Missed the debate because of wrestling practice, but it’s hardly surprising that Newt would support amnesty for illegal aliens. After the Pelosi global-warming ad and Dede Scozzafava and “right-wing social engineering,” is it any surprise he’d adopt the left’s line on immigration too? He earned a career grade of D from Numbers USA (they calculate back to 1989). Heck, even Barbara Boxer has a career grade of D+.
But a couple more points are in order. First, there just aren’t very many illegal aliens who have been here 25 years, the duration Gingrich specified as warranting amnesty. The old INS estimated that there were about 5 million illegal aliens in 1996, and the growth rate had been about 300,000 a year, which means that 10 years earlier (i.e., 25 years ago), there would have been about 2 million illegal aliens. Of those, I would guess the majority have in the intervening quarter-century either gone home, died, or finagled a green card (at least one-quarter of each year’s green-card recipients — new “legal” immigrants — are illegal aliens using the federal immigration program to launder their status). So that’s fewer than 1 million people out of the current 11 million illegals who would be covered by the Gingrich Amnesty, and probably fewer than half a million.
But wait — 25 years ago. Hmmmmm. That rings a bell. Did something happen back in 1986 with regard to immigration? Oh, yeah, I remember — Congress passed the one and only amnesty for illegal immigrants, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), that legalized close to 3 million illegals (there had been about 5 million, so about 2 million remained after the amnesty, because they didn’t meet the law’s requirements). That was supposed to be followed by tough enforcement to prevent future illegal immigration and to throw out the resident illegals who didn’t qualify for the amnesty (or who failed to lie their way to a green card, since a large share of those successfully claiming amnesty, perhaps as many as one-quarter, did so fraudulently — among the liars was Mahmud “The Red” Abouhalima, a leader of the first World Trade Center attack).
So the Gingrich Amnesty would cover illegal immigrants here when Congress passed IRCA. That is to say, it would pick up where the previous amnesty left off, legalizing precisely those people who didn’t qualify for IRCA. This just underlines what a chump you have to be to support any deal offered you by amnesty supporters.
Which is why “enforcement first” is the only way to go: consistent, unapologetic, across-the-board enforcement of the immigration law at our consulates overseas for visa applicants, at the borders, and inside the country, especially at the worksite — without preconditions or deals or grand bargains. Only after we’ve done that consistently — comprehensively! — for a sustained period of time and attrition has reduced the total illegal population by half or more is amnesty for some of those remaining even a legitimate topic for debate. For prudential reasons I might well be for amnesty under those conditions — I’m not an absolutist on the issue (though I don’t like second-class citizenship — if you’re going to amnesty someone, just do it and steer clear of Helen Krieble’s silly “red card” gimmick, which was the source of Mike Pence’s amnesty plan, too). But amnesty can only be the final chapter, not an opening gambit.
Get ready for the onslaught of 'conservatives' calling you and anyone who disagrees with newt racists, anti-immigrant, nativists, xenophobic, mean, hateful, stupid, etc.
Funny thing about calling people who are against illegal immigration racists: Many of the strongest critics of illegal aliens from mexico are the mexicans who came here legally and their children. They can't stand them and are harsher than americans whose families have been here for generations.
Same goes for 'anti-immigrant'. The people who come here legally resent that illegal aliens get to break the laws they had to follow to the letter - and get rewarded for it instead of punished.
So exactly who does newt think he's going to appeal to with this? Besides the left and the squishy "I'm a conservative but we can't deport them all so why not try amnesty" crowd, I mean.
Maybe newt thinks these illegal immigrants will turn into real twitter followers unlike the huge batch of fake ones he had earlier this year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen, Mark. Finally sanity returns to the Corner.
While I've enjoyed Newt's media bashing as much as the next guy, his positions on immigration, global warming, ethanol subsidies, among others are NOT conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen, Mark. Finally sanity returns to the Corner.
While I've enjoyed Newt's media bashing as much as the next guy, his positions on immigration, global warming, ethanol subsidies, among others are NOT conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot racist, but certainly extremist in viewpoint. Knee-jerk extreme.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's extremist- expecting our laws to be respected and enforced?
Or is it proposing immigration standards that are actually weaker than what Mexico already has in place?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's a trip down memory lane.
The Romney Amnesty:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJimr3.....thank you for clearifying Romneys real stance on this issue. Talk about a flipper....WOW!! Today....he's has lambasted Newt on this.......and Newt DID NOT say he was for Amnesty.....but rather the opposite. People do NOT listen closely to what Newt actually said......so tell those idiots to go back and actually listen to what he said. To add....can you imagine 11 million people leaving this country as we kick them all out.......It will be percieved as the next holocost......People need to get real about all this and get off thier high horse....really.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy hasn't Mark Krikorian been all over this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks, Mark, for doing what the media -- including National Review -- is not doing: Actually examining Gingrich's positions.
It seems there has been a lot of hype from one "challenger" GOP candidate to the next -- from Bachmann to Perry to Cain, and now Gingrich. Although I do like Bachmann and Cain, Perry and Gingrich are disasters -- true dealmaker politico-types who side with the political class rather than the American people on the core issue of illegal immigration.
Enforcement -- for a number of years, and in earnest -- must come absolutely first before we can ask about amnestying the tiny fraction of those illegals left. (And for them, it will be a question of going to their homeland and getting to the end of the line.) Gingrich is a threat to America because he patently fails to understand this. As I said, he's a political wheeler-dealer type and if he thinks he can buy votes, or win points with one lobby or another (maybe one of the lobbies he himself is currently getting paid by!), he'll sell us and our country all down the river.
Bottom line: Heck no to Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt now has about as much a chance of getting my vote as Rick Perry does. Might as well have Juan McCain running again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusefranke.... I see that you fell into the RP and Lib montra.......Newt did not say that he is for amnesty and giving citizenship to illegals. Go watch the replay of exactly what he said. Specifically.....and basically....giving those that have been here a "green card" and not making them citezens of this country so they DO NOT have a right to vote or any perks thereof that any Cititzen of this country enjoy. Please....get your facts straight before making comments......
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd Jorge' Bush, who went backwards on the subject of illegal immigration, to the surprise of no one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt never said that the people would be granted citizenship. You may be making that assumption, but it was not said. There are millions of people legally in this country that are not citizens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd you really think when Democrats get back in power they would "never" give citizenship to the amnestied illegals? If so I have a bridge to sell you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBarbara Boxer has a better grade against illegal immigration than Newt Gingrich!
Barbara Boxer!
(The next person who tries to tell you that Newt is in any meangiful way a conservative, merley point out that he is to the left of Boxer on illegal immigration and has been since 1989)!
Once again Mark Krikorian is proving that he is the only writer worth reading at NRO.
Thank you Mark for exposing the truth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn repeatedly stating that "Congress passed" IRCA, you leave out a crucial fact, so inconvenient for conservatives: Ronald Reagan signed it. For a movement so relentlessly harkening back to the greatness of Reagan, I would think it to be at least mildly inconvenient that the Gipper signed the single most progressive piece of Federal immigration legislation in the last 30 years (and probably longer, but I don't have the expertise to say). Krikorian and other immigration hawks should have the courage to acknowledge that fact when referencing IRCA and also acknowledge just how far the immigration debate has moved to the right over the last 25 years.
Follow the following link for just one example of the kind no-good freeloader who gained citizenship as a result of Reagan's IRCA....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Thanks for pointing out the fact that Reagan signed the amnesty bill in 1986. You are right he deserves the blame for this blunder. Keep in mind however that he didn't come to this position because he thought amnesty was a great idea. Reagan signed the bill for the enforcement mechanisms that it provided -- which were only possible to get into law by signing an amnesty with the liberals.
Well we all know how that turned out. The amnesty was immediate and irrevocable and the enforcement was promised and never delivered upon -- lesson learned. Thanks in part to Reagan's amnesty bill, he could never win election as Governor of California if he were alive today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReagan naively believed the Liberals/Democrats when they claimed that the IRCA would end illegal immigration, secure the border and end illegal immigration employment through workplace enforcement. Of course, liberals had no intention of supporting the border security and immigration enforcement provision in the IRCA. All they wanted was the amnesty for future votes.
Ted Kennedy was the prime dirty purveyor of this charade. The liberal deceit of 1986 must be a lesson for all - no amnesty NEVER EVER again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs someone who voted for Reagan, twice, I can only say that his signing of the IRCA in 1986 was a very big mistake. I wrote him at the time and said it will prove to be a huge incentive for future illegals to make the border crossing. Because of the lax border control and no enforcement, the "one time Amnesty," has burdened us with maybe as many as 20 million illegals in our country.
Reagan's signing of TEFRA was another big mistake and led directly to the bubble and fall of the S&L's several years later. Which further led to the Resolution Trust Corp., etc. Congress always manages to come to the aid of the K Street gang and all their buddies. Very evident even in GWB's and BHO's terms....
This is one conservative who remembers all too well the obvious shortcommings of Reagan's second term. Not to mention GWB and his "compassionate conservatism."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark Krikorian,
You are as usual 100% correct.
I wish the rest of the pundits on NRO even had a tenth of your character and consistency.
Thank you for bringing some sanity back to the Corner and NRO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse