Thread: Scott Walker on issues of 2016 campaign

Where They Stand: Scott Walker on issues of 2016 campaign


FILE - In this June 24, 2015 file photo, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks after signing a bill at the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s office that eliminates a 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases, in Milwaukee. (Jeffrey Phelps, File/Associated Press)

By Scott Bauer | AP July 13, 2015 at 12:22 PM

MADISON, Wis. — Where two-term Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker stands on various issues that will be debated in the Republican presidential campaign, a race he’s joining.
___
IMMIGRATION
As early as 2002, Walker supported creating a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally. Now he doesn’t. He attributed the shift to his conversations with border-state governors and voters nationwide. “My view has changed. I’m flat out saying it,” Walker told Fox News in March. “Candidates can say that. Sometimes they don’t.” He’s open to granting legal status short of citizenship to many people in the country illegally. But he’s also questioned whether the current policy on legal immigration makes economic sense, suggesting he might side with those who believe high numbers of immigrants — legal or not — suppress wages.
___

FOREIGN POLICY
It’s a weak link in his presidential resume. To address that, he has traveled overseas four times this year. His visit to Israel in May was tightly controlled, with no public appearances. He stumbled rhetorically at times during a more public London tour earlier. Oddly, in an otherwise well-received speech to conservatives in February, he said his experience taking on thousands of protesters in his state helped prepare him to confront terrorists abroad. Walker speaks hawkishly of pre-emptive strikes to prevent what he says are certain future attacks on U.S., although specifics are scarce.
___
SOCIAL ISSUES
Walker, the son of a Baptist minister, opposes abortion rights, including in cases of rape and incest. As governor, he signed into law a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before having an abortion. He’s also set to sign a bill into law that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Walker also opposes same-sex marriage, voting for a state constitutional amendment in 2006 that banned it. Walker called the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states a “grave mistake.” Walker opposed the death penalty until 2006, when he switched positions, saying he believed that if DNA evidence proved the guilt of a person, the death penalty was justified. Wisconsin does not have the death penalty. The National Rifle Association gives his gun-rights record a 100 percent rating. In June, Walker signed a bill removing a 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases. Walker also legalized the carrying of concealed weapons in 2011.
___
EDUCATION

Walker supports Wisconsin’s first-in-the-nation school voucher program, under which taxpayers pay for students to attend private rather than public schools. Walker extended the program statewide after its start in Milwaukee and Racine, and this year proposed eliminating enrollment caps. Walker cut money to K-12 public schools by $1.2 billion in his first budget, the largest reduction in state history. He called for cutting about $127 million from schools in the first year of his most recent budget, but the Republican Legislature rejected that. Walker’s position has varied on Common Core academic standards. He never explicitly advocated for them, but in his first state budget in 2011 he called for statewide tests that were tied to the standards. By the middle of 2013, Walker was calling for a halt to further implementation of the standards, and in July 2014 he called for a repeal, even though it’s up to local school districts whether to adopt them. His budget this year prohibits the state superintendent from forcing local school districts to adopt the standards and calls for new standardized tests.
___
LABOR UNIONS
Walker proposed, just six weeks after taking office in 2011, that public employees except for police and firefighters pay more for pension and health care benefits, and only be allowed to bargain collectively over base wage increases no greater than inflation. Outrage over passage of that law led to Walker’s 2012 recall election, which he won. This year, Walker signed a right-to-work bill into law, after saying during his re-election campaign that the issue would not come up because it was a distraction. Right-to-work laws prohibit unions from requiring workers to join or pay dues. Walker this year also proposed eliminating tenure protections for University of Wisconsin faculty and staff from law as part of a broader proposal to make the university independent from state oversight and regulation. Walker has referred to that as the higher education version of the law he signed affecting state workers four years ago.
___
CLIMATE CHANGE
Walker has not made climate change a focus of his campaign, but he has spoken at the Heartland Institute, a group that denies man-made climate change. Walker also joined more than a dozen other coal-reliant states suing the Environmental Protection Agency to block the so-called Clean Power Plan, which would require states to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2030. Walker has also signed the “no climate tax” pledge to oppose any legislation that would raise taxes to combat climate change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...ed4_story.html

http://www.alipac.us/f9/donald-trump...ay-u-s-320744/

Excerpt:

Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI)

On the 2016 campaign trail, Scott Walker has distanced himself from his past support for a pathway to citizenship and immigration reform in a series of muddled, and contradictory, pronouncements. His most recent attempt to clarify his stance has led him to embrace the discredited, offensive, and unworkable “report to deport” concept. Even more recently, in April of 2015, Walker allied himself with Jeff Sessions and the radical idea of limiting legal immigration. He also wants undocumented immigrants “to go back to their country of origin and get in line behind everybody else who’s waiting.” This latest policy stance, which seems a mix of incoherent and radical, positions Walker to the right of Mitt Romney from 2012.

Walker is currently leading one of the 26 states suing President Obama over executive action, so that’s an automatic point against him. Upon joining the lawsuit, he said:

I think the Republicans in Washington need to take the president to court. They need to force this issue. I think it’s bigger than the subject matter of immigration.

His spokeswoman also added:

Obama’s executive action should be repealed, it isn’t fair to hardworking Americans and to those who have waited in line to do things the right way and only incentivizes further illegal behavior.

Walker’s Wisconsin stands to gain $19 million over five years in increased tax revenues from immigrants with DAPA status, yet he wants to overturn executive action in order to drive people back into the shadows and make them more deportable.

On other immigration positions, Walker has been all over the place. In 2001 when Walker was a state assemblyman, he signed a bill supporting in-state tuition for undocumented students. That bill was eventually vetoed by then-Gov. Scott McCallum. A different bill on the issue was passed in 2009, which Walker repealed in 2011. In 2006 as a Milwaukee County Executive, he signed a resolution supporting the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

In 2010 he said he would sign an Arizona-style anti-immigrant bill if it came to his desk; by 2012 he was saying that “I think that it would be a huge distraction for us in this state.” In 2013 he briefly appeared to support a path to citizenship, saying:

“It’s all is about the 11 million [undocumented immigrants],” Walker said. “You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that. To me, I don’t know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”
Walker added: “If people want to come here and work hard in this country, I don’t care if you come from Mexico or Canada or Ireland or Germany or South Africa or anywhere else. I want them here.”

In the same interview, Walker said “I think they need to fix things for people who are already here, find some way to deal with that.” When asked specifically about the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country, and whether he could “envision a world where with the right penalties and waiting periods and meet the requirements where those people could get citizenship,” Walker replied “sure … I mean I think that makes sense.”

But soon, he walked that back, saying “on immigration I talked about fixing the legal immigration system, not going beyond that.” Last summer Walker bemoaned the increase in children coming to the border, saying that the thought of children facing such dangers almost brought him “to tears.” Walker was not much help when it came to taking in and sheltering the children, however, saying that the federal government should find a way to deal with them and that housing them could eventually “drain the entire system.”
In early 2015, he said this about immigration reform:

I think for sure, we need to secure the border. I think we need to enforce the legal system. I’m not for amnesty, I’m not an advocate of the plans that have been pushed here in Washington, and I think should I become a candidate, because I’m not yet, it’s part of the exploratory process here, that is something we’re going to lay out, plans for the future. But we’ve got to have a healthy balance. We’re a country both of immigrants and of laws. We can’t ignore the laws in this country, can’t ignore the people who come in, whether it’s from Mexico or Central America.
We need to enforce the laws of the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that doesn’t mean amnesty.

But, Walker clarified his views on on March 1, 2015 during an interview with FOX News. Walker disavowed his earlier support for a path to citizenship and adopted the rhetoric of the anti-immigrant crowd:

“I don’t believe in amnesty,” said Walker, who finished second Saturday in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll for potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates. “We need to secure the border. We ultimately need to put in place a system that works — a legal immigration system that works.”

Walker, as noted, also is among the 26 Republican governors and Attorney Generals who have joined in a lawsuit challenging the president’s 2014 executive action that defers deportation for millions of illegal immigrants.
Between the comments and the lawsuit Walker has decided to appeal to the nativist base in his party.

In March of 2015, Walker found himself in a controversy after hiring Republican operative Liz Mair. In January, Mair, who is an advocate for immigration reform, tweeted about Steve King’s forum in Iowa, “In other news, I see Iowa is once again embarrassing itself, and the GOP, this morning. Thanks, guys.” After she was hired, Iowa officials complained, which led to Mair’s dismissal.

On March 26, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Walker expressed support for a path to citizenship at a private dinner in New Hampshire:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told a private dinner of New Hampshire Republicans this month that he backed the idea of allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and to eventually become eligible for citizenship, a position at odds with his previous public statements on the matter.
Mr. Walker’s remarks, which were confirmed by three people present and haven’t been reported previously, vary from the call he has made in recent weeks for “no amnesty”—a phrase widely employed by people who believe immigrants who broke the law by entering the country without permission shouldn’t be awarded legal status or citizenship.

The changing positions by Mr. Walker, a likely candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, show the difficulty that some in the Republican Party face as they try to appeal both to the conservative GOP primary electorate—which largely opposes liberalizing immigration laws—and business leaders and general election voters who have been more supportive of granting legal status to undocumented immigrants.

That latest flip of Walker’s previous flop garnered immediate attention from political reporters:

Walker in ’13: Yeah, citizenship makes sense Walker on 3/1/15: “My view has changed” Walker on 3/13/15: Yeah, citizenship makes sense
— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) March 26, 2015

NBC’s Murray also noted on twitter, “This immigration story is VERY problematic for Scott Walker – esp after he tried to clean it up earlier.”

Walker headed to the Rio Grande Valley of Texas on March 27, 2015 to tour the border, and attempted to extricate himself from his self-created political predicament with yet another “clarification” on his immigration stance. According to Patrick Svitek of the Texas Tribune, Gov. Walker said: “if somebody wants to be a citizen, they need to go back to their country of origin, get in line, no preferential treatment … In terms of what to do beyond that, again, that’s something we got to work with Congress on.”

In other words, Walker seems to be endorsing the ridiculous “report to deport” concept. The “report to deport” idea has been touted before by Republican politicians, most notably by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and former Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) a decade ago. According to AV’s Frank Sharry, “ Walker’s touting of ‘report to deport’ represents a further embrace of hardline and unworkable immigration policy at odds with his past endorsement of sensible reform. Politically, it might as well have the Mitt Romney 2012 seal of approval, as it’s tilting dangerously toward the infamous ‘self-deportation’ concept. Not only does the transparent pandering to hardline primary voters threaten the eventual Republican nominee’s chances of retaking the White House, but it goes beyond immigration to raise larger questions and concerns of character, consistency and leadership.”

On April 9, 2015, Walker appeared on Sean Hannity’s FOX News show where he doubled-down on his “border security” talking point, “If the United States was being attacked in one of our water ports on the East or West Coast, we’d be sending in our military forces, and yet we’re facing some of the same challenges with international criminal organizations, the cartels that are trafficking not only drugs but weapons and humans, and we need to step up and be aggressive,” Walker continued. “that means securing the border with infrastructure, with technology, with personnel and the federal government’s got to lead the way. We can’t expect the border states to do this alone.”

“You can’t be talking about anything else until you do that,” Walker concluded. “Once you do that, then we can talk about enforcing the laws — by using an effective E-verify system for all employers…and making sure that any legal immigration system — no amnesty — any legal immigration system we go forward with is one that ultimately has to protect American workers and make sure American wages are going up.”

On April 20, 2015, Walker aligned himself with Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) by taking stand against legal immigration – while appearing to call for deportations of the undocumented immigrants:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate, pledged to protect American workers from the economic effects, not only of illegal immigration but also of a massive increase in legal immigration.

During an interview with Glenn Beck, Walker became the first declared or potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate to stake out a position on immigration fully in line with that of Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He also noted that he has been working with Chairman Sessions on the issue to learn more about it.
Walker is now the only potential or declared GOP presidential candidate to discuss the negative effects of a massive increase in legal immigration on American workers:

In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying—the next president and the next congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages, because the more I’ve talked to folks, I’ve talked to Senator Sessions and others out there—but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today—is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.

Walker discussed how in the past he did support amnesty, but says he doesn’t anymore, because he has learned more about the issue. That shows him to be one of the most open-minded GOP candidates on such matters.

In the same interview, Walker espoused support for E-Verify. He also reiterated his opposition to “amnesty” – and doesn’t have a plan for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the country beyond “go home,” because there is no “line” for them to get in:

Walker also discussed the need for interior enforcement:

Then I think you need to enforce the law and the way you effectively do that is to require every employer in America to use an effective E-Verify system and by effective I mean you need to require particularly small businesses and farmers and ranchers. We got to have a system that works, but then the onus is on the employers and the penalties have to be steep that they’re only hiring people who are here, who are legal to be here. No amnesty, if someone wants to be a citizen, they have to go back to their country of origin and get in line behind everybody else who’s waiting.

Based on thees recent remarks, Gov. Walker now opposes any form of legalization of undocumented immigrants, opposes President Obama’s executive actions on behalf of immigrants, wants to further restrict legal immigration, and proposes to ramp up both border and interior enforcement without making reforms that deal humanely and practically with the 11 million undocumented immigrants in America and create expanded legal channels for workers and families with sponsorship opportunities. As Frank Sharry noted, “Scott Walker’s new positions make Mitt Romney’s immigration agenda look moderate by comparison.”

On April 22nd, America’s Voice did a deeper dive into Walker’s remarks: Unpacking Scott Walker’s Immigration Stance: What Happens to the 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants, which noted:

the undocumented here can go home and apply the right way, says Scott Walker. This statement displays enormous ignorance. The fact is our system is dysfunctional because for almost all of the undocumented works in America there is no line to get into. Not here, not there. Yes, there are a couple of controversial temporary visa programs (H2A and H2B) that allow workers in for months at a time before having to return to their countries of origin. But for those able to be sponsored by U.S. employers and seeking full-time low-skilled employment, there are 5,000 permanent visas a year. This is hardly enough to deal with the 8 million currently working in America. In addition, precious few have relatives in a position to sponsor them under our family immigration system. But even more important is that, under current law, once a settled undocumented immigrant returns to their country of origin they are subject to a 10 year bar from the country as a penalty for having stayed in the U.S. without authorization for more than a year.

In other words, the deal Walker is offering the 11 million undocumented immigrants in America is this: you will no longer be able to keep your job; we will try to fine and jail any employer who hires you in the future; there’s no way for you to get legal status here in the U.S.; so leave everything you’ve built here and go back to your country of origin so you can apply for non-existent visas, which you are eligible for after your 10-year ban from the country.

After Hillary Clinton announced her immigration reform proposals on May 5, 2015, Walker personally tweeted his disapproval:

Walker has reinvented himself on immigration, rapidly moving from pro-reform pragmatist to anti-immigrant crusader in the mold of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). More a jumble of focus group-tested soundbites than a serious policy stance, Walker’s newly-minted hardline immigration vision is a bizarre mix of the radical and incoherent. Nevertheless, Gov. Walker still stands by some of his past pro-immigration policies – if you’re a millionaire investor. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported:

Gov. Scott Walker has been trying to turn himself into an anti-immigration crusader as he gears up to run for president in 2016. But there’s one federal visa program you won’t hear him attack. It’s the controversial and deeply troubled immigrant investor program. The program — known as EB-5 — puts wealthy foreigners on the path to U.S. citizenship if they invest at least $500,000 in an American commercial project that will create or preserve 10 jobs.

So let’s get this straight: Gov. Walker is against immigration solutions that would provide a way forward for millions of hard-working undocumented immigrants settled in America, but is for immigration programs that sell visas to wealthy immigrants who still live overseas. Even more absurd, on May 19, 2015, Walker took to FOX News to claim his changing views don’t count as a flip-flop, offering a non-sensical rational:

A flip would be someone who voted on something and did something different,” Walker said. “These are not votes… I don’t have any impact on immigration as a governor. I don’t have any impact as a former county official. I would be if I were to run and ultimately be elected as president.

It be clear, Walker has flipped and flopped on immigration (except for millionaires.) During an interview with the Tampa Bay Times, published on June 3, Walker was asked about his immigration views. The reporter, Alex Leary, asked key questions, including about Walker’s plans for the undocumented. The candidate’s answers were described as “vague” and “uneven”:

Scott Walker said he adamantly opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but was vague in an interview with the Tampa Bay Times about what should be done with the 11 million people already in the U.S. “My belief is that because the system is so broken, we need to do the other things I mention before we can even begin to start talking about what the president and the next Congress can do,” Walker said, referring to his call for more border security and enforcement of existing law. “Until we deal with those other issues, any potential solution is largely irrelevant.” Walker’s comments continued an uneven response to the vexing issue of immigration since he emerged as a presidential hopeful. The Wisconsin governor once supported a path to citizenship, but earlier this year veered to the right, then backed off a bit. The shifting positions have left many wonder what exactly does he think should be done.

The Tampa Bay Times interview summed up Walker and immigration: Shifting positions. Uneven response. Vague.
On July 6, 2015, The New York Times reported on another example of Walker possibly saying one thing about supporting immigration reform in private, then denying it when the news becomes public:

Last Wednesday, Stephen Moore, a scholar at the Heritage Foundation who is an outspoken supporter of an immigration overhaul, described a recent telephone call with Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, in which he said Mr. Walker had assured him he had not completely renounced his earlier support for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
“‘I’m not going nativist, I’m pro-immigration,’” Mr. Walker said, according to Mr. Moore’s account of the call to a reporter for The New York Times.

On Sunday, after three days of pressure from Mr. Walker’s aides, Mr. Moore said that he had “misspoken” when recounting his call with Mr. Walker — and that the call had never actually taken place.

As Dara Lind noted at Vox, “All Republican candidates are struggling with the donor/voter divide on immigration, but Walker is unusually bad at finessing it.”

http://americasvoice.org/research/me...ration/#walker

I realize Walker has bounced around on the issue for a good while but I still think he is our best bet. I'm very interested in seeing what he says over the next 16 months. All this bouncing around needs to stop .... he needs to be consistent in his message.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

SOCIAL ISSUES: Walker, the son of a Baptist minister, opposes abortion rights, including in cases of rape and incest. As governor, he signed into law a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before having an abortion.

Great, Scott. Now tell us what you plan to do to the men who impregnate these women. Or does being a Baptist preclude being even handed where pregnancies are concerned.
*****************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

On alien situation I do not find Walker hard to understand. He has proven to the pro-amnesty crowd that he is prone to "a change of mind." What is to prevent him from a "new" change o f mind to the old decision. Then he can tell me I told you I was pro-amnesty, can't he? I am still ione that especially in politics, lie to me (or others) once, I have to assume that lyingis not against your personal morals, and trusting you I cannot afford!

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

On alien situation I do not find Walker hard to understand. He has proven to the pro-amnesty crowd that he is prone to "a change of mind." What is to prevent him from a "new" change o f mind to the old decision. Then he can tell me I told you I was pro-amnesty, can't he? I am still ione that especially in politics, lie to me (or others) once, I have to assume that lyingis not against your personal morals, and trusting you I cannot afford!

You're assuming Walker is lying. I don't assume that at all. I actually think folks like Sen. Sessions and Gov. Greg Abbott have gotten him to see the light on the damage excessive immigration and illegal immigration is doing to Americans and the country.

July 14, 2015

DAVID MUIR, ABC NEWS: What do American voters not know about you that will seal the deal?

SCOTT WALKER: If Republicans are going to take on a name from the past in Hillary Clinton, they need a name from the Future

DAVID MUIR: Is Jeb Bush a name from the past? Or a name from the future?

SCOTT WALKER: Jeb is a good guy, he is a friend of mine, he was a good governor, but I don't think a name from the past is a name from the past...



Here, Muir asks about Trump, Walker deflects admirably to the actual subject of immigration reform.

SCOTT WALKER: My position on immigration is simple. Secure the border, enforce the laws.

DAVID MUIR: You were at one point for a path to citizenship, no longer?

SCOTT WALKER: No, and I've laid it out. I said I'm clearly stating that. I'm not beating around the Bush.

DAVID MUIR: What made you change your mind?

SCOTT WALKER: A combination of things. I look at how the president messed up the immigration system we have today.

DAVIR MUIR: And what do you do with those 11 million undocumented immigrants? Do we send them home?

SCOTT WALKER: Part of the problem that we have is everyone wants to jump forward to one part of the equation without doing the things we need to do in the right order.



Here, Scott Walker is quizzed on foreign policy credentials and putting his foot in his mouth.

DAVID MUIR: You made some headlines this year when you were asked how you would deal with ISIS. You said if you could handle 100,000 union protesters, you could handle ISIS. Would you answer differently?

SCOTT WALKER: Yeah, although I think the point, the people who were there took it the way I intended. Because I said moments after that of course I'm not equating those protesters with ISIS...

My point is nobody, even Secretary of State Clinton, nobody in this race has the experience that a president would need directly. My point is as a governor to take on things that were, in my case not just political pressure but personal attacks, death threats, I believe the next president is going to have to have the capacity to deal with that kind of pressure.



At the end, Muir asks how the family (who supports the gay marriage of their aunt this month following its legalization nationwide) reacted to Walker's statement that the Supreme Court decision was "a grave mistake."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._marriage.html

Originally Posted by MW

You're assuming Walker is lying. I don't assume that at all. I actually think folks like Sen. Sessions and Gov. Greg Abbott have gotten him to see the light on the damage excessive immigration and illegal immigration is doing to Americans and the country.

I did not assume that Walker is lying. I said that he can go either way and be able to tell the side that he disappoints that he told us that he would go that way. He has himself covered for not having to admit a lie.

I cannot support a candidate that wants his cake and eats it, too.

7/15/15

http://www.alipac.us/f9/where-does-w...ration-321292/