BOOM! Michele Bachmann Publishes Gingrich’s 2004 Pro-Amnesty Letter

Posted on | November 26, 2011 | 64 Comments

Michele Bachmann today offered what she called “more evidence indicating that Newt Gingrich is the most liberal GOP candidate,” in a press release that cites a pro-amnesty letter Gingrich signed in 2004.

The Gingrich letter, sponsored by the neoconservative National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), called for President Bush to offer a “new path” via guest-worker arrangements and to “recognize that those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave.” The letter was co-authored by longtime pro-immigration activist Tamar Jacoby and originally published Feb. 6, 2004, in the Wall Street Journal.

“This letter is a clear indication that Speaker Gingrich has a deep history of supporting amnesty,” Bachmann said in the press release, sent to national media Saturday shortly after noon ET. “I don’t agree that you should make 11 million workers legal because that in effect is amnesty and will only encourage more illegal immigrants to come here.”

Gingrich has been under fire on the immigration issue since a debate Tuesday, when he proposed granting permanent U.S. residency to illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for 25 years. Gingrich’s rival Mitt Romney slammed Gingrich’s proposal as amnesty, as did influential Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King.

Jacoby is a scholar at the Manhattan Institute who has been called an “open-borders advocate” favoring amnesty for illegal aliens. In addition to Gingrich and the late Jack Kemp, other prominent signers of Jacoby’s NFAP letter included Linda Chavez, Francis Fukuyama and Grover Norquist, as well as former Bachmann adviser Ed Goeas.

Category: Debates, Election 2012, Immigration, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Republicans

Comments

64 Responses to “BOOM! Michele Bachmann Publishes Gingrich’s 2004 Pro-Amnesty Letter”

smitty
November 26th, 2011 @ 2:32 pm

Something is going to have to occur in the illegal alien debate, along this continuum:
(a) Ignore the problem, which is kind of what we’re about.
(b) Find a middle ground approach that bolsters the notion of Rule of Law, while moving the problem in the direction of acknowledging the presence of Folks Who Broke The Rules To Get Here.
(c) Frog march 11 million people to. . .somewhere.
ThePaganTemple
November 26th, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

Damn, it seems like somebody has been coming on here for quite some time telling everybody that Bachmann was the best of the bunch, but I can’t quite remember who it was, let’s see now, let me think, maybe it was, hmmm, damn what do you know it was ME!
smitty
November 26th, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

About my biggest complaint with Bachmann is that she seems to want to extend the reach of the income tax, rather than scuttling it.
Given my druthers, I’d do some heavily federalist stuff with DC. Yet, for some reason, the Constitutional ideas get labeled ‘radical’, while the bogus radical ideas are treated with affection.
Anonymous
November 26th, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

1. Secure the border, first.
2. Empower states to enforce the law.
3. Get serious about interior enforcement at the federal level.

Once you have done those things, many illegals will “self-deport,” returning to their home countries rather than risk an apprehension that would put a black mark on their record vis-a-vis future travel/work/residency in the U.S.

Rigorous enforcement will, over the course of three to five years, reduce the remaining population of illegals to a far more manageable number. Having relieved the soci0-economic strain of the current illegal tsunami, we will then be in a position to do some kind of SERIOUS immigration reform, including the outright repeal of the Ted Kennedy-sponsored 1965 immigration law with its obsolete and dangerous “family reunification” element.

So anybody who promotes amnesty by saying “we can’t deport X million illegals” has misunderstood the proper conservative policy.
Michael Cessac
November 26th, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

I find it highly ironic that Bachmann is going on this anti-illegal immigrant jaunt when her own history is replete with supporting the same things she is railing against now.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2011/09/in-state_tuitio.shtml

Even in the Reagan debate she talked about doing nearly the same as what Newt and Perry have been saying.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2011/11/25/debate_flashback_when_bachmann_supported_a_non-deportation_approach_to_illegal_immigration

Bachmann is getting to be as bad as Romney is, and that’s saying something.
Old Rebel
November 26th, 2011 @ 3:03 pm

Just another case in point why we can’t accommodate Neocons. They’re Troskyites in conservative clothing.
suzyrice
November 26th, 2011 @ 3:05 pm

I expressed yesterday on twitter what you expressed there in your comments and received a name-calling fool’s wrath, such name-calling fool claiming to be on the Right side of things (but who ever really knows when you’re replying to a formless, imaginary identity on the internet).

