iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Newt Gingrich Sticks Neck Out On Immigration, Risking Conservative Backlash (VIDEO)

First Posted: 11/22/2011 11:24 pm Updated: 11/23/2011 9:33 am

WASHINGTON -- Newt Gingrich took a stance on immigration unpopular with many in the Republican party in a primary debate Tuesday night, and will now have to wait to see if he is punished for it by conservatives.

Gingrich, who has come from the back of the pack in the Republican presidential primary to lead in many national polls, refused to play along with the idea -- expressed implicitly by some other candidates -- that the only solution to the problem of undocumented immigration is to deport the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S.

"I don't see how the -- 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," Gingrich said. "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."

With his answer, the former speaker of the House from Georgia risked suffering the same fate as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who told those who disagree with his support for in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants that they "don't have a heart," and suffered for it badly with the conservative base.

Gingrich knew what he was doing. He took a long pause before doubling down on his position, after he was criticized by both Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them," he said.

Gingrich began a discussion on immigration by talking about the need for something like a "World War II selective service board" to review the cases of all those in the country without citizenship. After he finished his first answer on immigration, Bachmann, a Tea Party firebrand whose candidacy has faded and needs a spark, pressed Gingrich by saying that he favored "amnesty."

"I don't agree that you would make 11 million workers legal because that in effect is amnesty. And I also don't agree that you would give the Dream Act on a federal level. And those are two things that I believe that the speaker had been for, and he can speak for himself," Bachmann said.

Gingrich has praised parts of the Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for some young people who came to the United States without documentation.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who moderated the debate at DAR Constitution Hall, turned to Romney and pressed him for an answer on the subject. Romney gave a circuitous response that in essence amounted to a rejection and condemnation of Gingrich's position.

"Look, amnesty is a magnet," Romney said. "What when we have had in the past, programs that have said that if people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that's going to only encourage more people to come here illegally."

When asked a second time by Blitzer whether Gingrich's idea would "entice others to come to this country illegally," Romney said, "There's no question."

"But to say that we're going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you're all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing," he said.

Unlike Perry, who has acknowledged many times that he is not a good debater, Gingrich is a nuanced and articulate spokesman. He argued eloquently for an approach to immigration reform that nonetheless is labeled as "amnesty" by many conservatives simply because it does not favor deporting all those in the country undocumented.

"If you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home period," Gingrich said. "If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids, two grandkids, 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."

"The Krieble Foundation has a very good red card program that says you get to be legal but you don't get a path to citizenship. So there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone," Gingrich said.

Perry was more open to providing some sort of path to citizenship or residency for some undocumented immigrants, although he said it couldn't be done until the border with Mexico is secured.

"I do think that there is a way that after we secure that border, that you can have a process in place for individuals who are law-abiding citizens, who have done only one thing -- as Newt says, 25 years ago or whatever that period of time was -- that you can put something in place that basically continues to keep those families together. But the idea that we're having this long and lengthy conversation here, until we have a secure border, is just an intellectual exercise," Perry said.

Romney replied that he wasn't going to "start drawing lines here about who gets to stay and who gets to go."

"The point is that we are not going to have an amnesty system that says that people that come here illegally get to stay here for the rest of their life legally," he added.

The progressive Center for American Progress has estimated that it would cost U.S. taxpayers $285 billion to deport the estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants in the United States over five years.

Attacks on Gingrich came immediately after the immigration exchange. Bachmann's campaign sent out a release during the debate labeled, "Newt Gingrich's Open Door to Illegal Immigrant Amnesty."

In the spin room after the debate, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom slammed Gingrich for his comments.

"Mitt Romney is against amnesty, and Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty," Fehrnstrom told the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein.

When Klein pressed Fehrnstrom on whether Romney favors deporting those who are undocumented, the Romney spokesman got testy.

"I just answered your question Phil, and you keep hectoring me about it," Fehrnstrom said. "You turn off the magnets, no in-state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment. You put in place an employment verification system with penalties for employers that hire illegals, that will shut off access to the job market, and they will self retreat. They will go to their countries."

Dana Loesch, a Tea Party activist from St. Louis who is a CNN contributor, said right after the debate that the immigration issue "blew up in Newt Gingrich's face."

"He had a Rick Perry heartless moment with this. I think this is really going to impact him tomorrow. It's really going to impact him with grassroots conservatives," Loesch said.

In an interview with CNN afterward, Gingrich said Bachmann's charge that he favors amnesty is "just totally inaccurate."

"I want to say 'go home' to lots of people. I want to create a border that is controlled. I want a guest worker program outsourced to American Express or Visa or Mastercard. I want English as the official language of government," Gingrich said. "I'm willing to be tough, but I'm not willing to kid people. And I can't imagine any serious person here in this country who believes that we ought to tear families apart that have been here 20 or 25 years."

CNN followed that up with an interview with Bachmann.

"He wants to legalize 11 million illegal immigrants," she said. "It sounds like amnesty to me."

A Bachmann spokeswoman did not respond when asked in an email whether the congresswoman believes that all people in the U.S. without proper documentation should be deported.

The slideshow below has more details on Newt Gingrich:

Nearing The End?
1  of  26
PLAY
FULLSCREEN
ZOOM
SHARE THIS SLIDE 
Speaking the day before the Delaware primary, Gingrich hinted he was considering ending his presidential run:

"I think we need to take a deep look at what we are doing," Gingrich said in an interview with NBC News during a campaign stop in Delaware. "We will be in North Carolina tomorrow night and we will look and see what the results are."

According to NBC, the former House speaker said he would need to "reassess" based on the results of Tuesday's primary in Delaware, a state where Gingrich has spent a great deal of time campaigning in recent weeks. Gingrich indicated that the state's 17 delegates were crucial to his viability as a candidate.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,578
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (173 total)
  1 of 4  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
outlandish 07:44 AM on 11/23/2011
When will I ever learn to stop using words in my posts? The entire English language is verboten unless you break it up with Morse code like dashes. Time for HP to stop protecting us from ourselves, the really offensive posts, end up being deleted as soon as they appear and the dissenting posts stay up. Talk about protecting adults by making them innovate ways to post in near gibberish. How does this achieve  Read More...
10:03 PM on 12/01/2011
Newt Gingrich hasn't even been vetted yet. Are people too young to remember what he did as Speaker of the House? He's a flip-flopper, he wants amnesty, he's angry and he's rude.
01:50 PM on 11/30/2011
11 million illegals, roughly 11 million jobs gone for todays people and our childrens and their children, well into the next generations to come. More foreclosures, more jobless, good grief when is the Goverment going to put their foot down and do something about this instead of just talking about it. The Americans born and bred here are losing everything they have worked all their lives for. The promise of the American Dream which is ours and our childrens. More illegals means higher taxes for those that belong here, and more money into the pockets of the greedy Goverment. Take care of our own first, then if there are jobs left, food on the table, the right to a roof over our childrens heads, then issue green cards. Do you really think Mexico etc, would do as we are doing and allowing this to happen? Why are we always helping other Countries first before our own? The American People despertly need help now, and yet we are once again being put to the end of the line, while the people we elected to help the USA turn a blind eye to us and help out other countries first. All for that almighty dollar that will line their pockets more. Its time for the American people to stand up all the more peacefully and say we will not accept this form of Goverment any longer. It's time to put hardworking people who office,and reclaim the American Dream.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wilhug
12:30 PM on 11/30/2011
Gingrich has made a briliant move, both politically and with compassion. There is simply no way to deport all the illegal immigrants in this country. But they must brought into a legal status that will recognize and track their presence here and make sure they pay taxes. Some will need to be deported. I've said all along that a guest workers program is needed, with strict requirements as to their tenure here and the work they do. The key to getting control is to enforce employers' compliance with laws already on the books, when hiring and employing non-citizens and legal aliens. We need the good ones, because some of our citizens are not willing to do menial labor any more, preferring welfare and government freebies which some politicians are willing to give in return for their votes. No fence is needed, only the will to enforce the law, see INS form I-9 which many of us small businesses have been using for years to qualify employment applicants' elgibility to work in this country. Politicians have not strictly enforced these rules for fear of losing votes of small business owners, many of whom are willing to cheat.
12:08 PM on 11/27/2011
All of this debate; waste of time! The robot being sent to Mars was a better piece. It represents the future; if not in space all the other technology that came about on the ground resulted. I'm writing this note because of what scietist did years ago which was an (off shot) from the space program.

Actually the citizens from Mexico will not be going anywhere because most American's have a since of priviledge simply because they exist here; we don't even feel we have a responsibility to vote to say nothing of educating ourselves on the documents that made these freedoms available ( of course conservatives will solve that problem soon enough-Ha). We've learned to look down our noise at so many others throughout the world until many of us feel jobs requiring labor is beneath us.

Well Mexican's aren't stupid simply because they speak anothe language ( Billy Joe Bob); look around my friends and name any industry where Mexican people aren't behind the scene doing all the hard work.

You actually think that'll last for the next twenty years? Lol, ha, ha!
11:39 AM on 11/27/2011
This is the money bight: ""The Krieble Foundation has a very good red card program that says you get to be legal but you don't get a path to citizenship. So there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone," Gingrich said."
Can Amanda do a lead piece on the "Red Card" in the Krieble Foundation plan? How is not indentured servitude, or a license to abuse? How do "Red Card" people appeal abuse? Or do we forget the "runaway slave" abuses? Or even latinos of today working for what ever they get and no avenue for justice?
09:13 PM on 11/26/2011
I agree that it would not be a show of compassion - any way you cut it - to break up the families who have been here a long time and are tax-paying workers without any criminal record. Gingrich is correct and a serious discussion that embraces compassion needs to be started and I applaud him taking the risks for putting such a discussion in the forefront; it shows political integrity. Like Gingrich said, America is a land of immigrants. I also do not believe, as is interpreted by Bachman and Romney, that Gingrich is advocating amnesty much less, amnesty for 11 milliion immigrants; the latter are misrepresenting Gingrich. Or is "compassionate conservative" a misnomer?
06:16 PM on 11/26/2011
The americans that we talk about are not the 'native americans'. There are too few of them left. As for the rest, they are descendents of 'immigrants'. How many are the descendents of 'legal' or 'illegal' immigrant? And what happens if there forbearer are the descendants of 'illegal immigrants'? Most of the americans today will not be able to answers the question wether they are descendants of legal or illegal immigrants. Basically, they were born here, grew up here and love their country. The basic question of immigration is what drew them here: better opportunity. If there weren't opportunities, they wouldn't be here. It is a long way to go for disappointment and many has, but some prospered and went on to be very useful citizens. The real question is why it is opportunity to some and not an opportunity to others here!
06:24 PM on 11/27/2011
There are many Americans with Native American blood that are not even aware of it. And, as well, people, like Justin Timberlake, Johnny Depp, Heather Locklear, Cher, Farrah Fawcette,
Tina Turner, Rosa Parks, know enough about their history to know of their Native American ancestry.

Most people in America associate the Native American heritage link with Mexico. But, many of the displaced Native Americans up in the Northern plains pushed up into Canada in an effort to escape the genocide during the 18th and 19th century.


We are Americans whose nation formation is bloody. But, show me a nation that didn't have bloodshed in its formation. Even the exsiting Natives who were drawn into war with the colonists expereienced bloodshed with other Native Americans prior to 1400. There were quite a few tribes. And over a period of about 20,000 years at least--there were some tribes that were preserved while others perished long before the Anglo intergression.

