Posted on 04/22/2015 12:35:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Scott Walker’s most recent comments on immigration may make possible an honest-to-God debate about America’s immigration policy. It’s about time.
Chatting with Glenn Beck on Monday morning, Walker said:
The next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal-immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, protecting American workers and American wages. . . . What is [current legal immigration policy] doing for American workers? What is this doing to wages? We need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.
But, Walker observed, among elected officials, questioning our currently legal immigration policy is “a fundamentally lost issue.”
And Republicans quickly proved him right. Utah senator Orrin Hatch dismissed as “poppycock” Walker’s insinuation that high levels of legal immigration might have negative effects on employment and wages. Arizona senator John McCain declared that immigrants were necessary to supplement an aging population: “I think most statistics show that they fill part of the workforce that are much needed.” South Dakota senator John Thune, head of the Senate Republican Conference, admitting that he had not heard Walker’s comments exactly, still declared: “We have a workforce issue in this country. . . . So having a robust legal-immigration process helps us fill jobs that otherwise wouldn’t be getting filled.” And Ohio senator Rob Portman retreated to sentiment: ““As a party, we’ve always embraced immigrants coming here legally, following the rules. And it’s enriched our country immeasurably.”
But these are, of course, responses to a straw man — namely, that Scott Walker opposes legal immigration. His campaign has been clear that that is not the case: He “strongly supports legal immigration,” said spokeswoman AshLee Strong, “and like many Americans, believes that our economic situation should be considered, instead of arbitrary caps on the amount of immigrants that can enter.” Walker is simply suggesting that American policymakers consider Americans when making policy.
That is controversial? Apparently, since even leading Republicans refuse to engage Walker’s question.
That refusal should alarm every prospective Republican voter.
First, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that current legal-immigration levels — approximately 1 million new immigrants a year — are not an automatic economic boon. Despite the much-touted link between current immigration levels and increases in income for native-born Americans, it is not at all obvious that those increases could not be achieved by other means, and those gains are partially offset by wage decreases among foreign-born workers, who, predictably, are forced to compete with new immigrants for scarce job opportunities.
Second, the Beltway political consensus that Walker is bucking is sharply out of step with public opinion. In January, Gallup found that 39 percent of Americans would like to see immigration levels decrease; only 7 percent wanted more immigration. (A staggering 84 percent of Republicans were dissatisfied with current immigration levels.) Last summer, 45 percent of respondents to a Reuters/Ipsos poll called for a reduction in legal immigration, while only 17 percent called for an increase. And in August, asked by the Polling Company how U.S. businesses struggling to find workers should respond, 75 percent of respondents chose “They should raise wages and improve working conditions to attract Americans.” Only 8 percent chose “More immigrant workers should be allowed into the country to fill these jobs.” Notably, the results were equally lopsided across ethnic (including Hispanic) and party lines. Black Americans preferred the first option by a margin of 86 percent to 3 percent.
That latter finding should debunk MSNBC’s nonsense claim that Walker sees “riling up the party’s older and whiter conservative base as the key to general election success.” Rather, Walker, more than any Republican candidate, is in step with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which in 2010 reported, “Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men.” “Competition from immigration accounts for approximately 40 percent of the 18 percentage point decline in black employment in recent years,” commissioner Peter Kirsanow wrote at National Review last fall. “That’s nearly a million jobs lost by blacks to immigrants.” Republicans have long lamented their dismal electoral performance in minority communities. Walker’s position is far more likely to sway these voters — and, more important, help these communities — than the platitude-filled “minority outreach” of Republican campaigns past.
But there is, finally, a question of principle at stake. Is the Republican party a party of ideas, of free and open debate in which the best ideas can win the day? Or is it a party of censorship that requires toeing predetermined lines? Because it is the Left that is notorious for demanding ideological uniformity; it is the Left that ostracizes and excommunicates. Democrats’ marketplace of ideas has always been a command economy — which is why Hillary Clinton’s ideas are from the 1990s, and Barack Obama’s were from the 1930s. But the reaction to Walker’s call for an open debate on legal-immigration policy has been indistinguishable from what one sees on the left. A Republican party that shouts down anyone who calls for a closer examination of the evidence is thoroughly illiberal — or thoroughly liberal, as the case may be.
John Thune, John McCain, et al. presumably do not support open borders, which means the question has to be, Where do we draw the line? Scott Walker wants to ask that question. A healthy party would have the debate, and eagerly.
— Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow at the National Review Institute.
“Okay, then you’ve just listed yourself as a person who can’t watch and listen to a video and discern truth from it.”
No, this is about your prediction. QUOTE: ““This whole “NEW AND WONDERFUL” immigration plan of his is a fraud.”
Tell us, Svengali, how you know that what Walker says today will be true or false in the future.
1. Walker says he doesn’t approve of an amnesty
2. Walker says he will find a way for them to stay
3. Walker says his immigration police has changed
1. 2006/07 Walker agrees with the McCain/Kennedy bill
-—McCain Kennedy allows the illegal to pay a fine and stay
2. 2013 Walker agrees that illegals can pay a fine and stay
3. 2015 Walker states if illegals pay a fine, a way can be found for them to stay
1. His plan is the old McCain Plan
2. He claims his plan has been changed.
3. That isn’t true.
So yes, his claim that it changed is not true. His claim that it is new and something nobody else has, is fraud.
“Tell us, Svengali, how you know that what Walker says today will be true or false in the future.”
I can only tell you what is true right now. Right now what he says is not true. His claim is a fraud.
Once again, you reveal yourself to be a person who can’t watch and listen to a video and extrapolate reasoned meaning from it.
“Once again, you reveal yourself to be a person who can’t watch and listen to a video and extrapolate reasoned meaning from it.”
I can watch anything you post. No problem. What you can’t do is simply state you don’t like Walker. I don’t have a problem with that. But posting snippets from left-wing sites to cover your squishy ass is problematic for me.
Be man enough to shout “I HATE WALKER’S GUTS” and be done with it.
You’re a guy that can watch a 13:15 video and not grasp what the content is.
You’re also a guy that can’t grasp that what someone is telling you is true based on the content of that video.
Another words, I can outline what you need to look for that will provide the ability for you to gain meaning and understanding for you.
The problem is, you simply refuse to do it. You’d rather make assumptions about whether I like Walker or not, and base you beliefs on that rather than the words from Walker’s own mouth.
Why don’t I say I don’t like Walker? Why don’t I just admit I hate him? Will that change what Walker said? NO.
None the less, that’s what you ask for. Do you realize how idiotic that makes you look?
Walker fought the Unions and won.
Walker fought off a recall and won.
Walker fired a number of government environmental workers on earth day.
Why do I have to hate the guy to recognize what he has said with regard to illegal immigration is not true? Oh yes, that’s right, I don’t. All I have to do is listen, and think.
I don’t hate Walker. I don’t like people who lie to me. I don’t like people who try to mislead Conservatives and use them. I still don’t necessarily have to hate them.
“You’re a guy that can watch a 13:15 video and not grasp what the content is.”
Don’t even try to assume anything about me. You know nothing - squat - about me.
We do know, though, that you’ve posted “I HATE WALKER” on more than 1,000 threads. That’s okay. You hate Walker. We can accept you hating Walker.
Please link me to one place on this forum where I have said I hate Walker.
I don’t have to assume anything about you.
You prove what I know about you with each new post
“Please link me to one place on this forum where I have said I hate Walker.”
This is too easy -
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:doughtyone/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
Not a one there bud.
“Not a one there bud.”
HaHaHa!!!!!!HaHaHa!!!!!!HaHaHa!!!!!!
Okay, link me to just one.
You proved nothing
That’s okay Kidd. Keep telling yourself that until the hyperventilating subsides.
Then go back and watch the video.
You’re right. I didn’t prove anything.
Walker did. He proved everything I said.
Take care.
I watched the video.
At 11:00 Walker explains his change in attitude.
All I can surmise is that you won’t let a man correct his viewpoint. That might make sense if the man had a history of stabbing conservatives in the back. But he doesn’t. He has a solid record of keeping his promises.
I’ve told you how you could change my opinion, but you instead chose to reply with an attitude.
I still prefer Cruz over Walker, but you’ve done nothing to show that I should eliminate Walker from consideration. You have failed to sway my opinion on Walker.
A comment about GDP is in order here. It's not the increase in GDP that people detect in the real world, even though that is what is reported. What actually matters to people is per-capita increase in GDP.
For example, if GDP increased in any year by 5%, the political class would be ecstatic about it; however, if during the same period, the population increased by 10%, the per-capita increase in GDP would actually be negative and most people would correctly detect a very bad economy.
Kidd, when Walker says words to the effect we’ll find a way to let them stay here, that is his current vision.
At one point he says his views have changed. Not according to him they haven’t. He restates his old policy of letting them pay a fine and stay.
Then he tells you that his policy has changed, and you believe him.
I don’t understand why you do, when he just a minute before stated they can pay a fine, and he thinks a way can be found for them to stay.
As for his statement that he doesn’t believe or support amnesty, this is the same old “amnesty, not an amnesty” that McCain was hawking in 2006/07, and that Walker supported then, and still does now.
When a guy says if they pay a fine, we can find a way for them to stay, that’s what he means.
He hasn’t corrected his viewpoint. If he thinks he has, he’s either not being honest with himself, or he honestly doesn’t have the capacity to understand the conflicts within his own policy and policy statements.
I am always open to people changing their views.
When they do, I’ll recognize it.
I’ve been hawking this issue since at least 1995. Why would I give Walker a hard time if he had really changed? I’d be slapping him on the back if he had. He hasn’t.
>>What actually matters to people is per-capita increase in GDP.<<
Yes, that’s what I meant when I said that a higher population might increase GDP, but could also depress wage levels.
I also think that a stable, experienced, work force could increase GDP even more. When you replace experienced workers with new ones at lower wages, the bottom line might look better for a while, and sales might increase because prices can be held down due to the reduced wage costs, but productivity can take a serious hit also as employee loyalty goes out the door.
I’m not anti-immigrant in the least, but Walker’s stance is a rational one that we should be considering. As I understand it, Canada takes essentially that approach. We are no longer a frontier country that needs people to populate the plains; we are a mature country that is too attractive a destination to allow all who want to immigrate to do so. The questions are who, and how many in any given year?
Obama’s answer: Everyone and any one, and we’d sure like you to vote Democrat in gratitude. I honestly can’t see why recent immigrants who got here legally would be in favor of throwing open the doors like that, and I think a good politician can make inroads in that group if he or she tries.
GREAT piece!
bttt
The comments from the usual FR suspects (campaigning for someone lower in the polls) shows that Walker is over the target!
An argument being bandied about, advocating for more immigrants, is that immigrant labor helps push others up the socioeconomic ladder (that it is a useful forcing function). I guess that would be from all those useless degrees that leave them unemployable.
What's wrong with the trades?
Why have so many Americans been required to train foreign workers to take over their jobs (a small reprieve and a paycheck before they're out the door) - or just been laid off?
Why all this buzz, belief and worship of the holy grail of STEM?
"STEM is an acronym referring to the academic disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The term is typically used when addressing education policy and curriculum choices in schools to improve competitiveness in technology development."
Why are graduates coming out of U.S. public schools so ignorant?
What moves people (and their offspring) up the ladder of success is opportunity and jobs.
Walker and Sessions do not see this as "zero sum labor economics," as reported by the WSJ.
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.