Newt Gingrich 11Alive Interview: On politics, immigration and compromise

10:47 AM, Mar 2, 2012
Written by
Doug Richards

11Alive got about eight minutes alone with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich following a speech March 1 in Cobb County. Because Gingrich made news by suggesting that Republicans adopt a more "humane" approach to immigration issues, we asked him about two immigration issues in Georgia. We also asked him a question that was suggested on 11Alive's Facebook page. And we asked him about his race to win the GOP nomination for president.

Doug Richards, WXIA: Do you think one of the candidates is going to get a majority of the delegates by the end of the (California) primary?

Gingrich: Well you sort of have to think that, because the delegates can switch. And you have to think that somebody at some point will get momentum.

But there are two fascinating conflicts underway. On the one hand, the superPACs allow people like Gov. Romney to raise huge amounts of money, on a scale we've never seen before. On the other hand, the internet allows candidates like Gingrich and Santorum to survive without much money (laughs).

So you have this interesting fight. It's hard for us to knock Romney out because he can raise so much money. It's hard for him to knock us out because we, in fact, can survive on ideas, and on people deciding they like us. And this can go a long time. There's no obvious evidence it's going to end quickly.

Q: And you obviously need to win beyond Georgia pretty quickly.

A: Well I think we have hopes of winning a number of delegates beyond Georgia on Super Tuesday. And I think we will win Mississippi and Alabama the following week. And I think there are a number of other states we'll be winning in the near future. So I see a path ahead that sustains the campaign and sustains interest in ideas. And I think frankly, the $2.50 a gallon gasoline, and the American energy plan, are attracting more and more attention pretty rapidly.

Q: Two little issues I'd like to ask you about. Georgia just passed an immigration bill, and is grappling with the whole business of changing the agricultural economy in south Georgia so that they're no longer dependent on the migrant workers that have done most of the work in the fields for the last generation. You called for Republicans to sort of temper their views on immigration. First of all, does it make sense to have that kind of change in a state immigration law when arguably immigration is a national issue?

A: Well, Washington has failed consistently for 26 years, since the Simpson-Mizzoli Act of 1986. So you can see the frustration when you're in Arizona or here or Alabama or South Carolina. I mean, people are just frustrated. And it's natural, under our system, that that frustration comes out at the state level if the federal government is incompetent. And on this topic, it's been totally incompetent.

Second, in the long run, we need to have an official guest worker program that is legal, that is sophisticated. Probably run by American Express, Visa or MasterCard so that you have very very low levels of fraud. But in the long run, I think our economy will require a guest worker program of significant scale.

Q: And it makes sense for the states to sort of force the issue the way Georgia has done?

A: Well I think the states are just desperate for leadership. They're saying to the federal government, "you have to do something, because the current system is such a mess."

Q: There's a program called 287(g) which some sheriffs in Georgia have implemented. Is 287(g) a humane immigration program?

A: I have no idea what 287(g) is.

Q: OK. 287(g) basically deputizes county sheriffs to work as immigration agents. Cobb County has it, Gwinnett County has it. If you get arrested in one of those counties, those sheriff's deputies are authorized to check your immigration status.

A: I think that's perfectly reasonable. In fact, I see no problem with -- I would move to cut off all federal funding to cities or states that call themselves sanctuary cities or states. If you pick up somebody and check -- it'd be a little bit like stopping somebody to see whether or not you have a driver's license. I mean, nobody is surprised if you get pulled over by the police, that they actually want to see your driver's license. Well similarly, if they look at your driver's license and it turns out when they run the check that it's false, they have a reason to go a step further. If it turns out it's false because you're here illegally -- the idea that we shouldn't tell the federal government strikes me as nonsense.

Q: Critics say it's one of those things, though, where the head of the family is instantly deported -- you know, some family that's been here for twenty years illegally -- is suddenly disrupted basically because of a traffic violation. And I wonder if that goes to the humane --

A: But that's not true. They're disrupted because they broke the law. So it's not the traffic violation. So the question is, should you make law enforcement officially blind and stupid? Or should law enforcement be able to use its brain, and if it finds somebody who breaks the law, they broke the law.

Now I've proposed that we have an orderly, structured system for people who have been here a long time, that allows them to find residency but not citizenship, and that does not include amnesty. But until the federal government does its job, you can't blame the states for somehow trying to fill the vacuum that Washington's incompetence has created.

Q: One of (11 Alive's) friends on Facebook asked me to ask you this question: How do you intend to develop a working relationship with the other party? And this writer says, I'm sick and tired of neither party working together to benefit the American people.

A: Look, I don't blame them. The current level of disfunction is remarkable. A lot of it because of Obama's style, some of it because of Republicans. But the whole mess is pretty astonishingly destructive.

I think you start by listening to each other. That's why Callista and I have made the decision that we will try to see personally every Democrat (in Congress) individually before the inaugural. So that we can get to know, what are their hopes? If they have to live with me for four years, then I have to live with them. Are there things we can work on together? And I'd ask them to come in with the ideas that they have that are compatible with where I'm trying to go. And when we can do something that's bipartisan, we will. We'll have a bias in favor of bipartisan ideas.

The Webb-Warner bill, for example -- two Democrats from Virginia, which would allow development of oil and gas offshore, for Virginia, I'd endorse in a heartbeat. And you begin to build some bonds with people who are willing to be reasonable.

Q: You were the guy who sort of made a brand out of incendiary rhetoric in the 90s with the Conservative Opportunity Society -- using words that described the opposition in sort of stark terms. I think a lot of folks would see you and say, wow, I'm having trouble picturing him compromising with liberals.

A: Well, we got half the Democrats to vote for welfare reform. We got a third of the Democrats to vote for the Reagan tax cuts. We got a very large number of Democrats to vote for the balanced budget act of 1997.

Look, I am very clear and very firm in language. And that's not going to change. I actually think we need clearer language in Washington, not fuzzier. But I'm also prepared to work case-by-case with Democrats. Or case-by-case with liberals on specific things, and I think there's a way to do that that gets a great deal done.

Q: Lastly, is there a way to -- is there an expectation that you as a conservative would be willing to shift on issues that are important to liberals?

A: No. I'd look for things we agree on. I wouldn't look for things we disagree on.

Newt Gingrich 11Alive Interview: On politics, immigration and compromise | 11alive.com