Posted by: Ann Corcoran | November 23, 2011

Newt supports path to “legalization” for illegal immigrants already in US…

…. loses me for sure!  And, Michele Bachmann is looking more attractive all the time!

The big headline at the Huffington Post this morning is about Newt sticking his neck out on immigration in last night’s Heritage Foundation/AEI/CNN debate.

I missed that part of the debate because I was watching Frank Luntz on Sean Hannity running a focus group on immigration.  The voters he had gathered were unaffiliated voters, and to a person agreed that immigration and what we do about it is one of their major concerns—no one spoke in support of the position Newt was articulating in the debate.  Many spoke against Rick Perry’s earlier —you are “inhumane” —pronouncement if you don’t support taxpayer subsidized college tuition.  Following in Perry’s footsteps, it sounds like Newt was trying the same angle on CNN.

You might be saying, why read the Huffington Post’s version of what happened—you know it will be slanted?  I’m glad I did because it now gives me the opportunity to show the absolutely disgusting way the Left twists the illegal immigration issue.  THEY ALWAYS SAY THAT SOME OF US WANT TO DEPORT 11 MILLION PEOPLE IN ONE FELL SWOOP!  And, they set up the mental picture of a huge Nazi-like roundup where people are herded onto trains and planes and shipped out of the US.

To me, it is very simple.  We close the border and police it.  Then we take away all the incentives.  We use E-verify so that only legal workers get jobs; we insist on proper identification for the receipt of welfare benefits/voting rights; we disallow anchor babies; we banish criminals immediately, and we don’t add more enticements like a taxpayer-subsidized college educations.  And, voila! their home country appears much more attractive after all!

Here is the HuffPo story about last night:

WASHINGTON — Newt Gingrich took a stance on immigration unpopular with many in the Republican party in a primary debate Tuesday night, and will now have to wait to see if he is punished for it by conservatives.

Gingrich, who has come from the back of the pack in the Republican presidential primary to lead in many national polls, refused to play along with the idea — expressed implicitly by some other candidates — that the only solution to the problem of undocumented immigration is to deport the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S.  [Pisses the hell out of me!  No one has said DEPORT  all illegal immigrants—ed]

“I don’t see how the — the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century,” Gingrich said. “And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.”

With his answer, the former speaker of the House from Georgia risked suffering the same fate as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who told those who disagree with his support for in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants that they “don’t have a heart,” and suffered for it badly with the conservative base.

Gingrich knew what he was doing. He took a long pause before doubling down on his position, after he was criticized by both Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Here it is again!  HuffPo pushing the big lie!  Do you see how they do it—promote a study based on a false premise.

The progressive Center for American Progress has estimated that it would cost U.S. taxpayers $285 billion to deport the estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants in the United States over five years. [Update:  be sure to see commenter Paul below who says we would actually make money over the five years if we did deport them all!—ed]

Back to Newt—amnesty by another name.

I was going to write a post on Gingrich the other day about all of his baggage we would have to defend for months if he is chosen as the Republican candidate.  I gave up the idea because it was just too exhausting a project—to chronicle decades of changing positions, insider money deals and sexual indiscretions through his decades in Washington.  Now, add to that his parsing of words—using “legalization” instead of the more accurate “amnesty.”

Michele stands up to Gingrich.

Then there is consistent Michele who knows the issues, stands firm on her positions (her score as I reported the other day on Heritage’s Congressional score card is a 91%) and you know she absolutely loves this country and the country class people who make it go.  [By the way, Romney was tough on Gingrich too emphasizing that Newt’s plan would be a magnet for more illegal aliens, but with Romney’s history of being on different sides of various issues at various times, it makes me suspicious now.]

Attacks on Gingrich came immediately after the immigration exchange. Bachmann’s campaign sent out a release during the debate labeled, “Newt Gingrich’s Open Door to Illegal Immigrant Amnesty.”

[….]

CNN followed that up with an interview with Bachmann.

“He wants to legalize 11 million illegal immigrants,” she said. “It sounds like amnesty to me.”

Tea Party reaction.

Dana Loesch, a Tea Party activist from St. Louis who is a CNN contributor, said right after the debate that the immigration issue “blew up in Newt Gingrich’s face.”

“He had a Rick Perry heartless moment with this. I think this is really going to impact him tomorrow. It’s really going to impact him with grassroots conservatives,” Loesch said.

Endnote: I didn’t see any report of what Cain said (if anything) during this exchange.  I like Cain, but in the portion of the ‘foreign policy’ debate I watched, I didn’t hear anything memorable from him.  Generally I think these debates are a good thing—each one gives us a greater understanding of the candidates’ positions on the important issues facing us as we go to the ballot box in 2012.

Update:  Just a reminder that on the NumbersUSA scorecard on immigration, Bachmann is a B- and Gingrich is a D-, check out all the scores, here.


Responses

  1. […] those bishops have gotten to Newt, here, who became a Catholic with his marriage to wife […]

  2. Let’s say that the Center for American Progress is correct, and it would cost $285 billion to deport 10.8 million illegal aliens over 5 years.

    According to FAIR, illegal aliens cost the US taxpayer $113 billion per year.

    http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16980&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1017

    So, in the first year, we’d spend $57 billion and save $22.6 billion. In the second, spend $57 billion and save $45.2 billion, in the third $57 billion and $67.8 billion, in the fourth $57 billion and $90.4 billion and in the fifth $57 billion and $113 billion. After five years, we would have spent a total of $285 billion and saved $203 billion, for a net cost of $83 billion to deport 10.8 million illegals.

    In the sixth year, we’d more than break even. Every year after that, it would be like owning an annuity that paid $113 billion per year.

    You can argue with how I distribute the costs and savings over the first 5 years, but any lump sum investment of $285 billion that returns a steady stream of $113 billion payments in perpetuity (and with a built-in COLA) would make Warren Buffet drool.

    • I love it!!!

      • Thanks Ann. Have you checked out The Kriebel Foundations “Red Card” idea? Old Newt mentioned during the debate so I thought I’d look into it. Not sure how it would work with such high unemployment but they do have some interesting ideas/recommendations. I especially like their recommendations about ending birthright citizenship. SS or some other payroll tax being paid directly to the states where the workers live is another good approach.

        There’s got to be a workable plan for this enormous problem and this might be the place to look.

  3. Thats exactly the conclusion i came to on my facebook page-Newt was never a strong contender in my book but he blew it with this stupid statement. thats what comes from an highly educated polcy-wonk-dumb pronoucements intended to make him look presidential. he came off sounding like a college professor who never comes out of the classroom. Michelle has always been my choice-she understands the issues and the solutions and its time we put a conservative woman in the white house because apparently the men have all gone off the reservation into cuckoo land.


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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: