Gingrich’s immigration plan: Strategy, not amnesty; Update: Bachmann in September: “Depends on how long they have been here”

posted at 1:30 pm on November 25, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Did Newt Gingrich really propose a general amnesty in this week’s foreign policy debate?  Or does his plan have more to do with general-election strategy than replacing a decade of Republican rhetoric on the issue of immigration?  My column for The Fiscal Times today looks carefully at what Gingrich actually said during the debate, and also what the problems would still be with his proposal:

First, consider how Gingrich framed the quoted statement above, to which the candidates and activists reacted.  “So I think you’ve got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “that starts with controlling the border….” In other words, Gingrich didn’t propose anything that would replace or subordinate securing the border as the first step in any immigration reform.

What happens once we secure the borders to the 11 million illegals inside the country? Gingrich’s plan calls for discretion in the application of deportation, not a blanket forgiveness of illegal status, as was the case with the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which Gingrich has called a mistake. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, writing in the National Review Online, called Gingrich’s position “common sense” not amnesty and noted that it would not even require a change in the law to implement.

In other words, Gingrich still wants to wait on any other policy changes until the border gets secured.  In that, his position is no different than any of the other Republicans in the field — and that’s going to take a long time to accomplish, whether we’re talking about a physical wall or a high-tech barrier system that can shut down the flow of border jumpers.  Once the threat of a new flood of illegal immigration gets eliminated, something that never happened with Simpson-Mazzoli in the mid-1980s, then we can take our time in dealing with the illegal immigrants remaining in the US.

That’s not to say that Gingrich’s further suggestions on policy don’t need some work:

His suggestion that local boards make decisions on immigration status would create a serious question about equal treatment and could turn the process into a legal nightmare. The obvious next question is: What would be the cutoff point for establishing oneself in a community – 25 years? Twenty?  Fifteen?  Five?  Or will length of community membership be in the eye of the bureaucratic beholder, local boards or ICE (U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement)?

His promotion of the Krieble Foundation’s “red card” proposal as a modern bracero program also has its issues, as Mark Krikorian pointed out in a National Review blog, The old bracero program admitted only men, which eliminated the issue of so-called “anchor babies,” children born of illegal immigrants who automatically get U.S. citizenship and greatly complicate immigration-law enforcement. Helen Krieble, who controls the public-policy foundation, herself opposes birthright citizenship, but that change would have to be a prerequisite for such a program to work within the context of secured borders and the elimination of illegal immigration – and it would require a constitutional amendment to redefine the concept of “natural-born” to eliminate anchor babies. That could take years, if such an amendment could pass at all.

Before anyone signs on to a Gingrich plan on immigration, we’d need to know how he proposes to address these issues, and what his standards would be for declaring the border secured enough to warrant moving onto Phase II.  Still, his proposal is not significantly different from the immigration approach from most of the Republican field, and as last month’s Pew poll showed, solidly in the mainstream of Republican voters.  The main difference is one of tone, which strongly suggests that Gingrich wants to attract Hispanic voters by assuring them that the post-border-control phase of enforcement won’t consist of harsh, inflexible measures that refuse to consider extenuating circumstances.

Will Republican primary voters appreciate the strategy and the nuance?  Fox News asked Karl Rove about the impact of the issue on the election, and Rove says that Gingrich’s “practical” approach might very well be problematic for Gingrich:


The statement from Michael Reagan might take some of the sting out of the criticism coming Gingrich’s way, but only if conservatives don’t recall how unhappy they were at the time of Simpson-Mazzoli, having correctly predicted that Congress would do nothing to secure the border. If Gingrich hopes to win a general election by setting a different (and more realistic) tone on immigration enforcement, he’ll have to hope that taking the risk during the primary on that tone will win him more support than he loses — and we’ll see how that plays out in December.

On a related note, Gary Gross takes a look at whether Mitt Romney is really as tough on illegal immigration as he claims.

Update: William Jacobson wonders whether Gingrich laid a clever trap for Romney:

First, Romney has been in favor of a pathway to citizenship for illegals, which is more than Newt proposed at the debate which was limited to deportation policy. Romney ran to the right, but it was not credible. This reminded everyone of Romney’s “core” weakness.

Second, and equally important, Romney has no answer on deportation policy. This resulted in the ”Abbott and Costello” routine I highlighted yesterday, in which Romney’s spokesperson could not or would not say that Romney would deport everyone here illegally, even those brought here as young children. While attacking the humanitarian standards on deportation policy proposed by Newt, Romney had no alternative. Not a good showing.

In the end, Newt was shown to be someone willing to make hard choices even if it cost him votes and to do so with realism. Romney was shown to be just the opposite.

It dont’ know if Newt set a trap. But the Romney campaign found itself stuck, either way. Newt comes across looking presidential, Romney comes across looking like a politician.

And quickly on the heels of that, Greg Hengler reminds us that Michele Bachmann hasn’t been terribly consistent on this point either:

HARRIS: A quick 30-second rebuttal on the specific question. The fence is built, the border is under control. What do you do with 11.5 million people who are here without documents and with U.S.- born children?

BACHMANN: Well, that’s right. And again, it is sequential, and it depends upon where they live, how long they have been here, if they have a criminal record. All of those things have to be taken into place.

Doesn’t that sound exactly like Gingrich’s position?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

You open borders fanatics are really jumping the shark with these imbecilic comparisons to nazis.

Rebar on November 25, 2011 at 4:06 PM

First off, I’ve said repeatedly…even in this thread…that I am for securing to borders. But still, even with a half-mile high wall and moat filled with man-eating sharks, it takes care of only half of the illegal problem. The rest simply fly here, or drive, whatever and overstay their visas.

Second, I don’t believe I mentioned nazis. You made that connection. Well? Would you support cramming trains with illegals, take ‘em to a camp somewhere, and from there they go back to each native country they’re from?

Yeah, that’s possible alright…

JetBoy on November 25, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I am totally against amnesty. However, if we could find a way to fine these illegals $1,000 per year for each year they have been here. Then eliminate any illegal from being allowed to stay here if they ever got ANY type of government assistance – including any housing, food stamps, medical help, unemployment – ANY kind of aid. They have to go home. Also, anyone who jumped the line can NEVER get citizenship, EVER. We have to eliminate an nor babies. If the parents are not legally here, any downloads on US soil will NOT be a US citizen. Also, if they owned any property that got foreclosed that cost the Freddie/Fannie entities, they have to leave.

We have to eliminate the magnet to come here. Also I would go back at least until 9 / 11 and not let anyone who came here after that be part of the program that lets illegals stay here. They have to
Produce more than phony utility bills tomprove how long they have been here. The 1986 program was a joke. Everyone got phony documents to stay. AND an immigration judge can not waive the fines to stay due to hardship. If they can’t pay the fine, the have to leave.

karenhasfreedom on November 25, 2011 at 4:26 PM

JetBoy on November 25, 2011 at 4:21 PM

You are right..Plus it would be political suicide for whoever does it..:)

Dire Straits on November 25, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Sorry about typos,trying to post from iPhone.

karenhasfreedom on November 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM

On Ellis Island, the nams of my great grendparents are engraved.

They did no come to America from Germany to demand a gat danged thing. They came to America to contribute. They fled tyranny.

Key West Reader on November 25, 2011 at 4:31 PM

I gather from reading 40-50 posts in this thread that the difference between LEGALITY and CITIZENSHIP was lost on many of you geniuses. Typical. LIke Bachmann, you hear what you want to hear, meanwhile you ignored what the person actually SAID and wind up looking silly. Here’s a hint, they aren’t GOING to be deported. The COST would be prohibitive. Housing them in prison’s or jails would be prohibitive. Fines….good and well. You know where they are really. Make hiring them on farms and ag facilities so cost prohibitive, that they either leave VOLUNTARILY….or they pay the fines and back taxes one way or the other. But under no circumstances do they get citizenship. End of story.

JP1986UM on November 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM

First off, I’ve said repeatedly…even in this thread…that I am for securing to borders.

Until they get over the border, then we can’t deport them for… why, it might hurt their feelings?

But still, even with a half-mile high wall and moat filled with man-eating sharks, it takes care of only half of the illegal problem. The rest simply fly here, or drive, whatever and overstay their visas.

They are a national security risk, which is what the FBI is for.

Second, I don’t believe I mentioned nazis. You made that connection.

You talk about cattle cars and concentration camps, but we’re not supposed to make the nazi connection? Disingenuous, bordering on a lie.

Would you support cramming trains with illegals, take ‘em to a camp somewhere, and from there they go back to each native country they’re from?

I support deporting illegals to their countries of origins – as has been done successfully in the past.

Yeah, that’s possible alright…

JetBoy on November 25, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Yeah, you’re a real border hawk, you are.

Rebar on November 25, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Regarding illegals. I’m going to say this once again.

The “illegal aliens” MAY NOT BE MEXICAN.

Can America shake her head and admit this fact?

Middle Eastern males and females have infiltrated our borders. So have Russian females and males. Who can forget the sexy sexy sexy Russian female?

…………

Fuggedaboudit. I got my CX4 Storm. And, I L.O.V.E. love it.

Key West Reader on November 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM

In other words, Gingrich still wants to wait on any other policy changes until the border gets secured.

That is poker-bluffing by Gingrich.

Anyone who can’t dissect that declaration by Gingrich reasonably AND intellectually (if not also strategically) really misses the boat of analysis.

First off, the border is not ever going to be ‘secured.’ Not realistically, not by any fence, not by any guard, it’s just not possible.

So we have to engage a whole variety of options to “secure our nation” — including border fencing, border guards, requirements for entry, visa regulations and court actions and deportations…the whole variety of options all across the board and continue to do so BECAUSE:

Our nation’s border is NEVER realistically going to be “sealed” or “secured” in such a fashion as all the other options available for national security must be suspended (or have to wait, as Gingrich is saying) until such a magical time as we’re all “sealed” up by plastic wrap or some giant, impenetrable bubble.

People have to get realistic here and learn to recognize the utter jive coming from politicians such as Gingrich, among many like him. They speak about these “maybes” and “possibles” and “after which time we will…” and such that leaves voters expecting some effective change to correct this problem that never actually happens because all the politicians continue to claim that it’ll happen tomorrow or “when the border is secured” and yadda, yadda, yadda.

This is like “Waiting for Godot” — whoever may not be familiar with that play should read it because that’s the game Gingrich is playing here.

He’s not the only politician playing that game, I realize, but it ‘s a cruel and manipulative STRATEGY deployed to get people to trust them when the politicians are not being trustworthy.

It’s going to take a variety of implemented actions to nip the illegal alien problem in the bud and that is “across the board” enforcements, among which are (included, next comments):

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:40 PM

– Effective Border Security at entry points;

– Border Fencing to deter easy egress;

– Increased deportation of all identified illegal aliens;

– Increased funding by Congress to effect the above;

– An end to “maybes” and “they can stay but you have to leave” dissecting of our laws;

– Immediate court review with deportations and/or incarcerations where applicable, no more losing the illegals to roam about for years before a court reviews their situation and they have more time to jury wrig “immigration attorneys” from activist groups and never show up at court hearings;

– No drivers licesnes for illegal aliens;

– No cut-rate educational programs for illegal aliens, no reductions or special tweaks in costs when someone’s here illegally;

– No chain migration, at least suspended for twenty years, then reviewed;

– Improved visa programs (medical visas, student visas and tourist visas overstays are among the programs people use to enter legally but to remain here illegally, by preplanned goals);

– An end to anchor-baby citizenship; citizenship bestowed only on children born to two parents who are legal residents or U.S. citizens themselves;

and…I’m sure I didn’t include many areas but these ARE areas that can be immediately put into effect through Congress with Executive Branch lead and Dept.s’ actions.

BUT waiting around for that “Godot” who never shows up called “secured borders” is a political ruse used by politicians such as Gingrich (sadly, very disappointed in him) is the voters being fooled or being so gullible as to be lemmings.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Once the threat of a new flood of illegal immigration gets eliminated…

Dream on.

The flood will NEVER cease as long as we keep talking about some kind of partial or total amnesty, etc.

The only practical solution is attrition through strict enforcement; no deportations except for hardened criminals, but NO REWARDS!!:

1. Mandatory and universal E-Verify (HR 2885)

2. Enforce 1996 law against sanctuary cities

3. Outlaw ITIN (and matricula consular card for ID, as FBI recommended), require secure ID for all tax returns.

4. 10% tax on all remittances without proof of legal residency

5. No drivers licenses, no in-state tuition, no welfare, no benefits of any kind unless you are a legal resident.

Result — gradual and steady self-deportation, as this illegal alien explains. “I can’t get a job, and I can’t get a drivers license, so I’m taking my family home.”

After all, this is what almost every demographic wants (even 40% of Hispanics want this!!) — read this poll, which offers all three choices — amnesty, strict law enforcement and attrition, and deportation.

fred5678 on November 25, 2011 at 4:44 PM

I gather from reading 40-50 posts in this thread that the difference between LEGALITY and CITIZENSHIP was lost on many of you geniuses. Typical. LIke Bachmann, you hear what you want to hear, meanwhile you ignored what the person actually SAID and wind up looking silly. Here’s a hint, they aren’t GOING to be deported. The COST would be prohibitive. Housing them in prison’s or jails would be prohibitive. Fines….good and well. You know where they are really. Make hiring them on farms and ag facilities so cost prohibitive, that they either leave VOLUNTARILY….or they pay the fines and back taxes one way or the other. But under no circumstances do they get citizenship. End of story.

JP1986UM on November 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM

What *I* find concerning is why some people are not insulted by Gingrich’s condescending insults about our integrity.

Him trying to “distinguish” between “citizenship” and “a process by which they (illegal aliens) can remain here legally” is absurd, insulting and condescending when he, particularly, then tries to further insult voters by claiming “that’s not amnesty” and then suggesting anyone who claims it IS amnesty is somehow “gravely misguided” or whatever his latest sneer was as to other people’s integrity.

OF COURSE that’s an amnesty he’s pursuing for illegal aliens. Withholding prosecution from our laws by SELECTIVE PROCESS (or even non-selective process) IS AMNESTY from our laws, from whomever being held responsible for their violatons OF those laws of ours. IT’S AMNESTY whether or not Gingrich will admit it, and that he’s so determined that it isn’t calls HIS mind into question, not ours.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:46 PM

5. No drivers licenses, no in-state tuition, no welfare, no benefits of any kind unless you are a citizen legal resident.

fred5678 on November 25, 2011 at 4:44 PM

About all I got to add to your good list.

Well, except I think jail time for company ceo’s who hire illegals.

astonerii on November 25, 2011 at 4:48 PM

And the fact that Gingrich is suggesting that “people who have been here (illegally) for twenty years or so” is even more insulting.

He’s saying that people who are THE MOST DEDICATED IN VIOLATING OUR LAWS are somehow DESERVING by those violations to be granted some prize by our nation…amnesty, being allowed to remain here despite having established themselves as career criminals in that area of offense.

It’s ultimately SO insulting, I mean, what’s next? 20-year insults are only more insulting to our nation, not less.

THEN I read some Gingrich supporters claiming that Gingrich was thinking of “old ladies” or “grannies” who are here at some advanced age and “have no families back in their own countries” (so can’t, they claim, go home because “no one is there to take care of them”), ~AND~ that “we can’t break up families…”

So which is it? Illegal aliens with “families” get to stay, old grannies without families get to stay, why not eighteenth cousins five times removed with a dozen roommates, let them stay, too?

Gingrich is just wrong, corrupt in this disasterous and misleading idea of his. It’s like a big brew from another cauldron of nonsense.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Middle Eastern males and females have infiltrated our borders. So have Russian females and males. Who can forget the sexy sexy sexy Russian female?

…………

Fuggedaboudit. I got my CX4 Storm. And, I L.O.V.E. love it.

Key West Reader on November 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM

You think she was sexy sexy sexy? Seriously? She looked like the engine room plain jane character in Firefly.

astonerii on November 25, 2011 at 4:52 PM

The flood will NEVER cease as long as we keep talking about some kind of partial or total amnesty, etc.
fred5678 on November 25, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Yup, when you give away the store as your starting point then your other cards don’t matter a whole lot. It’s like telling the OWS hipsters they’ll get a reward if they just stay camped out for x number of years.

whatcat on November 25, 2011 at 4:53 PM

The flood will NEVER cease as long as we keep talking about some kind of partial or total amnesty, etc.

The only practical solution is attrition through strict enforcement; no deportations except for hardened criminals, but NO REWARDS!!:

EXACTLY.

Many of us voters/citizens can easily come up with the solutions to this multi-pronged problem of illegal aliens yet why can’t our politicians?

They CAN but they ARE NOT doing so. And Gingrich is just reiterating the very same delays and attempts to distract the voters that we’ve heard for decades now by similar people as himself.

They could if they wanted to, solve this problem. They aren’t because they don’t want to.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Does not the absolute insanity of your rants even remotely register in your mind while you write this stuff? Take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard for a minute and try to calm down.

astonerii on November 25, 2011 at 4:54 PM

He’s saying that people who are THE MOST DEDICATED IN VIOLATING OUR LAWS are somehow DESERVING by those violations to be granted some prize by our nation
Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM

It’s quite a heads scratcher, alright. But Newt blows so much smoke that some people are impressed and declare it “deep thinkin’”.

whatcat on November 25, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Here’s a hint, they aren’t GOING to be deported. The COST would be prohibitive. Housing them in prison’s or jails would be prohibitive. Fines….good and well. You know where they are really. Make hiring them on farms and ag facilities so cost prohibitive, that they either leave VOLUNTARILY….or they pay the fines and back taxes one way or the other. But under no circumstances do they get citizenship. End of story.

JP1986UM on November 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Career politicians told Eisenhower the same thing but he managed to deport or “induce into self deportation” over a million illegal aliens, along with the help of returned military personnel after WWII, who Eisenhower tasked with rounding them up and getting them out of the country.

And that was accomplished by Eisenhower and the recently ‘civilianized’ returned military in something like a year. One great big year or even less, though I don’t know the exact time the Operation functioned (was an effective Operation created and led by Eisenhower, called “Operation Wetback”).

I realize that not “all” illegal aliens are from Mexico (someone else mentioned that here, also, Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback was targeted at illegals from, mostly, Central America), BUT the U.S. has something like ONE-THIRD of Mexico’s adult population in the U.S. and many of them here illegally (something like 60% or more of the illegal aliens in the U.S. are from Mexico).

So it’s not “just Mexico” but Mexico is certainly a big part of the problem as to illegal aliens in the U.S. And always has been.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Does not the absolute insanity of your rants even remotely register in your mind while you write this stuff? Take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard for a minute and try to calm down.

astonerii on November 25, 2011 at 4:54 PM

There’s nothing “insane” nor a “rant” about what I wrote.

Of course, if you’re sane yourself, you might point out just what you find “insane” about what I wrote. The “rants” insult is just you being rude.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:01 PM

He’s saying that people who are THE MOST DEDICATED IN VIOLATING OUR LAWS are somehow DESERVING by those violations to be granted some prize by our nation
Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM

It’s quite a heads scratcher, alright. But Newt blows so much smoke that some people are impressed and declare it “deep thinkin’”.

whatcat on November 25, 2011 at 4:57 PM

He’s playing poker with the voters. Unfortunately, there are many victims willing to lose their goods just to ‘feel’ like they’re getting a deal.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM

astonerii on November 25, 2011 at 4:54 PM

First, Gingrich says he’s referring to “people (illegal aliens) who have been here for twenty years or so (who are granted some legal process to remain here)” BECAUSE, so he bases his grandiose idea on, “we shouldn’t be the party that breaks up families.”

(1.) The GOP ISN’T NOW the “party that breaks up families.” So discard that canard right away and move on into closer examination of his card-game strategy…

(2.) He/his supporters then go on to claim that “people (illegal aliens) with families…who have paid their taxes…not been involved in crimes…” moreorless get to remain here by way of Gingrich’s (and Obama’s, this is his method already in practice) though they’re not “citizens” they “get to stay by some legal process” (D.C. mumbo-jumbo).

His supporters then claim that there are some “80 year old grannies” who “have no families to care for them” so they “have to stay here” (so the U.S. taxpayers can continue to support them, apparently).

So which is it? 80-year-olds “who don’t have any families” or those WITH families at any age (over 20 years old or more, from Gingrich’s idea) get to remain here despite being illegal aliens?

Can’t you see the duplicity and lack of sincerity of these desires? Gingrich is literally just taking people for a ride here and what I find most offensive about his plans is that he’s insulting and trying to shame GOP voters to do so.

It’s not our problem, it’s his.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:09 PM

If illegal aliens don’t want their “families” to be “broken up,” they can go home with their “families,” or, stop bringing their “families” with them here illegally.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Interesting…

On THE FIVE today, the sensible people are all disagreeing with Gingrich’s idea as to his “it’s amnesty but it’s not amnesty” plan, while the one person trying to laud illegal aliens as “the newest growing contingency in the U.S.” is Bob Beckel.

Note Beckel is a Democrat who views illegal aliens as useful fools for the DNC (“growing contingency” is used by Beckel synonymously with “illegal aliens” which he won’t use in reference to the same persons).

The others are either Libertarians or Republicans.

I like the idea by….that the GOP should have “an immigration debate” for the candidates, because, as she points out, none of them so far has been specific on this problem and won’t be unless there’s some effort to pin them down individually on their plans.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:23 PM

There must be some “path to citizenship” for illegals, and that they must all go through it in order to continue to stay here. If they don’t, then the can go.

JetBoy on November 25, 2011 at 2:25 PM

A path to residency? Let’s talk about the details.

A path to citizenship? No effing way, José.

holygoat on November 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Gingrich is just wrong, corrupt in this disasterous and misleading idea of his. It’s like a big brew from another cauldron of nonsense.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM

You over stepped the boundary of argument into insane right there. Unless you have some information no one else has, saying his position is corrupt does not fit the argument.

Is why I said step away for a minute. Most of your argument is valid. But your worked up to a point you are overstepping the truth.

astonerii on November 25, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Meh. We just be clingin’ to our guns n are bibles n such. We also brush eathother’s tooth (we gots 2) each mornin. Before we barbeque our dogs fer breffust.

/What Barack and Michelle think of the rest of us.

Key West Reader on November 25, 2011 at 4:18 PM

And, don’ be forgettin’ our nightly meetin’s an’ da cross burnin’s an’ all. /

TXUS on November 25, 2011 at 5:50 PM

I like the idea by….that the GOP should have “an immigration debate” for the candidates, because, as she points out, none of them so far has been specific on this problem and won’t be unless there’s some effort to pin them down individually on their plans.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Any candidate can call for such a debate. That candidate will likely have others joining the call. There might be a couple candidates who object to such a debate. That will be telling.

I actually hope they invite La Raza. Tancredo will be there. Let’s see if we can get this to happen.

Buddahpundit on November 25, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Well, first we could define what being a natural born citizen means, that would clear up a lot of things. if it is being born to two legal residents, or two citizens, then all those kids are not Americans and they can go home with mom and dad. i don’t believe that just because you broke the law to have a kid here, does not grant the child citizenship, but I concede that I am on the less popular side of that argument, but also the most fair one. it is not right to reward illegal behavior.

rgranger on November 25, 2011 at 5:57 PM

UGGGGGHHHHHH.

The GOP is a slave to business interests the same as the Dems are slaves to Unions and Lawyers. Bachmann and Newt just need to embrace simplicity.

If they would follow the 2 step simple, simple, simple PAPPY PLAN this argument could end.

THE PAPPY PLAN

1. Seal the border.
Fence, moat with dragons, tasers, gunboats, whatever it takes. This would save entitlements like Medicare, Welfare, Medicaid, Unemployment, state education budgets, law enforcement costs, legal system burden from criminal elements from Mejico, etc.

2. 10% across-the-board Federal spending cuts.
CUTS, not fake D.C. crapola cuts where they just cut the GROWTH IN THE SPENDING. I’m talking if the budget is $3.4 trillion for 2012 you cut it $340 billion for 2013. Then you cut it $310 billion the following year, etc. It’s “shared sacrifice” and EVERYONE can understand it.

But, we’ll need someone, anyone on the GOP side, to actually COMMUNICATE how this helps the U.S.A.

***In fact, if you actually seal the border and illegals self-deport back south you might not even need to cut the budget 10%. Expenditures might drop by that much or more just by default.

Can you imagine going to the emergency room at a Hospital and actually only having to wait 30 minutes to be seen instead of 6 hours?

PappyD61 on November 25, 2011 at 6:30 PM

I can’t wait for Romney to call Newt a flip-flopper. Oh, wait he can’t do that because it would draw attention to his flip-flopping. Maybe someone will…. oh, look someone DID call out Newt for being a raging flip-flopper. HA.

popularpeoplesfront on November 25, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Ron Paul opposed the Reagan amnesty as well as McCain-Kennedy.

If you want a candidate who is not going to compromise like Bachmann and Gingrich, then vote for Paul.

Spathi on November 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM

could not or would not say that Romney would deport everyone here illegally

This nonsense question is an argument for supporting amnesty/residency for illegals. This insinuates that the government is going to actively hunt down illegals and deport them. That’s not going to happen I don’t care who is President. Just enforce the laws.

The … you can’t round them all up and deport them.. is a pro-amnesty argument. Instead of asking if they would deport everyone here illegally, why not ask if they are in support of enforcing the laws on the books?

This ‘secure the border … then we’ll talk …’ is the result of the border first crowd that beat down the rest of us during the immigration uproar under Bush. It’s not just about securing the border then ‘having a conversation about how to legitimize the illegals’. It’s about securing the border and putting the rest of our money in border patrol, e-verify, raids on illegal hiring, deportation, etc. … enforcing our laws. Period. Illegals get caught in the net, bye-bye. Period. Sell out … take your money and go buy yourself a house in Mexico. Take your kid with you. Period. Get in line if you want to come back. Then at some point in the future with unemployment gets back to 5%, we can talk about a temporary worker program … with no benefits, no anchor babies, no family comes along… that shuts down at a specified rate of unemployment once operational.

I’ve been away but I did see the clip on TV of Gingrich’s comment and I LOL at his comment that if the GOP is the party of ‘family’, butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth.

Texas Gal on November 25, 2011 at 7:07 PM

hahaha! So it begin with the Gingrich worshipers as it did with the Palin, Perry, and Cain worshipers! Newt “laid a clever trap for Romney”? Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Hey, wait a second, what does that Bachmann quote have to do with anything? Newt stole her immigration position for this debate ( step 1 ) and then Blitz goes to Bachmann for a response ( step 2 ) and step 3 was supposed to have Bachmann criticize Newt’s new position that he used just for this moment, but it didn’t even work. She criticized his long standing position of amnesty. Step 4 was supposed to be to whip out the old Bachmann quote to discredit her.

Buddahpundit on November 25, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Some of you folks need to take a break from politics.

Vince on November 25, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Some of you folks need to take a break from politics.

Vince on November 25, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Damned skippy Vince. The problem is that the ones that actually need to spend some time on politics are the ones that will take your advice.

astonerii on November 25, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Some of you folks need to take a break from politics.

Vince on November 25, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Coward.

Buddahpundit on November 25, 2011 at 9:24 PM

The second an illegal is granted any kind of legality, he has leapfrogged past his legal competitors and been given virtually everything he wanted (the ability to live here unmolested).

If we do not have the political will to deport him now, he will never be deported after he has been “temporarily” recognized, been allowed to integrated in to our economy, school system, housing market, society, politics and has lawyered up.

ANY legal recognition is therefore amnesty. The smarter the person who denies that, the greater lier he is. If he lies about this… what else is the lying to conservatives about?

elfman on November 25, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Those of you that say a fence will never work are fooling yourselves…the fence is working well enough to force MOST of the illegals towards my state of AZ that they just walk across in most places. You build a fence and that at least forces them to seek other routes (tunnels, waterways, smuggling in vehicles, etc) but the VAST majority are just walking across in AZ into our country.

So if you would like to help out please contribute to AZ building its fence and that will stop the flow of at least 75% of ALL illegals entering our GREAT country.

g2825m on November 26, 2011 at 5:14 AM

The current policy, pretty much consistently the same policy we have had since Ronald Reagan did a full legal amnesty, is a nearly full de facto amnesty. So today while people are discussing whether or not we should have amnesty…WE ALREADY HAVE AMNESTY..

We also have voter fraud where folks that are not citizens are voting..See John Fund who has done great work in this.

We still have not closed the border.

So all you folks pissing and moaning about Newt supporting a plan to allow community screened people that have been here 25 years to get some kind of formal legal card to show that, and without citizenship. are really OFF YOUR ROCKERS…especially if you are supporters of Romney and Bachman who we have seen basically supported a similar thing as Newt proposed.

Usually it is best to think before you speak….just sayin

georgealbert on November 26, 2011 at 6:15 AM

Before anyone signs on to a Gingrich plan on immigration, we’d need to know how he proposes to address these issues, and what his standards would be for declaring the border secured enough to warrant moving onto Phase II

Sure is funny how the rest of the field of candidates can’t even, (or are afraid to) address this problem by submitting real solutions PUBLICALLY. At least Gringrich is willing to tackle the issue.

Rovin on November 26, 2011 at 6:23 AM

The only thing Newt was trying to tackle was Romney. Neither of them can be trusted on solving the problem of having 20 million illegals in the country stealing our assets and committing crimes. There may not be a candidate out there we can trust to develop a new solution.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is selecting the candidate who is most likely to do nothing new, but will at least allow the feds to actually enforce the laws already in the books. And that isn’t Newt “the smarter than you”Gingrich .

ray on November 26, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Shut off the entitlement tap and they all will go back to their own country and for an added bonus maybe some of the parasites living off the government dole will solve the obese problem that healthcare considers a epidemic. A win win situation.

mixplix on November 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM

So today while people are discussing whether or not we should have amnesty…WE ALREADY HAVE AMNESTY..

georgealbert on November 26, 2011 at 6:15 AM

Nonsense. Illegals no more have amnesty to live here than teenagers have amnesty to have sex and smoke dope at home. Nevertheless, many soft-principled “practical” adults want both to be allowed and legal respectively.

Aside from the business, social and emotional challenges of just having the word “ILLEGAL” hanging over them outside their culture, they’re bared from most organizations or jobs requiring background checks and have limited security in the rest. Even their education, non-emergency healthcare, welfare benefits and there existence here are vulnerable to public opinion. Give them any form of legality, however tenuous upon performance, and they get it all permanently.

So it’s soft thinking compromisers who are “pissing and moaning” and are “OFF YOUR ROCKERS” for spewing that “WE ALREADY HAVE AMNESTY”.

elfman on November 26, 2011 at 12:00 PM

So today while people are discussing whether or not we should have amnesty…WE ALREADY HAVE AMNESTY..

georgealbert on November 26, 2011 at 6:15 AM

Oops, my preview in IE8 doesn’t work.

elfman on November 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Hey, candidates…let’s just enforce/abide by the laws. If you don’t like them…change the laws, until then…live by the laws of the land. PERIOD!

purgatory on November 26, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Well, elfman, I’m not sure where you live, but clearly it is not in any city in the United States of America…I assume you were kidding

Really, do you not understand the many people here illegally DO NOT LIVE ILLEGALLY…they have Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, they own real estate, they pay taxes,

It is call fraudulent documentation…honestly, please tell me you were just kidding…you cannot be that far out of touch with the real world

georgealbert on November 26, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Using illegal documentation is living illegally. How funny.

ray on November 26, 2011 at 7:30 PM

The current policy, pretty much consistently the same policy we have had since Ronald Reagan did a full legal amnesty, is a nearly full de facto amnesty. So today while people are discussing whether or not we should have amnesty…WE ALREADY HAVE AMNESTY..

So all you folks pissing and moaning about Newt supporting a plan to allow community screened people that have been here 25 years to get some kind of formal legal card to show that, and without citizenship. are really OFF YOUR ROCKERS…especially if you are supporters of Romney and Bachman who we have seen basically supported a similar thing as Newt proposed.

Usually it is best to think before you speak….just sayin

georgealbert on November 26, 2011 at 6:15 AM

“de facto amnesty” for now is temporary, and can be easily reversed with the right policy (attrition through enforcement). Newt and too many others offer a PERMANENT and bad policy by offering PERMANENT legalization to some illegal aliens, encouraging yet a new wave of future border-crossers hoping for the same treatment — it’s only human nature. Real enforcement at the national level has NEVER been tried since Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback (in a way). E-Verify via HR 2885 is a big step toward that.

I’m not happy with any candidate on the issue of illegal immigration. NONE of them have come right out and said we are not going to give any consideration (rewards) to illegals — we will enforce all the laws and let them go home the same way they came here — and take their children with them to improve their own country. Whoever says that gets my vote. Still waiting, but not holding my breath.

