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 ...
Citizen or not, if the get to stay, that is the very definition of amnesty. (And, of course, it’s just the first step.)
Gov. Walker has stated quite clearly that he has learned more about this problem since 2002 and that he does not support amnesty and that securing the border is job number one.
Sorry, there are too many examples of ‘look at the record’ at the State level that turns 180 degrees when running for higher office.
Until I hear “that is categorically incorrect” from his OWN mouth about the ‘leaked’ soundbite...but, I won’t take the word of a paid for talking head/spin-mister.
Well good, I am sick of people assuming that because I am refuting their beliefs about Walker's positions I must support Cruz.
Unlike you, I'm not the one who supports a candidate who advocates policies that will add at least 5 million (net) RAT voters, while glibly denying otherwise in terms vague enough to get away with it, for now. Latinos LOVE the welfare state as a cultural matter, because the Catholic Church has long taught them that reaching into somebody else' pocket is fine as long as it is collective "charity." Every single country in Latin America is a poverty stricken socialist mess as a result.
Apparently you think that's just fine for America. I don't.
“You dirty rat” was what Walker was called when he revoked instate tuition to illegals.
The post stands. We need a candidate who will stand for the rule of law and not run from the screaming fit the Slave Party will throw when their only means of recruitment (importing an indentured constituency) is denied.
Walker has stood against the “screaming fits” and won.
What you said, +1.
You do understand that NO GOP candidate is calling for mass deportations of illegals, right? Even Ted Cruz is not calling for that.
Or the comments he made were "misreported" by supporters of other candidates... Until I see a transcript or hear a recording, that remains a strong possibility.
They weren’t. Too many people at that event are now confirming his comments, people who don’t know each other.
Problem is that politicians lie just as much as the media.
I have no way of knowing which of these two is telling the truth, if either are.
It’s up to Walker to convince me that he believes in legitimate American citizenship, and so far I can’t say that he has.
Deportations do not have to be mass.
One by one will work just fine.
Start at one, move on to two, then on to three, then make your way to four...
That is what will work, and that is damn well what I expect my government to do.
That is a matter of opinion. Now, it is an opinion I share, but I would be careful about presenting it as an objective fact, because that determination is made based on the criteria each person finds most important. If you just state it as a fact, you risk offending someone who likes Cruz but prefers Walker right now. In that case, you might turn someone who would support Cruz if Walker dropped out into someone who would stay home rather than support Cruz.
You have to keep the whole campaign in mind, and not turn off the people you hope will eventually vote for your candidate...
Yep, just one more reason why I’m still a (L).
Not yet ONE in the fray whom will stand up for the RULE OF LAW.
“So, so-and-so, when you swore to defend and uphold the Constitution, were you lying then, now or both?”
“Say, so-and-so, just how many millions of criminal invaders within our borders equate an invasion?”
Of course, the logic and fortitude to ask those kind of questions are nowhere to be found in our ‘journalists’.
Here’s the Texas Tribune attacking Ted Cruz again through their friends at the Washington Post. Maybe you want to post it, too?
Five myths about Ted Cruz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-ted-cruz/2015/03/27/5fb59fa0-d3c3-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html
You make a good point.
I’m a Walker guy who is also excited about Cruz.
That in spite of the scorched earth policies of the Freeper Cruzers.
Did I miss something in your reply as to Cruz’s position on the illegal immigrants? Cruz would keep illegals here as illegals?/! while having working US citizens subsidize their presence? If Cruz cannot/does not want to burden the poor illegals he would burden the working US citizen? For me to do such is no different than making the US workers the provider for all of the world’s pregnancies. I don’t believe the Statue of Liberty was meant to welcome those who came to the US to be free loaders. Until I hear something more from Cruz I will put him a notch or two lower on my listing for POTUSA.
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.