Tom Seaver. Borrow Chico's soap.
Never return.
Posted on 05/12/2015 1:25:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's comments last month opposing legal immigration came as a shock. How could a man who until a little over month ago was even willing to consider a path to citizenship for undocumented workers pull such an "Olympic-quality flip-flop"?
But the real story is not Walker's switcheroo, but the conservative punditocracy's switcheroo that paved the way for his.
Walker, who is fast sprinting into the first place for the Republican presidential nomination, told Glenn Beck recently that "The next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that's based, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and wages." And lest there be any doubt that by this he meant a more restrictive immigration policy, he noted that he arrived at his position after talking to Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a powerful restrictionist who has been the single biggest obstacle to any immigration reform that didn't involve drastically scaling back current levels and sealing the border.
Walker's position is odd for someone who has made a career out of breaking the chokehold of labor unions whose whole agenda involves artificially restricting the supply of new workers to protect jobs and wages of existing workers. But what's even odder is that it places Walker — who had also heartily endorsed more legal immigration in high-skill areas and elsewhere — to the restrictionist right even of Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz. Their opposition — which to date has largely defined the outside edge of Republican restrictionism — was limited to illegal immigration. They never went so far as to suggest that the economic impact of legal immigration, especially the high-tech variety, on American wages and jobs was anything but positive. Romney had even floated the idea of "stapl(ing) a green card" to the diplomas of foreign graduates from American universities.
But if Walker thinks he can get away with embracing labor protectionism it's because he knows that respectable conservatives will give him cover, something he could not have counted on before. That's because, until recently, except for National Review, the vast bulk of smart-set conservative opinion was decisively in favor letting market need — not the arbitrary whim of a labor bureaucracy beholden to unions — set immigration levels.
No more.
To be sure, for many conservative pundits — such as The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, The Washington Examiner's Phillip Klein — Walker's comments were still anathema. But an equal — if not bigger — chorus was more sympathetic, not imaginable two presidential election cycles ago. Among them were relatively newer muckraking outfits such as Breitbart and The Daily Caller, which, until recently, had in its employ, Mickey Kaus, a liberal progressive solely because he shared its restrictionist agenda.
But also in this mix were the more established The Weekly Standard, which pulled its own flip-flop. Its founder (and dear friend) Bill Kristol used to be pro-immigration when he was pushing Sen. John McCain's presidency. But he opposed the 2013 Gang of Eight immigration reform bill on the dubious grounds that the "huge increase in immigration in that bill" would be "bad for working class and middle class wages and economic opportunity in this country." But the most prominent Walker defender was Ross Douthat, The New York Times' resident conservative who chastised Walker's conservative detractors for over reacting. Douthat lambasted them all as open border advocates (if only!) and congratulated Walker for doing a "real service" to his party by questioning its dominant "sunshine and roses" view of immigration.
But why has the conservative punditry turned so dramatically against its bedrock commitment to immigration on such short order? Because it regards restrictionism as a smart strategy and it doesn't much care for markets.
Many of these conservatives are convinced that courting Hispanics and other minorities with a pro-immigration stance is not the only road to the White House for Republicans, as some believe. That Romney received only 27% of the Hispanic vote — after inviting undocumented aliens to "self-deport" — might have contributed to his loss in the last presidential election, they admit. But that might not have been fatal if he hadn't also dissed 47% of potential voters as non-tax-paying liberal welfare queens.
Romney's contempt prompted millions of white voters, mostly men — the so-called Reagan Democrats — to sit out the last election. That's because they didn't identify with Democrats' progressive agenda and Republicans didn't offer them anything, these conservatives believe. These voters can be coaxed into the Republican fold, they maintain, by a solidly middle class, populist message. Restrictionism is an integral part of that.
It also helps that these conservatives are sympathetic to the "two cheers" for capitalism school of thought that worries about the effect of unbridled market forces on family and community. They have no principled objection to using the government to temper markets and strengthen families — and immigration restrictions are a perfectly acceptable part of that.
Should Walker continue to drift in their direction and harden his opposition to immigration, the GOP primary will be as much a fight for the Republican soul as it's about picking the best Republican to run for the White House.
The real story is you forgot to mention he got a parking ticket 10 years ago.
How about reading it first?
Just like my thinking on the illegal immigrants has changed, I believe as one gets a good picture of this thing, they would want a sealed border and conditions that create voluntary deportation rather than a road to citizenship.
Tom Seaver. Borrow Chico's soap.
Never return.
To be sure, for many conservative pundits — such as The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, The Washington Examiner’s Phillip Klein ————————————————————————————————
These are not conservative pundits. They are paid mouthpieces of The Cheap Labor Express.
Did I wake up in upside-down land? This is a bad thing?
Unless the Mexican judge gave him at least a 9.9 I’m not buying it.
Mass-immigration has been troublesome for the country in the modern era. It doesn’t really matter if the immigration has a legal blessing or not in terms of the overall effect of diluting the nation’s core population, flooding certain industries with lower-wage workers, and other negative effects.
I’d be fine with curtailing legal immigration levels along with general border security against the illegal form.
Reason’s writers confuse business interests (more workers, lower wages, etc.) with the national interest. While they coincide sometimes, they can also diverge, and this is one area where they have been diverging for a while.
, the vast bulk of smart-set conservative opinion was decisively in favor letting market need — not the arbitrary whim of a labor bureaucracy beholden to unions — set immigration levels
We are a nation, not a market.
Unless we let the market decide.
Then we lose our country.
That’s what the bulk of the ‘smart-set” doesn’t get. If we do not control our borders we do not control our destiny.
Saying one is for a “path to citizenship” for illegals is saying nothing. It only begs the question regarding whether the path includes sections of hot coals or broken glass.
Heck, even I’m for a path for them, but it will be a MUCH tougher row to hoe than the one offered to those that start legally.
The idea voiced by President Bush that “they are only doing the jobs that Americans will not do” was one of the most infuriating and ill informed thing I had ever heard a leader say. Whether it is a high or low skilled job, given the opportunity and adequate compensation Americans will do it.
I see nothing wrong with Governor Walker’s suggestion that the needs of American workers be considered in determining immigration policy. After all, he is seeking election as President of the United States, not head of the chamber of commerce or chief social worker for the world.
No illegal should become a citizen, even if you do support it.
Reason Magazine is the flagship libertarian magazine.
Here is the libertarian position on immigration.
COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
IMMIGRATION:
“”THE ISSUE: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
THE PRINCIPLE: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
SOLUTIONS: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
TRANSITIONAL ACTION: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””
First off, I give the definition for the word squatter:
[skwot-er]
noun
1.a person or thing that squats.
2.a person who settles on land or occupies property without title, right, or payment of rent.
3.a person who settles on land under government regulation, in order to acquire title.
Word Origin and History for squatter:
“settler who occupies land without legal title,” 1788, agent noun from squat (v.); in reference to paupers or homeless people in uninhabited buildings, it is recorded from 1880.
The Left are no dummies. They know that the Conservative base is rabid about the illegal squatters without legal right to occupy this nation’s sovereign territory. Some of us (not enough, as I can see) are aware that these squatters are getting set to receive their DemonRAT issued voter registration cards for the 2016 elections. I know for certain these squatters will vote and they will affect the elections for the DemonRATs. We have lost the battle here because we have not focused our energies on maintaining the integrity of the elections. It is here we have done squat about the squatters. However, it is urgent we elect a President this election cycle who will. The more time we give them, the deeper hole we will get. That is because the DemonRATs are putting their game plan on the fast track. They will give as as many of these illegal squatters, as fast as they can, the vote; which will be quasi-citizenship. That would be like giving a squatter a piece of your property without the legal title to do so.
Because of this urgency to elect a President who will correct the illegal squatter issue, it is urgent we be prepared to unite behind the candidate who does get nominated.
I warn everyone who reads this. Because the Left are not dummies, they will infiltrate the Conservative sites and sow discord, Their objective is to keep us divided so we will not do the thing we are best at: the grassroots mobilization of the campaign. What we do, the DemonRATs have to pay millions to get people in the streets knocking on doors and waving signs. We will have to be disciplined to not be disheartened by the tactics of the Left. A big tactic will be stirring up fights between us and causing people to stay home. It will be psychological and we can be taken off our game if we have no self-control.
My point is that my solution for them would be a catch 22 - If I were running for office...
It thought you said that you would give them citizenship, where is the catch 22 and the solution, in that?
I love it when liberals write articles telling conservatives how bad their candidates are!
The attempt at painting Walker a flip-flopper morphs into support for open markets (open borders)....which no liberal really supports.
This is a laughable article.
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.