Newt on Immigration

Newt Gingrich is probably not going to be the Republican nominee, though it is looking like it will come down to a Newt v. Mitt contest. The Newtster has earned that much. He is some hot water right now for daring to depart from conventional conservative wisdom on immigration. From MSNBC:

"I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally," Gingrich told the crowd of roughly 750 people, many of whom were forced to stand in the hallway. "But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties are so deeply into America that it would truly be tragic to try and rip their family apart."

That puts Newt rather squarely on the side of amnesty, whatever he wants to call it. It is a position that is very unpopular with conservatives and almost as unpopular among Americans generally.

It is also part of any viable solution to the immigration problem. We just aren't going to expel eleven million people from the U.S. So we either let them remain here illegally (which is almost surely what we will do) or work out some path to citizenship (which is what we should do).

There are two problems with any amnesty proposal. One, and the more serious one, is that it rewards scofflaws. The other is that amnesty will encourage would be scofflaws to think that the same will eventually be offered to them. Given our past failure to manage the problem, there is no practical solution to the first problem. As for the second, amnesty would have to be part of a "comprehensive" strategy that would include effective border control.

Border control has to come first. One good reason that many Americans oppose amnesty is because they don't believe that government is or will ever be serious about controlling the border. They think, with good reason, that amnesty will be real but border control will always be something that is promised but never quite happens. This is part and parcel of the general loss of confidence in government. Why aren't Tea Party people willing to accept tax increases in exchange for spending cuts? Because they think that the former will be real and now, and the latter will be deferred until never. They think that because that is what always happens.

Gingrich shouldn't back off. It's too late now anyway. He doesn't have to present a complete proposal for comprehensive immigration reform, but he does need to lay out the lines of one. If he can show a plausible path out of our present mess, it strengthens his case as a candidate in the general election. If President Gingrich, or some other president could work out an honest and effective solution, it would help to restore our confidence in our political system.

Comments

[Bill Fleming]

Good post, KB. The bills are out there. "Ag Jobs" and the "Dream Act." It's time to pass them.
http://www.fwjustice.org/what-is-agjobs

[duggersd]

I do not believe we need either of those in their existing forms, Bill. That Ag Jobs thingy seems to not like E-Verify. I believe a program such as E-Verify could go a long ways in having illegal immigrants (and they are here illegally) self-deport. When it appeared Arizona was going to get its law actually up and running there were many people who are here illegally leaving the state. Some went to other states and some went home. If we did this in all of the states, much of the problem would be taken care of.
As for the Dream Act, I really do not oppose the part that allows people who were very young and have grown up in this country to remain and even have a pathway to citizenship. What I do not like about it has to do with the sponsorship of illegals by someone here legally. Newt and I tend to disagree on this point. I do not care if someone has been here 2 days or twenty five years, that person needs to be deported. Again, the E-Verify would help in that regard.
KB, I am not willing to concede the nomination to Mitt Romney at this point. while I do find him to be much more desirable as a candidate for President when compared to Obama, I believe there are several choices who would be preferable. Newt Gingrich is one of them. I have no doubts the media will be doing their best to knock him down, but before we even start announcing the Republican nominee, it would be nice to at least wait until after the first vote has been cast.

[larry kurtz]

Statehood for Mexico.

[Donald Pay]

It's interesting that Republicans in Alabama are starting to back away from their hate brown people law now that it has had some ramifications for a white corporate executive from a German company (Mercedes Benz).

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/21/373334/german-mercedes-benz-executive-arrested-under-alabamas-immigration-law/

[lynn]

It is so tiresome to hear people like Donald above accuse people against ILLEGAL immigration of being racist and hateful. But I guess if that's all people like him have to put forth - a charge of racism - then it shows the true weakness of their argument.

[Donald Pay]

This isn't a law against illegal immigration. It's a law against people who don't have papers on them at all times. It was aimed at a minority, and it's pure fascism. Stop excusing it.

