Then, well.....
Posted on 02/13/2015 5:10:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
A neat scoop by Andrew Johnson, although I’m more interested in grassroots reaction to it than I am in the story itself.
“Governor Walker does not support amnesty,” the governor’s spokesman, Tom Evenson, tells National Review Online. Evenson says the 2002 resolution was “stripped of references to amnesty before passage” and, in fact, reinforces the governor’s view that illegal immigrants should face penalties before they are granted citizenship. The resolution, viewable here, did not mention or spell out such penalties, and expressed support for “comprehensive immigration reform” that would have provided “greater opportunity for undocumented working immigrants to obtain legal residency in the United States.”
After nearly a decade in the statehouse, Walker became the executive of liberal-leaning Milwaukee County after winning a special election in April 2002. The county board had been working on the immigration-reform resolution for two years and it came before Walker in May 2002, shortly after he came to office. According to an official record of the proceedings, it explained the reasons for the board’s support, including the contributions of immigrants to the county’s economy, their vulnerability to exploitation, and the fact that Milwaukee had played host to the National Council of La Raza’s 2001 convention, where the plight of illegal immigrants had been discussed…
Former county supervisor Dan Diliberti, who authored the resolution, says it was a symbolic statement of support for a policy of amnesty and comprehensive immigration reform. He recalls meeting with Walker to discuss the matter. “He was definitely for it,” Diliberti tells National Review Online in a phone interview.
Click here to view a scan of the resolution. So Walker does support comprehensive immigration reform — although we already knew that, given that he was willing to endorse a path to citizenship for illegals on camera as recently as two years ago, when he was already surely thinking of running in 2016. Curiously for a guy who’s running as a conservative hero, he really makes no bones about being an immigration squish. The most he and his team have done so far to push back on that perception is to trot out the talking point that he’s not for “amnesty,” by which they mean he wants illegals to meet certain qualifications before they qualify for legalization and citizenship, not that he means to bar them from that altogether. What’s useful about NRO’s scoop isn’t that it reveals some secretly held position, it’s that it reveals how long he’s held that position. Some Republicans came around on amnesty only after Romney got shellacked among Latino voters in 2012. Not this guy. And chances are, if he’s been consistent on this through the sturm and drang of the GOP civil war over immigration the last 10 years or so, he’ll be consistent about it if elected president. That’s one of Walker’s big selling points, right? When he tells you he’s going to do something, he does it. That logic applies to amnesty too.
Like I say, though, I’m more interested in conservative reaction. There are lots of ways one could go with this. You could applaud NRO’s piece as valuable research on a top-flight contender, guaranteeing that the right’s primary deliberations will be better informed. You could mostly shrug it off, as I’m inclined to do, on grounds that Walker’s really no worse than anyone else in the GOP field on this, as bad as he may be. If you believe the developing conventional wisdom, our three most “electable” candidates, hands down, are Bush, Walker, and Marco Rubio; Rubio tried to make amnesty federal law, Walker signed a county resolution hoping that amnesty would become federal law, and Jeb — well, the less said, the better. For border hawks, that’s some choice. Yet another way to react is to denounce NRO for publishing a (slightly) damaging hit piece on the GOP’s hero of the hour in the first place. Why try to weaken a strong candidate, even if it means revealing his deviation from a core plank of conservative orthodoxy? If and when Ted Cruz starts hammering Walker for this, then we can worry about whether Walker’s position was truly “conservative.” And of course there’s a fourth way to handle this: 2002 was a long time ago. Granted, Walker seems to hold basically the same position now as he held then, but he hasn’t spoken about it at length. We forgave Mitt Romney for once being pro-choice; we forgave John McCain for, er, once supporting comprehensive immigration reform. Why wouldn’t we forgive Walker if this is his only major blemish?
Your move, Team Cruz!
No, they are not.
ahhh...keep it simple stupid. Good on unions bad on immi
Someone should ask Grothman to out all the amnesty supporters in his state.
http://badgerherald.com/news/2007/09/19/proposed-bill-bans-s/#.VN6rISwlm18
State Republicans introduced legislation Tuesday restricting local governments from offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants throughout Wisconsin. Under the new bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, and Rep. Roger Roth, R-Grand Chute, cities and counties would be unable to pass laws prohibiting government employees from demanding proof of immigration status or notifying the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens.
Smoking gun.
Walker is tight with Paul Ryan and Rinse Prius, both amnesty whores, and he has made statements that had me worried. This confirms my suspicions about Walker. Another Cheap Labor Importer.
Same way Bush and McCain are against amnesty.
They will try their best to ‘Sarah’ Scott Walker.
I still like him and would vote for him even if he didn’t graduate.
Go Walker!
Go Cruz!
Just wish they were leading a ‘Constitutional Party’ and deep six the R.
The invasion must be stopped or we lose the country.
No other issue matters if we lose on amnesty.
Lose the rule of law and what do you have? North Mexico
Jeb who?
I'm just following your own twisted logic bro..........
The candidate without imperfections or flaws never exists. Ever.
True - but if there's one thing you can count on Free Republic for, it's that FReepers will be just as creative as the MSM at digging up anything they can spin to make it look like dirt on any candidate that isn't the vanity-candidate-of-the-week that they support. Count on it.
You're such a compromising RINO. MY vanity candidate is the PERFECT candidate, and if you don't get behind him, then you're just a fake conservative who wants to destroy America.
/do I need it?
The candidate without imperfections or flaws never exists. Ever.
Such is the burden of Man.
Assuming Cruz turns out to be constitutionally eligible.
Scott Walker is not for amnesty and never has been.
“Did you trust Reagan ?”
Yes he was a great President.
Of all things that won’t bother me in 2016, what happened in the people’s republic of Milwaukee in 2002 pretty much leads the list....
I FULLY AGREE AND THANK YOu!!! signed/Hillary
Then, well.....
“I FULLY AGREE AND THANK YOu!!! signed/Hillary”
I FULLY AGREE AND THANK YOu!!! signed/Jeb Bush & Karl Rove
Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? [Yes! And I support him! JimRob]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3084490/posts
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.