Posted on 07/19/2015 11:19:41 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker acknowledged in a CNN interview that in the past he had expressed support for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but said that he wasn't talking about amnesty at the time.
In an interview aboard his campaign trailer that aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Dana Bash pressed Walker about his shift from somebody who once said a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants "made sense" to a presidential candidate talking about restrictions on legal immigration. She asked whether such shifts undermined his pitch to voters that he's somebody who stands up for his principles.
"The only issue where I've clearly said I had a position before — and even on that, as governor, I didn't have a role to play in immigration. I said there should be a path, years ago, when I talked about going forward with legal immigration", he said. "I didn't talk about amnesty. In fact, I said in that specific interview, I opposed the 'Gang of 5,' the measure that Marco Rubio proposed. So I specifically even then said, 'I'm not supporting that.' But I said flat out in the beginning of the year, that's a position I have changed on."
In the 2013 interview with the Wausau Daily Herald editorial board that has gotten a second life during his presidential run, Walker was asked about the millions of individuals who immigrated to the United States illegally, and whether he could see them gaining citizenship with the right mix of penalties and waiting periods. "Sure, yeah," he responded. "I mean, I think it makes sense."
The meaning of the term "amnesty" is itself a hotly debated one in politics, and to many conservatives, any path to citizenship to those who entered the country illegally — even with penalties — would be considered amnesty.
Bash also asked Walker about comments he's made about legal immigration.
"What I've specifically said is I think priority under legal immigration should be given to the impact on American working families on their wages in a way that would improve the American economy," Walker said. "That not only means people like me who were born here, that means people like the woman I just met in Cedar Rapids, for example, who moved here many years ago, was a political refugee of the Congo, and who went through the process to be a legal citizen. She's working here. And I believe for her, and for others who were born here, there needs to be priority given, to say, we're going to need to make sure we put priority [on] American working families and their wages. Doesn't mean there won't ever be legal immigration, it just means that's what our priorities should be."
I could even support actual amnesty. If it were coupled with several decades of zero or greatly reduced immigration and strict enforcement of the laws.
While A could happen, B and C are quite impossible. So I can’t support amnesty in the end.
Reagan signed an amnesty bill, then it was not enforced, not, I believe, even under Reagan himself. A few calls from Big Business GOP contributors and attempts at enforcement dried up.
Yes. I did support Rick Perry, wholeheartedly.
The country would be in a lot better place if he’d been elected.
Walker wasn’t running (I was hoping if Perry got the nomination, that he’d choose Walker for VP).
So I’m thrilled that Walker is in the race and doing so well.
I was just going to ask, isn’t that amnesty by another name?
From your link:
“....I voted AIP as a protest against the GOPe because I live in California and my vote for President was therefore otherwise immaterial.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Independent_Party
Thank you. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
“A “path to citizenship” is written into our Constitution and has been since our founding. Stop twisting his words.”
That’s for legal immigrants, not illegal aliens.
How dense can you be—that is amnesty.
And it will be thee end of our country.
Illegal aliens can do it, too. They also have a path to citizenship. They only need to report to a U.S. immigration office back in their home country in order to get started.
Illegal aliens can do it, too. They also have a path to citizenship. They only need to report to a U.S. immigration office back in their home country in order to get started.
They do that living back in their own country, not while living in ours illegally. Anyone can apply for U.S. citizenship. No one is supposed to be living in our country illegally while doing so, otherwise the word illegal holds no meaning.
There also are many who have “overstayed” their student and tourist visas - they just stay.
They need to be addressed too.
Lol
U and I on same page
Bttt
With all due respect to Cincy wife whom I like
Giving foreign invaders a way to stay in the country is “amnesty”, no matter what it is called
That’s correct, and that’s how. That’s the path.
Yes, he should be like Ted Cruz and support a 500% increase in H1-B Visas and granting work permits to the illegals who are here!
Why send them back, like what Walker wants? Cruz and the Chamber of Commerce want to create second-class citizens with work permits!
How can citizenship for illegals not be amnesty?
Thank you for representing the LYING Cruz wing of the party so well!
I guess when Walker wants them to go home and apply for citizenship (like in the constitution you supposedly adore) that is amnesty.
What does Ted Cruz want? A 500% increase in H1-B Visas and work permits for illegals who are here. Those are the Chamber of Commerce positions.....just like Cruz's vote on Iran and TPA.....Cruz is in the pocket of the Chamber, not Walker.
So, when Walker tells them to leave and use the legal route, it is semantic games?
Please enlighten us with more of this wisdom!
And Walker has said the same thing about being against amnesty.
But Cruz supports a 500% increase in H1-B visas and granting work permits to illegals who are here. Those are Chamber of Commerce positions that will create a second-class citizen living among us.
From what I can tell, Okie, you do not support anyone.
I do not want to attack your candidate, but understand what do you stand for?
I think you have attacked everyone running.
No, the constitution describes a legal immigration process.....and that is what Walker says the illegals must do....go home and come back through the legal process like everyone else.
That is not amnesty. Only LIARS want you to believe it is amnesty.
I have not selected anyone. Is there a problem with that?
I do not want to attack your candidate, but understand what do you stand for?
That is abundantly clear from my FR page, but you can start with this interview as it is the most broad based source. The interviewer was associated with the Future of Freedom Foundation.
I think you have attacked everyone running.
And praised not a few as well, including Walker. He's done some good work, no doubt. But see Post 53 for what I said here. I have praised and criticized every serious candidate (i.e., not Pataki etc.) except Jeb, who has earned only my scorn. I doubt you have a problem with that.
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.