Bye, Newt: Gingrich Pushes Amnesty Plan For Illegals At Debate

Damn it.  Just when I was ready to forget the couch time with Pelosi and support for Didi Scozzafava and handful of other politically opportunistic RINO-tastic moves by the former Speaker of the House – just when I thought I had my Not Romney all picked out – Gingrich goes and throws out a deal breaker on me.

They’re really going to make me go all in for Mitt Mandate McCain in 2012 just to prevent a second Obama term, aren’t they?

“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who’ve been here for a quarter of a century … [and] separate them from their families and expel them,” Gingrich said during a discussion about illegal immigration and border security. “I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties.”

Then he took it a step further.

“I don’t believe that the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to say it’s going to destroy families that have been here for more than a quarter of a century,” he said. “I’m prepared to take the heat in saying: Let’s be humane in enforcing the law.”

It was a bold statement that may get the former House speaker into trouble with conservatives.


People – liberals, mostly – are all over the place saying that Newt is echoing Reagan’s 1984 position.  Reagan did grant amnesty to illegal aliens.  This is somehow supposed to make me feel better about Newt’s proposed second round of amnesty.  I guess it would, except for two things.

1. Reagan’s move – meant, in part, to buy Republicans a little good will with a quickly growing voting bloc – didn’t achieve that goal.

2. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens in the 1980s didn’t solve the problem.  In fact, it made it worse.  We have more illegal aliens now than we did then, and we are providing them with more taxpayer funded services than we did then.  What did Reagan’s move achieve except creating more Democrat voters?

Back to the drawing board.  How’s Santorum polling this week?