Walker HAS NOT flip flopped. Where do you guys get that idea?
He still says that if illegals pay a fine, a way can be found for them to remain here.
That has been his policy since 2006/07. This is 2015.
Try to grasp this concept when addressing legal immigration.
You think it’s great he wants to address legal immigration, and he’s the only one who wants to.
Consider this:
Legal immigration for the last ten years rages from about 1 to 1.1 million, with a few exceptions.
Refugee immigration for the last ten years ranges from about 40 to 70 thousand, with a few exceptions.
At the most, we’re talking about 1.05 to 1.2 million legal and asylum additions to our nation each year.
In 1990 ten years after Reagan’s amnesty ended, we had 9 million illegals in country. This according to the revised census for 2000, published in 2001.
Since 2000, with Bush (mainly) and others talk about amnesty, there was a virtual flood of illegals across our southern border, Time magazine estimating 3.5 million coming across each year. I don’t think it was more than 2.5 million, but who knows.
I do know that during one nine month period there 900,000 illegals taken into custody in one sector on the border. (It was by far the busiest sector) Traditionally the INS (Now ICE / LMAO), had stated they only captured 10 to 20% of the illegals coming across. 900,000 in 9 months translates to a yearly capture of 1.2 million. And if that’s only 10 - 20%... well you do the math. It’s been 15 years now since 2000.
I estimate conservatively we have 30 million illegals in the United States. Over 90% of all births and about 80% of all medical services in the Los Angeles County Medical Centers are to illegal aliens. The school system is crushed with the children of them.
If we don’t have close to 10 million illegals in California alone, I’d be surprised.
So now Walker wants to address legal immigration, but let illegals stay if they pay a fine.
At 1.2 million per year legal immigration, it would take 25 years to stop 30 million people from coming here, if you didn’t allow on single legal immigration process.
And yet gold old Scott Walker wants you to focus on that, and not the illegal immigrants he’ll let stay.
Get the picture? YET?
http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2013-refugees-and-asylees
I’m not defending Walker on illegal immigration. I’m merely saying this tame suggestion that the interests of American workers be considered when setting legal immigration policy makes him superior to the other top-tier candidates on legal immigration. It’s sad to say that, because Walker didn’t even call for a reduction in legal immigration like I wish he had. It’s sad because merely saying the default position on legal immigration shouldn’t always be MORE, MORE, MORE makes him stand apart from the other candidates.
I don’t dispute the importance and magnitude of the illegal alien problem, but I do disagree with you acting as though legal immigration levels of over a million per year are no big deal. If you think over a million per year isn’t significant, then I’m sure Jeb Bush (as well as Rubio, Christie, and maybe even Cruz) would have a great solution for you to stop future illegal immigration...just increase legal immigration so massively that pretty much anyone who wants to come can do so legally.
So no, I don’t think Walker is the only one who wants to address legal immigration. But I think the way he wants to address it is much better than the others. The others seems to have their marching orders from the chamber of commerce and from professional ethnic grievance groups.
But nothing is likely to come of Walker’s promising comments. Again, he didn’t actually call for a reduction in legal immigration, and he left himself some wiggle/weasel room to later support increasing legal immigration if he decides (as the WSJ and La Raza constantly tell us) that mass immigration is actually good for American workers.
As to legal immigration specifically; I’m glad you mentioned refugee and asylum immigrants. Whether it’s 40,000 or 70,000 or somewhere in between, that’s too many. It’s too many to effectively screen, which is why we end up with murderers like the Hmong hunter in Wisconsin, human garbage like the Boston Marathon bombers, or wannabe jihadists like the Somalis in Minnesota. And now we get Syrians! Nothing to worry about. What could go wrong?
Why should the United States take so many from cultures that are not just foreign to our own, but in many cases outright hostile to it? There are nations better suited for them. When it comes to reducing legal immigration, refugee and aslyum visas should be at the top of the chopping block, along with Ted Kennedy’s absurd Diversity Lottery visas (50,000 per year).
As to the figure of roughly one million total legal immigrants per year, I think that’s a lot. It’s way too many. The current influx is comprised mostly of natural Democrats. And considering how how adult siblings can be brought in via family reunification visas, that produces unending chain migration. We already know how many future Democrats that we can import from Latin America. We are getting a good taste of how many we can get from Asia, and the tentacles of chain migration are expanding ever more in Africa and the Middle East. I wonder how they’ll vote?
It’s legal immigration that is demographically dooming any hope for small government conservatism because Democrat-favoring legal immigrants and the Democrat-favoring children they have are casting votes. Yes, illegal aliens vote illegally, mostly for Democrats, and that problem will probably grow, but voting wise their numbers are dwarfed by legal immigrants.
Anyway, what is your ideal end game? What if we could end illegal immigration and send most illegal aliens home? What then would you do about the ten million or so heavily Democrat legal immigrants we admit each decade? Maintain it and let the immigration-driven movement towards the left continue? Increase it and hasten the demographic destruction of conservatism? Or reduce it, and give conservatism a demographic fighting chance going forward?
The more different aspects of immigration are brought into the debate, the better. There should be discussion about illegal and legal immigration. That way we can get a better idea of where candidates stand than we get by the standard and meaningless tripe when they say “I’m opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty, but I support legal immigration” Okay, then define amnesty please. Okay, then tell me how much legal immigration you support.
More information is better, and I’m glad Walker had made legal immigration levels a part of the debate. If Walker is bad on illegal immigration then he should be hit for it, but so too should someone like Cruz be hit for being bad on legal immigration.