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!
The RINOs on this forum will do anything to tell us Cruz cannot win or that he’s ineligible. Often these trolls are paid by Rove
We got one just like Walker down here in Florida. Maybe you know him. His name is Marco Rubio. He says he’s against amnesty too. Even though everything he’s done in the past says he’s for amnesty. Who should I be willing to believe him or my lying eyes?
When Cruz gets right on H-1b I am all in. Not holding my breath though.
Being on the amnesty band wagon isn’t a “little flaw”. Is getting your leg blown off a flesh wound?
What would be candidate has zero problems?
What is his definition of amnesty? Walker has said he is for a pathway to citizenship. Having illegals go to the back of the line, pay fines etc. he doesn’t consider amnesty.
One of his spokesmen came out after the Raddatz interview and clarified what he meant by amnesty.
It’s like Bill Clinton when he said he didn’t have sex with that woman it all depended on what your definition of sex was. He didn’t believe oral sex was really sex.
Walker will say he is not for amnesty but he is being coy. His definition of amnesty is certainly a lot different than mine.
A Republican candidate that doesn't get right with a complete halt to illegal and unconstrained legal immigration IS NOT GOING TO WIN.
If I though a Democrat Candidate could be trusted and they ran on that one issue I would vote for them. So that isn't going to happen. So I probably won't vote this time.
Cruz’s position is the same as Obama’s - born outside the USA, and one parent not a U.S. citizen (his dad was not naturalized until 2005, and was a Cuban citizen at the time of Cruz’s birth). If Obama is not a natural-born citizen, then neither is Cruz.
I like Ted Cruz. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. But I am not willing to play the “my guy gets the exception” game and spend eight years pointing out that Obama’s not eligible, only to turn around and start ignoring the Constitution just because it’s “our” guy now. That’s hypocritical.
If you people want to throw a hissy fit and zot me, go right ahead. But if we’ve reached the day where FR zots people for being concerned about the Constitution as it relates to the current flavor of the week candidate, then Free Republic will have outlived its usefulness to the long-term prospects of liberty in America.
“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”
Exactly.
Notice how this piece came out AFTER Walker’s speech in Iowa - just sayin...
>>Reagan signed it as Governor and “Quickly” regretted it.
Governors are always doing stuff like that. Let’s pick someone for freedom.
“Good bye to you my trusted friend”
“Good bye my friend it’s hard to die”
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.