Cut me some slack, will ya? I'm workin' on it.
Posted on 02/05/2015 10:53:27 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Many moons ago, all the way back in 2013, The Wasau Daily Herald published an article.
That article contained an interview with the Wisconsin Governor. Among the many topics discussed was federal immigration reform. “People want to come here and work hard and benefit, I don’t care whether they come from Mexico or Ireland or Germany or Canada or South Africa or anywhere else, I want them here.” Walker told the Wasau Daily Herald editors.
At a time when the loudest voices on the right were screaming for border security while ignoring the major issues with our current immigration infrastructure, Walker took a somewhat different approach and one more akin to Senator Rubio’s attitude on immigration reform. Walker explained that restructuring our immigration system should help mitigate the constant flow of undocumented aliens. “I think there’s got to be a way, not only do they need to fix things for people who are already here or find some way to deal with that, there’s got to be a larger way to fix the system in the first place, because if it wasn’t so cumbersome, if it wasn’t so long of a wait, if it wasn’t so difficult to get in, you wouldn’t have the other problems that we have with people who don’t have legal status here in the first place. the 11 million,” he said. “You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that, to me, I don’t think you need any of that if you have a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”
One of the reporters then asked, “Can you envision a world where with the right, penalties, and waiting periods, and meet the requirements. where these people could get citizenship?” “Sure. I mean, I think it makes sense,” Walker responded. “What I’m saying is, otherwise we do this kind of bandaid approach… the mere fact that they’re having this debate without having discussion about why is the system itself, why aren’t we fixing that, it seems to be the kind of vacuum that decisions are made in at the federal level,” Walker clarified.
A few days after the interview The Hill reported the story as “Gov. Walker backs citizenship pathway for illegal immigrants,” although that’s not entirely accurate. The entire conversation is here:
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Walker made similar statements a few months prior to the aforementioned interview when he sat down with Politico — statements that he later clarified to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
I think long term that’s going to be a part of it but I think there are too many people here in Washington who are leapfrogging over everything else and trying to get to that right away.
We fundamentally don’t have a system . . . to legitimately deal with people who want to come – in fact, I think you would greatly reduce if not outright eliminate the number of people who come in illegally if we had an effective, time-effective particularly, system of dealing with legal immigration.”
Later in 2013, Walker clarified even further in an interview with the Washington Post. As Hot Air’s Allahpundit pointed out:
Towards the end of the interview, Bannon noted that “Amnesty is about the sovereignty of the country.” But, he asked Walker, “the Washington Post said earlier that you’re pro-pathway to citizenship.”
“See now that’s where they take it out of context,” Walker said in response. “I’ve not said there should be amnesty in this country. I don’t believe that. I don’t support the legislation being kicked around. What I’ve said repeatedly is we need to fix the immigration system, but fix the legal system. So if people want to come in this country we should have a legal immigration system.”
At the Iowa Freedom Summit last week, Walker shied away from discussing immigration all together. A good life decision in my estimation.
Repeatedly, Walker has indicated that working to fix legal immigration should be the paramount issue, yet it’s the one issue federal lawmakers are not willing to discuss. He’s also said he’s definitely not pro-amnesty.
Rather than demagoguing and politicizing a serious issue, Walker’s approach is perfectly pragmatic. “Why are we in this situation that we’re in? How did we get here? And what do we do to fix it?” are questions that should be asked, but seldom find their way into the politisphere discussion. Should Walker decide to throw his hat into the 2016 ring, he’ll undoubtedly be forced to address the immigration question in greater detail.
Speaking for myself, I’d love to see the national spotlight shine a little light on Walker or another contender with Walkeresque immigration ideas. Our immigration system might benefit as a result.
The candidates, the media, the voters are looking for a magic bullet solution. There isn’t one.
The media have lulled the candidates, as usual, into viewing illegals as a monolith.
The candidates can shake themselves out of their torpor by declaring deportations will resume and pointing out that any illegal who gets so much as a parking ticket will be top of the deportation list.
He’s pro-amnesty.
He’s for it, unless he’s against it.
How is that statement 'pro-amnesty'?
He’s pro-amnesty:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/scott-walker-supports-path-to-citizenship-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/03/scott-w
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3251354/posts?q=1&;page=1
Don’t care about his position, the law’s extremely clear, and so long as he fulfills his duty as President to defend the constitution and enforce the laws, I have little interest in his immigration viewpoints.
The only ‘leadership’ the media is looking for is an absolutely open borders policy. Anyone who doesn’t support their agenda will be vilified by the media. It is a zero gain issue to even address.
“You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that, to me, I don’t think you need any of that if you have a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”
Got that conservatives? We don’t need border security if we just open the floodgates and let everyone in! Why didn’t we think of that sooner?
He’s against “amnesty”, as he defines it, which seems strictly limited to “the legislation being kicked around”.
What he isn’t against is his own idea to reform the immigration system, and somehow deal with the illegals here, without worrying about border security. I’d call that “amnesty”, even if he won’t, and I think most conservatives are probably going to see it that way too.
“Anyone who doesn’t support their agenda will be vilified by the media. It is a zero gain issue to even address.”
Well, I suppose if you are looking for the media’s votes that makes sense.
I’m against expanding legal immigration and, of course, against illegal amnesty in any form.
Walker says his comments were about legal immigration. He wants to reform/fix it and make it easier for foreigners to get into our country legally.
I stand adamantly against that.
At the same time, he did not say (in this article, anyway) that he supports amnesty for illegals.
More like a trillion dollar question.
And that would be their perfect answer.
Doesn’t matter what my position is. As President I would be required to enforce our laws and that is what I would do.
Here’s the problem: Walker is having to move left in his own state to ensure, well, that his own state will vote for him in the primaries which is not a given. A guy who’s polling badly at home? Not very assuring to the LIVers.
Now, assuming he’ll chameleon to secure the left of his own state, how far will he go left to get those chunks that Romney couldn’t? And this is all before the general in Nov. ‘16.
Now, if he wins POTUS, how far will he have to move left to secure his *second* term?
The fact that Walker isn’t moving RIGHT on *any* issue should tell you who he is, he’s Mitt Romney 25yrs younger but now with Mitt’s endorsement, voter base and donor rolls.
Nevermind all the things he’s done: where is the man *going*?
Because it is always followed by...No one is going to deport 11,000,000 .....
Walker is GOPe. A 3rd term of the Booshies.
What is not addressed is the government did not enforce the laws. In the nineties job service would send casual labor’s with documents that didn’t match the person but instead of caring they threatened investigating on eeoc basis. I believe at some point a condition similar to adverse possession exist.
“Making THAT system better and saner will encourage more people to get in line and do it right. And that should be done AFTER the southern border is properly secured.”
I can agree with that position, but that is not the position Walker stated. He thinks we only need to worry about making legal immigration easier, and we won’t need to worry about security. I didn’t make that up, I quoted his own words right there in my post.
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.