In a fashion typical of Newt Gingrich, the defense of his controversial comments on immigration revolves around accusing his opponents and the media of distortion and deception simply for quoting Gingrich directly. Additionally, Gingrich is now shifting his position and promoting the idea of forming local committees to determine who stays and who goes.
NAPLES, Fla. -- Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich pushed back against opponents who accused him him of supporting "amnesty" for illegal immigrants based on comments he made at a recent debate in Washington, DC, on immigration reform. [...]
"Several of my friends were explicitly distorting what I said, even though they knew better," Gingrich said at a campaign stop in Naples, Fla., on Friday. "So I think it takes a few days to clarify that in fact what they are saying isn't true."
Under Gingrich's plan, which he has articulated before, the federal government would establish a system of local boards to determine whether illegal immigrants could be permitted to remain in the United States based on their ties to the community.
"I propose that we take the World War II model of the selective service program," Gingrich said. "In World War II, local community citizens judged who ought to be drafted and who shouldn't . . . . It requires trusting citizens rather than bureaucrats. It's a jury system for local communities."
A citizen jury system that will decide which brown-skinned people stay and which brown-skinned people go?
You may be able to establish bipartisan and unbiased citizen committees in areas of the country that are diverse and educated, but what about in states that are not diverse, not educated, and known for prejudice?
And who is to say what the worth of a human being is? How do you assign value to a person to determine if they are worthy of being your neighbor or not? The very idea seems fascist.