Read Full Transcript EXPAND
O/C: As Donald Trump takes office, the battle over immigration. This week, on Firing Line.
TRUMP INAUGURATION SPEECH: Today, I will sign a series of historic executive orders. I will declare a national emergency at our southern border. [applause]
On day one, as President Trump deployed his pen…
AIDE: This next order relates to the definition of birthright citizenship.
TRUMP: That’s a good one.
…the legal challenges had already begun. And not all of the opposition came from Democrats. Just after we taped our interview, a Reagan-appointed federal judge stayed President Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship.
GINGRICH: [bangs gavel] The House will be in order.
Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House in the 90’s, ran for president in 2012, was considered as a running mate for Donald Trump in 2016, and even defended Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen.
GINGRICH on FOX 2020: I think that it is a corrupt, stolen election.
But on immigration Gingrich brings a different message than the new president.
TRUMP: They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done. They poison.
Gingrich and his wife Callista have produced a documentary for PBS called “Journey to America” celebrating the contributions immigrants have made to this country.
GINGRICH AS NARRATOR: The promise of liberty and opportunity brought immigrants from around the world to America’s shores.
HOOVER: You’ve said there’s a small faction of the Republican Party that is rabid about deporting legal immigrants. What does America lose if that faction prevails in this next administration?
GINGRICH: We would cease to be America. It’s not complicated.
As the inevitable legal and legislative battles over immigration begin… What does former Speaker Newt Gingrich say now?
‘Firing Line’ with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by: Robert Granieri, Vanessa
and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, Peter and Mary Kalikow, Cliff and Laurel Asness and by the following… Corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc.
INTERVIEW
HOOVER: Speaker Newt Gingrich. Welcome back to Firing Line.
GINGRICH: Glad to be here.
HOOVER: You have produced a new documentary for PBS entitled Journey to America, which extolls the virtues of legal immigration. You have said about the issue that we need to have a reset in our conversations about legal immigration in this country. Why is that?
GINGRICH: Well, Callista and I decided to do Journey to America partially because we were at Ellis Island, and her grandmother came from Poland through Ellis Island in 1907 and did it legally. And it’s very important that we not confuse opposition to illegal immigration, which I strongly believe in, with opposition to immigration, because we’re a nation of immigrants. I mean, our, you know, our our most famous current, richest man in the world, Elon Musk, is a South African who in many ways grew up in Canada, came to the US for higher education, has made America a dramatically wealthier and better country. And yet he wasn’t born as an American. But he is an American. And that’s part of the genius of the American system. We absorb talent from around the world.
HOOVER: I want to ask you about that because public polling suggests that Americans, and particularly Republicans, have become increasingly skeptical of legal immigration.
GINGRICH: Right.
HOOVER: A YouGov poll has 62% of Republicans say legal immigration should be reduced. How do you de-link this conversation of illegal immigration from an appreciation of legal immigration?
GINGRICH: Well, I think, first of all, you talk about criminality.
HOOVER: You think talking about criminality will help make people more comfortable with legal immigration?
GINGRICH: As we watch Trump seriously control the border, as we watch them begin, as they are literally this week, deporting criminals, people will tone down and you’ll be back to having a rational conversation. Now, we’ve always had…
HOOVER: So we have to defeat the criminals.
GINGRICH: You have to do it. You have to…you have to absolutely get them out of the country. There should not be a single Venezuelan or Salvadorian or Mexican criminal left in the United States. As people see that starting to work, then the temperature will come down and you’ll be back to a rational conversation.
HOOVER: The first quarter of this century has been marked by more than one attempt to update our immigration laws. In the 2006, 2007 era, there was much energy around a comprehensive immigration plan. This came back again in 2013, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration plan. And in both cases, those attempts failed. Both attempts hinged on the promise of securing the border first, which never happened. Is what you’re arguing, that if we can credibly secure the border, finally, a real comprehensive immigration plan may be possible.
GINGRICH: Look, in 1985 I supported the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, which offered amnesty in return for a commitment to control the border and to have an effective identity program for workers. So this problem goes all the way back to 1985. And I think they have to recognize when you talk with the American people, they want to see for real that the border is controlled. Trump came very close to it in his first term. They were very aggressively getting the border under control. And I think, you know, the whole process of remain in Mexico, you don’t get to come in unless you’re approved. He said this week that his estimate was that of every 100 people who claim asylum, 15 should get it and 85 shouldn’t. But we had a system under Biden where all 100 came in the U.S..
HOOVER: With respect to the first Trump administration’s success at eliminating or dropping border crossings, there were elements of President Trump’s plan that you were outspoken about, in particular, this child separation policy. You have for decades defended legal immigration and you have advocated for a humane approach for those who are here. In some ways, you know, really putting you at odds with your party, particularly when you ran for president in 2012. Why is this issue so important to you?
GINGRICH: Well, because I think it’s about human beings. I’m adopted, and so I have an identity with the whole notion of having a family. But also, you have to remember, we have a lot of kids who come in here who aren’t part of a family. They’re being child trafficked. They are being exploited. And I think we need to recognize that you have to distinguish between genuine families and people who are exploiting the kids. You know, we should be capable of, for example, interviewing children and finding out, is this really your mother and father or, in fact, are you just being used as a device to get into the US? Or are you actually being exploited? And a large number of young boys and girls who come here end up in effective sexual slavery. And we don’t want to admit that, but it’s a real problem in this country.
HOOVER: Does Donald Trump’s non-nuanced rhetorical style vis a vis illegal immigrants and criminals in this country– How does that help you make the case that we should be compassionate to legal immigrants? How do you prevent those two messages from being conflated by the base of the party?
GINGRICH: I draw a very sharp distinction.
HOOVER: Of course you do. But how do you prevent people from conflating them?
GINGRICH: Donald Trump is married to a European. His mother came from Scotland. I am confident that in the end he is going to be for strong legal immigration.
HOOVER: The documentary features immigrants from all over the world. You have a Republican congresswoman, Victoria Spartz, who was originally born in Ukraine. You profiled two American ambassadors, one who was originally from Afghanistan, Afghan Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. There’s a Chinese immigrant who survived the Cultural Revolution and speaks up at a Virginia school board meeting against Critical Race Theory. How did you select your subjects?
GINGRICH: We wanted to have a balance. On the one hand, you wanted famous people. So you have Kissinger, you have Einstein. But then we also have people who you’d never heard of. So, I mean, in some ways, my favorite is Maria Daume.
HOOVER: Who is a marine combat veteran who was born in Russia.
MARIA DAUME FROM DOC: We were in the orphanage until we were four, until we were adopted by a couple in Long Island.
GINGRICH: She’s four years old in Siberia, basically in an orphanage. She’s adopted by an American family. She comes here and for some reason decides she really wants to be a marine. And she became the first woman ever to be a combat infantryman. We want to get across the idea you didn’t have to be rich and famous. People come here from many backgrounds.
HOOVER: It does seem curious, though, that you selected someone from Ukraine, someone from Afghanistan, a female combat veteran. These are all issues that are just beneath the surface in the news cycle that are germane to the argument Republicans are having with themselves right now.
GINGRICH: Right. Well, and for example, Republicans might tell you that they’re anti-immigration and then say, ‘okay, how about Afghans who risked their lives and who will be killed by the Taliban?’ ‘Well, that’s an exception’. And so you start going down the list. And the president, I think, agrees with this. So what he wants to do is make sure that you’re a genuine refugee, not just claiming it to get inside the United States.
HOOVER: And with Representative Victoria Spartz, she makes a strong argument for Ukrainian sovereignty.
GINGRICH: Well, if you watch what the president said this week on Truth Social, I mean, it was a very… it’s actually a strange way. He’s at times just very different. I mean, he sends a signal to Putin not by picking up the phone and calling him, but by going on Truth Social and saying, ‘If we don’t get a truce, then I will have to crush the Russian economy. But wouldn’t it be better to have a truce?
HOOVER: What do you make of it?
GINGRICH: It was classically, you know– Trump believes in negotiating by going way out here and then working your way back. He never starts here and tries to work his way forward. So I think he’s saying basically to Putin, ‘I’m not going to fight you militarily. I’m just going to destroy your economy. But I will destroy your economy.’
HOOVER: You think it’ll work?
GINGRICH: I think there’s a pretty good chance. I suspect there’ll be a call in the near future and Vladimir will say, ‘Well, Donald, we’re such good friends. Do you really want to destroy my economy?’ And he’ll say, ‘Vladimir, I just want you to quit killing people.’ ‘Well, Donald, if I have to quit killing people. I mean, I don’t know what I’ll do for a hobby anymore.’ He’ll say ‘we’ll get you a new hobby. Quit killing people.’
HOOVER: Okay. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was born in Kabul, Afghanistan. He goes on to become George, President George W Bush’s ambassador to Iraq and to Afghanistan.
KHALILZAD IN DOC: In no other country could the story of what I experienced representing America in war zones and in the world. Only in America something like this could happen.
HOOVER: This week, President Trump issued several executive orders. One of them resulted in 1600 Afghans who had been cleared to resettle in the United States having their flights canceled. As the Trump administration considers the fate of our Afghan allies, why was it important to highlight Khalilzad?
GINGRICH: I thought it was important to highlight him because he’s a fascinating person. He has served this country with remarkable ability, and he represented a possible future Afghanistan that in 23 years we failed to create.
HOOVER: Against that backdrop, do we continue to have a special obligation to Afghans who served with our military in Afghanistan?
GINGRICH: I think if there are people who are genuinely threatened with being killed because they worked with us, then we have an obligation that they’re… they’re genuine refugees. They’re not just people.
HOOVER: And they deserve to have a place in our country.
GINGRICH: Absolutely.
HOOVER: The documentary also features Hedy Lamarr, an actress, a mid-century actress who many may not know was a brilliant inventor.
GINGRICH: I didn’t. When we were trying to find German submarines in World War Two and we needed a radar which they couldn’t block. And so she invented a spectrum skim skipping device, which is today in every cell phone in the world.
HOOVER: Yeah.
GINGRICH: You look. You have her in the movies, it doesn’t occur to you this is one of the great creative inventors of the 20th century.
H-1B VISAS
HOOVER: Before President Trump’s inauguration this week, a fight broke out amongst his close supporters about the question of H-1b visas, which allow employers to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations. And I wonder if it was important to highlight the intellectual and scientific benefits of immigrants in the context of that debate.
GINGRICH: I think it is, because there’s a big world out there and there are a lot of smart people. And some of them come to MIT or CalTech. The idea that we’re going to educate them to be really brilliant, send them home to create a company to compete with us when we could, in fact, just let them stay in the U.S. and create companies that compete with back home. And I am totally for H-1b visas. And I think you have to almost be willfully rejecting the modern world to be against them.
HOOVER: As a member of Congress, you participated in several debates on the original Firing Line. In one appearance in 1990, you commented on how unique America’s approach to immigration is. Take a look at Newt Gingrich from 1990.
GINGRICH 1990: The United States happens to be a country which encourages a level of immigration unparalleled by any other country in the world. We are truly a melting pot.
HOOVER: You’ve said there’s a small faction of the Republican Party that is rabid about deporting legal immigrants. What does America lose if that faction prevails in this next administration?
GINGRICH: We would cease to be America. It’s not complicated. Although, I must say, looking at that thing, I had a lot more hair back then.
HOOVER: Your hair’s done pretty well.
GINGRICH: Yeah, it’s still okay, but I looked at that and thought, ‘wow.’ Look, we’re an amazing country. You know, people are allowed to have strong opinions on both sides. But I think the facts gradually wear down the people who are anti legal immigration.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
HOOVER: One of President Trump’s first executive orders this week sought to redefine birthright citizenship
GINGRICH: Yes.
HOOVER: Which is, of course, in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and means that anyone who is born on U.S. soil becomes automatically a United States citizen. One of the changes in his executive order is actually about whether the children of immigrants who are here legally under some kind of a temporary visa, will be able to become citizens when they are born here. If that were the case, it is possible that Vivek Ramaswamy or Kamala Harris, whose parents were here under some kind of temporary arrangement, might not become citizens.
GINGRICH: I think it’s a little late for that.
HOOVER: It is a little late for that. But someone in their position. In other words, what do you make of this change? What do you make of this, this sort of…
GINGRICH: Well I think, I think– first of all, I do not believe the 14th Amendment was written by people who had never thought about this concept, ever. So it’s a grotesque overreach. I think– The Supreme Court will probably insist that we have a constitutional amendment. But I actually think that’s a misreading of the 14th Amendment as a historian, that I mean, nobody in that period worried about this because it didn’t happen.
HOOVER: You think it goes against an originalist interpretation.
GINGRICH: I think if you go back and read the debates. There is no mention of this, no sense of extending citizenship to people who are randomly, or… Second, we live in an era when people can fly in for vacation, have a baby, claim the baby’s now American. I think we have to deeply review this concept because– and this relates to the whole issue of illegal immigration. We– nobody ever envisioned a world of instantaneous worldwide communication and relatively cheap transportation.
TIK TOK
HOOVER: Right. Another one of President Trump’s first actions this week was a suspension of the TikTok ban which passed the House and the Senate, and was a bill that was signed by the former president. You supported this legislation, but I try to imagine what Speaker Gingrich would have done if President Bill Clinton just decided not to enforce a law that had been passed by the House and the Senate and signed by a president.
GINGRICH: Well, first of all, I suspect he’s going to have a challenge as to whether or not he can do that, because it does strike me if it’s actually a law, you know…
HOOVER: Which it is.
GINGRICH: Executive orders aren’t– don’t have the force of law.
HOOVER: He has directed the Justice Department not to enforce a law that was signed by the president.
GINGRICH: Right.
HOOVER: When you think about the balance of power and checks and balances and the, how….
GINGRICH: Look, I think it is a strong reach for a narrow purpose.
HOOVER: What is the narrow purpose?
GINGRICH: To have enough time to sell TikTok to an American, to cut off the ties to ByteDance. I mean, if the president were to say ‘I’m fine with Bytedance running TikTok,’ I think there’d be a total rebellion because we’re now convinced…
HOOVER: You’re persuaded that he wants to buy time for an American to purchase it.
GINGRICH: Absolutely. And it’s also a sign of his– look, everybody in this city underestimates how politically shrewd he is. Millions of young Americans like TikTok. Trump just proved he is their champion. He’s trying to find a way to get it to be American without having it be disruptive. And that is probably a huge advantage over presiding over the collapse of TikTok when people actually want it. But at the same time, you cannot allow the Chinese to control it in any way. And I think as a practical matter, he can get away with the 75-day extension.
HOOVER: The Wall Street Journal editorialized that Trump’s TikTok order “shows a Biden-like disdain for limits of his power that doesn’t bode well for the next four years.” You disagree?
GINGRICH: I think this is going to be a very aggressive president.
HOOVER: But will he respect the separation of powers and the balance of power?
GINGRICH: Only when he has to.
HOOVER: But in this case, does he have to?
GINGRICH: Well, it depends on how fast the courts can, you know, work and rule. I mean, he is pushing the margins. There are ways to push back. The Supreme Court might– On the other hand, I don’t think the Congress is going to rush out and say– If this had been a year long or this had been a permanent– I think he’d have a real fight. But if it’s a delaying tactic to enable Americans to buy TikTok so young people can have the device they like, I’m not sure how many people are going to rush out and pick that fight.
HOOVER: So we’ll know in 90 days.
GINGRICH: Yeah.
JANUARY 6 PARDONS
HOOVER: President Trump pardoned over 1500 individuals this week who are charged in connection with the riot at the Capitol on January 6th, including people convicted of assaulting police officers. And he commuted the sentences of the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Of course, Vice President Vance just last week had said “if you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.” The new incoming attorney general had said something very similar in her testimony in front of the Senate. Isn’t the concern that the message this sends to someone who wants to commit a crime is that if they are wearing a MAGA hat and they commit a crime, they can do so with a reasonable degree of confidence that they’ll be pardoned by the president?
GINGRICH: No.
HOOVER: Why not?
