Gingrich’s interview yesterday with Jorge Ramos of Univision (video and transcript) had a telling moment that I think gets at the basic policy disagreement about illegal immigration. Ramos asks what Gingrich would do with the vast majority of illegal aliens who wouldn’t qualify under his phony-baloney draft board scheme:
JR: But what I was saying is that you are proposing a legalization plan for those who have been here more than 20 years.
NG: Right.
JR: Naturally you are leaving outside the majority of the 11 million undocumented immigrants.
NG: Right.
JR: So what will you do with them?
NG: I would urge them to get a guest worker permit.
JR: Which you know they are not going to get it.
NG: Why?
JR: Because the law says otherwise.
NG: No, because we’re writing a new law, Jorge. You and I are sitting here talking about a new law. We can write a law which makes them eligible to apply for the guest worker permit.
In other words, all illegal aliens would get amnesty, it’s just that some would get a green card and others would a card of a different color. This is a distinction without a difference.
But what the exchange highlighted for me is the basic disagreement over the purpose of immigration law enforcement. Maybe this is obvious, but Gingrich and other supporters of amnesty say they favor things like mandatory E-Verify and all the rest, and they may even mean it, but only prospectively — i.e., only as a deterrent to future illegal immigration. They want all illegal aliens already here to be able to stay. Former congressman Bruce Morrison put it concisely speaking on a panel last year about a report demonstrating that Arizona’s 2007 E-Verify law induced a significant number of illegal aliens to self-deport. He bemoaned the finding, saying “the conversation about employment verification at the worksite should be a prevention conversation as opposed to an enforcement conversation.”
If I were to boil it down to a slogan, it would be “Every illegal alien’s departure is a tragedy.”
Immigration hawks, on the other hand, see a dual purpose for immigration law: both as a deterrent for the future and as a way to induce a significant share of the illegal immigrants already here to leave. In this way, the illegal population would decline over time, through attrition, allowing us to back out of a problem over time that took us time to get into. This would also ensure that our enforcement measures — even for prospective purposes — had time to be implemented and fine-tuned and overcome judicial and budgetary attacks. A debate over the prudence of amnesty might be appropriate a number of years down the line, after the size of the illegal population was reduced and the enforcement mechanisms put in place, but right now it’s not even a legitimate topic for discussion.
In a word, the amnesty party has its own version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, where the United States has a one-way border — once you get across you never have to go back the other way.
Probably no issue of existential import has been so obfuscated as the one of illegal immigration. The media and alien exploiting elites have done a magnificent job of hiding the facts.
Start off with the very number of illegal aliens, now carved in stone as 11 million. That number first showed up in 2003, and has essentially been unchanged since then. This in spite of the acknowledgement of border officials that the numbers of annual border-crashers is over one million, which alone would suggest that the numbers approach 20 million now. Simple observation would tell you that the footprint of illegals has grown immensely since 2003, from primarily border states and isolated pockets to everywhere today - even Hawaii, Alaska, Maine, Minnesota. If 11 million is a valid number, then to keep it constant there must have been a million self-deportations to keep it there given that acknowledged new influx. I though self-deportation in the millions was not possible.
Ask any of the amnesty proponents that would it be OK to give amnesty to exactly 11 million, but forbid it to anyone over that number, and they will not accept it. They know there are millions more "in the shadows".
Gingrich shows that with regard to illegal immigration, there really are two classes - the vast majority of Americans by numbers of 65-85% who want it stopped and definitely not rewarded, and the political, commercial, and media elites who are unaffected by the scourge of illegal immigration that is devastating the majority's life style, safety, and pocketbooks.
Newt like amnesty - it doesn't affect him and might pander up some votes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou didn't address the self-deportation argument. The current poor U.S. economy hasn't resulted in any measurable number of self-deportations. For self-deportation to work, the U.S. has to either have a worse economy than Mexico or no "under the official/IRS radar" economic activity which even the USSR at its most powerful was not able to impose. Talk about a "phony-baloney" scheme.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a LEGAL immigrant to this country - my first set of "furniture" 15 years ago was made of used cardboard boxes. This year my resolution is to become a "one-percenter"and I am on the way to make it there, no matter who is in the office. I know well the mentality of people who cross the border. If I couldn't get my legal visa I would happily do the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCurrent illegals self-deport not because they are afraid, but because the don't see their "American dream" happening in the current economic conditions. They start living Brazilian or Peruvian dream - free , unregulated red-blood Capitalism with opportunity seemingly within reach. I don't see press mention it , just as I don't see in US news reports that for the first time ever Rio and Sao Paulo office real estate prices topped those of Manhattan. There is flight in the lowest and highest ranks of opportunity seekers.
People cross the desert and climb any fences to our side to pursue American dream , not to get on welfare or food stamps. We should keep it that way - reward the most successful and discourage lazy me-too types who do not have the drive to succeed . We should not emulate UK which is a magnet for welfare seekers of all nations. Nobody goes to England to work , it is too regulated , too class-entrenched....
Newt is absolutely right on a money when he talks about guest worker program. How difficult is it to implement and give people a chance? It should be renewed on a set basis or discontinued if by some miracle we have a baby boom or invasion of cheap Japanese robots. We shouldn't repeat Germany mistake with guest workers from Turkey giving their offspring residency. No, it should be pure and simple work contract. If you don't work you get out. Opportunity should be given to the most successful workers , ones who do not send money abroad but instead save to buy their own business - to remain in this country and change the status to one of investor.Others should stay only as long as their work permit is renewed .There should be NO PATH to citizenship attached to guest worker permit given to those who enter illegally. There should be NO CITIZENSHIP granted to children born to parents who are in US illegally. And we should happily provide schooling and health care to all those in need BUT SEND THE BILL TO MEXICO CITY and deduct it from our check for their oil. Very simple.
Day 143 of Mark Krikorian savaging Newt Gingrich's immigration position while saying not one word of Mitt Romney's. 7 more days and he'll qualify for an official "Credibility Under Siege" logo.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTeflon, It's telling that you made no effort to defend Gringrich's immigration policy. I don't blame you, it's amnesty and it's wrong. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder if that is really that different from what Romney is saying when he talks about self-deportation and 'getting in line.' He doesn't sound bad on the border, e-verify, and 'illegal' immigration in general. What is he saying on legal immigration, if anything? Is there anything indicating that he (or the rest of them) aren't going to declare 'border victory' and then open the flood gates for 'legal' immigration? Shouldn't anyone who the record indicates was here illegally be barred from 'getting in line'? But maybe this isn't what Romney is saying. I'm open to that and appreciating that he appears to be the only one at least talking tough on the border. BTW, care to address news that Tancredo will be endorsing Santorum? Thanks!
Gingrich not only favors legalizing illegals, he favors legalizing the flow of illegals as guest workers. This makes him worse than Obama.
He was also against e-verify back in 1996 and used his power as speaker to kill mandatory e-verify. NumbersUSA has the details.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse