All he said was, “Let’s be humane in enforcing the law.” That was my reaction last night when Newt Gingrich argued that the federal government should refrain from deporting illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. for many years if the effect would be the break up of a family.
I did not take him to be proposing a new law conferring amnesty. To do what the former Speaker proposed would require no change in U.S. law. All you’d need is the sensible application of prosecutorial discretion.
A successful immigration enforcement policy, easily implemented under current law, would secure the borders; use the capability we have to track aliens who enter on visas to ensure that they don’t overstay; and target our finite law enforcement resources at (a) illegal immigrants who violate federal or state criminal laws (i.e., other than the laws against illegal entry), and (b) employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and therefore provide the incentive that induces them to come. (An even better policy would deny illegal immigrants various social welfare benefits, but some of that would involve changes in the law so I put it to the side for present purposes.)
Such a policy would materially reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. — if they can’t work, many will leave and many won’t come in the first place. Such a policy would also call on government lawyers to exercise discretion (as they do in all aspects of law-enforcement) to decide which cases are worth prosecuting. Obviously, if an alien has been here illegally for a number of years but has been essentially law-abiding (again, ignoring the fact that it is illegal for him to reside and work in the U.S.), and if his deportation would have the effect of ripping apart an intact, law-abding family, you don’t bring that case. Such a case is not worth the Justice Department’s time when there are plenty of more serious criminals, including more serious immigration offenders, to pursue.
This is not a radical concept. The Obama administration currently exercises its discretion by not only refraining from any meaningful enforcement of the immigration laws but also preventing states (e.g., Arizona) from enforcing the laws. In stark contrast, the Speaker indicated that a Gingrich administration would enforce the law against illegal aliens — it would arrest and deport many of them. I’m betting that he’d also direct his Attorney General to drop the Obama Justice Department suit against Arizona. And Newt was quick to point out last night that he was talking about a humane enforcement policy. He was not proposing that the illegal aliens who were not prosecuted be given citizenship. They just wouldn’t get prosecuted as long as they didn’t make a nuisance of themselves.
That’s not amnesty. It’s common sense. It would also be a vast improvement over Obama immigration policy. I don’t understand what the hubbub is about.
For what it's worth (nothing) Andy McCarthy will let a GOP candidate get away with anything...as long as his name isn't Mitt Romney.
Have to admit it's fun watching the anti-immigrant NRO bend over backwards to accomodate Newt's amnesty proposal. Some of the hardcores are having none of it, of course...Mark Krikorian and John Derbyshire, I'm looking at you.
But everybody else is covering for Newt as best they can. He's not Romney, after all, and that covers a multitude of sins.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like Mitt Romney and I endorsed him in 2008 after Rudy Giuliani, my former boss and first choice, dropped out. This time around, I haven't endorsed anyone, and if Mitt ends up being the nominee, I'll be supporting him ardently. And the immigration policy I propose here is -- attrition by enforcement -- is the same one I've been advocating here for many years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know why a Republican candidate can't mimic the same policy you just outlined. It's the only reasonable, realistic and pragmatic solution to the problem of illegal immigration that I have seen. Secure the border, deport those who commit crime - any crime, including DUI - forcefully enforce the laws pertaining to employers and the rest of it will take care of itself in due course.
I think if you had Romney strapped to a waterboard, this also happens to be the exact same policy that he'd advocate for. Of course, I understand why Romney says something different: He just doesn't have the political capital to spend on this issue.
I think I'm going to vote Romney, if for no other reason than I think he has a marginally better chance of beating Obama than Gingrich does (and make no mistake, it's a Gingrich/Romney race, period).
But, if Gingrich gets the nomination and beats Obama, I don't think there will be any material difference between how a President Gingrich addresses problems and how a President Romney would address those problems. This is especially true for immigration - and I'm fine with that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow is it that many NRO commenters think that the publication will tolerate anything out of a candidate because he is not Romney, while many others claim NR is peering out of Romney's tank? The magazine officially endorsed Mitt four years ago; can it really be true that its editors have changed their minds so drastically as Casey Abell suggests?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMoreover, does the resolution of this question really matter? It would be nice if the discussion in this forum could rise above petty accusations of being "in the tank" for one or another candidate. Let's argue about WHY one is better than another. Save the questioning of motives and accusations of bad faith for the left -- where they are far more frequently persuasive.
As I said, the real immigration hawks on NRO have been lambasting Gingrich for his amnesty proposal. So I'm not accusing the entire site of being in the tank for anybody.
But if Romney had outlined such an amnesty proposal last night, I think the reaction on the Corner would have been, let's say, a bit less forgiving. Oh, why be coy? The Corner, including Andy McCarthy, would have gone ballistic, bonkers and bananas over such an amnesty proposal from Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, in 2008 I was for Romney over McCain. While I have not completely committed to any candidate, Romney is definitely in the group I am seriously looking at.
If I in the end go with somebody else, have I really "so drastically changed my mind"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Newt is just marginally better than Mitt and don't intend to vote for either. But Newt is right about this (as was Perry) and McCarthy laid out a very doable approach to the problem. I just can't see why so many are so hardcore DEPORT THEM ALL RIGHT NOW!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProsecutorial discretion?
By that you mean that the chosen, the enlightened, those doing the Lord's work can lean on whomever they particularly dislike, and excuse those for whom they feel sympathy?
I thought that was settled a while back, by Hammurabi.
Oh, wait - you're a former prosecutor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNever mind.
So ... you think every crime gets charged? And since we all know the system could not possibly charge every crime it became aware of, how to you figure decisions have always been made about who gets charged and who doesn't? Would you really want to live in a place where there was no prosecutorial discretion and every crime got charged?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Would you really want to live in a place where there was no prosecutorial discretion and every crime got charged?"
Actually, Andy, yes, I would. It would be the most free place I could imagine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCouldn't agree more! It seems like most of us have lost our ability to exercise common sense judgment. We've replaced it by thinking only in terms of polar extremes. Not good, and certainly not wisdom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"That was my reaction last night when Newt Gingrich argued that the federal government should refrain from deporting illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. for many years if the effect would be the break up of a family.
I did not take him to be proposing a new law conferring amnesty. "
But amnesty is the end effect, which is easy to see unless you have been judged mentally incompetent or are completely dishonest.
It is not by a new law, but by a new standard of enforcement. Don't want to break up a family that has been in the US for many years? All you need is another family member somewhere in the US and a claim (unverifiable) that you have been in the US for many years.
And then guess what - by newt's (and your) standard, we can't deport them, because we would be 'breaking up the family'.
This proposal would not pass the smell test if it was proposed by barack obama. But have a republican propose it and it's suddenly a sensible policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is not how discretion works. You investigate the case. If the guy is committing serious crimes, it doesn't matter if he's been here for 5 minutes or 50 years, you prosecute him. Breaking up a family is one of many factors you take into account, but not the only one. Many, many criminal cases result in families being torn apart. If the offender is serious enough, you bring the case even though innocent victims (e.g., the defendant's children) are going to be hurt. But if the offense is relatively minor, an intact, law-abiding family may indicate that prosecution (as opposed to, say, deferral in contemplation of dismissal) is the more reasonable way to handle the case. That is how all law-enforcement works -- not just immigration enforcement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. McCarthy desperately needs to take a step back, a deep breath, he is sinking regretfully.
It is sad to see...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh cut the crocodile tear act, old f#*t, your headbanging "conservatism" is getting old.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you consider the following to be crimes???
Document Fraud
ID Theft
Social Security Fraud
Tax Fraud
Virtually every illegal has committed at least one of these crimes. Should this illegal activity not count just like the illegal entry?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You investigate the case. If the guy is committing serious crimes, it doesn't matter if he's been here for 5 minutes or 50 years"
So let me understand this - the same people who say the government can't possibly deport 12 million illegal aliens can now manage 'discretion' and investigative casework on those same 12 million illegal aliens?
Which takes more time: Deporting an arrested illegal alien, or interviewing the illegal alien, investigating their story, their background, and their family connections to determine if it meets some nameless government worker's definition of an acceptable family breakup?
Your idea doesn't pass the smell test. It's not logical - the only way you can profess to believe that is that if your ultimate goal is non enforcement of the law and a creation of a new class of illegal aliens immune from deportation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"That’s not amnesty. It’s common sense. It would also be a vast improvement over Obama immigration policy. I don’t understand what the hubbub is about."
...and you never will understand. That's the problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Obama administration currently exercises its discretion by not only refraining from any meaningful enforcement of the immigration laws"
What?
Then how do you justify headlines like:
"Obama administration reports record number of deportations"
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell James, the recent numbers for GDP were again readjusted lower than originally offered. Revealing the old gimmick of manipulation yet again.
Do you believe these numbers being reported?
Do you believe the unemployment remains at 9%?
Do you still trust an Administration which lied about GITMO, rendition, transparency, taxation, wiretaps, detention, the Patriot Act, drone assassinations, AARP support, stimulus, Iraq, Afghanistan, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, bipartisanship, Israel, Libya, Fort Hood, etc, etc?
But perhaps the simple reality can be reviewed. WE know deportation numbers should have grown as the Bush Administration streamlined and improved the process, they had made sincere gains in dealing with the long negligence in dealing with the enormous problems. However, with the increase in Illegal Immigration created by the Democratic Partisan enabling, those numbers of claimed increases in deportation become little encouragement due to the massive numbers of those who are coming in Illegally.
An amusing friend used to order an extra dish of fries, only to claim success when he did not eat all on the second plate. Nearly every month, he would double his consumption of the tasty french fries, yet more and more would be "deported" by being left uneaten. He was still increasing his intake immensely, while claiming an increase in "not eating".
We see similar logic applied to all sorts of Democratic Partisan sophistry, including the massive loses with Fannie and Freddie. The disaster grows, as the claims of small gains simply highlight the comedy of enormous error.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse