Newt somehow found a way to articulate that middle ground that describes how most moderates feel about the immigration issue. He effectively managed to push across an idea that Rick Perry tried to accomplish but didn’t quite manage to do.
Pundits this morning are discussing how badly Newt damaged his lead with the base who doesn’t care if grandmas and grandpas are lined up and marched back across the border.
The strategist implication probably wasn’t thought out as well as it should have been.
Do you agree with Newt or Mitt? Is that really amnesty? Notice Newt was careful to exclude citizenship for those who stayed under this category. That, in effect, excluded the notion of any party trying to get new voters.
What are the pros and cons for Newt in his bid for presidential election?
I actually like what Newt said. I believe he’s exactly right. Not citizenship, but “guest worker” status.
They probably prefer to think of it as legal resident, especially if it is someone who doesn’t work.
Rick, I am surprised you and I agree on this.
I am liking Newt more and more. At this point, he’s my favorite from either party. In fact he’s the only candidate who doesn’t make me throw up in my mouth.
I have no problem with his stance . Heck, he may make a bigger push for immigration reform than Obama has, hahaha! He has a strong, faithful base that I think will stick with him regardless. There really are more important matters than immigration right now.
@Starry, that’s probably true, unless of course, you are an immigrant. Then it is probably paramount, especially if you are in danger of deportation and losing your family.
If we could all agree that citizenship is not a viable reward for breaking and entering and identity theft, then I and presumably other people would mellow out a great deal. Guest workers are A-OK with me.
But in the world we live in, Democrats and many Republicans want to use the promise of citizenship to mine votes, and to play offense or defense on racial identity politics. That’s a cold hard fact. (And one that makes me throw up in my mouth).
That is not how it should be used. I agree. I would say definitely no citizenship should be granted. Maybe 20 years down the road…maybe. For right now, just a legal resident should be all that is considered. That takes away the charge of buying votes.
The sticking point (assuming people agree to the above) is.. What about the kids born in the US from those guest workers?
The children born here are citizens, according to the 14th amendmends. I don’t think Newt was talking about guest workers. Guest workers are people who come and go legally usually during the same year. Newt meant legal resident. There is a difference.
We don’t think a think about children of legal residents from Greece or Australia. Why should we feel differently about children of Latinos from south of our border? Marin, if you don’t agree with me, I am going to bribe Mrs. Marin into giving me your parents’ phone number so I can tattle on you.
Regardless of how many anti immigration people wish it weren’t so, the 14th amendment is alive, healthy, and will stay that way.
The problem is…its completely unworkable. As he said…they agreed to this under Reagan. Reagan signed the amnesty. The rest of the deal was forgotten.
Congress will not close the border and do any of the hard stuff once the “amnesty” is agreed upon. As many have said…..Do the border thing and enforce the laws removing illegal aliens FIRST. Then we can talk about a bill that reforms their status. If we can’t enforce the laws now…what makes you think that we will do it later?
How many trillions would it cost to really put a border around the United States? I thought we were supposed to be cutting spending? How much would it cost to round up all illegal aliens? Who would do it? How would we pay for agents to do it and the judges to deport them?
Are you suggesting (GASP) that we just abandon rule of law or live in a military state? I sure hope not.
You sound like a commercial for F.A.I.R. There is plenty of enforcement going on.
And what kind of double speak are we doing if we remove all the illegal aliens and then reform their status? If they are gone, what is there to reform?
Do you just dislike Latinos?
@marinm
Right now…those kids are considered citizens. And if the illegal aliens are considered “legal” then its definite that the children will be citizens.
They are considered citizens because they are citizens. There is no ‘if’ in here.
Three wives, a half-million dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s, luxury cruise in the Med while the campaign can’t pay its debts, the classic “if you repeat my exact words verbatim about right-wing social engineering you’re perpetuating a lie” head-scratcher, seven figure paycheck from FreddieMac, decades wheeling and dealing inside the beltway, rewards for illegals for breaking into the country … if those aren’t good old-fashion Tea Party values I don’t know what are. What do you call a right-wing hypocrite? The front-runner.
I think the only thing that would oust Newt would be finding out he was born in Hawaii.
@Moon-howler
Understood. Which is why I asked the question the way that I did. So, these guest workers would be able to spawn citizens who in turn can then apply for citizenship for their parents (the guest workers)…..
Seems like a raw deal to me as a taxpayer.
What’s the upside?
I doubt Cargo dislikes latinos because he and I get along famously.
What’s not to like about you, Marin? Do you really think that having a relative like …oh..a wife..does you any good now? it does not.
Why do you think that people want citizenship anyway? Many foreigners I know could care less about citizenship, regardless of where they are from. Some do, some don’t. How about a rule that if you have an adjusted status you must wait an obligatory 20 years before being eligible?
Why are the taxpayers getting screwed? Don’t immigrants pay taxes? The ones I know pay taxes same as I do. (that includes illegal ones) Are you speaking about Fed taxes? They pay those too. Hell, some native born Americans I know don’t pay federal taxes.
I don’t think guest workers spawn. Salmon spawn, beta fish spawn. guest workers birth.
I am curious how we know a person’s status. Is this a concept we are after or just how people look.
Most importantly, why am I arguing with a Latino about immigration fairness?
@marin, maybe he thinks you are ‘one of the good ones.’ People of my vintage will know exactly what I mean by that statement. And, I meant it to be funny.
You don’t fit a stereotype. You are safe.
Heck….my ex-brother in law is Guatemalan. He can’t stand illegal aliens. He busted his butt getting citizenship as did his mother. My nieces and nephews are therefore “half-Latino.”
And, yes…they are considered citizens. BUT there is NO legal precedent for considering the children of illegal aliens to be citizens. And that gray area will continue no matter how many times that its asserted that they are…..They are de facto citizens. The 14th Amendment has not been clarified as to the citizenship of the children of illegal aliens. And it will continue this way until the unlikely event of a court case about this reaching the Supreme Court.
What do you mean there is no legal precedent to consider the children of illegal aliens to be citizens? Do you mean people who are born here?
Newt wasn’t talking about guest workers. He was talking about a status adjustment to legal resident. Perhaps a new classification would be created. Guest workers are people who come to work and then go home. The people Newt was discussing might not even work. They might be someone’s wife or grandmother. He wasn’t talking about work permits or green cards. You can be in this country illegally and still have a legal green card.
There is no issue with the kids. If someone has been here a long time and has roots to the community then they would be considered, under the Newt plan.
I don’t think that amendments stand trial. I think they are what trials are based on. It says what it says. Some of you immigration folks keep trying to twist what it says and playing with the word jurisdiction. It means what it means. Everyone in the country, while here, is under US jurisdiction except diplomats. Let an illegal immigrant run a red light. Whose jurisdiction is he under? Bingo.
Is this where I say, Born is Born. What part of Born don’t you understand?
🙄
@Moon-howler
Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle……..
“Do you really think that having a relative like …oh..a wife..does you any good now? it does not.”
I don’t understand this part. But, I am of legal status. Interestingly the two illegals that I work with that got legal even hold ‘positions of trust’ in the govt. If they can put in the work/effort to do things right — why can’t others?
“How about a rule that if you have an adjusted status you must wait an obligatory 20 years before being eligible?”
How about a rule that says, “Follow our immigration law.”
“Most importantly, why am I arguing with a Latino about immigration fairness?
Because, the idea that a “latino block” wants full and clear open borders is a myth. I know some that support that idea and just as many that side with me. We’re all individuals not a block that only go one way or the other.
I’m all for reforming how our system works and yes even taking a look at status of individuals already illegally present. But, everytime I speak to someone about reformation they come across not wanting to fix things but to open the floodgates without thinking of the reprecussions.
So, again — why would I agree to Newt’s proposal? What’s in it for ME? What’s in it for a middle class guy that pays his taxes and follows the law.
Ahhh/….the old whats in it for me…at least you are honest about that part. No altruism three.
I don’t know how old your formerly illegal co workers are or when their status was adjusted. It hasnt been recently I will wager. It just isn’t being done now.
You understand that almost no one from any Latin American country can come here legally now?
I wasn’t speaking of a latino block. I was speaking of all cases where common sense and rules just don’t apply. I don’t know anything about any block and I am also not in favor of open borders. I think there would be less illegal immigration if there was more opportunity to do it legally. I can’t think of anyone who wants to be an illegal immigrant.
At least you are for reform. I am for reform. I don’t like punishing kids or making people who through no fault of their own the scape goats. That is what I mean by fairness. I am not talking about thugs and crooks. I want them deported.
You and I probably have not talked in depth then. I certainly don’t want to open up the flood gates.
Besides….how long is long enough? Do we remove the persons that have been here 20 years? How about 19? 18? 2?
And how do you confirm that this person has been here for that length of time? If they are using ID, then that ID has come from fraudulent means.
And yes, technically, legally, the children of illegal aliens have NOT had a legal clarification of their status. Are the children born to tourists considered Americans? Jurisdiction has different connotations. America does NOT have full jurisdiction over illegal aliens, otherwise we would not have to notify their countries when we arrest them, especially if they receive the death penalty.
We don’t notify their countries if they are arrested.
If we want to execute someone for a crime….let’s say they are from Mexico…now what exactly is Mexico going to do about it? Just asking.
Technically, the word born establishes how citizenship is determined.
I have heard all sorts of FAIR type mumbo jumbo about how “anchor babies” [cringe] aren’t really citizens and how the Constitution is wrong, yada yada yada. It really alters nothing. I have also read how Obama isn’t really a citizen and how the United States really few planes into their own buildings.
And I don’t care what the author meant. He’s dead. We don’t really know what he meant and it doesn’t matter. The 14th passed the ratification test. Plus I am sure my ancestors and yours didn'[t care much for it at the time. BFD. They got it. We got it.
so, here we go. Another big topic that Congress has failed at – a Republican Congress, a split Congress and a Democratic Congress. But blame the Dem’s for all that is bad.
Neither side wants to fix immigration – the donors to both parties do not want to fix it. Why would one think they will fix it.
I can live with what Newt said.
@Moon-howler
“You understand that almost no one from any Latin American country can come here legally now?”
My coworker got married last year in Pakistan and hasn’t seen his wife since. She’s formally immigrating in and it’s still in process. He hopes to have her here next year.
Sure it’s not Latin America but if he can (eventually) get his wife in from Parkistan I would imagine it can be done from any country.
“I think there would be less illegal immigration if there was more opportunity to do it legally. I can’t think of anyone who wants to be an illegal immigrant.”
Even being an illegal here is better than being a citizen in pretty much the rest of this planet. I do agree that our country has many magnets that encourage immigration (legal and illegal). Thong bikini’s, Playstation 3, cable TV, education, not getting shot at a protest and having the bill sent to your family.. Those are also magnets. People WANT to come here because we are the best country in the world — that’s an awesome magnet. But, it also means we have to be smart about who we’ll admit. For those that don’t make the cut – sorry. If you don’t make the cut AND you decide to break our laws and come in anyways you are a criminal and should be treated as such. (Sorry Mom!!!)
Yes, I am for reform. I think the immigration system should work like a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit. The govt has x days to disqualify an applicant. If they can’t find a disqualifier in that time frame – welcome to America. 10 years to work through the process? Nope. 180 days max with time added to get a criminal background check from the country of origin/presence.
Maybe that’s something else. The “Welcome to America kit” should have a 9mm handgun. Maybe that’s how you put lipstick on this pig??
@Cargosquid
Wrong. Familiarize yourself with ITIN numbers.
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=222209,00.html
I was blown away by Newt’s comments. Hit pretty close to home for me! Thank God there are still some rational thinkers out there.
Can’t remember who said something about how do they prove how long they have been here…in addition to ITIN numbers, my husband has had a SS number since we applied for his status change 8 years ago that was not approved. So we have filed every year using that number that is associated with him and always will be and before that he used an ITIN. He wasn’t forced out of the country via deportation and they have never come looking for him since he was told he was not eligible to legalize his status. Luckily, our son is 10 years old now so we have definitive proof that he has been in the country at least 10 years.
And it makes you wonder, what exactly does it take to make some beaurocrat give the thumbs up and do a status adjustment!