And the counter to that is Ted Cruz wanting to increase H-1B visas to allow “high skilled” workers from overseas to come into the country. Face it both Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are nowhere near taking the tough stand that Jeff Sessions has when it comes to stopping illegal immigration.
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=137
In this context of inquiring what candidates have actually done we read the post of Democrat_media who lists 17 remarkable accomplishments Scott Walker. Against that we have the record of Ted Cruz in the Senate where his options were certainly fewer than those of the Governor of a state but his record is nevertheless credible in opposing Harry Reid and, more significantly, Mitch McConnell.
And that brings us to the next consideration besides, "compared to whom" which is, "against whom." Both Walker and Cruz have splendidly passed this test, both of them are proven warriors against established and entrenched Democrat power blocs. Cruz has fewer battles to his credit and almost no victories but he does hold the edge in making war against the Republican establishment, perhaps because he was in position to do so.
Looking at the history of both men over all, I conclude they are, as far as politicians go, good bets to hold to conservatism once they gain higher office and that means they will have to make war on two fronts against a common foe, the Democrats and their henchmen in the media as well as against the Republican establishment and their henchmen on K St. and on Wall Street. These are daunting challenges for any president.
In judging these men we look at their weaknesses on immigration and I think that Cruz has overcome his H1B position by his vigorous opposition to amnesty. Anyway, there are arguments on both sides of the H-1B debate concerning truly high tech candidates. The problem as I see it is that people in Silicon Valley are not above exploiting these candidates to drive down wages. But I am not fully knowledgeable about these facts. Any weakness Scott Walker has concerning immigration is compensated for by his courageous history of doing what he says he will do in office him him him and he has explicitly abandoned the dark side for the light.
If we apply these tests to the next rung of conservative candidates, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, they do not score nearly as high and Marco Rubio is virtually disqualified by his treacherous alliance with The Gang of 8 on amnesty. As Churchill says, he "re-ratted" as best could but Marco Rubio has betrayed a callow side to his character which leaves me terribly uneasy, even while conceding his considerable rhetorical skills. Rand Paul has taken on the Obama administration in his filibuster against drone strikes (and he won where Ted Cruz failed) but he has not shown much disposition to take on the Republican establishment. He cut his deal with Mitch McConnell.
I end where I began, in support of either Cruz or Walker and in that order.
That's funny. Scott Walker met with Jeff Sessions and took on all of Jeff Sessions positions on immigration.
But that is not enough for you, is it?
You still have to see spiders on the wall everywhere, don't you?
You still don't trust anyone....except the one YOU select. And if we do not agree, then we are stupid and the problem.
Did I get that right?
As long as Walker sticks with Sessions I am fine with him.
We do have major shortages in high skilled areas in this country thanks to our wonderful education system, particularly in medicine, science, and technology. Those visas actually serve a purpose. I am a defense contractor that sells IT services and there are quite a few positions we can’tfill. We have to higher US citizens with security clearance and pay wellabove the market. I would imagine someone without the restrictions wpuld have to pluck someone out of India.