Gingrich’s Words on Immigration Become a Target

Published: November 23, 2011 - New York Times

DES MOINES — An intense debate over immigration flared among the Republican presidential candidates on Wednesday as Mitt Romney declared that Newt Gingrich “offered a new doorway to amnesty” when he called for a “humane” immigration policy to avoid deportation for people who are deeply rooted in their churches and communities.

Mr. Romney, who is eager to stop the rise of Mr. Gingrich with the Iowa caucuses only six weeks away, signaled that he intended to go after his rival with the same vigor he used against Gov. Rick Perry of Texas two months ago when he said Republicans were “heartless” for standing in the way of offering education to children of illegal immigrants.

With the controversy likely to shape the next phase of the nominating fight, Mr. Romney repeatedly used the word “amnesty” during a campaign visit here to describe the position Mr. Gingrich outlined at a debate Tuesday night. While aides to Mr. Gingrich forcefully refuted the characterization of his plan as “amnesty,” a swift backlash erupted among conservative activists that could present the biggest test of his resurgent candidacy.

Representative Steve King of Iowa, a leading voice against illegal immigration, said he was puzzled that Mr. Gingrich had suddenly injected such a red-hot issue into his campaign. He said it was difficult to overstate how potent of a problem it could be for Mr. Gingrich, saying it set off “a viral discussion among activists.”

“When you have a campaign that’s ascending and you make a statement like that, it’s like you’re backing off on the throttle and diminishing yourself,” Mr. King said in an interview. “It’s the same philosophy as the Dream Act. How many politicians have seen their campaigns end because of that?”

But Mr. Gingrich stood his ground and fired back at Mr. Romney in a message on Twitter, saying, “So what’s your position on citizenship for illegals again?”

His retort was a reference to a 2007 interview when Mr. Romney spoke favorably of creating a path toward citizenship for many of the 12 million people living here illegally. Asked about that on Wednesday, Mr. Romney said that there was no discrepancy and added that he does not favor a “special deal” for anyone.

Mr. Gingrich’s advisers said that he did not misspeak at the debate and pointed out that his comments were in line with decades of positioning on the subject, including his support for the 1986 immigration overhaul signed by President Ronald Reagan that extended amnesty to about three million illegal immigrants. And he backed a less extensive overhaul in the 1990s as House speaker.

Mr. Gingrich, who takes Spanish classes and has started a bilingual Web site, The Americano, was not offering a new position. But his long-held view was suddenly receiving scrutiny because he has emerged as a leading candidate for the nomination.

But the strategy — sensible as it seems during a general election with independents to be courted — faces far different prospects in a Republican primary season, particularly in Iowa and other early-voting, conservative states.

“Iowa caucusgoers want a solution that does not include amnesty, and if they can paint Newt with an amnesty brush it will be toxic for his campaign,” said Tim Albrecht, a top aide to Gov. Terry E. Branstad of Iowa.

While Mr. Gingrich said he supported securing the border and proposed creating an anti-fraud application system for immigrants, his plan to deal with those who entered the country illegally drew fresh notice. He suggested turning cases over to local citizens boards that could weigh whether residents could be allowed stay in the country.

“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,” Mr. Gingrich said, “I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”

His comments touched off a torrent of criticism. Still, he took a reprieve from campaigning on the day before Thanksgiving, a sign that he was not worried.

But Mr. Romney, who is intensifying his efforts to win the Iowa caucuses, raised several questions about the plan put forward by Mr. Gingrich. He said Mr. Gingrich did not draw a distinction between someone who had been here for 25 years or had arrived illegally only recently.

“How about someone who has been here 20 years? How about 12 years? How about 10? Five? Three?” Mr. Romney said. “The real issue is, are we going to spend our time talking about how extensive we have amnesty?”

Mr. Gingrich’s spokesman, R. C. Hammond, pushed back against Mr. Romney, who also has vulnerabilities of his own on immigration. “It isn’t hard to figure out what Mitt Romney is shoveling,” Mr. Hammond said. “The facts show Newt’s plan is the opposite of amnesty.”

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota pressed a similar line of attack in television interviews and in a statement from her campaign titled “Newt Gingrich’s Open Door to Illegal Immigrant Amnesty.” While she and other rivals have limited resources to spend on advertising campaigns, Mr. Romney has showed a willingness to play aggressively.

To respond to Mr. Perry’s support for a Texas law allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, Mr. Romney sent sharply worded fliers across Iowa and organized teleconferences for voters with Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Ariz., who has criticized Mr. Perry’s opposition to building a fence along the Mexican border.

While aides to Mr. Gingrich said that he would be able to explain his position, several Republican activists in Iowa said it could be an uphill battle.

“Some of the candidates will treat it like it’s an amnesty-type issue, which is a buzzword — a very negative word to a lot of conservatives,” said Mark Lundberg, chairman of the Republican Party of Sioux County, one of the state’s most Republican regions.

Mr. Gingrich does not have an active campaign organization here, which complicated efforts to respond to criticism. His supporters pointed voters to his Web site, where a 10-point plan on immigration policy has been posted for some time.

He said security at the borders took priority, followed by a “path to legality,” which stops short of citizenship with the right to vote. He proposes that illegal immigrants who have lived for years in the United States could remain, if they show a proficiency in English and buy health insurance. They would be approved by local citizens committees — “something like a World War II Selective Service board.”

Dr. Greg Ganske, a former congressman and a co-chairman of the Gingrich campaign in Iowa, said he did not think the issue would be damaging.

“The fact he spoke honestly about this and wasn’t willing to pander or just give a stock answer,” he said, “I think a lot of people in Iowa will see that as a positive.”

Jeff Zeleny reported from Des Moines, and Trip Gabriel from New York.

A version of this article appeared in print on November 24, 2011, on page A24 of the New York edition with the headline: Gingrich’s Words on Immigration Become a Target.