The Tatler’s Bryan Preston wrote of tonight’s debate, regarding Newt Gingrich:
He swung for and reached the fences more often than not, but his idea for a guest worker program sounds bureaucratic and too close to being an amnesty by another name to reward illegal aliens who have managed to stay the longest. Hugh Hewitt tweeted, wanting to know what Gingrich’s cutoff would be for allowing illegal aliens to stay — 10 years, 0r 15, or 25?
I’m sorry but I think my good friends Bryan and Hugh are posturing here. Let’s play pretend. President Bryan Preston or President Hugh Hewitt are in office and, following their campaign pledges, the borders are secure and whatever new legislation enacted. Things finally look ship shape (to pick a tired analogy). Are President Bryan or President Hugh going to send back to East Guanajuato a seventy-year old grandfather who has been here for twenty-five years and separate him from his family, grandkids, etc? Not a chance. I know both men. They are compassionate and religious (far more religious than I am). No, they would probably follow and applaud precisely the plan advocated by Newt Gingrich — give these people the right to stay, but not the full rights of citizenship (voting, etc.). It’s Solomonic and human (maybe that’s the same thing).
So let’s stop posturing. Also, get real — this kind of talk is one of the few things that could lose the election for the Republicans next November. It makes them seem hard-nosed and self-righteous, things I have never known Hugh or Bryan to be.
Update (Bryan): Speaking for myself, it’s not posturing. It’s a legitimate question to wonder what the cut-off is and what the details of his plan are. I’ve heard Gingrich’s “draft board” idea several times now and it continues to not make much sense. The draft boards during the war weren’t about who got to stay here forever after decades of skirting the law and possibly engaging in identity theft in the process, they were about who went over there to fight our wars. Huge difference. And they were fixed to time and task — winning the war. Gingrich’s boards would be never-ending without border security first, and his use of the word “comprehensive” suggests that security might not happen first. Those of us who fought the last “comprehensive immigration reform” battle hard hear that word connected to immigration, and cringe. Adding that in order to be “humane” one must acquiesce to the Grandpa plan, when he will be an outlier and we don’t have the details, is unpleasant. For all his brilliant performances in the debates, off the grand stage Gingrich recently gave us the Scozzafava fiasco, the couch trip with Pelosi, “right wing social engineering,” etc etc. He hasn’t yet earned blanket trust.
This debate won’t do “heartless” level damage to Gingrich’s campaign, but it probably will cause him a few bad days.
OK so what you’re saying is that its OK to send back Whites from say, Ireland, because “White people suck” but non-Whites get special privilege. Like Aunt Zeituni. Or Obama’s other drunk driving, illegal alien, welfare getting Uncle. Well of course, they’re not WHITE.
Really, you’re plumping for the annihilation of the historic White majority American nation. To be replaced by Mexico Norte. A punishment for the White majority that is unconnected and non-elite, for sins of people long since dead.
That’s dumb. Who do you think buys your books? Hint: its not Mexicans. [Disclosure, I bought used "California Roll" and a few other Moses Wine books, because I could not find them new. I would have if the local B&N had them. They should be in reprint.]
Tom Hayden said (on the occasion of his son marrying a Black woman) that the wedding represented his fondest wish, the “peaceful extermination of the White race.” In practice, that is exactly what failing to deport illegals amounts to, at least in America. Mexicans have little money, send most of it to Mexico, and remain dirt poor and dependent on White taxpayers for feeding, clothing, and educating their children … generation to generation. Having kids at 16 is not exactly wealth building. Failing to deport any and all illegals just enables them to bring more over (chain migration).
Already the American flag is forbidden in Mexican-majority schools because the kids will beat up any who wear or fly it. Even on Veterans Day. This is a deep, and seemingly permanent recession. But Americans don’t count and Mexicans from Mexico do, apparently. Why just the other day another immigrant (and convert to Islam) was arrested in NYC for planning pipe bomb attacks.
The view from Malibu may look fine, with compliant gardeners and housemaids, but those of us who have to live in VDH’s Mexifornia as gringos find ourselves third class people at best, with limited or no rights, and facing racially motivated violence if we get “uppity.” Now you might argue we deserve to be punished for bad things other White people did a century ago or so, but that’s a hard sell for us non-elite.
Gingrich is done, hopefully. He can go back to shilling for global warming, tossing divorce papers on his cancer-ridden wife’s bed, and other stunts. I would not trust him with a nickel.
And, Whiskey, Newt Gingrich has already repudiated his former stand on global warming, described his pairing with Nancy Pelosi as a mistake (don’t YOU make those, yourself?), as well as having properly dissected that FALSE story about him serving divorce papers to his cancer-stricken wife; a story that has been denied and repudiated by BOTH the wife, AND his daughter.
If you’re going to bring up incidents in a candidate’s past, please be willing to do the research and find out for yourself what the real truth is – not what MSNBC and Rachel Maddow says it is.
“Newt Gingrich has already repudiated his former stand on global warming”
But will he repudiate his repudiation? My guess, sure, why not. It will curry favor with his next constituency – the DC speakers bureau.
If you missed it check out the Mikey Medved tripe in the WSJ today. What is in the water out there?
But will Newt repudiate his repudiation. My bet is yes if it gets him more attention.
My reply to NWBill’s reply to whiskey’s comment did not get posted but here it is:
How long will it take Newt to repudiate his repudiation of his and nancy’s PSA?
A: Once he get beat in the primary cycle.
He knows who butters his bread and it isn’t regular people. It is the DC elite.
Where did you get the idea that this would only be applied to HIspanics? Gingrich certainly didn’t say so. These standards would apply whether you’re Columbian, Irish or Russian–and most illegals would be deported under them. He had a long list of requirements–long time residency, grown children, a clean criminal record, a record of paying taxes.
Exactly. The one thing I keep seeing in the immigration debate is the myopic concentration on Mexican immigration. Last estimate I saw suggests Hispanic, i.e. Mexican, and Central and South American, illegals constitute about 60% of all illegals. Then you have Chinese, South Korean, Irish, English, Eastern European, Russian, Somalian and other African illegals, in what proportion I don’t know. Russian mafia types don’t cause problems? Whether by entering illegally or overstaying temporary visas, the illegal problem is far bigger than Mexicans, and the solution will be more complex.
What will happen in Boston when the lovable old Irish bartender and the English lad who works in seasonal resort jobs get put on the bus? How about those who have a legitimate fear of being hurt or even killed if they have to go home? Or the Indian programmer who’s skills keep some small business afloat when they can’t afford someone else. There has got to be some sort of sorting out these immigrants and some equity in doing so. That means some sort of hearing. I don’t know about Newt’s draft board idea, but I can’t see Homeland Security or ICE doing any better. Maybe Administrative Law judges?
