Posted on 04/22/2015 12:35:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Scott Walker’s most recent comments on immigration may make possible an honest-to-God debate about America’s immigration policy. It’s about time.
Chatting with Glenn Beck on Monday morning, Walker said:
The next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal-immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, protecting American workers and American wages. . . . What is [current legal immigration policy] doing for American workers? What is this doing to wages? We need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.
But, Walker observed, among elected officials, questioning our currently legal immigration policy is “a fundamentally lost issue.”
And Republicans quickly proved him right. Utah senator Orrin Hatch dismissed as “poppycock” Walker’s insinuation that high levels of legal immigration might have negative effects on employment and wages. Arizona senator John McCain declared that immigrants were necessary to supplement an aging population: “I think most statistics show that they fill part of the workforce that are much needed.” South Dakota senator John Thune, head of the Senate Republican Conference, admitting that he had not heard Walker’s comments exactly, still declared: “We have a workforce issue in this country. . . . So having a robust legal-immigration process helps us fill jobs that otherwise wouldn’t be getting filled.” And Ohio senator Rob Portman retreated to sentiment: ““As a party, we’ve always embraced immigrants coming here legally, following the rules. And it’s enriched our country immeasurably.”
But these are, of course, responses to a straw man — namely, that Scott Walker opposes legal immigration. His campaign has been clear that that is not the case: He “strongly supports legal immigration,” said spokeswoman AshLee Strong, “and like many Americans, believes that our economic situation should be considered, instead of arbitrary caps on the amount of immigrants that can enter.” Walker is simply suggesting that American policymakers consider Americans when making policy.
That is controversial? Apparently, since even leading Republicans refuse to engage Walker’s question.
That refusal should alarm every prospective Republican voter.
First, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that current legal-immigration levels — approximately 1 million new immigrants a year — are not an automatic economic boon. Despite the much-touted link between current immigration levels and increases in income for native-born Americans, it is not at all obvious that those increases could not be achieved by other means, and those gains are partially offset by wage decreases among foreign-born workers, who, predictably, are forced to compete with new immigrants for scarce job opportunities.
Second, the Beltway political consensus that Walker is bucking is sharply out of step with public opinion. In January, Gallup found that 39 percent of Americans would like to see immigration levels decrease; only 7 percent wanted more immigration. (A staggering 84 percent of Republicans were dissatisfied with current immigration levels.) Last summer, 45 percent of respondents to a Reuters/Ipsos poll called for a reduction in legal immigration, while only 17 percent called for an increase. And in August, asked by the Polling Company how U.S. businesses struggling to find workers should respond, 75 percent of respondents chose “They should raise wages and improve working conditions to attract Americans.” Only 8 percent chose “More immigrant workers should be allowed into the country to fill these jobs.” Notably, the results were equally lopsided across ethnic (including Hispanic) and party lines. Black Americans preferred the first option by a margin of 86 percent to 3 percent.
That latter finding should debunk MSNBC’s nonsense claim that Walker sees “riling up the party’s older and whiter conservative base as the key to general election success.” Rather, Walker, more than any Republican candidate, is in step with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which in 2010 reported, “Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men.” “Competition from immigration accounts for approximately 40 percent of the 18 percentage point decline in black employment in recent years,” commissioner Peter Kirsanow wrote at National Review last fall. “That’s nearly a million jobs lost by blacks to immigrants.” Republicans have long lamented their dismal electoral performance in minority communities. Walker’s position is far more likely to sway these voters — and, more important, help these communities — than the platitude-filled “minority outreach” of Republican campaigns past.
But there is, finally, a question of principle at stake. Is the Republican party a party of ideas, of free and open debate in which the best ideas can win the day? Or is it a party of censorship that requires toeing predetermined lines? Because it is the Left that is notorious for demanding ideological uniformity; it is the Left that ostracizes and excommunicates. Democrats’ marketplace of ideas has always been a command economy — which is why Hillary Clinton’s ideas are from the 1990s, and Barack Obama’s were from the 1930s. But the reaction to Walker’s call for an open debate on legal-immigration policy has been indistinguishable from what one sees on the left. A Republican party that shouts down anyone who calls for a closer examination of the evidence is thoroughly illiberal — or thoroughly liberal, as the case may be.
John Thune, John McCain, et al. presumably do not support open borders, which means the question has to be, Where do we draw the line? Scott Walker wants to ask that question. A healthy party would have the debate, and eagerly.
— Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow at the National Review Institute.
Scott has a problem.
He states his immigration policy has changed.
What do you do if you want to protect the jobs of U. S. Citizens? Don’t you send back the people who are here illegally holding down jobs?
In this video clip his old (2013) policy is aired in a second video clip. He backs illegals staying in the U. S. if they pay a fine.
It is also mentioned that he favored the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill. (You know, amnesty but not an amnesty) He acknowledges that.
Then in this (03/01/2015) clip, Walker is asked if illegals can stay, if they pay a fine. He responds with, I believes a way can be found to do that.
This is the same policy as his old policy.
Then he states that his policy has changed. No Scott, it hasn’t changed. You just got through endorsing the same policy, illegals being allowed to stay in our country if they pay a fine. So you even fibbed about it.
In 2006/07, 2013, and now in 2015, his immigration policy regarding illegal immigrants is the same as that under McCain/Kennedy. Let them pay a fine and stay.
Immigration is discussed starting at 9:20 and the “...a way can be found...” is located at 10:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uymMeeRV1RU
1. Under your criteria, you would not have voted for Ronald Reagan.
2. Under this criterion: “What do you do if you want to protect the jobs of U. S. Citizens? Don’t you send back the people who are here illegally holding down jobs?” ... you will not be voting for Ted Cruz
Scott Walker may be late to find the right position here, but he may be for real. Sen. Sessions may have gotten his mind right.
There is another post attacking him by Matt Lewis, paid mouthpiece for The Cheap Labor Express, that tells me they’re not happy that he has taken this stance.
"On Immigration, Scott Walker Changes His Mind and Bucks the Beltway Consensus"
There. That's better.
Kidd, if you’re okay with your politicians lying to you, why not vote for Obama?
You see, two can play that game.
I don’t care to support someone who lies to me.
This whole “NEW AND WONDERFUL” immigration plan of his is a fraud.
He’ll allow them to stay, and he isn’t that concerned about Americans and their jobs.
Can somebody explain to me what is new about what Walker said? Granted it is different than what he said behind closed doors a couple of weeks ago, but Cruz has consistently said from the beginning that we must enforce our current immigrattion laws and seal thweborder. What’s new?
The next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal-immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, protecting American workers and American wages. . . . What is [current legal immigration policy] doing for American workers? What is this doing to wages? We need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.
...
Discussion? We have well established immigration that law that isn’t being enforced by the crooks in Washington. We don’t need a discussion.
Scott Walker has a long list of accomplishments, so it should be pretty easy to add some teeth to your perception that Walker is lying about illegal immigration.
To convince me that Walker is lying, you’d have to provide a substantial example of a case where Walker promised something conservative and then enacted something liberal.
I know I am extreme on immigration, but honestly, whether it were Cruz or some other candidate, if someone came out with these positions son immigration, I would walk over coals to vote for them.
1. Secure the border with verification.
2. Begin massive deportation of illegal immigrants, starting with those who have broken other laws.
3. Revoke citizenship for all whose parents were in the country illegally at the time of their birth and end anchor baby citizenship for any future births.
4. Put on notice all who are here illegally that wish to ever become a citizen should return to their country of origin. If you are deported for illegal entry, you will revoke any future path to citizenship.
I am fed up with leeches who invade our country, bleed our social services and ravage our educational systems.
I may be wrong, but I think there are enough people like me who would vote for that candidate to put them in the White House.
Or I could document Scott’s past and current policy statements, reveal their similarities, and his statements that contrast with them, which is exactly what I did.
>>Can somebody explain to me what is new about what Walker said?<<
Walker moved the conversation to “legal” immigration by raising the issue that legal immigration levels set by law should consider the impact on American wages. Given that both the Left and the Right are now contesting him, he’s obviously onto something.
The Left fears loss of an issue, income inequality, because curtailing legal immigration would be a market-based way of addressing low wages and the impact on income inequality.
The Right just plain wants more workers for employers, but it goes deeper than that. There’s a current of economic thinking that increasing the workforce increases GDP. While it might do that, it also depresses wages below what they would be otherwise. In fact, a highly-trained, and stable, workforce might increase GDP even faster than a larger workforce, given the chance. You also see their argument in the “we need more young workers to support retirees” sort of statement. There might be some truth in all this, but Walker wants to have the discussion. And don’t be surprised if a whole bunch of voters, even Independent and Democrat voters, want to have that same discussion. In fact, even Hispanics here legally and blacks who can’t find jobs might want to have it.
One additional factor: if you’re debating how much to restrict legal immigration, it goes without saying that illegal immigration has to be curtailed. That same debate will encompass determining how many of those already here illegally should be issued work permits and allowed to stay and how many should be returned to their home countries.
I don’t know how this position will work out for him, but he’s got all the right people upset, in my opinion, including the crony capitalists.
RE: “On Immigration, Scott Walker Changes His Mind and Bucks the Beltway Consensus”
One can always change one’s mind, but the real test comes when you have to propose a bill or sign one.
Other than that, it’s “Read My Lips” all over again.
“you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”
< / Clint >
I don’t think you’re wrong at all.
What’s more, politicians know it or they wouldn’t try to misrepresent their views.
Allowing them to stay is amnesty, no matter how you spin it
Telling folks you’ll find a way to let them stay, is not the same as not allowing them to stay
Who knew?
Thank you for that clarification. Compared to illegal immigration, legal immigration is not unreasonably high. I think people are so disillusioned by what illegals have done to the country that they are soured on the whole process. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
“This whole “NEW AND WONDERFUL” immigration plan of his is a fraud.”
Prove it.
I did. Thanks for playing.
“I did. Thanks for playing.”
You proved nothing. Thanks for playing.
Okay, then you’ve just listed yourself as a person who can’t watch and listen to a video and discern truth from it.
Snarks lose ace.
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.