New York Times: Did Newt Gingrich have a “heartless” moment on Tuesday night?
In a September debate, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, drew a furious response from conservatives in his party when he said critics of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants “did not have a heart.” The response halted Mr. Perry’s momentum amid charges from rivals that he was too soft on the issue of immigration for the party faithful.
Now, Mr. Gingrich — the newest leader in the national polls — has embraced a similar apostasy: the idea that the country should find a way to make many millions of illegal immigrants legal.
“There’s a way to ultimately end up with a country where there’s no more illegality, but you haven’t automatically given amnesty to anyone,” Mr. Gingrich said, citing a program from the Vernon K. Krieble Foundation.
That was enough for Mr. Gingrich’s rivals to pounce. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, refused to allow Mr. Gingrich to claim that his suggestion was different than amnesty.
“If people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that’s going to only encourage more people to come here illegally,” Mr. Romney said.
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnestota agreed with Mr. Romney. “I don’t agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that in effect is amnesty,” she said.
Mr. Gingrich responded by pressing his case that the country — and the Republican party — would not be served by forcing the exile of immigrants who had been in the country for years, paying taxes and staying out of legal trouble.
“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,” Mr. Gingrich said during the debate. “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.”
That came perilously close — without being quite as Texas-blunt as Mr. Perry was — of suggesting that people who disagree with him on the issue are not humane.
But the question is whether Mr. Gingrich will find himself at the center of a political storm this week, fending off charges that he does not represent the mainstream of current conservative thinking on immigration.
That could represent the beginning of a newly difficult period for Mr. Gingrich, whose success in the polls in recent days has begun to attract the kind of scrutiny — from the media and from the activists in the Republican party — that has proved difficult for some of his rivals.
But if Mr. Gingrich recognized that he had wandered into difficult political territory during the debate, he did not seem too worried about it immediately afterward.
In an interview with Gloria Borger of CNN within moments of the debate ending, Mr. Gingrich stood by his comments, saying that “serious people” would not want to break apart families in the interest of sending illegal immigrants home.
“I want to be tough,” Mr. Gingrich said, responding to Ms. Borger’s questions about immigration. “But I can’t imagine any serious person in this country that says we are going to tear families apart who have been here 20 or 30 years.”
Mr. Gingrich said that under his proposals, millions of people who had come to the United States illegally — but recently — would be sent home. But he added that the Republican candidates should “unify the country” by having an honest conversation about what should be done with everyone else.
But his rivals don’t seem to be in a mood for the kind of conversation that Mr. Gingrich wants.
In a news release issued even before the debate was over, Mrs. Bachmann’s campaign cited what she called “Newt Gingrich’s Open Door to Illegal Immigrant Amnesty.”
“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich receives applause when he calls for declaring English the official language of American government,” she said in a statement. “But his immigration policy effectively equates to amnesty for foreigners residing in the United States unlawfully.”
It will take more than criticism from Mrs. Bachmann to create a real firestorm for Mr. Gingrich. But the immigration issue has a history of becoming too hot to handle for Republican candidates.
In 2007, Senator John McCain of Arizona supported a legislative package of comprehensive immigration changes that conservative critics derided as amnesty. The legislation failed to earn support in Congress and became a constant problem for Mr. McCain on the campaign trail.
He repeatedly got angry questions about the issue as he campaigned through Iowa and South Carolina. And the issue helped dry up his donor base so much that his campaign nearly collapsed.
For Mr. Gingrich, the immigration issue could be equally dangerous if it reinforces concerns that some conservatives have about his commitment to their positions on other important issues.
Mr. Gingrich once filmed a public service announcement on climate change with Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former Democratic House speaker — though he now says that was one of the dumbest things he ever did.
Right after entering the presidential contest, he also criticized the budget plans of Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the budget committee. Faced with an outcry among conservatives, he backed off and said he had been mistaken.
Now, the question is whether the criticism of his immigration position will be forceful enough to make him back away.
