10% of company value in assets and property, plus cash, and a 5 year felony in club fed for those in the hiring chain of command. The third strike and you are out: the company disbanded and sold piecemeal at auction never to rise again, and everyone in the authorizing chain for hiring getting a stiff 15 year no time off for good behavior allowed jail sentence. Apply this to individuals who hire as well as companies. If companies can’t find anyone then have a legal ‘guest worker’ program with documentation and a no longer than 10 month time limit for any worker after which they MUST go home. Companies can figure out how to house and feed them thus making sure that these people do not come to think of themselves as anything other than GUESTS. There is already a skilled worker program (though why we need that when we have these lovely, overpriced universities sucking all these young adults is beyond me… perhaps they aren’t teaching any valuable life skills…) and we don’t need permanent residents for unskilled work. Once the true cost of getting unskilled workers is taken in by the company, then you will see the wages offered for these jobs go up to attract more citizens as workers.

Law and order.

An easy to understand law on our side of the border that upholds national sovereignty and doesn’t put private firms in charge of it by offering enticements to people to come here illegally.

A legal method for bringing people in for unskilled work and time-limits with verification set-up, with the companies bearing the burdern of those brought in for such employment.

Families are not ‘broken up’ by this as there are some US workers that do spend as much as 10 months out of a year from their families and still keep their families together. That magnet ENDS and excuses for not putting granny, mom, dad and the little children back where they belong is also ended as the wage earner is earning a wage to support a family legally in their home nation. Surely both Republicans and conservatives could back THAT, no? Or are ‘family values’ only invoked for law breakers?

The Left should love this as big, rapacious and dishonest companies doing such hiring will face certain and quite nasty penalties, including the removal of such companies as actors in our economy. Plus decent wages and living conditions for ‘guest workers’ become the responsility of the companies involved so they bear the ‘social cost’ of such labor.

The Right should love this as it upholds a moral order via the law that is applied without favor to any, with equal justice for all, and allows companies to figure out just how much the cost of those they entice to this nation is upon the nation as a whole. There is a cost to society as a whole when the law is not upheld by our companies, and it isn’t a low one, either. Supporting integrated families for wage earners willing to undergo hardship and yet ensuring they have the opportunity to keep the family unit alive at home, should be a big plus to any actual immigration law where labor is concerned.

Is this a good idea?

Beats the hellouttame… but it is one that is sane, can be described, uses commonly understood ideas and concepts, supports the nation, has enforcement teeth to it that are not just wrist-slaps, and those who behave contrary to the national good via immigration know there is a penalty certain to be paid.

Its better than any of the mushy stuff I’ve ever heard come from DC and the political elite, thats for sure.

ajacksonian on November 23, 2011 at 7:55 AM

It is interesting to watch this cold hearted legalistic stance taken by the Mormon who stands to gain something from it compared to the mercy in the stance taken by a Christian who stands to lose something from it.

Apparently that divide will always be with us.

The law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:7)

Many commenters here need to read Matthew 23 which is an angry diatribe shouted by Jesus at the hypocrits like Mitt Romney. The Lord sums them up as “a brood of vipers.”

Happy thanksgiving to all.

jimw on November 23, 2011 at 7:55 AM

PS- That $5000/day fine goes to the informant, in full, per illegal employee if their tip is productive.

rogerb on November 23, 2011 at 7:56 AM

These guys are all politicians. It’s all well and good to demand what we want but at the end of the day we are govern by people (arguably) one step up from a used car salesman when it comes to pandering to a voting demographic. Securing the border and toughening up on employers and updating what has to be the most technologically antiquated system we have running is probably the best we can hope for. Considering the self deportations that have happen lately, it might be surprisingly effective.

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 7:59 AM

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 7:53 AM

As a follow-up to my last comment – it’s a lot like the policy for years that the U.S. never said that it wouldn’t strike first with nukes. It was understood amongst almost everyone in the U.S., but it was never publicly stated.

that should be the same thing with illegal immigration. Yes, we are not going to target or set the policy to catch people who have been here a long time productively with no criminal history – but you don’t say that. You don’t signal to people that we are going to be soft on immigration as that just ends up exacerbating the problem.

You just say we are getting tougher and set the policy such that it is much more unlikely to catch the long time productive illegals.

I can’t, however, say that this rules Newt out as I still would prefer Perry over Romney and Perry is just as bad on immigration.

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 7:59 AM

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 7:53 AM

Nicely said.

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Bringing it back to Newt…

I really do think he’s the smartest guy in the room- but only if it’s a two man cell and Herman Cain just left.

Turns out they’re both kind of dumb.

sartana on November 23, 2011 at 8:03 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.

DrMagnolias on November 23, 2011 at 7:21 AM

No, her and her family — who were born here and are here legally — will give the Democrats enough votes to take back the government and allow her to stay. Meanwhile, you and I get to enjoy a generation of socialist policies and further decline. In the end, Newt played the issue right; is now a stronger candidate going into the GE; and has actually knocked Romney’s chances down a peg after Mitt’s weaselly non-answer on the issue. Remember: You can’t win without Hispanic voters. Mitt Romney has proven himself unelectable.

Punchenko on November 23, 2011 at 7:54 AM

I think everyone here would be willing to agree to a policy where anyone who has been here illegally for 20 years, with no criminal record, and is now over 65 can stay. How’s that?

the problem is, the pro-illegal people will next cry about the 20 year old who came here and gave birth and wants to stay with her now American citizen child.

You can find a lot of sob stories in all of this. Nobody disputes that. And, I don’t even necessarily begrudge a lot of these people for trying. But the answer is for these people to work on making their own countries better.

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 8:03 AM

Late to this thread, but I want to reiterate something that is driving me crazy in this debate:

In-state tuition at a state university is NOT a subsidy from the state. It is largely a subsidy paid by out of state students. Giving all “residents” of a state in-state tuition simply keeps the university out of the immigration debate and having to determine whether an applicant is a legal U.S. citizen. This isn’t a university’s job anyway.

You CAN argue that in-state tuition is just another incentive for illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S.; but the children of those who have come to the U.S. illegally are going to stay here anyway, one way or another.

rockmom on November 23, 2011 at 8:04 AM

I’m glad the conservative side of the GOP is finally waking up and smelling the coffee on this. “Zero Tolerance” never works – we will NEVER deport 25 Million people.

Mitt Romney’s attack is pathetic – since he was for the Bush Amnesty plan. What a panderer.

HondaV65 on November 23, 2011 at 8:05 AM

Whatever did happen to ‘law and order’ Republicans?
ajacksonian on November 23, 2011 at 7:55 AM

I was just thinking the same thing.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:05 AM

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/aei-heritage-cnn-debate

Nice wrap up by Barone. Hard line anti-anything that smells like amnesty should note the following

What infuriates me is that this is a debate over water that has already fallen over the dam. Romney mimicked immigration restrictionists’ arguments that in-state tuition and Selective-Service-type amnesty would be “magnets” for further illegal immigration, There’s a theoretical basis for this claim. But empirically illegal immigration has been dropping toward zero and reverse migration of illegals seems to be taking place: the Census Bureau estimates that the illegal population has declined from 12 million to 11 million, and it probably has declined more since.

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:05 AM

I don’t have time this morning to read all the posts, so I will
just state my thoughts on illegals.

1) I don’t see 12 million+ illegals in an enforced march towards the border. Not practical….or humane.

2) This country’s government and citizens have shown complaisence in allowing this to go on for decades pretty much unchallenged.

Therefore, there needs to be a path to citizenship for those that have exhibited ties to their communities with jobs, schools,
churches, etc.

Amjean on November 23, 2011 at 8:05 AM

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.

So what’s better, a bad answer or a profile in courage. Because you know the answer is the same. This is my problem with Gov. Romney. People can handle the truth and they will decide what positions are deal breakers for their votes.

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 8:05 AM

I also give kudos to Newt for coming out and saying it – especially after the reaction to Perry for his “no heart” comment.

Newt, of course, said it better. And I think Perry’s poor record of pandering for hispanic votes was factored in the backlash.

Amjean on November 23, 2011 at 8:08 AM

You CAN argue that in-state tuition is just another incentive for illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S.; but the children of those who have come to the U.S. illegally are going to stay here anyway, one way or another.

rockmom on November 23, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Also – let’s not forget that illegals in Texas pay the same state taxes as citizens. Texas only has a sales tax.

So I don’t understand why someone in Wisconsin gets upset about not getting in-state tuition in Texas – when they haven’t been paying taxes in Texas.

The illegals … HAVE.

People need to deal with this and get off their high-horses.

HondaV65 on November 23, 2011 at 8:08 AM

Oh well. If Cain would have said this, I would deduct points totally be up in arms about what a loser the guy is. But it is my guy Newt and I have to say, this is one the best statements in decades I have heard coming from a politician statesman, just goes to show what a grown up we have with Newt Gingrich.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:08 AM

The only difference between the Right and the Left here is an open border and instant voting privileges.

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 7:51 AM

Had the partisans on both sides not blocked the Bush-Kennedy plan the first time an illegal would have been eligible to vote would have been at least 13 years after identification…
The instant voting privilege is a red herring meant as a good scare tactic based on no facts…

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:09 AM

rockmom on November 23, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Thanks for the information, I never could get excited about this anyway.

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 8:09 AM

One question I would ask people who talk about “productive” illegal aliens.

What does “productive” mean in this context. I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of illegal aliens are high school education at best and work in labor. So, they make enough to live on – but what about health care? What about retirement?

Are we paying for their health care through medicaid or just unpaid emergency room visits? Are we going to be paying them large amounts of SS retirement that they either did not pay into or did not pay nearly as much into as they will take out?

Or, are they working under the table and earning less than minimum wage or undercutting American workers’ wages? Sure, they are “productive” in the sense that they are earning enough to live right now, but how does it affect American employment and wages? Who pays for their retirement years?

My guess would be that the vast majority of illegals will end up being a net loss the the American taxpayer and worker.

So, again, what does “productive” mean in this context?

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 8:11 AM

Jeez, all the GOP candidates suck. And it would have been perfect in 2012 to get a very good candidate when Obama approvals are at an all time low.

Oil Can on November 23, 2011 at 8:12 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.

