Monday, November 28, 2011
Newt's pragmatism on immigration
Newt Gingrich is taking a lot of heat from the other GOP candidates for his comments on immigration. They're accusing him of being pro-amnesty....
From NYTimes -- Mr. Gingrich responded by pressing his case that the country — and the Republican Party — would not be served by forcing the exile of immigrants who had been in the country for years, paying taxes and staying out of legal trouble.
“I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century,” Mr. Gingrich said during the debate. “And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship, but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.”
I think this is the most pragmatic, logical, and reasonable position. While in an ideal world, it would be nice to kick literally every illegal out of the country and start over from scratch with a closed border, in what alternative universe do these conditions exist? The fact is, they are here, and most do not commit crimes, do pay some taxes, and do participate in the American dream. Blanket amnesty is a bad idea, but rounding up and deporting 20million people is equally bad.
There's got to be some way to offer a pathway to legality, but maybe not full voting citizenship, to those who participate and remain otherwise lawful. I think Newt's on to something and the other candidates have to attack him as the front runner.
Romney's objection that it'll just encourage more illegal border crossings could be negated by closing the border first.