Point is, a lot of people don’t seem to have much problem with the picture of the Feds doing mass round-ups of Mexicans, but how about Russians in Brighton Beach, Irish in Southie or on Chicago’s South Side, or Chinese in San Francisco or Honolulu? How’s that going to go over?
Whiskey has a right to his opinion. It is not an opinion conservatives or Americans should be proud of expressing; it is a sheer confusion between one’s race and one’s identity as, or pride in being, an American
How white do you have to be to be a part of Whiskey’s besieged minority? My ancestors the Irish were once not considered white for immigration purposes; neither were southern euro-peons.
Why are Hispanics not considered white? (Because the lib media want to make immigration a race and not a legal issue. duh. so yeah let’s double down on that.}
And what does being here illegally have to do with race at all? If someone is an illegal alien, his race plays no role in his status as “illegal (resident)” or “alien.”
Whiskey (as I do) finds racism in Hayden or la raza. Is this my standard to adjust to or imitate? NO
One’s race is not determinative of one’s view of race or of nationality; if someone holds racist views, it is not because he is of such or such a race; it is his views that need to be criticized and defended against, not his race.
The party of Lincoln needs to build a wall of separation between racial identity and the American identity.
As a conservative still-a-democrat from a multigenerational multiracial family, I see no future for the nation in racial identity, or in racial identity politics.
I’m the daughter of Indian immigrants (from India) and I largely agree with you. For me, though, it’s not about race, it’s about the unique legal, cultural and economic system that is (or was) the United States.
There is a reason people from Mexico want to leave Mexico and come here. If they then turn this country into an alternative Mexico, what’s the point? Same with immigrants from former Communist countries or socialist countries. Look, there is a reason the US is great. If we decide to modify the US to suit immigrants from places like Mexico or Yemen or Russia or now-socialist England – that’s not good for any of us.
Once upon a time, immigrants WANTED to become American. My parents came here from India, but they both speak English (probably better than some Americans!) and they wanted me and my brother to assimilate. We fly the American flag on the Fourth of July and on Veterans Day and Memorial Day. We are proud of our Indian heritage but also proud to be Americans. In this sense, we are like the other immigrants who came from all over the world who became part of the melting pot that is America.
Now immigrants want to come here and they want to change America – but that isn’t fair. If I moved to Mexico, I wouldn’t expect them to speak English or wave the US flag – and it pi**es me off that our government is so wishy-washy about being proudly American. I totally think immigrants have been a good thing for this country, but in the past they have wanted to adopt the American culture. Now they seem to want to create separatist states within the union, and that will end up destroying the country.
I think we need to create an amendment declaring English to be the official language. That doesn’t mean Mexicans can’t speak Spanish to each other or that private businesses can’t choose to cater to non-English speakers. But it would make it clear that in order to fully participate in the US, you need to learn English.
I also think we need to stop catering to those who would like to impose sharia in the name of multi-culturalism, and we need to stop the attacks on Christianity and also stop the hyphenated Americans trend – you are not a Mexican-American or an African-American, you are an American. Be proud of your heritage, but be an American. I also think we need to get rid of race-based preferences, etc. Those kinds of things just separate us as a country and they pander to the race baiters.
And, of course, we should close our borders and stop massive waves of immigration until the current crop of immigrants have assimilated into our society. That’s just common sense.
Are President Bryan or President Hugh going to send back to East Guanajuato a seventy-year old grandfather who has been here for twenty-five years and separate him from his family, grandkids, etc.
Why not? I would.
Also, what Whiskey said.
The only commenter to ever get banned from Belmont Club strikes again.
I too have strong feelings against illegal immigration, or more accurately, the Reconquista ideology and ‘let’s put Mexicans at the head of the line’, as the husband of a legal alien I can’t stand the idea of giving preferential treatment to one group of nationals simply because we share a border…and blatantly discriminate against all non-Meso-Americans, including both white and non-white Cubans, South Americans, Africans and South Indians. BUT…I agree with Roger Simon that family ties in the end will probably win out. The main thing is to get the border under control and that’s impossible if we don’t start reducing the profits in the drug trade. No amount of drones or fences will stop all tunneling, people smuggling, or prevent massive violence and death just a stone’s throw from our border.
And while the story about cancer-bed-ridden wife divorce may have been greatly exaggerated, Whiskey is fundamentally correct that Gingrich…or Romney…any GOP candidate preferred by the vast majority of PJM authors…will lose and perhaps in Cain or Gingrich’s case lose spectacularly to Obama, despite the incumbent’s huge vulnerability. Because they will not attract the independent anti-Obama vote (aka working class white folks who don’t have much in common with Bain Capital execs and minorities who’ve wandered off the Democrat Party plantation). In other words, vote early and often for Ron Paul. Once crossover Dems are included in some polls, he’s winning Iowa well above the margin of error.
You are wrong about draft boards. They are still part of the current selective service system. They were a way to have community involvement in momentous decisions. My initial reaction is that if I felt that decisions about that exceptional illegal (who is much like a former illegal that was a family friend) were being made by my neighbors in my community, I’d feel much better about it than decisions being made by some anti-american idiot in the State Department.
Yeah, if I went to Mexico and stayed there for 25 years, they’d deport my sorry butt in an instant.
I see no reason to give somebody a free pass for breaking the law just because they’re old and they have a family.
Adam,
We have a Statute of Limitations for every crime except murder. There are manifold reasons for this and no serious arguments against.
Illegal Immigration is not criminal, it is a civil violation. Those who advance the “broke the law” argument are arguing against three centuries of common law and jurisprudence. They are, in fact, hysterical.
Roy
IANAL, but the clock on the statute of limitations can’t start running until you’ve stopped committing the crime, can it?
I know he helps you move some books on the radio once in a while, but seriously — Hugh Hewitt? He’s the scourge of principled thinkers the nation over.
We’re all thrilled here in southeast Michigan that a new conservative talk-radio station recently opened for business. Evening drive time has become a lot more pleasant now that there’s an alternative to Republican Hack Guy. (An alternative who doesn’t make half his guests uncomfortable with the obsessive ball-busting. Yeah, OK, “Steelers fans” and whoever suck. Got it. Now enough. Christ.)
Checked those WDTK ratings this month, Hugh?
This sort of emotional hypothetical is how Democrats make policy.
PJM readers understand that policy requires making hard decisions. Roger you took the easy way out here.
PS Forgive me if this is a double posting. Not sure if my previous attempt worked.
Mexican Constitution Article 33
“The Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.” It also states: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”
That would work: Apply the aliens’ country of origin Constitution and immigration laws to them here in the U.S. until they become law abiding citizens of the U.S. And make it retroactive.
Problem solved. And look at the money saved!
First off, we ain’t Mexico and they should never be our model of behavior. That said, I would hope that we would immediately deport any alien who voted illegally.
I find myself agreeing in part with both Roger and Whiskey on this subject, and I want to just make a few points:
The central core of this subject debate, in my view, is the question: Is America a nation of the rule of law, or not? If it is, then someone who entered this country illegally, regardless of how long they’ve been here or what they’ve done since arriving, has begun on a tainted path … which should be dealt with, one way or another. I think the Speaker’s point was – well, are we going to suddenly decide to ship 20 million people back across the border – or, are we going to try to adhere to our central rule of law core while being compassionate and willing to stir the melting pot – two things America has always been known for? The Speaker believes we can do both, if we approach it logically and openly. Now, don’t misunderstand – I completely understand Whiskey’s point of view, and agree with him on the merits of his argument. However, the more I study American history and its’ makeup – both social and political – I find myself trending more towards the Speaker’s position. And I don’t believe it’s amnesty when you make it clear to people who have entered this country illegally, but who have been law-abiding since, that there will be rule-of-law consequences for their arrival here; such as not being allowed to vote, or receive in-state tuition, or being allowed to get most government benefits – including Social Security – until the compact between that illegal alien and the laws and Constitution of the US has been resolved.
In addition, I think that allowing certain cultures to prioritize their culture and allegiances over that of America’s is self-defeating to the Republic, and self-immolating as well. The American flag and American patriotism should be pre-eminent in ALL cases; even schools and situations where another culture might be prominent in some way. And illegals as well as those cultures need to understand that point – it’s not about America for Americans .. it’s about American CITIZENS for America. Now, if you HAVE full citizenship, then you have a seat at that table. If you DON’T, then you won’t get a full seat until certain conditions are met, and the rule of law is followed. And if Mexicans in California WHO AREN’T FULL CITIZENS want to deny citizens their just place at the table because there happens to be more of them than there are citizens – or because they’ve convinced enough people that they’re being harmed in some way by seeing America’s flag pre-eminent over their own, then they can always have their native countries file protests with the State Department. Other than that, follow the rule of law in America – and you won’t have any problems. Don’t follow the rule of law for whatever reason, and then it becomes a little silly to expect American citizens to grant you full access to a set of laws you’re not willing to abide by in the first place.
NWBill – Very thoughtful comment. When all is said and done, America is schiziophrenic on this issue. It doesn’t want the illegals, but it doesn’t have the heart to repatriate (i.e., deport) them to their home countries. I do think the idea of not giving illegals financial goodies, and not enabling their continuing divorce from American culture (by having bi-lingual ballots, labels, public announcements and Spanish TV stations) as you suggest is the way to go. Those who can make it here will stay, those who can’t, won’t.
How about this – if you’ve been here 25 years, how about paying all the back taxes that you would have if you were you know, a citizen. Sure, maybe in some cases they had some money taken out of their paycheck. But then again, probably not, and perhaps not enough. Try filing tax returns and going to jury duty.
People here illegally have been reaping all the benefits, but not paying anything for it, either in terms of money or effort. Which of course is why they came here, rather than stay in their own country and try to fix the problems there.
In short: get legal, AND pay your dues, whatever those two things may cost you. It should never be more attractive to come in illegally than legally.
Why does compassion never seem to figure in for conservatives when it comes to equality of citizenship for lesbians and gays? Why doesn’t common decency allow US equality when our marriages last and we are rooted in the community? Conservatives and Republicans have no problem whatsoever in destroying our lives with the death of a thousand cuts because we are not equal citizens.
I’m sorry, Roger, but illegals must be deported and barred from ever becoming citizens or traveling in the U.S. regardless of how long they have eluded capture and punishment and regardless of their country of origin. That is the only way to make the law fair. In addition, it is an effective deterrent to people considering immigrating illegally. The lives they come here to build must and should be destroyed if they are not here legally. In addition, their dependents should not profit in any way from their crime because when they do, that is a huge incentive to break the law. Every incentive to immigrate illegally must be removed. And having lived in a community heavily populated with illegal immigrants, I find their charges of racism and discrimination by opponents of illegal immigration to be irrelevant since they, themselves, are boiling cauldrons of racial, ethnic and religious hatreds and predominantly come from cultures that hate and/or kill gays and that regard women as property.
I have to agree with Cynthia here; before we show “compassion” in our laws to those here illegally, we need to show compassion to U.S. citizens who are not the same as the majority. Simply recognizing gay relationships and households, letting a partner inherit when, say, the homeowner predeceases the partner, is the compassionate and courteous response of a civilized society, as opposed to one where the act of “coming out” is a death sentence, and women can be beaten with impunity for displeasing a man.
Those here illegally do need to be returned to their country of origin. Perhaps a statute of limitations might be applied, but in such cases back taxes should be paid and benefits meant for citizens should not apply. The U.S. flag should fly over U.S. Public Schools and any illegals in attendance who commit violence should be immediately be tried and serve their sentences in U.S. jails before being returned to their homeland. Those who knowingly hire illegals, from farmers wanting cheap labor to suburbanites wanting cheap nannies or lawn care also need to pay the appropriate penalties.
Let us take care of U.S. citizens, of whatever color or gender, so that they are secure in their persons and possessions. The principles set forth in the Bill of Rights have made this an ever more free nation as they were increasingly applied to our citizens-and less free to the extent that laws were set forth attacking those rights. (Ms Yonkey I suspect is more eloquent on that than I.) Citizens of other lands understandably would like to experience those rights themselves; coming here illegally is not the way to do so. Legal immigration is the way, and an even better way would be changing their homeland into a non-hellhole! Then perhaps freedom would increase over more of the planet and the light of Liberty will shine higher and more broadly.
Ms Yockey, please forgive my misspelling your name. It’s been a long day.
Sigfried
Well, the comment I referred to hasn’t shown up yet, but a try at sending it again got the message that it was a duplicate, so perhaps it’ll show up in time. Basically I agreed with you and expanded and expounded upon your thoughts.
Sigfried
Cynthia Yockey – With all due respect, I must beg to differ with you on your use of the word marriage in the following comment: ” … when our marriages last …” You can use any label you wnat for a relationship two members of the same sex have, but don’t call it marriage. I prefer Civil Union. When I was a kid, a gay marriage was a happy, care free marriage between two members of the opposite sex. In my lifetime I have seen the word, ‘gay,’morph into something totally unrelated to its earlier meanings, and I object, and I don’t want that to happeb to the word, marriage.
Also, try deporting 11 million people; it ain’t gonna happen. So, we are going to have to make the best of bad situation.
This subject is always easier to deal with in the abstract, especially the statistical. When it comes to the actual, living human beings, that’s when the doctrines start to move aside for reality.
The border has to be secured first! We’ve been down that road before and have learned our lesson.
As to whether illegals of long standing, and otherwise law abiding can stay, I would remind everyone that all of our laws have statutes of limitations, except murder. If an illegal can prove he/she has been here that long, why would we treat their actions any differently than other crimes from long ago?
Newt added info after the debate that many of the ~11 million illegals would be deported under his plan but not all. My suggestion for a cutoff seems reasonable to me and is consistent with other American law. What say all of you?
If we as a nation had been more stringent on border enforcement in the past, I’d say we should round up and deport all illegal immigrants. Since instead we have turned a blind eye for so long, making only a show of enforcement without shoring up the border at all, I think we need to take that into account when looking at those who have been here with our tacit consent for a long period.
The fact is that we have allowed and even encouraged illegal immigration for decades, providing taxpayer-funded services to illegal immigrants and failing to even try to adequately enforce the law. If we suddenly shift to strict enforcement and not take our own complicity in the lawbreaking into account, it would be an committing an injustice in the name of law.
Would it be considered justice if every city and state cop suddenly started strict enforcement of all speed limits and ticketed everyone they caught doing 61MPH in a 60MPH zone? I say no. The only place we expect such strict enforcement of speed limits is in active school zones. If cops started ticketing everyone going even slightly above the speed limits on the freeway, you wouldn’t have people screaming about “rule of law”, you would have people demanding that established practice and expectations be considered. Through lax enforcement and common expectations, our speed limits have a buffer area not codified. Our immigration laws have also gained a similar buffer though our own neglect, and we need to fix that.
Much as I hate to say it, the only way to go forward is to first end the encouragement by securing the border and removing public services for illegals, and then offer a limited amnesty to those we have allowed to break the law for so long. A permanent legal residency without citizenship for past illegals is the best compromise we can hope for.
The ideal solution would have us shutting the border down tight as a gnat’s sphincter and tossing all illegal aliens out on their ears. But we don’t live in a world of ideal solutions, we live in one populated by human beings.
I find myself looking for a “like” button.
I saw this comment on another thread and I think I will paraphrase it here; the time countdown for statute of limitations only begins when the crime stops being committed. Therefore when the illegal alien leaves the U.S. or obtains legal status the clock on the statute of limitations begins, until then the crime is still in the process of being committed.
People keep bagging on Newt for his support of a few non Tea Party candidates and rightfully so but lets not ignore the conservative candidates he did support. He was fully in Scott Walkers camp here in Wisconsin and did several fundraisers in my area for Scott even during the Republican primary when there were other well funded Republicans. He might be more about getting effective people who can win in more than people with more principles than good political sense but when there is a very conservative candidate who is going to do a good job and do it effectively with leadership Newt has shown with Walker he’ll back him 110%.
Rostrom’s Law of Loopholes applies here.
Make a hard and fast rule, and tragic cases will pile up bleeding and begging for mercy.
Allow an exception to the rule let a few tragic cases through, and it will become a expressway for large numbers, so many as to nullify the rule de facto.
I get real nervous when anyone starts discussing a rule with the most difficult cases. It tells me that that person doesn’t want to enforce the rule at all.
We need someone whose emotions are triggered by the failure to enforce immigration law, and the bad consequences thereof.
As for guest-worker programs: I don’t want the U.S. relying on workers whose pay would be slave wages for Americans. If we can’t afford to pay U.S. minimum wage, we need to find other ways to do the work.
“If we can’t afford to pay U.S. minimum wage, we need to find other ways to do the work.”
There are certainly options here. One that is routinely used – and highly criticized – is simply exporting the work to other places.
In fact, the Obama administration has been extremely effective in (accidentally) reducing the rate of illegal immigration. After all, if there are no jobs here, people looking for jobs don’t immigrate!
But the “X is done because of his stance on illegal imm” camp isn’t making some fundamental distinctions that those with more knowledge of the subject tend to do. The political ideology of the Latino community here is home grown by the American left–it isn’t spawned from Mexico. The teachers unions (a bunch of disgruntled white folks) have everything to do with the marches by public school students in LA and such. Why that is overlooked I’ll never understand. In the same fashion the Palestinian radicals were radicalized in Israeli universities, who then radicalized their communities when they went back home. Those who think this is racial rather than political are woefully misguided. Even if you’d deport every single illegal immigrant, the leftist agenda of our schools and universities will continue to drive this crap down student’s throats and spawn more radicals. I say again, this is not a racial issue. I’ve lived on the border for years on the US side, and lived and worked in Mexico, and I can tell you that the Paleo-right is damaging the Republican party by turning a political issue into a racial one. No good will come of that.
BTW, if anyone can name an anti-immigration hardliner that has ever won an election using this as a wedge issue and held office I’d like to hear it. Duncan Hunter? Tom Tancredo? Russell Pearce? http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-15/arizona-immigration-law-author-pearce-loses-in-recall-election.html Anyone? The truth is that this issue isn’t as large an issue for most Americans during an election. What election–state or national–has turned on immigration? None.
And why the Republicans haven’t noticed that Obama solved the problem by killing the economy is beyond me! Repeat after me, this isn’t a racial issue and the desire or penchant to see it as one strikes average folks as having a whiff of something ugly. But go ahead and declare Perry and Gingrich beyond the pale for not conforming to the more-against-illegal-immigration-with-draconian-measures-than-thou. Good luck with that.
WoW! This article ignores what was actually said. Newt specifically stated that he was NOT SUPPORTING CITIZENSHIP! BOTH PERRY & MITT (after saying they didn’t agree with Newt) went on to SUPPORT NEWTS STATEMENTS that those who were here for 25+ years and had a family should not be deported (though slippery Mitt did hedge his bets by saying he did not want to parse who would or would not be deported). In essence, they both supported what Newt said after being pressed.
JohnBiddle: I guess you never got the absolutist memo. No, seriously, you’re absolutely correct to make analogies to other laws. You’re on the right track to make analogies, but that is exactly what the legalists will never do. “Hey it’s the law, and you can’t question the law, and if you do you’re rewarding law-breaking!” It’s a neat little misguided argument that doesn’t work, and you’re right to point out that we don’t follow such legalistic reasoning in other areas of life.
At some point you have to ask why it is that Americans tend to reject draconian enforcement measures, and whether it makes any sense to equate “border security” with illegal immigration. Most arrive here legally. Perry doesn’t make this error, and it confuses the heck out of those who do. He wants to defend the country against narco-gangs. Most use “border security” as a euphemism for several things having little to do with security.
I posted this over on BP’s post too since that turned out to be a big discussion about immigration. It makes more sense here.
I will take the vast majority of illegal aliens in this country over the snotty “I deserve free stuff” OWS mob any day. What we need to focus on as a party is not who is legal or illegal, but who is pulling their weight. I used to work in our families orchard. I learned early how to work hard growing up on a farm and I respect the hell out of those people whether they are here legally or not. It is the ideal of hard work that we need to reinforce and reward because that is what builds a strong country. The immigration system is retarded.
I am totally for deporting criminals, welfare recipients, and emergency room abusers. But most of them are not that. The problem in this country is the massive government involvement in subsidizing a poor education system, health care, housing, and laziness. I would rather have the 90% of “illegal” immigrants here that work their asses off than a huge number of college kids in this country that have silver spoons stuck up their butts and think they deserve my money.
On one hand you have an illegal immigrant that works 80 hours a week at 2-3 jobs to support a family. On the other side you have a snot nosed kid living in a tent on a public park crapping on police cars and peeing on banks. Do I even need to mention which one I would rather hire? Or which one I would rather deport?
Well said!
When a politician attaches the word “comprehensive” to any public policy, I start looking for the best, if not the nearest, wall to stand him/her up against.
Yep. Mr. ‘Boycott the 2014 Games’ after the Georgian attack on South Ossetia. I don’t listen to Sean Hannity because I don’t need the latest RNC talking point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXvHPkRHBvk
At least he got seven minutes instead of 89 seconds like in the debate
Ron Paul got on CBS ‘Face the Nation’ and got slightly sandbagged by Bob Schaeffer on 9/11. Ron Paul seemed a little bit caffeinated. And Schaeffer’s wrong lots of people in the U.S. government or at least Congress have suggested they bomb Iran.
First we need to enforce the immigration laws, punish employers to the full extent of the law.
Deny non emergent healthcare, no federal or state benefits, and no education. They started fleeing Alabama until school boards started sending out letters and making TV appearances saying kids wouldn’t get kicked out of school. Imho to get the funds for each seat occupied.
Most will leave, we won’t have to pay to send them home. Then start getting the personnel and equipment in place to seal the border. Then close the border. Hopefully the only ones left would be those with attachments in the communiy and family to support them.
The border violence and drug war, For once I agree with Ron Paul, Liberty and Responsibility. Legalize, regulate and tax
Legalize, regulate and tax the drugs. Have strick warnings that any all drugs can kill you, and prohibit any lawsuits for any injury/death. Have serious penalties, payment for damages for any injury/ death caused by a drug affected person..
It is better & worse than you thought: Newt’s 25 Year Moratorium on Illegal Morality | PolitiJim’s Rants | WHAT did Heritage Economists think of Newt’s Plan? – here: http://bit.ly/rq4HSV
Why—why?!!—does the end result of every plan have to be “citizenship”???
I might get behind some kind of “mini amnesty”, where illegals with a clean record, good work ethic, etc. could achieve legal status—-but NOT citizenship! We have a path to citizenship. Only those who respected it should be rewarded. Those who entered illegally should be barred from citizenship forever…unless they go back home and start the legal process.
Republicans need to start educating the public on the priceless treasure U.S. citizenship represents. Well, at least to folks from other countries.
I have a different approach entirely.
There are two competing interests here. Allowing our borders to be a sieve and for people to thumb their collective noses at our laws, at our procedures for waiting in line like everyone else to gain access to our goods, services, resources…is NOT a racist issue to debate. I’m quite sick and tired of the guilt-tripping that cheapens the reasonable discussion of why it is WRONG in the first place…and somehow glossing over the very reasonable questions that arise about how to cease the deluge.
On the other hand, there are some issues of compassion for those who are here through no fault of their own and …I’ll even extend the argument to suggest that the “REASONS” for coming here were borne out of desperation and fear of starvation, zero opportunities for advancement, bleak outlook for one’s family and those entrusted in one’s care.
Let’s assume, for my purposes…that my position is right and reasonable.
EVERY posture, EVERY plan, EVERY platform I have heard…addresses the problem from an inappropriate starting point.
Rewarding border crashing does nothing to deter it. Amnesty is the wrong approach. Throwing entitlements at border crashers is unsustainable.
Lack of compassion is a character flaw.
So…how to we square the circle?
MY approach is to build Mexico. I am going to do (and am doing) everything in my power to build so many opportunities in Mexico (I am also doing quite a bit more in the US for our own citizens), that we eliminate the NEED to come here to find all the things that someone could possibly want.
In fact, it is rather insane to do anything else. IF…one accepts the premise that the SOLE reason to border crash, hide out, steal identities…is because of desperation at lack of opportunity…then attacking the problem at its core makes the most sense, shows interest, compassion, heart and kindness.
I’m doing this WITH Mexican-Americans. I’m trying to build opportunities that the countries can BOTH benefit from…in the business world. Using free market principles…not small c communist grievances, class warfare, ethnic warfare, race warfare and crust of bread entitlements.
If we spent the time and energy to build a trade partner who can sustain their own business environment, education, roads, infrastructure…why would they need to border crash. In fact, you wouldn’t have to “press two for Spanish” or be at any disadvantage.
If one eliminates the “desperation, no opportunity” reason for border crashing…how would that be described as “racist, nativist, or lacking in compassion”?
As for those border crashers who are here already…sending them to their loved homeland with a free ticket and a waiting job of their dreams, housing, education, and infrastructure comparable or better than their life in the shadows here…isn’t lacking in compassion. A huge portion of the GDP for Mexico is money sent back by people who love “their homeland”…they are only working here…not assimilating.
Building a Mexican middle class, instead of an American permanent underclass is a win-win.
The billions we spend here are wasted. The billions sent back to Mexico are not serving American interests. Why not redirect the effort to make everyone happy and content? Solve everyone’s real issues…not create phony ones that divide us. Build Mexico to look like the America they want….only in Spanish.
No criminal charges for merely having snuck in here…just the same opportunity back home. For those who want to continue to stay even in light of the same or better opportunity back home…the line forms on the right. Apply, give your best reasoning, what you bring to your new, adopted home…and work to become a real citizen. By embracing the rules and your new home.
What could be more fair? More compassionate? More accepting? More generous?
Im surprised no one has brought up the fact that forcing 11 million illegals to leave the US, if that were even possible, would represent the largest forced migration in the history, can you Imagine forcing millions underground to hide in friends antics and basements?
It’s just not going to happen, ever. So now what? There is no alternative but to craft a plan that takes into account all or at least most of the situations illegals pose. Secure the borders and kick many who have no roots or jobs or impose too much cost on the states and deal rationally with the rest including offering a path to citizenship.
Also the cause of the illegal immigration situation is the lously and corrupt economies south of the border unable to produce their own jobs. Maybe a little focus there could help. An idea would be to make it more difficult to send money back to those places.
Yes.
And it fits well with cfbleachers discussion just above which says that helping Mexico become a state where people can support themselves would be a more effective use of US funds than giving welfare to illegals.
