On Immigration, Scott Walker Bucks the Beltway Consensus

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.

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.

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.

Walker HAS NOT flip flopped. Where do you guys get that idea?

He still says that if illegals pay a fine, a way can be found for them to remain here.

That has been his policy since 2006/07. This is 2015.

Try to grasp this concept when addressing legal immigration.

You think it’s great he wants to address legal immigration, and he’s the only one who wants to.

Consider this:

Legal immigration for the last ten years rages from about 1 to 1.1 million, with a few exceptions.

Refugee immigration for the last ten years ranges from about 40 to 70 thousand, with a few exceptions.

At the most, we’re talking about 1.05 to 1.2 million legal and asylum additions to our nation each year.

In 1990 ten years after Reagan’s amnesty ended, we had 9 million illegals in country. This according to the revised census for 2000, published in 2001.

Since 2000, with Bush (mainly) and others talk about amnesty, there was a virtual flood of illegals across our southern border, Time magazine estimating 3.5 million coming across each year. I don’t think it was more than 2.5 million, but who knows.

I do know that during one nine month period there 900,000 illegals taken into custody in one sector on the border. (It was by far the busiest sector) Traditionally the INS (Now ICE / LMAO), had stated they only captured 10 to 20% of the illegals coming across. 900,000 in 9 months translates to a yearly capture of 1.2 million. And if that’s only 10 - 20%... well you do the math. It’s been 15 years now since 2000.

I estimate conservatively we have 30 million illegals in the United States. Over 90% of all births and about 80% of all medical services in the Los Angeles County Medical Centers are to illegal aliens. The school system is crushed with the children of them.

If we don’t have close to 10 million illegals in California alone, I’d be surprised.

So now Walker wants to address legal immigration, but let illegals stay if they pay a fine.

At 1.2 million per year legal immigration, it would take 25 years to stop 30 million people from coming here, if you didn’t allow on single legal immigration process.

And yet gold old Scott Walker wants you to focus on that, and not the illegal immigrants he’ll let stay.

Get the picture? YET?

http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2013-refugees-and-asylees

I’m not defending Walker on illegal immigration. I’m merely saying this tame suggestion that the interests of American workers be considered when setting legal immigration policy makes him superior to the other top-tier candidates on legal immigration. It’s sad to say that, because Walker didn’t even call for a reduction in legal immigration like I wish he had. It’s sad because merely saying the default position on legal immigration shouldn’t always be MORE, MORE, MORE makes him stand apart from the other candidates.

I don’t dispute the importance and magnitude of the illegal alien problem, but I do disagree with you acting as though legal immigration levels of over a million per year are no big deal. If you think over a million per year isn’t significant, then I’m sure Jeb Bush (as well as Rubio, Christie, and maybe even Cruz) would have a great solution for you to stop future illegal immigration...just increase legal immigration so massively that pretty much anyone who wants to come can do so legally.

So no, I don’t think Walker is the only one who wants to address legal immigration. But I think the way he wants to address it is much better than the others. The others seems to have their marching orders from the chamber of commerce and from professional ethnic grievance groups.

But nothing is likely to come of Walker’s promising comments. Again, he didn’t actually call for a reduction in legal immigration, and he left himself some wiggle/weasel room to later support increasing legal immigration if he decides (as the WSJ and La Raza constantly tell us) that mass immigration is actually good for American workers.

As to legal immigration specifically; I’m glad you mentioned refugee and asylum immigrants. Whether it’s 40,000 or 70,000 or somewhere in between, that’s too many. It’s too many to effectively screen, which is why we end up with murderers like the Hmong hunter in Wisconsin, human garbage like the Boston Marathon bombers, or wannabe jihadists like the Somalis in Minnesota. And now we get Syrians! Nothing to worry about. What could go wrong?

Why should the United States take so many from cultures that are not just foreign to our own, but in many cases outright hostile to it? There are nations better suited for them. When it comes to reducing legal immigration, refugee and aslyum visas should be at the top of the chopping block, along with Ted Kennedy’s absurd Diversity Lottery visas (50,000 per year).

As to the figure of roughly one million total legal immigrants per year, I think that’s a lot. It’s way too many. The current influx is comprised mostly of natural Democrats. And considering how how adult siblings can be brought in via family reunification visas, that produces unending chain migration. We already know how many future Democrats that we can import from Latin America. We are getting a good taste of how many we can get from Asia, and the tentacles of chain migration are expanding ever more in Africa and the Middle East. I wonder how they’ll vote?

It’s legal immigration that is demographically dooming any hope for small government conservatism because Democrat-favoring legal immigrants and the Democrat-favoring children they have are casting votes. Yes, illegal aliens vote illegally, mostly for Democrats, and that problem will probably grow, but voting wise their numbers are dwarfed by legal immigrants.

Anyway, what is your ideal end game? What if we could end illegal immigration and send most illegal aliens home? What then would you do about the ten million or so heavily Democrat legal immigrants we admit each decade? Maintain it and let the immigration-driven movement towards the left continue? Increase it and hasten the demographic destruction of conservatism? Or reduce it, and give conservatism a demographic fighting chance going forward?

The more different aspects of immigration are brought into the debate, the better. There should be discussion about illegal and legal immigration. That way we can get a better idea of where candidates stand than we get by the standard and meaningless tripe when they say “I’m opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty, but I support legal immigration” Okay, then define amnesty please. Okay, then tell me how much legal immigration you support.

More information is better, and I’m glad Walker had made legal immigration levels a part of the debate. If Walker is bad on illegal immigration then he should be hit for it, but so too should someone like Cruz be hit for being bad on legal immigration.

IMO, the interview from March 1st, 2015 is essentially the Rosetta Stone for decrypting Walker. Here’s why:

1. He lays out his nine year stance on illegals
2. He backed McCain/Kennedy in 2006.
3. The main tenet of McCain/Kennedy was register and remain in place with a fine
4. Walker stated on 03/01/2015, that if they pay a fine now, a way can be found for them to stay
5. In the same interview, Walker claims he has just changed his policy
6. That is the same claim he’s making today.
7. It was obviously untrue at the time of this interview.
8. If he was lying then, he’s more than likely lying now.
9. If he was lying then, and there’s no doubt of it, I can’t trust him now.
10. His claim he will consider limiting legal immigration can’t be taken seriously, if he already lied, and he did.
11. His ploy of offering to limit legal immigration is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
11. a. As I stated earlier, if we cut all legal immigration and refugee immigration, it would take 25 years for that to match the amount of illegals he is willing to stay in place now.
11. b. If he really cared about our workers, he couldn’t possibly support ‘fine and remain in place’.
12. He lied in the interview. He hadn’t changed his policy.
13. He lies to us now pretending he’s going to create a new draw-down of immigration.
14. He is willing to fine and allow 25 years worth of immigrations, here illegally, to remain

I have provided that interview for folks to listen to and learn from. I find that there are a lot of folks here who don’t care about the interview.

This tells me Conservatism isn’t their number one concern.

It tells me they are on a forum that has trashed George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama for lying. They ask the question, how can folks support a known liar?

Read my lips...

I never had sex...

You can keep your insurance...

Now: My policy has changed, because I care about the American worker...

If we can accept this, we are no better than those who supported Clinton or Obama.

We know that people who make bold lies to us can’t stop at one.

There’s really nothing left to say about Walker.

People will side with Conservatism, or they will become the GOPe equivalent of the Clinton/Obama supporter, liking the guy so much nothing he says or does on the record could possibly cause them to withdraw support.

I cannot support a man like this.

If you and the others can, great. Just don’t romp around the forum acting as if it’s terrible when the Left lies to us.

I am in favor of a 20-30 year freeze on legal immigration. I would allow some exceptions for great minds, great wealth, and family members. I would do my best to make sure new arrivals were disbursed evenly across the nation, and not to one specific city or region.

H-1Bs would end for the time being. Retraining would become the norm in the U. S., for those out of work with broad experience in the field.

I would not allow people from terrorist nations to come here. That eliminates anyone from a predominantly Islamic nation.

I would beef up the border starting on day one. I would end all freebies and start rigid enforcement of the 1986 immigration law.

I agree with all of your preferred policy changes on immigration.

As to Walker; maybe you’re right, and he is unworthy of trust. I hope his recent comments on immigration represent a genuine reflection and change of heart on his part, but maybe it is all just a lie. After all, he left himself wiggle/weasel room to later decide that unending mass legal immigration is great for Americans.

Cruz is probably better on illegal immigration, though isn’t he okay with allowing a legal status for some illegals without citizenship? Whatever the case on that, Cruz is bad on legal immigration. I’ve yet to see him criticize any element of it. He did vote against the Gang of Eight bill, but during the debate over it he proposed an amendment to increase H1B five fold, and voted against a Sessions amendment to limit overall legal immigration.

Rubio can’t be trusted. Jeb is atrocious. Jindal has called for huge increases in legal immigration too. Snyder and Kasich would likely be horrible on the issue too.

So if you are right about Walker, then it seems there is no hope at all for good, conservative comprehensive immigration reform from any of the candidates.

Your end conclusion weighs heavily on my mind. We’re being sold out by every one of these idiots. Hate saying it, but it’s true.

My problem with Walker is that he said a way can be found for them to stay if they pay a fine.

And that wouldn’t even be so bad, if he later claimed he had changed his mind. Problem for me is that he declared right then, that this was a new policy and he had already changed his mind.

Game, set, match.

That coupled with the 25 years it would take for legal immigration to match 30 million, it tells me Walker is just doing the fancy dance about immigration.

That really grates me. If a guy can’t shoot straight with me, I’ve got no use for him.

I don’t like some of Cruz’s immigration policy. These guys all seem to be bag men for the Chamber of Commerce and corporations.

It sickens me.

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.