Posted on 04/22/2015 2:49:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Not always majority support, granted, but Ramesh Ponnuru reminds us there’s a sizable chunk of voters out there who are open to reducing legal as well as illegal immigration. Given widespread paranoia among top Republicans about losing Latinos forever over grassroots opposition to amnesty, Walker moving to Mitt Romney’s right by questioning legal immigration seems counterintuitive and politically dangerous. But is it? Per Ponnuru, hmmmm:
Interesting, but maybe that 39 percent opposition is driven almost entirely by Republicans, people whom Walker can already count on to support him as nominee, in which case his legal immigration position isn’t winning him any new votes. Look back a bit further to another Gallup poll from last year, though, and you’ll see that’s not true:
Even among indies, a strong plurality of 43 percent wants immigration decreased. At a minimum, 74 percent of American adults don’t want to see immigration increase, putting them squarely at odds with a lefty base that’s forever clamoring for amnesty. Go back another year, to 2013, and you’ll find even stronger opposition to legal immigration via a Fox News poll:
The Fox data isn’t as refined as the Gallup data because it includes no option for keeping immigration levels as they are now, but it’s revealing that when given a stark choice between more or less, nearly all demographic groups say “less” — including nonwhites. There’s potential there for Walker. And framing this issue explicitly in terms of protecting American workers’ wages could help him with another vulnerability, notes pollster Kellyanne Conway:
The left will try to caricature him as union-busting, as anti-worker [because of Wisconsin’s collective bargaining reforms]. This gives him the opportunity to say ‘if you’re for amnesty, you’re anti-worker. What I am is pro-worker. It is anti government corruption. Having public sector union members expect Wisconsin taxpayers pay 100 percent of their benefits, that wasn’t fair.’ It’s a matter of fairness. Allow him to explain all of that as pro-worker not anti-worker and if he can do that he’ll be fine. Also, this gives him a distinction among a Republican field that’s getting increasingly crowded. This allows him to be seen as a working-class, populist hero—a working class governor who’s a natural populist, it’s just a natural fit. I don’t know if Mitt Romney could have pulled this off. Then you fast forward and you think of this idea versus Hillary Clinton—if she even has anything to say on immigration—this is the winning hand. This is absolutely the winning hand.
I don’t know about that last part. If this was an obviously winning hand, some savvy top-flight Republican contender would have seized on it in 2008 or 2012, no? (I know, I know — “there were no savvy Republicans running in 2008 and 2012!”) Certainly, though, Conway’s describing Walker’s best argument for his position. And Ponnuru, in another recent piece, offers another: “[I]mmigrants would assimilate more quickly — and earn higher wages — if the country took in fewer of them and didn’t consign many of them to a second-tier workforce without the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.” Reducing legal immigration: Not just good for American workers but good for immigrant workers too!
Just tell me this: Is Walker really going to own this argument and defend it under withering lefty fire? Standing firm while under attack from liberals is his trademark, admittedly, but it won’t just be lefties hammering him this time. It’ll be the GOP’s donor class too, which will be horrified at the thought of seeing a key supply of cheap(er) labor cut off. That’s the deep mystery at the heart of Walker’s shift on this issue. Why would a guy who already enjoys plenty of goodwill with conservatives risk alienating the Chamber of Commerce wing, which also likes him and would be willing to put many millions of dollars at his disposal in the campaign — provided he doesn’t screw them on one of their pet issues, as he now seems to be doing? Very strange. Maybe Walker figures that he’s fighting a losing battle trying to compete with Jeb for establishment money and has decided to try to win with conservative votes instead, which could cut off Rubio’s and Cruz’s paths to the nomination. Once that happens and it’s Walker versus Bush, one on one, Walker may be calculating that he’ll win that battle and then the donor class will have no choice but to support him.
Besides, to answer my own question, let’s be realistic: Having spent most of his political life thus far as a loud and proud amnesty shill, Scott Walker’s not going to suddenly transform into Tom Tancredo and remain that way for the duration of the campaign. In fact, read carefully what he’s already said about wages and legal immigration to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and you’ll find that he hasn’t actually called for reducing immigration levels. He simply wants policymakers to consider the impact on wages when setting those levels. That’s significant, but it’s as mild a gesture as you can make in this direction and it’s something Walker will have no difficulty walking away from later if need be — e.g., “my staff and I have looked at wage effects from current immigration streams and we think the status quo is sustainable.” Before righties line up behind Walker on this issue, which could force other candidates to mimic his position, let’s at least have some confidence that he’ll defend his position once he really starts taking a pounding for it. Do you have that confidence yet? After he’s already conspicuously reversed himself on immigration to solve a political problem once before?
refugee scumbags arriving
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/
Scott has a problem.
He states his immigration policy has changed.
What do you do if you want to protect the jobs of U. S. Citizens? Don’t you send back the people who are here illegally holding down jobs?
In this video clip his old (2013) policy is aired in a second video clip. He backs illegals staying in the U. S. if they pay a fine.
It is also mentioned that he favored the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill. (You know, amnesty but not an amnesty) He acknowledges that.
Then in this (03/01/2015) clip, Walker is asked if illegals can stay, if they pay a fine. He responds with, I believes a way can be found to do that.
This is the same policy as his old policy.
Then he states that his policy has changed. No Scott, it hasn’t changed. You just got through endorsing the same policy, illegals being allowed to stay in our country if they pay a fine. So you even fibbed about it.
In 2006/07, 2013, and now in 2015, his immigration policy regarding illegal immigrants is the same as that under McCain/Kennedy. Let them pay a fine and stay.
Immigration is discussed starting at 9:20 and the “...a way can be found...” is located at 10:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uymMeeRV1RU
The perception of those watching is that Walker has multiple positions on immigration and flipflops. So if you combine the support for his multiple positions, then yes, his position does well in the polls.
What’s amazing is that after 14 years of immigration on the front burner, so many don’t know the facts. I was recently at a TeaParty event where taxes, not immigration was the #1 issue.
One professional staffer of a tax issue group made false statements about immigration that would not be supported by anyone who follows the facts. There are too many like him that take positions out of ignorance.
Repeatedly I hear anti-illegals say that illegals should not vote. That only legals should vote. Huh?
They accuse vote fraud as coming from illegals when clearly the fact is that extremely few illegals vote. Overwhelmingly, vote fraud is by citizens, mostly those who get their money from the incumbent status quo.
On this forum we support defeating Obama’s amnesty any way we can.
The we have a guy run that says he can find a way to let the illegals remain in country. Shouldn’t he be finding away to get rid of them?
He states his policy is different, ground-breaking, a real change from the beltway vision...
And then it’s revealed it’s McCain/Kennedy in a can.
Ouch!
Given the broad division, we’re not going to get a candidate that will deport, by force or policy trickle, illegals. What we can get is a candidate who will walk the minefield and that revolves around welfare. Cut the welfare element and punish political units that give welfare to illegals. It’s a conservative populist issue.
In-state tuition, taxation, crime, jobs, welfare are all ripe for targeting abuses by illegals.
That’s exactly would be implemented by a guy who truly did want to get rid of illegals.
He wouldn’t look for a way to keep them here. He would look for ways to get them out.
What’s more, he’d be so proud of it, he would sing it loud and clear.
There wouldn’t be any double-talk about finding a way to keep them here if they want to stay.
I’m so sick of double-talking candidates. Right now is the time to address it. That’s what we’re doing.
The GOP needs to remember that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. Better to hang onto your base voters and give them what they want, rather than support something they hate on the off chance that you *might* draw some future Latino support.
Polls show that public supports Scott Walker’s stance on immigration.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
His position is perfect. Always has been but you listen to the media and what they tell you to think. I have told your for months that this is the guy to support but you keep going for some other person who is no where near prime time. You’ll get it eventually. I might just have to drag you kicking and screaming to the polls but I will get you there for Walker. lol.
If I were a Hillary Clinton operative, I would post article after article on FR praising Scott Walker.
As surely as day follows night, the “Cruz or Lose” absolutists, will launch their attacks and the conservative cause will founder, insuring that Jeb Bush (a/k/a Mitt Romney Lite) will be the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.
Walker would beat the crap out of Hillary in the general; Cruz would beat the crap out of Hillary in the general; there are probably three or four as yet undeclared conservative candidates who would whip Hildebeest straight up.
The only way we lose in 2016 is if the Cruz supporters and the Walker supporters gash each other so badly that a compromise candidate is the only answer (read, Jeb Bush or Lindsey Graham).
To all supporters of republican candidates: By all means, lay out the case for your candidate and do it often. Do NOT, however, denigrate any other conservative candidates, simply because you think he or she might keep you from getting what YOU want. In other words, let’s all grow up and act like responsible adults.
BTW, it would be a near-heroic act if the conservative frontrunners were to address their own fanatical supporters and say to them, “Look, I am not going to cut down my fellow conservative candidates, and I don’t want you to, either. We will rise or fall based on OUR ideas and OUR virtues, not on what we claim are the shortcomings of others.
LOL
Look, do you really think I’m so stupid I’d dis walker based on a Leftist’s smear?
He was asked a question and he answered it.
If this was his view, I wouldn’t like it and I would address it no doubt. What really bothers me is that he’s trying to say he changed his policy and now has the best plan. He doesn’t.
Close the border and let them stay. They pay a fine.
This is the McCain/Kennedy bill.
Don’t try to hawk it as something new.
You can’t blame this on the Left. Scott got himself in this situation.
Show me how to get to 270 EVs by promising to kick illegals out of the country? I just don’t think it’s realistic.
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.