Will Gingrich's comments on illegal immigration come back to haunt him?
 

I always enjoy the GOP debates. Last night's debate was a good debate.

What do you all think about Newt Gingrich's comment?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...k-to-haunt-him

I do not disagree with Gingrich but it is very counter to a common Republican (especially Conservative Republican) sentiment. The mere appearance of amnesty can be seen as providing some incentive. If an "illegal immigrant" can "stay off the radar" (does this tend to include paying taxes?) for a number of years and then not be treated "as an illegal immigrant," is there really any incentive to not be an illegal immigrant?

What say you, GCers?

I don't think its fair to say his views on what to do with illegal immigrants runs counter to conservative beliefs since Reagan, GWB, and McCain all felt the same way. In fact, Reagan did more to help illegal immigrants than any other president in my lifetime.

"...counter to a common Republican (especially Conservative Republican) sentiment...."

There is a reason why Gingrich's perspective received some negative responses. There is a reason why the negative responses are primarily coming from Republicans who have conservative views on immigration

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...?newsfeed=true

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...ecurity-debate

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...l-immigration/

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/23/politi...ion/index.html

**********************************

ETA:
As for Reagan, GWB, and McCain--the details lean more towards "helping" illegal immigrants met with certain stipulations. What Reagan signed included, perhaps rightfully so, employer restrictions on hiring illegal immigrants. Someone who is here illegally would have a more difficult time getting a job prior to their amnesty--that would hopefully keep more illegal immigrants away in addition to negatively impacting the labor market. "Help" is relative in that sense. McCain and Kennedy's 2005 bill did not make it but was used as one of the foundations for future bills. McCain has been criticized for being in denial of his views on illegal immigration--(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/14/sen-mccain-and-illegal-immigration/)

I would argue that certain aspects of McCain's perspectives seem to be more about the labor market use for illegal immigrants and only second about "helping" illegal immigrants. As for GWB, his sentiment was not uncommon among Republicans (including Conservatives): Increased border patrol; don't hire illegal immigrants (*wink wink*); no amnesty; don't send them ALL back home (because some of them serve some use *wink wink*); make illegal immigrants pay their debt to OUR society and maybe we will eventually let them be seen as legal and equal contributors to OUR society (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/washington/15text-bush.html?pagewanted=all).

Disclaimer/
I am neither Republican nor Democrat; neither Conservative nor Liberal. I think they are all wrong and they are all right. This thread is about Republicans because this is the GOP debate and Republicans (particularly Conservatives) are the ones criticizing Gingrich.
/Disclaimer

I think what Gingrich said runs counter to today's Republican party, which seems to be more about social conservatism (and in some cases, straight-up xenophobia) than fiscal conservatism, which was one of the hallmark of the 1980s/early 1990s GOP, along with supporting defense. Abortion, which is a hallmark of the GOP now, wasn't even an issue until the mid-80s.

The illegal immigration law in Alabama would not have been passed in 1981; this is in part because illegal immigration wasn't as widespread as it is today, but it's also because the xenophobes who are in power in some places have made it a major issue. They understand that people--specifically working class whites with little more than a HS education--don't have the privileges they once had and they need a scapegoat. Blacks aren't such a good scapegoat these days, so Central and South Americans (not necessarily illegal immigrants either) are the new scapegoat.

There's been a lot of talk about the GOP becoming "more accepting" or "diverse." Nonsense like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain are all examples of this failed attempt to become more pluralistic. Many of my family members were Republicans until the late 80s in part because of the GOP's stance on fiscal conservatism and a strong defense. In the past 20 years or so, it became clear to them that the GOP had no place for them. If the Republican Party focused more on those things, and less on policing those who are different, then they might get some of those people back.

I am self-aware enough to realize that I cannot objectively discuss this issue.

Suffice to say that the GOP would do well to follow Gingrich's lead on this.