DrMagnolias on November 23, 2011 at 7:21 AM

She loves America and her family as much as you do, in fact they are all she has in the world. So, it would be a death penalty to send her back to Mexico. Kind of like watching her get on the bus knowing her seat is the electric chair. People who don’t care won’t be elected.

tinkerthinker on November 23, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Had the partisans on both sides not blocked the Bush-Kennedy plan the first time an illegal would have been eligible to vote would have been at least 13 years after identification…
The instant voting privilege is a red herring meant as a good scare tactic based on no facts…

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:09 AM

13 years or 20 years. It will be untold millions of new liberal voters. And all of those pie in the sky people who believe they will vote for conservatives or even republicans if we just pander to them enough on immigration – you need to wake up.

American hispanics vote mostly for dems. the illegals are coming from countries where the “right” is still to the left of our GOP. they are not going to vote for the GOP. Plus, add in identity politics, which the dems cater to but the right does not, and there is no way the gop or conservatives are getting anywhere near 50% of these votes.

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 8:14 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?
Actually, it doesn’t matter. When that couple left Mexico to come here illegally 25 yrs ago, were they “breaking up” their family, Newt?
When we send them back, we won’t be breaking up their family. Millions of families around the world are spread across national borders without being broken up.

itsnotaboutme on November 23, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Whatever did happen to ‘law and order’ Republicans?
ajacksonian on November 23, 2011 at 7:55 AM

I was just thinking the same thing.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:05 AM

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is what happened to them.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants cheap Mexican labor. Take a look at how much money they donate to republican’s campaigns.

Always follow the money. There is nothing stopping a worker visa program, that doesn’t give illegals amnesty or U.S. citizenship. It doesn’t have to be one – deport or the other- amnesty, that’s a false argument.

I don’t know any segment of the American population that will do the same labor as migrant farm workers.

ICE is rounding up the worst of the worse, and deporting them. However if you don’t secure the port and borders, they just keep returning like a boomerang. We need our ports and borders secured. Janet Napolitano may be happy with our current border security status, but I and many Americans like me are deeply unhappy.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 8:16 AM

I’m glad the conservative side of the GOP is finally waking up and smelling the coffee on this. “Zero Tolerance” never works – we will NEVER deport 25 Million people.

HondaV65 on November 23, 2011 at 8:05 AM

That is a total straw man. Nobody ever argues to deport 25 million people. we argue to make it tougher to get in the country and tougher to stay in the country. To slow down the tide of illegals and get a lot of the illegals here to self-deport.

the “round up 25 million and deport them” line is tired and silly.

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 8:16 AM

She loves America and her family as much as you do, in fact they are all she has in the world. So, it would be a death penalty to send her back to Mexico. Kind of like watching her get on the bus knowing her seat is the electric chair. People who don’t care won’t be elected.

tinkerthinker on November 23, 2011 at 8:12 AM

So, the family is unable to go back with her and take care of her? Wow, always just wow. Whine, cry, sniff sniff, it is just so unfair. There is only one possible outcome for everything. Sending this woman back is like giving her a death sentence, never mind the fact that if she would have lived her life in the other country she would have been dead long ago, and that there are alternative paths for her trip back, it is a DEATH SENTENCE! what kind of horrible evil people are you!?!

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:16 AM

I don’t have time this morning to read all the posts, so I will just state my thoughts on illegals.
1) I don’t see 12 million+ illegals in an enforced march towards the border. Not practical….or humane.

Already been brought up and dismissed in it’s various strawman forms (jackbooted thugs dragging 120 year old Grannies to boxcars and such).

2) This country’s government and citizens have shown complaisence in allowing this to go on for decades pretty much unchallenged.

Been brought up. If you forget to lock a window and some thief uses it to enter and burglarize your place, your valuables do not become his.

Therefore, there needs to be a path to citizenship for those that have exhibited ties to their communities with jobs, schools, churches, etc.
Amjean on November 23, 2011 at 8:05 AM

Also been brought up; there has always been a “path to citizenship”, only the criminally-minded think it doesn’t apply to them.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:09 AM

I am promoting scare tactics?

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 8:18 AM

She loves America and her family as much as you do, in fact they are all she has in the world. So, it would be a death penalty to send her back to Mexico. Kind of like watching her get on the bus knowing her seat is the electric chair. People who don’t care won’t be elected.

tinkerthinker on November 23, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Should america be allowed to have laws? Or, if you can come up with a good enough sob story – do laws not apply? I care a lot about my family, can I commit crimes to give them better things?

I’m not saying that 80 year-olds should be deported, but are we really sinking to the leftist thinking of using emotion to decide issues and set policy? Is feel goodism the new conservative?

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Newt says it’s OK if illegals being here 20 years can stay, if they belong to a church. What happens if they belong to Mosque?

Also, when did membership in the Catholic Church was a requirement for citizenship?

Oil Can on November 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM

The illegals MUST go. ALL OF THEM. If you want to immigrate here, do it legally.

Newt, Mitt and Perry never get my vote. EVER. I’m tired of holding my nose. Lets support an actual conservative candidate.

dogsoldier on November 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM

A few things that have proven destructive to this country are illegal immigration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Gingrich advocates for all of them. He must not even smell the nomination.

voiceofreason on November 23, 2011 at 8:20 AM

there has always been a “path to citizenship”, only the criminally-minded think it doesn’t apply to them.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Agreed.
If you’re here illegally, get out or find a way to come here legally.
Illegals are depressing our wages, skewing the job market, and taking jobs from citizens.
IT is true, there are jobs that have been given to illegals that citizens & legal immigrants WANT & have been DENIED.
I know this bcs I’ve SEEN IT.

Badger40 on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

I am promoting scare tactics?

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 8:18 AM

You are parroting a talking point used as a scare tactic. I cannot divine your motives for using it.

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

So, the family is unable to go back with her and take care of her? Wow, always just wow. Whine, cry, sniff sniff, it is just so unfair. There is only one possible outcome for everything. Sending this woman back is like giving her a death sentence, never mind the fact that if she would have lived her life in the other country she would have been dead long ago, and that there are alternative paths for her trip back, it is a DEATH SENTENCE! what kind of horrible evil people are you!?!
astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Also, it’s not as if the illegals didn’t ditch their family and friends in their home country in the first place. Now, that’s “heartless” and “inhumane”.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 8:14 AM

7 sentences, 111 words but not one fact to back it up….

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Newt says it’s OK if illegals being here 20 years can stay, if they belong to a church. What happens if they belong to Mosque?
Also, when did membership in the Catholic Church was a requirement for citizenship?
Oil Can on November 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Good questions. And what’s with the 20/25/whatever years? What if they’ve only been here 19 years & 11 months? Off they go?

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Well, at least we the voters get to see what Gingrich actually has in mind as to specifics and I add only that I am immensely disappointed in him for his views expressed as to amnesty — AND in trying to blame the U.S. instead of the bad characters who abuse our laws.

Put the blame where it belongs, which is what our laws actually do and what is the most irritating to people such as Obama, and now Gingrich and others of their state of mind on these bare-bones issues.

Someone claimng Gingrich-support is on twitter trying to claim that what Gingrich proposed “isn’t amnesty” and I’m trying to figure out which is the most offensive: that deceit or Gingrich’s finger-pointing at the U.S. for the actions of illegal aliens (who he says should be rewarded, which is, indeed, amnesty, an amnesty for some).

These are my thoughts, late. Gingrich has had my support but I’m not at all eager to now support someone who has a “secret agenda” that only now eeks out in this CNN debate. Gingrich is now looking far less supportable.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:25 AM

Illegals are depressing our wages, skewing the job market, and taking jobs from citizens.
IT is true, there are jobs that have been given to illegals that citizens & legal immigrants WANT & have been DENIED.
I know this bcs I’ve SEEN IT.

Badger40 on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

How are those farm jobs in georgia and alabama working out?

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:25 AM

Also, it’s not as if the illegals didn’t ditch their family and friends in their home country in the first place. Now, that’s “heartless” and “inhumane”.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

One of my best friends is Tex Mex, she was born in this country, and her mother is naturalized, one of her older sisters served in the U.S. Army. They take care packages down to the folks in Mexico on a regular basis. How bad is it in Mexico. Her Mom was taking an old color tv she got at a yard sale to some of her family in Mexico, when she was at the border crossing the Mexican border agent told her he had to confiscate the old tv. She told him, she would take it to the bridge and throw it over before she would let him have it. They let her threw. Mexico is a corrupt place they treat their own people like crap.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 8:26 AM

If ever I get stopped for a traffic violation, I’ll now claim the Gingrich plan and say I’ve been driving for twenty years so whatever I’m doing now should be rewarded, not penalized.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM

threw- through

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM

Also, it’s not as if the illegals didn’t ditch their family and friends in their home country in the first place. Now, that’s “heartless” and “inhumane”.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

I am perfectly happy to allow some exemptions based on extreme situations. The kind that might affectively include 1 to 4 per 1000 illegal alliens. And this sounds like one I would be willing to get behind. Then again, I would argue that if the person applying for the exemption uses the argument that sending them back to their home country is like strapping them into an electric chair, their petition should be laughed at, stamped immediately with disaproved and the slowest least costly transport going as far away as we can deport them be utilized.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM

Illegals are depressing our wages, skewing the job market, and taking jobs from citizens.
IT is true, there are jobs that have been given to illegals that citizens & legal immigrants WANT & have been DENIED.
I know this bcs I’ve SEEN IT.

Badger40 on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

How are those farm jobs in georgia and alabama working out?

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:25 AM

Funny you should ask – things are finally looking up:
November 21, 2011 -
Unemployment drops as Alabama’s immigration reform enacted

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:29 AM

I can’t, however, say that this rules Newt out as I still would prefer Perry over Romney and Perry is just as bad on immigration.

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 7:59 AM

LOL…

I cautioned when Perry made his “have no heart” remark that there is not a whit of difference between the candidates’ positions on border security/illegal immigration (save Ron Paul probably).

But many here refused to accept that and proceeded to excoriate Perry for his position despite his record of actually fighting hard to secure the Texas border with Mexico.

Now that the other candidates’ positions are being exposed, the only fallback is “Meh… he is as bad as Perry”?

TheRightMan on November 23, 2011 at 8:30 AM

7 sentences, 111 words but not one fact to back it up….

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:23 AM

So, you belive pandering to them will win their hearts and minds? You a big believer in pandering regadless of the merits of the policy?

Do you really believe they will vote GOP or conservative? Based on what? They come from countries that are mostly far left, so that is what they think is appropriate (look at how libs leave liberal states, move to conservative states b/c of better jobs/economies and then vote for all the same old lib b.s.).

