Numbers USA Grading of Gingrich on Immigration

[BigSkyBob]

His grade was a "D." Barbara Boxer was a D+

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/217/reportcard

It time for his supporters to come clean and acknowledge Gingrich's record.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Of all the things you could hate on the Newt for, you choose this?

[Holmes]

"Reduce Anchor Baby Citizenship" is my favourite.

[redcommander]

Barbara Boxer 2012!

[Stardust]

I wish he'd gotten an 'F'. Then I could believe him when he talks about a free-market.

[BigSkyBob]

Of all the things you could hate on the Newt for, you choose this?

There is the incessant droning on and on about Drucker, Demming and Toffler, but, that's inside baseball.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering that NumbersUSA takes the position that we have too much legal immigration, let alone too much illegal immigration, their opinion of Newt doesn't bother me in the least.

[Wonkish1]

Considering that NumbersUSA takes the position that we have too much legal immigration, let alone too much illegal immigration, their opinion of Newt doesn't bother me in the least.

[BigSkyBob]

Considering that NumbersUSA takes the position that we have too much legal immigration, let alone too much illegal immigration, their opinion of Newt doesn't bother me in the least.

Each country takes the political decision on how many immigrants it wishes to absorb in any given year. In Japan, that number is close to zero. In Canada, it's about 1% of the population annually. The American political decision has been to accept about a million immigrants annually.

Yes, NumbersUSA advocates reducing the rate of immigration, legal and illegal. Gingrich, on the other hand, advocated the unlimited immigration of persons willing to be fingerprinted under the guise of being "guest workers" in addition to that million official "immigrants." That is advocating a massive increase in immigration.

Whether one should support Gingrich, or one of his opponents, depends on which political decision one believes the country should take. That is the purpose of elections. Candidates take stands on various issues, and, the electorate take decisions based on those stands. Feel free to stand with Newt in favor of amnesty, and in favor of massive increases of in immigration.

We will see how the issue plays out in the primaries.

[Wonkish1]

Considering that NumbersUSA takes the position that we have too much legal immigration, let alone too much illegal immigration, their opinion of Newt doesn't bother me in the least.

Each country takes the political decision on how many immigrants it wishes to absorb in any given year. In Japan, that number is close to zero. In Canada, it's about 1% of the population annually. The American political decision has been to accept about a million immigrants annually.

Yes, NumbersUSA advocates reducing the rate of immigration, legal and illegal. Gingrich, on the other hand, advocated the unlimited immigration of persons willing to be fingerprinted under the guise of being "guest workers" in addition to that million official "immigrants." That is advocating a massive increase in immigration.

Whether one should support Gingrich, or one of his opponents, depends on which political decision one believes the country should take. That is the purpose of elections. Candidates take stands on various issues, and, the electorate take decisions based on those stands. Feel free to stand with Newt in favor of amnesty, and in favor of massive increases of in immigration.

We will see how the issue plays out in the primaries.

I guess you miss the natural constraint that a Guest Worker program creates(its not unlimited). A company has to have a hard to fill job before they can pick a candidate from another country and bring them across.

And its at least debatable whether or not permanent restricted residency without access to citizenship is technically amnesty or not. One thing that is for sure is that if you place the year of acceptance far enough back its impossible for it to be considered a magnet that exacerbates the problem(unlike McCain Kennedy and Simpson Mazzoli which placed the date of acceptance a short period after passage).


Also I wouldn't say that Japan's rules of near zero has been a good thing for them. Look at how bad their aging population problem is and how its a key issue in why their budget problem is about to blow up and screw its population over.

[BigSkyBob]

Considering that NumbersUSA takes the position that we have too much legal immigration, let alone too much illegal immigration, their opinion of Newt doesn't bother me in the least.

Each country takes the political decision on how many immigrants it wishes to absorb in any given year. In Japan, that number is close to zero. In Canada, it's about 1% of the population annually. The American political decision has been to accept about a million immigrants annually.

Yes, NumbersUSA advocates reducing the rate of immigration, legal and illegal. Gingrich, on the other hand, advocated the unlimited immigration of persons willing to be fingerprinted under the guise of being "guest workers" in addition to that million official "immigrants." That is advocating a massive increase in immigration.

Whether one should support Gingrich, or one of his opponents, depends on which political decision one believes the country should take. That is the purpose of elections. Candidates take stands on various issues, and, the electorate take decisions based on those stands. Feel free to stand with Newt in favor of amnesty, and in favor of massive increases of in immigration.

We will see how the issue plays out in the primaries.

I guess you miss the natural constraint that a Guest Worker program creates(its not unlimited). A company has to have a hard to fill job before they can pick a candidate from another country and bring them across.

That wasn't what Gingrich said. He said if people were willing to be fingerprinted they shouldn't be stopped at the border. It was Pence whom advocated employer sponsorship.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically, "amnesty" is a general granting of immunity from prosecution for a specific crime. For instance, after most wars, blanket amnesty was granted to draft evaders. That is Gingrich's proposal. Practically, the only reasonable chance those illegals had to be offered immigration status by the legal process was being picked at random in the lottery. That is why they came here illegally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1986, a law was passed to make that point 1985. Turns out amnesty had a greater stimulative effect on illegal immigration that the promise to never do it had on reducing illegal immigration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Japan took the position that it doesn't matter as much as how many workers you have than how much work they accomplish. Their solution to work-force losses was robotics. As a benefit, there would be less crowding and lower costs associating with that crowding.

2) In America, immigrants are net tax consumers, meaning the fiscal problems of an aging population is only being exasperated by immigration.

The Japanese model is working for the Japanese. The American model is failing the Americans. Sure, we could adopt the immigration model of most countries in which applicants are granted points based on how their presence would benefit the existing population. But, our immigration policy isn't driven by the best interests of the American people; it is driven by the desire of business interests to have an unlimited pool of cheap labor.

[Wonkish1]

Considering that NumbersUSA takes the position that we have too much legal immigration, let alone too much illegal immigration, their opinion of Newt doesn't bother me in the least.

Each country takes the political decision on how many immigrants it wishes to absorb in any given year. In Japan, that number is close to zero. In Canada, it's about 1% of the population annually. The American political decision has been to accept about a million immigrants annually.

Yes, NumbersUSA advocates reducing the rate of immigration, legal and illegal. Gingrich, on the other hand, advocated the unlimited immigration of persons willing to be fingerprinted under the guise of being "guest workers" in addition to that million official "immigrants." That is advocating a massive increase in immigration.

Whether one should support Gingrich, or one of his opponents, depends on which political decision one believes the country should take. That is the purpose of elections. Candidates take stands on various issues, and, the electorate take decisions based on those stands. Feel free to stand with Newt in favor of amnesty, and in favor of massive increases of in immigration.

We will see how the issue plays out in the primaries.

I guess you miss the natural constraint that a Guest Worker program creates(its not unlimited). A company has to have a hard to fill job before they can pick a candidate from another country and bring them across.

That wasn't what Gingrich said. He said if people were willing to be fingerprinted they shouldn't be stopped at the border. It was Pence whom advocated employer sponsorship.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically, "amnesty" is a general granting of immunity from prosecution for a specific crime. For instance, after most wars, blanket amnesty was granted to draft evaders. That is Gingrich's proposal. Practically, the only reasonable chance those illegals had to be offered immigration status by the legal process was being picked at random in the lottery. That is why they came here illegally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1986, a law was passed to make that point 1985. Turns out amnesty had a greater stimulative effect on illegal immigration that the promise to never do it had on reducing illegal immigration.

What do you think guest worker is? It in every case involves employer sponsorship otherwise its a temporary visa program.

Well those people still do get prosecution(i.e. punishment) they can never get citizenship only a restricted form of permanent residency. And from what I can gather their would be fines directed at them, back taxes plus penalties owed, etc. That is punishment. Its just less punishment then deportation.

First of all its easy to fake evidence that you have been in the country for a year. It is very hard to present a very high standard of evidence that you have been in the US for well over a decade. And claiming Simpson Mazzoli led to more illegal immigration in the 90s and 2000s is a very dubious. No question the real magnet was supply of work.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Newt's position on immigration is right on the mark for the jmfcsts, who have never heard of NumbersUSA.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The reason Simpson-Mazzoli was a failure that led to more illegal immigration, because the gov't decided it wasn't going to enforce either at the border or domestically. Something which was part of the deal struck in 1986. The jobs magnet was created by lack of internal enforcement. In the 1990's, there was an attempt to bring about such enforcement internally.  It was Speaker Gingrich, who sided with business interests to ensure nothing really changed much on that front at all. E-verify was created, inspite of Gingrich's opposition, but it was "newtered" successfully by making it voluntary.

This is why this compassion game is backdoor amnesty. You set all the standards and year requirements you want, but as long as you water down enforcement, you will always ensure the next wave will be bigger and their will be another group "needing legalization out of compassion". People are sick of Washington games and this is one of the biggest con games being perpetuated in Washington, short of the political intelligence and insider trading. If the gov't actually committed to real enforcement, a guest worker program and even an amnesty would be fairly easy to pass. It is about trust and people don't have any faith in government to do it's job. The issue of magnets would go away. The problem is you have some who don't beleive the gov't has any role to play in regulating population flows, people who beleive any form of enforcement is racist and lastly people who will glady make mega dollars off the naivety of the first two groups.

I don't trust Gingrich will make any really change in the dynamic on this issue. If anything, he is more of the same.

[BigSkyBob]

Considering that NumbersUSA takes the position that we have too much legal immigration, let alone too much illegal immigration, their opinion of Newt doesn't bother me in the least.

Each country takes the political decision on how many immigrants it wishes to absorb in any given year. In Japan, that number is close to zero. In Canada, it's about 1% of the population annually. The American political decision has been to accept about a million immigrants annually.

Yes, NumbersUSA advocates reducing the rate of immigration, legal and illegal. Gingrich, on the other hand, advocated the unlimited immigration of persons willing to be fingerprinted under the guise of being "guest workers" in addition to that million official "immigrants." That is advocating a massive increase in immigration.

Whether one should support Gingrich, or one of his opponents, depends on which political decision one believes the country should take. That is the purpose of elections. Candidates take stands on various issues, and, the electorate take decisions based on those stands. Feel free to stand with Newt in favor of amnesty, and in favor of massive increases of in immigration.

We will see how the issue plays out in the primaries.

I guess you miss the natural constraint that a Guest Worker program creates(its not unlimited). A company has to have a hard to fill job before they can pick a candidate from another country and bring them across.

That wasn't what Gingrich said. He said if people were willing to be fingerprinted they shouldn't be stopped at the border. It was Pence whom advocated employer sponsorship.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically, "amnesty" is a general granting of immunity from prosecution for a specific crime. For instance, after most wars, blanket amnesty was granted to draft evaders. That is Gingrich's proposal. Practically, the only reasonable chance those illegals had to be offered immigration status by the legal process was being picked at random in the lottery. That is why they came here illegally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1986, a law was passed to make that point 1985. Turns out amnesty had a greater stimulative effect on illegal immigration that the promise to never do it had on reducing illegal immigration.

What do you think guest worker is? It in every case involves employer sponsorship otherwise its a temporary visa program.

Well, Gingrich mislabeled his temporary [infinitely renewable] visa program as a "guest worker" program.

I would note that even Pence didn't offer a "guest worker" program as you define it since if they lost their sponsored job, or quit after a day, they weren't expected to leave the country.

Gingrich's plan, Bush's plan, and Pence's plan were really disguised immigration plans. The trip was structured to be one way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Illegal entry is one crime, while tax evasion is another crime. Insisting that those granted amnesty pay their back taxes, or unpaid parking violations, is not a "punishment" for illegal immigration since lawful residents are also obligated to pay their back taxes, or unpaid parking tickets.

2) The history of these alleged "punishments" is pretty pathetic. We were told that illegals had to learn English. Then, it turned out that English classes were to be a special benefit to illegals paid by the taxpayer, and, if they didn't pass, they still received amnesty. The "fines" didn't even cover the cost of their paperwork, which other lawful immigrants have to pay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Again, Newt used the example of a nineteen year-old here for three years.

2) Simpson Mazzoli would have been unassailable if they insisted on producing timely-filed tax returns. The system was porous because those enforcing the system wanted it to be.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The immigration system was designed to fail by special interests, interests which Gingrich gladly went to bed with for 30 years. He is not an agent for change, he is just another blowhard with a taste for inflammatory rhetoric and a mixed bag for conservatives, which is presently being brushed aside and glossed over by those who have hopped on the bandwagon.

The COC/WSJ/IBD establishment has found another Tea Party fad they can get behind.

And how ironic that he also has troubles on immigration.

[Wonkish1]

The reason Simpson-Mazzoli was a failure that led to more illegal immigration, because the gov't decided it wasn't going to enforce either at the border or domestically. Something which was part of the deal struck in 1986. The jobs magnet was created by lack of internal enforcement. In the 1990's, there was an attempt to bring about such enforcement internally.  It was Speaker Gingrich, who sided with business interests to ensure nothing really changed much on that front at all. E-verify was created, inspite of Gingrich's opposition, but it was "newtered" successfully by making it voluntary.

This is why this compassion game is backdoor amnesty. You set all the standards and year requirements you want, but as long as you water down enforcement, you will always ensure the next wave will be bigger and their will be another group "needing legalization out of compassion". People are sick of Washington games and this is one of the biggest con games being perpetuated in Washington, short of the political intelligence and insider trading. If the gov't actually committed to real enforcement, a guest worker program and even an amnesty would be fairly easy to pass. It is about trust and people don't have any faith in government to do it's job. The issue of magnets would go away. The problem is you have some who don't beleive the gov't has any role to play in regulating population flows, people who beleive any form of enforcement is racist and lastly people who will glady make mega dollars off the naivety of the first two groups.

I don't trust Gingrich will make any really change in the dynamic on this issue. If anything, he is more of the same.

The reason why this isn't done is because many people don't want to redirect the money to doing something like this. For conservatives its money that could be used to reduce debt or cut taxes and for liberals its spending that could be used on more transfer programs. That is why it doesn't get done.

If you don't trust Newt on the issue then there isn't really anything anybody can say.

[Wonkish1]

What do you think guest worker is? It in every case involves employer sponsorship otherwise its a temporary visa program.

Well, Gingrich mislabeled his temporary [infinitely renewable] visa program as a "guest worker" program.

I would note that even Pence didn't offer a "guest worker" program as you define it since if they lost their sponsored job, or quit after a day, they weren't expected to leave the country.

Gingrich's plan, Bush's plan, and Pence's plan were really disguised immigration plans. The trip was structured to be one way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Illegal entry is one crime, while tax evasion is another crime. Insisting that those granted amnesty pay their back taxes, or unpaid parking violations, is not a "punishment" for illegal immigration since lawful residents are also obligated to pay their back taxes, or unpaid parking tickets.

2) The history of these alleged "punishments" is pretty pathetic. We were told that illegals had to learn English. Then, it turned out that English classes were to be a special benefit to illegals paid by the taxpayer, and, if they didn't pass, they still received amnesty. The "fines" didn't even cover the cost of their paperwork, which other lawful immigrants have to pay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Again, Newt used the example of a nineteen year-old here for three years.

2) Simpson Mazzoli would have been unassailable if they insisted on producing timely-filed tax returns. The system was porous because those enforcing the system wanted it to be.

I never defined guest worker as a program as that meant someone had to leave immediately after job termination. Some grace period is fine and doesn't make the program a non guest worker program.

They are immigration plans. People moving for work are immigrating. They lose their job and overstay any grace period and they immigrate back.

1) Fair point

2) Well the government sucking in the past at administering punishments goes pretty hand and hand with a government sucking at enforcing illegal immigration and generally sucking at everything they touch. Is that really a surprise. One positive thing is that Newt actually suggests outsourcing the administration which gets passed some of these issues.

1) What's your point?

2) Tax returns weren't the only issue with Simpson Mazzoli.

[BigSkyBob]

The reason Simpson-Mazzoli was a failure that led to more illegal immigration, because the gov't decided it wasn't going to enforce either at the border or domestically. Something which was part of the deal struck in 1986. The jobs magnet was created by lack of internal enforcement. In the 1990's, there was an attempt to bring about such enforcement internally.  It was Speaker Gingrich, who sided with business interests to ensure nothing really changed much on that front at all. E-verify was created, inspite of Gingrich's opposition, but it was "newtered" successfully by making it voluntary.

