What bugs me most about Gingrich’s amnesty thing is the depressingly familiar dishonesty. As Katrina reports, he says:
I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally. 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. [emphasis added]
Put aside the problems with amnesty — implementation riddled with fraud, a magnet to future illegal immigration, insincere promises of future enforcement, playing legal immigrants for chumps, etc. What’s really grating is the Orwellian attempt to redefine words, telling people words don’t mean what they think they mean. “Path to legality” joins “regularization,” “normalization,” “earned-status adjustment,” and all the other sleazy euphemisms we’ve been hearing for years now. If illegals are permitted to stay, that’s an amnesty, whatever the conditions. If you want to make a case for amnestying long-established illegal aliens, that can be an honorable position, but call it for what it is. Don’t lie to voters, imagining they’re too stupid to see through your deceit. There’s nothing brave about euphemism.
Well, to be fair, "amnesty" is an awfully ambiguous term. When most people think of "amnesty" they assume it means forgiveness with no preconditions. Allowing long-established illegals a path to citizenship could be amnesty or it might not be, depending on what the conditions the illegals would have to meet. It's not dishonest or sleazy unless we know what Newt's path to citizen looks like and it's considered too lax. Analogy: a convict is released from prison after serving his sentence. In a broad sense (the way you are using the term "amnesty") this release could be considered amnesty for the convict, however most people would not think of it that way.
One thing I am getting tired of on this blog is the way everyone who posts here seems to be rooting for Mitt. Nearly every post on every other candidate is about how they are dishonest or flawed or some such. I understand that NRO is fully on board for Romney, but the other candidates are not total caca and it would behoove NRO to be a bit more fair. (this is not aimed specifically at Mr. Krikorian, just a general observance after reading some of the posts today).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark, I was happy to see we think alike on Gingrich and this topic:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere may be nothing brave about euphemism, but there's nothing honorable about putting words in people's mouths either. In a sound-bite culture, political opponents or the media delight in getting someone to say one or two specific words that can be use in attack ads or news reports without any of the qualifications and conditions that originally came with them. It is not cowardly for politicians to refuse to let themselves be "set up."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmnesty, by definition, means a forgiveness or pardon for an offense.
Can there be a "path to legality" that is not connected to an amnesty?
Absolutely.
You may set up a system whereas an individual who has been in the country illegally for decades and meets a predetermined set of qualifying traits, can voluntarily identify themselves to the government to be deported, and immediately processed for legal re-entry at the request of family members, unrelated sponsors, or even employers.
In fact. assess a fine and skip the deportation, and you have avoided the amnesty classification.
Words have distinct meanings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLuis, I agree.
People don't have to be given citizenship to be allowed to stay. Have them pay back taxes. Pay a fine. Go through some other steps. If they've haven't broken any other laws, some illegals should be allowed to stay. Some. Not all. It's all in the details.
Letting people stay under those circumstances would not be amnesty.
What's the alternative? Deporting 15 million people. Tying up the courts. Good luck with that.
First thing first. Secure the border.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe already have a law regarding people here illegally. That law calls for them to be, in the end, deported and never return. If we pass a new law that allows them to leave, pay a small fine, and then return that is an amnesty program. My state recently had a tax amnesty program. If you paid the taxes you had failed to pay then they would forgo some of the financial penalty and not prosecute you for tax evasion. That was an amnesty, similar to what Gingrich proposes.
If I had murdered someone and afterwards a law was passed that provided for me to not be prosecuted for murder if I turned myself in, paid a fine, and had some friends vouch for me, would that not be an amnesty?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If I had murdered someone and afterwards..."
Actually, no. What you describe wouldn't be "amnesty".
Louis is quite right. Amnesty is the term for a blanket pardon. With a pardon, your murder is looked at by the law as never having happened and you are absolved of ALL legal consequences related to that crime. Why would you be fined for something that didn't happen? You wouldn't. So, with Amnesty, there would be no fine.