I’m continually amazed by the things people are adamant about that have no chance of happening. Obviously, people who have been in the US for 25 years are not going to be deported. But Mr Skakal also has the courage to say that it is obvious many of the other millions will not be deported either. The most likely eventual solution to illegal immigrants who are already here will be that most who arrived within the last few years WILL have to go back where they came from, but most of the remainder will be given a path to citizenship if they choose it; otherwise, they they too will have to go back. The reasons for it are numerous and compelling. The path to citizenship ought to be hard and expensive, but frankly, it probably won’t be very hard or very expensive. That isn’t certain, but likely.
And yes, securing the border has to be the first step.
Is anyone considering the bigger problem here? No matter what policy the President has the States and Cities may of enforce it or might decide their own contradictory policy. How would President Hugh handle that?or is that the “humane” pressure valve feature he is counting on.
Personally I think the US has screwed up Mexico by being providing a safety valve for generations,allowing a hard working mineral rich nation to avoid political and economic reform that would otherwise have occurred. We need to rethink.
Those who pose the rhetorical chestnut of whether we are a nation of laws or men should consider the likelihood of all our laws ever being comprehensively enforced. How did we get from our straightforward Constitution to a country with a legal code that is morass of confusing, conflicting, capricious excess? The only people who benefit are legal professionals and those who can afford them.
This does not diminish the fact that secure borders are an imperative for any state in today’s crowded world. However, those who pine for the “good old days” of the demographic that existed in the original Colonies have none of my sympathy. Marin Luther King was a Republican too, and a great one.
The New Colossus (Emma Lazarus)
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
I have no answer to the problem. I do know that I swing back and forth between ‘Throwing Open The Golden Door’ and driving ‘THEM’ back with whips and brands.
Once Upon A Time (the 1980′s)…I was an Army Recruiter in Southern California. And there were weeks that I just wanted to cry in frustration because out of maybe 20 possible US born applicants NOT ONE was qualified for enlistment. Either Mentally, Morally, Physically or in combination. While at the same time having to turn away young Hispanics whose only failing was not having a Green Card. Yet who wanted to serve.
On the other hand, as a reader of history, I know to look at South Africa to see what happens when you do open the door. For the 300+ years prior to the Boer War, S.Africa had a 98%+ European population. But with the discovery of gold in the Rand. And Diamonds in the Kimberly, leading to the taking of the country by the British. Who then threw open the doors to cheap labor to mine their new riches for them. And the rest, as they say is history.
So what do WE do in our case? Again, I have no clue. Though is a rather old and extreme remedy that hasn’t gotten any concideration in the last 100+ years or so…
Annex Mexico. No more immigration problem.
1. We MUST secure the border first. Any plan that doesn’t do that is a sham. Those who advocate a “do it all at once” approach lost their cred on the 86 immigration law. They need to earn some trust.
2. Having said that, once the border is secured, through a combination of border fence, national biometric ID cards, and employer sanctions with real teeth, we need to be reasonable about people who are already here. Mass deportation is not going to work and doesn’t make much sense, expecially for people who were brought here as minors and have no other “home” to return to.
3. As for the whole non-assimilation question, I suspect that is a California thing. We have a lot of immigrants here in Virginia. A lot of them are not documented. They are assimilating just fine. We teach them English and its the only language their kids use. They work harder than most people who were born here and they pay a lot of taxes: income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, all the other taxes that are baked into the prices of daily life. They would pay even more taxes if we gave them a path to citizenship. Non-assimilation is caused by too much welfare and failing schools; it isn’t inherently part of immigration. Frankly, part of the solution to this whole mess is MORE legal immigration of people who can become productive citizens. We don’t need to close the door and keep our “cultural purity” (whatever that is), we need to open the door and let people come here who are willing to work, assimilate, and help us build America.
Enforce the law. The current law. Period.
Enforce them all. There aren’t enough jails.
Upside down government: let the illegals flood in and then arrest and fine the company owner that hires them.
Porkov, whatever demographic we may be pining for (and I don’t much care for Leftists calling me a racist however indirect they are about it), the other thing we don’t have is the Founder’s economic situation, where we had a huge country available to populate and a muscle-powered economy that needed and could absorb a mass of lower skilled workers.
Thanks to the Copperheads, we also don’t have anything to transmit our American value system or insist that those who want to become Americans actually become Americans in full, forsaking other loyalties.
Unless we go back to that, we will simply be destroyed — which is what the Disloyal Opposition earnestly desires.
Part of the problem is that we DO have a mass of lower-skilled citizens who are not available as lower-paid labor. This is a major reason unskilled immigrants come here, both legally and illegally. Clarification: my definition of “unskilled” includes strenuous manual labor, much of which requires skill but is beneath the dignity of many native citizens. I am perplexed at the contradiction implicit in the notion that any honest work is not dignified, but then I grew up in an age when a college degree was not a prerequisite for almost any career.
Spot On! It’s about time conservatives started to speak honestly about a complex issue. Many of these people are here because they were actively lured by farmers and other employers desperate to fill positions that Americans would not do. Many pay taxes, most are good, hard working people who were just looking to support their families. Many have children who are American citizens and have never lived in Mexico, they don’t have any place to “go home to” other than where they live.
And does anyone really think that the big, pandering phony, Mitt Romney, is going to deport 11m illegals? Perhaps before his trip to Israel?
“A few bad days”? The winner gets several bad years.
Are they going to get any satisfaction from taking the blame off of Bush for their troubles?
The CMA (Communist Media of America) will be forced to do their jobs if a Republican wins. They would rather stay holed up in their cushy dens with their laptop writing mean and sarcastic essays for their bosses.
My true desire is to see the Republicans treat the Democrats with the same underhanded, despicable protocol.
Seal the border. Refuse any blanket amnesties until that is agreed to be completed by two thirds of the congress. Then deal with the issue of illegals that have been here for decades or generations. If you are born here, you are legal anyway. I would offer citizenship right now to anyone who serves in the armed forces and is honorably discharged. We do need a work visa program for agriculture, unless we can use prisoners, or figure out how to get American citizens to do field labor. We have corrupted our youth with overly generous welfare for the able bodied. Our grandparents worked in the fields, but we have become weak and lazy by comparison.
If we as a nation had been more stringent on border enforcement in the past, I’d say we should round up and deport all illegal immigrants. Since instead we have turned a blind eye for so long, making only a show of enforcement without shoring up the border at all, I think we need to take that into account when looking at those who have been here with our tacit consent for a long period.
The fact is that we have allowed and even encouraged illegal immigration for decades, providing taxpayer-funded services to illegal immigrants and failing to even try to adequately enforce the law. If we suddenly shift to strict enforcement and not take our own complicity in the lawbreaking into account, it would be committing an injustice in the name of law.
