Spare me a new ‘conversation’ on amnesty for illegals
Unbelievable: Newt Gingrich joins the amnesty bandwagon.
Jonathan F. Mack | February 5, 2026
It is just a matter of the degree of hyperbole that you wish to employ to express your dismay: a sad day, a day that you wish to forget, a day that will live in infamy, the day you lost your innocence. I am talking about the day that Newt Gingrich said we need to start “having a national conversation” about legalized status (yes, amnesty) for illegal aliens who do not have criminal records (or at least not really bad ones).
The man who once embodied the redoubtable Spirit of ’94 needs to look up the definition of the term “conversation” in Webster’s. I think it reads something like “a craven sugar-coated prelude to inevitable capitulation on an issue of intense importance to the speaker’s intended audience.” I assume The Oxford’s definition is similar, perhaps “a tool to persuade by persistence, shaming, and mainstream media bludgeoning.”
It is a word used by the kind of folks who call government spending “investments,” who “reach out” to hear the concerns of all “stakeholders,” and who join “gangs” of invertebrate legislators who are hoodwinked into giving opponents everything they want. It is a candidate to top the Weasel Word 100.
“Conversations” are used to break down steadfast (as in no, nyet, nada, nein) resistance to the most objectionable proposals. Not surprisingly, googling the terms “reparations” and “conversation” yields fulsome results. Against a backdrop of implacable opposition, the proponents of reparations bait, wheedle, and cajole their adversaries into just a little “conversation” about it. Before you know it, you’ve got a “feasibility” study, followed by calculation of dollar awards. Beware of conversations.
more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/02/spare_me_a_new_conversation_on_amnesty_for_illegals.html