[larry kurtz]

Kill the earth haters and let goddess sort 'em out:

http://americasmexico.blogspot.com/2011/11/drug-war-politics-newt-gingrich-on-drug.html

[William]

Donald,

Legal residents are already required to have their green card on them at all times, it's Federal law!

"A green card is issued to all permanent residents as proof that they are authorized to live and work in the United States. If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times."
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

[Bill Fleming]

William, you don't have to carry a green card, do you? That's what Mr. Pay is talking about, I think. If not, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout.

[Jimi]

Bill,

Most of us carry a drivers licence. And since the Kraut was "driving" a rental vehicle with "no tag", it became pretty obvious he didn't have a State issued driver licence either, after he was pulled over.

All charges were dropped after a Passport and German driver's license was produced from his Hotel Room. Are you suggesting that the man should have been taken on his word when he was pulled over?

I find it hard to believe that Illegal Immigration laws are being inforced because of "Racism." The reason is we already allow a certain number to become citizens. We abolished the country of origin quota in the 60's, and the demographics of the top (4) Legal Immigrants are telling.

1.) Mexico------13.3% of total
2.) China-------6.8% of total
3.) India-------6.6% of total
4.) Phillipines-5.6% of total

So we are kicking people out because we are "Racist", yet we legally immigrate the majority of people from non-white country's. It doesn't add up!

[duggersd]

The problem with removing illegal immigrants is that it decreases the labor pool, as it should. So, if a farmer is used to paying $5 a bushel for picking apples, he may have to pay $7.50/bushel. It is not that these are jobs that Americans will not do. It is that these are jobs that Americans will not do for the amount someone is currently paying. So, in the end, when we remove the illegal immigrants, we had better be ready to pay more for the products those people were involved in.

[larry kurtz]

Thanks, Barnes, for being Captain Obvious in this thread. It's great to know that you can think your way off the toilet when you really want to.

[larry kurtz]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/what-if-herman-cain-drops-out-bad-for-romney-good-for-gingrich/249209/

[larry kurtz]

Here, Doc: this is right up your blind alley.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/newt-gingrich-bad-historian-battle-of-the-crater-book-review

[Ken Blanchard]

My friends Donald and Bill illustrate the problem pretty well. You guys are hostile to any attempt to enforce immigration laws. My friends on the right are hostile to any attempt to document the undocumented population. It is a grand coalition of both sides against the middle. This is why a rational solution to the immigration issue is damn near impossible.

[SeriousLee]

I'm convinced that Blanchard keeps Larry Kurts, Donald Pay and Bill Fleming around just because they are such fascinating case studies on the liberal mind. Who else, when confronted with an opinion that differs from theirs, automatically resorts to their most basic, guttural, childish response of "THEY HATE BROWN PEOPLE!!!"?

As a social moderate and financial conservative, I base my opinions and beliefs on logic and reason. I consider all sides to an issue and come up with a decision that makes sense based on the facts. As LK, DP and BF show, the liberal looks at the issue and responds with an answer based purely on emotion, and often hypocrisy.

When I think about the liberal point of view on illegal immigration, my thoughts are logical. Liberals tend to have a loose interpretation of laws and feel that bad laws can be ignored for what they consider the greater good. Liberals are also self-serving, in that they see vast vote potential from undocumented inhabitants. I don't come up with a "They must hate someone!" response.

When they think about the conservative point of view on illegal immigration, their emotional response is to go straight to the race card. "THEY HATE BROWN PEOPLE!!!"

Liberals love to operate from some intellectual high ground based on pure fantasy. A liberal mind is a mind stuck in flight or fight mode. They cannot operate when asked to formulate an opinion based on logic. Liberals tell us they are the open-minded ones, the ones accepting of differing opinions and diversity in thought.

I've still yet to meet one that meets any of those criteria. They know only to attack or run based on their emotions.

At any rate, illegal immigration is a real problem in our nation. Someone needs to come up with a plan that both stops the problem, and deals with the people involved in a thoughtful and humane way. That does not mean blanket amnesty, and that also does not mean constructing catapults to launch them back over the border.

When the conversation can involve constructive ideas instead of name-calling, we might get somewhere. For now, the left wing response seems to be "THEY HATE BROWN PEOPLE!"

[duggersd]

All of the Republican candidates have said the first thing that needs to be done is to enforce the border. After the border has been protected, we can talk about what to do with the people already here. I believe there is ample opportunity for a self-deportation. If the illegal aliens cannot find work and if employers who hire them are heavily fined, they will leave on their own.

[larry kurtz]

If the shoe fits throw it at W and watch him duck then pop up so you can throw the other one. Pray for the GOP to become a threatened species. Republicans hate brown people.

[lynn]

So how's this for a solution. Seal the border, first and foremost. Those that have come illegally, been a working, taxpaying resident for many years, can stay but not get citizenship or voting rights. Any person convicted of a crime gets a one-way ride across the border, period. No sanctuary cities. For those allowed to stay, only they stay; they don't get to bring along extended family members or friends. End the anchor baby thingie. Fine employers who knowingly hire illegals. If a person gets a job without a proper ID or uses a fake SS card, he goes back home. This is I think pretty much part of what Newt said. If a person is illegal, has obeyed the laws and worked hard here for many years, they can stay on a case by case basis but not given citizenship. It's humane and yet not amnesty.

[lynn]

Oh, and Larry, Bill, and Donald, I don't hate brown people. I don't hate white people. I don't hate tattooed people. And I don't hate you. But I think you should get a more intelligent response to we posters you disagree with, and conservatives in general. Your responses don't do anything to foster cooperation or problem solving, but I don't think you really want this anyway, especially Larry, IP, or whatever alias he chooses to use.

[Ken Blanchard]

Readers should know that Larry Kurtz is no human being. He is a utility demon I summoned to make Donald and me look reasonable. All I had to do was sacrifice a small pile of rational thoughts and he appeared.

[larry kurtz]

Statehood for Mexico.

[Bill Fleming]

I gave perfectly good solutions to the problems at hand. The AgJobs bill and the Dream Act. They should be acted upon. All the reasons why they can't is just paranoid GOP spin. The party knows it's screwed the pooch as far as the Latino vote is concerned ind is simply put off its demise for a few more years. That's reality, Lynn. Sooner or later you and your party cohorts should maybe make an reasonable effort to embrace it.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I am inclined to think that both the AgJobs bill and the Dream Act would be good legislation, in and of themselves. Talk of passing them alone, without comprehensive reform is nonsense. The Dream Act alone would just be partial amnesty, wouldn't it? Try selling that.

[Bill Fleming]

The issue deserves careful, rational scrutiny. This link might help put some of the current far-right hysteria into perspective. I should note though that it's not an exclusively Republican v Democrat issue. It's more of an individual human rights issue, one which Republicans can easily embrace, as many indeed have. (That would be the ones who know how to think.)

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/did-obama-enact-dream-act/

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I agree. Maybe the first step in a careful and rational scrutiny would be to defer labeling dissent as "far-right hysteria". There is nothing hysterical about insisting that the laws be enforced.

I agree that this is not a red v. blue issue. Republican business interests like cheap labor. Democratic union interests don't.

As for individual rights, I don't believe there is any human right to enter and reside in the United States illegally. To say that there is is to say that nation states are illegal. That is a view that one might well adopt and many have. It is not a view that will promote progress on immigration policy.

[Bill Fleming]

Ken, clearly there is no solution that doesn't involve changing what appears to be unenforceable law. Extreme right arguments go even farther and include violations of and/or amendments to the Constitution. You need to decide which side you're on and argue from that position. I can't debate you if you take both sides.

[Bill Fleming]

In SD for example there has recently been a draconian proposal regarding immigration that would have made the policing of possible undocumented workers the first priority of SD Law enforcement, over and above all other crimes, even including criminal charges for someone taking a sick person to the hospital. That is an hysterical overreach and I think you know it. I wish you would speak out against it. Any chance you will?