Would it be considered justice if every city and state cop suddenly started strict enforcement of all speed limits and ticketed everyone they caught doing 61MPH in a 60MPH zone? I say no. The only place we expect such strict enforcement of speed limits is in active school zones. If cops started ticketing everyone going even slightly above the speed limits on the freeway, you wouldn’t have people screaming about “rule of law”, you would have people demanding that established practice and expectations be considered. Through lax enforcement and common expectations, our speed limits have a buffer area not codified. Our immigration laws have also gained a similar buffer though our own neglect, and we need to fix that.
Much as I hate to say it, the only way to go forward is to first end the encouragement by securing the border and removing public services for illegals, and then offer a limited amnesty to those we have allowed to break the law for so long. A permanent legal residency without citizenship for past illegals is the best compromise we can hope for.
The ideal solution would have us shutting the border down tight as a gnat’s sphincter and tossing all illegal aliens out on their ears. But we don’t live in a world of ideal solutions, we live in one populated by human beings.
Newt should have included in his proposal some form of Super Support Affidavit from all those loving relatives, one that requires bonding and insurance to back it up.
We’ll see at that point how beloved grandpapa really is.
I have another idea, let’s apply the same principles/law corresponding to their original countries:
Do you catch a illegal Mexican. Does Mexico give a freepass to illegal immigrants? Under some exceptional cases? Do they deport them? Do they allow them to stay? Then, the same applies to the illegal Mexican. Did you catch a finnish, chinese, argentinian illegal in the USA? Apply their same rules against them. If they want a free-pass they should start by implementing it at home before demanding the USA to do it.
Just an idea.
BTW: I’m only “X”, not “Mr.X”
Close the borders. Fine them for being in violation of the immigrations laws — say $500 each or maybe $2,000 (just not something nominal) for a family but then give them a green card. They can either stay or go, seek citizenship or maintain their green card but deport them if they don’t. But don’t put some silly thing in the plan about having to go to Laredo to get the card. It gets them in the system or out. But first, close the borders.
American jobs for Americans
Those who break our laws must be punished, not be rewarded.
So I guess you need to throw me out too. My mother’s parents were both undocumented immigrants from Germany. On my father’s side, we left your United States and moved to Estado de Tejas en Mexico back in 1822, then left again in 1861 for the Confederate States of America.
Then again, maybe you could say we paid our way. Except for the Civil War, we have fought for the U.S. in every war since 1812. My uncle was gassed in WW 1, and his son was killed in WW 2. My oldest brother fought in WW 2 and was killed in Korea. Between us, my father’s four sons have over fifty years in the Army. Is that enough, or do I need some kind of paper to say I have a right to live here?
Yes we need to control the border, not just for people, but for drugs going north and government guns going south. And some of those people may well be terrorists entering to do us damage. Yes, we need to catch, punish, and then deport the criminals who come here to steal, rape, and kill. What do you say, though, to a man who just wants to work to put food on the table and clothes on the backs of his children? This country spends tens of millions on welfare for people who have never worked, will never work, to earn a dime of it. Why can we not find some way to accept as a resident someone who is willing to invest his blood and sweat to earn his way?
Bryan, Newt did state that we must secure our borders before addressing any of the other of his ideas. That won’t solve the problem of people illegally overstaying their visas but it is a start, the sine qua non of the issue.
Simon’s argument is appalling weak. If the 75 year old is here illegally, yes, he goes back. Either the rule of law means something or it does not. Right now, it means very little and that is why we are in such trouble.
The 75 year old came here as a much younger man knowing he was here illegally. He came here understanding the risks. When the risk fails, he has to face the consequences. We need leaders who are willing to make unpleasant choices. We have to have leaders to are willing to make unpleasant choice and who know how explain why those choices were made.
We just cannot afford to weak and stupid anymore.
Dave in Houston – I like illegals as little as you do, and if all you had were a couple of 75 year olds, I don’t think it would be all that difficult to do what you suggest. The problem is we have 11 million people many of whom have become part of the fabric of the country. As much as I would like to, we cannot simply repatriate them to their home countries. Do you know how many boats and airplane trips and packed trains that would consume? As I have suggested, as have Brian Epps @37 and other here as well, simply cut off the financial subsidies to illegals and stop enabling their American born children to stay sequestered in an Hispanic culture. Also, I would deport an illegal with a recent criminal history (recent being say, the last 10 years). Once the money spigot is turned off, the illegals who can’t make it will leave, and those who can should become permanent nonresident aliens with a perhaps a path to citizenship. (They can get a number behind all the current people waiting on line, and if they get there before they die, they can become a citizen.)
Speaker of the House Newt passed an extension to Reagan’s amnesty, one of at least six passed since that original insanely flawed bill (I’ll gladly start border and employment enforcement efforts tomorrow, or later, in exchange for amnesty today)(amnesties are permanent and irrevocable, enforcement efforts are subject to judicial obstruction and/or banning, and Congressional obstruction, not limited to defunding and threats against relevant enforcement personnel)(license, taxes, and fees may apply to US citizens and legal residents).
I am married to a Mexican American and we speak about his family quite a bit. He made the comment one time about the “racist Republicans” who hated Mexicans. I asked him why he said that – his response? “They want to deport all Mexicans”.
I told him that if his great uncle has been in the US for more than 30 years, why is it anyone’s problem but his uncle’s if he hasn’t gone through the steps to get his citizenship? No real response, and now my husband is much more understanding about this.
Look, this is a political third rail in some sense, the open borders lobby will always try to personalize and emotionalize the issue. But the GOP doesn’t need to do anything except secure the border and begin enforcing employer sanctions. Take it step by step and every time someone brings up the “heartless” argument, counter it with the question – “Why is it ok to let someone stay in the country illegally, particularly if they are Mexican or Central/South American, when these same people would revolt if in one year 1,000,000 Chinese people walked off boats illegally into the US. Or 1M from Africa or India.”
Take it step by step. Start enforcing the border, very stringently. That stops the flow. Next, target the largest employers in the US. That causes illegals to either move to another job, another state, or out of the country. Or, magically, they become motivated to apply for and work towards citizenship. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that if immigrants who come here illegally don’t have a strong motivation to get citizenship, they may not.
Also, our immigration system sucks, it takes 8-10 years to get your citizenship and many times the delays are because the process is underfunded, managed poorly (many times I think this is on purpose) and is very complicated. Another way to motivate towards citizenship. Update the quotas for each country, make it easier (say 5 years) and enforce the law, step by step. Enough said.
Tuesday’s debate exposed all candidates positions on National Security. From a libertarian’s, pretzel twisted reasoning to a moderate’s acquiescence “Can’t We All Get Along!”
