ILL IMM Scott Walker Lays Out Pro American Worker Stance on Immigration

[Be Well]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ut-pro-american-worker-stance-on-immigration/

by Matthew Boyle 20 Apr 2015 Washington, DC

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate, pledged to protect American workers from the economic effects, not only of illegal immigration but also of a massive increase in legal immigration.

During an interview with Glenn Beck, Walker became the first declared or potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate to stake out a position on immigration fully in line with that of Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He also noted that he has been working with Chairman Sessions on the issue to learn more about it.

Walker is now the only potential or declared GOP presidential candidate to discuss the negative effects of a massive increase in legal immigration on American workers:

In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying—the next president and the next congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages, because the more I’ve talked to folks, I’ve talked to Senator Sessions and others out there—but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today—is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.​

Walker discussed how in the past he did support amnesty, but says he doesn’t anymore, because he has learned more about the issue. That shows him to be one of the most open-minded GOP candidates on such matters. Walker went on to say:

As I said, I think when Chris Wallace a few weeks back, when I was on Fox News Sunday, asked me about this, he said. ‘did you change your position at least from some of these views from a decade ago’ and I said, ‘yeah.’ I think the American people not only want people who stand firm on issues, but people who listen to folks who have got rational thoughts and for me a lot of it was talking not just to citizens all across the country but to governors in border states who face real serious concerns about what’s happening on our border and elsewhere.​

Walker says he discussed immigration policy in depth with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott when he visited the border a few weeks ago. He said that he doesn’t think he was “directly wrong” before but didn’t have a “full appreciation for what is the risk along our border.” He continued:

I knew there were people traveling, coming across the border, but really what you have is much greater than that. What you have is international criminal organizations, the drug cartels aren’t just smuggling drugs—they’re smuggling firearms and smuggling not only humans but trafficking and horrific situations. It’s an issue that’s not just about safety or about national security, it’s about sovereignty. If we had this kind of assault along our water based ports, the federal government would be sending in the navy. And yet there is a very minimal force along our land-based borders, be it New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, or California, and so to me it was clearly far bigger than immigration.

We need to have a much bigger investment from the federal government to secure the border, through not only infrastructure but personnel and certainly technology to do that and to make a major shift. If you don’t do that, there’s much greater issues than just immigration. Folks coming in from potentially ISIS-related elements and others around the world, there’s safety issues from the drugs and drug trafficking and gun trafficking and gun things with regard—but to get to immigration you have got to secure the border, because nothing you do on immigration fundamentally works if you don’t secure that border.
​

Walker also discussed the need for interior enforcement:

Then I think you need to enforce the law and the way you effectively do that is to require every employer in America to use an effective E-Verify system and by effective I mean you need to require particularly small businesses and farmers and ranchers. We got to have a system that works, but then the onus is on the employers and the penalties have to be steep that they’re only hiring people who are here, who are legal to be here. No amnesty, if someone wants to be a citizen, they have to go back to their country of origin and get in line behind everybody else who’s waiting.​

This development, perhaps one of if not the biggest of the 2016 presidential campaign so far, comes as Walker has taken a commanding lead in polls in all three of the first GOP primary states: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

The reason why this development is so significant is that the two establishment-backed candidates, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, both have an in-depth understanding of the immigration issue and come down on the side that supports special interests’ desire for a massive increase in legal immigration that hurts American workers.

Meanwhile, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY)—who like Walker make up the more grassroots conservative side of the field—don’t really weigh in on the legal side of the immigration issue. So as Walker continues to gain traction as a potential candidate, and readies himself for a launch, it’s quite clear he’s making a significant effort to learn what he now clearly understands is one of the most under-appreciated angles of the jagged razor-edge issue of immigration—the angle that polling shows can help him clear the GOP field and easily eliminate Rubio and Bush, whose pro-open borders positions stand against American workers.

Rubio, the lead member of last Congress’ Senate “Gang of Eight” bill, supported increasing legal immigration by nearly 33 million more people in the next 10 years. Bush, an outspoken advocate for open borders, supports that and more—as evidenced by various comments he’s made over the years,and since being considered as a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate.

Rubio is having immigration problem in the wake of a Spanish-language interview he gave to Univision’s Jorge Ramos, in much the same way as during the Gang of Eight fight two years ago. Walker, on the other hand, is coming out surging on the issue as a modern-day populist sticking up for American workers against what’s essentially an unholy political establishment alliance between big labor and big business when it comes to immigration. Meanwhile, Bush is facing serious issues convincing Americans on the campaign trail that they should support yet another member of his family—him—for president, especially when he stands for special interests against ordinary Americans when it comes to things like immigration.

The Chamber of Commerce and several other big business special interests have locked step with big labor groups like the AFL-CIO to advocate for more foreign workers to be brought into America. Each has a different motivation, but generally business wants cheaper foreign labor and unions want more members. Factor into this that with an H-1B visa program fraught with problems—and even some blatant fraud—Silicon Valley is pushing for cheaper foreign high tech labor to be brought into America, even though most independent labor economists agree there is no labor shortage in those fields. So Walker could have found the golden grail issue that not only puts him on the right side of a policy prescription but on the side that will help him win politically.

Polling data from KellyAnne Conway’s the polling company and from Paragon Insights—a poll that was commissioned by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) last cycle—found that the stance Walker is now taking on immigration, a populist pro-American worker-first stance, is wildly popular with Republican, Democrat, and independent voters. What’s more, even though the left and political establishment may try to label Walker as “nativist” or “anti-immigrant”—and they certainly will—his position is pro-immigrant and celebrates those who have followed the process correctly to enter the United States of America in accordance with the laws of this country.

A piece from the Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey Anderson last week laid out just how important this issue is—and how Sessions has been standing alone defending Americans from the entire political class on it. Anderson questions whether anyone running for president on the Republican side will embrace the opening here—and it now seems Walker has taken the plunge and is going to fight tooth and nail on this front. “If there is anything that liberals and Big Business can seemingly agree upon, it’s that we don’t need an approach to immigration that benefits Main Street,” Anderson wrote in the piece last week. “It remains to be seen whether anyone running for president will seize this opening and buck the liberal-corporate consensus, but in the meantime Sen. Jeff Sessions has been ably holding down the fort against Democrats and Republicans alike.”

Walker, the guy who has succeeded in taking on the special interests behind enemy lines in the left wing bastion of Wisconsin, may be about to do something incredible on this front on the national stage. It’s only fitting that the interview in which Walker came out this strong on immigration began with him and Beck discussing how the Wisconsinite took on the left in their own backyard.

“Forgive us for being a little skeptical of somebody coming from the cradle of progressivism,” Beck opened the interview with Walker by saying.

“But being from Madison, Wisconsin, and being around this, does this make you more predisposed to it or make it easier for you to see it coming?” Beck asked. Walker described himself in response:

Deep, deep under fire and battle tested. I think I have extra layers of battle armor on there. You’re right: Madison, Wisconsin, which is kind of to the left of Pravda… it is the home of the progressive movement, the home of—AFSCME was started there, collective bargaining was started there… it was the state that had the first income tax. Who would have thought that that city and the state of Wisconsin that hasn’t gone Republican since 1984, we would be able to take on the public employee unions four years ago and not only win that battle but win the recalls against a whole bunch of state senators, win the recall against me and the lieutenant governor in the state, but now Wisconsin when it comes to public employee unions we have no seniority or tenure, we can hire and fire based on merit, we can pay based on performance, we’re the 25th state in the nation to have Right-To-Work, we require photo ID for voting, we’ve defunded Planned Parenthood and pushed pro-life legislation and we’ve passed concealed carry and castle doctrine, we cut taxes by $2 billion—in fact property taxes are lower today than they were four years ago—who would have thought all that would happen? But we said shortly after the 2010 election that we had to go big and we had to go bold and it was put up or shut up time. Even in Madison, Wisconsin, we were able to get that done.​

Looking forward to perhaps a time when Walker might become the president—depending on how he does in the GOP primary, then if he wins that the general election—the forces aligned against him standing up for Americans on immigration against the special interests will be stronger than he’s ever faced before on any of these other challenges. But he just might be capable at stopping them.

When Beck asked him what the “secret” to success on these battles—and on the election battlefield—was, Walker noted that to win critical independents “you don’t have to move to the center on the issues.” Walker added:

You have to lead.You have to clearly spell out what you’re going to do, tell the people what you’re going to do and then do it. A lot of times in politics people think that to win the middle and independents, that somehow independents are squishy or moderate. Most independents have just been burned too many times before and they’re not willing to commit to one party because they’re frustrated being told one thing and then people doing another. To lead, you don’t have to be with an independent on every single issue. You just have to look that person in the eye and tell them exactly what you’re doing to and sometimes that means telling them something that they won’t necessarily agree with but they’ll know on all the issues that you’re going to stand firm on what they do care about.
​

 

[Medical Maven]

If Walker does not vacillate or equivocate from this position, he will be the Hillary killer.

 

[Publius]

So far he is coming off as being a close Ron Paul knock offl.

 

[Be Well]

But sane, and he did defeat unions. He doesn't seem to back down easily, and he's unconnected with DEE CEE which is a huge plus.

 

[Be Well]

If Walker does not vacillate or equivocate from this position, he will be the Hillary killer.

I think Hitlery is doomed already. The book revealing her $ dishonesty and indeed illegality, is killing her already. That's probably why hardcores like De Blasio, Bloomberg and others aren't endorsing her.

All I can say is HA HA HA HA HA HA etc.

 

[Be Well]

I found this today.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02...ally-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary’s Foreign Government Payola

March 2, 2015 By Sean Davis

The Washington Post reported last week that the tax-exempt foundation run by Bill and Hillary Clinton accepted money from seven foreign governments while Hillary served as U.S. Secretary of State (it’s unclear how much foreign money the organization accepted while Hillary was a U.S. Senator). Super shady, right? It’s worse than that, though, because Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution actually bans foreign payola for U.S. officials.

The constitutional ban on foreign cash payments to U.S. officials is known as the Emoluments Clause and originated from Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. The purpose of the clause was to prevent foreign governments from buying influence in the U.S. by paying off U.S. government officials. Here’s the text of the clause:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
​

Various statutes and rules have been promulgated to effect the constitutional ban on foreign cash. The U.S. House of Representatives bans cash payments from foreign governments. The U.S. Senate, of which Hillary was a member from 2001 to 2009, bans cash payments from foreign governments. And the U.S. State Department bans cash payments from foreign governments. Let’s take a look at the specific language from the State Dept.:

Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”).

A prohibited source is a person (or an organization made up of such persons) who: is seeking official action by, is doing business or seeking to do business with, or is regulated by the employee’s agency, or has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.​

Does a foreign government have business with the U.S. State Department? Is a foreign government generally seeking official action by the U.S. State Department? You better believe it.

Oman, Qatar (which owns the Al-Jazeera network), Kuwait, and Algeria all funneled cash to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. Each country had business pending before the U.S. government. And it turns out that Hillary even met with the Algerian prime minister after her foundation cashed a $500,000 check from the Algerian government:

Clinton met with the president of Algeria during a 2012 visit to the country.

A State Department spokesman referred questions about the ethics-office reviews to the charity. Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesman, declined to comment.

Besides Algeria, a number of the other countries that donated to the foundation during Clinton’s time at the State Department also lobbied the U.S. government during that time.

Qatar, for instance, spent more than $5.3 million on registered lobbyists while Clinton was secretary of state, according to the Sunlight Foundation. The country’s lobbyists were reported monitoring anti-terrorism activities and efforts to combat violence in Sudan’s Darfur region. Qatar has also come under criticism from some U.S. allies in the region that have accused it of supporting Hamas and other militant groups. Qatar has denied the allegations.​

The official Team Clinton defense is that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives?

“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”​

If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses.

Now, because the Clintons are Clintons (“It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is…”), their fallback defense will likely be that they didn’t technically run afoul of the law. After all, Hillary didn’t officially take control of the foundation until after she left the State Dept. And the Constitution doesn’t ever say that foreign governments can’t bribe the impeached and disbarred spouses of government officials. Sure, the Constitution says current officials can’t accept dirty cash from foreign government, but it never says that jetset spouses who fly to sex slave islands with convicted sex offenders aren’t allowed to collect under-the-table foreign cash.

That defense makes sense if you think the Founders opposed the practice of foreign governments directly bribing U.S. officials, but wholeheartedly supported the practice of foreign governments indirectly bribing U.S. officials by paying off their spouses. Are we to believe that Hillary was so divorced from the goings-on of the foundation that she was just randomly given official control of it (including having her first name added to the tax-exempt organization’s official name) immediately after leaving the State Department? Are we to believe that poor Hillary just had no clue what was going on at her family’s tax-exempt slush fund?

Please. “I did not have fiscal relations with that government” isn’t going to fly this time. There is most definitely a controlling legal authority here, and it’s the U.S. Constitution.

The latest foreign payola scandal is just the latest chapter in the Clinton corruption novel. They played games with dirty cash in Arkansas. They played games with dirty cash literally in the White House. And now we know they were playing games with foreign cash while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution knew what could happen if U.S. officials put cash before their own country, so they banned the practice.

In other words, the Founders were Ready for Hillary.

 

[timbo]

I would LOVE to be able to just say I'll vote for Walker on this stand alone.

But been burned too many times by the Thieves of DC to just leap in.

I will wait and listen and read.

I know he is a fighter because all that happened to him in Wisconsin, but we shall see what pressure at a national level does to him.

And I will pray for him.

 

[Meemur]

If he also vows to get rid of Moochelle's awful school lunches, he'll be a shoo-in.

Here is the photo to which I refer:

http://wavy.com/2015/04/15/would-you-eat-this-school-lunch/

 

[Be Well]

If he also vows to get rid of Moochelle's awful school lunches, he'll be a shoo-in.

Here is the photo to which I refer:

http://wavy.com/2015/04/15/would-you-eat-this-school-lunch/

I wonder how is is on Communist Core.

 

[Medical Maven]

I think the immigration issue is the most critical one in this next election, yet you see most candidates avoiding it like a hot potato in their emails and campaign literature. They know it is the one issue that most people are boiling mad about and are hoping to skate by it in passing, given that they are bought and paid for by the progressive billionaires and the Chamber of Commerce.

This sole issue will decide my vote because if we don't stanch the bleeding soon, we will be dead. And if all of the candidates go for amnesty/open borders, I will vote for none of them. I will just vote for State and Local officials in 2016, (if we make it that far).

 

[Oreally]

well, if you want to judge by the absolute insane HATRED that people in and around Madison have for Walker, i'd say he has to be doing something right.

i'm not quite sold on scott for potus yet, but i am open to it

 

[D_el]

Since we are commenting on illegal immigration... here's an email I received from a die-hard patriot type...



"A book I was looking for"


So, I was walking through the mall, and went into a Muslim Bookshop.

The Clerk asked if he could help me, so I asked for a copy of the U.S. Immigration Policy Book regarding Muslims.

The Clerk said, “F*** off, get out, and stay out.”

I said, “Yes, that's the one.”

 

[Be Well]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ass-immigration-guilt-trips-at-all-time-high/

Polls: Americans’ Opposition to Mass Immigration, Guilt Trips at All Time High

by Katie McHugh21 Apr 2015

American opposition to the Obama administration and GOP establishment’s extremist immigration policies is boiling at an all-time high, a broad survey of polls shows.

Sixty percent of Americans are displeased with the current levels of immigration, according to Gallup—a decline from 72 percent in 2008, when the country plunged into a recession, but an increase of six percent from 2014. The majority of adults Gallup polled, 39 percent in a plurality, said they wanted to see immigration levels decrease. Gallup presents these numbers through a partisan filter as “fodder” for Republicans, discomforted as they are by the results.

According to Pew Research Center, 69 percent of Americans want to “restrict and control” immigration rates. That’s 72 percent of whites, 66 percent of blacks, and 59 percent of Hispanics. Pew frames its questions to suggest that minorities are being somehow oppressed in America, so the results are not only indicative of support for immigration control but also a rejection of the leftist narrative that the U.S. selfishly hoards its goodies from the world. (DREAMers are just breaking into the country for a better, more exciting life of murder and mayhem, you see.)

A nervous Reuters report, published before the historic 2014 midterm elections, found that support for reduced rates of immigration crushed support for an increase by a three-to-one margin, 45 percent to 17.

With reports revealing that foreign-born workers seized all newly-created jobs from 2000 to 2014, Americans sense that while low-skilled immigrants steal opportunities from Americans looking to enter the job market, highly-skilled immigrants imported on the cheap by businesses threaten to turn middle class professionals into commodities. Sixty-one percent of respondents polled by Princeton Survey Research Associates in June 2013 said we must restrict the number of highly-skilled foreign workers coming into the country, the same summer the Senate struggled to pass the Gang of Eight immigration bill to open the floodgates.

Perhaps the most stunning look at American resistance to mass immigration can be seen in a Polling Company study that revealed Americans believe businesses looking for workers should raise their wages rather than recruiting foreigners, 75 percent to eight. Across racial and political lines, respondents supported higher wages—with immigration restrictions, not minimum wage laws.

Also of concern are the waves of Muslims immigrating to America after the catastrophic September 11 Islamic terror attacks. Fully 49 percent of Americans believe that Muslims across the world hate the United States of America. Eighty-six percent believe that “radical” Muslims—for example, the Somali Muslims imported into Minnesota who leave to join ISIS—are a threat to the U.S., while only 34 percent believe we are “safer” after 9/11.

Such a broad swath of well-documented support for caps on immigration rates presents Republicans with an opportunity: Will they stake out a position against the extremist immigration policies that threaten America with demographic catastrophe? Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, uber-polite bête noire of the Left, has ditched his support for a pathway to U.S. citizenship for lawbreaking foreigners to endorsing a cap on legal immigration. (The all-American Igor Bobic is Not Happy about Walker’s new position.)

There’s a reason for this. In the immigration debate, numbers are not treated as concrete realities, especially concerning illegal aliens. The number eleven million is a kind of Kantian predetermined category, a rough shorthand for “too many to grasp.” There’s as many as 20 million illegals squatting on our territory, but 20, being a multiple of 10, doesn’t have quite the same effect on perception as a constant order of magnitude.

We don’t have words in our liberal political vocabulary to describe the immensity of the human wave crashing into the United States and the unalterable changes it will inflict. To mass immigration enthusiasts, it’s a great thing, while to pro-Americans, it’s a terrible thing—but eleven million signals the same thing to both groups: Fundamental transformation of the United States.

Many Americans sense what’s taking place. The creeping feeling that debt is forever, isolation is permanent, and a reversal of our course is impossible silently corrodes public life until despair destroys the will of the people to assert themselves.

This has been true of us since before our country’s inception—as Gen. George Washington wrote in a 1787 letter: “It is among the evils, and perhaps is not the smallest, of democratical governments, that the people must feel, before they will see. When this happens, they are roused to action—hence it is that this form of government is so slow.”

The question remains whether unhappy Americans will be roused to action before becoming aliens in their own country or after the damage wreaked by the anti-American political elite is already done.

 

[Be Well]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...alker-proposes-bold-new-immigration-platform/

Liberals Sputter As Scott Walker Proposes Bold New Immigration Platform

by Matthew Boyle 21 Apr 2015

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate, is marching forward with his bold new pro-American worker immigration policy. He’s not afraid to push for a legal immigration system that doesn’t box out American workers with a massive influx of inexpensive foreign labor.

After first rolling out his new ideas on Glenn Beck’s radio program on Monday, Walker appeared on Fox News’ Megyn Kelly’s show to further elaborate on how he hopes to protect Americans economically from special interests pushing for a massive influx in cheap foreign labor from around the world.

“When it comes to immigration, as a governor I don’t have any direct role in that—but having talked to border state governors and having talked to other people, seeing how screwed up immigration has become under this president, it was clear to me talking to them and listening on this issue, traveling to the border actually going there with the governor of Texas Gov. Abbott, seeing the problems there, yeah from my standpoint going forward we need to secure the border, we need to enforce the laws that we currently have with an e-verify system,” Walker said.

“You’re pretty much in line with the other Republican candidates on this,” Kelly asked as a follow-up.

“Well the one thing they’re not saying is we need to make sure as part of that any future legal immigration system that goes forward has to account for American citizens and the workers of this country and their wages to make sure that even with legal immigration in this country we respond to it in a way that doesn’t take jobs away from hardworking Americans,” Walker added, separating himself from the rest of the 2016 field.

Since Walker has moved forward with this new strong pro-American worker position on immigration, he’s been berated by strongholds of the liberal establishment including MSNBC, Mother Jones magazine and the Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post attacked Walker in a blaring headline on Monday night: “Scott Walker Tacks Far Right On Immigration.”

In the piece, written by Igor Bobic, the Huffington Post argues that Walker “may be hoping to placate conservatives wary over his previous support for a pathway to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants.”

Walker’s strategy is somewhat reminiscent of then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who, faced with similar questions over his devotion to the conservative cause in 2011, memorably tacked far right of his GOP rivals by endorsing “self-deportation.”

Yet not even Romney, who lost the Latino vote to Obama by more than 40 percentage points in November 2012, supported curbing legal immigration, a concept at the core of what it means to be American. Walker’s pivot to the general election, if he makes it that far, could prove difficult, given that he will need to seek the votes of many Americans who immigrated here themselves — or whose parents or grandparents did so.​

There are several things wrong with what Bobic wrote, but for starters, what Walker is proposing is an immigration policy that ensures American workers and legal immigrants already here have jobs before new foreign workers are brought into the country to compete for scarce employment opportunities.

What Bobic leaves out of his piece is that Democrats and leftists—even labor unions—used to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Republicans in fighting against open borders policies that hurt American workers. For instance, liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) helped kill the amnesty and legal immigration increase effort by Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) during the George W. Bush presidency on the grounds that it would result in union workers in California losing their jobs. But she has abandoned that position to join open borders advocates by voting for the Senate “Gang of Eight” immigration bill last Congress.

The late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX), an influential member of the Congressional Black Caucus when she represented Houston in Congress, led an effort to protect not just the black community but all Americans from both illegal and legal immigration. And of course, Coretta Scott King—the now deceased widow of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.—famously wrote to Congress back in the early 1990s to call for economic protections for the struggling black community when it came to immigration levels both legal and illegal.

That’s not to mention that even Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid stood up protecting American workers back in the 1990s from high immigration levels—before the Democratic Party made a clear and conscious decision to aim to change American demographics and engage in open racial pandering.

In addition to the Democrats completely shifting from where they used to stand, most in the GOP establishment have moved away from protecting Americans as well—in large part due to the special interests and big business lobbyists pushing for a massive influx in cheap foreign labor. That’s what terrifies Washington so much about a viable candidate for the presidency like Walker coming out as strongly as he has as an immigration populist—and why the long knives are out to get him from pretty much everybody.

Bobic’s mistaken narrative notwithstanding, however, the entire institutional left has since joined The Huffington Post in driving this anti-Walker narrative in the wake of his bold new position. MSNBC’s Steve Benen attacked Walker using Bobic’s piece to argue that Walker doesn’t stand a chance at winning any more Hispanic voters than Mitt Romney did in 2012.

“In the last presidential election, Mitt Romney positioned himself as the most anti-immigration general-election candidate Americans have seen in a generation. The Republican nominee opposed both comprehensive reform and the Dream Act; he endorsed ‘self-deportation’; he criticized bilingualism; and he casually threw around words like ‘amnesty’ and ‘illegals’ as staples of his campaign rhetoric,” Benen wrote. “It was tough to imagine what more Romney could have done to alienate immigrant communities, and the results were predictable: President Obama received over 70% of the Latino vote. How much worse can Republicans make matters? The party’s 2016 candidates can do the one thing Romney didn’t: go after legal immigration.”

What’s perhaps more interesting—and another fact that Benen leaves out of his piece—is that polling shows that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has barely any distinguishable differences from Democrats on immigration, if any at all, is actually polling worse among Hispanics against likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton than Romney performed against Obama. Bush, according to two recent ABC News and Washington Post polls, trails Clinton among Hispanic voters by an even worse margin than by which Romney lost—71 percent for Clinton to 26 percent for Bush. So much for MSNBC’s advice to Republicans like Walker.

It doesn’t stop there, though. The extra-liberal Mother Jones magazine—which is openly supportive of progressivism and worked overtime to try to oust Walker in his recall election and his re-election—cited an ex-Walker aide, Liz Mair, to attack him.

“Liz Mair, the GOP operative who resigned from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign-in-waiting after a day on the job, is in campaign mode again—and this time, she’s targeting her former boss,” Mother Jones’ Sam Brodey wrote. “On Tuesday morning, Mair sent an email detailing Walker’s ‘Olympic-quality flip-flop’ on the issue of immigration.”

Brodey added that Mair’s email says that “historically, Walker has hardly been an immigration hard-liner: in 2013, he vocally supported expanding legal immigration, and as recently as March, he said he was in favor of giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. She suggested that Walker’s back-tracking could make him an easy target for strong GOP rivals.”

Mair, who’s a supporter of open borders and an unashamed amnesty advocate who supported Rubio’s “Gang of Eight” bill last Congress, was fired from the Walker campaign after a series of questionable moves—including her open support for amnesty and open borders. She also openly attacked Iowans in Tweets before she was hired with Walker, which played a big factor in Walker’s decision to fire her.

Mother Jones is hardly the only liberal outlet to use Mair’s negativity about her former employer to attack Walker. Bobic used her comments in his piece, as did MSNBC and the Washington Post—which also attacked Walker.

Mair’s commentary aside, most conservative leaders side with the position Walker has now aggressively taken on immigration—a position that’s been articulated by Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

“The last thing low-skilled native and immigrant workers already here should have to deal with is wage-depressing competition from newly arriving workers,” National Review editor Rich Lowry and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol wrote in a joint op-ed while fighting Rubio’s Gang of Eight bill last Congress. “Nor is the new immigration under the bill a panacea for the long-term fiscal ills of entitlements, as often argued, because those programs are redistributive and most of the immigrants will be low-income workers.”

Kristol, in separate commentary on July 15, 2013, added that Rubio’s Gang of Eight bill has a “huge increase in immigration in that bill, two to three times the number of immigrants over the next decade as over the last decade. And that is bad for working class and middle class wages and economic opportunity in this country. And I think that’s something Republicans need to get serious about.”

The National Review editorial board wrote on June 17, 2013, about Rubio’s bill that “the creation of a large population of second-class workers is undesirable from the point of view of the American national interest, which should be our guiding force in this matter.”

“The United States is a nation with an economy, not an economy with a nation,” the editors of the National Review added.

Daily Caller editor-in-chief Tucker Carlson questioned on Fox News in December 2012 whether the U.S. should have such an increase in legal immigration. “Does the United States need massive new numbers of the low-skilled immigrants in a post-industrial economy? Is that good for the United States?” Carlson said.

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote in February 2014 a column that echoed each of the above. “A reasonable immigration compromise would… privilege high-skilled immigration over low-skilled immigration, given the unemployment crisis among low-skilled native workers and the larger social crisis that threatens to slow assimilation and upward mobility alike,” Douthat wrote, noting that the GOP establishment has abandoned American workers. “But the House leadership seems to favor an approach that would create… looser labor markets, continued wage stagnation and fewer jobs for the existing unemployed.”

“History shows that granting such legal status [to illegal immigrants] is not without profound and substantial costs to American workers. Does Congress care?” Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission added in a June 11, 2013, op-ed.

“Virtually every kind of ‘work that Americans will not do’ is in fact work that Americans have done for generations,” Thomas Sowell, a conservative columnist, added the same day. “In many cases, most of the people doing that work today are Americans.”

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York has also written frequently about this topic, most recently touting polling numbers from Gallup that found Americans by and large side with Sessions—and now with Walker.

“Gallup recently asked adults around the country a very simple question about immigration: Are you satisfied, or dissatisfied, with the level of immigration into the United States today? Are too many immigrants coming? Too few? Or is the number just about right?” York wrote in January.

Before giving the results, it’s important to note what that number is. The U.S. awards legal permanent resident status —a green card, which means lifetime residency plus the option of citizenship — to about one million people per year, a rate Sen. Marco Rubio calls “the most generous” on earth. In addition, the government hands out more than a half-million student and exchange visas each year, tens of thousands of refugee admissions, and about 700,000 visas to temporary workers and their families. The percentage of foreign born in the U.S. population is heading toward levels not seen since the period of 1890 to 1910.​

York then described the actual results—which were astoundingly in Walker’s favor.

“So is that too much, or too little? Gallup found that 47 percent of Americans believe the level of immigration should stay where it is,” York wrote. “Thirty-nine percent want to see it decreased. And just seven percent want it increased. (The remaining seven percent said they don’t know.).”

[I do not believe polls like the above - I was polled by Zogby for years and the questions were designed to show specific outcomes. Most questions were impossible to answer honestly.]

 

[Shacknasty Shagrat]

But sane, and he did defeat unions. He doesn't seem to back down easily, and he's unconnected with DEE CEE which is a huge plus.

Very good article.
And both Governor Walker and Senator Cruz seem to have sane, well adjusted personalities.
There is no wrong in thoughtfully changing a position based on more knowledge.
'Walker discussed how in the past he did support amnesty, but says he doesn’t anymore,'
Sad to say, I too, have erred...once in 1988 as I recall.
Both Mr. Walker and Mr. Cruz may become viable candidates if nominated.
But the power of the dark side is strong and their forces have yet to gather.
SS

 

[Be Well]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...osition-winning-hand-against-hillary-clinton/

Exclusive — GOP Pollster: Scott Walker’s Bold New Pro-American Immigration Position ‘Winning Hand’ Against Hillary Clinton

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s new populist pro-American worker position on immigration is “absolutely the winning hand” against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a general election should he decide to run for president and wins the GOP primary, GOP pollster KellyAnne Conway of The Polling Company told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Tuesday.

Conway said of Walker:

The left will try to caricature him as union-busting, as anti-worker. 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.​

The left will try to caricature him as union-busting, as anti-worker. 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.

2016 will be a process of elimination. Instead of saying which one or two are going to get the most support, the question really is which ones will be left standing a year from now. The one thing I can guarantee you as to who those will be is that they will all be on the right side, on the pro-worker side—the American worker side—of immigration. There will be absolutely nobody who has supported amnesty, there will be nobody talking about a path to citizenship who is a credible presidential nominee. The thing is we’ve been active in these early states really with polling and focus groups. When you look at the numbers from that poll [from last August], that’s nationwide data. This issue is that much more magnified and amplified among Republican primary and caucus-goers in these early states. It is top shelf issue and they see it melding together fairness, opportunity, pro-worker, pro-American, economic stimulus for the local areas.​

Conway continued by noting that voters “literally see this as the right way to go” and, while she thinks “Gov. Walker was being dogged a little bit by his past of a Ted Kennedy like immigration plan, it’s an incredibly bold move but an incredibly smart move as well, because it puts him more in line with where Republican primary and caucus voters in early states are on this issue.” She went on to say:

