Rush on Gingrich's Immigration Remarks: 'Romney Went Further Four Years Ago

Conservative radio-host Rush Limbaugh has joined several conservative commentators and politicians in the fallout following GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's remarks in regards to immigration during Tuesday's CNN debate. The chatter in political media today has focused  on Newt’s unexpected immigration proposal, which would allow illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for extended periods to obtain a legal status, though not full-scale citizenship.

“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,” Gingrich said Tuesday night.

Rush opened his popular radio show today by discussing Gingrich's remarks, and while calling the timing odd and details impractical, Limbaugh was still able to identify another candidate with a more questionable stance on immigration than the former speaker:

"Newt's position on illegal aliens, it was a little odd, and I'll tell you why," Limbaugh started. "It came outta nowhere. He had not built a foundation for it. This was the first that we had heard of it last night, and that's not how major policy positions are adopted."

Limbaugh continued:

"Now, I understand what he's saying about somebody here with roots and family and all that, been here for a long period of time. But how exactly would this work? What if somebody's been here not 25 years but 22? What if somebody's been here 20, 17? Pick a number less than 25 but longer than five. What's the cutoff here? He said 25 years. What if it's 14? What if it's 13? What if they don't have a family but they have been hardworking and tax paying for 24 years? Just because somebody is here 25 years does not mean that they have assimilated into our society. It doesn't necessarily mean that. They could be rabble-rousing for La Raza out there for 24 of the 25 years. Do they have to speak English, for example? What is the test here to determine that they have assimilated into our distinct American culture?

This is a bold proposal. There's no question. But it was snuck in there, a bold proposal that trickled into the debate. Now, this is just me. You might disagree with me, I doubt it, few of you ever do, but you might disagree with me here. If you want something like this be accepted by the public, I don't think that you just throw it out there"

"[....]"

"I'm just having an off the top of my head reaction to this. As I say, I understand what Newt's saying. I understand the thinking that goes into this. I'm simply talking about if you really believe this, if you want this to be policy, throwing it out there like this, it's turning itself into a big, big target now."

"[....]"

"But we have found here, ladies and gentlemen, via YouTube -- this might surprise some of you -- Mitt Romney back in 2007, he was on Meet the Press, 2007. 'My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun"'-- the newspaper -- 'that those people who have come here illegally and are in the country, the 12 million or so that are here illegally should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship.' So Romney said the same thing in 2007 but he did it on Meet the Press."

"[...]"

"In truth, folks -- and we just played the audio -- Mitt Romney went further four years ago than Newt did last night. Romney talked about citizenship for them. Newt's the one taking the heavy fire today, but Romney mentioned citizenship on Meet the Press in 2007."

The "heavy fire" Rush is speaking of has been prevalent in the discussions on cable news programs Wednesday, as well as in several statements from other politicians.

POLITICO reports that fellow GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has "doubled down on her claim that Newt Gingrich wants to offer blanket immunity to all undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S."

“He’s saying that all people who are here as illegal workers would be given that status, that’s over 11 million people who are here,” Bachmann said (on Fox News,)

When pressed that Gingrich had explained his position would only apply to those who had been here for 'decades,' Bachmann said his previous remarks have indicated he supports blanket amnesty.

'That would be a contradiction of the statement that the speaker made earlier,' she said. 'That’s two different statements that the speaker is making.'”

The Hill reports on influential Iowa Congressman Steve King's denunciation of Gingrich's remarks:

“'I think if Speaker Gingrich had that to do over again, he might couch his language a little differently at a minimum. I wouldn’t agree with him on that policy,' King said. '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 and it is a form of amnesty and more people will come in counting on that.”

King told O.Kay Henderson that the immigration remarks “makes it harder” to support Gingrich.

Slate speculated that the remarks, and how Gingrich has defended them following the debate, "might remind people why Gingrich might not be a safe bet: He has a lot of ideas, and when he thinks he's right, there's no persuading him."

Gingrich has swung back some of the heat directed at him to Mitt Romney. Tweeting directly to Romney today in regards to the 2007 Meet the Press statements on immigration, Newt quips "Here’s a trip down memory lane,”  followed by "So what's your position on citizenship for illegals again? (I oppose it.)"

The Washington Post reports that the Obama campaign "never misses an opportunity to portray Romney as inconsistent," and held a conference call today to denounce Mitt's immigration stance following Tuesday’s debate. The Post notes that the jump on Romney puts "the Democratic officials in the odd position of virtually endorsing Gingrich on the issue."

We will keep an eye on how immigration issues develop in the GOP primary.