GINGRICH: I think January 6th was a unique moment. I think he felt deeply that it was a political moment, that most of these people were picked up for political reasons, that they were given sentences far longer than people who had committed similar crimes. And, you know, he campaigned on it. I mean, he said publicly, ‘elect me and this will happen.’ Now, I personally think Vice President Vance and the new attorney general are right. I think he would have been wiser to have set up a panel and to have said, ‘Everybody who has not committed any kind of violent act, you’re fine. Those who did commit a violent act, let’s review each case and each sentence and then decide one by one.’.
HOOVER: Scores of individuals who committed violent acts against police officers that day have been pardoned. That sends an…
GINGRICH: I’m with the vice president.
HOOVER: Right. Does that– It sends an incentive, like an incentivizing message towards criminality in the name of the president.
GINGRICH: Does Biden preemptively pardoning his entire family send a sign that if you can be a crook, it’s okay?
HOOVER: I think it’s a little different when you’ve assaulted police officers. I mean, Trump denounced in his inaugural address a government that, quote “fails to protect our magnificent law-abiding American citizens but provides sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals.” He’s just pardoned dangerous criminals.
GINGRICH: I just said I agree with the vice president and the attorney general.
BIDEN PARDONS
HOOVER: Okay. With regard to any investigations of President Biden, Donald Trump said on Fox News this week, quote, “I went through four years of hell. I spent millions of dollars on legal fees and I won, but it’s really hard to say they shouldn’t have to go through it also.” And he said, “The funny thing, maybe the sad thing is that he, meaning Biden, didn’t give himself a pardon.” What do you make of Trump musing that Biden maybe “sadly” didn’t give himself a pardon?
GINGRICH: Well, I doubt very much if the new Attorney General, Bondi, is going to ever go after Biden. First of all, because it’s pathetic. I mean, if you go back and you read why the special counsel said he would never try Biden, Biden’s older now than when the special counsel thought he was too old.
HOOVER: You don’t think that Trump will direct her to investigate the Bidens?
GINGRICH: I mean, I don’t mind– Look, I think there’s a lot to investigate. President Trump will rapidly discover that he has lots of current and future challenges, that these will gradually go away because they represent a past that we ought to know about, historically – I say this as a historian – but not a past we ought to waste energy prosecuting. I mean, if I were the president, you know, and I was faced with, you know, ‘Russia, Russia, Russia;’ total lies by the intelligence leadership; you know, two years of investigation by Mueller; two efforts to impeach; all sorts of legal fights to destroy me; two assassination attempts. I’d probably be pretty pissed off. I mean, I would kind of think, you know–
HOOVER: And yet he’s been vindicated.
GINGRICH: Right. But I would be kind of like, maybe there’ll be a little payback. That’s just human. Now, I think, however, that on reflection, he will conclude that his destiny, the reason God saved him, was not to go after Joe Biden in his old age. God saved him in Pennsylvania by turning his head at the right moment so he could focus on America, not focus on revenge. And I think, I think deep down he knows that and he said that in his inaugural address.
PBS FUNDING
HOOVER: You’ve notably fought to defund PBS in the past, and yet Journey to America, you chose to bring to PBS for viewership.
GINGRICH: True.
HOOVER: Do you continue to support the defunding of PBS?.
GINGRICH: Look, I think it’s totally healthy to have a channel which is dedicated to serious programming. I think many of the historical programs that have been on PBS are remarkable.
HOOVER: But this debate has come back again. I mean, Senator Cruz and Senator Mike Lee have renewed calls to defund PBS. What side of the coin do you come down on now?
GINGRICH: Well, I would like to see if there’s a transition to a privately funded PBS. And if there’s a way to create an endowment or a tax advantage to enable PBS to raise, to be privately funded. I mean, you look at the number of billionaires we have now. That should not be that hard. If Harvard can get $50 billion in their endowment. PBS could probably build a pretty good endowment.
HOOVER: As you look forward and as this documentary continues to stream and be available on PBS, what is your message to those in the Republican Party who doubt the value of legal immigration?
GINGRICH: My message is, look at your neighbors. Look at members of your own family. Look at folks you go to church or synagogue with. Those people are all here legally. They’re all making us a better, more secure and more prosperous country. Why would you want to cut that off?
HOOVER: Newt Gingrich, thank you for joining me on Firing Line.
GINGRICH: Glad to do it.
EN