April 27, 2015: Scott Walker's novel immigration stance seen as risky
"Gov. Scott Walker’s latest surprise on the crucial topic of immigration last week earned him grief from his fellow conservatives.
Walker staked out uncharted — and some political scientists say risky — ground when he said he favored lower levels of legal immigration to protect the jobs and wages of workers already here.
“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,” Walker told conservative commentator Glenn Beck.
Walker said he had talked with Alabama Republican Rep. Jeff Sessions, chairman of the Senate Judiciary’s immigration subcommittee, who had previously been a rare voice in calling for fewer legal immigrants.
Some thought Walker might have misspoken because rolling back legal immigration is opposed by business groups and considered offensive to recent immigrants. But he said it again while he was campaigning in Iowa over the weekend..........................."
They are not rallying to walker. Beck I can’t talk about, is he conservative? He’ll change his mind a few times. Ditto savage. He’ll hope walker will appear on his show, no one else would invite the personal nasty attacks if they decide to not appear again, Laura and mark are not rallying to walker here. They’re saying that what walker SAID is good
And the context in which levin is speaking is narrowed in this piece. Not sure the circumstances
Conservative radio?
Is rush endorsing walker? Is Hannity? Not seeing that
“A couple years ago, when the unemployment rate was at incredibly high levels and labor participation was low, why would we want to flood the market with more workers?” he said.
A couple of years ago? It’s better now? Any numbers to go with this assertion?
“So that would be a time when you would have arguably less. “
??
“As the unemployment rate goes down and labor participation rates go up, the two have to go hand in hand. Then it could be conceivably more than we have today. So it’s not a set number.”
Tough words ? I do not know what he is saying
Michael Savage is an idiot.
He is not a conservative; he is a malcontent
Is Walker another Lincoln? Does he have a resolute vision of how to fix America? I like his emphasis on blue collar jobs. Stop the H1b immigrants from taking our higher paying jobs. I’m a Cruz man but I am examining Walker carefully!
Scott Walker has all the right enemies... that makes is easier for conservatives to stand with him ... Good for you Michael Savage...
Very politic of you to cut the last few words of the article when posting it....
I see that you’ve been making sure we keep up on Walker developments by posting a lot of articles on him. I’m waiting now to see how he expands his views on immigration, but I suspect the following has already occurred to him:
When, inevitably, he is asked about all those jobs that Americans just won’t do anymore, I hope he gives them a two-pronged reply. If we stop suppressing wages for those jobs by stopping the flow of illegal immigrants while setting limits on the number entering legally AND if we stop paying able-bodied people to stay out of the job market, we will likely find that there really isn’t a shortage of Americans willing to work those jobs after all. And then ask the reporter, “Wouldn’t we be a more prosperous and productive country if people were moving up the employment ladder, developing real skills, instead of sitting home collecting assistance payments when they’re able to work?”
Of course, the Left would hammer him for being cruel to the downtrodden, but most people, even some on assistance, would agree with him, including a lot of traditional Democrats. The more the Left tries to hammer him, the more their audiences will learn of his position, while wondering why it’s all that bad.
Another thought: This could be considered Walker’s free market alternative to the Democrat’s insistence on a higher minimum wage. As I said before on another thread, he’s really found the sweet spot to occupy on the immigration debate.