Thread: Scott Walker Endorses Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants at Private GOP Dinne

Scott Walker Endorses Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants at Private GOP Dinner

by Dan Riehl
26 Mar 2015
Washington, DC
928 comments

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker may be on the verge of burning himself down before he actually gets started, given what is now becoming something of a circus regarding his actual stance on immigration.

According to this new Wall Street Journal report, it’s quite possible a supporter of Jeb Bush, or another candidate went to the media regarding Walker’s recent comments at a private GOP dinner, it doesn’t matter. With three sources now (anonymously) on record, he appears to have Walkered himself right into this one. If his name becomes synonymous with waffling on a critical issue like immigration, his next nickname may be toast!

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.

Given the history here, it may now be impossible to know precisely where Walker stands, with supporters left to assume the worst — that he’s just another open borders Republican — becoming the default across the conservative grassroots whose support he needs to win.

Mr. Walker’s “no amnesty” position was itself a change from his prior decadelong support for a pathway to citizenship. He has explained in public that his recent shift to a more restrictive view came after consulting with border-state governors and hearing from people opposed to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...te-gop-dinner/

by Rich Tucker
26 Mar 2015

The Wall Street Journal reports that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had shifted his stance on amnesty during a talk in New Hampshire earlier this month.

“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 Journal wrote.

Gov. Walker’s spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski says that report is wrong:

“We strongly dispute this account. Governor 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. His position has not changed, he does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this story line is false,” she announced in an email to journalists Thursday afternoon.

Stay tuned for more details on this developing story.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...pport-amnesty/

We know from his governorship that he is a notorious and vicious wage buster. So, why would it be unfair to believe that he is not for open borders and amnesty, path to citizenship.

Don't let republicans fool you again, but they are great slight of hand masters.

When candidates have historically supported something, and then change their position as they're running for a new higher office to appease the voters, you know they are not the candidate you can trust or rely upon to tackle something as big as this, especially when his former position he held for such a long time is the Number One Issue of the 2016 elections for Republicans, and I believe by November of 2016, the Number One Issue for America.

This is a no brainer issue. Everyone knows there is no benefit at all of any kind for failure of our government to enforce US immigration law. Everyone knows there is no benefit at all of any kind for amnesty or deferred action, let alone a pathway to citizenship for lawbreakers who believe they're special and above the law. Everyone knows 71% of illegal aliens are on welfare. Everyone knows that there are 8 to 10 million of them working in America while 20 million Americans look for work or struggle on deflated wages and reduced hours and benefits. Everyone knows illegal aliens are a problem for our country, not a solution. So any candidate who didn't know that until he decides to run for President of the United States is not qualified or capable of holding the position, let alone doing the job that needs doing.

We can not afford to vote for any candidate that supports Amnesty in any form. As a Republican voter he does not have mine now for sure, NO AMNESTY EVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

We know from his governorship that he is a notorious and vicious wage buster. So, why would it be unfair to believe that he is not for open borders and amnesty, path to citizenship.

Don't let republicans fool you again, but they are great slight of hand masters.

Yeah, Republicans need a candidate who has more claim to fame than cutting American wages and benefits to balance their state budget. I have no objection to reducing state employee benefits or wages to bring them more in line with what normal citizens earn in their state, if the state can't afford them, but at the same time, it should be treated as an unavoidable evil, not something to crow about. It reminds me of Reagan taking on air traffic controllers, that did nothing in my view but punish over-worked, high-stress employees for doing their jobs and being paid accordingly for it. Then Reagan turns around and signs the biggest amnesty bill so far in the history of the United States. The incongruity of policies that with one stroke of a pen hurt American workers, government or otherwise, then with another reward foreign lawbreakers is not a winning platform for America.

Originally Posted by UpsetAmerican

We can not afford to vote for any candidate that supports Amnesty in any form. As a Republican voter he does not have mine now for sure, NO AMNESTY EVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES, no amnesty ever of any kind under any name for any purpose!

Right On UpsetAmerican!

10:34 PM 03/26/2015
Neil Munro

Potential 2016 candidate Scott Walker’s staff is denying that he endorsed amnesty for illegal immigrants during a closed-door dinner with Republican donors in New Hampshire.

“Governor 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,” said Kirsten Kukowski, the spokesman he recently hired from the Republican National Committee.

“He does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this story line is false,” she said. The denials follow a March 26 report in The Wall Street Journal, which said that Walker told New Hampshire Republicans donors that illegals would “eventually get their citizenship without being given preferential treatment.”

Walker reportedly showed his support for full amnesty came at a March 13 dinner at the Cooper Door Restaurant in Bedford, N.H.

The statement violated Walker’s generally successful efforts to equivocate on the issue by zig-zagging between vague pro-amnesty statements and vague anti-amnesty statements.

