Posted on 04/10/2015 1:40:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ever since Scott Walker began engaging on the national stage, he’s been dogged by questions about his policies on immigration. The Wisconsin governor admits that his position has changed from a few years ago, a change he attributes to having more opportunity to study the issue now that the cycle of elections in Wisconsin has finally played all the way out. Still, Walker has had some trouble defining the issue in a way that makes him stand out from the field.
Did he succeed last night? In an interview with Sean Hannity, Walker said that immigration policy should have as its first principle the protection and improvement of American wages, and not just the crisis management of today (via Daniel Halper):
HANNITY: … You took time to go to the border. What did you learn there, what insight did you gain from that experience?
WALKER: I went to Texas to the border with Governor Greg Abbott, who offered. I’m going to go back to Arizona, New Mexico, and maybe even California with local and state officials there as well. But in Texas in particular, Greg Abbott showed me, with the men and women on the ground from the local level to the state level to even some of the fine men and women who work for the federal government, and they showed that we’re just being overrun.
This is an issue of safety, of security, national security. It’s ultimately an issue of sovereignty. If the United States was being attacked on one of our water ports on the east or west coast, we’d be sending in our military forces. And yet we’re facing some of the same challenges with international criminal organizations — the cartels that are trafficking not only drugs, but weapons and humans, and we need to step up and be aggressive about it. That means securing the border with infrastructure, with technology, with personnel, and the federal government’s got to lead the way on it. We can’t expect the border states to do this alone; the federal government needs to step up and act on it. You can’t be talking about anything else until you do that.
Once you do that, then you can talk about enforcing the laws by using an effective e-verify system for all employers, one that works for small businesses, farmers, and ranchers, and making sure that any legal immigration, no amnesty, any legal immigration system we go forward with is one that ultimately has to protect American workers and make sure that American wages are going up. That’s the way we prosper for every hard working American in this country.
NRO’s Rich Lowry signals his approval of the new focus:
Scott Walker has taken some hits on immigration, including here at NR. But he did well on Hannity last night when he was asked about his trip to the border. He enunciated a position on immigration that is very sound, and expressed a concern about workers and wages that almost no other prominent Republican (besides Jeff Sessions) ever does.
Usually, economic arguments about immigration get tied to pro-business positions of providing low-cost labor for “jobs Americans won’t do.” This turns that argument on its head, arguing instead that businesses should pay the prevailing wage in American markets and that immigration policy should be calculated broadly not to impact that calculus. It’s a pretty nuanced argument intended to attract support among populists on both sides of the fence, perhaps most especially among blue-collar workers. If nothing else, it gives Walker a fairly unique position in the GOP field, and a way to provide a coherent argument to which he can return when the topic arises.
Lowry expressed hope that other GOP contenders will follow Walker’s lead, and it’s not bad advice. Barack Obama wants to make American wages the focus of his economic policy the next two years, and Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly try to do the same thing in her new campaign. This will force both to link their own policies to their open-borders preferences and explain the contradiction to the blue-collar workers that will be most impacted by them.
Somebody doesn’t like Walker...
It must be tough living with your head up and locked. Maybe some investigation would help to understand English.
Yeah—what am I misunderstanding?
What you are missing is the simple fact that you cannot possibly know what any of the candidates is really thinking. It is purists that have given us Obama and assuming that anyone at this stage knows for a fact what a candidate is going to do has the foresight of an oracle and should enlighten us all about what is going to happen. Cruz is this, and Walker is that, and Rand is this or that is opinion and like a$$holes everyone has one.
Walker, Cruz and Paul have all offered up their views on illegal immigration. We can only choose candidates based on their records and stated positions.
And illegal immigration transcends issues of “purity”, because once the illegals here currently are legalized and given citizenship there will be no more chance of a conservative majority in the country: we will lave Leftist, Latin American politics.
And your argument has nothing to do with your prior, baseless insult of my reading comprehension.
I’m done trying to discuss an issue with someone that has already made up their mind. Good luck.
I am for Ted cruz, but I have no reason to dislike Walker.
However, he has not shown or demonstrated to me that he is a leader. I have not seen him demonstrate leadership skills.
What it looks like he is doing to me is trying to figure out the proper combination of words on an extremely important issue, and I find that problematic, and it makes me not trust his motives.
” Walker has already learned some lessons from all the negative attention he got. “
Like being for amnesty? NOBODY gets a second chance with me on this. Walker recently has held 2 closed door meetings with the Chamber of Commerce in 2 different states. He will never get my vote. Masochism is for wimps.
You know...its good you say that.
Part of me wants to give the little bootlicker some credit.
But you’re right.
He’s just Boner’s butt boy, trying to show he’s a good little order taker.
It is the one, the only non-negotiable: not now, not ever: NO AMNESTY.
Umm, “period”.
I am still waiting for Cruz to explain exactly and specifically what he would do with the millions of illegals here, some here since they were small children.
I saw a Korean on TV who says he was brought here at three and adopted by Americans , he's married to someone with a Green card and has three kids all citizens here, claims he's being deported for not being legal. Cruz needs to explain exactly what he would do to him as POTUS.
It doesn't look like he wants the attention that doing that will bring him.
Don't forget, he swears that he NEVER wanted the government to shut down, NEVER ..must be true if he says so.
Asking for a few politicians and ONE political party to stop the third world invasion is not acting like a purist you idiot.
Walker is doer, not (just) a talker. He fights to win, not to whine.
Ashwaubenon - 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.
Walker Revokes In-state Tuition For Undocumented Students Attending Univ And Colleges In Wisconsin (Hispanic News Network USA Blog ^ | June 27, 2011 | H. Nelson Goodson )
Some people sure get their undies in a bunch when their ox is gored.
” Walker is doer, not (just) a talker. “
That’s what I’m afraid of. Private meetings with the Chamber of Commerce in multiple states? There is only one possibility here, and it’s bad.
I dont trust Walker but it is good it is being brought up.
Id say Trump and Santorum are the only candidates who have made much mention of immigration.
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.