I’m talking about human nature. It is just commons sense. You can deny it all you want, but it is true. There are less facts to back up the idea that they will vote conservative or GOP. why would you possibly believe that? B/c they are “conservative” b/c they are mostly catholic? Look at the black vote. In polls blacks overwhelmingly agree with conservatives on social issue. Yet they vote lib/dem.

History and commons sense support my argument. All you have is wishful thinking that pandering on illegal immigration will win the day.

So, count my words and sentences again. Maybe this time actually thing through the arguments. I certainly have seen no logical argument from you.

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 8:31 AM

Badger40 on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

How are those farm jobs in georgia and alabama working out?

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:25 AM

It is entirely possible to create and maintain a Guest Worker Program that DISALLOWS any birth-right citizenship, etc., for “guest workers” while here “guest working.”

OUr nation’s problem is that the Fourteenth Amendment has been both abused, violated and misapplied to the point that now the entire world has discovered that all they have to do is arrive here on Thursday without permission or sanction of legitimacy, give birth on Sunday and presto, they’re “in”.

No Guest Worker Program will EVER function beneficially to the U.S. as long as the 14th Amendment is allowed to be abused and exploited by illegals to garner “permission to stay by means of latching themselves onto a child they birth on U.S. soil and eventually bringing in the entire village claiming they’re ‘family’” benefits.

We’ll never create nor manage any Guest Worker Program until the “birth right citizenship” miscarriage of the Fourteenth is cleared up. Because people exploit loopholes where they can when they’re the kinds of people who exploit loopholes and illegal aliens are such as those.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:32 AM

Also, it’s not as if the illegals didn’t ditch their family and friends in their home country in the first place. Now, that’s “heartless” and “inhumane”.
whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

I am perfectly happy to allow some exemptions based on extreme situations. The kind that might affectively include 1 to 4 per 1000 illegal alliens. And this sounds like one I would be willing to get behind. Then again, I would argue that if the person applying for the exemption uses the argument that sending them back to their home country is like strapping them into an electric chair, their petition should be laughed at, stamped immediately with disaproved and the slowest least costly transport going as far away as we can deport them be utilized.
astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM

I agree there is room for the very rare charity cases, but not such that it invites other countries from dumping their charity cases on our doorstop.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:32 AM

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Opinion based on one months worth of data. Not specific on types of jobs picked up. Considering the season for picking crops is largely over I’d say the jury is still out on the impact.

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Illegals are depressing our wages, skewing the job market, and taking jobs from citizens.
IT is true, there are jobs that have been given to illegals that citizens & legal immigrants WANT & have been DENIED.
I know this bcs I’ve SEEN IT.

Badger40 on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

How are those farm jobs in georgia and alabama working out?

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:25 AM

Look at our youth right now. Completely unable to get their first jobs. It used to be that the jobs the illegals do now were the first jobs for many of our youth. Lawn care, house work, farm work. It does not just depress wages for the specific jobs, but causes long term permanant damage to the children who have no easy to get low skill jobs to build from.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

I think there is enough evidence of the Democrats shady voting and registration practices not to be accused of scare tactics.

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 8:34 AM

I would argue that if the person applying for the exemption uses the argument that sending them back to their home country is like strapping them into an electric chair, their petition should be laughed at, stamped immediately with disaproved and the slowest least costly transport going as far away as we can deport them be utilized.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM

Especially when Mexico has a lower unemployment rate than the United States, we are hovering around 9.1 and our actual unemployment rate is much higher.

Mexico’s Unemployment was 5.4% (2010 est.) I read some where it dipped down to 4%.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:32 AM

Your points on the 14th amendment are reasonable. Problem is that the reality is that even if it is eliminated or changed it won’t change the citizenship status of those who have obtained citizenship under the law to date.
You do realize there are a couple of prominent people in the conservative movement whose birth gave their parents legal status to say don’t you?

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:36 AM

And just who is “family” as to illegal aliens?

Entire villages of seventh-cousins five times removed or whatever other Grannie and Gramps someone paid someone else to claim as a relative have been imported both legally and illegally for decades and the taxpayers of this nation just have to take a stand and demand this all be stopped.

We should grant legal immigration “the old fashioned way” and that is by application based upon competency and qualifications. People who want to become U.S. citizens, are capable of self-sufficiency and whose goals are to become a contributing member of our U.S.

Require health status qualifications. Require identity verifications. Require the means to self-support and the intents to be so.

This is how our immigration policy was maintained for decades prior to recently and it functioned mostly for our nation’s good. It’s only been with the advent of the welfare society and “chain migration” (and that darned “wet foot, dry foot” policy for Cuban refugees that has created a standard of expectation now among most of South and Central America for themselves) that our illegal immigration problem has burgeoned.

It is MADNESS to suggest that amplifying that problem is somehow a solution to that problem.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:37 AM

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Opinion based on one months worth of data. Not specific on types of jobs picked up. Considering the season for picking crops is largely over I’d say the jury is still out on the impact.
Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:33 AM

You asked how it was working out, I just obliged with the very latest data which shows it’s working out pretty well, thank you. Self-deportation works every time it is implemented.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM

FIRST!

Right on, I love my public union.

Bishop on November 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM

I also give kudos to Newt for coming out and saying it – especially after the reaction to Perry for his “no heart” comment.

Newt, of course, said it better. And I think Perry’s poor record of pandering for hispanic votes was factored in the backlash.

Amjean on November 23, 2011 at 8:08 AM

So Newt comes out in favor of a “more humane treatment” for illegals – and you give him kudos.

But Perry’s policies must be seen in the light of him “pandering” to Hispanics for votes?

Can you be any less biased? LOL…

TheRightMan on November 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM

So, the family is unable to go back with her and take care of her? Wow, always just wow. Whine, cry, sniff sniff, it is just so unfair. There is only one possible outcome for everything. Sending this woman back is like giving her a death sentence, never mind the fact that if she would have lived her life in the other country she would have been dead long ago, and that there are alternative paths for her trip back, it is a DEATH SENTENCE! what kind of horrible evil people are you!?!

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Her family are American citizens not Mexican citizens, so no, they can’t go to Mexico to take care of her. At 80 yrs old, as you put it, her remaining friends or distant relatives are dead, she would truly be alone.

tinkerthinker on November 23, 2011 at 8:40 AM

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:32 AM

Your points on the 14th amendment are reasonable. Problem is that the reality is that even if it is eliminated or changed it won’t change the citizenship status of those who have obtained citizenship under the law to date.
You do realize there are a couple of prominent people in the conservative movement whose birth gave their parents legal status to say don’t you?

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Yes, I realize there are some among the GOP/Right who’se citizenship would be questionable under a correction of the Fourteenth — but their legitimacy already IS questionable to many for just such a reason, particularly when they take public office and start “redirecting” policy.

It doesn’t make them any more legitimate, however, it just makes the problem more pronounced, calling more attention to the violation or corruption of ethics that some people go to to gain political leverage over others. It’s offensive from the Left AND the Right.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:41 AM

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Illegal immigration has nothing to do with the poor parenting skills of our latest generation of legal citizens.

Cindy Munford on November 23, 2011 at 8:34 AM

As applies to the illegal immigration specifically I don’t agree with your logic.
When a liberal says the conservatives don’t want immigrants because of racial bias I doubt you accept that as fact anymore than I would.
Same idea — statement is not proveable, hence a scare tactic seen on the innertubes a lot.

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:41 AM

TheRightMan on November 23, 2011 at 8:30 AM

I stated here on the Hot Air threads, that none of the republicans primary candidates will take a different stance than Perry on illegal aliens already in our country. Why? They need the Hispanic vote to win the general.

Michelle Bachmann parrots what she thinks the base wants to hear, it takes an act of our congress to settle the status of illegal aliens inside this country.

I am against amnesty, no one who hopped the border or over stayed their visa, should be rewarded with United States citizenship.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 8:41 AM

It used to be that the jobs the illegals do now were the first jobs for many of our youth. Lawn care, house work, farm work. It does not just depress wages for the specific jobs, but causes long term permanant damage to the children who have no easy to get low skill jobs to build from.
astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Yup, these were the things we American kids cut our working teeth on back in the day, after school and in the summer. Picked up some money and learned the value of a dollar.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:42 AM

Morning bishop :)

cmsinaz on November 23, 2011 at 8:42 AM

Self-deportation works every time it is implemented.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM

If you want to hang your hat on this article forever and ever have at it. It lists statistics and doesn’t acribe everything to the migrant workers as you try to imply.
Shovel ready in other words….

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:43 AM

I also give kudos to Newt for coming out and saying it – especially after the reaction to Perry for his “no heart” comment.
Newt, of course, said it better. And I think Perry’s poor record of pandering for hispanic votes was factored in the backlash.

Amjean on November 23, 2011 at 8:08 AM

So Newt comes out in favor of a “more humane treatment” for illegals – and you give him kudos.
But Perry’s policies must be seen in the light of him “pandering” to Hispanics for votes?
TheRightMan on November 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Some folks just aren’t down with the goose/gander rule of political karma, but as Mr.Zimmerman said: “Everybody must get stoned”, no matter how sweetly they intone the crap.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:47 AM

You do realize there are a couple of prominent people in the conservative movement whose birth gave their parents legal status to say don’t you?

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Of course I realize that. I’m condemned and ridiculed by people such as that and they’re supporters from the Right just as I am from the Left.

It’s an issue that has to be clarified if our nation is ever to get past this belabored and “woe, my fahhhmahhhleee” claims as to why some people assume they’re entitled to be here illegally and some aren’t.

The qualifications for the Presidency are an added incentive to get this issue straightened out as to the abuses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Some individuals born to illegal aliens or non-citizens in the U.S. “may” be deemed U.S. citizens themselves but to my view, they don’t qualify for the Presidency per the accumulated understanding of what “natural born” AS a citizen means.

: two distinct issues, however.

Two “types” of citizenship, per today’s trendy insistences:

– birthright or

– naturalized.

However, for the Presidency, there’s an added layer of citizenship required and that is to be “natural born” AS a birthright citizen.

Therein lies the quandary and it really needs to be clarified for our nation to move on on many issues.

BUT from the body of history, the “meaning” or definition, as it were, of what a “natural born” citizen is is that they’re born here to two parents who are U.S. citizens. Much of our American history as also the author of the 14th Amendment support that definition.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:47 AM

It is interesting to watch this cold hearted legalistic stance taken by the Mormon who stands to gain something from it compared to the mercy in the stance taken by a Christian who stands to lose something from it.

