Gingrich on Immigration: More Moderate and Consistent Than Romney

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.Mark Bialek/Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The two GOP frontrunners are again clashing over immigration, with Newt Gingrich playing the role of immigration moderate to Mitt Romney’s border hawk. The only problem is neither label fits either candidate comfortably. 

This morning, Bloomberg revisited Romney’s past support for Bush’s 2006 immigration reform plan. As I wrote in September, Romney tried to have it both ways on the issue in 2008, after the once-moderate Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) became his main rival for the Republican presidential nomination. More awkward? Moderate-sounding Gingrich opposed the Bush immigration reform proposal at the time, and in the most inflammatory and inaccurate terms possible, saying that the McCain-Kennedy bill would grant “potential terrorists and gang members” legal status. Gingrich also authored a white paper titled “Fool Me Once,” which argued that the anti-illegal immigration enforcement promises made by Bush-era reform supporters would prove to be as empty as those made by supporters of the 1986 amnesty bill signed by President Ronald Reagan. Bush’s immigration reform proposal was famously tanked by revolt from within his own base

Gingrich did outline a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform for National Review in 2006. It looks a lot like what he’s proposing now. Gingrich wanted an English-language requirement, “citizen juries” to decide whether or not to deport unauthorized immigrants, a guest worker program, and privatized employment verification procedures. It’s not the deportation-only policy preferred by the Republican base, but it also raises the question of whether Gingrich opposed Bush-era immigration reform (which would have accomplished many of the same goals through alternate, less-Gingrichy means) because it was too moderate, or because, like Romney later on, he put his finger in the wind and figured out which way it was blowing. From the perspective of anti-immigrant conservatives, of course, there’s no real difference between Gingrich and Bush.

Republican voters can find plenty of evidence for the argument that both Romney and Gingrich are “squishes” when it comes to illegal immigration. When it comes to consistency, however, Gingrich can make a credible case that he’s not the flip-flopper Romney is. Whether his preferred immigration policies are any more workable than mass deportation is a different question.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate