Newt Gingrich Makes a Point on Immigration
By Steven Osborne | Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011 | Policy, PoliticsIn tonight’s AEI/Heritage Foundation sponsored Republican debate aired on CNN, Newt Gingrich was drawn into a discussion concerning what should be done in regards to the 11-12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. He staked out a position in which he implied that we should not deport all 11-12 million illegal immigrants.
Romney and Bachmann were quick to jump on this in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the former Speaker, however, Gingrich made a point that is worth considering for the conservative. If one is faced with a situation in which an illegal immigrant has been here for 25 years, has family and community roots, and has otherwise obeyed the law, is deportation the answer? It is interesting that Romney seemed to suggest that anything less than deportation amounts to a magnet, yet walked that back by saying that Republicans should not debate who goes and who stays. If this means that everyone illegal should go, then it would be interesting to find out if Romney supports attempting to enforce mass deportation.
The reality is that deportation is not the only answer. If mass deportation is employed then families will be impacted, and we will be faced with the possibility that American citizens (natural born children of illegal immigrants) will also be deported in a de facto sort of way if the parents are able to take the kids with them. Either that, or those families will be divided by force of government.
This is not to say that illegal immigrants should not be reprimanded. It is important that the rule of law be preserved; however, the rule of law cuts both ways, individuals are bound to obey the civil authorities, yet the civil authorities are also bound to higher law which governs not only what the civil law should be, but also how the civil law should be executed. A true adherence to the rule of law requires that the civil laws regarding immigration be enforced while the higher laws regarding the execution of those civil laws be observed. If in fact mass deportation will divide families and, as some have suggested, cause very real harm to people who have committed no crime, then perhaps it would be in the best interest of the country as a whole for the government to seek enforcement of the law through different means.
The real debate for conservatives is not whether illegal immigrants will be reprimanded, but rather what that reprimand will be.
Certainly, deportation should be employed for some illegal immigrants, especially those who have come here with the intention of committing further crimes. Yet the question I am posing here is whether this reprimand should be employed for each and every illegal immigrant currently residing in the United States.
There are many very reasonable people who suggest that deportation for all 11-12 million illegal immigrants is the answer to the very real problem of illegal immigration. However, a discussion needs to commence as to whether or not mass deportation of all those here illegally is truly the best way to ensure the rule of law.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
11 Responses to "Newt Gingrich Makes a Point on Immigration"
This is a complete red herring argument, and Gingrich did himself no favors by raising it.
Someone brought here 25 years ago would have arrived when Simpson-Mazzoli was enacted, a law that gave amnesty to 2 million illegal aliens and is largely responsible for the 12-25 million illegal aliens we now have here. Someone who came here then would have come precisely because they were encouraged by the 1986 amnesty, knowing America would reward lawbreakers with amnesty. To suggest now we provide that amnesty is irresponsible beyond belief.
Since 1986 six additional amnesties have been enacted by Congress and signed into law. If someone didn’t take advantage of any of them, or the numerous opportunities that existed for nearly two decades to have their legal status “adjusted” administratively, you’d have to wonder if the reason they aren’t now legal is whether they had a criminal record that precluded them, some other debilitating factor, or whether they were simply too lazy to take advantage of the myriad opportunities they had.
That we have some relatively small number of long-term illegal aliens here demonstrates we haven’t been serious about enforcing our laws for too long and have turned a blind eye to lawlessness that is causing some really difficult long-term problems. If we enforce the laws on the books, and secure the border as was supposed to happen 25 years ago, it is very likely overwhelming numbers of illegal aliens will remove themselves to their home nations on their own, without the need for us to actively deport them.
Newt has some disturbing disconnects with reality on this issue, and for that reason I am very wary of supporting him.
StevenOs, how could you and Newt NOT see mass deportation is the only way to go – load up the boxcars and send those trains south to Argentina! And a simple tweak to asset forfeiture laws means we can confiscate business’, homes, and assets ~ after all, illegals ARE criminals, right?
Hmmm, maybe a nice gimme for the 99%?? And imagine the economic benefits ~ all those tomato picking, office cleaning, lawn maintenance, and nanny jobs our LEGAL citizens clamor for. What do you think, maybe 5 – 8 million NEW jobs created?.
Recession over ~ Oh Happy Days!
Great response on the part of Gingrich, who accurately raises the question of nuance where others would apply police state and unconstitutional searches — surrendering American liberties in order to impose at a local level what should be done at the national level.
Just imagine if all that effort treating the symptoms of illegal immigration were applied towards a cure — securing the borders. Imagine that.
Otherwise, as JayD accurately points out, we’re boxcaring 8-20 million people back to their “point of origin” — which, if this isn’t about race, isn’t necessarily across the Mexican border…
Good post, and a great observation Steve.
When Newt put his line out there, Huntsman and Paul won the debate.
Frankly, if you examine Newt’s proposal a la the former Selective Service Board that was community based, it makes eminent sense. He is the only candidate taking thoughtful and workable solutions to a broad array of problems. If anything, this position hurt Romney more than any other candidate. It pointed out Romney’s extreme squishiness on this issue, as with all issues for that matter. The rest can pander all they want about boxcarring 11 million people but just how do they propose to do that? And why? Illegals come from every nation in the world, not just Mexico. If Newt had reduced himself to pandering against Mexicans I would have been sorely disappointed. He did not disappoint at any level.
Completely agree, Craig.
I completely agree that Newt is the only candidate that has offered specifics on how to go about dealing with the millions of individuals these measures would impact. To just proclaim they will enforce the existing law without any specific and detailed plans of implementation is pandering to those who want to deport all illegals. It would serve all of us to have candidates back-up their proposals with specifics. Otherwise shut-up and stop the TV-sound bites to please specific constituents.
Newt’s been in the biz a long time; he doesn’t do off the cuff policy statements. You’ll find “reality” in polling numbers:
“Hard-line views on illegal immigration may alienate those candidates from Latino voters, said Lionel Sosa, who served as a Hispanic media consultant for the campaigns of former Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and the unsuccessful presidential campaign of Arizona Sen. John McCain. “If any candidate comes off too harshly and too far to the right on the immigration issue, the Latino views it as an anti-Latino attitude,” said Sosa, who is advising the campaign of former House speaker Newt Gingrich.
When President George W. Bush was running for re-election in 2004, his campaign estimated that it needed to win 40% of the growing Hispanic vote to secure the victory. “That’s exactly what he got,” said Democratic strategist Maria Cardona. “If you just extrapolate the growth of the Latino vote from 2004 to now, you have to believe that that threshold has risen to 44%. That is a jaw-dropping gap that is not addressed by the GOP.” Sosa said that candidates who take hard stances against illegal immigration to secure the GOP nomination will have to shift back to the center or risk losing swing states such as New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida that have large Hispanic populations.
In an August poll of Hispanic voters, 27% said the Republican Party was being hostile to Hispanics, and 45% said the party didn’t care too much about Hispanics, according to an impreMedia/Latino Decisions Tracking Poll.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-09-13/perry-immigration-stance-tea-party/50393990/1
Newt won my vote with his responses to ALL of the issues, and especially this one.
At the risk of standing too close to a lightening rod on this issue, I have to agree with Greg L. I’m old enough to remember the promises of the illegal immigration “fix” during the Reagan Administration. It was a two-pronged strategy: we were going to secure the borders and we were going to grant amnesty to the assimilated 2 million illegals already here. 25 years later and we now have 11-plus million illegals here and our borders still provide all the security of a g-string on Spring Break. Sorry, but until we stop the invasion we are in no position to debate what to do about the long-established illegals already here. Secure the borders first and then we can have an intelligent debate about what to do about the illegals here already. Anything else is somewhere on the spectrum between wishful thinking and mental masturbation.
JayD,
It is naive of you to think illegal immigrants do not displace American workers. I get around quite a bit, and I see them all the time filling jobs legal citizens would love to have.
Shaun,
It might not be completely about race, however a strong majority of illegals are Hispanic (according to the Dept of Homeland Security). Mexican citizens alone are a majority by themselves, but many citizens from other countries just use the Mexican border as a place to transit through before crossing the border illegally.
Leave your response