Pages

Jump to bottom

11 comments

1 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 7:10:43am

I don’t think it’s a ‘States Rights’ argument. I think his reason for the suggestion is that local boards would be less bureaucratic and more able to make individually appropriate decisions.

I read Gingrich’s remarks as a companion piece to the statement he made at the GOP debate on Tuesday. Having a local board is a potential way to ensure you don’t deport someone who has lived in the US for 20 years and has children who are US citizens. So he’s getting what in his mind (and mine as well, if it works properly) is a two-for-one: A more humane (and just plain human) policy for determining if someone should be deported, and decentralization and local control (which can be regarded as federalism in action).

2 Lidane  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 8:24:39am

And what happens when those local boards are taken over by teabagger wingnuts and xenophobes who think that every immigrant should be deported regardless of their connection to the community?

Sorry, but no. Taking immigration away from the feds and giving it to local boards is a recipe for disaster. We just need to reform the federal immigration laws we have on the books.

3 aagcobb  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 8:55:17am

The interesting question is how big a hit will Gingrich take with the TP for suggesting that every brown person with a funny accent shouldn’t be arrested and thrown out of the country?

4 wilburs  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 11:20:05am

So now he is in favor of “death panels”?

I find it interesting that one of the criteria he proposed in determining whether or not someone was worthy of a reprieve was church attendance.
Why do I feel that this will be narrowly defined so as to include only certain types of churches?

5 wrenchwench  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 12:05:04pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

I don’t think it’s a ‘States Rights’ argument. I think his reason for the suggestion is that local boards would be less bureaucratic and more able to make individually appropriate decisions.

I read Gingrich’s remarks as a companion piece to the statement he made at the GOP debate on Tuesday. Having a local board is a potential way to ensure you don’t deport someone who has lived in the US for 20 years and has children who are US citizens. So he’s getting what in his mind (and mine as well, if it works properly) is a two-for-one: A more humane (and just plain human) policy for determining if someone should be deported, and decentralization and local control (which can be regarded as federalism in action).

I disagree.

I think Gingrich’s reason for the suggestion is to put the decision in the hands of people who will care about whether the person goes to church, and knows which local churches are the “right” ones. It also takes the decision out of the arena where a person might be entitled to a lawyer.

That would not necessarily make a more humane policy. It sound to me more like feudalism, not federalism.

6 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 2:07:48pm

re: #5 wrenchwench

I disagree.

I think Gingrich’s reason for the suggestion is to put the decision in the hands of people who will care about whether the person goes to church, and knows which local churches are the “right” ones. It also takes the decision out of the arena where a person might be entitled to a lawyer.

That would not necessarily make a more humane policy. It sound to me more like feudalism, not federalism.

I’m going to disagree with you. Honestly, I think between your view and mine it ultimately comes down to the fact that we have different views about Newt Gingrich. So I’ll just leave things at that.

7 wrenchwench  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 2:14:47pm

re: #6 Dark_Falcon

I’m going to disagree with you. Honestly, I think between your view and mine it ultimately comes down to the fact that we have different views about Newt Gingrich. So I’ll just leave things at that.

It’s partly our different views about Newt Gingrich, but I think it’s more the level of trust either of us would have in a local board. I read up on those draft boards Newt referred to. How fair do you think they were to different parts of the district they served? Do you think the same proportion of black people received deferments as whites? Do you think a poor kid had the same chance at a deferment as a rich kid? I know for sure what the answers to those questions are. By the way, those boards still exist, ready to swing into action when the draft is revived.

8 Lidane  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 2:50:40pm

re: #6 Dark_Falcon

I’m going to disagree with you. Honestly, I think between your view and mine it ultimately comes down to the fact that we have different views about Newt Gingrich. So I’ll just leave things at that.

It has nothing to do with Newt Gingrich and everything to do with the fact that a local board deciding immigration status is a BAD IDEA. I don’t give a damn if it’s Gingrich suggesting it or if Obama lost his mind and started talking about it. Bad idea all around, no matter who proposes it.

9 danhenry1  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 6:04:59pm

This way of thinking can be found far and wide.
Someone at the local voting precinct will see someone they have known all of their life. Hi (Whomever) never saw nor knew if the person was a legal voter.. Someone new that they don’t know? Where is your ID.
In some states (my home state of Mass., if you serve time for a crime, you can vote even in prison for state and county. Federal after you have completed your sentence. That is according to the Constitution… Why some states require you to have a Voting Right, reinstated is beyond me, and one of the basic really down and dirty things that separates the enlightened from those of a different bent.
This is the meat that is involved in any of this type of discussion. We cannot have one state looking at Voting Rights differently than another. How in hells name can you take away a fundamental Right? OK, kill em, that takes it away, but other than that?
Draft boards can also be about, who will be the fodde, and who can lead.

10 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 6:47:36pm

re: #6 Dark_Falcon

I’m going to disagree with you. Honestly, I think between your view and mine it ultimately comes down to the fact that we have different views about Newt Gingrich. So I’ll just leave things at that.

He sure does hate queers! or at least pretends to. And that’s not a view, that’s a fact


Not a fan of people who preach harm to me, sorry

11 wilburs  Sat, Nov 26, 2011 7:07:14pm

Once again Newt proposes a big government solution.

Why not let the free market decide this.

Businesses and private individuals can bid on the services of undocumented workers in a public auction….the ones that don’t sell get shipped home.


wait, that doesn’t sound right


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh