Posted on 03/26/2015 7:53:42 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Potential 2016 candidate Scott Walker’s staff is denying that he endorsed amnesty for illegal immigrants during a closed-door dinner with Republican donors in New Hampshire.
“Governor Walker has been very clear that he does not support amnesty and believes that border security must be established and the rule of law must be followed,” said Kirsten Kukowski, the spokesman he recently hired from the Republican National Committee.
“He does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this story line is false,” she said. The denials follow a March 26 report in The Wall Street Journal, which said that Walker told New Hampshire Republicans donors that illegals would “eventually get their citizenship without being given preferential treatment.”
Walker reportedly showed his support for full amnesty came at a March 13 dinner at the Cooper Door Restaurant in Bedford, N.H.
The statement violated Walker’s generally successful efforts to equivocate on the issue by zig-zagging between vague pro-amnesty statements and vague anti-amnesty statements.
He’s equivocating because the issue deeply divides the GOP’s base from the GOP’s donors, and he doesn’t want to alienate either group.
Roughly 80 percent of the GOP base opposes President Barack Obama’s Oval Office amnesty, which would provide work-permits, Social Security cards, tax rebates and a quick-path to citizenship. Obama’s November amnesty, however, has been stalled by a Texas judge.
Other polls show that very few Americans support an immigration policy that allows companies to hire migrants or guest-workers in place of Americans.
In contrast, business interests strongly support greater illegal and legal immigration, partly because it provides more workers, more government-subsidized customers, and likely nudges up profits.
That business influence is very powerful, but not decisive.
There’s plenty of time yet for a GOP candidate to offer a wage-boosting immigration pause to win a large slice of the GOP voters — or risk alienating many voters by fully backing the business community.
Like the other candidates, Walker has tried to zig-zag between the donors and voters.
“Well, I don’t believe in amnesty,” he told the host of “Fox News Sunday,” Chris Wallace, on March 1.
“I think the better approach is to enforce the laws and to give employers, job creators the tools like E-Verify and other things to make sure the law is being upheld going forward,” he said.
Walker’s phrase “other things” is a giant loophole that could include the change most sought by business interests — a much greater legal inflow of immigrant workers and customers. But it is so vague that — if elected and inaugurated — he can deny he ever promised to increase legal immigration.
Walker is very aware of business demand for more migrants.
In November, 2013, he told The Daily Caller that “I’d open the door to making sure that people can legally come into the country.”
“I don’t care whether it is from Mexico, or India or Germany or Ireland or anywhere else around the world, if we have people who want to come here and work hard and live the American dream, we should embrace those people,” Walker said at breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor.
The other GOP candidates have also tried to zig-zag their way through the problem, because they need business donations and voters’ votes to win 2016 campaigns.
For example, all GOP candidates say they support stronger border enforcement, but most also say they support greater legal immigration of blue-collar and white-collar workers.
Sen. Ted Cruz exemplified the zig-zag strategy in his Monday speech at Liberty University. “Instead of the lawlessness and the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty, imagine a president that finally, finally, finally secures the borders. And imagine a legal immigration system that welcomes and celebrates those who come to achieve the American dream,” he said.
Former Florida Jeb Bush is the strongest supporter of more immigration, and has made it the centerpiece of his economic platform. He argues that an an infusion of migrants can serve as a stimulus to double economic growth from 2 percent to 4 percent.
However, that growth won’t necessarily increase income for Americans, partly because any new jobs will be sought by new immigrants, and because new economic activity will consist of selling low-priced services and goods to low-income immigrants.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has tried to stake out a low-immigration pitch, but he also needs to raise donations.
In a speech to conservative activists in February, for example, he largely avoided the issue and instead talked about other issues, such as foreign policy, that don’t alienate donors. Follow Neil on Twitter
Maybe I’m just tired, but I don’t see any flip flop in the quotes the article attributes to him.
“Citizenship” wasn’t the accusation, sweetie. Is Walker as disengenuois as you are, Kiesten?
The democrats will certainly make something up if he’s not.
All of the treason lobby deny that they are for amnesty.
But they are just equivocating over the meaning of amnesty, like Clinton when he said “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”.
I hate E-Verify. Our representatives refuse to do their duty to protect the states from invasion, they don’t enforce our border or our laws, so what’s their solution? They put each and every AMERICAN in a national federal database, and then require each AMERICAN to get a federal bureaucrat to sign off on whether or not they are qualified to get a job to earn their daily bread.
There’s a whole bunch wrong with that picture. Conservatives generally have NOT thought this through.
Walker reportedly showed his support for full amnesty came at a March 13 dinner at the Cooper Door Restaurant in Bedford, NH.
How about that? Clear cut.
“Walker reportedly showed his support for full amnesty came at a March 13 dinner at the Cooper Door Restaurant in Bedford, NH.”
But how did he “reportedly show” it? What were his words?
The closest I see is “I’d open the door to making sure that people can legally come into the country.” That door has always been open, since the nation’s founding. I suppose it’s fair to ask him why he feels the need to open that which is open already. Whatever does he mean?
And there you have it.
Walker is for illegals, and cruz is for H1-B’s, and neither is for the American worker.
Guess the C of C has pretty much bought up every politician in sight.
Maybe the limousine liberal and the good ole boy republicans will successfully run el presidente de mexico nieto as the next US president.
Kirsten didn’t respond to what the article said Walker stated. It stated he wanted to have some kind of legal status for illegals. While that may equal amnesty to most conservatives it does not to Scott Walker.
Therefore Kirsten could state that Walker was not for amnesty while avoiding responding to what Walker allegedly really said.
What difference do public statements of policy positions make, when Republicans turn around and do the opposite once they are in office, any way?
We have ample precedent from Republican party leadership for proof of that.
We will know them by their deeds, not their words.
Walker Denies Remarks Indicating Change in Immigration Stance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3272658/posts
I don't recall anyone in politics articulating anything about mass deportations, but many seem to think that is the only way Walker can "redeem" himself. I don't recall even Cruz articulating what they want - he's just so much better at saying what his stances are that they think they hear him saying, "Bulldoze them all across the border and bury the casualties".
Liars lie. Who’s Munro being paid to write this stuff for?
They know that conservatives are susceptible to these kinds of purity tests.
No one is going to get elected on a deport them all stance. It just will not happen. You have to moderate to a national audience.
Walker’s achievements are proof he’s a conservative. Believe what they do, not what they say. That’s what we say about politicians.
Walker’s done it.
Walker will be part of the next administration. President Cruz will need good men...
If he get the Family Research Council endorsement early, it could really throw things into chaos.
We’re on the same page. You made my point more baldly. That being said, I look forward to him further clarifying his position.
There’s another thread on this running. According to the restaurant owner and the town’s Republican mayor, plus three other unnamed sources, Walker said no deportation and a path to citizenship so long as the immigrant got to the back of the line.
At face value statements like that are devastating to Walker. However, as the post earlier stated, they still fall into the category of “reportedly”. It would be a phenominally stupid thing for Walker to do, and he’s smarter than that. And there are a LOT of people who would benefit from Walker being taken out of the race early.
“And there are a LOT of people who would benefit from Walker being taken out of the race early.”
In my mind, that is the whole point of this exercise. People forget the lesson of elections past. We’ll soon be left with no viable candidate that’s conservative in any sense of the word.
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.