Essentially, I agree with you. I ALSO realize that U.S. agriculture, particularly, needs unskilled manual labor that tends to be filled more often by people from other nations rather than us overtaxed U.S. citizens. BUT, no guest worker program can ever function as such and well UNTIL or UNLESS many of the current loopholes that allow and encourage illegal immigration are removed, closed, repaired and otherwise eradicated. As it stands now, any “guest worker program” (includes that Red-Visa plan that Gingrich is pushing) will only be used for further exploits by people from other nations who want to skirt our immigration laws/requirements.
ThePaganTemple
November 26th, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

Its nice to fantasize about scuttling the IRS but we don’t have time for the constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment that would require right now. First you have to get yourself in the position where you can choose your battles, and then you should choose wisely. Until such time as we are able to repeal the 16th, if ever, then Bachman’s policy of simplifying the tax code and lowering the overall rate and requiring everybody to pay something is the best overall route. And then there’s that thing which might actually be more important than lowering taxes, which is reforming and reducing and in some specific cases outright abolishing the regulatory regimes and the burdens they impose on business and the economy. And all of this is something that can be accomplished by a simple majority vote in Congress, provided we get the numbers to prevent a filibuster. Because if we don’t, we’re toast. How many years do you think it would take to mount an effective drive for a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th amendment, or for that matter, to implement something like 9-9-9? Bachmann is right.
Anonymous
November 26th, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

The problem, Suzy, is that immigration has become (ignorantly) draped in the “civil rights” discourse, as if any random resident of Brazil, Botswana or Belgium who merely sets foot inside U.S. borders automatically becomes part of a protected “victim” group, so that any action against them is constitutionally prohibited “discrimination” — a violation of their rights, despite the fact that their presence here is by definition illegal.
Guest
November 26th, 2011 @ 4:07 pm

‘Guest Worker’ won’t work either, especially not the way Newt is offering up in his most recent speech. First, every other nation that has had a guest worker program has regretted it (Germany’s and France’s cases are most prominent); second, his idea of creating a class of citizens who can’t vote is just one Supreme Court case away from creating a class of citizens who CAN vote.
Immigration enforcement is one of the very few issues that has bipartisan support and hugs-n-kisses for the po’ liddle illegals is an across-the-political-spectrum loser; I just wish the current political class would pick up on this.
Bushwackca
November 26th, 2011 @ 4:19 pm

I guess we should go ahead and congratulate “Duh Won” for another 4 years…. This is eerily similar to the 2008 election, the progs/libs are licking their lips as we are crapping in our own food bowl…

Oh well, ABO may still have a chance but it won’t be enough to just win. We need a landslide victory to establish a KO punch to liberal policies. IF we barely win or lose it’s over for conservative values in power. Think CA….
Bill Steward
November 26th, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

She did vote “for” it only because it was a big funding bill and legal in-state-tuition qualifying students would have been hurt if she didn’t, but she first voted to amend it to exclude illegals and voted against it the next year when reintroduced to include illegals.. Gotta look at all the facts…

During
debate of the bill, Bachmann spoke in support of an amendment that
would have required such students to be legal residents as well.

“Is
citizenship a privilege, or is it a right?” she asked on May 5, 2005,
the day the chamber debated the bill. “It seems like the understanding
we’ve always had in this nation is that citizenship is a privilege for
those who are not born in this nation… This [bill] is affirmatively
having our state make a new decision about citizenship. And really by
doing this, we are answering that citizenship is now a right as opposed
to a privilege.”

She voted for the amendment, which failed.

But
when it came time to vote on final school funding bill, Bachmann was
one of 63 senators who voted in favor of the legislation; three
lawmakers, including two Republicans, opposed the bill.

Later
that day, the Senate replaced the House’s bill – which did not include
the tuition language – with its version of the legislation; again
Bachmann voted in favor of the bill.

Ultimately, the language was stripped in conference committee, so it never became law.

The
following year, Bachmann voted against another bill that would have
allowed undocumented students to get in-state tuition.
Anonymous
November 26th, 2011 @ 4:29 pm

In 2008 there were zero Conservatives running for the nomination. This year there are three (Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum).

So that is a big difference between 2008 and now. We have people who can win and actually advance the Conservative cause.

Of course, the job now is to fend off the RINOs.
Allen Turner
November 26th, 2011 @ 4:38 pm

Herman Cain is our best hope for 2012.
Bushwackca
November 26th, 2011 @ 4:44 pm

I think we had a few Conservatives at this time in 08. Somehow we ended up with McCain. And why did we end up with McCain? Because we let the media pick him, we consumed ourselves with “who is conservative enough” and a lot of folks didn’t show up to vote…. We will need every right thinking person in the nation to show up at the polls in 2012 to beat Duh Won…
Soopermexican
November 26th, 2011 @ 4:50 pm

ok ok. how much in the tip jar to cover this up?!
Joe
November 26th, 2011 @ 5:04 pm

Securing the border is an issue but the primary issue is not giving an incentive to come here.
Joe
November 26th, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

Fine employers who hire illegals enough that it is not worth their while to keep hiring illegals.
Anonymous
November 26th, 2011 @ 5:44 pm

