Posted on 03/27/2015 10:14:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So, to recap: The Wall Street Journal claimed yesterday that Walker told an audience of New Hampshire Republicans that he supported a path to citizenship, which was — supposedly — a flip-flop from what Walker’s been telling reporters lately about opposing “amnesty.” Except that it’s not a flip-flop, as I tried to explain. Walker’s supported a path to citizenship for nearly 15 years. As recently as this month, when asked by Chris Wallace if he can imagine a path to citizenship if illegals paid a penalty first, he replied, “I believe there’s a way you can do that.” No flip-flop!
This, however, is a flip-flop:
“Gov. Walker has been very clear that he does not support amnesty and believes that border security must be established and the rule of law must be followed,” [Walker spokesman Kirsten] Kukowski said. “His position has not changed, he does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this story line is false.”
That’s the statement Walker’s team put out yesterday afternoon as buzz built among righties over the WSJ story. Walker told Wallace a few weeks ago that he’d changed his mind on the need for border security; now, under fire over immigration again, he’s changed his mind on the rest of the issue and abandoned a path to citizenship too. No amnesty of any sort for illegals!
But wait. Here’s New Hampshire Republican Party chair Jennifer Horn, who was at the event described by the Journal:
“I specifically asked a follow-up question on the immigration reform issue, where he very clearly identified he was advocating a path for legal status but not citizenship,” Horn said in an interview with The Associated Press…
In the half-hour discussion, Walker called for securing the border and allowing for more visas for high-skilled workers. He also said it was unreasonable to deport millions of immigrants in the country illegally, preferring a system that allowed them to pay back taxes and achieve legal status over time, according to Horn.
“The governor was very specific that he was not advocating for citizenship for illegal immigrants,” Horn said.
Aha! So the Journal was wrong — Walker supports giving illegals a path to legal status not not full-fledged citizenship. Or is Horn lying to cover for him? The WSJ says three different people at the event confirmed that Walker talked about citizenship, not just legalization. How did all three of them get it wrong? And if Horn’s telling the truth, where does that leave us in terms of Walker’s “evolution” on this issue? On March 1st, in his interview with Wallace, he was pro-citizenship; on March 13th, at the dinner in New Hampshire, he was pro-legalization but anti-citizenship; yesterday, in his spokesman’s response to the Journal story, he was anti-citizenship but silent on legalization. I hate to use foul language on a family blog but there’s only one word for this performance: Romneyesque.
And the punchline is, none of it matters. Sincere border hawks know that there’s no meaningful distinction between supporting legalization and supporting citizenship. If illegals win the right to stay in the U.S. and work, political pressure from Democrats and demographic pressure from Latino voters will build on Congress to grant them a path to citizenship eventually. In fact, for an aspiring GOP presidential nominee, it’s arguably dumber to support legalization without citizenship than to suck it up and call for citizenship too. By withholding citizenship from illegals, you leave yourself open to the charge that you want them stuck in perpetual second-class status. That won’t earn Walker the goodwill he’s seeking from Latino voters; meanwhile, his (alleged) support for legalization and his ridiculous slipperiness on this subject is costing him goodwill among conservatives. If you’re going to pander to a key voting bloc, choose one and pander your ass off. Don’t try this ridiculous straddle where you try to make amnesty fans and border hawks happy by splitting the baby and supporting legalization but not citizenship. Trying to please everyone usually means pleasing no one.
Actually, there’s another punchline here. Assuming Horn is right and that Walker’s new position is legalization without citizenship, that means he’s engaging in the same sort of amnesty pander as — ta da — his chief rival, Jeb Bush. Remember, Jeb also claims that he opposes citizenship for adult illegals (although not for DREAMers), which is his own crude attempt to blunt attacks on his immigration position from the right. No one believes that Bush 45 would hold the line on that once in office, though; Jeb saying he opposes citizenship is exactly as credible as Obama saying in 2008 that he opposes gay marriage. If in fact Scott Walker’s new position is what Horn says, i.e. pro-legalization but anti-citizenship, then I suspect he came to that position for no better reason than that it’s also Jeb’s position, which means the issue will be more or less neutralized if the race eventually turns into a “Bush versus Walker” one-on-one. And if instead Jeb flames out and Marco Rubio supplants him as the great establishment hope, Walker can then argue that Rubio’s more of an amnesty fan than he himself is. After all, Rubio’s Gang of Eight bill endorsed a path to citizenship. And Scott Walker very deeply opposes such things, don’tcha know.
