Poor Newt Gingrich. During the recent GOP presidential debate in Washington, DC, he wanted to sound like the reasonable adult in the room when it comes to the issue of immigration. However, in a party dominated by ugly, nativist rhetoric against unauthorized immigrants, there is no room for a rational, civil discussion of the issue. Newt Gingrich was the latest target of a Republican pile-on for his "soft" views on immigration. When asked by debate moderator, Wolf Blitzer, what he would do about the 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in America, Gingrich refused to jump on the Republican "deport 'em all" bandwagon: "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... 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 they are not separated by their families.'" Not surprisingly, the other Republican candidates were quick to pounce. Both Romney and Bachman accused Gingrich of supporting amnesty instead of securing the borders and creating a magnet for "illegal" immigrants.
You'd think Gingrich would have learned from the pounding Gov. Rick Perry suffered in the debate in late September when he defended his support of a Texas law that allows children of unauthorized immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition. Perry even suggested that Republicans who opposed the law were "heartless." Since being savaged by other Republican contenders, Perry has been careful not to talk about the Texas law and instead to emphasize his support for "get tough" policies, including increased boots on the ground and more predator drones to patrol an already heavily militarized border. This past debate it was Gingrich's turn to show he had a heart, arguing that a policy of deportation that tears apart families went against the principles of the "party of family values."
The dilemma for the GOP is obvious. During October's debate in Las Vegas, after listening to a similarly heated exchange between the candidates over immigration, a Latino in the audience wondered aloud what Republicans had to offer the Latino community. Not surprisingly, the GOP is likely to pay a price for its extreme views on immigration in the 2012 elections. According to recent polls by Latino Decisions, Latino support for Republican candidates is at historic lows and Obama appears poised to secure about the same percentage of the Latino vote in 2012 as in 2008. While Obama and the Democrats can take some comfort in the polling data, Latinos are not enthusiastic in their support of the President. Fifty-three percent of Latino registered voters are "less excited about President Obama and his accomplishments" after his first three years in office. The lukewarm support of Obama is related to his failure to deliver on comprehensive immigration reform and immigration enforcement policies that have produced historic levels of deportations and instilled fear in immigrant communities. In other words, instead of embracing Obama as they did in 2008, Latinos are reacting to a Republican Party that champions even more draconian Alabama-style laws that make life unbearable for unauthorized immigrants and their families.
The lesson from the most recent debate is that in today's GOP, more moderate views on immigration that were so instrumental to President George W. Bush's appeal to Latino voters have no place. Sensible ideas about immigration reform will be drowned out by the GOP's nativist rhetoric that equates unauthorized status with criminality and a path to citizenship with amnesty for lawbreakers and free riders. It's time for both parties to move beyond the polarizing discourse and address the more fundamental questions that lie beneath the immigration debate: what kind of a country do we want to be and how do we want to relate to our neighbors and the rest of the world? Only when we begin to respond to these questions with a more inclusive sense of "we," can we dream of a more just and humane immigration policy that reflects the increasing diversity of America and its deeper engagement with the world.
About the author: Philip J. Williams is the director of the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Florida and co-author of Living "Illegal": The Human Face of Unauthorized Immigration.
Rev. Chuck Currie: Would You Trust Newt Gingrich With Your Children?
Here's a few sensible ideas that relate to the kind of country I want:
- Reduce legal immigration to 250,000 per year
- Require all employers to utilize the E-verify system
- Eliminate birthright citizenship
- Enhance our visa entry/exit process
I want a country with a stable population, where the interests of US citizens are given priority, and where our immigration laws are taken seriously and enforced. It is time to stop doing the bidding of cheap labor interests, illegal immigrants, and special interest ethnic identity groups.
CBP estimates that between 10-25% of illegals attempting to enter the US are apprehended. Based on 2010 apprehension rates that extrapolates to around 1.8 million illegals that tried to enter the US last year vs the 1 million plus legal immigrants that we admit every year.
Also I like your point about the exit system. The USA is the only country I know of that does not seem overly concerned with exit controls. By implication they have no clue who out of all of our visitors is still here. Visa overstays are minor infractions and we should take that way more seriously since a big proportion of illegals come in on a tourist or student visa and then stay, which is visa fraud - a deportable offense that will see you blackballed for 10 years.
If George Bush was so reasonable, why did Democrats not support his immigration bill in 2007?
Obama has failed to introduce an immigration bill and deportations are at all time highs; it appears he has little to offer Latinos either
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/obama-has-deported-more-immigrants-than-bush/60433/
Latinos are noticing, Gallup has their support for him at 50%, a far cry from 2008
And you fail to notice that this is primary season when GOP candidates have to appeal to conservative voters; a GOP president would likely govern very differently
The fact that two prominent conservatives feel able to propose common sense immigration reform is encouraging to me
I'm not a republican and I voted for Obama but this one issue would make me change my vote as it has become obvious that Obama is in La Raza's pocket and he's attempting to trade amnesty for votes. The American people will not stand for that any more and there is nothing inhumane about adhering to the law and requiring individuals entering OUR country to follow the rules when doing so.
What sort of attitude is this? What happened to "ask not what your country can do for you . . . "
1 legal immigrant every 38 seconds of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month, of every year for the past conseutive 10 years
While ~ BHO is deporting OUT of the USA, 1 illegal every 79 seconds of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month of his 34-month presidency = 396,906 illegals deported, annually
Enough of these tired & bogus La Raza talking points
On the other hand, Africans who were taken by force to serve as slaves in America, they came with their papers fully in order, legally.
And I beg to differ, immigration law is more like an exclusion law, a draconian, incomprehensible patchwork of prohibitions. To say that this law is perfect as if it was God-given, and it doesn't need reform really badly, is dangerously naive and outrageously foolish.
Seering narrative on US's perceived Immigration Law.
Oh, puh-leeze! You know full well that the only issue for Republicans is the ILLEGALITY of the immigration. Democrats seize on the immigration issue, casting it as racial discrimination but that clearly doesn't make it so. My Hispanic wife gets incensed at the proposals for amnesty, putting these law-breakers ahead of those who patiently waited their turn in line to come to this country. I have no doubt that legions of other Hispanics feel the same way.
(R) Ronald Reagan granted by executive order, U.S. Citizenship to all illegals in the USA 25 years 31 day ago today.
Point being ~ all illegals more than 25 years ago? Have already be granted Amnesty.
Paul is a decent and right person but unfortunately politics does not work this way...sorry.
I also like the man but he has no chance for presidency..we need to think "global"-unfortunately.
But this is the reality.We need think very wide..and Ron Paul with all his priorities is just not the one who would lead the world.But,do not get me wrong,I like the man.
The way to have a functioning law -- any law -- is to enforce it! We expect, in fact demand, that our clear immigration laws be enforced now and in the future. This isn't "Nativist" unless you think there should be no limit on immigration, no real system of immigration, no real concept of immigration. It's all just migration and tourism.