Work From Home

 


Tuesday night, Newt Gingrich opened the door to some controversy when he opined that if he were President, some illegal aliens who had been in the country for a long time and had not committed criminal acts, could be allowed to stay.

 

From the Washington Examiner:

 

Newt Gingrich did not walk on stage at Tuesday's Republican presidential debate planning to make a bold new statement on immigration. In debate prep, the former House speaker spent a lot of time with national security advisers discussing the issue of religious freedom abroad -- a topic he has tried to showcase recently -- but didn't discuss immigration at all.

Besides, when Gingrich made his now-controversial remarks -- that he would permit some long-time illegal immigrants to stay in the United States permanently -- he wasn't saying anything he hadn't said earlier in the campaign. It's just that back then Gingrich was an also-ran and nobody was listening. Now, Gingrich is leading the polls, and people are paying close attention to his every word.

Here is what Gingrich said Tuesday night when the discussion turned to illegal immigrants: "I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them."

Gingrich said pretty much the same thing at a campaign event in South Carolina just last month. "There are some folks who have been here 20 or 25 years," he said. "They have paid taxes, they live in the community, they're married, they've got three kids, two grandkids, and they go to your local church. We are not going to deport them."

And at the nationally televised Sept. 7 Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California, Gingrich said, "We should ... find a way to deal with folks who are already here, some of whom, frankly, have been here 25 years, are married with kids, live in our local neighborhood, go to our church. It's got to be done in a much more humane way than thinking to automatically deport millions of people."

 

When I first heard Gingrich offer his opinion, to say I was not thrilled would be an understatement.  I want illegal aliens removed from the country. 

 

Period.

 

However, Gingrich may have made a great preemptory move that would allow for the greatest number of illegals to be removed from the country.

 

When we have a Republican President and he or she gets serious about removing the illegals from the country, those who are the illegal enablers are going to throw out the most sympathetic cases they can to try and get Americans to support not throwing the illegals out of the country.   The most sympathetic would be someone who has been in the country for thirty years, has children and grandchildren and has not been arrested and perhaps even opened a business.

 

Gingrich’s proposal takes that off of the table.  The illegals removed will not be the sympathetic illegals.  They will be the most recent arrivals. 

 

After the 2012 election, we must close the border and we must deport as many of the illegals as we can.

 

That is not negotiable. 

 

Tags: Gingrich, Newt, deporation, illegal, immigration

Views: 4784

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

AMEN to everything you said in this article.  PERSONALLY, I WANT EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM OUT OF THE USA.  I DON'T CARE HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN HERE, WHERE AND HOW HARD THEY WORKED, WHETHER THEY GO TO CHURCH OR NOT, THE FACT REMAINS THEY BROKE THE LAW WHEN THEY STOLE INTO THE COUNTRY.  NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS.    WHAT IS THE OLD COWBOY SAYING, "HEAD 'EM UP AND MOVE 'EM OUT!  THE SOONER THE BETTER!

Amen. We like so many others paid thousands to obey the law. Not one person should be exempt. If they are all of us should be refunded all of our money. Time is past and we absolutely must play hardball. A politician breaks a law that we would be placed in prison so then they should go. No more loopholes or due to a position embarrassment replaces imprisonment. This will never be the case and we shall never have justice so long as DC continues to play the role of our lord and master. 

We are a nation of laws...without the enforcement of ALL laws, we become a nation of anarchy and/or tyranny!!  Just when did we become a country of "we'll decide which laws to enforce and which ones we won't"?  If it's okay not to enforce the immigration laws on the books or the DOMA, then I guess I don't have to follow the law that says I have to pay taxes or need a permit to carry a gun across state lines or even just simple things like stopping for red lights or staying within the speed limit.  Oh, better yet...I don't have to pay for anything in the store, I can just help myself to anything I want...just like illegals do when they receive free medical care in emergency rooms or get free meals for their kids going to school free or free EBT/WIC cards!

You know as a citizen of the US, if I broke a law I'd be arrested and punished for it.  Wonder how it is when a non-citizen, one here illegally, breaks a law they get rewarded???

Here's the answer...quit enabling the illegals!!  No more free anything!!  No more jobs...hold those who employ them accountable!!  Stop the flow of money and you'll stop the flow of illegals (except for those who want to do us harm...they'll still come regardless)...just look at California when the jobs dried up...illegals went home.  It's proving to be true in Alabama as well...jobs are being freed up for Alabama residents!!

Now as a mom, I understand and have compassion for those who have been here for years and established themselves within the communities they now call home.  But if we allow them to break the law and suffer no consequences for it, instead reward them...then how do we equally apply the law to those who just came here last year and have established themselves within the communities they now call home??  Are they not fine, upstanding citizens the same as those who have been here 25 years so long as they have paid their taxes, gone to church, not broken the law??  Oh wait...yep, they've broken the law...they all have!!

Gingrich gets it alright...he gets how he'll hopefully garner most of the Latin vote since he's so compassionate for their strife.  Incentivize illegal immigration and you'll never solve illegal immigration.

Seal up the border, shut off the money and free stuff, apply the 14th amendment as it was meant to be applied and we'll have illegals self-deporting in droves.  Those who don't...deal with them!!  Reagan's "amnesty" for a few million turned into a magnet for 10s of millions to flood this country...they saw we were weak and wouldn't enforce our laws!!  Hey...why not???

You're exactly correct on this.  We enforce the laws, and they will leave voluntarily, just look at the mass exodus in Arizona and other states that passed similar SB 1070 laws.

If we can coerce Congress into passing E-Verify, a law that is currently pending and which would require ALL employers to verify an applicant's eligibility to work in the U.S., 99% of those in the country illegally would "self-deport" at zero expense to the Federal/state government, practically overnight.

For more information on E-Verify: NumbersUSA

I think you speak for a LARGE number of average Americans!  My issue is the same as yours:  if it's okay to stay after 25 years, why not after 20?...or 15?...or 3 days?  And, if they can break this law, why can't I break that one, which hampers my purposes?  It becomes relative...and chaotic...

We are a nation PROTECTED, and strengthened, by the "rule of law."  If someone doesn't like a law, they can work to change it.  It doesn't mean some get to pick, or choose, the law to obey or enforce.  Stop the jobs; stop the benefits...  For those who honor the laws of this country and come here legally, we, the citizens, will consider you a "part of our American family."  We are a generous, caring people and help those who genuinely need help.  But, I, for one, want accountability for those being helped, primarily, helping someone less fortunate than they are.  There is always SOMEONE less fortunate than you...  We can all choose to be a legitimate part of the solution...We, the taxpayer, should not be forced to subsidize illegals.

If/when Newt is president, how will he be able to ascertain just how long these folks have been here.

Surely they will be less than truthful ...

And will all of his stated reasons be the criteria allowing them to stay; or just a couple?

  1. Live here 25 years
  2. Honest members of community
  3. Married with kids and grandkids
  4. Members of local church
  5. Have a small business

His statement is just not reasonable.

We are not going to hit a win it all at once situation.  The left learned long ago to live with incremental victory.  As long as we are moving the ball forward, we are winning.  Gingrich has an idea.  The strategy behind it is good.

As a person who lives in a 'border' state, I certain do NOT agree with NEWT!  I say IF they crossed the border, flew in, etc......... ILLEGALLY, they are ALL CRIMINALS!  And they ALL need to be deported!

Unfortunately, Debra, there's a little problem - the Constitution, in its' method of describing citizens, includes the item that all persons BORN within the boundaries of the United States are immediately given citizenship - which, unfortunately, has developed into the "anchor baby" phenomenon, where illegals have children in the US ... making it that much more difficult to deport illegal relatives (including parents) of those children. The Founders, some say, deliberately, left the definition of a "citizen" fluid, by writing it that way into the Constitution -- and since it's very hard to amend the Constitution, this is a part of the illegal immigrant debates. I think Newt is on the right, and logical path here .... re-design the system so that we allow the immigrants who aren't problems remain (but NOT granted citizenship, except under a few circumstances), while locating and deporting IMMEDIATELY those who are problems.

 

It has to be done this way, otherwise the liberals will use this as a bat against the GOP's head in election after election. And he's also right about the GOP being the party of "families" - if we are going to claim that, then we can't go around breaking them up for the world to see, now, can we?

 

You have to admire Newt for stepping up to the plate and taking a swing at this - but it just proves how smart he is. He KNOWS the GOP won't get past the image of being cruel to immigrants unless and until we come up with a logical. compassionate, and workable solution. And to show you how well it might succeed, read this article by Ruben Navarrette - if THIS guy had his way, ALL illegals would be allowed to stay, receive ALL benefits, and the border would pretty much disappear. If a guy like HIM thinks this is a workable plan, then we should really consider it before we throw the illegal baby out with the bathwater.

NWBill:

You obviously are referring to the 14th Amendment which of course our founding fathers had nothing to do with.  The 14th Amendment which is used incorrectly to legalize anchor babies came into being after the Civil War and was an amendment that re-enslaved the black man and all other American's to include the white's as debtor's, or contractual slaves of the federal government.  In reality, the 14th Amendment does not protect the "anchor" baby thus defining that baby as a legal U.S. citizen. The anchor baby is as illegal as the parent.

RSS

Tea Party Nation is a social network



The Instant Survivalist

Young Living Essential Oils

 






© 2014   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service