Ruh-roh: Newt's Immigration Stance Has Tina Brown Digging Him
Q. How does someone seeking the Republican presidential nomination know he might have stepped in it with the people who will actually vote in the primaries? A. When a position he's taken has the likes of Newsweek/Daily Beast editor Tina Brown suddenly saying she likes him, and calling him a "shining star."
Newt Gingrich might thus be having a "ruh-roh" moment this morning. On today's Morning Joe, Brown repeatedly said "I like Newt" and saddled him with her "shining star". It was Newt's position on immigration, in which he called for a "humane" solution that would find a path to "legality" for illegal immigrants, that won Tina's heart--and may have turned off GOP voters from Iowa to South Carolina. Video after the jump.
Watch Brown heap praise on Newt that--considering the source--he can hardly welcome.
TINA BROWN: It was Newt's night. Newt was a shining star last night.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, if you like losing. He's going down.
BROWN: He may be going down, but he was good last night.
SCARBOROUGH: You know what was the biggest shock? Newt Gingrich, who seriously, he can't stand being in front. Because the second he's in first place, he starts looking for the TNT. Really, like, put that, because I want to strap it on. You love Newt now!
BROWN: You know what? I like Newt. I like Newt. I like Newt, I like Newt for the reason that --
SCARBOROUGH: You've got a cover story coming up on Newt --
BROWN: He's craggy, he's got that whole immigration thing.
DAN SENOR: Newt's eyes. There'll be lots of debate about Newt's eyes on the cover of Newsweek.
BROWN: Romney, he just retrofits his entire personality to positions every single time. And at least, in that immigration exchange, Newt just--it was reckless-but I think a little smattering of recklessness actually makes people think this person has a brain, has thoughts.
Cut to clip of Newt making his pitch for a "humane" approach to immigration that will create a path to "legality" for illegal immigrants.
SCARBOROUGH: I mean, that's a Rick Perry moment.
BROWN: Yeah, he strapped on the TNT.
SCARBOROUGH: Major Garrett, he just strapped the same TNT that blew Rick Perry up a couple months ago.
Note: With more praise that Newt could probably do without, Howard Kurtz, writing at Brown's Daily Beast, has an item this morning entitled "Gingrich Seizes the High Ground on Immigration in CNN Presidential Debate."
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Listen up, republican party.
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 9:33am.
Don't make the same mistakes that this adminstration and congress have.
We, the people who employ you with our votes, want illegal aliens out of our country.
Period.
No amnesty, no "path to citizenship". Get out and get in line. As a matter of fact, those who have been waiting patiently can come first. We want law abiding citizens, not freeloaders and criminals.
I'm not so sure Mark.
Submitted by NeoKong on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 9:37am.
I think the more interesting part of that clip was "Republican" Joe Scarborough ripping in to Newt with relish.
Once again he has demonstrated he stands with the other team.
It's one thing to support someone else like ...Mitt Romney for example but a good Republican does not openly bash a fellow Republican on television. The man was mocking what he claims is his own side. Our next nominee will be someone who stood on that stage and clearly Scarborough has no respect for any of them.
This goes back to when Newt
Submitted by rubberneck on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:09am.
This goes back to when Newt was the Speaker. Remember, his party revolted against him, and kicked him out of the leadership position.
What is it that goes back to
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:51am.
What is it that goes back to when Newt was the Speaker?
They rebelled against him after unexpected and embarrassing losses to the Democrats in the '98 mid-term elections, and he resigned.
NEWT
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:33pm.
Not only does Newt pander in the extreme but he has no problem dissembling when it's convenient.
No thanks.
I am supporting Rick Perry.
While I learned to hate the
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 9:49am.
While I learned to hate the phrase "path to citizenship" there is the problem of what to do with 11 million (?) illegals already here.
Let's be realistic: there is no way they can all be found and deported. However, those that are discovered, even if by incidental means, should be deported. Our choices for those who are already here, then, are pretty much let them become legal, or tolerate their living underground in our country.
The big question for me is who will prevent a THIRD wave of amnesty by securing the border?
Sorry, but there is quite a lot
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 3:27pm.
that can be done to deport the 20-30 million illegal aliens residing here. We can:
Require proof of legal residency for every student.
Require proof of legal residency for every public benefit.
Require proof of legal residency and permission to work from every job applicant.
Require valid I.D. and a voter registration card at the polls.
If you still think that we can't deport every illegal alien in the U.S., take a good look at what happened in Arizona and Alabama when laws were passed to discourage illegal aliens from living there. They left in droves, same as in Prince William County, VA.
If you still think it can't be done, research Presidents Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower and illegal aliens. They all ordered mass deportations of illegals during the depression and after WWI and WWII so that americans could have jobs that illegals were filling.
Don't tell me that we can't deport illegals. We've done it before and we'll do it again. The next administration and congress better figure it out, too.
Where are you shawn
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 3:33pm.
Someone wants to deport illegals
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Actually, that is what Newt was talking about
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 6:48pm.
He wanted some sort of "review board"....to determine an illegal's (and his/her family's) "right" to stay or go....based upon length of residency, criminal record(s), paying taxes, etc.
Those who "passed"...would be allowed to stay, but WITHOUT THE RIGHT to a path to citizenship (and most importantly, the right to vote).
Those who failed would be deported, post haste.
It isn't amnesty.
I suspect Newt may be on to something here.
My time spent last year in Central America makes me a little bit more cognizant of what is happening within this community of illegal immigrants. We won't be able to have a "one size fits all" solution.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Any plan is moot without real, actual border enforcement FIRST
Submitted by lsudolemite on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 6:53pm.
I think most people are open to ideas about what to do with the water that's already in the bathtub. But if nobody shuts off the faucet, then it's all meaningless.
PERFECTLY STATED.
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 7:10pm.
Nothing starts before that.
THAT is the bottom line.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
As Peggy Noonan put it
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 7:38pm.
"Build the fence, but put a gate on it".
I'll add that only then can decisions be made in the best interest of the United States.
It is amnesty
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 9:25pm.
Amnesty is about legality, not citizenship. Illegals are given amnesty when you make them legal. Citizenship is not required. Not that it matters anyway. Anyone who believes citizenship wouldn't be next on the agenda is fooling themselves. After all, it would be heartless and humane to not let 80 year old grandmothers obtain citizenship if they want to. How can they assimilate and embrace the American culture if we won't even let them vote?
As for Newt being on to something, he's not even close. His idea of local review boards doesn't make any sense, and is naive at best. May as well save the time, money and lawsuits, get it over with already and just say everyone here illegally is now legal, and then prepare for the next 20-40 million to come and get the amnesty they apparently are owed.
Newt's position may be
Submitted by inquiringmind on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 9:58am.
Newt's position may be unpopular but there is what we would like and then there is reality.
Newt is simply being realistic about this problem.
He's dealing with it and moving on to bigger problems like jobs and rebuilding our reputation in the world as a leader.
Reality, Is What We're Hiring Someone to Change
Submitted by JustAl on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:10am.
If those who employ or knowingly do business with illegals were persued as vigorously as teenagers who want to smoke a joint this problem would be solved within a month.
Justal
Submitted by well99 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:13am.
Or if they own a guitar company.
So you support amnesty?
Submitted by rubberneck on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:10am.
So you support amnesty?
The reality is that
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 3:29pm.
there are illegal aliens leeching off our society to our detriment. We can no longer afford to have them here, we simply don't have the money. They have to be deported. That's what the majority of americans want.
I was just over at
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:04am.
I was just over at townhall.com and here is a post-debate interview with Gloria Borger, in which Newt
expands on his shorter debate answer.
He talks about "legalization without citizenship."
MB: Newt did mention legality
Submitted by Mark Finkelstein on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:06am.
MB: Newt did mention legality without citizenship in his debate statement. It's in the video clip. Still, he's proposing amnesty.
I just read the transcript;
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 11:00am.
I just read the transcript; didn't realize there was a clip from the debate in the video.
I hate to admit it, because in my perfect world they would be, but there is no way 11 million illegals are going to be found and deported.
The important thing for me is who is going to stanch the flow at that border, by whatever means necessary.
I don't understand the all-or-nothing straw man argument
Submitted by lsudolemite on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 7:08pm.
It's like saying we can't prosecute any ID theft without first finding all the ID thieves in the country first. It's absurd. You establish proof of legal residency requirements and procedural grounds to demand proof of such. Those in violation are handled by the legal system. How that happens at that point can range from fines to deportation. There can be some flexibility there, but it's ridiculous to say nothing can be done.
And those of you who think that Newt's legal-but-not-citizen status wouldn't eventually turn into full amnesty are living on another planet. It would be a simple matter for a future Congress, after the leg work has already been done to identify and classify these "legal" residents, to simply grant them full citizenship, complete with suffrage rights.
He talks about "legalization without citizenship."
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 9:29pm.
In other words, he supports amnesty.
Amnesty = Citizenship = Voting
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 9:43pm.
What Newt began to discuss last night was nothing close to that.
But stick your fingers in your ears and yell *la la la la la*. If it makes you feel better, vote for Romney.
It's time for everyone to become adults about illegal immigration. There is NO WAY to deport every illegal. We need to seal the borders, deport everyone who isn't contributing to this society (and their dependents), allow some leeway for those who are contributing, while not giving them a pathway to the front of the line, and streamline and prioritize the legal immigration/naturalization/citizenship of those who will contribute in a significant way to this society.
Grow up.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
1. He supported the
Submitted by rubberneck on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:07am.
1. He supported the individual mandate.
2. He obviously supports amnesty.
3. He peddles his influence all over washington.
4. He considers Ryan's plan social engineering.
5. He wants to end Child labor laws. (LOL)
6. He has no family values.
7. Accepted vast sums of money to lobby for fannie and it's destruction of the economy.
He's no conservative.
Newt
Submitted by well99 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:10am.
No surprise here.You don't have to deport them all at once.It isn't going to happen but you don't give them a free pass like any other criminal.Using someone SS number is a crime.Coming here illegally is a crime.Staying past your visa date is a crime.What other criminal acts are we suppose to ignore.Just post a list so I can see if any look interesting to me.Just a note:I love how Newt gave the most extreme example.He forgot their dog got run over by while car while saving a orphanage.
Tina Brown = Vile Human Being
Submitted by djwolf12 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:54am.
There, I said it. This woman is one of the many dregs of society that only appears on M.S.S.R. (MSLSD) and nowhere else. She appeals to the lowest common denominator, which is why she is only seen by 6 viewers a day.
Newt is a "convenient" conservative
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 11:00am.
And I hate to tell him, but an illegal invader who has been living here for 25 years is not a law-abiding anything.
They are criminals, period.
It is amazing to me how many conservatives have been duped by Newt and RINOmney into believing they are actual conservatives.
Neither of them are, and neither would beat Obama.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave, how do you propose that
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:10pm.
Dave, how do you propose that we round up 11 million illegals and deport them? How long do you think it would take, and at what cost? As I've said, in perfect world, it would happen, but we don't live in a perfect world.
But I do believe that doing it without sealing the border is fruitless. At some point we have to realize that we simply cannot keep absorbing these people. Mexico is all too eager to allow the exodus from there. We have to secure our border, BAMN! to steal an acronym from liberal activists.
~Crack down on them
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:31pm.
By actually enforcing the laws on the books and they'll leave of their own accord. If they can't get a job or a place to live they'll be forced to go back to where they came from.
Do your research.
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 3:31pm.
Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower all ordered mass deportations. They worked.
Give me a break
Submitted by feisty on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 11:06am.
It's certainly sounds tough when everyone else takes these 'no tolerance' stances about immigration. But in reality all of the proposals to simply start kicking everyone out of the country is not going to happen under any administration. You'd have chaos.
Newt's point is perfectly fair and well devised. If you've been here for at least 25 years, you have a clean record, have been paying taxes, obeying the law, have kids and grandkids, etc. WHY should you be thrown out? You are an ASSET TO THE COUNTRY!! Kick out the freeloaders and people sitting around doing nothing and living off my tax dollars.
It's a very practical and compassionate stance and something that will work.
The rest of the pirates of the GOP can talk tough all they want but their plans would never fly.
GO NEWT!!!! GO NEWT!!!!
No chaos.
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 3:33pm.
You'd have legal residents and american citizens going back to work and pulling us out of this recession.
Ahh yes, compassionate conservatism
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:27pm.
It's a very practical and compassionate stance and something that will work.
That's just what we need....more compassionate conservatism. By the way, how well did it work in 1986?
"But in reality all of the proposals to simply start kicking everyone out of the country is not going to happen under any administration. You'd have chaos.'
I know, right. I mean, how would we get our lettuce? Pfffft.
If you've been here for at least 25 years, you have a clean record, have been paying taxes, obeying the law, have kids and grandkids, etc.
So then, if they've been here 24 years, we can kick those out? How is that less heartless, and less chaotic? Don't those folks have families? And by the way, how can they be obeying the law when being in the country is a violation of the law? How can they be obeying the law when working in this country as an illegal is a violation of the law? How can they be paying taxes if :
1. They're getting paid under the table?
2. They're most likely part of the 50% of workers in this country who don't pay federal taxes?
3. If they are paying taxes, whose stolen social security number are they likely using? Oops, there goes another crime we have to pretend these fine, assets to society haven't committed.
WHY should you be thrown out?
Ummm, because you're not entitled to be here?
Sheesh, maybe we should cut drug dealers, wife beaters, pick pockets, etc some slack, as long as they have families, have paid their taxes, work hard, and as long as they haven't broken any laws....well, except for the actual laws they have broken, but we'll look the other way on those.
Give me a break. If you're ok with this, you really have no legitimate reason to be against Obama, because the arguments you folks use to defend illegal immigrants are pretty much the same arguments liberals use to defend their policies....only difference being they're actually arguing on behalf of American citizens and illegals, whereas conservatives are apparently ok with kicking American grandmas to the curb, but not illegal immigrant grandmas.
When you've gained Tina
Submitted by PeskyDane on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 11:11am.
When you've gained Tina Brown, you've lost the country.
A couple of points.1.
Submitted by Captain Repus on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 11:14am.
A couple of points.
1. Someone who has been here illegally for years and has raised a family who is deported could 'take his family with him' - isn't that what you would do?
2. If a more humane solution must be found, a 3 year 'work permit' would allow the illegal a way to plan a graceful exit along with his family and would solve the problem over a reasonable period of time as well as identify the illegal base. This solution would not be offered to anyone who has recently or in the future illegally entered the country.
Seems sort of simple to me, but then I am a mere law abiding U.S. citizen.
Regarding point #2
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 11:40am.
Given the track record for illegal immigrants returning for deportation hearings once notified, I don't think they'd spend 3 years planning for a graceful exit. They may relocate, but within the US, and only to fade back into the background.
The issue has less to do with hunting down 12 million illegal aliens and deporting them, which is how the Obama Administration poses it. It has to do with illegal aliens who are apprehended by law enforcement for committing crimes. When they are in our custody, be it for homocide or DUI, they should be prosecuted, and if found guilty, serve their sentence prior to deportation, or if found innocent, deported immediately.
Actually, my solution is very
Submitted by Captain Repus on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 11:55am.
Actually, my solution is very workable if used in conjunction with VERY STRICTLY enforced use of an e-verify system for ALL employers. If an illegal has zero chance of being employed without a legal work permit registered in the e-verity database he would have no reason not to deport himself and his family.
P.S. The e-verify system should also be used at point of service for all health care, welfare, DMV, and educational institutions to qualify for these services.
Meet has it right! Deportment
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:22pm.
Newt has it right! Deport the family too? If the kids are born in the USA, if the spouse is an American citizen, like the kids, why would you deport them? Break up the family?
Here is a situation that happens more often than not. Person enters legally, falls in love with an American citizen. They marry have children who are American citizens. Spouse's visa expires. Can't leave because it means leaving family for uncertain amount of years. Kids will.grow up in a single parent home. The country the spouse is from is poor,no job opportunities and schools are horrific, political instability. No way American citizen part of the family would be safe. 10 years of marriage go by. Illegal spouse pays taxes, American citizen kids are raised as great American citizens, American citizen spouse is also a good citizen. What do you do? Break up family if illegal spouse found by INS? Or you force American citizen part of the family to leave the USA removing all great opprtunities for American citizen kids and spouse?
When they are in our custody,
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:19pm.
When they are in our custody, be it for homocide or DUI, they should be prosecuted, and if found guilty, serve their sentence prior to deportation, or if found innocent, deported immediately.
Given my druthers, I wouldn't even put them on trial for a DUI, or something like robbery or GTA. You get caught committing a crime, we find out you're here illegally, out you go! Sounds cruel, but why should we care if we send a criminal back to Mexico or wherever without having them serve a prison sentence first? what difference would it make?
Immediate deportation would be a bigger punishment.
Gotta agree, mom.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:37pm.
There are currently nearly 21,000 known illegal aliens (13% of the prison population) in the California Dept. of Corrections costing nearly $1B a year. That rounds out to $47,600 per year per illegal alien. Why on earth would we "invest" (as the Left is so fond of saying) that kind of money in one of these idiots when we can send them home. Then if they're caught in the US again for A-N-Y reason it's 10 years minimum just for returning PLUS what ever the sentence is for their other crime.
It's a bogus argument anyway
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 11:07pm.
1. Someone who has been here illegally for years and has raised a family who is deported could 'take his family with him' - isn't that what you would do?
That's exactly what they could do. And that's what legal citizens of this country do every year, as they're forced to separate from their family for one reason or another....like say, the military for example. How many families have been torn apart by sending young men and women off to die in foreign countries? Enough that I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over forcing someone who isn't supposed to be here to go back where they came from.
By the way, isn't it interesting how we never hear about these poor families being separated when the father willingly leaves the family behind to come here illegally so he can earn money to send back home? I guess all separations are equal, but some are more equal than others.
we can logically start with
Submitted by sometimesright on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:53pm.
i agree. illegals in our prison system are an excellent place to start. they're obviously not taking care of a family therefore the argument of "destroying families" is invalid.
i suggest enforcing mexico's immigration laws(since most illegals in CA. ARE mexican).
1.) The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life.
2.)The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.
3.)The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.
4.) An immigrant who becomes Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).
5.)The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
pretty harsh huh? remember this when illegals and their constituents tell you you're a racist for wanting to protect borders. living here in Ca. that's all i ever hear.
Sometimesright, Yes, you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 9:59pm.
Sometimesright,
Yes, you are 100% right, the Mexican Constitution is pretty harsh and in fact until recently, even with its citizens, you were considered guilty until proven innocent.
However, we are the BEST nation in the world. We are the United States of America. Two wrongs never make a Right.
That being said, I do remind the open border crowd of how Mexico treats its illegals and I ask them why they aren't protesting Mexico. Illegals in America are treated as if they were in Disney World compared to how Mexico treats its illegals and that is a very good thing!
I'll take Newt's experience over jingoistic tripe of the R or L
Submitted by CT on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:44pm.
With Newt Gingrich we finally have a candidate with the courage to take up the issue of illegal immigration and offer a realistic and thoughtful plan. More statesman like than any other candidate in either party. Way to go Newt truly a thinking man's President.
Newt is the one candidate who
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:10pm.
Newt is the one candidate who has it right. One thing I wish he would have said is that America must achieve border security.
1) Establish a real and strong border security. I am all for having a permanent National Guard presence in the border of all the States who border Mexico. Give them liberal rules of engagement and the power to detain illegals. Put a few tanks at the border and the psychology affect will be amazing.
2) Deport all convicted criminals in our penal system. I have never understood why our tax dollars go to these criminals.
3) It is physically and economically impossible to deport all illegals who have not committed a crime. Thus, create a path to legalisation. If the illegal can prove that they have paid their taxes and been an asset to American society, legalize them. However, I would add one thing, fine them. Put a steep fine that hurts, but doesn't exclude them. The law was broken, there must be a penality for this break. But you can't deport individuals who have married American citizens, legal residents and who may now have children who are American citizens.
When I heard Newt talk about immigration last night I, as a Conservative Latino, jumped up with joy. I have always liked him, I think he may have a lot of baggage to deal with, but he may still get my vote in the primaries. Not that it matters by the time it gets here to Illinois, though. :-(
There is a reality that must be faced that too many Conservatives and Republicans, in my humble opinion, do not realize or are aware. The Latino community is very Conservative when it comes to many social issues. We are against abortion, we are against homosexuality, we are against the social engineering going on in our public schools, we are pro-family, we are pro-marriage. Most Latinos are God fearing individuals who attend Church (most are Romoan Catholic). One of the biggest issues that keeps Latinos from voting Republican is immigration. If Republicans play their cards right, they could get this group to vote Republican.
There is one other issue, though, that keeps many Latinos voting Democrat, economics. This, though, I get very upset at the Latino community since too many vote Democrat because they believe that all the socio-economic programs, the entitlement programs, created by Liberals are a good thing. In part, I think it is the Republicans fault since Republicans are so terrible at public relations and getting their message out.
There is one other thing,
Submitted by ant on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 10:34pm.
There is one other thing, Obama and the liberal cancer infecting governenment must be cut out or there will never be enough jobs for natural born citizens or immigrants.
I just don't understand that just because the Country has done something in the past (immigration), we are somehow obligated to continue indefinitely. Where is that written? Opportunity and freedom is a big draw to our shores, I understand,(so is picking the fruit of entitlements) but it doesn't have to be exclusive to us. The torch Lady Liberty holds can be obtained by any people in almost any country for themselves.
Of course, as can be seen with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood seizing the reins of revolution, it won't always work out. But Mexico is not Egypt, if illegals can feel compelled to fight for rights and jobs here, why can they not do the same at home? Or am I ignoring the cause of Reconquista?
Seems hypocritical to me that the same liberal mindset that says we have no right to try and export our brand of capitalism/democracy/opportunity has no problem asking the American populace to bend to the will of others. And at the same time praises illegal immigration because "they are looking for opportunity" but in the same breath condemns this Nation and plays 'isolationist'.
Ant, You make good points. I
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 12:51pm.
Ant,
You make good points. I agree that just because something was done in the past, immigration, it does not mean that it should continue forever in the present and/or future.
I will say one thing or give you the reason why my father, a very well educated computer systems engineer, moved to the USA, legally, with his children and wife. Venezuela became a very rich nation from the late 1950s until the 1980s. When the oil deposits were found in Venezuela, the Venezuelan economy boomed! At one point the Bolivar and the Dollar were almost equal in value. But what happened? Corruption, corruption, corruption. We moved to the USA back in 1985. My parents had the vision to see what Venezuela was becoming. No economic opportunities for anyone. No matter your level of education unless you had government connections, you couldn't open up a business, you couldn't get a job, etc.
I can also tell you why my wife moved to the USA from Mexico. She graduated as a lawyer from one of the top univeristies in Mexico. She worked her behind off to get an education. She was born in a very small town in Mexico where the vast majority of the population barely had a junior high education. She put her foot down with her parents and asked to be sent to the big city to get an education. Her parents allowed her and she went all the way through becoming a lawyer and obtaining a masters degree in international business. The ONLY jobs which were available to her and her graduating friends were? corrupt government jobs and these were available for those who had connections. My wife coming from very humble begginings without any connections was SOL. Thus, she decided to move to the land of opportunities, to a land that would value her hardwork and education, the United States of America.
Can the success that can be achieved in the USA be achieved in Venezuela today, in Mexico in other nations? No way, not even close! Either you are a government lacky who bows down to the whims and demands of the Hugo Chavez regime or you are SOL. This is the case in many nations, including Mexico. Corruption is rampant. In many of these nations, the game is rigged. If you are well connected, if you have money to bribe, if you were born into the right family, you may make it, if not, tough luck. For example, in Mexico, Venezuela it is a way of living that you must bribe policemen and the military when stopped. If you don't you'll spend time in jail.
The American dream can ONLY be achieved in America. Not in Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, Nigeria, China, Nicaragua, etc, etc. many people do attempt to fight for their rights and jobs, but when the government mass murderes, kills those who dare stand up, forbids them from ever getting a job, it kind of paralizes anyone from fighting back against an evil government, system. I have family in Venezuela who had to leave Venezuela because they "dared" sign a petition demanding that dictator Hugo Chavez leave the presidency. The government, military, police, etc, etc made their life impossible. They were black listed, persecuted. etc.
What exists here in the USA IS unique not found in any other nation.
Cajun2 made a very good point, though. Thanks to illegal immigrants the quotas from many Latin American nations have been lowered for those who want to come into the USA legally. Illegal immigration hurts those who want to come itno the USA legally.
Liberallies
Submitted by ant on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 2:35pm.
Thanks for your post and sharing your story. I've always liked reading your comments. I should start by saying, I agree with you and cajun. It is a shame that those who would make great Americans suffer now as a result of open-borders. Instead of productive Mexicans. etc. we get MS-13 and marxist rabble-rousers. And I think this is a great concern of those that are perceived or purposfully labeled as anti-immigrant. This is not the case, not that liberals are concerned with the truth of the matter. I. for one, am extremely angered not by those immigrants (even illegals, I too, would probably trespass to help my family, especially when so many others already have) but by those who scream 'LaRaza', burn our flag, and show a general disrespect, racial hatred and ingratitude to the Country that they have 'chosen' to reside in. Noone made them come here. And I understand they are a segment, and for everyone of those idiots there is one who just wants a home and a family. But even those, being illegal, bring up other problems, such as forgiveness of certain crimes (SS fraud, taxes, etc., that no citizen would be forgiven for, and creates a resentment over a two-tiered justice system. Make that three-tiered, because politicians exempt themselves from the rules too.)
I am not naieve enough to not understand those challenges in Latin America concerning corruption and political tyranny. That is a valid point, and I can only imagine how defeating that must be to a civilian. This is a fear I also have for this Country as we seem to be increasingly held hostage to corrupt bureaucrats, are ignored by our representation, etc. It's almost like death by a thousand cuts, so many little problems are created as if to overwhelm and dishearten the American people. This is exascerbated by the illegal 'radicals' I mentioned earlier. They become part of the problem (as there is a Spanish version of the Communist party at Occupy) and can only contribute to making freedom and opportunity as rare here as the country they came from. But then, nobody ever accused Commies as being smart or prescient. Again, it is a shame as it hurts those who strive to be American, and, no doubt create anxiety in them as well.
It is a complicated issue, made more so by political activism, the ridiculousness of a court system that would release an illegal with a violent criminal record, but deport the business owner, and the clouding of truth so prevalent now in our media and the 'activist' community. We may have to agree to disagree on many points. This is basically a case of dereliction of duty on the part of our government, and in light of how much crime has been 'imported' and created multitudes of American victims as a result, the blood of these citizens is on the hands of Congress and the White House, for border control is one of the few duties they actually have, not to tell people how much pizza they should eat. And, on a personal note, I am pretty good at discernment, and as one who works in the trades, I have sensed more hatred and pettiness from the eyes of illegals, than I have of friendship and know of some illegals that have deliberately sought to hurt American workers in various ways, from lying to their superiors about them, theft of tools, or injury and atually approaching the customers of those that have employed them in an effort to cut them out of the picture and steal their customer base. But I have made great friends of immigrants from everywhere who come to work and live, not raid the store. In essence, Americans want other Americans, and the anger stems from what appears to be "let's bring the worst of the third-world elements of crime, prejudice, indolence, drugs, and poverty to America". How to separate the wheat from the chaff is the problem, especially with a free-flow border policy.
I guess my point is, I agree and understand, there are countries where cleaning up corruption and create a fair marketplace are near impossible (even because of just the inequity in the global marketplace). This, like I alluded too, is a problem the US could actually help deal with if we didn't have a White House/Congress so accustomed to propping up the status quo and working with and applauding corruption, when they should be condemning it (both parties are guilty of this).My sympathies on immigrants become tarnished because there are elements in the "open-borders" crowd that would enable the same inequity, crime and corruption here. And if American goes, there's no place for us to escape to. Here are some pretty good articles attempting to tackle how multi-faceted this issue really is, if you're interested;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/voters_wrestle_with_illegal_immig...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/newt_and_the_illegals.html
I almost forgot. Happy Thanksgiving!
Disagreeing with Newt
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:50pm.
Newt says we don't want to "destroy families that have been here 25 years". Well, that's exactly what we do to families where the father and/or mother have committed a crime in the United States. Yet, ironically, it's called the "justice system". So, if it's justice for citizen criminals how is it not justice for illegal aliens?
How exactly are you suppose
Submitted by ant on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:58pm.
How exactly are you suppose to know how many years the "undocumented" have been here? I don't want to hear a damn thing about it until the flow is stopped at the border. All these "illegal rights" marches that go on, flying the Mexican flag, and not one law-enforcement agent is ever present. Now they have a libertarian convention in town and the IRS is out there taking license plate numbers. Pathetic.
I'll tell you a little story. I knew one Englishman and two Irishmen that overstayed their visas, they all worked regularly, the English bloke was married to an American. These three were sought out, arrested and deported. In the same town a Guatamalan illegal was arrested for fighting in a bar, arrested and released. He then gets into a fight in another bar and punches the cop that responds, arrested and released. He then gets into a fight at another bar, decides to run down the dude he was mad at with his car, but he misses because he's so drunk and mows down a crowd of people standing outside. One man I knew spends months in the hospital with internal organ damage. The illegal is arrested, released on his own recognizance and disappears. Now, I have to ask the obvious. Why is our system determined to punish the productive and peaceful and molly-coddle the threats to society? This is why I have no sympathy for illegals or trust in our 'system' to make things right. It's a big F*U to the People, once again.
sad and so very true. we
Submitted by sometimesright on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 2:12pm.
sad and so very true. we have to consider the hundreds upon hundreds of american families destroyed by acts perpetrated by illegals. killings done by drunk drivers, outright murder, molestation, rape....the list goes on. unfortunantly, many offenders are REPEAT offenders. they commit crimes then are released and DO IT AGAIN, sometimes multiple times! try to make an arrest and over the border they go.
i believe the welfare of our own broken families outweigh the inconvenience of illegal law-breakers.
Illegals surviving at 25 years shall recieve a silver plack.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 1:08pm.
Commemorating their long struggle against the laws of America.
Ah, a get out of jail free car, er card.
Ask Joe the plumber, how does one stop the water running across the floors?
You stop the leak... or leaks. FIRST
So build the fence, virtual or otherwise. Stop the flow. Stop the flow.
