Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

So what is Scott Walker’s immigration position?

So what is Scott Walker’s immigration position?

Attempting to answer the million dollar question

Many moons ago, all the way back in 2013, The Wasau Daily Herald published an article.

That article contained an interview with the Wisconsin Governor. Among the many topics discussed was federal immigration reform.

“People want to come here and work hard and benefit, I don’t care whether they come from Mexico or Ireland or Germany or Canada or South Africa or anywhere else, I want them here.” Walker told the Wasau Daily Herald editors.

At a time when the loudest voices on the right were screaming for border security while ignoring the major issues with our current immigration infrastructure, Walker took a somewhat different approach and one more akin to Senator Rubio’s attitude on immigration reform. Walker explained that restructuring our immigration system should help mitigate the constant flow of undocumented aliens.

“I think there’s got to be a way, not only do they need to fix things for people who are already here or find some way to deal with that, there’s got to be a larger way to fix the system in the first place, because if it wasn’t so cumbersome, if it wasn’t so long of a wait, if it wasn’t so difficult to get in, you wouldn’t have the other problems that we have with people who don’t have legal status here in the first place. the 11 million,” he said. “You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that, to me, I don’t think you need any of that if you have a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”

One of the reporters then asked, “Can you envision a world where with the right, penalties, and waiting periods, and meet the requirements. where these people could get citizenship?”

“Sure. I mean, I think it makes sense,” Walker responded.

“What I’m saying is, otherwise we do this kind of bandaid approach… the mere fact that they’re having this debate without having discussion about why is the system itself, why aren’t we fixing that, it seems to be the kind of vacuum that decisions are made in at the federal level,” Walker clarified.

A few days after the interview The Hill reported the story as “Gov. Walker backs citizenship pathway for illegal immigrants,” although that’s not entirely accurate.

The entire conversation is here:

Walker made similar statements a few months prior to the aforementioned interview when he sat down with Politico — statements that he later clarified to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

I think long term that’s going to be a part of it but I think there are too many people here in Washington who are leapfrogging over everything else and trying to get to that right away. We fundamentally don’t have a system . . . to legitimately deal with people who want to come – in fact, I think you would greatly reduce if not outright eliminate the number of people who come in illegally if we had an effective, time-effective particularly, system of dealing with legal immigration.”

Later in 2013, Walker clarified even further in an interview with the Washington Post. As Hot Air’s Allahpundit pointed out:

Towards the end of the interview, Bannon noted that “Amnesty is about the sovereignty of the country.” But, he asked Walker, “the Washington Post said earlier that you’re pro-pathway to citizenship.”

“See now that’s where they take it out of context,” Walker said in response. “I’ve not said there should be amnesty in this country. I don’t believe that. I don’t support the legislation being kicked around. What I’ve said repeatedly is we need to fix the immigration system, but fix the legal system. So if people want to come in this country we should have a legal immigration system.”

At the Iowa Freedom Summit last week, Walker shied away from discussing immigration all together. A good life decision in my estimation.

Repeatedly, Walker has indicated that working to fix legal immigration should be the paramount issue, yet it’s the one issue federal lawmakers are not willing to discuss. He’s also said he’s definitely not pro-amnesty.

Rather than demagoguing and politicizing a serious issue, Walker’s approach is perfectly pragmatic. “Why are we in this situation that we’re in? How did we get here? And what do we do to fix it?” are questions that should be asked, but seldom find their way into the politisphere discussion.

Should Walker decide to throw his hat into the 2016 ring, he’ll undoubtedly be forced to address the immigration question in greater detail.

Speaking for myself, I’d love to see the national spotlight shine a little light on Walker or another contender with Walkeresque immigration ideas. Our immigration system might benefit as a result.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Our immigration systems is fouled up. I work with many who are going through the process. Years of the process! Good people trapped by a system, but they are going about it legally.

I absolutely understand why people want to come to the USA. Even wth the flaws and warts, it is the best country in the world. That said – illegl immigration is just that “illegal”. Punish the criminal, and reward the honest.

Fix the system, and get rid of the criminals.

    MattMusson in reply to rabid wombat. | February 1, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    Fixing the system: ensuring people who have skills, will work hard and can make a net positive contribution to tax base are let in – while keeping out those that will engage in generations of dependency.

Whenever I see discussions centered around fixing tge legal immigration system, except for Senator Sessions and a few others, these discussions center around the idea that we need more and faster legal immigration. I would like to see discussion of what justifies increased legal immigration considering the real unemployment rate for legal and illegal people already here. I think there is a strong case to be made that we need to eliminate illegal immigration and greatly reduce the number of legal immigrants for the next 10 or 20 years or so until the current crop of legal and illegal immigrants can be properly absorbed and assimioated by our society. I also don’t think we need to increase by millions the number of low education low wage workers allowed in every year in order to increase by a few thousand the number of B1 visas granted every year. I think the right answer for immigration reform is a combination of what I’ve seen Donald Trump talk about with what I’ve seen Senator Sessions talk about.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to garybritt. | February 1, 2015 at 10:58 am

    You are so right!

    Radegunda in reply to garybritt. | February 1, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    We also need to affirm that there is nothing wrong with favoring immigrants whose formative experiences and values are most compatible with our own culture and founding principles. A desire to “work hard and benefit” is not enough.

    The current practice is to do the opposite, in service to the ludicrous notion that “diversity” is the highest cultural value and an unalloyed good — or to the libertarian or corporate idea that a nation is just a part of the global marketplace.

    Leftists, of course, say that’s racist, though they would never dream of insisting that any non-Western society needed to become more “diverse.”

    It’s one thing to accept moderate infusions of influences from other cultures, which keep a civilization vital; it’s another to inject massive doses of “cultural diversity” without allowing time for newcomers to adjust, or space for the native-born to maintain their own culture.

of he doesn’t want to build a wall then screw him

I get what he’s saying. The people who play by the rules when immigrating here are generally the types of people we should want – educated, law abiding, productive. But the current system makes it unduly hard on those who play by the rules, while seeming to reward those who don’t. We won’t be able to have an effective long-term fix without addressing that.

The elephant in the room, of course, is federal entitlements. I don’t think you can really fix our immigraton system without clamping down on entitlement spending.

Years ago (as the story goes) a certain mental institution had a rather unique way of determining whether patients were ready to rejoin society. They would take them to the laundry room, in which the sink was running and overflowing onto the floor. They would hand the patient a mop and tell them to clean it up. If they immediately started mopping before first turning off the faucet, they were not yet ready to leave.

Our politicians have mopping like crazy, however the highest priority in addressing our immigration dilemma is to first turn off the faucet.

I haven’t watched the video, but the excerpted comments are troubling. The people coming here legally, despite the difficulties, are not – for the most part – flying to Mexico so they can walk in.

So, here is Walker talking about fixing the legal immigration system, and stating that would stem the illegal alien invasion. That is mixing up gasoline for milk.

As far as more aliens, legal or illegal, we have far too many Americans in dire straights. We have too many aliens – legal and illegal – telling us how awful we are, accusing us of “racism,” and then demanding everything our country has to offer from us.

I agree: stop illegal and legal aliens from coming. End legal immigration for 40 years. Build a double layered fence on the border, and man it with our Army troops, and let America become America again.

And as far as our ability to deport 35 million illegal aliens: the Atlanta airport carries over 250,000 passengers a day. A DAY. It can be done. We simply have to decide to do it. It’s far cheaper to send them home – the exact same place where they send their money! – than it is to pay for all their children to be born, to educate all their children, to pay for the food stamps, and on and on and on.

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to Karen Sacandy. | February 1, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    And as far as our ability to deport 35 million illegal aliens: the Atlanta airport carries over 250,000 passengers a day.

    Oh, sure. Just put out of mind the costs and chaos of identifying and rounding up and transporting them back across the border, with the MSM shrieking against the ‘fascist’ government 24/7.

    Exactly how feasible is it to commandeer, say, the Atlanta airport’s capability to fly a daily 250K willing passengers to where they WANT to go? To arrange with, say, the unwilling Mexican government to receive and house and transport them ‘home’?

    Perhaps you’d like to expand a bit on the logistics of ‘our ability’ to follow your suggestion, and show how you’d do it once you’re Commander-in-Chief.

      A lot easier to deport them than to “screen” them bfore handing them citizenship, which is what we are being promised by those pushing Amnesty.

      Its been done before. Google “Operation Wetback”

      For someone “Insufficiently Sensitive” you seem overly concerned. :^)))

      First, don’t think you have to rely upon what the government is capable of doing. President Eisenhower showed up that once you begin actual law enforcement, the illegal aliens will see the writing on the wall, and augment your efforts by leaving themselves.

      So, first – as Commander in Chief – thank you so much for this title!!!! I relish it! — I would announce that beginning at 12:01 a.m. the next day, all our immigration laws would be enforced rigorously.

      Second, I enlisted in the U.S. Army at age 18. In basic training, we were moved everywhere by cattle trucks. Yes, cattle trucks. Not buses, cattle trucks. You can fit a lot of people in those. So I would commandeer those trucks for this purpose for the duration of the campaign. And all other military means of mass transportation, including humvees, et cetera.

      Then I would ask for citizens to volunteer the use of their buses, vans, whatever, for the purpose of ejecting illegal aliens.

      Then I would begin picking up every illegal alien I saw on a bicycle. Or at areas known for day labor pick ups. Or at carpet mills, chicken plants, and farms. We would check if they were here legally. If not, put them on a cattle truck for the nearest military installation, for transport by C-140s to southern Mexico, or to the country from which they sent their money via Western Union. If a country refused to accept their ex-pats, I’d withhold their U.S. foreign aid until they saw the light of day. :^)))

      Then, I’d begin at hospitals, to determine which people in the maternity wards were illegal aliens. I’d post guards at their doors, and when they were ready for discharge, take them and their child to the closest ICE or BP holding area, while they waited for their family to come and reunite with them to return home. If no one came within 72 hours, the mother and child would be on their way home, courtesy of the American taxpayer and Delta Airlines or some other commercial airliner. It’s much cheaper to buy a one-way ticket, than to pay for one year of government school (in my county, it’s about $11,000 per year per child).

      As the news reported on the deportations actually taking place, there is no doubt, illegal aliens would begin to self-deport.

      I’d also make it a priority on day one, to visit all mosques in the United States, and anyone heard not speaking English, to determine their immigration status. Anyone without authority to be in the United States, would be deported forthwith.

      You don’t have to commandeer Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport to get this done. It was merely a spotlight on our capacity to move people. We can fight wars in two countries at a time; we can certainly move a few million people.

Actually, it sounds like Walker is mostly ignorant of the real issues and is trying to sound like he has common sense without getting into too much depth. From that we can gather that a) Immigration does not really interest him much and b) He is kind of a phony.

B is not exactly a surprising thing to find in a politician, so I’ll give him a (temporary) pass on that. But I would like to see if he has learned anything since Obama has changed the dynamics of the situation so much.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to irv. | February 1, 2015 at 11:05 am

    Scott Walker seems like the most genuine person in the world to me. I just think he doesn’t see the problem, and so doesn’t think he needs to know the solution.

    Where I live, 25% of the children from kindergarten to 5th grade are illegal aliens or children of illegal aliens. We have one county in Georgia – Whitfield – where 70% of the kids are latin. This county has carpet mills.

    I am absolutely SICK OF IT. No one learned anything from 9-11? Let’s see how many more aliens can get driver’s licenses, and blow something up! Let’s see how many more Americans can file bankruptcy, because illegal aliens work at construction for a fraction of what it costs to hire an American.

    My God, Americans have to pay all the government demands or go to jail. Illegal aliens skate. This is a denial of equal protection and due process if ever there was one.

    Why are Americans second class citizens in our own country? The courts should be full of shame that they’ve encouraged this situation. Plyler v. Doe, thank you.

      Radegunda in reply to Karen Sacandy. | February 1, 2015 at 3:48 pm

      Your point about the rule of law is much more important than anyone on the “pathway to citizenship” bandwagon will admit. Why do foreign nationals get indulgence for lawbreaking just because 1) so many of them do it; and 2) they scream really loud about how mean we are for having laws that don’t serve their desires? (Additional reasons: because too many politicians and business owners find them useful.)

      We the citizens do not get that kind of indulgence. The result is a cynical attitude toward the law: We know that special classes of people don’t have to follow it, while the rest of us do. Our authorities are eager to accommodate certain kinds of people who have already demonstrated that they hold our laws in contempt.

      Some “conservatives” argue that it’s only immigration law that illegals have broken and it isn’t so bad since “the system is broken” anyway. But “the system is broken” could be applied to various things that we the citizens find unduly burdensome, and we don’t get a pass. Also, illegal aliens are very likely to have broken other laws too, starting with those against forgery and identity theft.

      In California, DMV employees are being specifically directed to ignore clear evidence of those crimes by illegal aliens. Do we the citizens get a pass too? Of course not, silly.

      Our politicians are throwing out the welcome mat for people who have reason to conclude that breaking laws is an acceptable way to advance their own interests.

        Karen Sacandy in reply to Radegunda. | February 1, 2015 at 10:21 pm

        I obviously agree with you. But in addition to the illegal aliens flouting the law and skating, our politicians flout our constitution with impunity, too.

        Double standards are entirely too common.

casualobserver | February 1, 2015 at 11:04 am

At least Walker is on the right path to a RATIONAL exploration for a workable solution. Those who call for total cessation of immigration or for perfectly open borders are not.

Our legal system is one of the worst in the industrialized world with respect to speed and effectiveness (allowing entry to those who want to join and contribute and immediately can). There has been a thousand tons of lip service given to “comprehensive” reform, which one would reasonably assume covers a radically improved process for gaining entry. But there hasn’t been an ounce of real action. Of course, that is status quo for Washington.