Yes, Mr. Paul’s isolationist stance to Mr. Gingrich’s open arms (inclusion)approach. And those falling somewhere in between.
Both candidates have been feeding at We The Elite People’s trough far too long.
They’re consumate insiders…and will kow-tow to Washington DC’s Elite for the simple reason that AFTER serving as President, they’ll accept any position in government paying them a handsome benesse.
Mitt = waffler extraordinaire
Perry = governor of Texas
Huntsman = traveling man
Santorum = complainer
Cain = I’m here?
Newt = Washington Man
Paul = Pretzel twistin’ (the night away)
Bachman = Washington DC’s Mother
Where’s Palin? With this line-up, it’s goin’ to be a tough slog.
Bachmann is the only conservative of the bunch. The rest, dance around a pin head and then twist and turn as good politician’s are want to do when pressed for a true conservative view point.
National Security issues are at the core of every Americn’s concerns. Couple this with fiscal and monetary problems, these two alone are screaming for solutions.
Yes, a President leads, then there’s a Congress and Senate, too. If a Republican President is elected, having both House and Senate then screwing up these two issues alone…a Democratic President/Congress will hammer the last nail in America’s coffin.
So, of these candidates, who is most likely to tenaciously (other than Sarah Palin) seek resolution to Congress’ transgressions? Bachmann.
Bachmann, as President, is most likely to guide a herd of cats (House/Senate) to a safe and secure resolution We The People voted her to execute.
Vote this 2012 election. God Bless America. Massive fraud is all around We The People. If you stay home, don’t complain when top down, command type economic policies rain down on all Americans.
Newt made some sense with his idea on immigration but there should be a vetting process that will check to be sure they did not violate other laws beyond entering illegally, such as identity theft and they should go through an IRS audit to be sure they have paid the taxes they owed and did not provide false information on their W4 to insure the government would never be able to get their fair share…. After all, Newt did say that paying their taxes was part of the criteria.
The Lakotas teach us that securing the border is certainly the first step of any immigration policy.
And the Lakotas teach us that when the illegals stay for a long time, it is really difficult to kick them out.
Maybe the Lakotas should appeal to an Internationl Court and kick out all of us.
So “nice” people and elderly people and people who’ve successfully evaded the law a long time are above the law.
That’s not law, that’s selective chaos. Just open the frickin’ borders then.
Gingrich is correct. We are not about to deport 11-20 million illegal immigrants simply because they broke the law to get here. At the very least, the process would be a nightmare. And what do you do with the empty houses, vacant apartments, and vehicles they left behind? Housing collapse #2?
Enforce border security and prevent others from entering illegally. Tighten up welfare requirements to reduce the power of the magnet that attracts them. Let the illegals stay, but do NOT grant them citizenship, and have strict voter ID laws to keep them from voting. If any break the law, send them back to their home countries. But if they keep their noses clean, let them stay – without citizenship and voting rights.
Well after watching last night’s Republican Party debate, I can tell you that there is no way in hell that I will ever support Newt “Amnesty/Dream Act” Gingrich. Indeed, I won’t support anyone, be they Republican or Dhimmicrat, that supports amnesty or any other backdoor pathways to citizenship. Thus, if Newt “Amnesty/Dream Act” Gingrich happens to win the Republican Party nomination, I will be staying home on super Tuesday, as I will not vote for and support anyone that supports amnesty for illegal immigrants because those loons are not really serious about ending illegal immigration once and for all, and also because I’m not interested in helping the Left to become more intrenched in the Republican Party than it already is. Furthermore, if it means that Barack Insane Obama gets reelected, then so be it.
Why should we give a rat’s hindquarters whether or not the Republicans win the election, if Republican policy includes the destruction of the historical American nation? May as well vote for Obama, who at least feels the need to do it more slowly and surreptitiously.
The immigration problem is near insoluble. A sovereign nation cannot allow undocumented people to break the law by illegally entering and residing in the country. But the only policies suggested to solve the problem have been hooted down by all parties. As John McCain said, so we have de facto amnesty instead. But the glass is half-full, not half-empty. Consider: our illegal immigrants are not Muslims. Europe is in danger of being swamped by Muslim immigrants. We escape that.
Our Hispanic immigrants want nothing more that to join and be a part of the established American society. They seek no change. They are no threat to established institutions.
Despite anecdotal reports of crimes committed by illegals, that is not a major problem. By and large the Hispanics are law-abiding. A study a couple of years ago named El Paso the most crime-free city in the U.S. The majority of the population of El Paso is Hispanic. The city with the highest crime-rate in the U.S.? Detroit, where the Hispanic population is very low. Detroit is mostly African-American, a people who have been in the U.S. for centuries. Obviously length of stay in the country has nothing to do with the crime rate.
A major problem facing the western world is the growing segment of the population who are elderly, while the youthful segment is declining. But that is in Europe, not the U.S. Thanks to immigration we have a stable and growing rate of young workers, vital to sustaining social security programs. We need them as our population grows older.
Hispanics are family oriented. It is understood that stable family life is vital to a peaceful society. Have you ever watched a Hispanic father interacting with his children? Anglo men could learn something from observing. Hispanic fathers stay home; their children have fathers.
There is more, (service in the military, etc.) but this is enough to illustrate my point.
It’s not a matter of legal vs. illegal. When the great majority of our immigrants come from one ethnic / linguistic / cultural group, and nearly all of them are poor and semi-literate, the problems they bring with them really are pretty much the same whether they are coming in through the front door or the side door.
One thing is for sure: what we are doing cannot go on indefinitely. The GOP is moronic, suicidal, or both if they think that poor people are going to vote Republican. They don’t, no matter how much they love their kids, go to church or dislike gay people. And abstractions like the Constitution? Most Americans don’t even understand it.
Multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual nation-states are not happy places. Canada has come close to splintering and breaking apart twice, and Belgium has its problems in that area as well. Religion, language, ethnicity, culture…any one of these things have the ability to create friction among people who are otherwise very similar. Start piling them on top of one another and you’re asking for trouble. Trouble we could have avoided, I might add.
All these debate questions are purposely the wrong ones. “How do you solve illegal immigration in 1 easy step?” The answer is, you don’t.
Seal the border. Fix the economy. Shrink the government. Break the public unions. Once you have done these things, revisit the problem. It will look very different then.
The same goes for SS/Medicare. How in the world do you know how to fix it, when you currently have a broken economy? GIGO – Garbage In; Garbage Out. Once you fix the economy, then you have a better predictor of what we can afford, what are the options.
We have to get back to a baseline, before we start talking about solutions. This stuff isn’t rocket science. You just have to see past the B.S.
There are no more perfect answers than there are perfect candidates. I have no problem accepting Newt 2.0 when Mitt 1.0 is still a RINO…