Newt’s Immigration Stance Unacceptable

November 29, 2011

 

In the time lapse between the presidential debate of Tuesday, November 22, sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute with Wolf Blitzer as the debate moderator, only now do I have time to consider and arrive at a reasoned response to Newt’s proposal about dealing with illegal immigration in regard to this question directed to Gingrich by Blitzer:

 

“Speaker Gingrich, let me let you broaden out this conversation.  Back in the ’80 — and you remember this well, I was covering you then.  Ronald Reagan and you — you voted for legislation that had a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as you well remember.  There were, what, maybe 12 million, 10 million — 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States right now.  Some called it amnesty then, they still call it amnesty now.  What would you do if you were President of the United States, with these millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom have been in this country for a long time?”

 

In a nutshell, Newt called for humane treatment for otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for decades and who have established deep family and community ties, with a pathway to legal residency, but not citizenship.

 

But is Newt Gingrich’s voice really one of reason?  Might he be playing to the Republican Establishment which has been softer on undocumented immigration than the grass-roots wing of the party?

 

Gingrich does has a checkered history on topic.  According to Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, while in congress Gingrich voted for amnesty for undocumented immigrant in 1986 and for smaller, more specific amnesties throughout the 1990’s.  NumbersUSA gave Gingrich a “D” for his time in Congress.

 

Newt’s stance of Nov. 22, however, was not a new one.  He’s been saying the same thing in town halls and in forums and its clearly laid out on his Web page.

 

But what about the rule of law, Newt, which Republican likewise embrace, that without its enforcement will lead to chaos?  Can we pick and choose which laws we are going to enforce?  Maybe we should cut drug dealers, wife beaters, pick pockets, etc., some slack, as long as they have families, have paid their taxes, work hard?  And by the way, how can undocumented immigrants be obeying the law when being in the country is a violation of the law?  How can they be obeying the law when working in this country is a violation of the law?   If they are paying taxes, whose stolen social security number are they likely using?  Oops, there goes another law broken where Newt is comfortable in looking the other way.  Staying past your visa date is also a crime.

 

When we allow people into this country with no concern about the law, it is like leaving the faucet open to allow an additional influx of individuals into this nation.

 

According to Newt:  “Einstein came here as an immigrant.  So let’s be clear how much the U.S. has drawn upon the world to be richer, better and more inclusive.”

 

You are right on, Newt, in naming Einstein as a valued immigrant, but those immigrants of Einstein’s era had sponsors to ensure that they were not a drain on society.  When entering through Ellis Island immigrants were also checked for disease and were sent back home if they did not have a clean bill of health.  Undocumented immigrants have brought into this nation (mostly from Mexico) a strain of TB that is resistant to treatment, among other diseases that were heretofore rare or nonexistent in this nation.

 

Also to be considered, Newt, is that states are suffering under the burden of paying for local costs for services siphoned by illegal aliens and their anchor babies.  The Center for Immigration Studies reports that South Carolina has suffered a 337% spike in illegal immigration since 1990 costing $391 million a year; Alabama a 287% spike at a cost of $289 million; and Arizona a 206% spike at a cost of $2.6 billion.

 

In an article written by James R. Edwards, Jr. in Human Events in the week of 11/14/11, Edwards reports how Obama’s Justice Department is launching outrageous lawsuits against South Carolin, Alabama and Arizona as political hammers to deprive them from acting within their own broad police powers.

 

And what about Newt’s suggested worker program?:  “You need something like a World War II selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here.  If you’re here — if you’ve come here recently, you have no ties ties to this country, you ought to go home. Period.  It you’ve been here 25 years and you’ve got three kids and two grand kids, they’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law they should be granted amnesty without citizenship.”

 

A question to be posed of Newt:  “How can it be determined how long the illegal immigrants have been in this country in order to decide whether they meet the qualifications to stay.”  Like teaching students the facts needed to do well in their ACT tests, illegals will be tempted to build up a history of time here in the U.S. to qualify for the illegality without citizenship program?

 

Does it not mean anything that even an undocumented individual living here for 25 years and meeting all requirements is not law abiding according to law?

 

Also, isn’t amnesty really about legality and not citizenship.  Illegals are really given amnesty when you make them legal. Citizenship is not required.  Not that this matter anyway, for citizenship would surely be next on the agenda.  It would be heartless not to allow an 80-year old grandmother to obtain her citizenship.  How can she be expected to assimilate and embrace the American culture if she isn’t allowed to vote!

 

Those who think that Newt’s legal-but-not-citizen status wouldn’t eventually turn into full amnesty are living on another planet.  It would be a simple matter for a future congress, after the leg work has already been done to classify and identify the “legal” residents, to simply grant them full citizenship, complete with suffrage rights.  Future congresses or presidents are not bound to carry forth with decisions made in another era.

 

Newt’s proposal, if elected an implemented, would open the door 80% of the way.

 

Another question Newt needs to address:  “I thought you were promoting yourself as a small government person, yet hundreds of government agencies would need to be formed to decide who is the good undocumented immigrant and who is the bad?”

 

It is premature to ponder over what to do with those who are already here.  It amounts to a show of counterfeit compassion and concern.  Does this nation really need more compassionate conservatism?  How well did it work in 1986?

 

The most important issue regarding undocumented immigrants should center on the defense of our nation which includes the defense of our borders.  In border states, in addition to those entering from Mexico, there are large numbers of Chinese, and more troubling, people who are coming from the Middle East.

 

Presently the Mexican government is outsourcing its poverty to the U.S.  Mexico’s #1 source of wealth comes from Mexico’s own oil company.  Its second source of wealth comes from the remittances sent by illegal immigrants to their families back home.

 

Why isn’t the Conference of Catholic bishops, in the name of Social Justice, working to help Mexicans reclaim their own nation.

 

Building a fence continues to be controversial as to its effectiveness.

 

Even so, much can be done to deal with the 20 – 30 million illegal aliens that are presently residing in the U.S.

 

We can require proof of legal residency for every student; proof of legal residency for every public benefit; proof of legal residency and permission to work from every job applicant; and a valid I.D. and a voter registration card at the polls.

 

E-Verify must also be allowed to work for employers to check on the status of prospective employees.  It is shameful that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has gone to court trying to undo the E-Verify.

 

As far as mass deportation, Presidents Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower all ordered mass deportations of illegals during the depressions after WWI and WWII so Americans could have jobs that illegals were filling.  Today the construction trade is employing huge numbers of illegal immigrants at a time when American citizens need good paying jobs.

 

But even in a perfect world there is no way all of the illegal residing in this nation could be found and deported.

 

By actually enforcing the laws on the books, undocumented immigrants will leave of their own accord.  If they can’t get a job or a place to live they’ll be forced to go back to where they came from.

 

Consider what happened in Arizona and Alabama when laws were passed to discourage illegal aliens from living there.  They left in droves, as they did in Prince William County, VA.

 

Another thought for consideration.  Families need not be separated.  When did it become unacceptable for families to take their American-born children back home to the country they emigrated from when illegally entering the U.S.?  The children can decide for themselves where they wish to live when of age.

 

On Sunday, November 27, it was reported that Bill Clinton is now praising his old foe Newt.  Fox News on the same day reported that the largest newspaper in New Hampshire was planning to endorse Newt Gingrich.  It was speculated that endorsement of Newt by the Union Leader could be a major blow to Romney as a former MA governor and as Romney’s chief rival to the party’s nomination.

 

Mitt Romney who has been tough on undocumented immigrants while running for president did challenge Gingrich’s proposal of legalization without citizenship as a magnet for foreigners to enter the country without documents.  While Romney took an approach nearly identical to primary rival Newt Gingrich in a 2006 Bloomberg interview, some strategists close to Romney have noted that he switched his stance in 2007 after traveling to Iowa and hearing the depth of anti-immigration sentiment there.

 

While I have yet to decide on a candidate, Newt Gingrich, despite his brilliance and his ability to debate, fails to grasp the consequences of many of his spoken thoughts.  I’m also wary over Newt’s stance on global warming, another issue that must be faced before rules and regulation further erode the fragile financial health of this nation.

 

A caution to Newt and to all other Republican candidate vying to face President Barack Obama as the Republican candidate in November of 2012:  Our borders must be protected first to close the open faucet, or the same issue will surface 15 or so years down the road when this nation will have to deal with an additional influx of millions of undocumented individuals.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s