Conservatives To Take Newt Gingrich To Woodshed Over Immigration Remarks In Debate
Wednesday there will be many taking Newt Gingrich to the proverbial woodshed over the immigration response the candidate provided at the CNN debate.
The fact is that the more humane and reasoned positioning of the former House Speaker on immigration is a correct one. By that I mean there is no way that long-term immigrants to this nation who have homes, families, and community connections should be deported.
It is repugnant to most people to think these immigrants should be deported.
That however will not stop an all out assault from conservatives against Gingrich over the matter.
Wiser heads within the GOP might think twice about lashing out against immigrants.
I say that as Hispanics are the country’s fastest-growing group. They have increased 43% since 2000, and more than doubled since 1990, to 50.5 million last year. Hispanics account for nearly one in six U.S. residents and for 23% of people under the age of 18. Gingrich knows how to count electoral votes, and understands, as his response proves, that he also knows the long-term needs of his party means it can not continue to be anti-immigrant.
Newt Gingrich ended up to the left of his GOP rivals on immigration during a CNN debate on Tuesday, defending his position that the United States shouldn’t deport every illegal immigrant while the other presidential hopefuls accused him of supporting magnets that attract illegal immigration.
“I don’t see any reason to punish someone who came here at three years of age and wants to serve the United States of America,” Gingrich said, adding that those whose parents brought them to the country illegally but want to serve in the U.S. military should be included in a program that lets foreigners earn citizenship through military service.
Gingrich said he found it hard to believe that Americans would support deporting millions of people, and that visas should be made available for those with math and science skills.
But he also made it clear that flexibility would apply only to those who had been contributing positively to the nation for years, not to those continuing to flout U.S. immigration laws.
I think Newt Gingrich is correct on this issue, and many more. The fact that he is a viable candidate, and hopefully the next President of the United States, bothers a lot of pundits… but should be encouraging to folks who have had enough of the same old thing in Washington D.C. There are a whole bunch of people running scared, including Obama and many of the Republican hopefuls…. as well they should be. I’m tired of the media deciding elections… and in hopes that it will finally end.
Principle is important–I know we agree about this.
I think that Gingrich’s comments are rational–that honorable military service should be rewarded with a swift path to citizenship (for the service person, a spouse, and dependants, too), and that immigrants with specialized skills or talents should likewise be given “unique” opportunities. I likewise agree that at this point in time most Americans would not support mass deportation; when things geet really bad, however, this will likely change.
Most conservatives, however, do not see these positions as inconsistent with aggressive border enforcement and the absolute demand that federal, state, and local units of government enforce immigration laws. It is in this light that Newt’s comments seem to support and encourage one of the long standing and hypocritical games our government runs. Were I a candidate, I would immediately suspend any federal funding to units of government who chose to ignore the law. What kind of nation allows officials to choose which laws to enforce–and then advertise the fact? I know, of course, that there are many such laws, not just those which deal with immigration.
But an equal problem is your analysis of demographic trends and that they should determine policy. Principle should determine policy. Should Republicans oppose tax increases merely because they fear a conservative base would abandon them? Should Democrats oppose spending cuts merely to protect their numerous special interest groups? It is with continual disappointment that we citizens watch time and time again as politicians look to the next election rather than the welfare of our nation.
I think we both would agree that facts and analysis of data–tempered by ethical considerations should determine immigration reforms which could meet the needs of hispanics, asians, africans, and others who wish to come to America and contribute. Hispanics, of course, deserve no special treatment because they can more conveniently sneak across our borders.