Newt Gingrich’s immigration gambit (Updated with video)
One of the headlines from last night’s GOP presidential debate, which focused on foreign policy, actually has more to do with domestic policy: Whether Newt Gingrich, the latest anti-Romney frontrunner, kinda-sorta endorsed amnesty for illegal immigrants who have been in our country for a long time.
I had to go back and listen to a recording of the debate because, watching it live, I thought he might have erred by not phrasing his policy in the conventional conservative manner of 1) secure the border to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants, then 2) decide what to do with the ones already here. In fact, here’s what he said (there’s a partial transcript below the video):
I think you’ve got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border … I believe ultimately, you have to find some system — once you’ve put every piece in place, which includes a guest-worker program, you need something like a World War Two selective service board that frankly reviews the people who are here. If you’ve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period. If you’ve been here 25 years and you have three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully, and kick you out. … You get to be legal, but you don’t get a path to citizenship.
I am not quite sure that puts him far at all outside the Republican mainstream:
1. His plan “starts with controlling the border.”
2. He then adds a guest-worker program — although, admittedly, that could spark a backlash depending on how it’s done.
3. He then acknowledges that we’re not going to deport 10 million to 12 million people, and offers a kind of delineation — albeit a very vague one — between those who have been here awhile and otherwise obeyed the law, and those who haven’t. All while offering praise for immigrants who come here legally.
4. And for the ones who get to stay, he advocates only legality, not citizenship. That’s an important distinction, because Democrats think they can win generations of Hispanic support by turning illegal immigrants into legal Democratic voters.
In sketching that outline, he uses some language that I think could be very effective in winning over some skeptics, courting independents and, potentially, going some way toward making amends with Hispanics.
Specifically, I am certain the reference to “belong[ing] to a local church” was no accident. Now, I rather doubt a President Gingrich would try to impose a religious condition for an illegal immigrant to be legalized or deported — or that American courts would uphold such a test. But it is exceedingly likely that he thinks there’s appeal here for the religious wing of the party, some of which has voiced its discomfort with hard lines on immigration issues. That’s particularly likely in light of his conversion to the Catholic church, to which many Hispanic immigrants of course belong. His later reference to the “party of the family” further underscores the outreach to social conservatives.
Are there potential problems with Gingrich’s approach? Sure. As I noted above, his time-based delineation, between those who could stay here and those who would have to leave, comes off as rather arbitrary and possibly too malleable. (I have not yet had time to read the study to which he referred; that might clear up some of the vagueness.) And while he nodded to the notion of securing the border first, he didn’t harp on it, and people will rightly wonder how much emphasis and priority he really puts on that before everything else. Anything less than absolute emphasis and priority could sink him.
All that said, I was intrigued that he would go out on this limb so soon after rising in the opinion polls. It tells me that he’s confident in his chances (not that many people have ever doubted Gingrich’s confidence) — so confident that he’s already looking for ways to bring traditional GOP groups such as social conservatives as well as independents under the Gingrich tent.
That’s the kind of forward-thinking maneuver none of the other Romney alternatives, from Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry to Herman Cain, has been able to pull off. The coverage of and reaction to his immigration gambit may tell us whether Gingrich will succeed where they failed.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
111 comments Add your comment
Darwin
November 23rd, 2011
10:22 am
Kyle – I love #4. You just couldn’t help yourself, could you? Always a dig. Man you’re incredible. Happy Thanks!
Smoke
November 23rd, 2011
10:28 am
To be snarky, there are jobs that certain Americans won’t be hired to do because of their race, color, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. Think not, look at the want ads that do not say they an “equal opportunity employer.”. As for immigration, we have a problem that an electric fence will not solve, if for no other reason but the long standing motive of profit.
Tea Party Meber
November 23rd, 2011
10:28 am
Do whatever it takes 2 get these mexicans out of R country and give us R jobs back……And R country.
Aquagirl
November 23rd, 2011
10:31 am
Conservatives, especially conservative Christians, are outbreeding liberals better than three-to-one, closer to four-to-one.
Wow, breeding like rats is cause for celebration? OCTOMOM FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Three Jack
November 23rd, 2011
10:31 am
It’s about time that a GOPer applied some common sense to this issue instead of the usual mindless rants about how ‘illegals’ are stealing jobs, etc. Newt put forth a decent idea and should be applauded for having the cajones to challenge morons who think we have the resources to gather up 11m-20m folks for deportation.
I wish he would have taken it one step further by challenging Romney and Bachman to tell us how they would split families by deporting 11m-20m human beings from this country. Both of these candidates simply regurgitate the standard xenophobic lines while ignoring common sense which is why neither should be elected president.
Thanks Newt for being bold enough to challenge GOPer status quo on this issue.
Herman Cain on abortion
November 23rd, 2011
10:33 am
Yes….I mean NO!……I mean…..Eccky Becky Epstein Ban.
Don
November 23rd, 2011
10:34 am
If there are $11M of them and you assume you could get really efficient at finding them and deporting them, say $1000 a head, that works out to about $100 a household. Anybody up for a tax increase to pay for this?
Newt is barking up the right tree.
james
November 23rd, 2011
10:36 am
Vote all incumbents out in 2012- Get rid of Obama and any
Rep. or Democrat Congress or Senate member that has been in office more then 10 years…
Keep voting to same idiots in like we have been doing and nothing
will ever change… Those idiots up in DC can’t even agree to cut 1.2 trillion
so I hope those 12 get voted out for sure….
Darwin
November 23rd, 2011
10:38 am
@Chip 10:19 – First, take your meds please. Second, one could argue that the U.S. business philosophy (and U.S. philosophy in general) is to create a permanent underground working class that is not unlike slavery. Oh sure, it pays wages. But poverty wages. These are the people who work in the fields, our maids, clean our restrooms, work at fast food franchises – you get the picture. These are the low paying jobs “Americans” don’t want. And if we paid these people a living wage – well, a head of lettuce would cost you $10. So, U.S. businesses keep these “illegals” around because slavery’s been abolished. But wait – in additional to slave wages, we now don’t want to educate their children and provide them with services. Now, if that’s not an extension of slavery – I don’t know what is.
JDW
November 23rd, 2011
10:40 am
@Todd…see the difference between you and I is that I have been to both the US/Mexico border and the China/India and China/Mongolia/Russian borders. You on the other hand…well maybe you stayed in a Holiday Inn once.
The Chinese borders are no more secure than ours. So why don’t the Chinese have an immigration issue? First off there are no jobs Chinese won’t do. Second in China the immigrants really stand out.
Kyle Wingfield
November 23rd, 2011
10:41 am
Rick in Grayson @ 5:57: “Mandate the use of E-Verify for all employers and vette all employee over the next two years. Illegal aliens will be denied jobs and lose the jobs they currently hold illegally. They will self-deport and they can get in line to enter the US LEGALLY!”
Let’s explore that one, because I think Gingrich framed the issue in a way that undermines it. I have no doubt that mandatory, universal use of E-Verify — probably impossible to make it universal, but let’s put that aside for the moment — would result in a lot of jobless illegal immigrants going home. Check that: A lot of jobless, recent illegal immigrants. I do not, OTOH, believe for a second that the kind of person Gingrich specifically sketched out, who’s been here 25 years and has two generations behind him (who, presumably, are American citizens) and is involved in his community (the church reference) etc., is going to move to another country just because he lost his job. His family is going to support him.
Now, maybe you wouldn’t care anymore at that point. I don’t know. Nor do I know how many immigrants fit into Gingrich’s two scenarios — recent or longtime — and how many are in a messy gray area in between (I suspect the latter group would represent a majority of the 10-12 million). But I don’t think it’s going to work itself out quite as simply as you suggest.
td
November 23rd, 2011
10:42 am
Aquagirl
November 23rd, 2011
10:16 am
“That fence didn’t work, todd. While you may marvel at the engineering feat, it failed, like every other fence ever built. Did you snooze through that history class? How surprising”
I guess you are the one that fell asleep. The great wall held out the Mongol hordes armies for more than 500 years. It only fell to keep them out due to the rebellion inside the empire. If a wall can be built to keep armies out for more than 500 years then how long would it hold up to keep out illegals without weapons?
Kyle Wingfield
November 23rd, 2011
10:44 am
JohnnyC @ 9:20: Fwiw, Gingrich was asked about the Reagan amnesty in the 1980s, and he said the two things promised in exchange were never delivered. That’s the biggest reason a lot of Republicans are skeptical of re-enacting the same kind of program Reagan did, and why the sequencing is so important for so many of them. (Same thing with spending cuts/tax increases, btw.)
As I wrote in the OP, Gingrich is going to have to prove he’s serious about getting the sequencing right if he doesn’t want this issue to blow up in his face during the primary.
JDW
November 23rd, 2011
10:45 am
@Don…”say $1000 a head” Don Don that doesn’t pay court costs for a single process hearing much less the rounding them up part. ICE says it costs $12,500 to deport one. That does not cover the rounding up and detaining. A more realistic number is $25,000 a head.
Kyle Wingfield
November 23rd, 2011
10:45 am
Darwin @ 10:22: Couldn’t help myself? A dig? Do you actually dispute that what I said in #4 is the case?
Tuesday’s debate: Will Gingrich’s immigration stance cost him his lead? (The Week) | Breaking News Today
November 23rd, 2011
10:46 am
[...] the border,” placing him not “far at all outside the Republican mainstream,” says Kyle Wingfield in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. But “kinda-sorta endorse[ing] amnesty” is clearly the kind of “forward-thinking [...]
Jerome Horwitz
November 23rd, 2011
10:48 am
He just wanted to see Michelle Bachman’s head explode.
JDW
November 23rd, 2011
10:49 am
td…”The great wall held out the Mongol hordes armies for more than 500 years.”
I am guessing that technology has improved since then.
DannyX
November 23rd, 2011
10:49 am
“That’s an important distinction, because Democrats think they can win generations of Hispanic support by turning illegal immigrants into legal Democratic voters.”
So true, the great Republican, Presidente Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to millions of Christian immigrants from Mexico.. Their children and grandchildren are now voting Democrat! Mexican-Americans consider Ronald Reagan to be the Padre of our country, the USA!
Gracias Presidente Reagan, Dios bendiga a América!!!
killerj
November 23rd, 2011
10:49 am
Blahhh,Blahhh Blahhh,no chance in hell Newt.
john
November 23rd, 2011
10:51 am
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Dusty
November 23rd, 2011
10:52 am
Thanks, Kyle, for giving us a clear outline of Gingrich’s words last night. I missed the debate. One obvious point shown here is: Gingrich can THINK!
His immigration ideas sound more practical and humane than anything else I have read. I have always been for the “law”. but I cannot forget that America was founded by hardworking, freedom loving people who came here to escape the miserable, slave like conditions behind them.
If we can keep that kind of citizen in this country, we will move forward. True, this kind of policy will have some drawbacks like any other policy, but it sounds more practical than any I have heard.
Newt did well last night. Workable intelligence is always welcome news.
yuzeyurbrane
November 23rd, 2011
10:54 am
Newt deserves credit for starting a semi-intelligent discussion of an explosive issue.
snoqualmiefalls
November 23rd, 2011
10:55 am
Yup Newt, take a page from St.Reagan’s playbook, grant amnesty to all illegal aliens… cause we all know St. Reagan never did anything wrong… Right?
td
November 23rd, 2011
10:58 am
JDW
November 23rd, 2011
10:40 am
“The Chinese borders are no more secure than ours. So why don’t the Chinese have an immigration issue? First off there are no jobs Chinese won’t do. Second in China the immigrants really stand out”
There are plenty of jobs the Chinese rich and middle class will not do. The poor will do anything because there is not a social “Safety net” that makes their poor middle class without having to work. When you add all the welfare benefits to any money earned most of our poor are really classified middle class and do not want to take labor jobs.
We reward poor decision making and lack of education in this country.
Don't Tread
November 23rd, 2011
10:58 am
“And for the ones who get to stay, he advocates only legality, not citizenship.”
Which is great, until some future Democrat gives them and all their relatives citizenship. We have enough homegrown welfare recipients already.
DannyX
November 23rd, 2011
11:03 am
Why would the great Padre Reagan hand out amnesty without securing the border first?
Tuesday’s debate: Will Gingrich’s immigration stance cost him his lead? (The Week) | News Bulletins
November 23rd, 2011
11:14 am
[...] the border,” placing him not “far at all outside the Republican mainstream,” says Kyle Wingfield in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. But “kinda-sorta endorse[ing] amnesty” is clearly the kind of “forward-thinking [...]
JDW
November 23rd, 2011
11:23 am
@TD, fair enough, there are jobs the Chinese middle class won’t do. When I said Chinese I was alluding to the population as a whole. As for our own poor, there is no doubt that their standard of living is substantially above the “real” poor in places like China, India and Africa. That’s why we don’t have real “ghettos” dotting the landscape and rampant property crime. But to my way of thinking, that’s a good thing.
getalife
November 23rd, 2011
11:29 am
It was the best gop debate this cycle.
newt will lose the cons so it is ron paul’s turn to lead.
Now that the gop mandate to derail our recovery for the election has failed, our economy will continue to grow at a very slow pace. We lose a decade of solid growth due to the w collapse.
We still have millions of jobs to recover from the w collapse but if the gop win, I would hedge on another collapse.
