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 like your word picture! ...simple, succinct!
Revoking instate tuition is a start!!!......
I wonder how the powers that be intend to force the illegals to go home and do it the right way?
About 10 years ago, I was going through this garbage for an alien spouse. I talked with an ICE agent. I told the guy I was pretty frustrated with this whole immigration mess. I just asked why I could not get the same rights as illegal aliens. Why did I have to go through this stupidity, when they could just walk across the border? He just said he didn't make the rules. I was even more frustrated after that.
I’m saying it. Whatever the Constitution describes with regard to citizenship, it is for situations of persons born to US citizen(s) abroad, or by the Naturalization process.
In the case of the “Naturalization” process, it does not say naturalizing (legalizing) persons who have entered this country illegally, period. That process is one of selection and choice by this government for candidates who have to meet a set of criteria. Criteria which not one illegal alien has met (you know, like background/criminal checks, proof or origin, health status, ability to support themselves, etc.).
What we get are the dregs of the third world with no tangible value added to this country save a vote for Democrats and cheap labor for big corporations.
To twist the intent and implications of the Constitution to fit a platform for a candidate seems to be backwards - badly backwards in my opinion. Further, to force the dilution of my country’s sovereignty by quibbling over the meaning of “amnesty”, “pathways” in the context of desperately trying to keep from saying the words “no citizenship - ever” is a deal breaker in my opinion.
Just once, I’d like to see an argument for “amnesty” or “pathway” or whatever it’s called today without using the obfuscating word “immigration”.
I apologize. I posted that before getting to the part where you answered others about who you support.
Do you intend to choose someone in the primaries or will you continue to hurl invectives at all of them! ;)
I get it that you want to keep them honest, but, let's be real....they are politicians.
I chose Walker because he does what he says and everything he enacted in Wisconsin is 100% conservative.
The only thing people have against Walker is twisting his words to mean things.
Well, I would rather support a candidate with a clear track record of conservatism than a candidate who has a weak or no track record but gives a good speech.
Walker and Cruz have addressed the current immigration system as broken and too difficult.
Both have advocated for a reform that includes making it easier and more rigorous to become a citizen.
Both favor citizenship for those who actually want it and want to join this nation, not for those who want to use this nation with no love of our freedoms.
I hope you ironed-out your spouse's issues?
I was really surprised to see that Walker and Trump have the same B+ score on immigration from NumbersUSA. That’s a tremendous site for immigration issues and advocacy.
Check out the chart.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections/races/presidential/2016-presidential-hopefuls.html
They’re both in big biz pockets.
But saying illegals have to go home for a visit with their family before getting in line for citizenship is still giving them amnesty for their having broken into and stolen from our country—which rightly disqualifies them from living here or becoming citizens.
Oh, and beyond your idiotic “spouse’s issues” comment, Cruz is for legalization of illegals here currently, which is bad enough, but only Walker favors citizenship for them.
At least Cruz’s expansion of legal immigration would favor the smart and the skilled, rather than the criminal/peasant class that we’re getting presently.
Illegal aliens ignored the path we have. That’s why they are illegal aliens and not immigrants.
Path to citizenship is amnesty. Period.
You’re right, Mark—that is amnesty, and only those who deny it are lying.
Yes we did. I just wonder if these nerds in immigration know what low opinions most of us have for them? I don't have a whole lot of respect for these federal goons.
I want a candidate who will protect American sovereignty, without which neither my vote nor the Constitution mean anything. Immigration, bogus treaty processes, and trade deals are a direct threat to that sovereignty. Even Cruz flunked two out of three votes in the Senate on those criteria (the Corker bill and TPA). Not a single candidate has shown him/herself as fully comprehending that threat. I liked Mike Pence, but that won't happen now. So I'm waiting to see. I don't trust Walker yet.
Why would ANYONE give a KNOWN criminal the ability go to the ‘back of the line’ and wipe the slate clean?
Do they need to make restitution to those whom identities they’ve stolen? Which of the multitude of SSN and bogus forms will be made whole? Do they pay back the difference in wages/property values they lowered or insurance they’ve raised for their illegal actions? How ‘bout the hospitals they’ve never paid back or the property taxes stolen for their/brood education?
Or, are only there some laws that can be broken by the ‘chosen’ group that won’t count...unlike if We the Citizen did the same?
See post 28.
Think about what you just said.
Under Cruz, the illegals get work permits and are turned into a permanent underclass. There is ZERO doubt in my mind that they are granted citizenship by some judge that determines after living here X number of years, paying taxes, etc, that you are a citizen and have a right to vote.
Under Walker, they have to apply for citizenship, get the background check, the testing, etc. If they committed crimes, they do not get citizenship.
Now, which is better?
Who said that? I didn't hear anybody say criminals get a pass.
Cruz would give the criminals work permits and turn them into a permanent underclass.
Walker will make them go through the naturalization process.....WHICH INCLUDES A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK.....before granting citizenship.
I agree that Cruz’s position is a sneak into citizenship.
But Walker’s is a guarantee.
Two bad choices—I still easily go with Cruz, who is at least for tightening up illegal immigration in other clear (as opposed to vague) ways.
So, every person who applies for naturalization is granted citizenship?
Or are you just making crap up?
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.