It will be a top three-to-five issue and it will play well in the debate. Marco Rubio would be in second place right now if it were not for his being on the wrong side of this very recently. If you look at the straw poll we did at CPAC and you look at other polling we’ve done since, nationwide and in these early states, we don’t just ask Republican primary voters and caucus goers what are your number one and number two issues. We also ask them do you have any deal breakers and the biggest deal breakers for Republican primary voters right now are if you expanded Medicaid through Obamacare, if they embrace amnesty or comprehensive immigration reform which is the same thing to them, or if they embrace Common Core. The top two—it’s not gay marriage by the way, and it’s not if you’re going to raise taxes—the top deal breakers right now for Republican primary voters are if you expanded Medicaid through Obamacare and you favor a comprehensive immigration reform slash amnesty position on immigration.​

For Walker—the guy who took on organized labor in their own backyard and won—Conway argues that this new populist position on immigration is “a natural fit.” She also says that it’s likely to help him not just in the Republican primary but in the general election:

It is one of those rare issues that is a clear winner in both the Republican primaries and caucuses, and then in the general election as well. Our polling shows independents and even many Democrats support newly created jobs going to U.S.-born Americans and legal immigrants. It has bipartisan support because job losses are bipartisan. Support for a pro-American immigration policy has earned bipartisan support because job losses have been bipartisan in nature. In fact, many of these private sector union households have lost their jobs in construction and manufacturing and a lot healthcare based job losses because of Obamacare. Everybody is feeling the pinch either as a direct stakeholder or second hand surrogate and worried about job losses and this is one of the biggest solutions. If I’m looking for a job, why are we giving preference to non-U.S.-born workers?​

Conway added that self-identified liberals are the only people among whom there is not a majority of voters who want politicians to have Walker’s position. Democrats, Republicans, independents, and conservatives all support his position. Conway added:

While I’m sure Gov. Walker is not doing this as a Republican primary ploy—it seems like a real change of heart while reviewing the data and thinking through the realities of job losses in his home state, in the rust belt area and indeed across the country—the only people who disagree are liberals. Democrats are on board, Republicans and conservatives are on board so are independents. If you look at the data, only liberals say Obama should go it alone on amnesty and liberals are less likely than Democrats, Republicans and independents pro-American immigration policy. But so what? That’s 18 percent of the country. Whoopee.​

Part of the reason why Conway thinks the political class—everyone from the liberal media to the Institutional Left to the establishment right to even some liberal GOP senators—is attacking Walker is because he’s exposing several false inside-the-beltway premises about immigration:

It is a completely and utterly false premise that somehow agreeing to comprehensive immigration reform and supporting Obama’s amnesty will somehow win Republicans back votes. I would point out to all the establishment types descending on Gov. Walker that they’re on the wrong side of the issue for many reasons. Look at what happened in 2014. In 2014, Republicans did not pass comprehensive immigration reform and they won big. They bolstered their majority in the House, won the Senate, several governorships and legislatures. And they improved their rates among Hispanics by 8 percent over Mitt Romney in 2012, so it blew out of the water this false premise that to win Hispanic votes we must go for comprehensive immigration reform and look the other way when Obama does executive amnesty and not try to defund it.​

Specifically to Sen. John Thune (R-SD)—who attacked what Walker said without attacking him directly, joining a bandwagon led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)—Conway noted that what Walker is saying would poll much better than what Thune is saying when it comes to immigration:

If you put Gov. Walker’s statements and Sen. Thune’s statements side-by-side, Walker’s statements are much more popular to the majority of Americans. Why? People are tired of hearing the arrogant and elitist and fantasy of a few billionaires and the quotes like illegal immigrants are doing jobs that Americans won’t do. Americans are saying ‘I want a chance to do those jobs but I want to do them for more than $5 an hour under the table.’ There are many Americans who do want to do those jobs and the vast majority of Americans who do should be given the opportunity to compete for those jobs.​

Conway expects that if Walker is elected president, he’ll actually stick to his guns and implement an immigration policy that serves the national interest along the lines of what Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has been calling for:

That’s his track record and if he wants to be a two-term president he will. If he continues emphatically on this track with his change of heart to be pro American worker, he will go ahead and implement it because it’s a job creator. You have Republicans running around saying ‘we’re job creators, we’re job creators.’ Great. This is the ultimate job creator: The ability to allow Americans, which includes by the way high-skilled two and four year college graduates and a lot of these American jobs are not coming back toward manufacturing, construction, retail. For these men and women, the idea that they lost their job and they now have to compete for a replacement job with illegal immigrants who are willing to take $5 an hour under the table. I think he can be a real hero to working men and women and it seems to me that this is a natural expansion of his pro-worker, pro-fairness mantle that has helped him win elections among working class men and women—three elections in four years—but also try to further the national conversation on this issue.​

 

[Medical Maven]

Yahoo!!

Pressed by Young Republicans, Scott Walker Sticks to Tough Immigration Stance

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ction=keypress&region=FixedRight&pgtype=Blogs

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin at an event Friday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, held with Representative Ron Blum.Credit Scott Olson/Getty Images
After giving a version of his stump speech to a mostly gray-haired crowd in Iowa, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin was pressed on Friday by two twenty-something Republicans about a percolating issue he did not mention: immigration.

Mr. Walker’s apparent hardening on immigration has inspired a flood of reporting and commentary. Most recently he told the radio host Glenn Beck that he favored restricting legal immigration in tough economic times, a position to the right of most other 2016 presidential hopefuls.

He repeated that view Friday after a speech in Cedar Rapids, when Eddie Failor, 24, expressed concern “as a young Republican” that the party must make inroads to new voter blocs, including by supporting a comprehensive overhaul of immigration.

Mr. Walker told Mr. Failor that his top priority would be securing the border. He also said he favored “making sure the legal immigration system is based on making our No. 1 priority to protect American workers and their wages.’’

Alexander Staudt, the treasurer of the University of Iowa College Republicans, also told Mr. Walker in the meet-and-greet line that he was concerned that by talking tough on immigration, Republican candidates would turn off Hispanics.

“In terms of how wide or how narrow the door’s open, our No. 1 priority is American workers and American wages,’’ Mr. Walker told him. “I don’t know how anyone can argue against that."

Both Mr. Staudt and Mr. Failor asked the governor what he would do about the millions of undocumented workers already in the country. Mr. Walker said they should return to their countries of origin and apply for legal entry.

Mr. Staudt liked that answer. “The bigger that number gets,’’ he said, referring to undocumented immigrants, “it’s going to become less economically viable.’’

But Mr. Failor, who has attended several Republican candidates’ events this year, said he was disappointed.

“He gave a conflicting message, in my opinion,’’ he said. “He said he’s not one who believes in spending billions of dollars to deport all these undocumented immigrants. 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 don’t know how that works within the deportation equation.’’


The NYTs tried to spin this against Walker at the end, but it was largely ineffectual in my opinion. Detailed policy is not the way to go at this point. Walker's main statements on this issue are clear enough as to the direction that he will be going, if elected.

 

[Medical Maven]

Walker is covering the zone on this issue, staying consistent, sticking it to every naysayer, including the WSJ, one of the biggest proponents of wide-open borders.


Scott Walker hits back at WSJ piece criticizing his legal immigration comments

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/28/scott-walker-hits-back-wsj-piece-criticizing-his-l/




By David Sherfinski - The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is hitting back at a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that criticized him for recent comments he made saying American workers and American wages should be kept in mind when making decisions on legal immigration.

Mr. Walkertold radio host Howie Carr his position on immigration is “simple” and that it starts with securing the borders and having an effective E-Verify system.

“No amnesty,” Mr. Walker said. “If you want to be a citizen, that’s a whole different thing. You got to go back to your country of origin and get back in line like anybody else.”

On legal immigration, he said, “right now, there are restrictions in America - that column and others acted like there’s no restrictions. There are restrictions on legal immigration today - they just don’t make a whole lot of sense.”

He said the Journal has been right for defending him in some of his battles with labor unions in Wisconsin, but “in this one - really wrong on so many levels.”

The Journal piece points out that Mr. Walker mentioned recently he’s talked to GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, one of Capitol Hill’s staunchest opponents of illegal immigration who has spoken out against expanding H-1B visas for guest workers.



“Mr. Walker is right that the GOP needs to focus on raising the incomes of average Americans, but the way to do that is with policies that increase growth and improve upward mobility. Zero-sum labor economics will do neither,” the piece says.

Mr. Walker, a potential 2016 GOP presidential contender, recently told talk show host Glenn Beck: “It is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today. What is this doing for American workers looking for jobs? What is this doing to wages? And we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.”

Mr. Walker defended his position in his conversation with Mr. Carr that “a strong economy should be paramount,” “and priority number one in that regard should be making sure that we think about the impact on American workers and American wages.”

When unemployment is high and labor participation rates are low, he said, “you don’t have very much immigration because you don’t want to flood the market.”

If, over time, unemployment goes down and labor participation rates go up, “then you can change things,” he said.

“I just said make American workers and their wages your number one priority,” he said. “If we’re always thinking about the impact on the hard-working Americans, we’re gonna be fine and [if] we don’t think about that, well, then we get bad policies in America.”

 

[Be Well]

I like Walker a lot better than any of the others. He is not a dee cee infected politician, he totally gets it on immigration whether legal or illegal, and he got things done in his state. From my news scouring lately, immigration is of huge important to regular Americans, and most other than hardcore socialists, want it stopped and rolled back, big time.

 

[Medical Maven]

I heard on Hannity's radio program yesterday that Scott Walker has a double-digit lead over the other Republican contenders in Iowa. I wonder what "they" will do to stop him?

 

[Medical Maven]

I predict that if Scott Walker stays the course on this immigration/Amnesty issue, that the elites will physically take him out, if he gains the nomination and appears to have a good chance of winning the Presidency.

The flood of illegals must continue at all costs. It is the critical to their game plan, for the quick and final denouement of what is left of the traditional/constitutional bedrock that America needs so as to avoid complete and irrevocable Third World Banana Republic status.

 

[Annika]

I predict that if Scott Walker stays the course on this immigration/Amnesty issue, that the elites will physically take him out, if he gains the nomination and appears to have a good chance of winning the Presidency.

The flood of illegals must continue at all costs. It is the critical to their game plan, for the quick and final denouement of what is left of the traditional/constitutional bedrock that America needs so as to avoid complete and irrevocable Third World Banana Republic status.

The flood gates have been opened here in central Indiana.....2016 can't get here quick enough.