Philman
November 23rd, 2011
11:39 am
Scary landscape in the GOP!! It is sad for our country to see that one of them will run our beautiful land!!! America and Americans wake up!!!!
mehlman rings twice
November 23rd, 2011
11:42 am
We expect our presidents to work hard for long hours. So what happens if Newt is elected POTUS and is again faced with the prospect of working so hard that “sometimes things happen” and magically another Chevrolet shows up? Honestly, this guy is another Marion Barry.
Lee
November 23rd, 2011
12:01 pm
Third world invades the US and we act surprised when they turn our streets and alleys into a little slice of third world heaven….
http://www.ktsm.com/news/feces-urine-problem-in-downtown-el-paso
MarkV
November 23rd, 2011
12:16 pm
I do not see how Gingrich’s opinion on illegal immigrants he expressed yesterday could be a problem for him. If he sees a negative reaction, he will say next week that no illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the US no matter how long they have lived here.
Trolls Bane
November 23rd, 2011
12:17 pm
Lets see … the hypocrital conservative mantra … brown skinned workers speaking spanish and working in the trades ( construction, landscaping) or in the fields – bad. Brown skinned workers speaking hindi or chinese taking american IT jobs …good. click here
When the repugs place limits on the outsourcing of IT jobs to india (Jobjacking) and the importation of IT workers taking good paying jobs from native born americans, then maybe they will have an argument to make about hispanics picking tomatoes and building houses (read taking jobs from the uneducated rethug base). Until such a time, they dont have a leg to stand on.
Jim
November 23rd, 2011
12:18 pm
As a life-long republican, I am the most encouraged I have been in more than a year that the my political party is going to nominate a republican rather than someone controlled by tea party-like voters.
Cain, Bachmann, and Perry – all darlings of the tea party voter, are fast fading.
Romney and Gingrich – republicans favored by the more mainstream traditional republican voter, have emerged as the most likely nominee.
For me personnally, I will vote for the pro-business, provened economic leader Mitt Romney.
It might be too soon to “pop the cork” but I am relieved that My Republican Party has been returned to traditional republican voters. As for the more extreme, “pure” social issue and tea party voters, they can either get aboard or sit this one out!
Bart Abel
November 23rd, 2011
12:18 pm
Democrats think they can win generations of Hispanic support by turning illegal immigrants into legal Democratic voters.
Once again, Kyle isn’t one to let facts get in the way of a supposedly-good quip.
Here’s some related info comparing deportations under Obama vs. deportations under Bush: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-obama-immigration-idUSTRE78J05720110920
“Immigration authorities are funded to remove 400,000 people a year, according to the unnamed ICE official.
In fiscal year 2010, the last full year of data, ICE removed nearly 393,000 undocumented immigrants — a record, and almost 24,000 more than in FY2008, Bush’s last full fiscal year in office.
Over two-thirds of the non-criminals removed in FY2010 were caught as they crossed the border, were recent arrivals, or were repeat violators previously deported, the White House says.
CRIMINAL INCREASE
Convicted criminals numbered about 196,000 of those removed, an increase of 71 percent from Bush in FY2008.
Of the over 1 million removed so far under Obama, 46 percent have been convicted criminals and 54 percent non-criminals. Bush’s removals were 41 percent criminal and 59 non-criminal, according to data provided by ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen.
ICE credits the increased removal of those with criminal records to expansion of the Secure Communities Program, where local authorities automatically send fingerprints of those arrested to ICE. Secure Communities has grown under Obama from 14 jurisdictions to more than 1,300, and to all border areas.”
carlosgvv
November 23rd, 2011
12:23 pm
The Catholic Church is one of the main reasons it has been so difficult to deport these illegals. The Church wants them badly for parishoners and many powerful politicians are Catholic. Even though the Bible instructs us to obey a Country’s laws which means that, by Bible standards, it’s a sin to come here illegally, The Catholics look the other way. I guess they think they can confess their way out of this on a daily basis.
Aquagirl
November 23rd, 2011
12:24 pm
If a wall can be built to keep armies out for more than 500 years then how long would it hold up to keep out illegals without weapons?
In modern times the Berlin wall lasted less than 30 years, and required an entire police state to maintain that barrier. If you think that’s your kind of life, this isn’t your country. Try Cuba.
Knuckle-draggers who think we can train soldiers and Border Patrol agents to shoot unarmed civilians should really keep their pie-holes shut. Most of us aren’t sociopaths, I don’t think you understand how repulsive you are to normal people.
Kyle Wingfield
November 23rd, 2011
12:25 pm
Bart: There’s just one question here: Do you honestly believe the Democratic position on immigration is anything but politics, and that the politics is: grant amnesty, gain voters? Because that’s all I was saying. (And, yes, the GOP position is a political one, too. As should be clear from the rest of the OP.)
real john
November 23rd, 2011
12:25 pm
Once again Newt gives a rational answer. Is unrealistic to say that the U.S. is going to depart 11 million people. If someone has been a law abiding citizen for many years and/or has served in the U.S. military, I have no problem with them staying.
