He Didn't Have To But Scott Walker Slams Clinton On Immigration

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker took aim at Hillary Clinton's latest comments on immigration, saying her "full embrace of amnesty is unfair."

He's one of the first Republicans to directly respond to Clinton, which is a difficult issue for many Republicans running for the presidential nomination - or considering a run. His willingness to draw attention to the issue by responding to Clinton indicates that he's going to use the issue to separate himself from not only Clinton, the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but more immediately his Republican challengers.

On Tuesday, Clinton told a largely Latino audience in Las Vegas that she supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Walker tweeted his response Wednesday afternoon, signing his tweet with his initials, indicating that he personally wrote the tweet and not his staff.

@HillaryClinton's full embrace of amnesty is unfair to hardworking Americans & immigrants who followed the law to achieve these rights -SKW

Walker also took issue with Clinton's embrace of President Barack Obama's use of executive action that gives children and their parents who unlawfully came to the country reprieve from the threat of deportation.

"As president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further," Clinton said in Las Vegas.

Walker tweeted that this is another instance where Clinton thinks she's above the law.

RT if you agree: by supporting @BarackObama's lawless executive action, @HillaryClinton once again believes she's above the law. - SKW

The only other Republican to respond to Clinton's remarks, which went further in her support of immigration than most were expecting, is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, who entered the presidential race Tuesday, said Clinton is "in ... support of amnesty."

While Walker was out front in challenging Clinton on the issue, he's also sending a signal to his fellow Republicans. The issue of immigration has been perilous for nearly every Republican in the presidential sphere as a large part of the base of the party is opposed to a path to citizenship - and sometimes legalization - for undocumented immigrants. Most Republicans have backed at least a path to legalization at some point in their political careers. But Walker, who has also backed a path to citizenship, has moved away from his previous position and shifted further to the right even questioning legal immigration.

Walker is drawing a sharp contrast to two of his rivals - Sen. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush - both of whom have taken leading roles on the issue in the past and has damaged their support among conservatives.

Bush has backed a pathway to citizenship and wrote a book about the importance of immigration. He now says he's open to a path to legalization but is largely supportive of immigration reform.

Rubio, meanwhile, is trying to distance himself from his leading role passing comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate in 2013, saying that the border must be secure before legal and illegal immigration can be addressed - a widespread talking point most Republicans have adopted.

>>Wallace: The question was, “Can you envision a world, if these people paid a penalty, that they would have a path to citizenship?” and you stated, “Sure, that makes sense.”
Walker: I believe there’s a way you can do that.<<

Great, so you’ve got one clip where you’ve pinned Walker down, even though he claims the opposite is now his position, and it’s a recent clip, March 1 of this year.

Consider the possibility that Walker mis-spoke for a second here. People in here, for example, are always confusing two issues, path to citizenship versus amnesty. I believe Walker, in your clip was hearing the “paid the penalty” part of the question and was conceding that there would very likely be a way for them to stay here legally, but I highly doubt, based on many other statements he’s made, that he actually meant his answer to refer to a path to citizenship.

That might not be the case, but if you listen to the tape again with that in mind, it makes sense, because he certainly knew by that date that conceding any sort of path to citizenship was a political land mine.

I’ll agree that Walker has changed his view on immigration, but I also happen to think he’s taken the issue away from other candidates by stressing the need to look at LEGAL immigration levels in the context of the impact on American wages. Most of the candidates don’t even dare to go there, but it’s almost certainly a winning issue, even across parties and, for that matter, maybe even with recent immigrants here legally today.

Wallace: The question was, “Can you envision a world, if these people paid a penalty, that they would have a path to citizenship?” and you stated, “Sure, that makes sense.”

Walker: I believe there’s a way you can do that.

Great, so you’ve got one clip where you’ve pinned Walker down, even though he claims the opposite is now his position, and it’s a recent clip, March 1 of this year.

My linked clip is the March 1, 2015 interview. You can listen to all of it if you like.

Consider the possibility that Walker mis-spoke for a second here. People in here, for example, are always confusing two issues, path to citizenship versus amnesty. I believe Walker, in your clip was hearing the “paid the penalty” part of the question and was conceding that there would very likely be a way for them to stay here legally, but I highly doubt, based on many other statements he’s made, that he actually meant his answer to refer to a path to citizenship.

There's not a court in the land that is going to sign on to second tiered residential status. Once a person registers and instantly becomes legal, it's only a matter of time before they can apply for and become a citizen. If this is not the case, La Raza will file a class action suit on behalf of these people. It will be heard by a lower court and appealed if they don't prevail at that level. A higher court will overturn and allow these people to transition.

Once they have transitioned, they start bringing over family members though chain immigration. If 30 million people bring over five people each, that's quite a few people.

There's not a politician alive that doesn't grasp this concept. If they play the make believe game, they're just playing smoke and mirrors.

That might not be the case, but if you listen to the tape again with that in mind, it makes sense, because he certainly knew by that date that conceding any sort of path to citizenship was a political land mine.

Wallace restated that question how many times? He stated it at least twice. He may have done it more than twice. He laid it out very clearly in that final question. It was a simple question and Walker gave a very simple response.

I’ll agree that Walker has changed his view on immigration, but I also happen to think he’s taken the issue away from other candidates by stressing the need to look at LEGAL immigration levels in the context of the impact on American wages.

Look, please think of this for a moment. We allow about 1.2 million legal and refugee immigrants per year. Right now we have about 30 million illegals inside our nation. If Walker allows them to stay, it would take 25 years of zero legal immigration to equal that 30 million Walker allowed to pay a penalty and stay. And if you consider the chain migration sure to result, we're talking about over 100 years of legal immigration, all in about 10 years. Still think he is looking out for citizen's jobs?

As for Walker changing his mind, in this very interview he says they can stay. That is not a change at all. All they have to do is register and they have legal status. That is an instant transition from illegal to legal. It means they will never have to worry about being deported again.

That's amensty to my way of thinking.

Most of the candidates don’t even dare to go there, but it’s almost certainly a winning issue, even across parties and, for that matter, maybe even with recent immigrants here legally today.

Had he changed his policy and supported enforcing laws to make them repatriate, I would agree that he had.

He hasn't.

There's no way to listen to this interview and believe he has changed his policies, without going through tortured contortions to explain away plain English statements.

You Cruz fans get all bent out of shape when others come over to your long shot candidate.

Okay, please link me to where I took you to task for voicing your opinion about Cruz. Thanks in advance.

But you come over here to a candidate that actually is serious and has a shot to beat the Democrats and you expect us to accept you.

I don't like being lied to. I trash the Democrats' politicians for doing it, and I trash the Democrat voters for voting for liars. Did you expect me to fall in line behind someone who lies on our side of the isle? If so, you don't know me very well.

You don't really have a choice to accept me or not. I am addressing a verifiable fact, and you don't like it. I would prefer you deal with Walker's reality, but you refuse to, so I have to accept that you will support liars on our side. I wouldn't dream of telling you not to. I would hope you were wise enough to know why not to on your own.

If I man will lie to you with a straight face when running for office, why should he not lie to you once he's in office?

You are a hypocrite...

Please provide a basis for you making that claim. Thanks in advance for your response to this question as well.

...and you know that I am serious about you guys getting all pissy if someone says something true about Cruz’s lack of experience...

You can be serious about anything you like. That doesn't prove your comments are true or relevant.

As for Cruz having a lack of experience, I will agree to a certain extent. I don't believe he has experince in lying to Conservatives up to his time. Maybe if we give him a bit more time he'll be able to equal Walker's experience.

...do nothing Senate term...

Cruz has been a vocal oponnent of bad policy and a vocal supporter of good policy. I don't agree with everything Cruz does, but he is a good man and doesn't deserve this kind of comment.

Cruz led out in objecting to the people you say he didn't remain in town to vote against. He was openly opposed to them, and he voted against them in the cloture vote earlier in the day.

...can’t vote due to going to his gay friends, and other things.

Well this is a whole litany of nothing, but I would like to compliment you on providing what you thought was very damaging information. Yawn.

If people support you, does that make them your instant life-long friend or merely someone who thinks you'd make a good president? This isn't a trick question.

He didn't vote because he already knew what the vote was going to be. He had scheduled an event weeks before, and felt he should honor the committment.

Trying to make something out of missing a vote when the margine was something like 7-9 votes might be seen by some people to be quite silly

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.