Exit question I’d never thought I’d ask: Among Bush, Christie, Walker, and Rubio, the establishment’s fab four, is Rubio actually the most trustworthy on immigration? Good lord.
Citizenship (and the ability to vote) is what the Democraps want.
I am a cruz supporter (really Palin/Cruz) but I think the GOP should adopt this stance- OFFER the democraps EVERYTHING they want- total amnesty, legal status, VISA’s, whatever... EXCEPT citizenship (and the ability to vote)
They will TURN IT DOWN because the ability to vote is what they are after.
AND THIS WOULD PROVE THEIR REAL MOTIVE
At least cut off the bennies and jobs
A Reagan do-over. This is Reagan’s biggest failure, giving amnesty with promise of border security later. Never happened and we’ve been faced with a massive infestation of illegal aliens ever since. Can Cruz secure the border and do so before any further discussions? I’d like to think so. After that, let’s talk about deporting, self-deporting, and other options. I’m an optimist we can still win this battle but only with someone that will stick to their course of action.
Agreed! If a person is an illegal alien:
1. No benefits (health, education, welfare)*
2. No work
Irks me that illegal aliens get better benefits than Americans in equal need, that they get in-state tuition when Americans do not, that they take seats in publicly-funded schools that would otherwise go to an American.
If an illegal alien need medical care, fine, give it to them and then deport them. One way trip to the doc and then to the border.
But I don't think anyone will champion this approach.
Bump
Bump
Splitting a red pubic hair.
A “path to citizenship” is just amnesty by another name.
The treason lobby comprising the GOP establishment has been trotting this line out ever since they realized that the grassroots voters are really angry over their failure to stop illegal immigration.
It’s boob bait for bubba. As is “build the fence first”.
Both pathway to citizenship and build the fence first mean that deportation, the penalty for trespassing into the United States, will not be enforced. And foreign nationals understand this perfectly well.
Lawbreakers won’t go home on their own. It’s our government’s job to send them home. But in Bush and Obama we have had two Presidents who subvert the law and try to ram amnesty through instead.
Eisenhower was the last American president to take this issue seriously. And unlike the recent fools we have had in charge he did his job.
This is the correct policy and it’s nonsense that you even deport a million. It’s like speeding laws. Within a range, they work (I.e., 5-7 miles over). Why? Because we fine SOME and penalize other repeat violators even worse, and everyone else comes into line.
“The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.
......
Correct.
Besides, they all know it will take a month or so for a federal judge to find a constitutional right to get them citizenship.
And correct again.
Every state that has implemented the enforcement of our laws on the books today, has seen illegal immigrants flee to other states.
If the nation enforced those laws, these people would in large part leave the nation.
Some already have.
It’s a sad commentary that we have to apologize for setting our own immigration policies that in some instances are much more lax than other nation’s policies.
If a guy can’t get behind enforcing our laws on the books, he isn’t “OUR GUY”. He’s “THEIR GUY”.
I use a take on the old saying ‘reasonable persons can reasonably disagree’ to disagree with you I think. If people of any persuasion/age commit an illegal act they are law breakers. My opinion is that many of the so called illegals are and will be lawbreakers. Many sneak into the US not to be contributing citizens such as the Statue of Liberty was meant to welcome but instead to live the criminal life of countries they come/came from. I don’t go with the postulate that all the children in these groups will be dedicated to the words and spirit of the US Constitution. The Nation is already witnessing in the streets and in the schools that a very large proportion of these immigrants ,legal and illegal, are demanding above and beyond ordinary for special privileges. Of course all this goes along with Obama’s change to change the fundamental spirit and wording of our Constitution. The US has a cancer of population growth/allowance which needs to be removed to keep the US what so many have died for. I speak from having lost my only brother on Okinawa and myself having served in the Pacific theater of WWII.
I had high hopes for Walker. However, I cannot support port any candidate
that supports a path to citizenship or amnesty.
“NH GOP chair: Scott Walker told us he supported a path to legalization for illegals, not citizenship”
Not much difference. A play on words. Legalization for illegals, means citizenship not far behind. Tell the illegals if they want citizenship to go back to their countries and file. In the mean time seel the f’n borders.
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.