Newt Gingrich Defends Immigration Stance: 'I Am Not For Amnesty For Anyone'

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich defended his stance on immigration during a town hall in Naples, Florida on Friday.

"I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally," he said, according to The Hill.

"But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties run so deeply in America that it would truly be a tragedy to try and rip their family apart."

The former House speaker broke with the rest of the GOP field on the issue of immigration during a debate last week, calling for a more "humane" immigration policy that allows undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States.

"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," Gingrich said during the debate, broadcast on CNN Nov. 22.

"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. 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."

Republican critics have been quick to pounce on Gingrich's comments.

"He probably has the most liberal position on illegal immigration of any of the candidates in the race," Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said this week.

But, on Friday, Gingrich stressed that he would be anything but soft on immigration.

"I would have very, very stiff economic penalties for anyone who hires somebody who is not legally inside the system," Gingrich said. "I would be very tough."

Comments

[orange county man]

09:51 AM on 01/22/2012

That zebra is not going to change his stripes!

[RockLobster40]

10:54 AM on 12/13/2011

Illegal immigrants who have been here more than 25 years ? What a crock of BS !! Are you all not aware 25 years ago was 1987 and in 1986 illegal immigrants were given amnesty under the immigration reform and control act ? So how many of the illegal immigrants were here since before 1987 and did not recieve amnesty ? I would guess at a figure so insignificant it would be pointless considering such legislation. Gingrich is either a fool or is deliberatly trying to decieve. Either way this man should never be President.

[szweir]

02:20 PM on 11/30/2011

Only in Newt world can you be not parsing when taking both sides in an argument.

Lets be fair to the illegals who have been here for years but what we do for them is not amnesty. It must be another word Newt hasn't found yet.

Why would anyone want to bring him back from the dead politically, let him RIP.

[lulubelle1956]

08:34 PM on 11/29/2011

Just keep talking about immigration newt! You will either alienate your hateful base or the latinos and Hispanics, and it's a win win for Obama and the dems!

[Aurical]

11:53 PM on 11/28/2011

Keep tossing that red meat to your idiot base Newt!

[averagezoe]

04:13 PM on 11/28/2011

Many years ago, people left war-torn Europe and flocked to America in droves. No one was turned away and everyone became a legal resident simply by stepping of the boat. Many of those went on to achieve prosperity and fortune and, listening to my grandparents, people were kind to each other and always willing to help out newcomers. Today, immigrants risk life and limb to enter the country with no higher aspirations than to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads and despite the fact that most of them work hard, they are persecuted and despised while the laws have made it pretty much impossible for anyone to enter legally. The saddest part is that those who scream out their disdain the loudest, are the descendents of immigrants who didn't face such obstacles, but how quickly they forget. Just by virtue of being born here, people assume that they have the right to condemn anyone who is basically trying to achieve the same thing our forebears have done, only they did it during a time when immmigrating to the US was a fairly simple procedure. Why would anyone presume that being born here is his or her personal accomplishment and entitles him to lord this over anyone less fortunate? Being born is not a personal accomplishment - cockroaches are born here very single day.

[dtairtime]

07:18 PM on 11/28/2011

So no limits?

No concerns for the limited supplies of water, energy, etc?

No worries about how to pay for the tens or hundreds of millions of people per year as they implode our roads, schools, waste water plants, hospitals and landfills?

!00 years ago things were "slightly" different in regards to immigration. Nobody who came here got anything from taxpayers. We only had about 75 million people. The world had about 2-3 billion. Now we are at 310 million and we allow far more legal immigrants then we took in even then with no limits. We are expected to hit 600 million this century without anyincreases in numbers. How on earth will we supply energy and water, let alone anything else to that many people? Unless of course we lower our standard of living to that of India - then it's no problem as the US turns into a world economy with a world standard of living and a world TWO class society.

[cesar cris]

06:56 PM on 01/30/2012

you obviously don't believe in breakthroughs and technological advancement to confront 21st century issues. Go back under your rock. Come out when you have the energy again.

[absolutelyInsane]

09:50 PM on 11/28/2011

I do not and I am sure there are many others that do not condem these people from trying to make a better life for themself. When European citizens flocked to America they was not looking for a hand out. These people was hard working and proud and that is how they made it. I would like to see all of our taxpayer programs stopped and see if they are still flocking to the U.S. at the rate of 1m per year. Since they do not pay property taxes that aid in the education of their children they or their employer should be sent a bill to cover the cost to educate their children the same should be for medical expenses.

[cesar cris]

06:54 PM on 01/30/2012

wait. "they was"? wow. yea you are definitely proving a point. You need the money for school WAY MORE than undocumented immigrants I know. Listen kid. No one is looking for a hand out, only a chance in a world that besides rapid population growth has seen incredibly fast globalization. Large companies are killing small businesses around the world, so when people don't have the means anymore they look for better where they think they might stand a chance. Fight against the corporations who use the United States flag to invade countries and collapse economies, then you can complain about the undocumented. And it's "were" not "was". They WERE not. WHERE hard working. And BTW I can tell you because I see it with my own eyes. Many born in this country scratch they fat bellies at work while the undocumented work hard to provide for their families. Don't be a fool and fall pray to what the real thieves want you to believe. Some people stole a LOT of money from you and your family and are trying to find scape goats so you don't hang them.

[cesar cris]

07:18 PM on 01/30/2012

your ideas are completely misleading and you write horribly. the use of the word 'was' is not correct as it is the rest of the things you say. It's were not was. if you need a can ask my undocumented friend with a 4.0 average to give you some FREE tutoring.

[herenow12]

03:21 PM on 11/28/2011

Why was Rush Limbaugh given amnesty for illegal drug use?

[herenow12]

02:34 PM on 11/28/2011

It's funny that Newt is having to defend one of the few decent things he ever done to the teabagger crowd.

[gdeer]

11:23 AM on 11/28/2011

Ging should not be worried about destroying families; he has destroyed a couple of marriages; he is part of the problem.

[5041360]

11:08 AM on 11/28/2011

among newt's biggest contributors are the restaurant association- read herman) and the casino groups each of which employ thousands of hispanics and others- newt's statement does not come from, any sense of compassion - he's looking for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$! these groups depend on their workers legal or illegal- Newt's scummy side always surfaces!

[Jacquie Hamilton]

10:29 AM on 11/28/2011

So it's only a tragedy to rip families apart if they've been in the US for 25 years or more?

[randyjet]

11:16 AM on 11/28/2011

We do NOT split up families since the US only deports those who are not here legally. ALL of the families can leave and go home to their country of origin. The US does NOT force families to stay in the US. Thus it is THEIR choice to split up.

[Jacquie Hamilton]

11:30 AM on 11/28/2011

Children born in the US are citizens of the US. This is their country of origin not any other country.

[Tanya Marie]

11:34 AM on 11/28/2011

Let's put you and your family back on the first ship back to Europe.

[TheHeartland]

07:08 AM on 11/28/2011

Unveiling his new three fingered salute.

[Justjack1]

06:45 AM on 11/28/2011

"But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties run so deeply in America that it would truly be a tragedy to try and rip their family apart."
This makes no sense, i mean honestly, WHO would make that distinction?
I am sure that on the GOP side, that distinction would be 'Do you have a lot of money' or 'Not'?

[SirCoolBreeze]

06:37 AM on 11/28/2011

" "I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally," he said, according to The Hill. "But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties run so deeply in America that it would truly be a tragedy to try and rip their family apart." "

But they came here illegally Newt.
You've twisted yourself into a pretzel again.
Another whole year of this? Ya think? Really? Not.

[1differentdrummer]

06:26 AM on 11/28/2011

Except for serial adulterers.

[WOODSTOCKER60]

07:50 AM on 11/28/2011

SHOULD BURN AN "A" ON HIS FOREHEAD.....

[jake1492]

09:50 AM on 11/28/2011

Do you honestly care if Mr. Gingrich has committed adultery? Really?
What possible reason could you have for caring about that....other than possible partisan political advantage?
Explain for us why it matters that Mr. Gringrich has apparently committed adultery. What effect does that have on the policies he is proposing?

[5041360]

11:10 AM on 11/28/2011

actually I don't care about his personal life- I do care about the character of this guy and he is lacking in that-

[Tanya Marie]

11:35 AM on 11/28/2011

Republicans seemed to care a GREAT deal when Clinton did it.