Posted on 03/02/2015 9:20:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A reversal so predictable that even a dummy like me saw it coming.
But is it a reversal? Per Jamie Weinstein, maybe the headline should be “Scott Walker still stands by path to citizenship for illegals.” Here’s the key bit, which comes at exactly a minute in.
WALLACE: The question [in 2013] was, ‘Can you envision a world where if these people paid a penalty that they would have a path to citizenship?’ and you said, ‘Sure, that makes sense.’
WALKER: I believe there’s a way you can do that. First and foremost, you have to secure that border, or none of these plans make any sense.
Essentially, says Weinstein, he’s playing semantic games with the definition of “amnesty,” which isn’t the first time Walker’s done that. In November 2013, after the Wisconsin interview on immigration excerpted here by Chris Wallace started raising eyebrows on righty blogs, Walker told Breitbart News that he most certainly was not for “amnesty.” If you watch that Wisconsin interview, though, you’ll see that his idea for solving illegal immigration had less to do with tightening the border than with loosening it. “You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that,” he said at the time, but “to me, I don’t know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.” Not even John McCain and Lindsey Graham go so far as to define “border security” as easier admittance.
Depending upon how narrowly you define “amnesty,” though, even a guy as pro-open-borders as Walker 2013 could kinda sorta argue that he’s against it. In the strictest sense, “amnesty” means legalization for illegals who are already here with no prerequisites. Theoretically, if you support giving full citizenship to all 11 million but insist on, say, basic English fluency first, you’re not in favor of “amnesty” because you’re imposing a condition on their eligibility for citizenship. I think Walker’s going further than that in his chat with Wallace: He’s talking up actual border security now (I think), something he didn’t do at all in that 2013 interview, which is more than just a semantic change and will go a long way in getting conservatives who otherwise love him to forgive him for this obviously calculated flip-flop. But you can understand why Weinstein thinks Walker’s opposition to “amnesty” is shallow, especially in light of the boldfaced line above. If you define “amnesty” as any policy measure designed to let illegals stay, regardless of the conditions and irrespective of how much new border security precedes it, then yeah, Walker’s most definitely still for amnesty. Just skip to 1:00 of the clip and see for yourself.
An irony of his slipperiness on this issue is that he’s getting a benefit of the doubt that another young, appealing, checks-most-of-the-boxes Republican 2016 candidate doesn’t get. Marco Rubio’s stuck in the mid-single digits because no matter how much crap he eats publicly for pushing the Gang of Eight bill, many conservatives can’t forgive him — even though his current position on immigration is more or less identical to Walker’s current position. Every time he speaks somewhere, the reviews are glowing; he’s able to address national policy, especially foreign policy, with a degree of specificity that’ll probably take Walker months to reach, if he reaches it at all. If not for the Gang of Eight bill, I think the primaries would start largely as a two-man race between Walker and Rubio. As it is, the latter’s nearly an asterisk, with Walker and Jeb Bush sucking up most of the oxygen on the right and center that Rubio needs to get going. I’ve said before that I think Rubio needs some big endorsements, starting with Mitt Romney’s, plus some polling showing him performing unusually well with Latinos to gain traction with establishmentarians. There may be nothing he can do to gain traction with righties — but after reading this Byron York piece, I wonder.
[I]n our conversation Saturday, I asked Walker what Republicans in Washington should do in the standoff over funding the Department of Homeland Security. “Not just Republicans, I think the Congress as a whole needs to find a way to fund homeland security going forward,” Walker answered. He explained that he recognized the concerns lawmakers have about giving up their ability “to push back on the president’s questionable, if not illegal, actions.” Walker noted that he was part of the states’ lawsuit against Obama’s action. “I think they’re right that the president is wrong,” Walker told me, “but I also think we’ve got to make sure that homeland security isn’t compromised.”
After a little more along those lines, I said I was still a little unclear on where Walker stood. Should Republicans stand firm on not funding Obama’s unilateral action on immigration, or should they go ahead and fund the Department of Homeland Security without regard to what Obama has done? Here is what Walker said:
“I think they have to figure out some way to have the bridge to continue to fund homeland security but in a way that doesn’t remove their ability to come back sometime in the not too distant future if the court rules or if the administration changes how they do this action in a way that could be upheld in court. They need to have the power of the purse string to offer a counter to that.”
What does that mean, exactly? It’s not entirely clear.
Yeah, Walker’s not entirely clear on immigration here either. And so far, on foreign policy, he’s had little to say beyond some hawkish throat-clearing and claiming that facing down Wisconsin’s labor fanatics has helped prepare him for tough challenges abroad like ISIS. It’s way too early in the race to care about any of that; Walker will still be golden in the polls by the time the Republican debates begin. But if he continues to come off as platitudinous onstage while Rubio comes off as detailed and thoughtful, it might lead some center-righties partial to Walker right now to give Rubio a second look. That’s Rubio’s strategy — he’s not going to sink a candidate as well-funded as Bush or a candidate as accomplished as Walker, but maybe he can cannibalize parts of each man’s base and pull even with them. And then, at some point in February or March 2016, conservatives will have a tough choice to make: Whom to rally around as the one true Bush-killer in the race? Walker or Rubio?
As with the last two elections, the GOP wants to lose again.
Waffle....
I believe that illegals have a path to citizenship. The first step on that path is to go home and apply.
Amnesties are always offered with conditions.
“First and foremost, you have to secure that border, or none of these plans make any sense.”
Which is why I agree with him.
Scott Walker just isn’t prepared or principled enough to lead this nation back to greatness. We can’t afford to nominate someone who’s flip flopped so much on major issues that will change America for the worse. This is a big deal, he’s essentially Romney V2.
All the Walkerphiles, I told them he was flaky on this issue-—even Ted Cruz is.
Our “leadership” has been bought off by Soros/NWO/Globalist minions.
This nation and it’s leadership is hell bent on suicide.
RE: All the Walkerphiles, I told them he was flaky on this issue-—even Ted Cruz is.
OK, WHO ISN’T flaky on this issue?
The GOP sucks almost as much as the DEMS.
Why would/should we embrace a Mexican invasion?
If he gets the nomination, I will vote for him. I won’t vote for Jeb Bush or Chris Cristie.
Honestly, I’m constantly stunned by how our leaders, those we agree with, and those with whom we don’t, seem so out of touch and ignorant of the facts. Levin has laid out the indisputable facts on power of the purse and how fake the DHS “shutdown” would be. These are winning arguments -— why doesn’t leadership understand them?
They all are was my point.
Scott Walker just isn’t prepared or principled enough to lead this nation back to greatness. We can’t afford to nominate someone who’s flip flopped so much on major issues that will change America for the worse. This is a big deal, he’s essentially Romney V2.
“Amnesties are always offered with conditions.”
If you impose enough conditions, no one will be able to meet them.
Tancredo
How about THIS condition:
If all those guys who are here/have been here illegally don't fork over the TAXES on their respective incomes - then WE all GET OURS BACK!!!
If THEY are permitted to forgo payment of taxes on wages/income, then it sets a precedent for ALL OTHER WAGE EARNERS in the US!
Then WE can forgo filing our tax returns and when hauled into court.... we can site IN THE LAW that those guys didn't pay either and were NOT charged!
FAIR IS FAIR!
I’m so sick and tired of people getting all worked up about which candidate is going to be the strongest on immigration. Folks, none of the GOP hopefuls is strong on this issue!!! As for the millions of illegals already here get used to the fact they’re gonna stay in the country. Hillary, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker are not going to deport them so deal with it!! The only thing that can be done is to put an immigration moratorium in place, militarize the entire southern border and strengthening our presence on the Canadian border and in our main seaports on both coasts by making the Border Patrol a military branch and adding more men and ships to the Coast Guard. Yeah, I know in our present political situation none of this will ever happen but I think we all have to face the reality that amnesty is a done deal regardless of who’s in the White House on January 20, 2017.
Border security will never happen. Mexico is more likely to do it than the U.S.
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.