Posted on 04/30/2015 8:56:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Via the Weekly Standard, he’s not saying anything here that he hasn’t said before. He supports immigration reform, but not comprehensive immigration reform — only a piecemeal security-first approach will work, the same view now taken by Marco Rubio. But Cruz fans who haven’t paid attention to him on this issue may assume, incorrectly but understandably, that he naturally takes the most conservative position that an electable Republican presidential candidate can take. Not so: It’s Scott Walker(!) who’s staked out the right side of the field by demanding that American wages be a variable when considering target numbers for legal immigrants, hinting that maybe legal immigration levels need to drop rather than rise. Walker’s defenders argue that he’s not saying anything controversial there; of course you’d want to know how a certain level of immigration will affect what American workers are paid. His break from the rest of the field is a matter of emphasis, not a matter of introducing something new into the debate.
Fair enough, but it’s interesting to watch Ted Cruz, Mr. True Conservative, talk about this subject at length and not provide the same emphasis. Watch below from around 44:00 to 50:00 and then again at 1:29:00 to 1:36:00. In 13 or so minutes, wages don’t come up. On the contrary, Cruz’s emphasis is on the fact that he wants more legal immigration, at least among better educated immigrants who might qualify for an H-1B visa. It’s interesting that a guy known for having his finger on the pulse of grassroots conservative/tea party sentiment isn’t following Walker’s lead but rather stressing his own relative moderation on the issue. There are obvious political reasons for that — he’s addressing the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce here, and as one of the few GOP candidates who opposes a path to citizenship, he needs a way to show general-election voters that he’s no Tancredo when it comes to immigration. But it’s telling that he’s not worried about Walker getting to his right on the hottest hot-button of the GOP primaries. Maybe he figures that, between his stellar tea-party track record on all manner of policy plus Walker’s conspicuous flip-flopping on immigration (which still includes support for a path to citizenship), he can afford to place his emphasis on being pro-immigration — so long as it’s legal. Or maybe Cruz suspects that Walker’s wink-wink at reducing legal immigration levels actually isn’t a position that an “electable” Republican can take. He wouldn’t be alone in that belief, if so.
Try to watch both immigration Q&As below as they’re both worth your time. Cruz spends most of his answers accusing Democrats of being the main obstacle to reform because of their fanatic, self-interested insistence on citizenship for illegals, a criticism that’s valid but also ironic given that Cruz himself continues to support some kind of legal status for illegals and surely knows that that will lead to demands for citizenship eventually. (He notes in passing at around 1:31:00 that his amendment to the Gang of Eight bill didn’t attempt to eliminate work permits for illegals, just citizenship.) Anyway, your exit question: Is this comment, from elsewhere in yesterday’s Q&A, really the best way to pander to a racial group?.......Continued
The Conservative Populist Breakout - Republicans acting in the spirit of Barbara Jordan
"April 2015 is the month that conservative populism broke out and reached the major leagues of American politics. On April 15, the editors of the New York Times felt compelled to denounce a Washington Post op-ed by Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), in which he called for reduced immigration to help raise the wages of American workers. The Times editors were particularly miffed that “Mr. Sessions accuses the financial and political ‘elite’ of a conspiracy to keep wages down through immigration” (“elite” is put in sneer quotes, as if there were no elite). What is important to note is not the Times’s ad hominem attack on Sessions (“choosing . . . to echo an uglier time in our history”) but the fact that the editors believed that the senator’s populist argument required an official response.
Almost simultaneously, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker articulated a populist-tinged message, declaring that our legal-immigration system “ultimately has to protect American workers and make sure American wages are going up.” This set off a firestorm of controversy and placed conservative populism directly into the 2016 presidential race. ................"
After first rolling out his new ideas on Glenn Beck’s radio program on Monday, Walker appeared on Fox News’ Megyn Kelly’s show to further elaborate on how he hopes to protect Americans economically from special interests pushing for a massive influx in cheap foreign labor from around the world.... ....."
“No one is working harder...”
Blah blah.
June 27, 2011: Walker Revokes In-state Tuition For Undocumented Students Attending Univ And Colleges In Wisconsin "- On Sunday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) signed his two-year 2011-2013 budget, which included ending in-state tuition for undocumented students attending public universities and colleges. In-state tuition for undocumented students was approved two years ago by former Governor Jim Doyle (D) after the Hispanic community struggled for 10 years to pass it."...
[Wisconsin is the only state to ever revoke instate tuition]
March 2015:“We strongly dispute this account. Governor Walker has been very clear that he does not support amnesty and believes that border security must be established and the rule of law must be followed. His position has not changed, he does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this story line is false,” she announced in an email to journalists Thursday afternoon.”
“I made it clear that for me, if somebody wants to be a citizen, they need to go back to their country of origin, get in line, no preferential treatment,” Walker said. “In terms of what to do beyond that, again, that’s something we got to work with Congress on.”
Cruz is my choice for top of the ticket.
But we really do need to re-think our devotion to open immigration. When we are at record levels of unemployment immigration should be nearly zero. We should not be bringing in large numbers of new residents when half the country is out of work. That should be a given.
Walker and Santorum are the only ones who have been willing to publicly consider limiting legal immigration. Which is saying something, its hard to find politicians willing even to confront illegal immigration much less legal immigration.
Whoever you support for president, we need to re-think our approach to immigration. Immigration policy should serve the interests of citizens. First, foremost, and always.
I know Cruz doesn’t agree with me; for a variety of reasons he is still the only one I will support for the top spot. I understand his view on immigration is a much easier sell politically, but we need to demand a policy that responds to the needs of the citizen.
it is worth noting that our imported indian brothers work for lesser pay, don’t do better work, I know that first hand, and voted 70 percent for Obama.
I’d rather have an illegal working 75 hours a week living six in a house and owning their own house in 6 years and passing a hard work ethic to their kids than a smug SOB who is going to undercut real professional wages and vote for Hillary anyway. go ahead. attack.
I’m still for Cruz but not for overflow of B1s or whatever they’re called. Wouldn’t google and Microsoft and Facebook just love that.
Just stop giving immigrants, legal or otherwise, free stuff.
That's the only thing required.
Keyword in all of this is LEGAL.....handwringing whiners here cannot see the difference between legal and wetbacks............
I agree that Cruz needs to be clearer about his post-securing the borders step and, importantly, his current position on H1B. On the latter he seems to be in line with Romney, who at a conference I attended, said “more the merrier.” Both are otherwise pretty close. Walker getting rid of in-state tuition for illegals has an edge in doing over talking. I am still supporting Cruz but it is very early and very much watch-and-see.
I’ve kept my mouth shut about Walker and his flip flopping so far but it looks like some FReepers have chosen to go on the offensive against Cruz and Walker will pay the price.
hand wringing whiners is someone who disagress with you I guess. name calling has never been much of an argument.
you know Im correct...and I know it too.
btw, give a big hug to the “legal” immigrants from asia who vote almost 80 percent combined for the dems. Google, Facebok, Twitter and others thank you.
no, you’re wrong. I’ve stated my reasons in the other post. I’m not going to continue since we’re both FReepers and will not agree. I wish you the best of days :)
CW, Gov. Walker’s expedient position, while pleasing to hear, ultimately will not ultimately redound to his benefit. He should just run on his admirable record.
I and others had a feeling you are a troll.
Good luck.
Exactly right.
whatever. that’s what a handful on this board do. Hunt for “trolls” so there is a smaller and smaller base of freepers to contribute financially and intellectually. my posts are hardcore conservative.
Go do what you feel you must. I’ll live either way and save 20 or 30 bucks a month.
Jeb - the more the merrier. Let ‘em all come!
Cruz - Legal immigration. Let some come legally.
Neither will win the nomination in my opinion. Today, I’d bet on Walker being the nominee.
Keyword in all of this is LEGAL.....handwringing whiners here cannot see the difference between legal and wetbacks............
Indeed, I would take our current LEGAL system of immigration the way it is as long as all Illegal Aliens were deported or convinced to leave.
Then we can start moving the ball back to the other side after that is done by reducing the number of legal immigrants allowed in per year.
One question Liberals will NEVER answer is: “What percentage of the population can you replace with legal immigrants without having a negative effect on the dominate culture of that country”?
They will never answer that because it will expose their agenda.
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.