Should 'citizen juries' decide illegal immigrant status?

Newt Gingrich wants to put ordinary citizens on juries to decide the fate of illegal immigrants. Is he on to something?

U.S.-born children and their undocumented parents demonstrate in D.C.
(Image credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

When former House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed creating a legal mechanism to allow millions of long-term, established illegal immigrants to gain permanent residency, his GOP presidential rivals pounced, attacking him for supporting "amnesty." Gingrich denied that, explaining in Florida over the weekend that under his plan, the onerous "path to legality" would run through local "citizen juries" that would ultimately decide the legal status of eligible immigrants with deep community ties. "It requires trusting citizens rather than bureaucrats," he said. Is his idea smart?

Even hard-liners should (quietly) back Newt's plan: "I've been a real hard-ass on illegal immigration," says Jay Tea in Wizbang, but I'm alright with Gingrich's immigration ideas, even with their "degree of amnesty." The "dark truth" is that some "illegals" are here to stay, and as long as we put some limits on these local juries' ability to grant residency, Newt's compromise seems "workable." The citizen panels even have the "slightly subversive" benefit of taking immigration law out of federal hands.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up