Posted on 04/25/2015 1:17:45 PM PDT by VinL
"Gov Scott Walker on Hillary Clinton, GOP 2016 candidates - Breaking News 4/25/2015." Video of Gov. Scott Walker's reply to Sen. Ted Cruz relative to immigration policy starts at about 3:50
Wondering if Gov. Walker's supporters agree with that position.
Last week of Jan, 2017? As if he could, or would even mean to, beat Hillary.
Romney, Boehner, McCain, Graham.
Can not see how Walker is different.
First two posts from the usual politically clueless circular firing squad.
If a candidate says no more immigration ever, then they are finished.
But being careful about how things are phrased might actually get someone elected.
Of course, the first two posters here do not want our side to win....they want to foam at the mouth and scream at the clouds thinking that will fix everything.
You would think that a guy that battled unions and leftist agitators can make a coherent, clear case for stopping illegal aliens and overhauling the legal immigration process.
If Walker is nominated and starts spewing this "pathway to citizenship" crap I'm staying home.
Walker staked out his official position.
Let’s see him stay consistent on that while the others try to move further right, making them flip-floppers, by some opinions.
WWRD?
You would think that a guy that battled unions and leftist agitators can make a coherent, clear case
*************
Careful, Extreme, you’ll become part of the “clueless circular firing squad”. Just accept what Gov. Walker says as fact.
In passing, however, I’ve always admired Gov. Walker’s record. And you raise an excellent point, that troubled me. Why doesn’t he just run on his conservative record of accomplishment? It’s admirable! Instead, he’s shifting positions to accommodate his presidential run— and others are going to call him on it.
His "official position" from his County Executive days to Feb 2015 was supporting "comprehensive immigration reform."
His "official position" from Feb 2015 to Mar 2015 was "let's secure the borders. I don't support amnesty."
Mar 2015 in NH: "Comprehensive immigration reform!"
Apr 2015: "Naw, naw...I don't support amnesty. I support securing the border, but I'm going to frame it as an economic argument to get Reagan Democrats and blue-collar votes."
Now this video, he wants more immigration "when the economy improves."
Disclaimer: I've been a staunch supporter of Walker. I defended him here on FR, even attacked Cruz's position (I'm still skeptical of Cruz's stand on legal, unrestricted immigration BTW). I live in Wisconsin, Walker is wildly popular here. I defended Walker's initial support of comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty), thinking that he was naïve on the issue and his position was more that Congress needed to do something. Plus Walker never signed or promoted pro-illegal legislation.
To me, he is trying to have it both ways. I honestly don't know what the Hell Walker's position on immigration is. I cannot in no way support someone that should have a no-brainer, crystal clear position on an issue that is destroying America.
If Walker would take a clear stand on immigration, like he did with other issues numerous times throughout his 3 terms as Governor, he would not only win the nomination, he would win in a Reaganesque landslide.
That's the thing. None of the Republicans have learned from Reagan's disastrous 1986 amnesty, when even Ted Kennedy said there wouldn't be any more amnesties.
Walker inserted “ no amnesty” into that county resolution. So please stop lying on purpose. This has been shown to you multiple times.
Additionally, Walker has clarified, each time, that whether it was work permits, or fines that he does not support amnesty or a path to citizenship ahead of those in the legal system now.
Walker may not have been clear in the past, but he NEVER supported amnesty.
Walker toured the border states, talked with the governors and adoped Jeff Sessions’ position on immigration.
That is pretty good.
I’m with you, Erik. Seems to me Cruz and Walker are far closer on immigration than apart. Both are saying we have to control the border and enforce the law. Both are talking about tightly controlled legal immigration.
Cruz may want more legal immigrants, but I don’t hear him saying it should be unlimited. Walker, on the other hand, may want less legal immigration, but that’s not quite what I heard him say in this interview. Putting the needs of America and Americans first may very well result in periods of increased legal immigration.
Some people don’t feel right if they aren’t destroying every other candidate but their own. Some people also love to create conflict where there’s little or none, aka the circular firing squad. Personally? I find these people pathetic.
Nobody's gonna call you a racist, a white supremacist or a nativist for battling unions and leftist agitators. Walker's gripping the third rail, of restricting legal immigration, with both hands. People who say he's flip-flopping may be overstating the their case.
It's hard to say if Walker's actually undergoing a conversion. Not everyone has a position on everything. As governor, he had no direct influence on immigration policy, a federal function. More likely, at the time, he offered up the usual pablum that sounded like the consensus within the GOP, voters, pols and donors alike.