I don’t think this will hurt him in the polls. I think most people realize its a pretty rational solution. However, he must explain and be passionate about actually securing the border. If not, the U.S. would see an even bigger influx of illegals sneaking into the country.
Bart Abel
November 23rd, 2011
12:25 pm
That’s particularly likely in light of his conversion to the Catholic church, to which many Hispanic immigrants of course belong. His later reference to the “party of the family” further underscores the outreach to social conservatives.
Any social conservative who buys serial adulterer Newt Gingrich’s “I worked so hard that I was like an alcoholic” religious conversion schtick is a sucker. Whatever happened to fool me once, fool me twice? Gingrich has been yanking people’s chains for decades, for profit, and the gullible are still falling for his dog-and-pony show. Unbelievable.
real john
November 23rd, 2011
12:29 pm
Kyle:
What’s your opinion about Romney saying Newt’s position would encourage more illegals to come here??
I see his point, but Romney didn’t really offer any solutions as the the current illegals already here. I was waiting on him to answer that and thought Wolfe might have a follow up question about that to him.
Kyle Wingfield
November 23rd, 2011
12:32 pm
real john: That’s why the border issue, as you noted earlier, is critical. You have a lot more flexibility, political and otherwise, in dealing with illegals already here if you’ve greatly diminished the ability of people to come here illegally in the future. We’ve tried it the other way around (Reagan in the ’80s) and that obviously didn’t work.
saywhat?
November 23rd, 2011
12:41 pm
Good story Chip. You forgot the part where monkeys fly out of your butt.
JDW
November 23rd, 2011
12:46 pm
@Kyle…”Do you honestly believe the Democratic position on immigration is anything but politics, and that the politics is: grant amnesty, gain voters?”
I think more Democrats than Republicans understand the issue can’t be solved with fantasies like “secure the border” and “deport the lawbreakers”. As for the voter issue don’t blame the other party for the Republicans inability to hold on to the fastest growing minority in the country. Bush drew 40% of that vote in 2008 and the fact that Republicans are now afraid of Hispanics as voters simply means they aren’t doing a good job of addressing the issues of that population. The answer for the Republican Party lies not in suppressing the vote but in responding to the constituents.
JDW
November 23rd, 2011
12:49 pm
Correction it was 2004 that Bush drew 40% of Hispanics votes…then the slide began
ragnar danneskjold
November 23rd, 2011
12:50 pm
As a free-immigrationist, I am generally at odds – on that one issue – with the candidates of the more rational party; thus I support their candidates without regard to the immigration views of the candidate.
getalife
November 23rd, 2011
12:51 pm
“We have to recognize that 15 of the sites, nuclear sites are available or are potentially penetrable by jihadists,” Bachmann said. “Six attempts have already been made on nuclear sites. This is more than an existential threat. We have to take this very seriously.”
I think she just told us some classified information.
Ooops.
Bart Abel
November 23rd, 2011
12:56 pm
Kyle,
The Democratic position, as I recall, is essentially the position of the last Republican president and the last Republican presidential nominee (before he flipped). In fact, there were multiple immigration reform acts introduced and co-sponsored by both Republicans (including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter, Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, Jon Kyl) and Democrats when Bush was president. Had one of these major immigration reform bills passed under a Republican administration and Republican congresses, either both parties would have received the credit, or more likely, Republicans would have received the credit.
So, givem the evidence, I do not believe the Democratic position on immigration is politics. (I’m sure there are some exceptions). Speaking for myself, one reason that I’m an active member of the Democratic Party is that I support immigration reform, not the other way around.
Apparently, Newt Gingrich does too. But you carefully craft fine distinctions between his version of immigration reform and a Democratic version that I’m not even sure exists so that you can support, or at least not criticize, the Republican without seeming like a hypocrite.
In fact, path to citizenship or not, amnesty is amnesty. If the Republican base accepts amnesty when a Republican proposes it (note that the border will NEVER be secure), but raises hell when a Democrat proposes it, then the Republican base would demonstrate one more time that they don’t really believe what they claim to believe.
Incidentally, I’m not an expert on the Republican positions, but I recall that Perry was ripped to shreds for a lot less. He only wanted to allow illegal immigrants who were brought here as children to go to college in the state where they graduated from high school without having to pay out-of-state tuition. Gingrich is proposing amnesty, a significantly more extreme position from an anti-immigration perspective.