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 7 8 9

But it makes allowing illegal aliens less tenable than otherwise. Not that I think there should be any room for allowing illegal aliens to remain in the country. But when the argument comes to whether illegals are getting benefits they are not intended to, yes they are, and in large numbers. The system is incentivised to make certain of it.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Yes, they need to go. They are killing the country, and their protectors are killing it even faster. This unholy alliance has to be destroyed.

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Oh Newt. Others here may have made this point but here I was straining to give you the benefit of the doubt during your recent surge. But especially after having read one of your snoozer novels a few years back (Didn’t think anyone could make the Civil War boring? Score one for Newt.) one would think you’d know that a word has meaning. I doubt that illegals — who are actual humans — would not appreciate being equated with our scaled and furry and feathered friends of the animal kingdom, which are usually associated with use of the word ‘humane’. I know I don’t appreciate being considered inhumane if I happen to disagree with you on all or part of your — now officially squishy — position on lawbreaker US non-citizens. Besides the political slicing and dicing this length-of-stay business would open up, any flock of ACLU lawyers (or herd, or gaggle. I don’t know what’s the proper word for a group of those creatures?) worth its salt could thwart it in their sleep.

Newt, I cast thee back to single digits.

curved space on November 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Go after Newt. He is the person who will let more of this happen. This is your chance to stop it from happening. Elect a conservative, not a progressive pretender.

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM

You should be listening to rush right now, he nailed it. Newt’s not fore full blown amnesty. Set it up so they can stay here as residents, but not as citizens. They have to pay some price, so they don’t get to become full citizens. It’s fair and it eliminates the potential influx of democrat voters that would result from amnesty.

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Igor, you’re aware of Cain’s baggage and I’m certainly well aware of Newt’s. We’ve both chosen a horse and I’m sticking with that until he wins or loses the nomination. If he loses, I will enthusiastically and wholeheartedly back whoever the nominee is. The question is, will you and others that have chosen somebody other than Newt do the same?

the_stoics on November 23, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I keep repeating variations of the same theme: I will support Kim Kardashian, a can opener, or a second-hand shoe against the America-hating Soros puppet.

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM

“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.

I’ll daresay Newt may have even cribbed my comments vis a vis local community review board at LaShawn Barber’s Corner: Comment by Andy — 11.10.04 @ 8:52 pm

Newt Gingrich — As usual, he had a masterful debate — but he opened a can of worms with his immigration answer, and deliberately, it seems. His answer, which argued for a nuanced approach to normalization, won’t win him kudos from conservatives, but appears more like Gingrich lining up his general-election pitch.

STOP. I’m a conservative and believe that immigration laws need to be followed, however, I also believe that current laws are a total mess and need a complete rewrite. There IS a difference between McVain/Grahamnesty’s idea of amnesty and what Perry/Gingrich are advocating. Those who are advocating a hardline adherence to the current laws are unrealistic and idiotic and will only help ensure that the can is kicked further down the road on the subject of illegal immigration as the majority of the country will not support this line of thot.

What is needed here is a rational & stringent reform. Yes there are many illegals, but don’t forget that our wishy-washy enforcement is also a leading contributor to magnetizing the illegals. Since we ‘broke’ our own border, we share some of the responsibility to help fix the mess and legalize the truly decent folks while weeding out the bad ones.

I would also posit that just as there is a difference between treating cases as domestic crime or war/terror, there should be a case for immigration. IOWs, folks apprehended for violating immigration laws don’t get Mirandized or treated like citizens. The focus should be on whether x belongs here or kicked out. But before this can happen, we need the reform.

Newt referred to the “Red” card concept, I haven’t read up on it, but for years, particularly on LaShawn Barber & Captain’s Quarters, I’ve advocated the “Pink” card concept which would open up the guest worker program without giving them rights of citizenship and so would be a class below the current Green card.

Whatever the way forward, it would at the minimum need to address the following points under a new admin:

–Securing the border post-haste (as described by Perry) and use biometrics on confirmed illegals (like we’re using in Iraq to ID contacts). This part is dicey as legal residents & citizens should never be scanned unless processed for committing a crime.

–Concurrently, encourage illegals to self-deport by turning off entitlements, free healthcare, schooling etc. Abolish the anchor-baby clause – bar SCOTUS from hearing it if need be. Another reason for them to self-deport if their only claim to the US is via a US-born baby.

–Next decentralize the immigration process. One should be able to walk into a local community/regional center and/or embassy, submit an application/interview and walk out with a Green/Pink card, in accordance with Federal laws. This eliminates the ridiculous mailing of applications and long processing times that can take months or even years.

–For the illegals not subject to the lockdown (i.e. married to US citizens and/or Green Carders) still remaining in the country, give a 30-day deadline to register for a review hearing and receive a number.

–In that 30-day grace period, those that know they won’t qualify may as well pack up their bags, take care of loose ends and leave. On their way out, they should submit to a biometric exit registration. that way A) we know who they are, B) it will help their return as a legal Pink Carder.

–Those who think they have a shot at amnesty will continue as before while waiting for their hearing. The same conditions will also discourage those trying to sneak across, since a) they won’t be able to meet the qualifications, & b) if caught, they will be registered via biometrics and barred for life — it’d make sense for them to wait and go thru proper channels.

–Any found here after 30 days without a review number will be summarily barred for life. This involves cooperation with local LEOs. Likewise, any illegals caught at the border will be ‘tagged’ and banned.

–Gang members, i.e MS-13, criminals etc will have no chance at any type of visa and kicked out. As for anchor-babies that fall into crime, we should also ban them (yeah the bleeding hearts will wail & gnash teeth, but so what)

–The results of the review could run the gamut from a 3-month per year guest worker visa (seasonal workers) to a green card. (Before ya’ll get blown out of shape, all of the conditions need to be thot out and codified before we start the process.

–Meanwhile, those here legally on temp visa can also be reviewed and whatever pending processes expedited.

Once we have an orderly process, the burden on employers to vet potential empolyers will be dramatically lightened and workers will pay into the tax base — all the more reason for a flat tax/sales tax system. And we will have realistically (can never 100% eliminate w/o becoming a police state) and dramatically reduced the illegal problem.

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 12:29 PM

I meant to indicate that the second quote came from Ed at the other thread
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/23/foreign-policy-debate-gives-gop-voters-a-tough-choice/

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 12:30 PM

I learned a long time ago that if you’re not getting answers to your questions, keep askin’ ‘em. So, come on Igor, will you support Newt if he’s the nominee?

the_stoics on November 23, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Newt, I cast thee back to single digits.

curved space on November 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM

This was Newt’s “heartless” moment. Newt, say hi to Rick again, and ask him for some advice on how to handle going back to single digits.

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM

You should be listening to rush right now, he nailed it. Newt’s not fore full blown amnesty. Set it up so they can stay here as residents, but not as citizens. They have to pay some price, so they don’t get to become full citizens. It’s fair and it eliminates the potential influx of democrat voters that would result from amnesty.

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM

I AM listening to Rush. I disagree. Newt’s actual plan IS to give them “RED CARDS”, not full citizenship. I will not accept that for one minute, because I can guarantee you that sooner or later our kind, humane government will legalize them and the WILL be able to bring their extended families here, thereby accomplishing what I don’t want to happen.

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Have to go. Stop Newt!

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Oh yes, if you break the law for a really long time then you’re off the hook, right?

Why isn’t Newt converned about LEGAL would-be immigrants who wait in line and do it the proper way?

Idiot. Playing into the old “most conservatives are heartless bums but not me” b.s.

disa on November 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Oh, my. Rush just played a recording of Romney from four years ago, stating with perfect clarity that resident illegal aliens deserve an opportunity to obtain permanent legal residency and citizenship.

Citizenship.

What a pandering, lying douchebag Romney is.

Jaibones on November 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 12:29 PM

At last! Someone with a brain!

cartooner on November 23, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Have to go. Stop Newt!

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM

It’s so funny that this guy re-surfaces a week ago after being gone for 3 years (by his own account) and just relentlessly bashes Newt now that Newt’s the frontrunner. What a coincidence. I wonder who he was bashing back in 2008. He also goes on and on about what a terrible “plague” the illegal immigrants are and says things like “That was mighty white of him,” a hilarious racist expression I have NEVER heard anyone else on this site use. He’s pushing super hard for the completely un-electable Bachmann and pretty much longshot Cain and just a moment ago stated that he prefers a “pandering Romney” to a truthful Gingrich. I wonder what on earth his true motivation could be. I mean, it’s not like HotAir is read by lots of influential Conservatives or anything and would be a target for infiltration by Obama supporters or anything, is it?

cynccook on November 23, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Here is the crux of the issue that neither Newt, nor McCain, nor Obama, nor any of the so-called moderates on illegal immigration will acknowledge: if you give these people citizenship, you will have proven the perfection of their decision to invade this country.

It is irrefutable — if we legalize illegal aliens again, then all the world will know with perfect certitude that we do not have the will to deport illegal aliens and that all one needs to do to gain citizenship is to come here and hide for as long as it takes to catch the next wave.

Jaibones on November 23, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Here is the crux of the issue that neither Newt, nor McCain, nor Obama, nor any of the so-called moderates on illegal immigration will acknowledge: if you give these people citizenship, you will have proven the perfection of their decision to invade this country.

It is irrefutable — if we legalize illegal aliens again, then all the world will know with perfect certitude that we do not have the will to deport illegal aliens and that all one needs to do to gain citizenship is to come here and hide for as long as it takes to catch the next wave.

Jaibones on November 23, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Newt deliberately stated no citizenship. He’s just talking about a possible rationale where a very small percentage of people get to stay as guests or resident aliens.

cynccook on November 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Man, this is the greatest argument that has been made on this subject in the last couple decades. It is the only one I can wholeheartedly support. My capitulation on this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I support Gingrich. I would support Gingrich if he said he was going to send troops to Mexico to fight the drug war, or put a no fly zone over Syria, or if he chose to run a pizza parlor out of his garage and say he plans to outsource the responsibility for being president to advisers and experts. It is unwavering support, and anyone who tries to persuade me otherwise will only make my determination to back newt all that much stronger. Well, unless Bachmann surges in the polls, or Palin enters the race.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 1:21 PM

I AM listening to Rush. I disagree. Newt’s actual plan IS to give them “RED CARDS”, not full citizenship. I will not accept that for one minute, because I can guarantee you that sooner or later our kind, humane government will legalize them and the WILL be able to bring their extended families here, thereby accomplishing what I don’t want to happen.

Igor R. on November 23, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Please read this http://www.newt.org/solutions/immigration so you can understand his POV. Bottomline, the task is to untangle this mess. Also understand that the immigration laws on the books are ‘per se‘ and not some kind of ‘moral’ or ‘natural’ law.


Legal Dictionary:
inherently, strictly, or by operation of statute, constitutional provision or doctrine, or case law per se

IOW, it is an arbitary rule created to control something. To whit, DUI used to be 1.0 BAC and is now 0.8.

This is only to define the bar for which one may be charged with DUI. It has nothing to do with natural law like stealing, murder, adultery etc. Yet many conservatives who hold the Constitution near and dear, act like illegal immigration is some kind of crime against God and society, when it is merely administrative.

I do not for one minute discount the gravity of follow-on offenses such as ID theft and other acts of fraud to enable an illegal to stay in country. But to address the issue, we must separate the cuase and effect as it were.

1) Our execution of policies, or more specifically the omission thereof, have encouraged illegals to come here. This makes the issue equally our fault. We broke it and we have to fix it. Tossing everyone out does not fix it.

2) In so coming, many have had to commit real crimes in order to stay. That has to be treated separately and appropriately punished. But again, we as a nation sent signals to the illegals to either lay low and off the grid (under the table) or fake their paperwork and they can stay. Again, we are partly culpable, so the blame is not totally on them.

Once upon a time, our borders were totally open where one could cross at will with nary a check. We can’t go back to those days, at least not as long as there are those out there willing to destroy us or ‘re-conquer’ us. That said, the status quo cannot continue and we need a rational & slimmed down reform that expedites the processing of naturalization, permanent residence and guest workers.

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Here is the crux of the issue that neither Newt, nor McCain, nor Obama, nor any of the so-called moderates on illegal immigration will acknowledge: if you give these people citizenship, you will have proven the perfection of their decision to invade this country.

It is irrefutable — if we legalize illegal aliens again, then all the world will know with perfect certitude that we do not have the will to deport illegal aliens and that all one needs to do to gain citizenship is to come here and hide for as long as it takes to catch the next wave.

Jaibones on November 23, 2011 at 1:01 PM

This is, again, how liberals win the argument by making the case that conservatives are heartless.

So you’re all for armed SWAT teams and the military rouding up these people like they were cattle? Do you think the American people would tolerate that in their own borders? Do you think you as a conservative, could handle the inevitable Gestapo or SS comparisons? Cuz you know that would happen.

We have to look at this realistically, not every single one of the people who came here illegally is a drug dealer, gang member, rapist etc. Many were coming here to make things better for their families, a chance to make money to feed their families. But because they were desperate enough to cross a river, their no better than the criminals who come here and commit heinous crimes.

Even our own court system has varying degrees of offenses. That way the person who steals bread to feed his starving family isn’t treated the same as a cold blooded killer who murders an entire family.

I guess you’re such a saint that if you were trying to feed your family in a sh*thole country like Mexico and saw a shining city made of gold that you could better care for your family in, you would wade through that endless sea of red tape to do it no matter how desperate and hungry you were.

I say this having spent three years getting my wife into the country legally from Venezuela. I’m for legal immigration but I recgonize the big problem we have now and it’s not fair to those who are trying to get here legally. However, it’s not solely the fault of those who are merely trying to better their overall situation. Over time, I come to realize that it’s our system that’s broken and needs to be overhauled to discourage illegal immigration.

Could it be that the overflow of illegals is actually a symptom of a bigger problem with the system as a whole?

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 1:38 PM

1) Our execution of policies, or more specifically the omission thereof, have encouraged illegals to come here. This makes the issue equally our fault. We broke it and we have to fix it. Tossing everyone out does not fix it.

I know, just like those sluts who wear short skirts and walk in dark alleys after having a drink or two at the club. They were encouraging the rapist to act. Thus it is just as much her fault as the guy who raped her.

2) In so coming, many have had to commit real crimes in order to stay. That has to be treated separately and appropriately punished. But again, we as a nation sent signals to the illegals to either lay low and off the grid (under the table) or fake their paperwork and they can stay. Again, we are partly culpable, so the blame is not totally on them.

The appropriate punishment is time in jail. Is that on the table? No, thought not. So, I guess your argument already failed in the second sentence. But hey, that woman was sending signals that she was a sexual object, swaying her hips, wearing the tight shirt and short skirt, so she is partly culpable.

Once upon a time, our borders were totally open where one could cross at will with nary a check. We can’t go back to those days, at least not as long as there are those out there willing to destroy us or ‘re-conquer’ us. That said, the status quo cannot continue and we need a rational & slimmed down reform that expedites the processing of naturalization, permanent residence and guest workers.

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Yeah, that time was long ago and was even before the latest states had joined the Union. So, instead of open borders, you recommend completely open borders with paperwork.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Ethically-Challenged Pro-Immigration Ex-Lobbyist Serial-Adulterer 2012!

benny shakar on November 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM

let me clarify something. I’m against illegal immigration, but I acknowledge that not every single illegal should be clumped in the same catagory as the violent cartels that traffic drugs across our borders.

That’s why this isn’t as cut and dry as some may want it to be.

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Last year I lived in a neighborhood full of illegal aliens. They were all on welfare, living in section 8 housing. Their kids were in gangs, nobody even tried to speak English, the cops were always being called, their yards were full of trash and one was constantly having this ongoing yard sale that drove everyone else crazy. They had scary dogs.

Kristamatic on November 23, 2011 at 10:00 AM

You just described the Oak Cliff (part of Dallas) neighborhood that I lived in from 1997-2006. And people wonder why I’m hardcore when it comes to immigration.

mrsmwp on November 23, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Ethically-Challenged Pro-Immigration Ex-Lobbyist Serial-Adulterer 2012!

benny shakar on November 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Like you have no skeletons in your closet.

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 1:49 PM

I know, just like those sluts who wear short skirts and walk in dark alleys after having a drink or two at the club. They were encouraging the rapist to act. Thus it is just as much her fault as the guy who raped her.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Google “straw man.”

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 1:52 PM

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 12:29 PM

At last! Someone with a brain!

cartooner on November 23, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I’ve been saying/thinking this ever since early in Dubya’s first term when the issue of amnesty started heating up; based in part on my own frustrations with the INS for my wife’s Green card and my own experiences working with illegals down in TX.

Also, I had my own personal experience in getting a work visa/permanent residence in Germany. For a nation famed for bureaucracy, they have a very streamlined process that is handled locally at the individual “Ausländeramt” which can be broken down as follows:
1) No one, except refugees & asylum seekers may become a ward of the State.

2) Citizens from preferred countries (US, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea etc IIRC 34 countries in all) are segregated from the rest of the others (for the ‘others’ typically huge lines out into the alley).

3) On the 1st visit, after about an hour’s wait, I presented my documents (police registration of my address, copy of passport, proof of self-sufficiency (either 15k in bank account or family relations) & proof of health insurance) and told I would receive a letter for a follow-up.

4) A week later, I returned and when my turn, it took about as long as it took to paste my permit & emboss it in my passport. It was good for a year.

5) Depending on certain factors, one could get permanent residency the following year or extensions of 1 – 5 years. But you would also bring in a stamped copy of your tax returns. In my case, I got a 3 year permit and was told I’d probably get a permanent if I met the criteria for self-employed resident. In the case of employed residents, they have to show proof of employment. And for students, proof of enrollment. Never do you have to leave the country and re-apply to return under a different status. Like the example Newt gave, if you graduated and had a degree in a preferred area, you could just go to the local office and apply for a change in status.

Don’t know too much about what someone from Africa or elsewhere would have to go thru, but know that it takes several visits and more frequent reviews before they get permanent status. But even for them, if they have money in the bank, it’s a breeze.

With the US, it is a labyrinth of rules that even if you do your honest best, you can easily get nailed for a violation and assessed penalty fees. In part, it’s designed this way to create business for lawyers specializing in immigration and insulates the bureaucrats from accountability. With my wife, we ‘violated’ one rule, but couldn’t prove that we were innocent by doing what we were told by someone on the phone, because the whole process is so impersonal (everything by mail) except for the closing steps. There are phone numbers, but they typically go to some automated system that never lets you talk to a real person.

With Germany, you had a name and face for every step of the process.

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 2:01 PM

This is, again, how liberals win the argument by making the case that conservatives are heartless.

Yes. So we should do the wrong thing to prevent them from making an absurd argument instead of making a rebuttal that shows they are wrong?

So you’re all for armed SWAT teams and the military rouding up these people like they were cattle? Do you think the American people would tolerate that in their own borders? Do you think you as a conservative, could handle the inevitable Gestapo or SS comparisons? Cuz you know that would happen.

What the hell kind of sick and twisted person are you to take an argument for enforcement and turn it into rounding them up like cattle, and then throwing nazi references in there to shut down debate. You are completely unworthy of any respect and no credibility what so ever.

We have to look at this realistically, not every single one of the people who came here illegally is a drug dealer, gang member, rapist etc. Many were coming here to make things better for their families, a chance to make money to feed their families. But because they were desperate enough to cross a river, their no better than the criminals who come here and commit heinous crimes.

Yes, quick, argument of the absurd. Go so far into the deep end in your remarks as to make the argument completely pointless, but with intention of painting your opponent as evil. Great job, we are on to your types of arguments, they are the arguments of the liberals. They will not be met with acquiescence. They came here illegally, they have absolutely 0 claim to remain in the country, they are not citizens and they take up resources that are for the citizens to either chose who to grant them to or use for their own.

Even our own court system has varying degrees of offenses. That way the person who steals bread to feed his starving family isn’t treated the same as a cold blooded killer who murders an entire family.

Gee, strawman much? I bet you win all your fights against that kind of opponent. When they are made of straw, they just fall apart huh? Illegal Alien comes in two versions. Overstayed visa or expired green card or just plain border jumper. I think we can treat every last one of them the same. With a few very rare exceptions for extremely rare life circumstances.

I guess you’re such a saint that if you were trying to feed your family in a sh*thole country like Mexico and saw a shining city made of gold that you could better care for your family in, you would wade through that endless sea of red tape to do it no matter how desperate and hungry you were.

What the hell does any other person’s sainthood have to do with another person’s illegal activity? Absolutely nothing. Our nation started off with nothing, and the people made it into a beacon to the world. These people should go back to their countries and build their nation up.

I say this having spent three years getting my wife into the country legally from Venezuela. I’m for legal immigration but I recgonize the big problem we have now and it’s not fair to those who are trying to get here legally. However, it’s not solely the fault of those who are merely trying to better their overall situation. Over time, I come to realize that it’s our system that’s broken and needs to be overhauled to discourage illegal immigration.

My wife is from the Philippines. She detests illegals. If it was not for the millions of third world nation illegals entering this nation illegally, our nation would be able to allow us to bring one of her relatives to this nation to help us take care of our family. So, your argument that you are in situation and makes you an authority is not any more valid than mine. Yes, the system is broken, and allowing amnesty of any kind for illegals will only make it more broken as the incentive to come here will grow larger.

Could it be that the overflow of illegals is actually a symptom of a bigger problem with the system as a whole?

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Yes, people like you are a bigger problem that does not give an absolute imperative to our elected officials to do the right things. Tell them in no uncertain terms that their office will be filled by another person if they do not secure the border and enforce our current laws and if needed pass new laws to effect a self deportation of those illegally here today. Once those people leave, we will be able to open our legal immigration policy more.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 2:02 PM

It’s not a matter of amnesty but a matter of admin priorities. Maybe we don’t want to deport the people that have been here for 25 years, been good hard working and raised families, but we do not want the people that are free loading or being criminal. Just establish your admin priories, do your sweeps all criminals found go to jail or are deported, those that came here today are deported, all others are registered and traced. As soon as you deport all of those from today you start on all of those from yesterday, and so on until deporting no longer seems right. The problem is this comes under the DOJ and limits the amount of cheap labor for the fat cats.

jpcpt03 on November 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM

2) Citizens from preferred countries (US, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea etc IIRC 34 countries in all) are segregated from the rest of the others (for the ‘others’ typically huge lines out into the alley).

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 2:01 PM

This sounds incredibly harsh, but if the majority of our immigrants were from the above “preferred” countries, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Here those people are severely limited so that we can absorb the third world.

If the majority of our immigrants continue to be poor, uneducated Socialists from Mexico and Central America then you can expect people to take a hard line against them.

You don’t hear how a once solidly middle class neighborhood has been overrun by a bunch of dirty, LOUD, rude Japanese gangbangers.

mrsmwp on November 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM

What the hell kind of sick and twisted person are you to take an argument for enforcement and turn it into rounding them up like cattle, and then throwing nazi references in there to shut down debate. You are completely unworthy of any respect and no credibility what so ever.

How do

YOU

propose we deport 25 million people at once that would require this method? I’d love to hear the logistics of your plan.

BTW, if you actually read my statement how I wrote it, and not how you wanted to read it, my “nazi” reference was obviously implied to mean that what we would be called if we went that way. You know it. I know it. Everyone on this board knows it. I in no way brought it up to “shut down” the debate. To suggest otherwise is asinine.

Yes, quick, argument of the absurd. Go so far into the deep end in your remarks as to make the argument completely pointless, but with intention of painting your opponent as evil. Great job, we are on to your types of arguments, they are the arguments of the liberals. They will not be met with acquiescence. They came here illegally, they have absolutely 0 claim to remain in the country, they are not citizens and they take up resources that are for the citizens to either chose who to grant them to or use for their own.

It’s not absurd. It’s fact. And those resources they are taking advantage of, who allowing them to do it? Our system dangles the carrot in front of them and it entirely their fault because they went after it? And then were mad when they grab it. Who dangled it. You fix that proble, you fix everything else. It’s a practical approach to the problem. Something that is not being discussed here, especially by you.

Gee, strawman much? I bet you win all your fights against that kind of opponent. When they are made of straw, they just fall apart huh? Illegal Alien comes in two versions. Overstayed visa or expired green card or just plain border jumper. I think we can treat every last one of them the same. With a few very rare exceptions for extremely rare life circumstances.

[facepalm]
Treat everyone the same with a few exceptions? It’s interesting how we’re doing the same argument to varying degrees.

What the hell does any other person’s sainthood have to do with another person’s illegal activity? Absolutely nothing. Our nation started off with nothing, and the people made it into a beacon to the world. These people should go back to their countries and build their nation up.

Um, wow. Give it up seriously dude. I could really have fun with this statement and go somewhere with that that would guarantee that you would get p*ssed off. But I’m better than that.

Yes, people like you are a bigger problem that does not give an absolute imperative to our elected officials to do the right things. Tell them in no uncertain terms that their office will be filled by another person if they do not secure the border and enforce our current laws and if needed pass new laws to effect a self deportation of those illegally here today. Once those people leave, we will be able to open our legal immigration policy more.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 2:02 PM

People like you who believe this problem has an easy fix is the other big problem we have. The only easy thing to fix is the border situation, but you think it’s going to be simple to get rid of the 25 million who are entrenched here already, then you’re delusional.

I’m not suggesting full blown amnesty, never had, never will, but I think setting up a residency plan with no guarantee or right to citizenship is a good place to start and could result in lesser conflict. Unless somebody else has a better plan, then we’re all abunch of arnchair quarterbacks rattling sabers.

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 2:33 PM

This might be a valid argument after we find a way to stop the flow of illegals into this country. Until then, I don’t really even want candidates talking about it.

Because until we can make sure that millions of new illegals aren’t coming into the country every year, ensuring that the ones here won’t be prosecuted and won’t be personally disrupted due to their illegal behavior will only encourage more people to do the same, which is exactly why the 1986 amnesty was such a bad idea. All it did was prove that the US isn’t serious about its immigration laws and that if you can make it over here, there will be no consequences for your actions other than the possibility of becoming an American citizen. And illegal immigration increased exponetially since then.

But yeah, if we nominated McCain, it’s doubtful we’ll exclude anyone over illegal immigration alone.

Esthier on November 23, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Yeah, that time was long ago and was even before the latest states had joined the Union. So, instead of open borders, you recommend completely open borders with paperwork.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Go ahead and misrepresent what i wrote.

The initial crime of illegal immigration is ‘per se‘, which means it is administrative. IOW, because for no other reason than we said so.

If you want to paint all illegals as immoral against God and nature, go ahead, but you won’t cure the problem. The laws are broken and needs to be reformed to be fair, realistic and as welcoming of potential contributors as possible.

It doesn’t mean we should be blind to past offenses, nor does it preclude that those coming should plan on melting into our pot (i.e. English only), and not some multi-kulti salad. Immigrants that can’t or won’t contribute need to leave.

With all that considered, the US can easily absorb another 300 million immigrants that only want to be as American as apple pie, mother & flag.

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 2:34 PM

The funny part about this is that if we simply took away the incentive for illegals to come here in the first place (Jobs) we probably wouldn’t need a secure border except to prevent cross-border incursions and military attack. If the illegals cannot secure jobs, get medical care or other social services or rent houses and apartments, they will leave.

Scorched_Earth on November 23, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Unless somebody else has a better plan, then we’re all abunch of arnchair quarterbacks rattling sabers.

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Technically even if someone has a better plan we’re still all armchair quarterbacks unless someone here is secretly Obama or our future president.

But that’s kinda the point of blogs like this, right?

All I know is we have to either make coming into America illegally more detrimental to a person’s well being than waiting your turn in your own country, or we have to make it near impossible for others to come into this country illegally.

Esthier on November 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM

This sounds incredibly harsh, but if the majority of our immigrants were from the above “preferred” countries, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Here those people are severely limited so that we can absorb the third world.

If the majority of our immigrants continue to be poor, uneducated Socialists from Mexico and Central America then you can expect people to take a hard line against them.

You don’t hear how a once solidly middle class neighborhood has been overrun by a bunch of dirty, LOUD, rude Japanese gangbangers.

mrsmwp on November 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Heh. ;)
I never had a problem with profiling, per se. We need to determine the type of immigrants we want and create a fast track process for getting them over here. We don’t want any uneducated socialist immigrants and we don’t want any jihadiis, we have enough of our own home-grown socialists/terrorists. We want educated, self-motivated people who want a better life for themselves.

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 2:41 PM

With all that considered, the US can easily absorb another 300 million immigrants that only want to be as American as apple pie, mother & flag.

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 2:34 PM

I don’t know about you, but I kind of liked this country better when we only had 200 million people total. Less traffic, better schools, less wait for all services.

America was not meant to be congested like Europe.

“When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe. ” Thomas Jefferson

mrsmwp on November 23, 2011 at 2:41 PM

We want educated, self-motivated people who want a better life for themselves.