When an illegal is found ship them out, if they want to bring their family fine.
Don't need to go on a big program to hunt down 11 million illegals and round them up in a few months.
The biggest problem is that the solution takes longer than a politicians office life span.
It's takes a wonderful leader to think beyond their term in office.
You Didn't Build That.
simple thinking from simple minds
Submitted by silent conservative on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 2:13pm.
the simplicity in most commenters thinking is amazing. there is no way we could deport 11 million people that have been living here. yes they are law breakers, but your simple view would kick off another stupid "civil right movement" that we would be on the losing end of. Republicans want to break up families, those evil republicans want to steal your mom from you. that will work well for us at election time.
11 Million's a low figure.
Submitted by ant on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 3:04pm.
You wouldn't have to "round 'em up". Let it be known that the law will be enforced and they will self-deport, just as announcing Amnesty is a sure way of importing a few million more. Send the ones in jail that we spend millions of dollars on back home and patrol the border better. Who cares what the left says? This is part of the problem, being afraid of what the left thinks. Let the marches begin in earnest, maybe then Americans who aren't paying attention will get a better grasp of the problem, much like OWS is revealing the left in all it's glory. If the States that want to enforce the law can survive the lawsuits from the "Federal family", many will flow to those States that offer 'sanctuary', and soon those States will look for the same solutions. Let illegals from enforcing States flock to the backyards of people like Pelosi. Maybe when a family member of one of the compassionate lib politicians is killed by a drunk-driving 'undocumented' with a history of arrests, they will understand. When people in San Fran must tolerate being attacked in fast food joints by machete-wielding 'backbones of the economy', the chances of Pelosi's and others re-election will hang on whether they decide to uphold the oath they have taken.
Need to have a starting point.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 6:32pm.
Close the border first, plug the leak.
Can monopolizing bureaucrats even do that, ummmm no.
Time for some privatization..
Once the borders are "closed" then start the deportations.
Just a no ID or no seat-belt, smoking zone violation at a time.
Time line...is the reason this method is not being used.
The problem will not be solved in a politicians term of rule, so said politician can't take credit for a wonderful job well done, get re-elected dance..
You Didn't Build That.
Legal immigration and government*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 8:19pm.
This is a very complex issue and not simply a discussion of ways to stop the flow of illegals. Immigration does not release figures but every 10 years but generally a legal application for entry takes 6-14 years. Due to the flow of illegals, the number of legal applicants for entry has gone down significantly. These are people from around the world with a desire to become legal American citizens. They have education or skills that would benefit them in becoming self sufficient as well as add to our society and economy. Typical of the federal government, it is inefficient, costly, and riddled with errors that could risk our national security, as a result, many people pay the price with a long waiting list.Remember, these are people trying to come to the US legally.
This process is not to be confused with those applicants that already have family members here in the US. Family visas also have become a serious drain on the process, costs, and those here legally. The problem here is due to the number of applicants from Mexico
Those applicants that do not live on our "BORDERS" have been discriminated against for decades due to the uncontrolled flow of illegals who can simply cross the border.
Government at its worst and most inefficient, is already doing great harm to honest hard working families all over the world who wish to become American citizens. But the priority seems to be so called "compassion" for those individuals and their families that are here illegally but reaping the benefits usually granted to American citizens. The hypocrisy to me, is astounding. We tell ourselves we want the laws obeyed but then make every effort NOT to do so. And this is at the expense of those who are trying to follow the law.
It is that list of individuals who must also be considered in this debate. They are the kind of people that we SHOULD be allowing into the country. They represent the same kind of dreams and hopes shared by our ancestors who first came here and established this great country.
Cajun, That is a group of people that want to be here.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 8:36pm.
Gladly dumping their old country and start fresh as American Citizens.
YES PLEASE more of these types of winners.
You Didn't Build That.
also ucw*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 9:03pm.
I found several articles with interesting information, not from the agencies, but from congressional hearings on the problem of immigration and blogs that follow the immigration issue.
Since 2008, the Obama administration approved 146K visa entries. That is more per year than the previous 10 year allotment. But interesting to note, due to our failing economy, the number of applicants has gone down in recent years.
Several South American countries have had their quotas lowered due to the number of hispanics that have come here illegally. The number of approved visas is based on "group" figures by country and continents. So, basically, our very liberal policies regarding illegals, is actually discriminating against other races and cultural groups around the world.
Let in drug dealers but keep out those starving Somalis and Ethiopians. (consequences of lib think)