Category Archives: Illegal Immigration

Bill Kristol Wrong on Romney’s Immigration Stance

Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday

Bill Kristol was on Fox News Sunday this morning as part of the panel and when host Chris Wallace brought up Newt Gingrich’s much publicized comments on immigration from last Tuesday’s debate. And I was surprised to hear him regurgitate the same false statement that Mitt Romney held the same view as Gingrich four years ago.

I’m sure he’s referring to the 14 seconds of selectively edited video of Romney talking with Russert on Meet the Press in 2007 that Gingrich and many of the conservative media reported about last week. Surprised that Kristol, who usually does his homework on all topics, doesn’t know Romney’s true stance on immigration.

Here is the excerpt from Fox News Sunday

WALLACE: Let me ask you about that, Bill, because Gingrich’s opponents are clearly treating this as a major blunder. Mitt Romney said that this idea of giving legal status to long-time, law-abiding immigrants, illegal immigrants is amnesty and it is a magnet that encourages more people to come across the border. And Michele Bachmann, who’s got everything riding in Iowa, said that this shows that Gingrich is the most liberal Republican candidate when it comes to that issue. They clearly think it is a weakness.

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: Yes, Mitt Romney does — I believe he had the exact same position four years ago, so he can explain why Newt Gingrich is now wrong to take a position that he himself took four years ago.

Newt Gingrich knew what he was doing. I was at the debate Tuesday night. He said I am going to get attacked for this. He went out of his way, I would almost say, to propose this, I think showing, because he doesn’t want to run as a presidential nominee of a party that looks ridiculous, honestly, on the immigration issue.

Is the Republican — is Michele Bachmann’s and Mitt Romney’s position — let’s put aside Michele Bachmann, she’s trying to stay alive in Iowa — is Mitt Romney’s position really that we are going to send back 11 or 12 million people who are in this country illegally, including the one million or two million or however many there might be who have been here for 20, 25 years, whose kids are citizens, et cetera? I don’t really believe Mitt Romney believes that. I don’t believe Romney believes that for a minute. And I think Gingrich is willing to run the risk–

 

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Gingrich Nuanced Immigration Policy Makes No Sense UPDATE: The Corner says “It’s dishonest”

Newt Gingrich

Image via Wikipedia

If Newt Gingrich’s goal was to confuse everyone on his immigration policy, well, he’s succeeded. It’s been four days since the last debate and he still is having to clarify his remarks.

Gingrich this morning said the following:

“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.”

What does “a path to legality” mean then? Does it seem like he wants to have both sides of this issue? He says he’s not for amnesty, yet wants to play to the Latino base by telling them he won’t rip apart their families who have been here 25 years. But what about families who have been here 19 years, or 14 or 9?

Here’s Gingrich solution:

Gingrich wants to model his immigration plan for illegals already in the country on the WWII model of the Selective Service System program, which allowed local communities to decide who would be drafted for war. He noted that the program “really tried to take general policy and give it a human face.”

“I think the vast majority [of illegal immigrants] will go home and should go home and then should reapply. I do not think anybody should be eligible for citizenship,” the former speaker said to loud applause in Southwest Florida with his wife, Callista, sitting in the front row of the audience. “I am suggesting a certification of legality with no right to vote and no right to become an American citizen unless they go home and apply through the regular procedures back home and get in line behind everybody else who has obeyed the law and stayed back there.”

So a local community will make the determination if they stay or go. Yeah, that will work. This is the problem with Gingrich, he has so many ideas of what he wants to do with a particular issue, he confuses everyone.

So, let me get this straight…He wants “a path of legality” for those families who have been here an undetermined amount of time, but they can’t vote, and “have no right to become an American citizen” unless they go home and get in line. But it begs the question of why would these people want to go home and get in line when they already have what they want: a way to stay in the country with fear of being deported?

Gingrich is giving illegals another “magnet” –a path to second tier citizenship. Now the question is how many years does one have to be in the country to earn this status? This will only cause more problems long term and will not incentivize illegals to go home and to get in line.

UPDATE: Mark Krikorian of National Review’s The Corner agrees with my assessment and goes further–“It’s dishonest”

UPDATE: Saw this at the Washington Examiner: “Gingrich Supported Bush’s Path to Amnesty”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich signed a letter in 2004 praising President Bush’s plan for comprehensive immigration reform — which gave illegal immigrants a path to citizenship — according to Rep.Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who released the Gingrich letter today.

Related articles

Tagged , , , , , , ,