AH_C on November 23, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Totally agree. Unfortunately the herpes infection named Ted Kennedy effed that up for us with his vile Immigration Act of 1965. The gift that kept on giving, indeed. Thankfully, now expired.

mrsmwp on November 23, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Except I know this person. Newt’s right, there ought to be a way she can stay with her family legally. She doesn’t have to be given citizenship or voting rights, just a legal way to stay with her family.

Besides, If people who have been here 25+ yrs by Jan 1st 2012 are given a legal way to stay, not including citizenship or voting rights, it
will phase out that segment of society. And if we shut the border down and deny benefits and employment to the rest of the illegals, we come out ahead.

tinkerthinker on November 23, 2011 at 9:05 AM

I know these families. Funny they are all church going conservatives, love Sarah Palin & can’t stand Obama.

redridinghood on November 23, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Romney was all for a path to citizenship a few years ago…Rush had the audio today.

Another flip-flop for the Romney-ites…

ladyingray on November 23, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Let’s be real here…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_ktWZZmSo

Romney supports a path to citizenship…Newt does not.

Be intellectually honest, AP, and post another update.

ladyingray on November 23, 2011 at 4:00 PM

I sent that YouTube link to “tips”. We’ll see if Ed, AP or Tina have the nerve to point out that Romney is for a path to citizenship, and thus, the right to VOTE, but Newt is not.

ladyingray on November 23, 2011 at 4:11 PM

People like you who believe this problem has an easy fix is the other big problem we have. The only easy thing to fix is the border situation, but you think it’s going to be simple to get rid of the 25 million who are entrenched here already, then you’re delusional.

I’m not suggesting full blown amnesty, never had, never will, but I think setting up a residency plan with no guarantee or right to citizenship is a good place to start and could result in lesser conflict. Unless somebody else has a better plan, then we’re all abunch of arnchair quarterbacks rattling sabers.

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 2:33 PM

1) Make it hard to get across the border illegally.
2) Stop allowing illegals to obtain welfare assistance.
3) Require that all persons using our health care system either pay in cash, insurance or show proof of citizenship, those failing this are to be treated in secured rooms to await ICE.
4) Dry up the jobs for illegal aliens. Put employers in jail for hiring illegal aliens. Pay citizens for reporting illegal alien workers from fines levied on employers of illegal aliens. Visit and get proof of citizenship from day labor wait sites such as home depot or anywhere they chose to move operations.
5) Those caught in the United States of America committing crimes are to jailed in a tent city style prison and once their time is completed, deported.
6) Anyone deported is automatically denied any chance what so ever of ever receiving legal entry into this country for life.
7) Any illegal alien deported owning property in the United States will have that property confiscated.

All of these things are in fact easy to do. Every last one of them. The question is, do the people want a proper solution, or to just kick the can down the road.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Rush seemed amazingly receptive to Newt’s position on this today. I was pleasantly surprised. And the clip of Romney saying he supports citizenship for illegals almost made me wreck.

mike_NC9 on November 23, 2011 at 4:35 PM

1) Make it hard to get across the border illegally.

That’s a given.

2) Stop allowing illegals to obtain welfare assistance.

No argument there.

3) Require that all persons using our health care system either pay in cash, insurance or show proof of citizenship, those failing this are to be treated in secured rooms to await ICE.

Does this count for tourists and people with green cards as well? I noticed you said citizenship and not people with residency cards. You have to specific in these matters, you can’t offer up generalities and expect people to “get it.”

4) Dry up the jobs for illegal aliens. Put employers in jail for hiring illegal aliens. Pay citizens for reporting illegal alien workers from fines levied on employers of illegal aliens. Visit and get proof of citizenship from day labor wait sites such as home depot or anywhere they chose to move operations.

Can you define what jobs are to be dried up? What if an emplyer hires an illegal that gave phony info and the employer didn’t catch right away. Should that employer go to jail even though it was an honest mistake? So you want citizens ratting out each other? Boy that could create a myriad of privacy concerns and possible rights violations. Day labor sites? What if, by chance, one or more of those people at these sites was here legally? Are you concerned about violating someone’s rights, illegal search and seizure, all that stuff. Or are you going to target every hispanic and that’s just cause?

5) Those caught in the United States of America committing crimes are to jailed in a tent city style prison and once their time is completed, deported.

Let’s save everyone the hassle and send them to Gitmo. By your definition, everyone here illegally is committing a crime. That’s got to be one really big encampment. Didn’t we do this with the Japanese in WWII?

Does due process play into this or is it a “we got you, so you’re f*cked” thing?

6) Anyone deported is automatically denied any chance what so ever of ever receiving legal entry into this country for life.

That already happens, not in every situation, but it does happen.

7) Any illegal alien deported owning property in the United States will have that property confiscated.

So what if they are married to a citizen and own property together. So you’re going to violate the citizen’s rights because the illegal should own property in this country? And what if they’ve owned that property for 20 years. Wow, that’s harsh. They’ve paid 20 years of property taxes on that and suddenly we’re telling them to f*ck off, it wasn’t supposed to be yours?

See what I mean, not simple. Everything you do will negativly impact someone else who wasn’t an intended target.

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 4:59 PM

ush seemed amazingly receptive to Newt’s position on this today. I was pleasantly surprised. And the clip of Romney saying he supports citizenship for illegals almost made me wreck.

mike_NC9 on November 23, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Yeah, right…Rush finds some edited video and puts on his show…does it matter that it is dishonest? Hell no, this is Rush, he does not have to be honest..and apparently neither does Gingrich.

When liberals do things like that to Republicans, it is frowned upon, but when Rush does it…it is okay fine..

And this is the same Rush who supported Romney three and a half years ago.

So, now we have Newt..the Newt that does videos with Pelosi, national tours with Al Sharpton, supports amnesty, gets rolled by Clinton, kicked out of his office for ethics violations, makes millions on influence peddling and a host of other things that conservatives supposedly do not support.

Hypocrites. If Romney had said exactly the same thing that Gingrich said last night all of you people would be all over him today..but instead we have pandering, sucking up, making excuses and airing edited video. Nice. Rush is a hell of a guy. Personally, I think Rush wants Obama to win a second term..he thinks there is money in it for him.

Terrye on November 23, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Those are Meese’s words,

right2bright on November 23, 2011 at 2:13 AM

I know that. He is responding to a question as to what he thinks Reagan would do. He knew Reagan very well and is making an educated guess as to what Reagan would do if he were asked to opine today.

You can’t really be seriously expecting everyone at Hot Air to take your word on what you think Reagan would do when you don’t even know him. We have Meese and that trumps you.

So Reagan would take the exact position Romney has taken.

csdeven on November 23, 2011 at 5:52 PM

And besides all that, several people, even Palin have talked about a pathway to citizenship. That is not what Gingrich was talking about. He was talking about some screwy system with local boards that would decide who got to stay and who had to go. That would be impossible to do. And everyone would just go to L.A. and San Francisco and NYC anyway. Balkanization of our immigration policy and all these folks would know that if they just hung in there long enough they would be legal. No need to go through a process or leave and come back. Dumb.

Terrye on November 23, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Does this count for tourists and people with green cards as well? I noticed you said citizenship and not people with residency cards. You have to specific in these matters, you can’t offer up generalities and expect people to “get it.”

My wife is a green card holder. By law, they have to carry that id card on them at all times. So, what is your argument?

Can you define what jobs are to be dried up? What if an emplyer hires an illegal that gave phony info and the employer didn’t catch right away. Should that employer go to jail even though it was an honest mistake? So you want citizens ratting out each other? Boy that could create a myriad of privacy concerns and possible rights violations. Day labor sites? What if, by chance, one or more of those people at these sites was here legally? Are you concerned about violating someone’s rights, illegal search and seizure, all that stuff. Or are you going to target every hispanic and that’s just cause?

No, if they put the full effort in and do self report the person to ICE why should they go to jail. Gee, you think reporting illegal activity is ratting each other out. I way way over estimated your maturity. What privacy concerns? What rights? Police already have the absolute authority to id check people on the street as it is. I guess you have not been paying much attention. It is how the police catch people with drugs in new york. Did you know that TSA is pulling cars over on the interstate to check IDs and do safety checks? As for targeting just Hispanics, many of them are citizens. But obviously when in excess of 50% of those in this country are of a single group, it makes sense to put more efforts early on towards that group. Like it would make quite a bit of sense to target Muslim men between the ages of 16 and 44 and kind of sort of skip the 6 month old child and the 90 year old woman. Your argument is weak and pathetic.

Let’s save everyone the hassle and send them to Gitmo. By your definition, everyone here illegally is committing a crime. That’s got to be one really big encampment. Didn’t we do this with the Japanese in WWII?

Does due process play into this or is it a “we got you, so you’re f*cked” thing?

Maybe you missed the message on GITMO but it is like the 5 star resort of prison camps. I do not think people in this nation illegally should get such nice accommodations when they then go on to commit additional crimes. Maybe you like to treat those who wrong you better than your own flesh and blood, that is your own personal business, but as a country, there is no reason to treat illegal aliens better than the absolute minimum required while incarcerated. I see your back to making strawmen arguments. Progressive minds like yours all think alike and since they have no valid arguments are forced to resort to such things. As for due process, illegal, you are due no process once that is established, also convicted of a crime, once completed, you do your time. So, yeah, once you are illegal in the country and commit a crime and we catch you, you are as you said. Tough luck huh, kind of like if any citizen commits a crime, they pay the piper when caught.

That already happens, not in every situation, but it does happen.

So, should not be too hard to make it a blanket policy.

So what if they are married to a citizen and own property together. So you’re going to violate the citizen’s rights because the illegal should own property in this country? And what if they’ve owned that property for 20 years. Wow, that’s harsh. They’ve paid 20 years of property taxes on that and suddenly we’re telling them to f*ck off, it wasn’t supposed to be yours?

The citizen keeps the property. The illegal spouse is deported. I guess they should have taken some time out of that 20 years, went back to their home country and applied for citizenship rather than wait until they got caught. Again, these are choices they make. Yeah, it sucks for the citizen to find out they are married to an illegal, but I tend to think people can take it upon themselves to find these things out.

By the way. I think in an earlier post I said there was not going to be anything that gets all 100% of them out of the country. You have spouses who never work, people who are nannies and never reported to the IRS, and other underground situations where only the most draconian actions would get to them, and then only most of them. But, if the actions I specified were made into law, enforced well across the nation, that would drive far more than 50% to leave the country within 2 to 3 years. Putting a precedent out there like that would make others thinking of coming here illegally think twice, people who would hire illegals think far more than twice, and finally get the citizens of this nation to think more clearly about how to proceed improving our legal immigration policies.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Hey Newt – If an illegal has been here 25 years then that means he came here in about 1986. Let’s see, O that’s right, The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, (aka AMNESTY) was in 1986 too .

Yeah -were done here, bah-bye.

Pole-Cat on November 23, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Google “straw man.”

Pcoop on November 23, 2011 at 1:52 PM

I know what a straw man is. The argument was that because we made America an appealing target, we are to blame for the people who come here. That is exactly along the lines of a woman who makes herself an appealing target. Neither case is the victim’s fault. Our government’s negligence does not make it our fault, does not take any of the blame at all from the perpetrators back. It all, 100% falls on the perpetrator’s back.

So, if you want to try and score points, understand what a straw man is. It is an easily knocked down argument made to allow you to knock it down. While it can be fallacious, it is only fallacious if the two are not really comparable. A criminal act vs a criminal act, same. An appealing target and appealing target, same. Not fallacious.

astonerii on November 23, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Rush did something incredibly dishonest. He played part of sentence that Romney said on immigration in an effort to make it sound like Romney had something he did not. Here is the actual transcript:

GOV. ROMNEY: Now let’s, now let’s look at those very carefully, OK, and you’re, you’re a careful reader. In the interview with The Boston Globe, I described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program, but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs. I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support–and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. And, of course, the Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don’t recall in that much detail. But they had very different proposals. My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country–the 12 million or so that are here illegally–should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally. And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate.

MR. RUSSERT: But they shouldn’t have to go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, whether they go home–they should go home eventually. There’s a set per–in my view they should be–they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there’s a set period where upon they should return home. And if they’ve been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they’ll be going home.

MR. RUSSERT: The children they had born here are U.S. citizens, so do the children stay here and the parents go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, that’s a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who’ve come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here, but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally. And likewise, if they’ve brought a child to this country or they’ve had a child in this country, that’s, that’s wonderful that they’re growing their families, but that doesn’t mean that they all get to stay here indefinitely. We’re fundamentally a nation of laws. And let me underscore something here that I think’s awfully important, because this immigration debate can sound anti-immigrant to a lot of people. It’s not intended to be that by myself or, I believe, by the vast majority of others that talk about it. We value legal immigration. We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education, but we are a nation of laws. And our freedoms and our liberty are associated with following the law. We have to secure our border, we have to make sure there’s an employment verification system to identify who’s here legally and who’s not. And then for the 12 million who’ve come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway.

Terrye on November 23, 2011 at 8:01 PM

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

1) probably because some of the 29 millions out of work are not highly skilled or educated enough for some of the jobs in question; the employers post the job openings, if they do not find the right/qualified candidates in the domestic labour market, what are they to do, they have to look elsewhere (overseas) to find candidates fill them…better than relocating whole businesses overseas…

2) some of the 29 millions think that certain jobs (i.e farming/agriculture, menial jobs, etc) are beneath them and prefer to live on the govt dole…

that simple, really…

and that’s why you need different guest work programs…

jimver on November 23, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Too many comments to read. Second look at Perry? lol

kg598301 on November 23, 2011 at 8:13 PM

I think Newt’s going to get away with this partly because of the difference in tone — his answer seems even milder than it is thanks to the standard set by Perry’s “heartless” remark

Yeh, it sure seems that way, doesn’t it? lol Except that he is coming out for amnesty, something Perry has never done.

kg598301 on November 23, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Here those people are severely limited so that we can absorb the third world.

If the majority of our immigrants continue to be poor, uneducated Socialists from Mexico and Central America then you can expect people to take a hard line against them.

You don’t hear how a once solidly middle class neighborhood has been overrun by a bunch of dirty, LOUD, rude Japanese gangbangers.

mrsmwp on November 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM

that’s because the US does not have a highly skills immigration program, like Canada, for instance. The applicants wait in their country of origin for about 2 years until they get the status of landed immigrant in Canada, and the process is long and bureacratic indeed, but they make sure the new immigrants are picked from the best educated and highly skilled in the world, and even then, they don’t give them the status unless they can prove that they have at least 20,000 Canadian dollars to settle in the new country. They make sure that theese newcomers won’t be a burden on the system from the get go.

jimver on November 23, 2011 at 8:33 PM

‘highly skilled’ that is..

jimver on November 23, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Terrye on November 23, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Terrye,
I posted that same FULL transcript earlier on the other post…It is so freakin’ hypocritical of many on here and Rush to take a quote of Romney’s OUT OF CONTEXT when we who have supported and followed him know EXACTLY what he said 4 years ago AND IT HAS NOT CHANGED!!! Some days many posters on here infuriate me because they outright lie and accuse Romney of saying things he NEVER said or implied.

Take for instance when the NRA in MA PRAISED Romney for legislation signed on the 2nd Amendment that they supported the liberals and MANY on our side scream he supported the Assault Weapons Bill! Even the NRA in MA said he did not but facts are trivial things for our side I guess now…Our party is fracturing because of the Tea Party movement, which began as a Taxed Enough Already movement, has morphed into special groups like the Liberals that every conservative wants supported!

There is NOT a perfect candidate to fit what every one wants as a candidate. They all have flaws. For our PRESENT situation and even back to 2008 Romney is the BEST candidate for what is needed which to fix the economy!

What companies has Gingrich saved in the past? which Olympics? What State Gov’t? What executive-decision making experience has he as a House member had to make where his rear was on the line for his signature?

Last point: Romney’s positions from 2008 have not changed since the last time he ran…in fact, point out to me since 2005 where he has signed legislation that was liberal?

g2825m on November 24, 2011 at 10:15 AM

1) probably because some of the 29 millions out of work are not highly skilled or educated enough for some of the jobs in question; the employers post the job openings, if they do not find the right/qualified candidates in the domestic labour market, what are they to do, they have to look elsewhere (overseas) to find candidates fill them…better than relocating whole businesses overseas…

Easy to claim that when you can rewrite qualifications to exclude US citizens. Qualifications get rewritten so that nobody in existence could qualify, much less a US citizen. Then the work gets sent offshore, based on fraudulent claims.

For that, all the programs (including H1/H2) that encourage fraud by employers and waste by government should be ended. This can be accomplished by removing the programs covered by 20 CFR 655 and 20 CFR 656, then removing the laws that allow those programs to exist. The only thing those programs have done is to remove citizens from those industries.

Why should we bring nonresident workers in, instead of responding to the market pressures from our own unemployed? Pay them well, treat them with some respect, hire them on a basis of mutual trust(e.g. not through an intermediary), and you get people that want to do the jobs you say they won’t do for someone.

dogsoldier on November 23, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Employers benefit from the fraud and waste of the government, as stated above.

sethstorm on November 24, 2011 at 12:56 PM

sethstorm on November 24, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Yeah, I have seen job postings that indicate that they are looking for an engineer, that has experience with military aircraft, f16 (special version), landing gear, front landing gear, specific individual piece of the landing gear. I am wondering why they do not just make the advertisement shorter. We would like one the following four people to come work for us. John, Stacey, James or Dewey.

astonerii on November 24, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9