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!
Don’t like him, don’t like his people.
If its not Cruz, Im sitting at home. The Repukes are on their last legs with me
this is BS. Either you are for amnesty or you are not. I don’t trust Scott Walker farther than I can throw him.
Oh, I could pull a lever for Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal, but they ain’t gonna be the nominee, are they?
You ought to do a write in at least. Sitting at home just encourages that bunch to think creatively and they aren’t the type for any good to come of that ;)
Walker is against amnesty.
“If its not Cruz, Im sitting at home. The Repukes are on their last legs with me”
____________
Are you attending precinct meetings to talk Cruz up? Are you active in the local party on behalf of Cruz? Or are you “sitting at home” right now, complaining that no one else is doing what has to be done?
Well, that stinks, but it’s not surprising.
Government wants to sell us out, and it’s going to.
pandering to illegal immigrants...a deal breaker for this voter.
Yeah, that’s why the article says he’s for it, because they’re all liars.
I get a kick out of the pouters who say, “If it isn’t MY guy then I’m staying home.” I guess, in their minds, it’s better to let a liberal socialist win rather than a candidate who has conservative ideas although maybe a few don’t match the personal “ideal” candidate. Is there any conservative candidate who will please every conservative voter? I doubt it. Let the Democrats win, I guess. I’m taking my ball and going home ... so there, I guess I showed you!
Oh.
Allahpundit.
Yeah right.
Did you trust Reagan ?
I only bring this up since I don’t think ANY Conservative candidate can ever be perfect.
Reagan and Abortion: Some Perspective
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258564/reagan-and-abortion-some-perspective-steven-f-hayward
Snip
It is true that as California governor, Reagan signed one of the early permissive state-level abortion laws. He hesitated a long time over this decision, and quickly came to regret it. He explained in a letter to Henry Hyde in 1976:
The only circumstance under which I felt [abortion] could be justified was self-defense, a concept deeply rooted in our laws and traditions. If a mother’s life is endangered by her own unborn child, she has a right to protect her life. I do not believe, however, that abortion of a less-than-perfect child, or abortion for convenience sake or abortion because “a mistake” has been made can be justified.
The bill I signed followed the self-defense concept. As time was to prove, however, it contained one flaw. The self-defense concept also included a provision in cases where a mother’s mental health might be irreparably damaged. This required professional certification, but as we were to learn, it became subject to very liberal interpretation by some psychiatrists to justify abortions that should not have been made.
snip
There’s much more to this issue and it has certainly had profound implications as California has led the nation in many other legal decisions.
Reagan signed it as Governor and “Quickly” regretted it.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Reagan, I’m just saying that there may be some things that are a “non-starter” that must be considered in there proper context.
Allahpundit didn’t break the story, National Review did.
EEE hardest hit??
Damn straight bro, I understand where you're coming from and I love your principles.
With that being said, if it's Cruz, I'M sitting home..........
One step further, if it's not MY GUY, I'm gonna stay home and pout right along with you bro.........We'll show 'em!
Enjoy voting for Jeb. :)
No lie. Good try. Clear as a mouthful of crap.
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.