Doing so might help him win the nomination. But it carries dangers as well: It would add to the list of flip-flops that Democrats are already cataloging.
How will the conservatives react? And what will Mr. Gingrich decide to do? We should know soon.
Now, Mr. Gingrich — the newest leader in the national polls — has embraced a similar apostasy: the idea that the country should find a way to make many millions of illegal immigrants legal.
“There’s a way to ultimately end up with a country where there’s no more illegality, but you haven’t automatically given amnesty to anyone,” Mr. Gingrich said, citing a program from the Vernon K. Krieble Foundation.
That was enough for Mr. Gingrich’s rivals to pounce. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, refused to allow Mr. Gingrich to claim that his suggestion was different than amnesty.
“If people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that’s going to only encourage more people to come here illegally,” Mr. Romney said.
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnestota agreed with Mr. Romney. “I don’t agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that in effect is amnesty,” she said.
Mr. Gingrich responded by pressing his case that the country — and the Republican party — would not be served by forcing the exile of immigrants who had been in the country for years, paying taxes and staying out of legal trouble.
“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,” Mr. Gingrich said during the debate. “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.”
That came perilously close — without being quite as Texas-blunt as Mr. Perry was — of suggesting that people who disagree with him on the issue are not humane.
But the question is whether Mr. Gingrich will find himself at the center of a political storm this week, fending off charges that he does not represent the mainstream of current conservative thinking on immigration.
That could represent the beginning of a newly difficult period for Mr. Gingrich, whose success in the polls in recent days has begun to attract the kind of scrutiny — from the media and from the activists in the Republican party — that has proved difficult for some of his rivals.
But if Mr. Gingrich recognized that he had wandered into difficult political territory during the debate, he did not seem too worried about it immediately afterward.
In an interview with Gloria Borger of CNN within moments of the debate ending, Mr. Gingrich stood by his comments, saying that “serious people” would not want to break apart families in the interest of sending illegal immigrants home.
“I want to be tough,” Mr. Gingrich said, responding to Ms. Borger’s questions about immigration. “But I can’t imagine any serious person in this country that says we are going to tear families apart who have been here 20 or 30 years.”
Mr. Gingrich said that under his proposals, millions of people who had come to the United States illegally — but recently — would be sent home. But he added that the Republican candidates should “unify the country” by having an honest conversation about what should be done with everyone else.
But his rivals don’t seem to be in a mood for the kind of conversation that Mr. Gingrich wants.
In a news release issued even before the debate was over, Mrs. Bachmann’s campaign cited what she called “Newt Gingrich’s Open Door to Illegal Immigrant Amnesty.”
“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich receives applause when he calls for declaring English the official language of American government,” she said in a statement. “But his immigration policy effectively equates to amnesty for foreigners residing in the United States unlawfully.”
It will take more than criticism from Mrs. Bachmann to create a real firestorm for Mr. Gingrich. But the immigration issue has a history of becoming too hot to handle for Republican candidates.
In 2007, Senator John McCain of Arizona supported a legislative package of comprehensive immigration changes that conservative critics derided as amnesty. The legislation failed to earn support in Congress and became a constant problem for Mr. McCain on the campaign trail.
He repeatedly got angry questions about the issue as he campaigned through Iowa and South Carolina. And the issue helped dry up his donor base so much that his campaign nearly collapsed.
For Mr. Gingrich, the immigration issue could be equally dangerous if it reinforces concerns that some conservatives have about his commitment to their positions on other important issues.
Mr. Gingrich once filmed a public service announcement on climate change with Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former Democratic House speaker — though he now says that was one of the dumbest things he ever did.
Right after entering the presidential contest, he also criticized the budget plans of Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the budget committee. Faced with an outcry among conservatives, he backed off and said he had been mistaken.
Now, the question is whether the criticism of his immigration position will be forceful enough to make him back away.
Doing so might help him win the nomination. But it carries dangers as well: It would add to the list of flip-flops that Democrats are already cataloging.
How will the conservatives react? And what will Mr. Gingrich decide to do? We should know soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment