Posted on 03/18/2015 9:40:54 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has run into a little bit of trouble on immigration again, this time forcing a communications aide off his staff after Democrats pushed out old tweets from the aide disparaging Rep. Steve King (R-IA), a well-known opponent of amnesty.
"In other news, I see Iowa is once again embarrassing itself, and the GOP, this morning. Thanks, guys," the aide, Liz Mair tweeted, referring to King's January 24th Iowa Freedom Summit where Walker, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Carly Fiorina, and other possible Republican presidential candidates spoke.
Walker's troubles with immigration began in January when opponents began circulating prior statements of his showing that Walker has endorsed both a "path to citizenship" generally and the Senate's Gang of 8 bill specifically.
Walker has since tried to walk those positions back, telling Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace on March 1st, "My view has changed, I’m flat-out saying it. Candidates can say that, sometimes they don’t."
And Walker's view on immigration has changed. Here he is on immigration in July of 2013: "You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that. To me, I don't know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place."
And here is Walker in March 2015: "I've talked to people all across America. And the concerns I have is that we need to secure the border. We ultimately need to put in place a system that works. A legal immigration system that works. And part of doing this is put the onus on employers, getting them E-Verify and tools to do that."
So Walker has shifted from believing a secure border wasn't really necessary to now believing that it is.
But what about those illegal immigrants already here? What is Walker's position on that? Again, from March 1st:
WALLACE: The question was, can you envision a world where if these people paid a penalty, that they would have a path to citizenship? And you said, sure, that makes sense.
WALKER: I believe there's a way that you can do that. First and foremost, you've got to secure that border or none of these plans make any sense.
(emphasis added) Notice the present tense. Walker still believes that illegal immigrants currently in the United States should be given a path to citizenship, but only if you secure the border first, which is a not uncommon Republican position on immigration.
But how is it any different than Jeb Bush's position?
Here is Jeb from March 13:
It’s easy to say, ‘Well, anything you propose is amnesty,’ but that’s not a plan. That’s a sentiment, that’s not a plan. I think the best plan, the most realistic plan, the grown up plan, if you will, is once you control the border and you’re confident it’s not going to be another magnet, is to say, ‘Let’s let these folks achieve earned legal status where they work, where they come out of the shadows.’”
So both Walker and Bush believe we should "secure"/"control" the border first (whatever that means), and then, only after that is accomplished, can we give legal status/citizenship to illegal immigrants currently in the United States.
If there is any difference between Walker and Bush on immigration, I do not see it.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
BTW, no one on this thread suggested that but you.
We're talking about this guy's changing mind on this huge issue, his questionable associates and if this flip flop pattern will continue if elected.
By what stretch of the imagination is it possible to change one's mind on something like this issue?
I’m sure we’ll get all that during the primary debates.
Let us see...hmmm...who else was a community organizer and an Alinsky fan...
Anyways, we have a nice guilt-by-association going on here...Walker ↔ Chavez ↔ Ross ↔ Alinsky ↔ Obama
I guess any way you spin it, associating yourself with Chavez is a liberal thing to do.
So a Walker presidency will just be another Obama-lite nightmare for conservatives in America.
Thank you for that link. I read the entire thread, it was very good.
I keep seeing these Walker threads, I have commented on many of them because I just don’t trust the timing of things. Cruz has been recognized all over every Conservative site I go to for the last couple of years, and then after ONE speech in Iowa, Walker is up in the polls by over 50%? A drudge poll no less. I don’t think they are even trying to be sneaky like they used to.
Also lets not forget the talking points.
Purity test
Circular firing squad
Take your ball and go home
You actually are supporting the dem candidate.
Again, thank you for that link, here I thought I was just really paranoid. Turns out, I’m not crazy after all.
It was also noted by historians that Chavez’ farm boycotts were the Occupy movement of the 70s and 80s.
lol.
"Only the paranoid survive." - Andy Grove, founder of Intel.
Well Cruz and Walker at this point are better than anything else.
That doesn’t mean not candidly discussing concerns and problems they have. And from that, getting them to correct course. Genuinely.
This isn’t a small potatoes issue. Can’t be swept under the rug. Generalities about future handling of the issue gives too much wiggle room to water down necessary steps that often are promised to be done, well beforehand.
This is senseless. You and I are not communicating. You have a hatred for Walker and love for only one candidate. I have conceded that if your candidate is the nominee I will vote for him, but you will not even grasp that it will not be him and therefore have no other plan. This is why conservatives are always left out in the cold and will be again if everyone follows you.
Good luck with that. Do not bother answering this, you are a one trick pony.
Unlike so many others, I make up my mind when the time comes. Too much can happen, change or be revealed until them.
I have no candidate. BTW, I might have missed your sarcasm as it becomes exceedingly difficult to distinguish between the two in today's America.
Right on.
So, actually, it was you that suggested he wasn't doing anything about it.
As for your question, I said it this way on another thread:
The problem I have with using illegal immigration [as an "indicator"] is that in many parts of the country it is not a significant local issue. I moved from Southern California to Wisconsin. Night and day the difference is. Funniest thing to me was seeing white people doing landscaping.
With Walker focusing on Wisconsin problems it probably never entered his mind as an issue. Now that he is looking at national issues, he is having to form an opinion on this and many other non-Wisconsin things. It appears that he is forming correct opinions. Unfortunately a "gotcha" attempt, along with selective quoting, makes it seem he is softer than he appears to really be.
It will be interesting to watch as he figures out his positions on these things.
I was referring to his flip flops and who he associates with and what he would do if elected POTUS in regards to amnesty. Not mass transit or university systems...lol
What he did in Wisconsin has zip to do with this.
The problem I have with using illegal immigration [as an "indicator"] is that in many parts of the country it is not a significant local issue.
Here it comes. So immigration, lawless borders, amnesty of tens of millions, and this endless reckless legal conga-line Muslims and foreigners by the 747's full, is not a significant issue to those in Wisconsin?
I heard this same exact BS 25 years ago from people all over the country, who were just mildly affected at the time. They've changed their tunes and wised up now that they too are up to necks in it.
Some people are a bit slow figuring out WTF is happening.
Here is something I wrote the other day on this. I certainly am aware of the situation.
Some days I feel like I have clicked on the Religion forum.
Well, I am with her.
I am still open to the possibility of voting for Walker in the event that Cruz does not run, because if he does run, he has my vote at this time.
But in order for me to be able to vote for Walker, I would need him to address in no uncertain terms at all what he intends to do to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country, and what he intends to do about illegal immigrants already in this country excluding giving them citizenship, the right to vote and access to benefits enjoyed by citizens.
I am not interested at all in a pathway to citizenship for those that came here illegally outside of their returning home and then applying for citizenship as every other person who wants to be a US citizen does.
I am not going to support any politician who thinks it is their job to represent people who are not citizens of this country. My representative exists to serve me and people like me, and that is all there is to it.
If any person intends to represent illegal aliens, then they can have illegal aliens pay their salary and fund their budgets, because I refuse to.
Wow! I guess I just don’t run in the right circles.
But, from what she said: I would never hire her to run ANY CONSERVATIVE CAMPAIGN. Not ever.
Like I already said, if she hasn’t been in the Wisconsin circles .. Walker may not have known who she really was. And, he may have left that decision to hire a communications person to someone other than himself - which I’m sure he already knows was a very terrible mistake.
No matter who you select to make decisions about hiring people - YOU MUST ALWAYS MAKE THE FINAL DECISION. I just don’t think Walker really knew what he was getting. If he did, then maybe he’s not the person I thought he was.
“I really think we need to wake up quick to the fact that we are being used as a sort of social services job training program for the rest of the world at the expense of our own bright young people. The people who are taking advantage of this just think we’re stupid and so deserve what we get.”
Worth repeating.
“It was also noted by historians that Chavez’ farm boycotts were the Occupy movement of the 70s and 80s.”
Chavez was mostly active in the ‘60s and ‘70s, by the early 80s his UFW was fading.
I’m old enough to remember Chavez organizing the United Farm Workers and it sure doesn’t make me think of the Occupy movement. It looked like a pretty conventional union organizing campaign and as I recall he had to fight off the Teamsters to keep his UFW going.
The only similarity between Chavez and Occupy I can think of is that both attracted liberal supporters.
“Like I already said, if she hasn’t been in the Wisconsin circles .. Walker may not have known who she really was.”
I don’t find that credible. She’s not new to major GOP campaigns and she doesn’t hide her hostility to conservative values. And it’s not like Walker has a strong record of being opposed to the positions Mair holds.
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.