Man's inhumanity to man is abominable. But, it began long before Columbus in the Americas.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
chuck nathaniel
Your micro-bio is pending approval
04:07 PM on 11/26/2011
"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.""

So, to clarify, sir, you want to 'create a legality' without making them 'legal'? How would that work, specifically?
01:06 AM on 11/27/2011
It would work by not ripping apart familys....like my family. It would work by keeping my family together and my kids father not being ripped from them. It would also keep me and many others from being single parents and being pushed by into poverty and government (tax dollar) assistance.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
chuck nathaniel
Your micro-bio is pending approval
10:48 AM on 11/27/2011
You misunderstand my point. I am pointing out that Newt is contradicting himself. He wants to 'create legality' with making something 'legal'. Thats contradictory double-speak. Think before you type.
photo
PLDgyrl
We won Mitches!!!!!!!
11:34 PM on 11/27/2011
Did you know he was illegal when you got with him and started a family?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bdonate764
10:52 PM on 11/25/2011
Wouldn't that be ex post facto (legally speaking) ? Doesn't a law have to be from now on ?
07:23 PM on 11/25/2011
all aboard ...mexico next stop.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Leland
10:13 AM on 11/28/2011
Yes, you are right, the "Sons of Immigrants" that received scholarships to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and that are now in elected offices (like in California) want an "Open Border" and won't be satisified until all of America's cities are like Los Angeles.

I received a press release by email where one of the "Immigrant Rights" groups is bragging about their successful recall of the Arizona Senator that is concerned about the safety of Arizona's citizens along the border:


http://redwriteblue.blog.com/2011/11/12/nefarious-victory/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phil Van Voorhis
01:16 PM on 11/25/2011
Manufacturing will return to America when we too are finally willing to work for food. And that day will come.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
chuck nathaniel
Your micro-bio is pending approval
04:07 PM on 11/26/2011
yep.
12:38 PM on 11/25/2011
Nafta like the "super committee" is apparently one more fraud never intended to work.

Perfect deregualtion. IE unenforcable laws with government bodies too small to enforce them even if they made sense. The results being unreguated abuse of exosting laws that have made sense. Discussing deportation proceedings when the present Republican crew can't even figure how to support a constrtituionally mandate postal system. (lskip the internet and other irrelevantcy).

this Sociopathic criminal unaccountable morons (SCUM) stand there as if this was really a debate. Can anyone believe any of this SCUM would tell the truth?

.a circumstan­ce of smoke & mirrors created by game and role playing at the MBA factories. NAFTA neither made jobs to created more equitable trade and properity.

And for those "socialist baiters" perhaps they should look back at how NAFTA was sold. ONExactly ontheose principles
the real question is neither right nor left politics but a rigged casino system rather than a reasonable society.


I just love these "debates" At the time the stockmarke­t is being deliberate­ly crashed again, soft ball question are tossed to these situation comedy "stars" who have absolutely no intention on doing anything that doesn't enrich them personally­.

He will get in trouble with his base? Doesn't that base concenr nitself with 30 million plus paid to him by the mortgage funding arms of their own governemen­t ... such good advide tey needed a bailout. Errrrf!
photo
PLDgyrl
We won Mitches!!!!!!!
11:35 PM on 11/27/2011
I agree with you about the super committee - it seemed like a game of cloak and dagger.
12:08 PM on 11/25/2011
Good lord the only thng that could get this guy in trouble is a sex change and and affair with Eric Canter.

What a miseable collection of greed balls. Do you think they get a payemt everytime they pledge ? Of course. Otherwise what reason would they have to do it. Tehy certainly enjoy doing damage to the citizens and country.
11:42 AM on 11/25/2011
Damned if you do; damned if you don't, right? The left is just stuck on stupid!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phil Van Voorhis
11:09 AM on 11/25/2011
Any day now, middle class workers in Mexico will be buying goods manufactured in the U.S. I'm sure!

We're such chumps.