This is why this compassion game is backdoor amnesty. You set all the standards and year requirements you want, but as long as you water down enforcement, you will always ensure the next wave will be bigger and their will be another group "needing legalization out of compassion". People are sick of Washington games and this is one of the biggest con games being perpetuated in Washington, short of the political intelligence and insider trading. If the gov't actually committed to real enforcement, a guest worker program and even an amnesty would be fairly easy to pass. It is about trust and people don't have any faith in government to do it's job. The issue of magnets would go away. The problem is you have some who don't believe the gov't has any role to play in regulating population flows, people who believe any form of enforcement is racist and lastly people who will glady make mega dollars off the naivety of the first two groups.

I don't trust Gingrich will make any really change in the dynamic on this issue. If anything, he is more of the same.

The reason why this isn't done is because many people don't want to redirect the money to doing something like this. For conservatives its money that could be used to reduce debt or cut taxes and for liberals its spending that could be used on more transfer programs. That is why it doesn't get done.

The cost of mandating e-verification would be a tiny faction of the cost illegal immigration adds to the system. It would generate more saving than it costs.

Illegal immigration, basically, is a giant wealth transfer mechanism. Employers of illegals pocket the savings of cheap labor while the taxpayers in their communities subsidize the illegal's stay. Those that gain do so on a scale large enough to contribute to politicians, and to the corruption in Washington. The cost to the taxpayers is disfused among hundreds of millions. Each taxpayer doesn't have an economic stake large enough to justify hiring lobbyists to stop it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'm saying to him, "You are right!"

[Wonkish1]

The cost of mandating e-verification would be a tiny faction of the cost illegal immigration adds to the system. It would generate more saving than it costs.

Yeah but politicians don't think like that because the CBO doesn't score like that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

E-verify isn't being stopped because of fiscal conservatism. It is being stopped by the COC, leftwing PC no borders types, and a negative media blitz about the experience in GA and AL.

The idea that it is tremendously expensive to do responsible enforcement is a lie used as cover by people who exaggerate what such an enforement effort looks like to scare people away from it. In the end, it is a con game so the COC's members can protect their bottom lines by employing dirt cheap labor at sub market levels which distorts and harms the economy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Newt's position on immigration is right on the mark for the jmfcsts, who have never heard of NumbersUSA.

Well that means that Newt is in BIG trouble.

Also, not surprised you haven't haven't of NumbersUSA.

[Wonkish1]

E-verify isn't being stopped because of fiscal conservatism. It is being stopped by the COC, leftwing PC no borders types, and a negative media blitz about the experience in GA and AL.

The idea that it is tremendously expensive to do responsible enforcement is a lie used as cover by people who exaggerate what such an enforement effort looks like to scare people away from it. In the end, it is a con game so the COC's members can protect their bottom lines by employing dirt cheap labor at sub market levels which distorts and harms the economy.

Well its both. The Dems don't want enforcement. They will filibuster or vote down any aggressive changes to enforcing them. Some of the GOP don't want to budget for it. It costs a reasonable amount of money to for example build a fence.

The Chamber isn't majorly anti enforcement. They for the most part don't care that much if an increase in enforcement gets appropriated. Its when you start talking about something like E-Verify that burdens employers do they start to come out against it. But pair it with something small that they want like a 3% corporate tax cut across the board(to 'pay for it') and they'll stay out of it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The fence is pretty much irrelevant. E-verify is the real "crux" of the matter and as you said, the COC is against it.

It isn't about funding enforcement, it is about preserving the cheap labor which big agra and other industries have become as dependent on as a cocaine addication.

[Wonkish1]

The fence is pretty much irrelevant. E-verify is the real "crux" of the matter and as you said, the COC is against it.

It isn't about funding enforcement, it is about preserving the cheap labor which big agra and other industries have become as dependent on as a cocaine addication.

While I agree that you can make an argument that is the reason why, I don't think you can definitively say that the reason why the COC opposes that is because of cheap labor and not their general aversion to all things that add liability and paperwork to businesses. Until a bill is produced that at least attempts to compensate for that cost and liability to businesses we'll never know for sure, will we?