Newt Gingrich - Immigration

Last Updated: Jan 02, 2012

Summary

Congressman Gingrich supports open borders, benefits for illegal aliens, and allowing illegal aliens to remain in the US with or without granting them citizenship. He opposes the application of US immigration laws and proposes avoiding the issue with the creation of new systems to accommodate illegal aliens. Speaker Gingrich often contradicts these viewpoints by stating his support for border security and the rule of law. However, his record on immigration combined with plans he has supported and proposed in his presidential run indicate strong support for amnesty.

In 1986, Congressman Gingrich voted in favor of the Simpson-Mazzoli act. This legislation granted amnesty for all illegal aliens in return for border security in the future. He later noted that President Reagan expressed regret at signing the legislation, but did not commit to ensuring that the mistake was not repeated.

In 2006 and 2007, Congressman Gingrich wrote a series of op-ed outlining his views on immigration. He supported enforcing laws relating to the punishment of employers who hire illegal aliens and securing the border. He also argued for an end to amnesty and illegal immigration. In those same papers, Congressman Gingrich also called for allowing illegal aliens to remain in the US indefinitely because enforcing US laws would lead to the breakup of families. He called for the creation of citizen councils in every locality to address the case of each illegal alien individually and determine if that person fell under the rule of law, or would be exempted and allowed to stay without citizenship, but under a legal premise.

Congressman Gingrich also called for a universal ID card that would be given to every person in the US, legal or illegal. Anyone who wanted to come to the US and work would be given a card and allowed to stay, but would not be given citizenship. He proposed outsourcing verification and issuing of those cards to private companies such as Visa and Mastercard.

In early 2011, Speaker Gingrich stated that he viewed attempts to pass the DREAM Act as pandering for votes. He then stated that he would support the goals of the legislation if it was passed as an amendment and not handled as a separate piece of legislation.

Congressman Gingrich's previews are evident in his plan to address immigration as President. He vocally advocates for border security and ending illegal immigration. He then defines ending illegal immigration as making those present in the US illegally, legal residents. To accomplish this task, he proposes the same "red card" system he advocated for in 2006 and 2007 which would assign a "red card" to each person and allow them to remain and work in the US as long as they desire and then return home whenever they wish. These cards would be outsourced to the private industry.

Citizenship would be addressed through the same local boards advocated for in the past with local community leaders controlling immigration by assigning citizenship to other locals.

The arguments that Speaker Gingrich uses have remained consistent throughout his speaking career and campaign. Those have been in the country for an extended period of time have established roots and families in the nation. Those roots and family ties trump US laws. However, those who have come to the US recently will still be eligible for deportation if the local board does not exempt them.

American Enterprise Institute Speech

On April 26, 2006 Congressman Gingrich spoke at the American Institute and talked about the need to control the border. He uses the example of Rudy Guliani's time as mayor of New York taking on crime as the need to use real control of crime.

Honesty in Immigration

The same day as the American Enterprise Institute Speech, Congressman Gingrich wrote an article for the National Review Online calling for honesty in immigration.

April 26, 2006, 12:30 p.m.
Honesty in Immigration
We need a firm foundation of law.
By Newt Gingrich
The thousands of people we have seen marching in the streets of our cities and the planned May 1 boycott to protest U.S. immigration policy are the product of two decades of a fundamentally dishonest immigration system.
For more than 20 years, the United States has failed to control the borders or enforce immigration laws while many U.S. businesses have profited by breaking the law. In turn, the U.S. government failure to enforce the immigration laws has encouraged outright defiance of federal authority by certain state and local jurisdictions. Adding insult to this deplorable state of affairs is an immigration bureaucracy that has been slow, cumbersome, rude, heartless, and incompetent in the discharge of its duties.
This dishonest system has lured millions to enter our country illegally and obtain work here illegally.
Where are we and how should we proceed?
A detailed set of policy recommendations can be found in a working paper that I released today at the American Enterprise Institute. I have also recently recorded several radio commentaries on aspects of the immigration challenge. But let me provide here an overview.
First, it is essential to understand how big and how serious this problem is.
Second, it is equally essential to understand how big the changes will have to be to really solve the problem.
Third, it is important to follow a logical set of sequential, sustainable solutions that build a momentum that over time will result in a rational and orderly immigration policy acceptable to a majority of the American people.
Getting there is a matter of national survival both in immediate and in the long-term.
First, we must deal with the immediate. Open borders are a grave national-security threat. Why have a multibillion-dollar ballistic-missile-defense system when a terrorist can rent a truck and drive a weapon of mass destruction across the border? Gaining control of our borders is therefore an immediate and pressing national-security requirement. The secondary effect is that it would dramatically stem the flow of illegal immigration, illegal drugs, and the human trafficking of slaves (mostly female and mostly for sexual exploitation).
The longer-term threats of illegal immigration are economic and cultural.
Economically, in a world of vast income differences, instantaneous communications, and cheap travel (even when illegal), we cannot continue to allow a wide-open illegal employment system. The current flood of illegal migration if left unchecked for a period of decades will decisively undermine the economy in both economic and legal terms.
Culturally we have shifted from an integrating, English-speaking American citizenship focused model of immigration to an acceptance of foreign habits (which are going to include corruption), foreign loyalties (illustrated by the waving of foreign flags by many of the marchers, some with attitudes of contempt) and the insistence (not necessarily by immigrants) on creating non-English speaking legal and educational structures.
Instinctively, most Americans understand the corrosive effects of lawlessness on the economy and the culture. A USA Today poll two weeks ago recorded that 85 percent believe that to earn citizenship, immigrants should be required to learn English.
Note that in the same poll 84 percent would punish businesses that employ anyone not here legally, 81 percent would increase the number of officers patrolling the border, 60 percent would block them from using hospitals and schools, 61 percent say illegal immigration should be a crime and 52 percent would make it a crime to assist someone known to be here illegally.
Most Americans are open to people who want to become American, who will work hard, obey the law, and who are willing to learn English and American history. Within this framework of patriotic integration it is possible to be both pro-conservative and pro-immigrant.
Law First
But this framework cannot stand unless it is built upon the solid foundation of the rule of law.
For example, cities which receive hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from Washington block their police force from asking about an individual’s legal status (88 percent of the country favors cutting such cities off from federal money). In 2004, there were zero (0) federal enforcement fines imposed on American employers who were breaking the law by hiring people illegally.
No one believes the border is anywhere close to being controlled. Few have confidence that the government will ever seriously do something about it. In the same regard, the idea that the federal government could actually run an effective identification program for worker visas is not credible either which is why every audience applauds when I suggest outsourcing it to Visa, MasterCard, or American Express.
The radical difference between this business as usual paper-tiger effort and the seriousness of the required metrics-based solution is startling.
Lawmakers in Washington are trapped because they keep trying to appease lawbreakers while their fellow Americans watch with disgust. On the other hand, if lawmakers boldly outline a real sequential and systematic set of solutions they could win the argument in the country and move towards a workable policy that honors our values. If they fail to do this, American voters will eventually impose their will on Washington with painful political consequences for some incumbents.
Why is it so hard for some Republicans to understand the center-right view that it is far better to have Left-liberal Senators filibustering against controlled borders and effective legality than it is to appease them while enraging conservatives? If the issues are defined and communicated correctly, center-right support would grow into the 80-percent range (look again at the USA Today poll numbers).
It is possible to describe the situation in terms which are for both legality and immigration, for both controlling the border and having a worker visa program, for being sympathetic to newcomers and determined to sustain American civilization and for respecting other languages while embracing English as the language necessary for success in America. It is possible to do this in terms which will be acceptable to most immigrants and to most Americans.
It is partially a question of what we are opposed to.
If the Left-liberal choice is this map of Texas and Mexico combined with the rest of the U.S. missing, and the Mexican flag flying above an upside down American flag at an American pubic school in Arizona and the people who not only break the law but refuse to learn English while saying publicly they want to reunite the Southwest with Mexico, then you can safely assume that more than 80% of Americans will oppose you.
Left-liberals understanding that they cannot defend the above, which is why they would like us instead to believe that they are fighting against racists who want to close the border, behave harshly against innocent people, break up families, exploit migrants, and live in a xenophobic world.
An intelligent center-Right coalition would be for both security and immigration, for accuracy in identity (including a voter card with id and a biometric worker visa card) and patriotic integration of those who want to become American.
An intelligent center-Right coalition would define the opposition in terms that would lead most honest migrants to feel comfortable with defining clearly the underlying anti-security, anti-accuracy, anti-American civilization patterns of the hard Left-liberals.
Most Republicans could be convinced to articulate and follow an intelligent center-Right coalition if they understood it and understood the power of the language and the power of the definitions.
Sequencing
Charles Krauthammer has it right. There has to be a sequence of reestablishing trust.
First, control the borders with decisive legislation aggressively implemented with tight deadlines. Once we have stopped the illegal flow of people we will have demonstrated the seriousness necessary to gain both the credibility and the leverage needed to implement the next steps. Fortunately, a bipartisan consensus has emerged that securing the borders is indeed priority number one. Three national leaders have it right in their shared view that border control is the first step. Senator Frist is exactly right when he wrote recently that “to build confidence among Americans and Congress that the government takes border security seriously, we have to act to help get the border under control right now.” Senator Clinton is also right when she recently recognized the need for a “smart fence” along the border to enhance security. And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is also correct when he said last week that “the first thing we want is tough border control.”
Accordingly, the Congress should pass a border-control bill immediately. There is no reason the Congress cannot immediately pass such a bill, and then concentrate on additional immigration reform measures later. The Congress should immediately act on this one aspect of immigration reform around which there is widespread agreement. America needs real border control immediately.
Second, establish patriotic integration and the primacy of English (English first, not English only) combined with a requirement that Americans can only vote in American elections and applicants for citizenship have to select where their loyalty is.
Third, establish real enforcement against unlawful employment by employers and especially against employers who are breaking both immigration and taxation laws. Make clear that the dishonest hiring and tax evasion of the last two decades are over and there will be expensive penalties for people who break American immigration law. Insist that cities enforce the law or lose their federal funding. All this can be done with the right incentives and without rounding up anyone.
Fourth, establish an outsourced worker visa program with a biometric identity card, a background check, and a 24/7 computerized real time verification capability so no business can claim ignorance. Permit businesses to send workers home to apply for their worker visa as a deductible business expense. Eliminate the fly-by-night subcontractor shams that are clearly set up to evade the law. Maximize the opportunity and the incentives for people who are here to return home and become legal.
Note that none of the above requires direct action against people who are here illegally. None of these steps will break up families or cause undue hardship. The focus of all these initial efforts is to stop the attraction of new people and to dry up the illegal jobs. If illegal jobs cannot be found, people will have no choice but to pursue legal means to employment.
Implemented correctly, these steps would convince people about the seriousness of the new policy and its enforcement creating a much more rational environment to discuss the emotional and complex situations affecting families and long time workers and residents.
As we transform our immigration system from a dishonest to an honest one, it is understandable that those living and working here illegally — especially those who have lived and worked here illegally for a long period of time — would be anxious and fearful about the future. While our two-decade-long failure does not mean that we are required to maintain a dishonest system, it does mean that must have a humanitarian period of transition as we replace an illegal channel of immigration with a legal one.
There is a huge difference between a cautious limited policy of integrating the people attracted by a dishonest and shameful policy (the deliberate cultivation of illegality over the last 20 years) and amnesty which will only reinforce the message of the dishonest past and create a wave of people who will continue to pour in expecting the continuation of the yesterday’s failed policies.
If lawmakers can agree to the first four steps we have plenty of time to think through and work out the details of a humane, compassionate, and legitimate process of patriotic integration for people who were lured to America by an incompetent government and lawbreaking businesses and who do not deserve to bear the full brunt of popular anger at such dishonest and hypocritical policies.
If the American people see that their leaders are serious and determined to control the border then create an effective worker-visa program along with a comprehensive program of patriotic integration into American civilization they will be much more supportive of a program for helping those with deep connections to America find their legal place in American society.

English as the National Language

In April of 2006, Congressman Gingrich wrote an article discussing making english the national language of the US.

Making English Our National Language Is Not Racist
by Newt Gingrich
05/22/2006
If by chance you were watching C-SPAN's coverage of the United States Senate last Thursday afternoon, you heard something truly offensive.
I had just arrived in Miami for a speech to a group of industry and technology leaders when I heard that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had called a proposal to establish English as our national language "racist."
Stop and think about that for a moment, because chances are, when Senator Reid said that, he called you a racist.
Using the 'R-Word'
Ninety percent of us believe that someone should be able to read and write English in order to be an American citizen. Seventy-eight percent of all immigrant families want their children to learn English. And with his statement on the floor of the United States Senate, Senator Reid called every one of us who think this way a racist.
It's important to know that the measure the Senate was considering didn't address what language we speak in our homes, in our businesses or in any aspect of our private lives. It simply and straightforwardly stated that the government "shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language."
In fact, from my point of view, the measure had one great shortcoming: It didn't end the mandate for bilingual ballots that I wrote about a couple weeks ago. The federal government currently requires some counties to print ballots and other election materials in foreign languages -- a mandate which is, to say the least, a little curious. If someone must learn English to be a citizen, and only citizens can vote, why is there a need for bilingual ballots?
Such is the level of dishonesty in today's immigration debate.
Thirty-Four Senators Oppose English as Our National Language
But it gets worse.
Despite the fact that the measure simply stated the obvious -- that English has been and should remain the language of our democracy -- and despite the fact that it required that new Americans also understand the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance and American history as part of citizenship, 34 Senators voted against it.
Thirty-four votes against preserving English as our national language. It's hard to think of a time in American history when Washington elites have been more out of touch with the American people. While 90% of Americans believe in English as the glue that preserves our nation and a force that generates our prosperity, the intellectual elite have contempt for them. They also have contempt for learning the basic ideas and principles of America's founding and for learning about the individual Americans who helped shape the very institutions of our civilization.
Adding Insult to Injury
And to add insult to injury, the same day that 34 Senators voted against making English our national language, many of the same Senators voted to give Social Security benefits to people who have been working here illegally.
It really defies comprehension. This is the same group that won't save Social Security for younger Americans -- the same crowd that stood and applauded when the President acknowledged during his State of the Union Address that his plan to rescue Social Security and give younger Americans a better and more secure retirement had failed.
With this vote, the Senate made itself complicit in one of the great and tragic truths of our immigration system: Lawbreaking leads to more lawbreaking. People who have entered our country illegally have already broken the law once. And when they use fraudulent documents to obtain employment -- or when employers illegally fail to require documentation -- the law is broken again. The vote to give Social Security benefits for illegal work -- just like the vote to give amnesty for illegal entry -- is a vote to encourage more lawbreaking.
'In Every Facet an American'
For 400 years, people who believe their rights come from God have been building a free and prosperous society in America. We have been open to people of many backgrounds and many languages, but we have insisted that they become American.
Theodore Roosevelt put it best: "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against such men because of creed or birthplace origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American."
We must return to this great tradition of being a welcoming nation, but being one nation, under God, and indivisible.

The American Eleven

In September of 2006, Congressman Gingrich issued an article through the Human Events website noting eleven items he believed should be pursued. Two of those items were controlling the border and making english the national language.

Make English the Official Language of Government. The House should pass a bill making English the official language of government, abolishing multilingual ballots and reaffirming that new citizens should be required to pass a test on American history in English. The Rasmussen poll reported that support for English as the official language was 85%. The Zogby poll had it at 84%. Why do Republican leaders find it so hard to side with more than four out of every five Americans? How many liberal Democrats who currently assume they are unbeatable would suddenly have a hard time explaining a series of votes against English to their constituents? Remember, at 85%, there are no anti-English congressional districts no matter what the elite media says.
Control the Borders. The House should pass a narrowly focused bill to ensure that the United States can control the border. The current Senate bill is a disaster. It is impossible to pass a "comprehensive" immigration bill in the next two months. The American people overwhelmingly want the borders controlled and every act of terrorism reminds us that having the borders uncontrolled makes us more vulnerable to attack. The House should immediately pass a border-control bill and conservative Republican senators should move every day to bring it up in the Senate. Let Democrats and elitist Republicans block controlling the border and make that a referendum test for Election Day.

Bold Solutions

In January of 2007, Congressman Gingrich wrote an article for Human Events in which he proposed bold solutions for numerous subjects. One of those subjects was immigration, where he laid out a plan for dealing with illegal immigration.

Bold Solutions for Immigration, Citizenship and Accurate Honest Voting

Border control for national security with sufficient intensity and accuracy to ensure that no terrorist and no drug dealer can cross the border.

Make English the language of government while respecting the language background of all Americans and encouraging younger Americans to learn foreign languages.

Make passing a test on American history in English and giving up the right to vote in any other country key requirements of U.S. citizenship.

Since becoming a citizen requires knowing English, have all election ballots in English.

To insure that only legal citizens vote, require every voter to have a photo ID card.

Cut off all federal aid to any city or county that declares itself a "sanctuary" and refuses to enforce legal immigration requirements.

Enforce the laws requiring employers to know that their employees are legal.

Outsource to Visa, Mastercard or American Express (or a consortium of the three) to have an accurate, real-time computerized system for identifying those participating in a worker visa program and for instantly notifying any employer that the person they are about to hire is illegal.

Create a systematic worker visa program with a biometric card run by the computer card companies to avoid fraud, a background check to eliminate any criminals and a signed contract to obey the law and pay taxes or else be removed from the U.S. within 48 hours for failure to comply.

An Immigration Shipwreck

In May of 2007, Congressman Gingrich wrote an article for Human Events in which he called the pending plan an immigration shipwreck.

75 Reasons to Oppose the New Immigration Bill
When the FBI arrested six terrorists in New Jersey two weeks ago it turned out that three of them had been in the U.S. illegally for at least TWENTY years.
These three had crossed our unprotected border and had been living in New Jersey.
But here's the even more outrageous part: The police had filed 75 (SEVENTY-FIVE!) charges against them, including drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.
In 75 interactions, the police never once learned that these three people were here illegally.
The government failed twice: First, by failing to secure the border, and second, by failing to determine that these people were here illegally. The result was that more than five years after 9/11 we were saved from a mass killing at Fort Dix only because of the patriotism and courage of a clerk at an electronics store.
Compare the 75 charges made against the would-be Fort Dix terrorists with how we rounded up German spies in World War II. In June 1942, it took a total of 15 days to track down and arrest eight German spies who landed in Florida and New York from submarines. We executed six of them and gave one life in prison and the other thirty years. We were serious about winning that war). Go here for a more detailed comparison and a list of the 75 charges against the Fort Dix terrorists.
Faced with this level of failure of bureaucracy, how could anyone believe for a minute that this new immigration bill will work? The fact is it can't and it won't. It will rely on the same failed bureaucracy and produce more years of failure.
We Have Been Here Before
In 1986, I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill. We were promised that in return for amnesty for far fewer than three million illegal immigrants we would get:

Control of the border;

Enforcement of laws requiring employers to know someone is here legally before hiring them; and

No more amnesty and no more tolerance of illegality
The government broke its word on every one of those provisions.
We eventually amnestied three million people who had broken the law, and we sent a signal to the world that it is okay to break the law and come to America.
Now, 20 years later, we are told to trust Washington while we amnesty 12 to 20 million more people who have broken the law.
A Tax Amnesty Too?
When its supporters refer to the new immigration bill as "comprehensive," they must mean comprehensively outrageous.
The Boston Globe reported this weekend that the new bill will not require illegal workers to pay back taxes.
If this is true, the bill is an assault on every law-abiding, patriotic American who has been obeying the law, working legally and paying his taxes.
Every taxpaying American should insist that any bill involving any condition for illegal workers having any future in America should require them to do three things when it comes to taxes: 1) Admit how long they've been here (under threat of immediate deportation if they lie); 2) admit whom they worked for (who, after all, had also been breaking the law and avoiding paying taxes); and 3) pay any back taxes and penalties they owe.

CPAC Interview

In September of 2007, Congressman Gingrich was interviewed by Hot Air while attending the Conservative Political Action Committee. He was asked about the guest worker program and immigration. He stated that the current method of enforcement was wrong. He stated that the border should be secured, that existing laws should be enforced, that verification should be outsourced to private companies, and that citizenship tests should be given in English.

Practical Steps to Solving Immigration

In June of 2007, Congressman Gingrich wrote an article for Human Events presenting steps that needed to be followed to solve immigration.

Those who are trying to force through the Bush-Kennedy-McCain immigration proposal argue that only their version of comprehensive reform will work. They are simply wrong.
Forget that their bill is impossible to implement and that there is no evidence the federal government could possibly administer a Z visa for 12 million-plus (your government cannot tell you to within a million what the number is) people who are here illegally.
A core failure of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill is that it makes the problem bigger than it needs to be. By trying to force a single solution in one bill, it makes the system even more unworkable and more likely to fail. By accepting the government's failure to keep its word for the last 21 years (since the passage of Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986), the Bush-Kennedy-McCain plan both increases the number of people who will be legalized despite their illegal behavior and sends a signal to others to come to America illegally in the expectation that there will inevitably be a third wave of amnesty as we "bow to reality" (in Secretary Chertoff's phrase) once again about 2017.
Before you believe any of the promises to keep the government's word THIS TIME see the eerily parallel quotes from the 1986 debate.
There is a dramatically better and simpler alternative. It will lead to fewer people being in America illegally. It will lead to a nation confident that its laws will be enforced. It will signal the world that you can come to America legally but you will not be able to come illegally. It will signal to every American that their uniquely American civilization will be renewed and strengthened.
This approach is far better than the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill.
Ten Simple, Direct Steps to a Legal American Immigration System

Keep the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli commitment and control the border. In The Reagan Diaries (HarperCollins, May 22, 2007), President Ronald Reagan wrote that he was going to sign the Simpson-Mazzoli bill because "it's high time we regained control of our borders and [this] bill will do this." For national security reasons, it is vital we regain control of our border. Congress should pass a narrowly written emergency border bill to finish the necessary fence in less than a year and to have complete border control within two years.

Announce an immediate shift of Internal Revenue Service resources to audit companies that are deliberately hiring people illegally. We do not have to focus on deporting those who want to work. We need to focus on the Americans who are getting richer by deliberately breaking our laws, hiring people illegally and failing to pay taxes. These people are cheating their own country. We should focus on fining and making it economically impractical for Americans to deliberately encourage law breaking. Economic penalties for knowingly hiring someone who is illegal should rise dramatically with each employer (including subcontractors) conviction, making it simply too expensive to cheat. This will eliminate the magnet of illegal jobs, will begin to diminish the flow of new illegal workers and will lead some illegal workers to return home voluntarily.

Outsource to American Express, Visa or MasterCard the job of building a real-time verification system so that honest companies can confirm the legal status of all workers and identify people with forged papers before they hire them as fast as your automatic teller machine identifies you and gives you money in a matter of seconds. We must distinguish between companies that deliberately hire illegal workers and companies that hire people who they believe are legal. It is the government's duty to help this second group of companies by providing a real-time verification system for identifying the legal status of all workers so that it is possible to screen out those with illegal documents. The government should outsource the creation of this system so that it is easy, fast and accurate.

Focus deportation efforts on criminals. Those who claim that opponents of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill support mass deportations are simply wrong. We want a system in which honest work is available for law-abiding workers and in which the natural attrition of declining job availability will reduce illegal behavior. However, there is one group that should be deported immediately, and the law should be modified to make it easy to do so. Criminals have no future in America. In every major city and increasingly in small cities and even small towns, gangs have become a problem and people feel a rising sense of insecurity. There are at least 30,000 illegal gang members now in the United States. The system should focus on deporting criminals so that people who are here illegally understand that breaking the law will get them deported immediately.

Cut off all federal aid to any city, county or state that refuses to investigate if a criminal is here illegally. These so-called "sanctuary cities" are in effect abetting the violation of American law and increasing the risk to honest, law-abiding Americans. They should be cut off from all federal aid if they refuse to help enforce federal law.

Offer intensive education in English to anyone who wants to learn English, and make English the official language of government. This will begin to reassert the commitment to assimilation and Americanization that has historically been part of legal immigration to America.

Ensure that becoming an American citizen requires passing a test on American history in English and giving up the right to vote in any other country.

Within the context of these proven changes, establish an economically driven temporary worker program like the Krieble Foundation proposals. Any temporary worker would have to pass a background check to ensure they are not a criminal, would have to give biometric information (retinal scan and thumbprint) for a special card that would be outsourced to American Express, MasterCard or Visa so it would be harder to defraud and counterfeit, and would have to sign a contract committing them to pay taxes and obey the law or be removed from the United States within two weeks without recourse to long court processes.

Create a special open-ended worker visa for high value workers who bring specialized education, entrepreneurial talent or capital that will grow the American economy and make America a more prosperous country.

Workers who came here illegally but have a good work relationship and community ties (including family), should have first opportunity to get the new temporary worker visas, but instead of paying penalties, they should be required to go home and get the visa at home. This way they are beginning their new career in America by obeying the law. It is amazing that those who advocate a large fine and the new Z visa, which would be administered in a hopelessly expedited manner, suggest that going home to get a new legal admission to the U.S. is somehow too complicated. If people can break the law by entering the county illegally, they should be able to obey the law and enter America legally.
These 10 steps would lead to a controlled border, a profound revitalization of the core values of American civilization, a renewed respect for the law and an economically driven system of legal temporary workers in an orderly and controllable manner.
This program would work vastly better than the dishonest and hopelessly complex Bush-Kennedy-McCain proposal now being pushed so hard by the establishment against the wishes of most Americans.

Iowa Fundraiser

In May of 2010, Congressman Gingrich spoke at an Iowa fundraiser about immigration reform. He called for a guest worker program,

We need a guest worker program that, quite frankly, is fairly large and driven by economics — but that is out-sourced to American Express, Visa or Mastercard,” Gingrich said, who added there is “zero possibility of the federal government managing” such a program without significant fraud abuse.
What I’m opposed to is the federal level passage of a single bill that pretends it does all the right things, but is actually designed to ensure that millions of people get to be American citizens in hopes that they will vote Democrat, which I think is the Obama plot.
Republicans need to be “extremely aggressive” in their response to liberals using immigration as a wedge issue “to frighten Latinos into thinking they cannot vote Republican.
I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. We were told we were going to give amnesty to 300,000 people, and it turned out we gave amnesty to 3 million.
I approach this issue with a demand that we have common sense immigration reform, and with a deep opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. There is a big difference. Comprehensive immigration reform is an effort by liberal politicians to lie to you once again, and to convince you that you ought to give amnesty to millions of people in return for a promise, which they will break again.
We can control the border. Every time we focus resources we do control the border — but we never focus enough resources for the whole border.
Now, you do not have to fence the entire border. There are a lot of areas that are wide open and all you have to do is put a predator over there.
You also want rapid response people so that if you see, on infrared at night, 100 unidentified people walking across the desert toward the border, you know you want a greeting party — to hand each of the people a bottle of water and a map on how to get back into Mexico. ...
“I wouldn’t put them (employers) in jail. I would just tell them that if they make money by hiring people illegally that we will bankrupt them.
I am against any person who is here illegally being on a track to citizenship without some very, very serious thought being put into this,” he said. “I am thinking this through carefully because frankly if you’ve got a kid that came here with their parents when they were 3-years-old and they are now 19-years-old and they don’t even speak the language of their native country you’ve got to think really long and hard about what you are going to do. If you’ve got somebody who has been here for 12 years, is married and has four kids, you have to think really hard about that. I don’t have a good answer.
Most Latinos who are in this country are here legally. They work hard. They want take-home pay. They want their kids to be educated. They want to live in safe neighborhoods.
Let me say this because it is important: I am pro legal immigration. I think it is very important. You’ve got to remember that this is a country that has made it extraordinarily possible for hard-working, descent people from all over the world to come here for the purpose of seeking a better future. As long as it is done legally, I favor it. If they want to come to America, I think they have to learn English, they have to learn American history, [and] they have to become Americans.

Support for Comprehensive Reform

In May of 2010, Congressman Gingrich appeared on Fox News and stated that he would support controlling the border, making english the national language, and passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. He states that the answer to the problem is not to attach Arizona due to it's law, but to solve the problem in Washington.

Greta Appearance

In August of 2010, Congressman Gingrich appeared on the Greta van Susteran show and spoke about his immigration views.

Right Wing News Interview

In a 2010 interview with Right Wing News, Congressman Gingrich was asked about immigration. He states that the nation needs to secure the border.

John Hawkins: There's a battle going on in the Republican Party between people who are adamantly opposed to rewarding illegal aliens in any way, shape, or form and there are others who want to keep them here for cheap labor. How do you think we should be handling the illegal alien issue?
Newt Gingrich: Well, I think there are a number of absolute historic principles and that this deserves to be discussed among the country at the highest level of seriousness. The first principle is we have to have control of our borders and our coasts for national security reasons.
The Director of Central Intelligence warned publicly in congressional testimony that he fully believes a nuclear weapon could be driven across our border. Now after all the talk about 9/11 and learning the lessons of 9/11, how much clearer a warning could you get than to have the Director of Central Intelligence say publicly he's worried that the border is so open that you could literally drive a nuclear weapon into the United States. Part One is -- get control of the border; that means increasing the border control, it means establishing whatever technological and other systems you need to control the border...
John Hawkins: Newt, real quick, one thing – everybody seems to agree that we need to control the border, you would think. I mean, we hear that every time...
Newt Gingrich: You don't see a budget designed to do it, you don't see a plan designed to do it, you don't see a public commitment to do it...
John Hawkins: That's what I was going to ask. Why aren't we seeing it because theoretically everybody – Democrat, Republican – keeps saying we need to control the border...
Newt Gingrich: I don't understand it. I mean, you ought to call the White House press office and ask them. I don't understand it. It seems to me, as a national security matter, we're going to spend 9 billion dollars a year on a missile defense; we ought to spend some money on making sure they don't drive the nuclear weapon in instead of flying it in a rocket.
John Hawkins: I agree 100%.
Newt Gingrich: So, Part Two of that is, I think, to have border control truly work, you have to have what I would call a Blue Card Guest Worker Program where they have to give you an iris scan, a thumb print, agree to obey the law, and sign a contract that says if they break the law, we can remove them from the U.S. in 48 hours.
Then I would say to everybody who's come illegally in the U.S.: you have to go home to apply for the blue card. It's not that we're not going to be willing to give you a blue card, but we're not going to allow you to start your career in the U.S. breaking the law for two reasons. First of all, it's really sick for the person who's broken the law (to gain an advantage) and second, it means that everybody who stayed at home in Guatemala City obeying the law and waiting for a visa was a fool.
So I would make everybody go home to apply for a blue card for temporary workers and I would say -- both to the businesses and anybody that thinks they're going to stay as an illegal – once you create an honest, legal, temporary worker program – any business which hires a person who's not an American citizen and doesn't have a work permit – I would hammer, first, economically, and second, with criminal penalties.
At the same time I would say to anybody who's in the U.S. illegally -- once we've created this program – we're going to take your iris scan, take your thumb print, kick you out of the U.S. and you will be on a computerized database and we won't let you back in for a minimum of 10 years.
So you really create a carrot and a stick pattern and then the last stage I would have is --- I would have very open availability to learn English, special programs in English, something Chris Cox sponsored when he was in the Congress. I would have as a rule that you could apply to become an American citizen but you have to be able to pass a test in American history, in English, in order to become a citizen because I do think we want to say to people, "We're very interested in having citizens who decide they want to become American, but we are not confused about the identity of being American."

Border Security and a Guest Worker Program

On January 14, 2011 Congressman Gingrich appeared on Fox News and spoke about creating a guest worker program which would be handled by Visa or Mastercard since they have a history of fighting fraud.

Univision Interview

In May of 2011, Congressman Gingrich granted an interview to Jorge Ramos of Univision. In that debate, Congressman Gingrich noted his support for a pathway to becoming a citizen.

JR: MR GINGRICH, TALKING ABOUT IMMIGRATION AND THE HISPANIC VOTE, OBVIOUSLY YOU NEED LATINOS TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE. THERE’S NO OTHER WAY. YOU HAVE EVEN…
NG: Absolutely…
JR: … SET UP THE AMERICANO.COM. HOWEVER, YOU ARE NOT MOVING AN INCH ON IMMIGRATION. FOR INSTANCE, DO YOU SUPPORT THE DREAM ACT?
NG: I think the Dream Act, if it were amended, could be passed and I think candidly that the Democrats last year wanted the issue, more than they wanted the legislation. If they had been willing to allow amendments in the Senate, they could have passed the Dream Act last year. And I think it was a deliberate, cynical political ploy not to allow those amendments to come up. And I think, this is exactly what’s wrong with where the President is taking us on immigration. His recent speech in El Paso was a campaign speech, it wasn’t a presidential speech. Now, you may not agree with me but let me at least say
JR: SURE…
NG: …the following. I’ve worked on immigration since 1986 and in the late 1990′s as Speaker, I helped save hundreds of thousands of Central Americans from being deported and we amended the law and we made sure that they could achieve residency in the United States…
JR: OF COURSE, WITH THE TPS…
NG: …particularly Nicaraguans and Hondurans and El Salvadorians. So I’ve been at this a long time. I don’t think you can pass a comprehensive bill. President Bush couldn’t pass a comprehensive bill, when Barack Obama had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate he couldn’t pass a comprehensive bill, but I think you could step by step pass a series of bills and achieve remarkable progress in the next three or four years. It’s very disappointing to see the immigration reduced to a political game. We have an absolute obligation to find a way to get America to be a country in which everyone who is here is here legally and I think we’ve got to have a much different conversation than the El Paso speech.
JR: MR. GINGRICH, YOU ARE TALKING STEP BY STEP. EXACTLY WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE 11 MILLION UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN THIS COUNTRY? YOU ARE NOT FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM, I MEAN; YOU WILL NOT FAVOR LEGALIZING 11 MILLION PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY.
NG: I would favor finding steps that determine who is clearly going to remain in the United States and I think you got to start from that point
JR: BUT HOW CAN WE DO IT?
NG: First, somebody who’s been here 20 years, somebody who’s been here 20 years and is married and has three kids and has been paying taxes and lived a totally peaceful life and is a citizen – but by the way they came here 20 years ago outside the law. We got to find the way to routinize and get them in the law without necessarily getting them on a path to citizenship. Now there ought to be a way to do that. And one of the things I’m looking at, and this may come as a surprise to you, is in World War II we had a selective service board where every local community could apply common sense to the draft process. We may want to think about a citizen board that can actually look at things and decide, is this a person that came in two months ago and doesn’t nearly have any ties here? Or is this a person who clearly is integrated into the society but unfortunately has been undocumented, therefore, we have to rethink how we are approaching them.

New Hampshire Debate

In June of 2011, Congressman Gingrich participated in the New Hampshire Presidential debate. He stated during that debate that there should not be either or options of enforcing the law or granting amnesty.

KING: I want to do one more on this issue. President Bush and Senator McCain spent a lot of time on this, Mr. Speaker. I want your view. There are an estimated maybe 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. People have different numbers. If you were going to round them all up -- Congressman Tom Tancredo on this stage four years ago would have said round them up and kick them up, they broke the law, they shouldn't be here. I don't know where the money would come from in this environment.
So I want you sense. Do you -- is that what the states should be doing, the federal government should be spending money and resources on? Or -- or like President Bush and like Senator McCain, at least in the McCain-Kennedy days, should we have some path to status for those who are willing to step up and admit where they are and come out of the shadows?
GINGRICH: One of the reasons this country is in so much trouble is that we are determined among our political elites to draw up catastrophic alternatives. You either have to ship 20 people out of America or legalize all of them.
That's nonsense. There's not -- we're never going to pass a comprehensive bill. Obama proved that in the last two years. He couldn't get a comprehensive bill through with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and he didn't even try, because he knew he couldn't do it.
You break this down. Herman Cain's essentially right, you break it down. First of all, you control the border. We can ask the National Guard to go to Iraq. We ask the National Guard to go to Kuwait. We ask the National Guard to go to Afghanistan. Somehow we would have done more for American security if we had had the National Guard on the border.
But if you don't want to use the National Guard, I'm...
(APPLAUSE)
Just one last example. If you don't want to use the National Guard, take -- take half of the current Department of Homeland Security bureaucracy in Washington, transplant it to Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. You'll have more than enough people to control the border.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: All right. Let's...
GINGRICH: No, but let me say this, John. No serious citizen who's concerned about solving this problem should get trapped into a yes/no answer in which you're either for totally selling out protecting America or you're for totally kicking out 20 million people in a heartless way. There are -- there are humane, practical steps to solve this problem, if we can get the politicians and the news media to just deal with it honestly.

Palmetto Freedom Forum

In August of 2011, Congressman Gingrich participated in the Palmetto Freedom Forum, which was a discussion of 5 Presidential candidates concerning a number of issues. He spoke about the need for controlling the border and his view that amnesty through a comprehensive bill is not legislatively possible.

