Reply With Quote
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.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_...icleid=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.
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.
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.
nativist xenophoes love to shout "no amnesty" as much as they love to remain totally mute about alternatives.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-23-2011 at 09:47 AM.
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.
Not a good example. Amnesty or not that immigrant will eventually become citizen due to being married to a citizen.
If we just make laws tougher, that will get rid of all the illegals. Because it always works like that.
Until the terms of the Reagan administration's Amnesty is honored, I say no more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Newt knows this is the right thing to do.
"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.
Are you ing ting 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.
"Try 40-50 million according to most unbiased reports"
got links?
The right thing to do? Opinions of illiterate south texas b3aner symphathizers (or a b3aner yourself) are taken with a grain of salt..
http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/a...nderground.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?
link?
I never said thatYou want to legalize all those people to take even MORE jobs away from american citizens?
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/s...ryId=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.
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).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