Apparently that divide will always be with us.

The law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:7)

Many commenters here need to read Matthew 23 which is an angry diatribe shouted by Jesus at the hypocrits like Mitt Romney. The Lord sums them up as “a brood of vipers.”

Happy thanksgiving to all.

jimw on November 23, 2011 at 7:55 AM

Mitt Romney’s a politician who happens to be a Mormon, and as a politician he’ll exploit any opening an opponent gives him. That’s how the political game is played. That said, bringing Romney’s faith into it and claiming he is a de facto ‘viper’ for ascribing to that faith is just plain bigotry and has no place among Republicans. Let the Democrats practice bigotry while preaching diversity. That’s their job. Another thing, too: since when has Newt Gingrich been a Christian, exactly? When he was fooling around on his first wife or his second wife? You try to make it sound as if Gingrich is some modern-day Thomas Aquinas. It doesn’t work.

I’m not a big Romney supporter but going after him on account of his religious beliefs is despicable, in my view. One more thing while I’m at it: you sound like one of those people convinced you know who’s going to Heaven and who isn’t. News, holy man: that isn’t your call. You don’t make that decision. Paraphrasing one of the Indians the Spaniards burned at the stake for refusing to convert: ‘If Heaven is filled with people like you, I don’t want to go there.’

troyriser_gopftw on November 23, 2011 at 8:48 AM

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Illegal immigration has nothing to do with the poor parenting skills of our latest generation of legal citizens.

Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Eh uh der dee der. So, what you are saying is that you do not have an argument for what I stated, so what you are going to do is make up an argument and then squash it, much like Obama does?

The argument, if you got confused, was that the jobs that children used to be able to get early in life (pre graduation) have been under bid by day laborer illegal immigrants such that there are few places that will hire children to do the work. Work that has not changed over the decades. But is no longer available to our youth to get.

Now, how exactly does that tie into what you wrote? It does not.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:48 AM

I, personally, have nothing against the idea of a path to citizenship.

the problem is that you can’t offer that until you have spent time shoring up our border and reducing the number of illegals already here.

If you go straight to some form of legalization or path to citizenship, all you do is increase the # of people coming illegally dramatically.

We need a period of stronger border enforcement and policies aimed at reducing the number of illegals already here.

As far as guest workers or other legal immigration, if there is data showing we need more – congress can pass laws allowing for that. I have no problem with that either.

It is this mindset of “just let whoever wants to come in come it and we’ll give them citizenship” that is baffling. Why is the U.S. the only country on earth that is not allowed to have immigration policies or enforce its border?

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 8:50 AM

People need to deal with this and get off their high-horses.

HondaV65 on November 23, 2011 at 8:08 AM

Yesterday demonstrated what some of us have already known. The vitriol and attacks against Perry for his remarks were not rooted in objectivity.

Many conservatives, including pundits like Michelle Malkin, have a deep-seated hatred for Perry. Why? I do not know.

- Perry is said to be Bush III – while many conveniently ignore the fact that Romney has a lock on almost all of Bush’s policy advisers and campaign strategists. Romney is also to the left of both Bush and Perry.

- Perry is said to be a crony capitalist – while many conveniently ignore the fact that Gingrich exemplifies everything that is wrong with Washington including the backdoor deals and corruption.

- Perry is said to be dumb based on his performance in the debates – while many conveniently ignore the fact that Cain continues to be given a pass for his actual ignorance of issues simply because he speaks good.

This campaign season is fast turning into one of alternate realities. I wonder when conservatives will wake up and rue the day they allowed the media/Romney and for some – their own bitterness – to pass by their greatest chance to turn the party and the country to the right by nominating Gov. Perry.

Now the choice is between Romney and Gingrich? Funny Michelle Malkin has gone silent on her blog with respect to her opinions on this. I trust she will be back with fresh vitriol if Perry starts to show any sign of climbing back in the polls.

TheRightMan on November 23, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Self-deportation works every time it is implemented.
whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM

If you want to hang your hat on this article forever and ever have at it. It lists statistics and doesn’t acribe everything to the migrant workers as you try to imply.
Shovel ready in other words….
Bradky on November 23, 2011 at 8:43 AM

I’m certainly up for looking at your stats, especially if they are contrary results. But since you asked the question, I assumed you wanted an answer because you had not seen any results of the new law.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:52 AM

I am against amnesty, no one who hopped the border or over stayed their visa, should be rewarded with United States citizenship.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 8:41 AM

I agree but I’ll add this:

nor should they be granted any by-pass or special privilege to avoid prosecution for their illegal actions in/against the U.S.

Citizenship or not citizenship granted to people who are here illegally is patently and offensively wrong. It’s wrong, it’s offensive, it’s a stupid idea, it’s some sort of mad concept out of “the man/woman who wants to be king.”

Apply our laws to all or to none. Suggesting that illegal aliens get some special treatment to bypass legal penalties for their crimes — and, yes, they have committed crimes or a crime by their very presence here illegally irregardless of how long they’ve been perpetuating their crime/s — is offensive beyond all proportions of respect for our nation and our Constitution.

I am aghast that Newt Gingrich, of all people, would be promoting such a corrupt idea.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:52 AM

I am aghast that Newt Gingrich, of all people, would be promoting such a corrupt idea.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:52 AM

And, obviously, Newt lingered a bit too long on that couch beside El Diablo.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:53 AM

Guten tag, this thread is already used up, what a damn waste.

Bishop on November 23, 2011 at 8:53 AM

My theory: This might actually pull some of Romney’s voters to Newt. Maybe it’s crazy, but are we sure that Romney’s current support can’t go elsewhere?

ModernConservative on November 23, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Funny Michelle Malkin has gone silent on her blog with respect to her opinions on this.
TheRightMan on November 23, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Yeah. For some odd reason, her thoughts are of her missing cousin instead as we approach a day of family togetherness. Funny, hard to explain.

The Search for Marizela: A Thanksgiving note

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:57 AM

I, personally, have nothing against the idea of a path to citizenship.

the problem is that you can’t offer that until you have spent time shoring up our border and reducing the number of illegals already here.

If you go straight to some form of legalization or path to citizenship, all you do is increase the # of people coming illegally dramatically.

We need a period of stronger border enforcement and policies aimed at reducing the number of illegals already here.

As far as guest workers or other legal immigration, if there is data showing we need more – congress can pass laws allowing for that. I have no problem with that either.

It is this mindset of “just let whoever wants to come in come it and we’ll give them citizenship” that is baffling. Why is the U.S. the only country on earth that is not allowed to have immigration policies or enforce its border?

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 8:50 AM

DITTO.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 8:57 AM

TheRightMan on November 23, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Perry’s stuff does suck. Gingrich on this issue does suck. Cain is just plain old ignorant and he likes to remain that way. Bachmann is not getting the support she deserves, and the only thing they got against her is her statement on Gardasil, seriously!?! Life just is not fair.
As for this dust up. If it was Perry, Cain, Romney, Paul, Huntsman that said this, I would be up in arms over it, for Cain I would call it disqualifying. But since it was my guy Newt, I got to say, it is the single most profound argument on the subject we have seen for 20 years if not longer.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 8:57 AM

Also – let’s not forget that illegals in Texas pay the same state taxes as citizens. Texas only has a sales tax.

So I don’t understand why someone in Wisconsin gets upset about not getting in-state tuition in Texas – when they haven’t been paying taxes in Texas.

The illegals … HAVE.

People need to deal with this and get off their high-horses.

HondaV65 on November 23, 2011 at 8:08 AM

If you consider “paying taxes” the same as, spending your tax payer funded SSI and Welfare checks then yes , i guess they do pay taxes. But – if you drain 10x as much state money as you pay in taxes, i do not consider you a tax payer. These illegals are not crossing the border to “get jobs” , have you ever seen this hispanic ghettos? Mexican Gangs are some of the worst in the country. They come over to work, until they find a democrat that lets them get on welfare or SSI, then its sitting on your butt doing nothing. Why would an Illegal work for $4 and hour, for 50 hours a week , thats $200 a week, 800 a month. Well, welfare or SSI will give him 800-1200 a month to sit on his butt – they are not going to work if we pay more not to work. The fact we pay them, give them free schools/hospitals/money/food is why they come over here in droves. All they gotta do is have a kid on our soil, which is a stupid law that was intended for slaves not ravel from other countries…..

Simple Solution – WE do not need any more people in this country, therefore path to citizenship is a bad idea. WE do not need more recipients classes.

Fix our 10% unemployment by massing up ICE with millions of new agents to deports – any goods owned by these illegals, have a community estate sale. The money we will save by providing them social services will more than make up for the cost of the ICE employees. And before you talk about private property – When drug dealers get busted, they do not get to keep their cash/cars/fun stuff they bought with drug money- if they find 10k cash, they take it.

Donut on November 23, 2011 at 8:59 AM

My theory: This might actually pull some of Romney’s voters to Newt. Maybe it’s crazy, but are we sure that Romney’s current support can’t go elsewhere?
ModernConservative on November 23, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Sorry, but yeah, it is a little crazy
:)

The fallout on this will be a percentage of Newt’s votes will be going to Romney & Cain (mostly). And Newt can’t afford to give up even 1-2 points.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 8:59 AM

Monkeytoe on November 23, 2011 at 8:50 AM

It seems obvious that people in our government (or, “public workers”) are incentivized to represent non-citizens and the various groups that profit from them, rather than the U.S. citizens and voters.

We hear — from both political parties — how we “must” do this and that to benefit crime, bad behavior, the liabilities of those from other nations, the wants and desires of whomever because of whatever, yet our “public workers” are predominantly offended by requests and ideas from citizens.

Lourdes on November 23, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Newt’s right. If people have been here that long, then we have already absorbed them into our system and they are contributing. Who I have a problem with are the ones who come and go when they feel like it, take from our taxpayer funded system and then commit crimes because they know ICE or the doj won’t do their jobs and follow the law. We don’t like law breakers and expect justice to be done. The long timers can get in the line and apply for citizenship and follow the law on this.

Kissmygrits on November 23, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Badger40 on November 23, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Those here on an H1-B “guest worker” visa are doing the same thing. And why the hell do we have FIVE guest worker programs with 29 million people out of work?

dogsoldier on November 23, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9