REP. STEVE KING (R), IOWA: Thank you.
On the immigration issue, and just a previous question comes back to me. And that is that there are 50 million people in foreign countries that are in line waiting to come to the United States legally. And we allow in about a little over a million people a year, the most generous nation on Earth by far.
And yet we have 10 or 12 or more million people in here that are illegally -- illegally. What though -- from that number of a million, is there such a thing as too many legal immigrants? And how would you define that? And how would you -- and would you support a merit system to identify their ability to contribute to this economy, rather than familial and any other means that we have?
GINGRICH: I think that there are two practical limitations to the degree you can absorb.
One of them is the degree to which your economy is flourishing or not flourishing. I mean, if you're in a boom period, and you have to opportunity to absorb talent and absorb energy, you can, by definition, absorb more people than if you are, as we are right now, in a period of either deep recession or depression, depending on your view.
Second is a question of assimilation. When you have a country which is proud of its history, which is proud of its language, which is comfortable saying to people, come to America to be Americans, you can absorb more people than if you have a country whose elites are totally confused and are prepared to give up on being an American.
And so I think the whole question -- if we're not going to be a melting pot, we can't afford to have very many people come here. When you realize that there are over 200 languages spoken in the Chicago school system, there are over 180 languages spoken at Miami-Dade Junior College, it's why I favor English as the official language of government.
We need a unifying system which says, yes, we are eager to have people come to America, as they always have, but we want you to come here to be American. We don't want you to come here to be confused about how this country operates. So that's a part of it. I also think -- and this is controversial, but I think we have to deal with it. I think you have got to break down the approach to immigration. You cannot pass a comprehensive law. President Bush couldn't pass one with a Republican House and Senate. President Obama can't pass one with -- didn't pass one with a Democratic House and Senate.
I think you start with control of border. And I have a very simple model, which is control of the border means 100 percent control of the border. I mean, you can tell, are people getting in illegally or not? Are drugs getting in illegally or not? If they're not, you control it. If they are, you don't control it yet.
And I would put the number of resources necessary. There are more Department of Homeland Security people, bureaucrats in Washington than they are people assigned to the border. So I would be willing to take half the people currently serving in Washington, ship them to Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
S. KING: So, in the seconds left, I would ask, would you extend a fence until they quit going around the end?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ten seconds.
GINGRICH: I want 100 percent control of the border.
The entire Texas-Mexico border is a river. Now, surely, you should be able to patrol a river. Now, whether you patrol the river by building a fence or you patrol a river by putting 650 DHS bureaucrats standing shoulder to shoulder, there are a variety of ways of doing it.
And, by the way, I want to close this thing, but it's important to get this straight. We won the Second World War in 44 months. From Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, to Victory over Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and imperial Japan was three years and six -- or three years and eight months, 44 months.
This idea that Ronald Reagan in 1986 writes in his diary, I'm signing the Simpson-Mazzoli Act because we have to control the border, and we're told today that people can't control the border is baloney.

Iowa Debate

In August of 2011, Congressman Gingrich participated in the Republican debate in Iowa. He stated that we should secure the border, move homeland security to the border to control it, and distinguish between illegal immigrants who had been here a long time and those that had recently come here.

FERRECHIO: All right. Thank you.
Speaker Gingrich, you recently told Univision that you're looking at the idea of having citizen boards choose which illegal immigrants can stay in the country and which would have to go. Who decides the memberships of these boards, and how would they work?
GINGRICH: I think it's very important to go back and look at how the Selective Service Commission worked in World War II, because it was local, practical decision-making, and people genuinely thought it was fair and it was reasonable. But let me go back to your earlier question to Herman.
I thought the president's speech in El Paso where he talked about moats and alligators was the perfect symbol of his failure as a leader. He failed to get any immigration reform through when he controlled the Senate and he controlled us (ph). He could ram through Obamacare, but he couldn't deal with immigration.
Now he has the Republicans in the House in charge, and he descends to a level of attack which I think is very sad for a president of the United States on an issue like this. We ought to control the border.
And I agree with Governor Huntsman, we can control the border.
I would be prepared to take as many people from Homeland Security's bureaucracy in Washington and move them to Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, as are needed, to control the border. (APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: We should have English as the official language of government. And we should have a method for distinguishing between people who have lived here a long time and people who have come very recently.

Reagan Debate

In September of 2011, Congressman Gingrich participated in the Republican Presidenial debate at the Reagan library. He talks about his immigration plan at length.

HARRIS: Speaker Gingrich, your perception on immigration reform? And you've been, I think, in some ways, a little different on your initial positions.
GINGRICH: I think we have to find a way to get to a country in which everybody who's here is here legally. But you started by referencing President Reagan.
In 1986, I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which in fact did grant some amnesty in return for promises. President Reagan wrote in his diary that year that he signed the act because we were going to control the border and we were going to have an employer program where it was a legal guest worker program. That's in his diary.
I'm with President Reagan. We ought to control the border, we ought to have a legal guest worker program. We ought to outsource it, frankly, to American Express, Visa, and MasterCard, so there's no counterfeiting, which there will be with the federal government. We should be very tough on employers once you have that legal program.
We should make English the official language of government. We should insist --
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: We should insist that first-generation immigrants who come here learn American history in order to become citizens. We should also insist that American children learn American history.
And then find a way to deal with folks who are already here, some of whom, frankly, have been here 25 years, are married with kids, live in our local neighborhood, go to our church. It's got to be done in a much more humane way than thinking that to automatically deport millions of people.

Fox News / Google Debate

On September 22, 2011 Congressman Gingrich participated in the Fox News / Google debate. He noted his support for outsourcing immigration verification to private industry and modernizing the legal immigration system.

QUESTION: Kristen Williamson, the Federal for American Immigration Reform.
Struggling U.S. workers continue to compete with millions of illegal aliens. Do you support legislation to require all employers to use E-Verify in order to ensure that the people that they hire are actually legally authorized to work in the U.S.? And will you impose penalties against employers who continue to hire illegal workers?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: The question, Mr. Speaker, is, should employers be required to use E-Verify?
GINGRICH: Well, let me say, first of all, I think we would be better off to outsource E-Verify to American Express, MasterCard or Visa, because they actually know how to run a program like that without massive fraud.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: Second, the program should be as easy as swiping your credit card when you buy gasoline. And so I would ask of employers, what is it you would object to in helping the United States of America in dealing with the problem involving illegal immigration?
But, in addition, I want to reinforce what Congresswoman Bachmann said. I strongly favor 100 percent control of the border, and I strongly favor English as the official language of government.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: And I favor modernizing the legal visa system to make it far more convenient, far easier and far more practical. Here in Orlando, where we have a huge interest in people being able to visit easily for tourism, we have a terribly antiquated legal system while our border is too open for people who are illegal.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Western Debate

In October of 2011, Congressman Gingrich participated in the Western Debate on CNN. He was asked about the latino vote and states that he believes that latinos want the same things as other races - to have a good education and a good job.

ROBERT ZAVALA, LAS VEGAS RESIDENT: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to ask my question. We have 50 million Latinos and not all of us are illegal. What is the message from you guys to our Latino community?
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich? President Obama got I think 67 percent of the Latino vote last time around.
GINGRICH: Look, I think that there's a very clear message to Americans of all backgrounds. Latinos, Korean-Americans, Vietnamese- Americans, there are hundreds of different groups who come to America.
As Governor Romney said, I think anybody who understands America has to be proud of our record as the country which has been the most open in history to legal immigration.
But the truth is most Latinos in the United States aren't immigrants. Most Latinos in the United States now have been born in the United States. And the fact is they want virtually exactly what everyone else wants.
They want an economy that is growing. They want a job that has take home pay. They want access to health insurance that they can afford. They want a chance to get educated that is actually useful and worthwhile. They want to be able to know that their family is going to grow up in safety. And they want to have a chance that their country is going to work to give their children and their grandchildren a better future.
I think we have to have the same message for every American of every ethnic background that we want to make America work again. And you'll know it's working because you will have a job and you'll have a chance to take care of your family.

CNN National Security Debate

On November 22, 2011 Congressman Gingrich participated in the national security debate on CNN. When asked about immigration, he speaks about his support for Simpson-Mizzoli and how the promises of border security never materialized. He then outlines his views that people who broke the law should be broken into groups of those who have been here a long time and those who haven't. He advocates for allowing those who have been here longer to stay without citizenship.

BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, let me let you broaden out this conversation. Back in the '80s -- and you remember this well. I was covering you then. Ronald Reagan and you -- you voted for legislation that had a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as you well remember. There were, what, maybe 12 million, 10 million -- 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States right now.
Some called it amnesty then; they still call it amnesty now. What would you do if you were President of the United States, with these millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom have been in this country for a long time?
GINGRICH: Let me start and just say I think that we ought to have an H-1 visa that goes with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering so that people stay here.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: You know, about five blocks down the street, you'll see a statue of Einstein. Einstein came here as an immigrant. So let's be clear how much the United States has drawn upon the world to be richer, better and more inclusive.
I did vote for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. Ronald Reagan, in his diary, says he signed it -- and we were supposed to have 300,000 people get amnesty. There were 3 million. But he signed it because we were going to get two things in return. We were going to get control of the border and we were going to get a guest worker program with employer enforcement.
We got neither. So I think you've got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border, as the governor said. I believe ultimately you have to find some system -- once you've put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here.
If you're here -- if you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home. period. If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.
The Creeble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship. And so 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.
BLITZER: Congresswoman Bachmann, you agree with the speaker?
BACHMANN: Well, I don't agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that, in effect, is amnesty. And I also don't agree that you would give the DREAM Act on a federal level. And those are two things that I believe that the speaker had been for, and he can speak for himself.
But those are two areas that I don't agree with. What I do think, though, is what Steve -- what Steve Jobs said to President Obama. He had said to President Obama that he had to move a great deal of his operation over to China because he couldn't find 30,000 engineers to be able to do the work that needed to be done.
That's what we want to do. We do want to have people. And I agree with the speaker, people like chemists and engineers, and people who are highly skilled.
We think about the United States and what's in the best interests of the United States. If we can utilize these workers, like Steve jobs wanted to, then we need to offer those visas. That will help the United States. But I don't agree that we should make 11 million workers who are here illegally legal.
BLITZER: Let me let the speaker respond to that.
GINGRICH: Well, I mean, two things, first of all, in the DREAM Act, the one part that I like is the one which allows people who came here with their parents to join the U.S. military, which they could have done if they were back home, and if they serve on it with the U.S. military to acquire citizenship, which is something any foreigner can do.
And I don't see any reason to punish somebody who came here at three years of age, but who wants to serve the United States of America. I specifically did not say we'd make the 11 million people legal.
I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you'll have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave, given the fact that they've been law-abiding citizens for 25 years.
...
GINGRICH: I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them.
I do believe if you've been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers, but I would urge all of you to look at the Krieble Foundation Plan.
I don't see how the -- 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. 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.

Huckabee Forum

In December of 2011, Congressman Gingrich participated in a forum that was moderated by Mike Huckabee. He is asked about his plan for amnesty for those in the country longer that a given length of time and speaks about his plan for local communities to decide who gets amnesty.

Fox News Iowa Debate

On December 15, 2011 Congressman Gingrich participated in the Fox News Iowa debate. He spoke about his immigration plan and responded to remarks by Governor Romney.

ROMNEY: Let me tell you how that works. We are going to have an identification card for people who come here legally. The last campaign, actually, Rudy Giuliani talked about this time and time again.
We would have a card, a little plastic card, bio-information on it. Individuals who come here legally have that card. And when they apply for a job, they are able to show that to the employer. The employer must then check it with E-Verify or a similar system.
Newt Gingrich points out, let Federal Express — or not Federal Express, American Express or MasterCard or Visa process that, immediately determine if the card is valid or not.
So people come here legally, they’ve got that card. If employers hire people without that card, the employer gets sanctioned just like they do for not paying taxes. Very serious sanctions.
So you say to people who are here illegally today, you are not going to be able to work here unless you register, unless — and we will give you transition period of time, and then ultimately you have got to go home, apply for permanent residency here or citizenship, if you want to try and do that, but get in line behind everyone else.
My view is, people who have come here illegally, we welcome you to apply but you must get at the back of the line, because there are millions of people who are in line right now that want to come here legally. I want those to come here legally. Those that are here illegally have to get in line with everybody else. [applause]
MODERATOR: Speaker Gingrich, is that realistic?
GINGRICH: Well, let me start and say that Congressman Steve King has just introduced the IDEA act, which would in fact reinforce this model. Because it would take away all tax deductibility for anyone who is employed illegally, and once you have something like E-Verify effectively working, you really build a big sanction.
We disagree some on what you do with very, very long-term people here. I think somebody who has been here 25 years and has family here and has local family supporting them ought to have some kind of civilian certification.
But let me say on this whole issue of immigration. On day one, I would drop all the lawsuits against Arizona, South Carolina, and Alabama. It is wrong for the government. [cheering and applause]
GINGRICH: I would propose — I would propose cutting off all federal aid to any sanctuary city that deliberately violated federal law. [cheering and applause]
GINGRICH: And I would begin the process of completing control of the border by January 1st, 2014. Those steps would begin to fundamentally change the entire way of behavior towards getting control of legality in the United States.

References

[1] Website: Right Wing News Article: Interview with Newt Gingrich Author: NA Accessed on: 05/12/2011

[2] Website: The Iowa Independent Article: Gingrich: Immigration reform? There�s a corporation for that Author: Lynda Waddington Accessed on: 05/19/2011