He’s equivocating because the issue deeply divides the GOP’s base from the GOP’s donors, and he doesn’t want to alienate either group.

Roughly 80 percent of the GOP base opposes President Barack Obama’s Oval Office amnesty, which would provide work-permits, Social Security cards, tax rebates and a quick-path to citizenship. Obama’s November amnesty, however, has been stalled by a Texas judge.

Other polls show that very few Americans support an immigration policy that allows companies to hire migrants or guest-workers in place of Americans.

In contrast, business interests strongly support greater illegal and legal immigration, partly because it provides more workers, more government-subsidized customers, and likely nudges up profits.

That business influence is very powerful, but not decisive.

There’s plenty of time yet for a GOP candidate to offer a wage-boosting immigration pause to win a large slice of the GOP voters — or risk alienating many voters by fully backing the business community.

Like the other candidates, Walker has tried to zig-zag between the donors and voters.

“Well, I don’t believe in amnesty,” he told the host of “Fox News Sunday,” Chris Wallace, on March 1.

“I think the better approach is to enforce the laws and to give employers, job creators the tools like E-Verify and other things to make sure the law is being upheld going forward,” he said.

Walker’s phrase “other things” is a giant loophole that could include the change most sought by business interests — a much greater legal inflow of immigrant workers and customers. But it is so vague that — if elected and inaugurated — he can deny he ever promised to increase legal immigration.

Walker is very aware of business demand for more migrants.

In November, 2013, he told The Daily Caller that “I’d open the door to making sure that people can legally come into the country.”

“I don’t care whether it is from Mexico, or India or Germany or Ireland or anywhere else around the world, if we have people who want to come here and work hard and live the American dream, we should embrace those people,” Walker said at breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor.

The other GOP candidates have also tried to zig-zag their way through the problem, because they need business donations and voters’ votes to win 2016 campaigns.

For example, all GOP candidates say they support stronger border enforcement, but most also say they support greater legal immigration of blue-collar and white-collar workers.

Sen. Ted Cruz exemplified the zig-zag strategy in his Monday speech at Liberty University. “Instead of the lawlessness and the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty, imagine a president that finally, finally, finally secures the borders. And imagine a legal immigration system that welcomes and celebrates those who come to achieve the American dream,” he said.

Former Florida Jeb Bush is the strongest supporter of more immigration, and has made it the centerpiece of his economic platform. He argues that an an infusion of migrants can serve as a stimulus to double economic growth from 2 percent to 4 percent.

However, that growth won’t necessarily increase income for Americans, partly because any new jobs will be sought by new immigrants, and because new economic activity will consist of selling low-priced services and goods to low-income immigrants.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has tried to stake out a low-immigration pitch, but he also needs to raise donations.

In a speech to conservative activists in February, for example, he largely avoided the issue and instead talked about other issues, such as foreign policy, that don’t alienate donors.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/26/wa...nesty-zig-zag/

Originally Posted by Judy

Yeah, Republicans need a candidate who has more claim to fame than cutting American wages and benefits to balance their state budget. I have no objection to reducing state employee benefits or wages to bring them more in line with what normal citizens earn in their state, if the state can't afford them, but at the same time, it should be treated as an unavoidable evil, not something to crow about. It reminds me of Reagan taking on air traffic controllers, that did nothing in my view but punish over-worked, high-stress employees for doing their jobs and being paid accordingly for it. Then Reagan turns around and signs the biggest amnesty bill so far in the history of the United States. The incongruity of policies that with one stroke of a pen hurt American workers, government or otherwise, then with another reward foreign lawbreakers is not a winning platform for America.

Persons who have to depend upon others money to become employed, like politicians, cannot afford to have personal values, ideals or principles. They are hired shills, sometimes hired guns! Thus they speak with forked tongue, the voters get the story they want to hear, but the money suppliers get the results they feel they purchased. It truly is that simple to understand. Trusting those politicians anytime now is foolhardy.

by Matthew Boyle
29 Mar 2015
Washington, DC
117 comments

After some setbacks over the past several weeks, top aides to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker tell Breitbart News that he’s toughening up his immigration position as he learns more about the issue.

“He’s for border security first, enforce the laws on the books, fix legal immigration system with national interest in mind and then deal with those here,” Walker spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said in an email.

Kukowski’s comments to Breitbart News come after a trip Walker took on Friday to the border with Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

A lot depends on what the governor means by a: “legal immigration system with national interest in mind.” Still, this could be a step toward Walker remaking his image on immigration in the manner of Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

The question becomes: What does Walker think is a legal immigration system that serves the national interest? While he hasn’t laid that out yet, there’s a massive opportunity for either success—or failure—depending on where he comes down on this matter.

“He looks forward to further detailing his ideas on securing the border and enforcing the laws,” Kukowski added. “Yes, at the minimum, there needs to be penalties put in place. In addition to securing our borders, the federal government must enforce our laws, penalize those who break the law including paying back taxes, and implement a universal E-Verify system so employers are hiring legal employees.”

Where Walker comes down on the immigration system could make or break his candidacy.

If he comes out for a Chamber of Commerce style, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg-backed open borders type of position that massively increases legal immigration, it could give other potential conservative candidates enough ammunition to take him down. But, if Walker comes out for an immigration policy that serves the national interest, something like what Sessions is pushing for—meaning that before allowing people from foreign countries into America to take jobs, struggling Americans are given the first opportunity to get those scarce jobs—then he could clear the field and wipe out any competition on the right.

It all hinges on what Walker views as an immigration policy that serves the “national interest.”

When Sessions renamed his Senate subcommittee to reflect that point, he released a statement detailing how important immigration policy is to sticking up for American workers.

“On no issue have special interests had a tighter grip than on the issue of immigration,” Sessions said. After noting that he was renaming the subcommittee, and adding Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)—another populist—as the subcommittee’s vice chairman, Sessions detailed why:

The financial and political elite have been controlling this debate for years; this subcommittee will give voice to those whose voice has been shut out: the voice of the dedicated immigration officers who have been blocked from doing their jobs; the voice of the working families whose wages have been reduced by years of record immigration; the voice of the American IT workers who are being replaced with guest workers; the voice of the parents who are worried about their schools and hospitals; and the voice of all Americans who believe we must have a lawful system of immigration they can be proud of and that puts their interests first.

Of course Walker hasn’t not put as much thought into this as Sessions, but he hasn’t had to because he’s a governor of a northern state. If he does go down this road and works to stick up for Americans against all the special interests—Silicon Valley companies, labor unions, the Chamber of Commerce, and more combined and working together alongside each other lobbying Congress for more immigration both legal and illegal—the national GOP base may decide to let him slide on previously unpopular positions if he gets it right moving forward.

Polling data from GOP pollster KellyAnne Conway has found that likely voters overwhelmingly—regardless of their party affiliation—want job opportunities in the United States to go to Americans ahead of both illegal and future legal immigrants.

In fact, 77 percent of likely voters from a poll Conway took last summer want jobs to go to U.S. born workers and legal immigrants already in the country rather than to future legal immigrants. Only 4 percent thought new jobs should go to future legal immigrants, while 17 percent did not know and 2 percent refused to answer.

With regard to illegal immigrants, the numbers are even higher: 89 percent want jobs to go first to Americans and legal immigrants already here over illegal immigrants, while only 1 percent think illegal immigrants should get the first chance at a job and 7 percent did not know and 1 percent refused to answer.

Conway’s polling surveyed 1,001 likely voters from July 16 through July 20 in 2014.

In addition to those powerful numbers, Conway’s polling also found that about 75 percent of all likely voters—and 80 percent of likely Republican voters—want lower levels of legal immigration into America, saying that green cards should be limited to just 100,000 per year. Currently, somewhere around a million green cards are issued per year in the United States—meaning that Americans of all political affiliations are craving a politician who will stand up for struggling Americans over future immigrants.

Walker has had a couple major immigration-related setbacks in recent weeks. A Wall Street Journal report on Thursday said that Walker—at a private dinner in New Hampshire, closed to the public—flip-flopped again on his prior reversal from support for a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. The Wall Street Journal’s Reid Epstein reported that Walker told a private gathering organized by New Hampshire GOP chairwoman Jennifer Horn that he does in fact think illegal aliens should get citizenship, despite what he said on Fox News Sunday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) where he said he “changed” on the issue and does not anymore believe that illegal aliens should get citizenship.

“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,” Epstein wrote. “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.”

Walker’s team vigorously denies the Wall Street Journal report, however, and depending on where the governor comes down on the major questions they may be able to get this stuff behind them.

“We strongly dispute this account. Governor 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. His position has not changed, he does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this story line is false,” Walker’s spokeswoman Kukowski said in an email to reporters after the Wall Street Journal story.

The Wall Street Journal flap—which is really a he-said-she-said between Walker’s team and the WSJ’s Epstein—came after Walker had just gotten past the now infamous decision a couple weeks ago to hire pro-amnesty communications aide Liz Mair. Mair resigned within two days of her hiring due to her immigration position and her positions on social issues like abortion and gay marriage being at odds with Walker, combined with the fact that she had insulted Iowans via Twitter when Walker was speaking during the Iowa Freedom Summit in January.

That all came after Walker said during an interview with Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that he’d “changed” on immigration, after previously supporting amnesty for illegal aliens—something he no longer supports.

Now, with the Mair and Wall Street Journal mishaps in the rearview mirror, Walker toured the U.S. border with Mexico with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday. Walker and Abbott both Tweeted out pictures of their border tour, and Kukowski issued a statement detailing the governor’s visit to the largely insecure border. “First and foremost, Governor Walker believes it is painfully clear Washington, D.C. hasn’t done its job securing our borders,” Kukowski said:

Officials on the ground are doing an excellent job with the resources they have, but more bodies and technology are needed. In the past Governor Walker has talked about securing the borders to protect the safety of our citizens – it’s a security issue even more than an immigration issue.

During his briefing today, it was made even more evident that the broken border is a safety issue not only as it relates to potential extremists, but also continued drug cartel violence. Drug cartels pose a long-term danger to border states and securing the border is vital.

So Walker could go toe-to-toe with Jeb Bush, who says that illegal immigration is an “act of love” by illegal aliens. On the debate stage, and on the campaign trail, Bush will undoubtedly seek to trip up his likely opponents and then hammer any gaffes home with millions of dollars worth of television ads.

But if the potential opposition candidates learn the issue—something the governor seems to be trying to do—and can effectively communicate their positions on it, they could paint Bush as an out-of-touch corporate elitist supporter of open borders and sail into the GOP nomination. Taking a tough stand on immigration is also something likely to help Republicans in the general election—contrary to popular inside-the-beltway belief—as the politics of the issue find Americans consistently searching for a leader who’s willing to stand up to the special interests and illegal aliens, not someone who’s seeking to appease the lobbyists.

“I think it [immigration] is going to be very important [in 2016], particularly with these waves we’re experiencing of new illegal immigrants and illegal minors,” Sen. Vitter said during an appearance on Breitbart News Saturday radio program this weekend on Sirius XM Patriot.

I think the politics of this is largely misread by a bunch of Republicans in Washington. I think the public is really fed up with these waves upon waves upon waves like the new wave of the illegal minors and the federal government doing nothing but sort of actively taking them in and actively relocating them all around the country.

Then of course, President Obama last November giving a broad executive amnesty to about 5 million illegals in this country. People are just fed up with that problem of making the problem worse, not solving it. I think Republicans who misread voter sentiment on this really do that at their peril.

I know a lot of Republicans in Washington–not all for sure, I work closely with Jeff Sessions who is a great leader on this issue and others–but a bunch of Republicans in Washington are about two years behind on this issue. I really think these new waves of the illegals and minors who have flooded in in direct response to President Obama’s DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] executive order really have changed thinking and have changed the politics on this issue.

In addition to Conway’s polling, National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) polling data from firm Paragon Insights from before the midterm election found very similar results among all voters—Democrats, Republicans and independents—who were very much opposed to open borders style policies.

Yet with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the rise on the Democratic side, it may be difficult for Republicans to avoid falling into the traps he’s created. Sessions, in his 25-page immigration roadmap for Republicans at the beginning of this Congress, laid out how the GOP can beat Schumer and still win politically and morally. In fact, Sessions argues, standing up for Americans over those special interests is standing for true immigration reform that actually solves the problem—rather than further enabling open borders policies.

“‘Immigration reform’ may be the single most abused phrase in the English language. It has become a legislative honorific almost exclusively reserved for proposals which benefit everyone but actual American citizens,” Sessions wrote.

Consider the recent Obama-backed ‘immigration reform’ bill rejected by Congress. That bill—the culmination of a $1.5 billion lobbying effort—doubled the influx of foreign workers to benefit corporate lobbyists, offered sweeping amnesty to benefit illegal immigrants, and collapsed enforcement to benefit groups in the Democrat political machine that advocate open borders. But for American citizens, the legislation offered nothing except lower wages, higher unemployment, and a heavier tax burden.

There used to be a time in politics when Democrats, too, stood up for Americans when it came to immigration—something that is long since past. In fact, in the 1990s, Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX)—a key figure in the history of the Congressional Black Caucus—worked alongside current Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to protect Americans from a massive influx of immigration. As late as the mid-2000s, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) fought against the amnesty effort from Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on the grounds it would increase foreign labor importation to the point where it would hurt union members.

But now, as the entire leadership of all the major labor unions has joined in lockstep with the majority of the Democrats and a hodgepodge of special interests, the entire Democratic Party—and many elements of the Republican Party—have abandoned Americans for a whole host of reasons.

“In the House and Senate, they were virtually unanimous in their support of the 2013 ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration bill,” Sessions wrote of the Democrats in his memo. “But their strategy—appealing to the interest groups, donors, advocacy coalitions, and media personalities who oppose any sensible immigration controls—rests on the assumption that Republicans will compete for the same audience. But we were not elected to clamor for the affections of Washington pundits and trendy CEOs.”

The question moving forward is whether Walker, and other potential 2016 presidential candidates, embrace what Sessions is saying—or not. With Walker’s team saying he wants an immigration policy that serves the “national interest,” there may be hope yet he just might do so.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...fter-setbacks/