Posted on 07/18/2015 9:05:33 AM PDT by conservativejoy
So where is Scott Walker on immigration in 2015?
posted at 10:01 am on July 18, 2015 by Jazz Shaw
One other thing I missed as I was heading out to the mountains last week was the official announcement of Scott Walker as our roughly 238th presidential candidate on the Republican side. Unlike some of the other, shall we say… “overly ambitious” folks tossing their hats in the ring, Walker was obviously a serious contender and had been all but officially running for some time now. Some, like National Review’s Deroy Murdock, are painting Walker as the GOP’s Obi-Wan Kenobi… our last, best hope. His current position in the national polls indicates that this is a theory shared by a number of primary voters, since he’s sitting solidly within striking distance behind only Trump and Bush.
For the most part, I can’t complain about that. There’s a lot to like about Walker, both in terms of message and the substance of his record in Wisconsin. I’ve had the occasional disagreements with him on issues such as the Renewable Fuel Standard, but none of us are ever going to find a candidate we agree with 100% of the time on all things. But if there’s one nagging question which remains for me, it’s on the always critical issue of immigration. (A subject which I think most of you would agree is even more critical today than it was even a few years ago.) Walker’s record on this subject has been under examination by a lot of reporters this summer and it frankly is enough to give me pause.
We can start that journey by going back to 2002 when Walker was just beginning his tenure as County Executive for Milwaukee County. At that time, as reported by National Review, he signed a resolution in support of comprehensive immigration reform and came out repeatedly in support of legal status for illegal aliens.
Resolution advocates for “comprehensive immigration reform” that would ensure “greater opportunity for undocumented working immigrants to obtain legal residency in the United States.”
The, in 2006, during his first run at the Governor’s mansion, Walker backed a proposal from McCain and Kennedy which would have turned immigration policy on its head. (Via Politico)
“But the likely presidential candidate apparently stood on another side of that debate as the Milwaukee County Executive in 2006. That year, he signed a resolution calling on Congress to pass the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, a bill authored by John McCain and Teddy Kennedy that was denounced at the time by conservatives as ‘amnesty’ — and remains anathema to party activists.”
Walker lost that election, but as we all saw he went on to win in 2010. His position on immigration didn’t seem to change, though, and he was still singing pretty much the same tune as recently as 2013. At that time he was still pushing a pathway to citizenship. (From Politico)
“Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Friday that he supports a pathway to citizenship to illegal immigrants but said that people who are waiting in line should have ‘first preference.’ ‘You’ve got to find a way to say that people who are in line right now have first preference,’ the Republican governor said at POLITICO’s third annual State Solutions Conference in Washington. Walker said that in addition to not having enough visas for immigrants is that the system in general is broken. ‘We just have a broken system. And to me, if somebody wants to come in and live the American dream and work hard … we should have a system that works and let’s people in,’ Walker told POLITICO’s Jonathan Martin at the event. He added: ‘The vast majority of people want to come here for the right reasons. They want to live the American dream.'”
Then, in just the last year (and well after it became clear that he was seriously looking at a presidential bid) the Governor seemed to have his Come to Jesus moment, as he described it to Fox News’ Chris Wallace. (Reported in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal)
Chris Wallace: But you said you supported [comprehensive reform].
Walker: And my view has changed. I’m flat out saying it. I’m — candidates can say that. Sometimes they don’t.
Wallace: So, you’ve changed from 2013?
Walker: Absolutely.
Nothing wrong with that. I’ve had my own views on some issues change considerably over the years from the pie in the sky (and frankly, uninformed) positions I held when I was younger. And if Walker looked over the problems with illegal aliens and the cost being paid by the nation as a result of these dangerously flawed policies, good for him. I’m happy to have him on board with the good guys. But was he really serious? This is the year when some of the nagging questions really popped up. Take, for example, the comments he is alleged to have made in New Hampshire. (From the Wall Street Journal)
“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.”
But by April he was back on the hard line, secure the borders and enforce the law track. (Bloomberg)
“The next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages… The more I’ve talked to folks—I’ve talked to Senator Sessions and others out there, but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today—is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.”
There were some other instances of varying credibility in terms of the reporting. People spent a fair amount of time talking up the comments he allegedly made to Stephen Moore on the subject, but that report was later walked back. With that in mind, I’m not gong to assign a lot of weight to that report, but the private donor meeting in New Hampshire is troubling.
So what will Walker really do about immigration if elected? It’s not enough for me to discount him entirely and I think he deserves the chance to clear this up for us during the debates. Even if he’s shaky on the subject, I certainly wouldn’t rule out supporting him if he’s the eventual nominee. There is still, as I said at the beginning, a lot to like about Walker. He could use a bit more polish in terms of running a campaign and dealing with the national press, but he’ll continue to get that workout as he moves forward. If nothing else, he should really turn around the National Labor Relations Board.
