Newt Gingrich did not walk on stage at Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate planning to make a bold new statement on immigration. In debate prep, the former House speaker spent a lot of time with national security advisers discussing the issue of religious freedom abroad — a topic he has tried to showcase recently — but didn’t discuss immigration at all.
Besides, when Gingrich made his now-controversial remarks — that he would permit some long-time illegal immigrants to stay in the United States permanently — he wasn’t saying anything he hadn’t said earlier in the campaign. It’s just that back then Gingrich was an also-ran and nobody was listening. Now, Gingrich is leading the polls, and people are paying close attention to his every word.
Here is what Gingrich said Tuesday night when the discussion turned to illegal immigrants: “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.”
Gingrich said pretty much the same thing at a campaign event in South Carolina just last month. “There are some folks who have been here 20 or 25 years,” he said. “They have paid taxes, they live in the community, they’re married, they’ve got three kids, two grandkids, and they go to your local church. We are not going to deport them.”
And at the nationally televised Sept. 7 Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California, Gingrich said, “We should … 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 to automatically deport millions of people.”
Those remarks did not stir a trace of controversy. At the time of the Reagan Library debate, Gingrich was fifth in the Republican race, behind Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann. All eyes were on Perry and Romney; Gingrich couldn’t have gotten noticed if he had worn a clown suit and jumped up and down.
Now things are different. Gingrich’s statement Tuesday offended those conservatives who believe it amounted to an offer of amnesty, and that any amnesty creates a magnet for people to enter the United States illegally. Gingrich’s words are a particular problem in Iowa, where social conservative leaders are trying to unite behind a single candidate in their effort to stop Romney.
Those leaders have narrowed their choice to four possibilities: Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry and Rick Santorum. Of those, according to several people involved in the process, Gingrich and Santorum are the two leading candidates.
Many of the social conservatives are deeply conflicted. They want to support Santorum but worry about his continued low standing in the polls. They’re impressed by Gingrich’s rise but have some long-standing worries about his positions and background. Gingrich’s performance Tuesday night could hurt his chances at a critical time.
Rep. Steve King, an influential figure among social conservatives, says Gingrich’s statement “makes it harder” for King to support him. “I wouldn’t agree with him on that policy,” King told Iowa Public TV. “I think that when you give people even a promise that they can stay in the country after they’re here illegally, you become more of a magnet.”
If a lot of Iowa caucus-goers take King’s position, Gingrich is in trouble. So now, Gingrich’s Iowa supporters are calling around, asking voters and opinion leaders what they think of his remarks. They’re arguing that Gingrich’s “25-year” point should be taken in the context of his whole program on immigration, beginning with a border fence and a hard line on employers who hire illegals. The problem is, Gingrich’s position requires a lot of explaining, and he’s arguing against his own sound bite.
The ironic thing is, Gingrich and his aides saw it coming. “In August, we had a conversation among the staff that this position was likely to draw criticism,” recalls Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond. “He reassured us that if we are actually going to solve this problem, we have to do it this way. We are going to campaign like we are going to govern.”
Far from being a slip, or a gaffe, Gingrich’s statement was a gamble that he can win GOP votes even with a nuanced position on immigration. With his new lead in the polls, the stakes are higher than he could have predicted.
Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
