Gov. Scott Walker's Immigration Stance at Center of Dispute

ABC News ^

[Bigtigermike]

The two-term governor has consistently opposed what he calls "amnesty" for immigrants in the country illegally, but his definition of amnesty has evolved. In a recent closed-door meeting with top New Hampshire Republicans, Walker said such immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country legally.

That's according to New Hampshire GOP chair Jennifer Horn, who organized the meeting and challenged a Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal that Walker said he supported giving such immigrants a pathway to citizenship.

"I specifically asked a follow-up question on the immigration reform issue, where he very clearly identified he was advocating a path for legal status but not citizenship," Horn said in an interview with The Associated Press.

[Bigtigermike]

Do what's the difference between legalization but no citizenship? Huh?

[Theoria]

'In the half-hour discussion, Walker called for securing the border and allowing for more visas for high-skilled workers. He also said it was unreasonable to deport millions of immigrants in the country illegally, preferring a system that allowed them to pay back taxes and achieve legal status over time, according to Horn.'

That is the standard Chamber of Commerce answer. Sure, we will allow them to work, but they won't be citizens. And we wont deport them. While we are at it, we will bring in more 'workers' to compete with Americans and legal residence....lol..

[stephenjohnbanker]

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce is flying Walker in for a meeting. Media frozen out. AZ conservative talk radio is having a field day this morning.

[kingu]

I’m all for a jobs program hiring people to deport illegals. It can be financed through penalties for employers who pay illegals. Heck, just recovering unpaid sales taxes in California would likely pay for 100,000 deportation agents.

Because what’s another crime when the worst penalty is a quick vacation to Mexico (or wherever) and a hop skip and jump back across the border?

[Enterprise]

ABC News on Walker or any other Republican: Quack, quack, quack.

[Rockitz]

“His position has not changed,” Kukowski said. “He does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

There are many people here on green cards which grant them the ability to live, work, and pay taxes here without any benefits of citizenship. As long as social security payments, disability payments, state university tuition discounts, food stamps, and other government payments, and voting are exclusive to citizens I can go along with that.

[Bigtigermike]

But they’re quoting a Republican NH chairman and that chairman was correcting what the WSJ said that she said. The corrected statement is just as worse the first because it still says that walker wants legal status for illegals

[gwgn02]

Unfortunately for Scott Walker, pointing to media sources and trying to blame them is not going to work..because at this point he’s been consistently exposed for flip flopping. It’s his own actions and lack of judgement that matter. Walker is being called out for being less than honest about the most important issue this country faces, immigration...and he’s failed miserably on it. We can’t risk a candidate who’s telling elite donors he’s for amnesty, and then lying to grassroots that he isn’t.

[Rockitz]

Any pathway to citizenship better be long and tortuous with lots of hoops including payment of back taxes, return of all government assistance payments, and denial in case of criminal activity. Those who go through the process legally should have distinct advantages over those who break the law.

[Lurkinanloomin]

The first reports were anonymous sources, ths one has a name attached which gives it more credibility. Walker is trying to finesse this between the donors who want amnesty and voters who want enforcement. You can’t be a little bit pregnant.

Sorry, Walker bandwagoners, this does not pass the smell test.

[Sans-Culotte]

Walker and Jeb could be brothers.

[9YearLurker]

Yep, and 6% of them are voting already while still legal, but as we’ve seen from Barry’s new amnesty they’ll have all they need to vote, with ID and everything, once they’re just legalized.

But not only has Walker previously advocated eventually making them all citizens, we know full well that that’s what would happen sooner rather than later after legalization anyway.

And then chain migration would triple their numbers.

[grania]

I would think legal status is even worse. Their children are citizens. They have all the freebies of being here legally. And they'll still be citizens of their homelands.

What we need is a candidate committed to stopping and reversing the invasion of the US. It's beginning to look like even if there's open warfare in the streets, the Chamber of Commerce gang will still be demanding the cheap labor.

[Lurkinanloomin]

There should be no changes to our laws to benefit those who broke them, both the illegal aliens and their employers.
We either have the rule of law or we abandon it.
I’m not in favor of abandoning the rule of law.
Those who want to change the laws to accomodate illegal aliens and their employers are in favor of abandoning the rule of law.

[grania]

Invaders break the law every day they’re here illegally. They should not be given anything but a one way ticket home!

[9YearLurker]

No—they should simply go home and enrich their own countries with what they’ve learned while here on illegal”scholarships”.

[sheana]

I would vote for the first candidate who stands up and says.....as President it is my duty to make sure laws are enforced. There are laws on the books regarding immigration and they should be enforced so I don’t see why my views on immigration make a difference. It’s Congress’ job to write the laws not the President’s.

[Norseman]

>>So what’s the difference between legalization but no citizenship? <<

Seriously? There’s a huge difference, obviously. A green card entitles you to be in the country legally, either working or going to school. There are probably other categories too, like those here with a working parent, or those allowed in to avoid persecution in their home country, for example.

None of those people can legally vote, however, and most of them do not need to be provided a path to citizenship, ever.

Citizenship confers rights not available to non-citizens, even if those non-citizens are here legally, one of them being the right to vote.

But there are a lot of other issues too. Should a green card holder be entitled to welfare benefits, or unemployment benefits during the off season? Should he be required to have health insurance? Can he own a gun? Must he participate in Social Security? Medicare? Can he be eligible for Medicaid?

All of these issues should be addressed in a comprehensive law covering the issuance of legal green cards (and most probably already are, actually), but first we have to quit confusing legal status with citizenship.

[Paine in the Neck]

Amnesty is:

anything that permits those who illegally entered the country to benefit from that illegal act. Period.

[Norseman]

>>because it still says that walker wants legal status for illegals<<

Good luck finding a candidate who will advocate deportation for every single person currently in this country illegally, because such a candidate doesn’t exist, nor will there be one.

Nor will there be one who advocates taking away the job of every single person here illegally, for those of you who prefer the winning strategy of “self-deportation.”

That isn’t to say that the mess shouldn’t be cleaned up, but it’s not going to be cleaned up by a NO AMNESTY candidate, because such a candidate doesn’t, and won’t, exist.

The debate needs to move on instead to which illegals should be issued green cards, what sort should be deported immediately, and which ones should be provided a path to eventual citizenship, should they want to take it. “No amnesty” is simply not going to happen, ever. Anyone who thinks otherwise is bound to be disappointed in the candidates, all of them.