(And local screening boards??? With no national standard??? This is off the top of his head talk, not reasoned thinking.)

And it is FOOLISH for candidates not to use this most popular policy.

Before you defend the indefensible (rewards for criminals — rewards of their ill-gotten goods, no less), you best read up on HR 2885, Heath Shuler’s SAVE Act, and a slew of other enforcement bills that hopefully will one day become law. And vote for a president who will start enforcing the 1996 law against sanctuary cities. And the federal law against in-state tuition for illegal aliens, etc. etc.

Listen to this guy ‘splain how attrition works — wherever it has been actually tried.

fred5678 on November 26, 2011 at 7:32 PM

No surprise, here, but interesting, nonetheless, this just in from CNN political ticker:

Sherriff Joe Arpaio will join Gov Perry in NH on the campaign trail next week.

Also of note Gov Perry got a state award for law enforcement from the Federal Law Enforcement Foundation just recently.

redneck hippie on November 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Really, do you not understand the many people here illegally DO NOT LIVE ILLEGALLY…they have Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, they own real estate, they pay taxes,

It is call fraudulent documentation…honestly, please tell me you were just kidding…you cannot be that far out of touch with the real world

georgealbert on November 26, 2011 at 6:56 PM

I question how many people out of the total illegal population we are talking about here. Not to mention that if their immigration status is questionable, then they have those documents ILLEGALLY. I don’t think you know what illegal means, so you might want to look it up. Although since you use the word fraudulent then maybe you’re just deliberately talking out your ass, because that isn’t called amnesty, it’s called fraud…i.e…breaking the law…i.e…ILLEGAL?

But there are also a number of American CITIZENS who engage in such activities. It’s well known that welfare recipients hide their income by working under other people’s social security numbers. Should we reward them for those indiscretions when we catch them, too?

JannyMae on November 26, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Newt’s newest really great idea is simply ridiculous. Having local immigration boards decide national problem simply won’t work. After all, exactly how many applicants do you think the San Francisco local board will turn down? 1 percent, two percent or what? And exactly how many people will fill under any other local board once this fact becomes generally known? 1 percent, two percent or what?

Newt is a loose cannon and it’s simply a coincidence if any of his great ideas are even remotely conservative.

Fred 2 on November 27, 2011 at 12:44 AM

What happens once we secure the borders to the 11 million illegals inside the country?

When did this number decrease from the estimated 20million+ we used to hear about not long ago?

Midas on November 27, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Go back to making out with Pelosi. Newt talks a good game, when he thinks conservatives are listening. The problem is he has no problem using his razor sharp rhetoric to argue the opposing point if HIS interests demand it.
abobo on November 25, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Correct. What are his objectives? His amnesty stand has suddenly appeared. He could have stood up for Perry, but he let Perry sink. IMHO Newt wants amnesty (granting citizenship to self selected citizens)

The public has made it clear they do not want a path to citizenship for people who broke the law. The uproar over changing immigration law exceeded anything I have seen

Newt was awfully quiet on this until the last debate. In that sense it was a strategy. However I consider it less a trap for Romney, than a way to gain favor with the RINO elites, and some good, soft coverage by the MSM

The MSM built his abrasive image, and they are now starting to discover the new Newt who fits their agenda. The Clinton praise did not happen by accident

Newt wants “community panels” to decide what happens to illegals already here.
Mirimichi on November 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

And we all know how fair and just the draft boards were. Citizenship is a national issue. The whole nation has a vote, not just the local better biz leaders and others of ‘merit’
When I hear any politician give the line/lie ‘we need to secure our borders first’, I run.
We have laws on the books. Our border is not secure because our pols and executive branch are owned, not by the American citizen, but by the elites. Money was voted for the fence but there is no fence. Meanwhile the Prez is give automatics to the Cartels, and Newt says we need to give citizenship to 20 million illegal workers (most of whom do not work in agriculture), when we have 8 million unemployed citizens
Newt has decided to run with the RINOs. Hope he keeps running til he hits the Rio Grande. The border is wide open so there should be no stopping him.

entagor on November 27, 2011 at 1:48 PM

you cannot be that far out of touch with the real world

georgealbert on November 26, 2011 at 6:56 PM

I stay in the “real world” by addressing all the facts that are presented to me… unlike you who just ignored every one I laid out and tried to change focus.

Life’s short. I don’t follow evasive debaters around like that. It just means they lost, that they can’t find a response that they like, but won’t admit it.

elfman on November 27, 2011 at 4:23 PM

I recommend Mickey Kaus’s article on Gingrich’s Amnesty scam http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/23/newt-on-immigration-whaaa/
I well remember Gingrich’s RINO, bleed the taxpayer, erode US sovereignty agenda back in the day. I’ll never vote for him, neither will anyone else with any brain capacity.

Ceolas on November 28, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2