Since Gingrich called for a "humane" approach to immigration policy last week, he and Romney have been accusing each other of wanting amnesty for illegal immigrants. Ed Morrissey sorts through their positions:
As frequently happens in GOP squabbles over immigration, they’re defining “amnesty” in different ways. Romney’s defining it as any special treatment for illegals: Because Gingrich wants local community boards to consider the cases of illegals who have been here for 25 years rather than sending them to the back of the line of citizenship applicants, he’s for amnesty. Gingrich is defining it in terms of citizenship: Because Romney would allow illegals to become citizens if they go to the back of the line, pay back taxes, have a clean criminal record, etc, he’s for amnesty.
He follows up here. Relatedly, Bloomberg reports that Romney almost explicitly supported "amnesty" in 2006:
Romney, who at the time hadn’t yet declared his first presidential candidacy for 2008, told reporters and editors in Bloomberg News’s Washington bureau that the 11 million immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally “are not going to be rounded up and box-carred out.” Law-abiding people who pay taxes, learn English and don’t rely on government benefits should be allowed to “get in line” to apply for citizenship, he said.
Ben Smith has more. William Jacobson wonders if Gingrich intentionally set the trap:
While attacking the humanitarian standards on deportation policy proposed by Newt, Romney had no alternative. Not a good showing. In the end, Newt was shown to be someone willing to make hard choices even if it cost him votes and to do so with realism. Romney was shown to be just the opposite.
The Dish 