Newt Walks a Fine Line on Immigration

In his recent debate appearance in Iowa Newt Gingrich made the risky move of laying out a proposal for immigration reform that tries to walk a fine line between strict enforcement and amnesty for illegal aliens. Naturally, this proposal has generated a great deal of heated discussion on the issue.

First, let me begin by saying that I am a firm believer in securing our borders and enforcing the law when it comes to illegal immigration. Before anyone accuses me of being anti-immigrant however, they should know that my wife and two oldest children are immigrants who went through the legal process to come here. We went through a long, difficult and expensive process to abide by our nation’s immigration laws. While I am in favor of changing those laws to make the process less burdensome, I believe everyone who comes here should abide by the laws that are on the books. I am not anti-immigrant, I am anti-illegal immigration. There is a difference.

We conservatives have long held the position that the illegal immigration can be controlled through tightening border security and by taking away the economic incentives that act as magnets to draw illegals into the country, and our current economic crisis has gone a long way to prove our point. With Mexico’s unemployment at a lower rate than our own, the flow of illegals coming across our southern border has all but dried up and traffic heading south has reduced the number of illegals estimated to live in the country significantly.

Those who are opposed to enforcing our immigration laws have been very effective in hammering us with the “cruel and heartless” label, accusing conservatives of wanting to tear families apart. They often point to examples of illegal immigrants who are living here for years as productive members of local communities who would be forced to uproot their families and leave the country. The truth is that while none of us are interested in creating undue hardships for these families, we see the necessity of controlling our borders and the importance of the rule of law. The conservative position is logically correct, but those who are driven more by emotion than logic will never be persuaded by our arguments.

What Newt has managed to do is to present a plan which epitomizes the spirit of genuine compromise, resolving the important issues without sacrificing the principles of either side. While I can see some points that are still lacking, I believe his plan is one that is worth considering.

If you take the time to actually read the specifics of his proposal, you will see that the first item on his agenda will be to secure the border. I firmly believe that until the border is secure, no other movement should be made to deal with those who are already in the country, and Newt’s plan reflects that same belief. He makes the point that controlling the border is not an impossible task and that we have the manpower and resources to accomplish that goal. All we are lacking now is the will to do so.

Once the border is secure, Newt proposes that we create a path to legality for those who have been here for a long period of time and who have put down roots in a community. I like this approach for a number of reasons.

One, it addresses the emotional issues that I discussed earlier without providing those who came here illegally with a path to citizenship. This is important because it is not a reward for bad behavior, it does not put illegals at the head of the line in front of those who came here the right way, nor does it instantly provide the Democrats with millions of new voters.

Second, it allows us to humanely deal with these families without creating a magnet that will draw new illegal immigrants across the border. Since only long term residents are eligible for the program, there is simply no new incentive to come. Those who have recently entered the country will be deported, which will be an improvement over the current “catch and release” program currently in place.

The third aspect of this plan that appeals to me is that local communities will be in charge of determining which applicants will be allowed to stay, rather than giving that power to a faceless Washington bureaucracy. Obviously, there will be appropriate federal guidelines to be followed, but each case will be reviewed on a local level and the ultimate determination will be made by those who are most affected by the decision.

This plan does not however, bestow amnesty. Instead there is acknowledgement that the person’s presence in this country is due to an illegal act by virtue of the fact that they are not afforded the path to citizenship that is available to those who followed the rules in coming here. Additionally, the plan imposes a fine of at least five-thousand dollars per person.

There are, as I said earlier, a couple of things that are lacking that I would like to see addressed. First, no mention is made of how we would deal with the fact that many of these people are almost certainly guilty of identity theft and tax evasion. Obviously we cannot simply ignore such issues and Newt will have to address this if he hopes to move forward with this idea.

Another thing that is not addressed is the “anchor baby” issue. As long as potential illegal immigrants know they can secure citizenship for their children simply by crossing the border prior to their birth, there will continue to be a strong incentive for them to come here.

From a political standpoint, Newt has taken a big risk but it may well pay off for him. Although he isn’t taking the hard line that most of us have long advocated, he has taken a position that will achieve our goals and still appeal to those who simply look at the humanitarian aspects. Additionally, I think this plan will appeal to the Hispanic community because it provides their best hope for coming out of the shadows in which they have been living.

All things being considered, I think Newt’s plan is one that will work to resolve an issue that should have been put to rest years ago.

The Gingrich / Cain Debate

I want to begin by saying that I am no stranger to political debate. I have hosted and moderated formal debates, and on more than a few thousand occasions engaged in not so formal political debates; and tonight I have watched the most intelligent and most informative political debate I have ever witnessed. The debate, hosted by the Texas Tea Party Patriots was designed to value substance over sound bytes, and was very successful in attaining it’s goal..

My congratulations go out to both Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain for their performances. Not only did they do an outstanding job of presenting their ideas, they managed to do so without even once attacking each other. In fact, both candidates made a point of complimenting each other on several occasions. What a welcome relief from the media sponsored events we have been subjected to over the past several weeks!

As I expected, Newt Gingrich did an outstanding job of addressing the issues and presenting rational ideas that actually stand a chance of solving the problems our nation faces. What was most impressive was that he did so by sticking to the facts rather than pandering to the sensibilities of the Republican establishment or of the left wing press.

It was the performance by Herman Cain that I found most surprising. Don’t get me wrong, I have always liked him, to the point that I campaigned for him when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. While I like Herman and believe he would be an enormous improvement over our current President, I was doubtful of his ability to hold his own against Newt Gingrich (and therefore Barak Obama). Although I think Newt gave the most impressive performance of the two candidates, Cain did a very good job of expressing his ideas.

If we are to ever do a better job as citizens of choosing our elected officials, I firmly believe that we need to pay more attention to substance rather than style. Certainly, this most recent debate sets the standard for the future. The discussion was informative, substantial, and thought provoking. Rather than engaging in mud slinging and personal attacks, the candidates had the time to make the case for their own points of view. Although the media outlets are already panning the debates because they were devoid of the usual personal attacks, I believe this style debate does a much better job of focusing on the important issues that our nation faces.

Let’s examine this for a moment. The Associate Press began a story by criticizing the debate because it allowed the candidates to focus on Social Security and Medicare reform rather than the “biggest political story of the week, the decade-old sexual harassment allegations that have dogged Cain's campaign” Tell me, which of the two topics will have the greatest impact on your life? This is why we simply cannot allow the media to shape the content of the debate leading up to the 2012 election.

In the end, I believe Newt Gingrich did the best job in the debate, much as I had expected. The pleasant surprise however, was the fact that Cain managed to not only hold his own in the program, but to add substantively to the discussion. Not to diminish Cain’s abilities, but I have harbored doubts about his depth of knowledge on some issues. Obviously, there are other issues to be discussed, but frankly I am satisfied that his level of knowledge in the areas discussed is sufficient.

All through this program, I found myself wishing for a Gingrich / Cain ticket for the 2012 election. The level of respect shared between the two candidates is something that is sorely missing in our current political landscape. Both candidates bring something to the table, and I have no doubt they could work as a team to bring about the kind of changes that are needed in Washington.

The overall lesson to be learned from tonight’s debate however is the recognition that an intellectual and substantive debate on the significant issues that we currently face need not entail an all out assault on the character of any of the debate participants. It would seem that it is possible to debate the issues without resorting to name calling and mud slinging. To put it bluntly, a rational discussion of the important issues of the day is entirely possible in the absence of members of the “main stream” media. I wonder, what lessons can we learn from that?