Still, this history on immigration is enough to put me on edge a bit. Let’s wait and see what he’s got to say on the debate stage and in his upcoming stump speeches. Food for thought, though.
He stepped back from “high standard?” This was just last week. I remember listening to interviews with him (in their entirety) in response to questions by some off camera reporterperson. I know what I heard and I also heard he “stepped back from that” and changed his mind.
Okay, I accepted that, and then I hear his talk about illegals and “high standard of [unnamed]” and then got that old feeling. Deflecting my concerns about it off on statements about a host of other candidates’ positions in your eyes does nothing to assuage my “creepy cringy” feeling about those two words of Walker. Until I hear the words “No citizenship - ever” from him, then I’ll not ever cast a vote for him.
It makes no difference what he says NOW. If he becomes president he’ll do what the Chamber of Commerce tells him to do.
It’s a RINO Nation.
What is the difference how a candidate leans on one particular issue? Why is everyone hammering the numerous Repubs but no one is questioning Hillary about anything. She will go unquestioned until they arrive at the answers that “poll the best”. Why does no one question her about anything including her illegal activities?
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate, pledged to protect American workers from the economic effects, not only of illegal immigration but also of a massive increase in legal immigration.
During an interview with Glenn Beck, Walker became the first declared or potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate to stake out a position on immigration fully in line with that of Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He also noted that he has been working with Chairman Sessions on the issue to learn more about it.
Hmm. Brietbart... Sessions... good company.
“Walker will say what he needs to say and do whatever the Chamber of Commerce and the cheap labor lobby tell him to do.”
Yep. Mitt Walker is the establishment default candidate for when Jebbie crashes and burns. I don’t believe a word the guy says. I have zero interest in voting for him.
What a Caller Noticed About Scott Walker Interview on the Glenn Beck Program
Jul. 15, 2015
– Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio program Wednesday, and while guest hosts Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere called the Wisconsin governor a “top tier candidate,” there was one part of the interview that seemingly left them with more questions than answers.
Walker was discussing illegal immigration when he said he was not for amnesty, and “citizenship should have a high standard.”
A caller later described Walker’s description of his position “sneaky,” and speculated that “citizenship should have a high standard” is another way to say he supports a pathway to citizenship.
ORLANDO, FL - JUNE 02: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and possible Republican presidential candidate speaks during the Rick Scott's Economic Growth Summit held at the Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Convention Center on June 2, 2015 in Orlando, Florida. Many of the leading Republican presidential candidates are scheduled to speak during the event. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
ORLANDO, FL – JUNE 02: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and possible Republican presidential candidate speaks during the Rick Scott’s Economic Growth Summit held at the Disney’s Yacht and Beach Club Convention Center on June 2, 2015 in Orlando, Florida. Many of the leading Republican presidential candidates are scheduled to speak during the event. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Walker’s exact stance on immigration reform has been somewhat murky in the past, with Walker saying he modified his position after visiting the border with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
“I’m not sure that’s what he means by that. Next time we have him on, we’ll have to pin him on that,” Gray admitted. “I don’t know what ‘a high bar to citizenship’ means necessarily.”
Burguiere thought the phrase might mean that there is a pathway, but immigrants would have to learn English, pay any back taxes or fees they owe and satisfy other requirements before becoming citizens.
“And do they go to the back of the line?” Gray asked. “Or do they have to go to the country of origin and come here legally? I don’t know.
That one particular issue, illegal immigration is the biggest threat we face. Our citizens are not safe, we are open to terrorists entering the country, our treasury is being plundered, American jobs are being lost. One would think that any serious candidate worth his salt would never miss an opportunity to give his solution to this huge problem.
I haven’t heard Walker give any solutions for any of our problems, for that matter.
I agree. There should be ZERO, NON, NADA immigration. I am just concerned with why the Dems get a pass. Also the GOP leadership which doesn’t seem to care a rat’s A$$ about the subject.
The GOP leadership is in the bag for amnesty. They have been trying to sell the BS for years that they have to support amnesty to get elected. The opposite is true as the latest Fox News poll bears out.
70% want our bordered secured and our immigration laws enforced.
IMO anyone who claims that they will legalize the lawbreakers without a path to citizenship is just blowing smoke. Besides giving the Dems an issue, I doubt the courts would allow what amounts to second class citizenship.
The Dems don’t get a pass. They support amnesty and increased immigration. Immigrants vote more than two to one Dem.
I’ve been saying here for at least a couple of years that the first time you give them any ‘legalization’ it opens the lawsuit floodgate to citizenship for exactly the same “second-class” citizen reasons you cited.
In that regard, while amnesty isn’t citizenship in the literal sense, it very well effectively is.
The entire point of this whole “immigration reform” which won’t even say “folks, we have a severe illegals problem” boils down to somebody not wanting to enforce existing laws. And, the “reform” part of those platforms always involves some form of legalization. The only “pathway” these people should get is one back to their country of origin.
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.