Posted on 03/26/2015 11:48:53 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a possible candidate for president in 2016, told a private gathering of New Hampshire Republicans this month that he supported a pathway to legal status — but not citizenship — for undocumented immigrants in the United States, according to the chairwoman of the state’s Republican Party.
The chairwoman, Jennifer Horn, described Mr. Walker’s statements on Thursday after The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post reported that Mr. Walker had endorsed eventual citizenship for those immigrants, which many Republicans oppose.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Walker, Kirsten Kukowski, disputed those reports about Mr. Walker embracing a pathway to citizenship.
“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,” she said in a statement. “He does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
WSJ broke the story.
Walker never dd it for me anyway.
But this is rewaffling if true, he just claimed he had “progressed” in view from previous where he did advocate amnesty.
Almost a year before first votes.
I further suggested that it's unwise for candidates to make statements in private. I also wondered if the way to avoid saying things potential supporters would disagree with is to actually believe what they're saying.
Please, correct me as to what I have wrong.
Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay. “The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.
So how is Cruz's position different from Walker's?
So, how is Cruz's position different from Walker's?
How is Cruz's position different from Walker's?
From what I have seen, Grania knows exactly how it came about. Walker is having private meetings, just like yesterday with the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce. Then leaks start to happen because he is potentially making deals with an organization that is transparently open borders and pro amnesty, in private. His meetings with Establishment groups and organizations is what is at play here.
Just like when Walker is for ethanol subsidies and then against them before he is for them again. All only because of who he is speaking with. Convictions, convictions, convictions. I would far more be trustful of any candidate that takes a position and stands on it than one whose positions whip around the mast like an untethered sail in a hurricane.
How about an honest debate on vetting all their public and private stances and convictions before taking sides and choosing now? This is the same thing that happened to the Rick Perry supporters in the last round. And you, my dear, are one of the worst of staking a claim before even doing any geotech, then using your collection of little sound bite links to assail anybody else rather than engaging in any retrospect to where you plant your flag. Be mindful a mudslide can just as easily happen in the desert as it can on the Kalifornja coast.
I am sick of some Cruz supporters thinking Cruz is superior and posting Walker's immigration comments as proof that he is to the left of Cruz. The point is both men share the same position and I would welcome either one as our nominee.
And there are other sources that have pushed Walker on the issue and he is been consistent that there should be no path to citizenship for illegals.
The three sources are Bush supporters, talking to the NY Slimes. Think about it.
Several red flags here...NY Times, Concord Monitor, soviet Red Hampshire...not to be trusted under any circumstance.
With that said, Walker was either lying then, or he's lying now.
From what I can gather (since I wasn’t there - nor were you or anyone else I’m “familiar” with) that after a talk, people milled around and asked questions.
These 3 [?] said Walker said what? Do you know?
Walker’s camp denies the implication that he favors amnesty.
This is a made up story designed for political opposition consumption.
This is what happens when you have secret, closed-door meetings.
Many are acting as if Walker needs to call for mass deportations to "redeem himself", but they fail to recognize that nobody who is in politics has articulated such a desire - they just assume that their own choice wants it.
> “ ... after ***The Wall Street Journal*** and ***The Washington Post*** reported that Mr. Walker had endorsed eventual citizenship for those immigrants, which many Republicans oppose.”
Liberal Press is out to sow discontent. And just this morning also, another of the same intent out to soften support for Ted Cruz.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3272663/posts
Another ‘report’ that is chock full of lies.
Me thinks the Chamber of Commerce is paying for ‘reports’ that support their narrative.
And FR Trolls are out as well saying all these reports on Cruz and Walker are ‘dealbreakers’ for them.
Beware liars and trolls. Look first at the sources. Let trusted Conservative media such as Rush or Mark Levin do the vetting on these media ‘reports’. They will interview Cruz and Walker directly.
The Wall Street Journal is not a trusted source for unbiased journalism.
We need to elevate Walker and Cruz, not help Bush and the left tear them down.
Cruz is superior to Walker.
When looking at Walker’s record, don’t forget about his support for “comprehensive immigration reform” also known as amnesty back in 2002 when he signed a bill in support of it as Milwaukee County executive.
Here is an excerpt:
“BE IT RESOLVED, that the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors does hereby express its support for comprehensive immigration reform legislation that will provide greater opportunity for undocumented working immigrants to obtain legal residency in the United States and joins the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and other leading business, religious and civic leaders and organizations as well as the City of Milwaukee in urging the U.S. Congress to adopt such legislation.”
“Whereas the stability of many sectors of our society is dependent on the labor of working immigrants, including those who have no legal status, and the lack of status of these undocumented workers makes them fearful of retaliation, so that many of them endure long hours and low pay, poor working conditions, sexual harassment, discrimination, and
“Whereas undocumented working immigrants in Milwaukee and throughout these United States make substantial contributions to our economic, civil, and cultural life but unjustly remain vulnerable to exploitation, now, therefore”
Walker’s campaign team says that’s not amnesty.
As far as it possibly being Jeb's guys? He is so far off the radar I wonder if I'd vote for hillary before him. It goes way back to over 14 years ago with GWB running his campaign to lock out real, qualified conservatives with his big insider money and connections. The world would be a very different place if we had Quayle/Forbes for eight years. I doubt many people besides the out-of-touch elite want another Bush in the presidency.
I just don't know if this is the time for Governor Walker. GWB got by us because he had no DC record to back up his campaign rhetoric. And we ended up with too many illegals in the US, expanded Medicare, regime change in the ME and no child left behind.
This. Article attempts to
Prop up walker
Making him look like ‘brave sir robi’ of the holy grail
Look for the times to attempt to destroy their true nemeses or nemesis Notvwalker
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.