Now that he's doing a White House run, he's clearly up for a spot that will play a major part in immigration policy. And that's led to a much more careful examination of what that policy should be. In talking to people, my guess is that he's discovering that that there is a great divide separating voters, who are aghast at the deluge, and both GOP pols and donors, who seem to think we need to open up the floodgates.
There's nothing convenient about Walker's current position. By suggesting that legal immigration levels be rethought, he is opening himself up to accusations of nativism and racism, and that's just from fellow GOP pols. Then there's the adverse reaction from wealthy donors whose principal concern is keeping labor costs low by importing unending streams of foreign immigrants. These donors may start treating him as the party leper.
The 2006 resolution embracing the McCain-Kennedy bill was sent to Walker by the Milwaukee Board of Supervisors. He signed it despite returning or vetoing numerous other matters that year. The final version of the resolution signaled support for criminalizing federal immigration law violations and increased border fencing. But it also referred to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and “full labor rights.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/scott-walkers-immigration-problem-115303.html
Erik, what do you think a "path to citizenship is?"
Additionally, Walker has clarified, each time, that whether it was work permits, or fines that he does not support amnesty or a path to citizenship ahead of those in the legal system now.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told a private dinner of New Hampshire Republicans this month that he backed the idea of allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and to eventually become eligible for citizenship, a position at odds with his previous public statements on the matter.
Erik, what do you think a "pathway to citizenship" is?
Walker may not have been clear in the past
I still supported Walker and defended him given his past remarks. All I'm asking for is clarity. This is the 2nd time in which he has signaled support for comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty).
but he NEVER supported amnesty.
Bullsh-t.
Walker toured the border states, talked with the governors and adoped Jeff Sessions’ position on immigration.
That's fine, but where's the clarity and unabashed support for upholding the rule of law and treating illegal immigration as a national security/sovereignty issue and not an economic one?
They're going to call Walker that even if he would've given the unions a fat contract and busted the WI budget even more.
My theory is that Walker got a big head after winning his 3rd term. He thought he was untouchable and started believing his own hype. He started his presidential run way too early and should have focused on his job through at least June.
He is trying to be cute by playing both sides of the immigration debate. I want clarity on this issue. I want Republicans to speak truth to power on this issue, not to weasel out because they're afraid of "losing the Hispanic vote."
The problem is, while talking about limiting legal immigration, Walker is proposing nothing to deal with the millions of illegals already here who are taking jobs from American workers. Just saying, “They should go home and get in line.” isn’t going to cut it.
I’m waiting for a candidate to come out for enforcing our laws and deporting illegals, starting with those who have broken other laws.
So, you use liberal sources to support. Your wrong position?
A copy of the resolution has been posted here on FR numerous times showing the “no amnesty” clause Walker wrote into it.
Stop trusting liberal sources that only seek to divide us.
Just like the “leaks” from a closed door meeting, claiming Walker endorsed a path to citizenship, all came from Jeb supporters when Walker took the lead in NH.
Who immigrates is at least as important as how much immigration...[w]hether you want fewer, the same, or more, the mechanics could be greatly improved.
********
Yes, that’s exactly Sen. Cruz’s position.
I’m not trying to be snarky with Gov. Walker’s position, but the other candidates aren’t going to let him gain political advantage by saying ‘I’m against legal immigration because I’m for American workers’. They all would like to say that! But, as you rightly point out, it’s not realistic-— So, obviously the other candidates are going to take him to task.
These liberal sources aren't going to completely fabricate something out of thin air.
Walker signed the resolution when he was County Exec, and it's documented that he said those things in NH.
A copy of the resolution has been posted here on FR numerous times showing the “no amnesty” clause Walker wrote into it.
You really have no clue, do you?
Comprehensive immigration reform, pathway to citizenship, earned legal status, back of the line...these are all beltway-speak for amnesty. Any politician that utters these phrases supports amnesty for illegal aliens.
Stop trusting liberal sources that only seek to divide us.
The fact that they are liberal isn't germane to Walker being a total ditz on the issue. This ONE issue is completely derailing Walker's campaign, all because he's trying to please both the Tea Party and the Chamber of Commerce factions.
Just like the “leaks” from a closed door meeting, claiming Walker endorsed a path to citizenship, all came from Jeb supporters when Walker took the lead in NH.
Jeb supporters had nothing to do with that. Walker said what he said in NH and tried to backtrack. His NH debacle caused me to previously support him to being undecided.
Great post. Now, let the Walkerbots respond to this...
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.