Posted on 07/02/2015 8:09:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Is this news? Nothing he told Stephen Moore in this account is strictly inconsistent with what he said a few months ago about reducing legal immigration as president. Walker was careful at the time to say that was something he wanted to look at, to see if current legal immigration levels are depressing wages and should be adjusted accordingly. He didn’t commit to anything, although he got plenty of excited buzz among the conservative voters he’s wooing for daring to raise the possibility. Even if he had committed to new limits, anything short of a total moratorium could, I suppose, be considered “pro-immigration.” Maybe he was BSing Moore.
Or maybe he’s BSing us. Between his previous agonizing immigration flip-flop-flipping, his well-timed reversal on ethanol in Iowa, and his sudden rediscovery of social conservatism, I don’t really believe anything Walker says anymore. He’s the most conspicuous panderer among the field’s top candidates. If there’s anyone running who might be telling voters one thing in the name of getting elected while telling donors and establishment allies another, it’s him. So make of this what you will:
Stephen Moore, a conservative scholar at the Heritage Foundation who backs an immigration overhaul, called Mr. Walker’s embrace of a border security first approach “a lurch to the right and probably something very popular among Iowa conservative voters.”
Mr. Moore said he had become concerned about Mr. Walker’s stance in recent weeks, but was reassured after a phone call with the Wisconsin governor.
“He said, ‘I’m not going nativist; I’m pro-immigration,’” Mr. Moore recalled of the conversation…
Mr. Moore also said he was not convinced that Mr. Walker was quite the immigration hawk as he may appear now. Rather, he called the governor’s positioning “a work in progress.”
Walker’s spokesman told the Times that he’s “not for amnesty” and believes border security should happen before a path to legal status is granted. Why a guy who’s supposedly leery about more legal immigration would want a path to legalization for illegals who are already here is unclear to me, but there you go. I think the best you can say for him at this point is that, a la Obama and gay marriage circa 2008, it’s pretty clear what his true feelings are despite what he might be saying at any given moment. The man is, undoubtedly, a social conservative even if he did choose to strategically duck pronouncements on hot-button issues over the last few years in Wisconsin. Case in point: WaPo reported last week that he recently lost the support of a billionaire donor after getting into an argument with him about gay marriage. If Walker were intent on pandering in every situation, he would have told that donor that he’s secretly rooting for Justice Kennedy and then cashed the guy’s check. He didn’t. On the other hand, if it’s all too clear what Walker’s true social views are, it’s also clear how he really feels about immigration. He spent the last decade endorsing a path to citizenship; he once suggested, on camera, with a presidential run already on the horizon, that he thought illegal immigration could be solved not so much with more security but by making it easier for illegals to come here legally. Suddenly he reads a few Jeff Sessions speeches and he’s a border hawk — conveniently at the very moment that he’s competing for conservative votes in a GOP presidential primary? C’mon. President Walker will be no better than a Bush on immigration and deep down we all know it.
Exit question: Who’s pandering to donors harder about amnesty behind closed doors, Walker or Marco Rubio? Re-read this post ( http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/23/rubio-raking-in-big-bucks-from-rich-pro-amnesty-republicans-by-touting-his-immigration-record-behind-closed-doors/ ) before you answer.
Some of us have seen this from the beginning. So we have an "immigration hawk" that isn't, and a "social conservative" who won't stand for anything.
There is just too much money involved in this for the corporate class.
Pro legal immigration is not a problem.
Pro illegal/amnesty immigration crap is the problem.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with controlled immigration. Trespassing is the real issue.
Not 100% sure of this, but be very careful of this guy.
Walker may be closely related to the Bush family. George HW Bush’s father is Prescott Bush. Prescott’s wife’s father is George Herbert Walker, the same family Scott Walker is from (and the same city). He’s not a distant relative by any means. He was from a powerful banking family, Prescott Bush definitely married up. Prescott Bush was a skull and bones member and friend of Averil Harimann.
Scott Walker is going to have to do a lot to overcome that family name, in my opinion. George Herbert Walker was not a good American, he was a banker and involved in the ‘Business Plot’ with Prescott to overthrow/coup the government under FDR in 1933.
Look at this from 2012.
http://voicesnewspaper.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-scottie-related-to-walkerbush-clan.html
He is nothing more than Romney II.
Need a Southerner, not a northerner
“Pro legal immigration is not a problem/
Pro illegal/amnesty immigration crap is the problem.” -——
Is it possible that Walker hasn’t mastered the language yet? There is certainly a key difference between legal immigration and illegal invasion.
Looks like Scott W. is reading the weather report and studying money trails.
No, there is a real concern he is playing us on this. Has been ever since he startedtalking about it, and the people he has tried to put around him and their views on it.
Bttt
Doesn’t matter. Trump’s leading him in Iowa and NH.
overthrow/coup the government under FDR in 1933.
...and what about this would have been a bad idea?
It took us almost losing our entire Pacific Fleet to get him to defend the country, and he damaged us economically for decades.
All immigration is a problem with high unemployment , stagnant wages and record low participation rate.
The Business Plot is often hyped up for what it was. It was hardly a conspiracy that went further than people asking, “Hey, wouldn’t it be neat if FDR was deposed?”
People make it sound like it was an Operation Valkyrie that was stopped at the 11th hour.
I know it’s possible.
We all admire what Walker was able to accomplish in Wisconsin. It was pretty stunning, given the neighborhood. But most of us are still circling him on the issue of immigration.
He isn’t from the South and he isn’t yet convincing on immigration. My point is that he needs to be careful, specific and exact when he speaks of immigration, and on resolving the border crisis, and the influx of illegals who are chattel for the Democrat political voting machine.
Re-post my comment to you from 4/23/15 re: his immigration stance:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3282445/posts?page=12#12
He has done his est to avoid it because he kows whatever specifics he says it will alienate him from some demographic.
This is why the puppet-masters like Governors. They can say anything and there's no DC voting record to contradict it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.