However, Gingrich's proposed plan goes even further than that because in addition to the penalty including all back taxes, there would continuing consequences in the form of a prohibition to citizenship. This would be different than someone who came here legally who would then enjoy an offer of citizenship after a period of time.
Gingrich doesn't propose amnesty. At all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn other words, you think illegal aliens should be allowed in ahead of the 4 million legal immigrants who have been waiting overseas for up to 24 years. Why do you want to penalize the law abiding and reward law breakers?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWatching so-called conservative journalists bash their own never gets old. Also, how transparent that Krikorian hauls out the Romney-approved 'magnet' lie. Don't you and Katrina ever get tired of being Jen Rubin wannabes? Cashing Flip Flopney's checks and pushing his opposition research talking points? Pathetic. Jonah and Rich are the only two that have been moderately fair to Gingrich, so I give them credit where credit's do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLetting illegals become "guest workers" or some form of legal resident is a far cry from granting them citizenship, which is what I expect most people believe to be meant by "amnesty" in the immigration context. Moreover, my understanding is that Gingrich said he would require illegals to return home and get in the back of the line before applying for citizenship.
There are plenty of problems with Gingrich's plan. But it is still several degrees better than Reagan style amnesty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich is as oleaginous as politicians get, and it's no surprise at all that he is pushing amnesty. He has been doing this for years, and it is part and parcel with his entire outlook. That outlook, for that matter, revolves around pushing the special interests that Washington insiders like himself -- and few actual Americans -- want.
Illegal immigration falls under that category, as do cap and trade, endless growth of Freddie and Fannie with their racially biased lending mandates, an ever-expanding government, tax breaks and credits instead of tax reform (Newt was one of the geniuses behind the Earned Income Tax Credit that complicated the tax structure and ended up becoming yet another massive entitlement), to name just a few of Newt's positions.
Any "path to citizenship" is amnesty, and any individual with anything worth its salt perched above his shoulders can tell you. What is not amnesty is to enforce the law, ensure through E-Verify that employers are not hiring illegals in place of citizens, increased border security and increased immigration agents to ramp up work-site and other deportations to get the message out that our laws will be enforced, and forcing all illegals to return to their home country and wait the mandatory five years for breaking our laws before they can apply to legally re-enter.
And our criteria for allowing any work permits, of course, should be reconfigured to be in line with the meritocratic, in-citizens'-interests policies in place in Canada or Australia. We need to stop thinking of immigration as a colonial cheap-labor-importation device and start thinking of it in terms of human capital. That means, first and foremost, letting in the world's skilled, educated and law-abiding (plenty of whom want to be Americans) rather than disenfranchising them for the sake of the unskilled, uneducated, law-breaking and welfare-needing illegals of Mexico and Central America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCould not agree more with Mr. Krikorian...
"Orwellian" indeed.
The entire Primary has taken on "Orwellian" content in so many ways. After one fashionable identity flop after another, now we see a push for an utter contradiction - another Washington Beltway Insider who remains on the payroll of Fannie and Freddie, with no CEO experience and was forced to resign in disgrace years ago. The same who appeared with Nancy Pelosi to peddle Global Warming delusions and labeled Mr. Ryan's fine plan as mere "social engineering". Double plus good!
The absurd, bizarre, silly, etc., can also be used to describe Mr. Kristol's recent performance on Wallace's FNS show today. This is the Beltway Pundit who once pushed for the disastrous McCain. He again provides the most slanted offering for the Public Sector product who is an entrenched Washington Icon without genuine Private Sector accomplishment in the most obtuse manner.
Kristol may have even misrepresented Mr. Romney's consistent position on immigration from 2008, as it remains the same now. Regardless, there is some form of personal emotive slant which is sinking Kristol even further. Very sad to encounter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease pay attention to Newt's "Solutions" on immigration, particularly #6, I would not characterize the hoops that in-the-shadows illegals have to jump through as an amnesty.
External Link
Let's not rely on debate or interview soundbites. The ideas are fleshed out here.
Newt learns from his mistakes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseImmigration is rapidly becoming one of those issues that expose the intellectually dishonest. As someone else observed, Kristol's shameful statements on Fox are a perfect example. Like global warming fanatics, he simply dismisses contrary opinion as unreasonable and immoral. You could tell by the body language that the smarmy little punk was getting physically ill by the mere mention of the subject. The reason, of course, is even a skunk like "Thanks Dad" Kristol knows he is not being honest.
Maybe if we start flooding Georgetown with loitering peasants, blasting out fiesta music at all hours, the elites would have a different take on the issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly. The immigration issue really allows one to see what a person thinks about sovereignty, citizenship, the rule of law, the constitution, state's rights, the role of courts, the role of Congress vs. the president, and so on.
Unfortunately, Newt is taking the Left's position on immigration, and the natural fallout is that he implicitly embraces the Left's position on these corollary issues, whether he realizes it or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, come now, Mr. Gingrinch is being imminently reasonable. There is only so much you can do, I suppose, if someone has decided they aren't going to voluntarily limit themselves and you don't wish to be a jerk yourself. Much better to just quietly give in and have peace of mind, plus whatever else one is allowed, rather than gird one's self for some struggle that will win one no accolades and will probably last for years. It's only a law, anyway...not like this is a nation of laws. It's one of men.
I can only presume Mr. Gingrinch will be proposing "detente" with the illegal alien lobby next...probably for the best. The entire "They lose, we win" mentality on issues of principle is, after all, too simple. And definitely not easy. Easy and sure is winning the opportunity to manage the decline, and I think that is what we should go for, and just give up on this American Exceptionalism business, because it's just too hard and too unpopular sometimes and there doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for it in the popular culture anymore (too racist). Its had its day. Just get rid of the idea. Out with bad rubbish.
Or redefine it to what it is becoming: American Exceptionalism--where people who play by the rules and don't ask a politician to weight the scales in their favor are the exception, and likewise, if you are politically connected, an exception will be found for you for every rule.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's a residency amnesty. There are plenty of legal permanent residents with no desire to become citizens for a variety of reasons, more practical than patriotic. Frequent travel to their birth country, ownership of domestic property, the prospect of extended visits to care for elderly relatives, a safety net in the event of death of spouse and economic hardship, cultural preference for their own burials. The hassle is often with the rules of their birth country, not U.S. rules.
They pay U.S. taxes and, aside from not voting and being excluded from certain work categories (usually defense/govt security-related), they enjoy many of the rights and responsibilities of citizens.
That's what Gingrich is proposing for long-term illegals. To those who played by the rules and spent hours in lines at federal offices and paid thousands to lawyers, as well as every citizen, it's a slap in the face.
Some choice: Romney and the language of management consultants or Gingrich and the doublespeak of beauracrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo I suppose you oppose Mitt Romney for being pro-amnesty as well, right, Mark?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is not feasible to deport 11 million but the 11 million are here due to the magnets of jobs, free health care, food stamps, education and all the things this country offers. I do not blame the immigrants for coming but we cannot continue to support this almost open border policy. Once the border is under control, the magnets shut off, an easier form of getting work visas (now it is a nightmare) and actual citizen status - then we can address the millions that perhaps need to stay due to long term resisdency, family, and their personal behavior. Many criminals (felony type) and those who have left family in other countries just to work here and self deporters will help with the numbers but we cannot have millions more coming while we talk about it. The construction industry has been almost distroyed in wages due to Mexican labor. If we need their labor, fine, just pay them the same and not drive skilled work down to menial wages. Construction non union labor is paid less now than 20 years ago, few are going into the trades. One day when you need something done like a carpenter, there will be none. This is a major problem and needs a pragmatic solution- Romney is right. Yes, he did support a path years ago but they promised to close the border and improve regular immigration but came up with the Z visa which was blanket amnesty which he totally rejected.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMexico deported them here even though they had even deeper roots and family there, there is no reason we cannot deport them back.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse