Newt blasted for amnesty stance during GOP debate

[JoeChalupa]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1383150

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, who has emerged as a top-tier candidate in recent polls, came under fire from his GOP rivals last night for suggesting he’d offer amnesty to some illegal aliens in a feisty debate that focused on national security.

“I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, ‘Let’s be human and enforce the law and find a way to create legality so they are not separated from their family,’ ” said Gingrich, who suggested finding a way to legalize some of the illegal immigrants who have been living and working in the U.S. for decades.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney disagreed, saying any amnesty would only encourage more illegals to flood America.

“Amnesty is a magnet,” Romney said. “People respond to incentives, and if you can become a permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, you’ll do so.”


-Watched the debate last night and I support Newt's stance on immigration. Will this be his downfall amongs conservatives?

Huntsman was on fire last night and Bachman did pretty well herself. Romney faltered, Paul was again anti-war and anti-patriot act, Perry was himself, Cain looked like he didn't want to be there, Santorum was forgotten.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't see the debate, but I agree. No talk of amnesty, period. A candidate who supports amnesty for illegals will likely not have my vote.

[Drachen]

I will say this... Though I may not be prepared to go as far as he is, and he will likely take a ton of heat for it, I am surprised and a little impressed that he said it.

[boutons_deux]

nativist xenophoes love to shout "no amnesty" as much as they love to remain totally mute about alternatives.

[FromWayDowntown]

I didn't see the debate, but I agree. No talk of amnesty, period. A candidate who supports amnesty for illegals will likely not have my vote.

Suppose that an natural-born American citizen and an illegal immigrant from Mexico marry each other and have two kids. Ten years later, when the kids are 13 and 11, the mother's status as an illegal immigrant becomes known. At the same time, the 11 year old is gravely ill.

Would you deport the mother in that case?

I thought the brilliance of Gingrich's position on this is that it allowed him to sound imminently reasonable on an issue where debate infrequently goes beyond hot rhetoric. I think he's right about the fundamental disconnect between labeling oneself the party of families while embracing policies that threaten families if broadly enforced without exception. I'm not a huge fan of the former Speaker, but in a field of policy absolutists who pander to ideologues (Paul perhaps being an exception), his nuanced policy views are interesting.

[Drachen]

Suppose that an natural-born American citizen and an illegal immigrant from Mexico marry each other and have two kids. Ten years later, when the kids are 13 and 11, the mother's status as an illegal immigrant becomes known. At the same time, the 11 year old is gravely ill.

Would you deport the mother in that case?

I thought the brilliance of Gingrich's position on this is that it allowed him to sound imminently reasonable on an issue where debate infrequently goes beyond hot rhetoric. I think he's right about the fundamental disconnect between labeling oneself the party of families while embracing policies that threaten families if broadly enforced without exception. I'm not a huge fan of the former Speaker, but in a field of policy absolutists who pander to ideologues (Paul perhaps being an exception), his nuanced policy views are interesting.

The only problem with nuance is that is difficult to codify it into law and since we are supposed to be a country which thrives on the rule of law this is important. How do you write something that says to "deport the illegals except when they have had two kids, one of which is gravely ill." I recognize the fact that you can give judges leeway to make decisions, but how do you limit that leeway and who judges that the judges are following the intent (if not the letter) of the law. I am not asking to try to be argumentative, I just figured if anyone had ideas on how to do this, that you would.

[hater]

Suppose that an natural-born American citizen and an illegal immigrant from Mexico marry each other and have two kids.

Not a good example. Amnesty or not that immigrant will eventually become citizen due to being married to a citizen.

[scott]

If we just make laws tougher, that will get rid of all the illegals. Because it always works like that.

[Wild Cobra]

nativist xenophoes love to shout "no amnesty" as much as they love to remain totally mute about alternatives.
Until the terms of the Reagan administration's Amnesty is honored, I say no more.

[mavs>spurs]

Make the laws tougher against employers hire illegals. Make it a felony to hire them and they'll all be gone in a month.

[hater]

Make the laws tougher against employers hire illegals. Make it a felony to hire them and they'll all be gone in a month.

11 million illegals. that would make 11 million prosecutions. 11 million trials, 11 million juries.

the costs for this undertaking could reach the billions. Not to mention the law enforcement, intelligence resources that will have to be taken out of fighting regular crime/terrorism. good luck with that.

[boutons_deux]

The huge dropoff in border crossing is due to drug violence in northern MX, with some assist from the Banksters' Great Jobs Depression.

So, nativist xenophobes, how do rid the country of all 11M illegal aliens, other than just hatin on them?

Anyway, businessmen will block any of your solutions because they love to underpay and steal pay from illegals. That exactly why TX businessmen shut down Jimmy Ricky about going after illegals.

[FromWayDowntown]

The only problem with nuance is that is difficult to codify it into law and since we are supposed to be a country which thrives on the rule of law this is important. How do you write something that says to "deport the illegals except when they have had two kids, one of which is gravely ill." I recognize the fact that you can give judges leeway to make decisions, but how do you limit that leeway and who judges that the judges are following the intent (if not the letter) of the law. I am not asking to try to be argumentative, I just figured if anyone had ideas on how to do this, that you would.

If you're open to nuance, I'd argue that the way you write that nuance into law is to create an amnesty regime like the one that Gingrich suggested.

[FromWayDowntown]

Not a good example. Amnesty or not that immigrant will eventually become citizen due to being married to a citizen.

Fair. Suppose that the illegal immigrant has married a legal immigrant from Canada. Then what?

[hater]

Fair. Suppose that the illegal immigrant has married a legal immigrant from Canada. Then what?

thats a better example and that is probably what Newt was talking about.

Unfortunately the use of logic and reason does not amuse the tea baggers.

[Drachen]

If you're open to nuance, I'd argue that the way you write that nuance into law is to create an amnesty regime like the one that Gingrich suggested.

Ok, fair enough, I was in class, so I am only getting bits and pieces of what he said and so I don't know about the regime he suggested.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Newt knows this is the right thing to do.

[boutons_deux]

"illegal immigrant has married a legal immigrant from Canada"

US legal resident status is very different from US citizenship. I really doubt a legal resident alien could confer legal residency by marriage to illegal alien.

[mavs>spurs]

11 million illegals. that would make 11 million prosecutions. 11 million trials, 11 million juries.

the costs for this undertaking could reach the billions. Not to mention the law enforcement, intelligence resources that will have to be taken out of fighting regular crime/terrorism. good luck with that.

Are you fucking shitting me dude? First off, you actually believe that government propaganda 11 million figure? Try 40-50 million according to most unbiased reports. You want to legalize all those people to take even MORE jobs away from american citizens? I personally know manyyy illegals who either don't work because they can't, or work somewhere like jack in the box. all the sudden these people would be competing for jobs. Just making it okay to enter our country illegally and violate our sovereignty is NOT the solution.

And secondly, there wouldn't be 11 million trials because the employers would lay off all their illegals immediately. No middle class white american wants to be locked up and do hard time for a felony while getting railed by tyrone and jamal. It would be very simple to implement, just have a national database where in order to be in the payroll system, you have to submit a working social security number. No citizenship, automatically no work.

[boutons_deux]

"Try 40-50 million according to most unbiased reports"

got links?

[mavs>spurs]

Newt knows this is the right thing to do.

The right thing to do? Opinions of illiterate south texas b3aner symphathizers (or a b3aner yourself) are taken with a grain of salt..

[mavs>spurs]

"Try 40-50 million according to most unbiased reports"

got links?

http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/05apr/econ_underground.htm

If they're now conceding that it's actually 20 million, you can bet it's even a lot more than that. See, big business WANTS the illegals here. Now refresh me, who is it that controls America again? now maybe you can see why they lie about the numbers?

[hater]

Are you fucking shitting me dude? First off, you actually believe that government propaganda 11 million figure? Try 40-50 million according to most unbiased reports.

:lol link?


You want to legalize all those people to take even MORE jobs away from american citizens?

I never said that


go look up amnesty. There are rules, like you have to have lived in the country, have immediate family, commited no crimes and payed taxes for the last 10 years. That would only qualify a small # of ppl that actually contribute.

Amnesty. Last major one was done by Reagan.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672
Nowadays, conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh often invoke the former president as a champion of the conservative agenda. Sean Hannity of Fox News even has a regular segment called "What Would Reagan Do?"

Simpson, however, sees a different person in the president he called a "dear friend."

Reagan "knew that it was not right for people to be abused," Simpson says. "Anybody who's here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights."

Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, agrees. "It was in Ronald Reagan's bones — it was part of his understanding of America — that the country was fundamentally open to those who wanted to join us here."

Reagan said as much himself in a televised debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," he said.


what Newt did is just take the words from Reagan, word by word. He wants to be Reagan.

[boutons_deux]

WSJ? R U F K M?

WSJ and other VRWC mouthpieces lie about immigration to sucker bubbas to vote Repug.

Then the Repugs DO NOTHING about immigration (at federal level for 8 years under dubya).

[hater]

http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/05apr/econ_underground.htm

If they're now conceding that it's actually 20 million, you can bet it's even a lot more than that. See, big business WANTS the illegals here. Now refresh me, who is it that controls America again? now maybe you can see why they lie about the numbers?

:lol no links

[mavs>spurs]

Okay so you want amnesty, which you say would only apply to a small percentage of people. So if the amount of illegals is really only 11 million(:lol), and not many of them would even be affected by this, then how does it even address illegal immigration other than undermining our sovereignty and creating incentives to break the law? We'd still have almost 11 million problems on our hands to take care of..

Oh, and since these are the hard working cream of the b3aner crop, they won't be satisfied with minimum wage jobs once they get their "amnesty." It'll be another couple million people competing for the same jobs that middle class americans are already competing for. I know of at least 10 illegals PERSONALLY who have degrees and can't use them who would enter the workforce for these higher paying jobs. An aerospace engineer who dj's at clubs because he can't work legally, a nurse who sits at home and does nothing, a teacher who volunteers as a teacher's assistant and grades papers for free. All of them would immediately start putting the sqeeze on our unemployed middle class. Further destruction of the middle class...

[hater]

Okay so you want amnesty, which you say would only apply to a small percentage of people. So if the amount of illegals is really only 11 million(:lol), and not many of them would even be affected by this, then how does it even address illegal immigration other than undermining our sovereignty and creating incentives to break the law? We'd still have almost 11 million problems on our hands to take care of..

Oh, and since these are the hard working cream of the b3aner crop, they won't be satisfied with minimum wage jobs once they get their "amnesty." It'll be another couple million people competing for the same jobs that middle class americans are already competing for. Further destruction of the middle class...

The Amnesty deal usually comes with strict rules on employers similar to what yo are calling for. Reagan tried this. Unfortunately the politicians succumbed to the Employer's lobbying and removed most of those restrictions from the law.

Similar to what happened with Obamacare BTW

Just another dollar from lobbyist and another day at the office for a US politician. Reagan's amnesty meant well but was a failure in the end.

[mavs>spurs]

So then you'd agree that this really only hurts the middle class. Simple economics.

[hater]

So then you'd agree that this really only hurts the middle class. Simple economics.

no I agree politicians are crooked. Healthcare, Immigration, Financial. All owned by the corporations.

nothing will change even if a nut like Bachman becomes president.

[LnGrrrR]

Suppose that an natural-born American citizen and an illegal immigrant from Mexico marry each other and have two kids. Ten years later, when the kids are 13 and 11, the mother's status as an illegal immigrant becomes known. At the same time, the 11 year old is gravely ill.

Would you deport the mother in that case?

You really have to ask FWDT? You know WC's answer... "They should have known better, they knew the consequences, etc etc"

[mavs>spurs]

And they did.

[LnGrrrR]

Not a good example. Amnesty or not that immigrant will eventually become citizen due to being married to a citizen.

Not necessarily. You have to start the paperwork, and it isn't exactly cheap (a few thousand dollars at least) and it isn't exactly quick (at least 3 years for citizenship, roughly a year for a green card).

[mavs>spurs]

you'd know bc you married an illegal brah

[LnGrrrR]

you'd know bc you married an illegal brah

Nah, she had a VISA. Same paperwork from there though.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess marriage licenses are worthless these days, huh?

[boutons_deux]

50% of 1st USA marriages end in divorce.

marriage is sacred? GMAFB

Denying same-sex marriage is nothing but the hate-filled "Christian" Taleban forcing their "morals" on everybody else.

I'm sure 50% of those same haters also divorce, and have abortions and practice birth control.

Noot's reasonable position on long-time illegals has pretty much killed his chances with the maddog xenophobes, most of whom would be on bottom of the socio-economic totem pole if it weren't for the illegals below them.

[JoeChalupa]

Well it looks like Newt is going to regret his stance on immigration and so would Romney if he hadn't flipped-flopped again on the issue.

[mavs>spurs]

Yeah I really didn't understand that at all, americans just aren't going to accept legalizing all these illegals and what he did probably just killed his chances. Especially for a CONSERVATIVE candidate to say something like that, kind of makes you wonder what he was thinking.

[TheProfessor]

Yeah I really didn't understand that at all, americans just aren't going to accept legalizing all these illegals and what he did probably just killed his chances. Especially for a CONSERVATIVE candidate to say something like that, kind of makes you wonder what he was thinking.
This stance isn't exactly new for Gingrich. His 10-point immigration plan has been up on his site for some time. Pretty funny that everyone is so shocked by it.

[ChuckD]

Make the laws tougher against employers hire illegals. Make it a felony to hire them and they'll all be gone in a month.

Yeah, because that's really working in AL and GA....

[LnGrrrR]

I guess marriage licenses are worthless these days, huh?

Well, it can help give a reason for starting a green card/citizenship. :lol

[ChuckD]

If we just make laws tougher, that will get rid of _________. Because it always works like that.

Let me elaborate...

[mingus]

we should send some of these douchebags to Mexico for a week and see if they don't try and cross the border. it's a genocide over there, but we're not labeling it such for political reasons.

[mavs>spurs]

we should send some of these douchebags to Mexico for a week and see if they don't try and cross the border. it's a genocide over there, but we're not labeling it such for political reasons.

:lol what the hell are you talking about dude? most of these people immigrated 20 years ago. they'd all rather run away and feed off the white man's tee tee instead of fixing their own country, and look what happened now? the cartels took over the country. you reap what you sow, now roll in your filth faggots.

[mingus]

:lol what the hell are you talking about dude? most of these people immigrated 20 years ago. they'd all rather run away and feed off the white man's tee tee instead of fixing their own country, and look what happened now? the cartels took over the country. you reap what you sow, now roll in your filth faggots.

true. but there are thousands fleeing a genocide right now. i don't know what the qualification for a genocide are, but what 40,000 have died in 7 years or so...i say we have to do something more about that. the ones who have been here for 20 years and are productive citizens with a family, i think they should be allowed to stay. now, if they're in gangs, or drunks, or don't pay taxes, and are just overall dead weight on society, i say fuck them and deport them. but there are plenty of good, ambitious hardoworking mexicans who take their shot at the american dream seriously and i don't see them point in deporting them.

[mavs>spurs]

the point is that we have 10% unemployment (admitted, but the real number is higher) and if you add 20 million more to the job market then unemployment will rise even further. you can't give incentives to break the laws or it sets a dangerous precedent. i'll tell you what we should do, we should invade mexico and wipe out the cartels because they're the real threat to homeland security, bringing in the drugs to poison our people.

[boutons_deux]

Gingrich, the Ultimate Beltway Bandit

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich epitomizes the licentious lifestyle and lucrative cronyism that American conservatives claim to hate, yet he is the latest Republican presidential hopeful to soar into frontrunner status,

You maybe should think twice when even Jack Abramoff thinks you’re beneath contempt. Not that Newt Gingrich cares.

Abramoff, America’s favorite convicted influence peddler, told NBC’s David Gregory that presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Gingrich is one of those “people who came to Washington, who had public service, and they cash in on it. They use their public service and access to make money.”

Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich

Newt, he continued, is “engaged in the exact kind of corruption that America disdains. The very things that anger the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement and everybody who is not in a movement and watches Washington and says why are these guys getting all this money, why do they go become so rich, why do they have these advantages?”

do the math: according to Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Kristin Jensen at Bloomberg News, “The former Georgia congressman reported assets in 1997 of between $197,000 and $606,000, according to his last House personal financial disclosure report, which permits lawmakers to record their wealth in broad ranges. According to his 2011 presidential disclosure report, the Republican primary candidate today is worth between $7.3 million and $31 million.”

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/11/25/gingrich-the-ultimate-beltway-bandit/

[Cry Havoc]

Not shocking. If you aren't rank and file and step in line with basically every other republican on social issues, they will work as hard as possible to ostracize you.

[boutons_deux]

Note how any Repug wanna-be-Prez, like Noot on this issue and Huntsman on several issues, who speaks with any reasonableness, humanity, practical, serious, centrist, even right-of-center, approaches/compromises to America's problems is trashed as socialist, class warrior (against the 1%), unAmerican, traitor, terrorist-lover, etc. by the orchestrated VRWC hate media.

[scott]

Let me elaborate...

Excellent revision, sir.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Working class conservatives although well intentioned at times never use the right argument for this. They want to end illegal immigration, but don't see the futility and blow back in their efforts.

They always attack the person being abused, in this case illegals, and it's not going to win over many. Some of these conservatives make it sound like a privilege to have no rights and be in constant fear of having a family broken up. Even when a undocumented person gets welfare under the radar, some of you make it seem glamorous..it isn't. Being on welfare is not glamorous, it's humorous at best. They also want to make it sound shocking that some undocumented people are bad people... i.e. traffic children, etc. Bad people are everywhere, some of them coached at Penn State.

It's a very dog like mentality. Forget the fact that master(upper 1%) is eating the meal and giving everyone only leavings. Who do you think hires illegal immigrants here? Canadian citizens? Ghosts?

American citizens and billionaires like Bob Perry do, because it makes them a buttload of money to pay slave wages and zero taxes. Meanwhile, everyone else pays the bill for their medical, and social costs.

Who is the bad guy again responsible for this? Illegal immigrants?

http://maddox.xmission.com/cluetrain3.gif


http://maddox.xmission.com/cluetrain4.gif


Only 10% of whites in the south owned slaves pre-civil war, a shocking fact for many. But just as then as today working class conservatives would rather attack those abused than those doing the abusing.

It was a recipe for failure then and will be a recipe for failure now.