I can’t stomach Newt in general (seeing him on a debate team with Charles Wrangel and Pat Schroeder on the “anti” side of a Firing Line drug legalization debate in the late 80s or early 90s was probably the beginning of my conversion to libertarianism), but win or lose he’s doing America a great service by talking sense on immigration.
Thane_Eichenauer
November 26th, 2011 @ 6:41 pm

When you start arguing against loopholes it starts making me think about modern day liberals and their campaign against tax loopholes. What are these loopholes you are talking about?
Thane_Eichenauer
November 26th, 2011 @ 6:42 pm

The primary issue is ending government welfare (freebies in whatever form).
Thane_Eichenauer
November 26th, 2011 @ 6:44 pm

Increasing labor costs for business is no way to become more prosperous. When you say fine employers you remind me of modern day liberals and their desire to tax and regulate every aspect of human behavior. Ewwwwww!
Thane_Eichenauer
November 26th, 2011 @ 6:47 pm

The office of President is only one third of the equation. Are there not 435 (RS) McCain-ite candidates for US House? Why not?
Thane_Eichenauer
November 26th, 2011 @ 6:51 pm

Mr. Cain is unorthodox and a bit of a rebel. I however doubt that he is unorthodox enough or rebellious enough.
Anonymous
November 26th, 2011 @ 6:59 pm

OK, then put them in jail for say 1 year per illegal they hire. Oh, and by them I mean the CEO, CFO, anyone who worked in HR, and the board. Add in the accounting firm that issued audited financial statements without disclosing this little risk.
Steve in TN
November 26th, 2011 @ 7:53 pm

The only way to not have the incentive to come here is to be as third world as their home. “They” were coming here long before we became a welfare state.
Steve in TN
November 26th, 2011 @ 7:56 pm

I disagree that Cain is a conservative.
edward royce
November 26th, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

D. Secure the borders.
E. Authorize & require all law enforcement to enforce immigration law.
F. Anybody arrested for violating immigration laws are given a 20 year suspended sentence with probation. If they’re found within the USA ever again they don’t get a second trial they go straight to jail.
G. The illegal alien’s country of origin is then charged $50,000 for the trial and if incarcerated an additional $35,000 a year for every year of incarceration.

Because a little bit of amnesty is like being a little bit pregnant. Either you are or you aren’t. And if the answer isn’t “aren’t” then you are promoting amnesty. And amnesty is a no-go.
edward royce
November 26th, 2011 @ 8:27 pm

The problem with American agriculture is that it is significantly subsidized. We subsidize it with the perpetual Farm Bill(s). And we subsidize their labor costs.

That has to end.

If the farmers don’t want to pay the prevailing wage for farm labor then they need to mechanize. And if they are unwilling to mechanize then it’s time they got out of farming.
Thane_Eichenauer
November 26th, 2011 @ 9:35 pm

How about we legalize hiring people rather than punishing peaceful and beneficial behavior?

A lesson from history: http://t.co/S9rFTdvZ
edward royce
November 26th, 2011 @ 9:57 pm

sigh.

Can we wipe the slate clean and start over with a new bunch of Presidential candidates? If this were a breakfast plate of eggs and bacon I’d send it back as a bit underdone.
Guest
November 26th, 2011 @ 10:03 pm

Breaking federal law- and violating any remote sense of decency- by hiring cheap, easily abused illegal immigrants is “peaceful and beneficial behavior” in your eyes?

Okay, I’ve heard enough.
Thane_Eichenauer
November 26th, 2011 @ 10:42 pm

I agree that the government should end agricultural subsidies. However, forcing them to buy robot tomato picking machines when living breathing people would happily do the same job is just another tune from the land of technocratic utopia.
Adjoran
November 26th, 2011 @ 11:42 pm

Unfortunately, there isn’t a good mechanized alternative for most of the farm labor jobs filled mainly by immigrants, guest workers, and illegals.

But no business should be subsidized beyond the public services available to every taxpayer, like police and fire protection, equal enforcement of the laws, etc.
Adjoran
November 26th, 2011 @ 11:47 pm

My theory is that McCain won because primary voters found more wrong with everyone else. I’m still not quite sure what happened to Thompson, although his dallying with getting in lost him some good will as well as time to organize and raise money.

But yeah, the priority is to beat Obama. Any of ours is far to be preferred, if for judicial appointments and regulatory reasons alone.
Adjoran
November 26th, 2011 @ 11:54 pm

Every single idea on immigration is unworkable which does not recognize two simple facts:

1. There will be no legalization, substantial guest worker program, amnesty, normalization, or paths to citizenship for illegals until and unless the border is substantially secured and the citizens are convinced it is secured; and,

2. There is no practical way of tracking and deporting 10-12 million people who do not wish to be found without turning the country into a true police state. For example, the total number of arrests annually requiring bond (including personal recognizance) is just under 3 million. That takes the full-time efforts of every federal, state, and local law enforcement officer already.

This is the reality, and no framework of a solution which is not based on the reality can possibly ever be instituted, much less work.
Adjoran
November 26th, 2011 @ 11:56 pm

Because most people recoil in horror at the thought of running down Bambi in a foreign-made car. They believe you should only run down Bambi in an American-made car.
Adjoran
November 26th, 2011 @ 11:59 pm

It is good to talk about it, and I generally agree with his position, with the understanding that none of it is possible until the border is secured.
Thane_Eichenauer
November 27th, 2011 @ 12:09 am

What is “secure the border” supposed to mean? Are you saying that the government has to build 100 more miles of US-Mexico border fence? Hire 2,000 more Border Patrol agents? I hear you (and John McCain) agitate for Secure the Border but I have yet to see any description of what that means.
Ccoffer
November 27th, 2011 @ 12:10 am

Way to go, Michelle Bachmann! Attack as many republicans as you can. Together, you and Ron Paul can completely destroy anyone’s chances of being supported by republican voters…yourselves included.

Dumbass.
Rick
November 27th, 2011 @ 2:57 am

smitty, a solution that doesn’t fall under you a, b, or c is to make use of E-Verify mandatory for every employer, “welfare” office, bank, apartment, and motor vehicle department. If these avenues are cut off, the illegal aliens will self-deport. They’ll have no choice.
Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs | SENTRY JOURNAL
November 27th, 2011 @ 4:16 am

[…] THE OTHER McCAIN: Michele Bachmann Publishes Gingrich’s 2004 Pro-Amnesty Letter […]
Thane_Eichenauer
November 27th, 2011 @ 4:33 am

Compared to everybody else’s comment here yours is even worse. Don’t critique any Republican is your suggestion?
Anonymous
November 27th, 2011 @ 5:16 am

Because we do not have the same economic, legal, or cultural environment as we did when open immigration began.

Economic: We do not have an open frontier to settle. We also don’t have the labor requirements of a factory and agricultural based economy to absorb legions of low skill workers.

Legal: We do have a huge number of welfare programs that only require a pulse to collect, a compulsory public school system, and requirements that medical care be provided to anyone who walks in the ER. This allows those workers we can’t use to require the rest of us to support them. It also allows employers to pay lower wages and benefits because welfare will take up the slack. Finally, we have a legal environment which allows Official Government Victim Groups to use the courts to force their members to be treated better than the average citizen. Which leads to

Cultural: We used to maintain a culture that encouraged immigrants to assimilate, to learn the language, to relegate wherever they came from to the past. Not even you are ignorant enough to claim that’s the case now. So instead of citizens in American communities we get little Balkans. That’s a recipe for trouble.
Anonymous
November 27th, 2011 @ 5:18 am

Which is 9-9-9 (or any other tax reform’s) biggest weakness. Repealing the 16th is a pre-requisite to help ensure we don’t just end up with more taxes.
Anonymous
November 27th, 2011 @ 5:20 am

And the President of the National Nonsequitor Society is heard from.
Anonymous
November 27th, 2011 @ 5:22 am

McCain won because Democrats used Republicans’ open primaries to put him there, and the media coddled him along until he was the nominee. Leftists want ORomney; they can’t really lose either way.
ThePaganTemple
November 27th, 2011 @ 8:19 am

I agree it should be repealed, but its going to take some time, probably a lot of it. In the meantime, something that simplifies the tax code and lowers rates to a flat tax, or close to a flat tax, is a good first step, actually a vitally important one. The only thing I would worry about is if things improved a great deal then that would kill the impetus to repeal the 16th, but in that case, they could at least pass some law similar to what Cain suggested, that any further raises in the tax rate would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate or something.
ThePaganTemple
November 27th, 2011 @ 8:22 am

I question whether there were that many Democrats who crossed over to vote for McCain, but you’re definitely right about the media. They openly promoted McCain and made no apologies for doing so. That fat bastard Tim Russert did it on Meet The Press and practically laughed in our faces about it. I shed no tears over that fat fucks demise.
ThePaganTemple
November 27th, 2011 @ 8:27 am

That’s what elections are for, in case you hadn’t noticed. Don’t you think it would be kind of lame if they all went around acting like they were some mutual admiration society? Newt stated his position on immigration, and Bachmann just elucidated what his position is. He insisted he is not in favor of amnesty, so she presented evidence that he not only is, but has been for quite some time and has made statements that amount to support for amnesty as recently as a year ago. So now you tell me, how is she wrong? Why should Gingrich or anybody else get a pass when they purposely try to falsely and deceptively portray their own positions?