« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Gingrich Supports Amnesty? Eh, No.

By: scipio62 (Diary)  |  November 23rd, 2011 at 05:57 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I was able to watch most of last night’s debate. The two candidates who have had the more controversial positions on immigration are Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. It’s worth noting that both have probably more involvement with dealing with illegal aliens than any of the other candidates; Gingrich in supporting the 1986 Reagan amnesty and Perry being the 10-year governor of Texas who helped to implement the in-state tuition granted to illegal aliens if they’ve been residents of Texas for at least 3 years.

While I believe Perry is much better on immigration and dealing with illegal aliens than what many conservatives have said about him on the issue, his “heartless” answer a few debates back was a huge mistake. During the debate last night, Gingrich mentioned he would not deport those here illegally after they’d been here for a certain length of time (25 years), but would not grant them automatic citizenship, amnesty; he also said he would be willing to take the heat for his statement.

Right away, Michelle Bachmann jumped all over Gingrich on this, saying he would allow 11 million illegal aliens (CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer mentioned there were 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S.) to remain in this country when in fact he said no such thing. Mitt Romney chimed in saying Gingrich’s plan would be a magnet for an influx of illegal aliens, similar to what happened after the Reagan amnesty. Romney’s statement ignored much of what Gingrich had just said; as President, Gingrich would not have a problem deporting those illegals who didn’t meet a certain select criteria.

There’s something else. Just as with Romney, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum (and I believe Hu

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • nathanalbright

    …but I don’t think he really defended his position well enough by talking about “not wanting to break up families.” Look, about 12 million illegal immigrants live in this country (I’ve known some of them personally, most in California, it should be noted, one of whom was a college classmate of mine who had been accepted as a ‘foreign student’ from Mexico while her family lived in the Pasadena area. I was appalled, to say the least.

    No one is going to deport 12 million people. We don’t have the resources to do that. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably pandering to the Know-Nothing wing of the Republican party, which I’m not a part of. That said, we need to secure the border, make legal immigration a reasonable and straightforward policy so that those who want to immigrate legally can do so without the insane amount of bureaucracy it takes now, and provide some sort of penalty for those who have broken the law in the past that nonetheless allows them a path to legitimacy–work permits (for example), paying back taxes, have restrictions (i.e. prohibitions) on their ability to use public benefits, and so on. We also need to go after companies who knowingly profit from the corruption of having under-the-table employees and then lie about no Americans being willing to work for jobs.

    Amnesty ought not to be any part of the solution, but any solution is going to have to recognize that the people who have been here for decades don’t want to go home, and most of them have nothing to go ‘home’ too. No one wants to break up families, but we ought to take the rule of law seriously and provide sanctions for those who refuse to obey the law in our midst, even as we seek to provide a way for them to do ‘penance’ and achieve some sort of legitimate status if they show a repentant heart and are willing to pay the price. And if not, perhaps we can deport them to the nearest ‘sanctuary city,’ as one clever poster on here mentioned. Newt did himself no favors by sounding squishy, though I have to say that both him and Perry are probably not very dissimilar from where I stand on the issues–I want as many people as possible turned into taxpayers who have skin in the game, rather than people who take and take without giving anything in return, all while sending their illegal wages home to subsidize relatives in Mexico.

    • http://scipio62.livejournal.com/ scipio62

      With that said, at least he didn’t say something as ridiculous as Perry did a few debates ago.

      Plus, as I mentioned, both Gingrich and Perry do take the position to strengthen the border first before considering comprehensive immigration reform. And with Perry, he has attempted as governor to apply that approach in the limited capacity allowed to him under current law.

      • nathanalbright

        …but that said his position in the debate is going to cost him some support.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/10/03/gop-can-affirm-rule-of-law-and-define-amnesty-down/

          • nathanalbright

            n/t

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Also, those that are supporting Gingrich aren’t the Paul/Cain/Bachmann type of supporters anyway, so I don’t see his position hurting him. His is also the position that the majority of Americans hold as well.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      Non-felon long term residents would get amnesty because the de facto rule of law was open borders until at least 911. It isn’t fair and just to now call them criminals. But you can never vote unless you go thru the legal process and can’t jump ahead in line of those that are.The debate over Perry and in-state tuition caused me to do a 180:

      http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/10/03/gop-can-affirm-rule-of-law-and-define-amnesty-down/

      • nathanalbright

        …though I’d be more for strategic fencing than for trying to fence the entire border and cutting off rancher’s water rights. I tend to have a fairly comprehensive view that includes a non-voting worker’s visa (along with some kind of fines, but no prison) for those who are here illegally as well as a massive reform of legal immigration to make it much more easier and straightforward for those who wish to do it the right way.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          be enough fencing. I just don’t want to encourage violent confrontations on our side of the border with those that would risk crossing at night thinking they could get past the patrols. A fence deters many and makes mass crossings impossible.

          • nathanalbright

            ….may lead gradually to more fencing as time proceeds and as the traffic patterns of illegals change, and I’m okay with a gradual fencing project :B.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        is based on my understanding of the moral application of Lev 19:9.

      • conservativeparrothead

        I would call it “Restricted Residency” – where a person meets certain criteria and has limitations to their entitlements:

        1. Has to be here a period of time, not sure what that time is.
        2. No voting
        3. Pay fine, they can do it through their income taxes which they will be required to pay $250 a year for 10 years?
        4. No access to benefits such as medicaid, welfare or unemployment.
        5. If you have kids in school, they are held to a performance standard (although every child should, there is no guaranteed right to 18 for education if they are not performing or are discipline/safety issues).

  • Common_Cents

    We are continually bailing out the boat w/out doing what we can to plug the leak first.

    Stop the leak (as best you can), then start bailing.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      tuition debate caused me to realize that we are causing injustices to the long term residents now. See what you think:

      http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/10/03/gop-can-affirm-rule-of-law-and-define-amnesty-down/

  • devereaux

    http://tinyurl.com/78m9ard

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    a bit off guard. And isn’t the best way to bring Iran’s economy to a halt to disable their refinery?

    • Common_Cents

      Iran is complicated. It’s got modernity and many people are pro western.

      It’s the regime that is the problem. We have to focus on regime change w/out alienating the people. A tough task.

      Obama absent for the Persian uprising was a terribly critical blunder.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        agreed on Obama appeasement of the regime

  • conservativeparrothead

    That you are forgiving them of past crimes against the government, that is what Amnesty is.

    I dont believe that what Romney and Bachmann said holds much water as Newt would like some sort of process for which to selectively examine those who are here illegally. New people might come, they come everyday, but they would have to know that such solutions would not apply to them and they would be sent home. Period.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      Carter’s amnesty of Vietnam draft dodgers. The de facto rule of law at least until 911 was open borders. So that amnesty for long-term residents is the only fair and just response imho.

  • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

    Sorry, I tried and tried the Recommend button. I even logged out, logged off the computer, turned off the power, started all over again, logged back in — and STILL could not get the Recommend button to respond.

    Yes, that is how badly I wanted to recommend this diary!

    Because that is how badly I want people to really HEAR and THINK about what Newt Gingrich says. He makes a LOT of sense. And please remember, folks, we actually have to WIN in 2012.

  • davenj1

    12 million illegal immigrants have not lived here 25 years so Gingrich is NOT talking about all illegal immigrants. He is talking about a subsection of that population. If the US had a real immigration policy, we would have a 3-year worker visa program for low skilled workers that is portable and not dependent on employer sponsorship. This way, there would be circularity in immigration. But expediting the process for people who have been here 25 years does not sound like a bad idea. In fact, its the most rational thing I have heard from this group of candidates.

  • conservativeparrothead

    Remember Newt converted to Catholicism a few years back, and while its not a “theme” of the campaign or anything, there was an article written in the Catholic online publication about Newt. The Catholic Church, being that 1/3rd of their congregation in the US is Latino has been somewhat outspoken on this issue.

    I know Santorum is Catholic as well, but seems more traditional, still goes to mass in Latin.