January 3, 2011 - Walker assumes Office of Governor of Wisconsin.
June 27, 2011: Walker Revokes In-state Tuition For Undocumented Students Attending Univ And Colleges In Wisconsin "- On Sunday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) signed his two-year 2011-2013 budget, which included ending in-state tuition for undocumented students attending public universities and colleges. In-state tuition for undocumented students was approved two years ago by former Governor Jim Doyle (D) after the Hispanic community struggled for 10 years to pass it....
Walker signed his two-year budget at the Fox Valley Metal-Tech's Plant in Ashwaubenon near Greenbay. More than 200 protestors were outside the company with signs calling Walker, "You dirty rat" and "Shame, shame."..."
[NO other governor has revoked instate tuition for illegals. NO other governor has survived a recall election.]
March 2015: “We strongly dispute this account. Governor Walker has been very clear that he does not support amnesty and believes that border security must be established and the rule of law must be followed. His position has not changed, he does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this story line is false,” she announced in an email to journalists Thursday afternoon.”
“I made it clear that for me, if somebody wants to be a citizen, they need to go back to their country of origin, get in line, no preferential treatment,” Walker said. “In terms of what to do beyond that, again, that’s something we got to work with Congress on.”
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.".....
He criticized Walker for suggesting that he supported limiting legal immigration if it has a negative impact on the wages of American workers.
"There is considerable bipartisan agreement outside of Washington that we need to improve and streamline legal immigration so that we can remain a nation that welcomes and celebrates legal immigrants," Cruz said...
I think the big difference is we used to allow legal immigration to people that had education and/or skills to contribute to our society and wanted to come here to take advantage of opportunities, not free benefits. Now they are importing uneducated, unskilled people that do not want to integrate into our society, and instead of contributing to it they are a drain.
Well, it looks like I just found an area where I disagree with Senator Cruz. Unlimited legal immigration is little better than unlimited illegal immigration. We shouldn’t be taking in more than we can assimilate.
It has to be something in the DC smog.....everyone there must be breathing strange stuff.
Already posted yesterday
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3282839/posts
WALKERS PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR ILLEGALS, APRIL 24, 2015
“When I asked if he supported a pathway to legal status, he said no, he’d send them back to their country of origin and let them get in line with everybody else.”
I believe the establishment types (like NRO and the rest) want to fabricate an image of Walker for conservative consumption. They want us to believe he’s the guy for us.
But in the end, it’s nothing but words coming out of their mouths.
But what they can’t control is Walker himself, who doesn’t deliver the Cruz does.
Well, I, for one, think Walker has outflanked Cruz on the immigration issue. Walker isn’t saying legal immigration is bad for the country, but he is saying that it could be bad for American wage levels and that we should consider that impact when the limits are set.
Cruz had the choice of agreeing with something that most Americans will find to be a fine stroke of logic, or instead erecting the straw man that Walker is against legal immigration and attacking that, but that necessitated his making some very strong statements about immigration that even a considerable portion of his political base might take issue with. Given the current job market, the depressed wage levels, and the flood of illegals here already, is it really wise to stand proudly for what sounds like all the foreigners that want to come here legally. (He didn’t say that, but it’s not hard to get there from what he did say, and that’s his mistake. I suspect he can rely upon Walker to politely ignore it, by the way. We’ll see.)
Given his proficiency at debating, I suspect he’ll soon decide he erred and that Walker has a point. His attempt to get the headline changed to something less confrontational, as indicated in the addendum to the article itself, is probably an indication of that.