Walker could be – we don’t know yet – a breath of fresh air on this.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to casualobserver. | February 1, 2015 at 11:12 am

    I did NOT mean to upvote you — the mouse hit the wrong item.

    It’s irrational to completely foreclose an option until you have rationally considered it.

    If you’ll look at the census, we have around 50 million latins in the country. There is NO WAY that the 3.5 million Reagan implored us to give amnesty procreated their way to this number.

    We have had almost zero immigration before. America flowered. It was a great place to live in. I have no obligation – despite whatever politically correct Kool-Aid you’ve been drinking – to permit more foreigners entry to America. It’s our country, we can do as we please.

    The people here now, they are not assimilating. They are clustering. We must have assimilation. We must stop the influx to allow the ones we decide to permit to stay to assimilate.

    It burns my butter that we heard for years about overpopulation, and how sad it was that we had people in poverty in America. So now, America is aborting its young, and replacing Americans with alot of poor people from other countries. So the lefties really weren’t against more people, or against poor people, they were just against more Americans and against more poor AMERICANS. I guess Americans are just too independent for their dictatorial tastes.

      Radegunda in reply to Karen Sacandy. | February 1, 2015 at 4:19 pm

      I’d be happy to allow in some British or French or Czech immigrants who have a reasonable familiarity with our culture and would help offset the decades of insane “diversity” immigration policy. Those are exactly the kinds of people that our system now discourages.

      casualobserver in reply to Karen Sacandy. | February 1, 2015 at 7:49 pm

      “It’s irrational to completely foreclose an option until you have rationally considered it.”
      And yet you seem to be doing just that with Walker’s words.

      “We have had almost zero immigration before. America flowered. It was a great place to live in.”
      Our periods of statistically significant immigration are nearly constant. Meaning there have been few of little or of statistically insignificant levels of immigration. From day one. Periods of war might be the exception.

      Completely shutting out people from joining our society is not supported by nearly any economic model. You can rationalize it. You just cannot confirm it’s merit in numbers. But, then, people can rationalize open borders as well. Without “scientific” support, or the support of data based analysis, in other words.

        Karen Sacandy in reply to casualobserver. | February 1, 2015 at 10:34 pm

        I just watched the Super Bowl, which for the first half, the Seahawks dominated. I don’t give a damn about your economic models. I’m talking quality of life and culture.

        I want solidarity of purpose among Americans. This constant discord, the constant hurling of insults by foreigners to Americans, as they try to claw what we have from us for their own, is tiring and unnecessary.

        We don’t have to accept our own abuse. We can walk away from it.

        Figure it out.

    AZ_Langer in reply to casualobserver. | February 1, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    Every “comprehensive” immigration reform bill has been trash. Each has been designed to reward people who prove every day that they have no respect for our sovereignty or laws. Each has been designed to give corrupt businesses cheaper labor pools rather than employing our own educated and talented citizens. Political talk about security and enforcement measures included in the bills is obfuscation. “Studies” are neither security nor enforcement measures. Unfortunately, it’s much worse than the few items I’ve listed.

    “Comprehensive” always means loaded with garbage that will hurt US, hidden in thousands of pages.

Judging solely from what’s in the article, and for that matter all the comments above, nobody, including Scott Walker, addresses the fundamental question: is immigration supposed to help America? Or to help immigrants? Especially if “helping” immigrants hurts America, which inarguably dumping millions of destitute unskilled Latin Americans on the welfare state, with the certainty that as citizens they will vote Democratic, does and will continue to do.

My great-grandparents left Palermo because life was unbearable there and, as everyone knew, the streets in America were paved with gold. They found neither gold nor the welfare state that present day immigrants quickly find and exploit. They found a sink or swim environment and they chose to swim. There isn’t a day that I don’t thank them and God for their decision to come here. But this is a very, very different America than 120 years ago. And immigration needs to be treated accordingly.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to FrankNatoli. | February 1, 2015 at 11:46 am

    You’re so right. There are fundamental cultural differences between Americans and illegal aliens. Americans ask themselves if they can afford to have a child; latins say, “Hey, if the Americans are such saps that they’ll pay me to have children, I’ll take half a dozen.”

    They believe it’s right to PLAN on sucking from the state; Americans consider that a safety net.

    I can’t tell you the number of 20-something Americans tell me they can’t afford to have kids, or more than one, while I’m in the grocery store, and illegal aliens have 4 or 5 kids.

    We are being cuckolded; raising foreigners children. A disgrace!!!!!!

      FrankNatoli in reply to Karen Sacandy. | February 1, 2015 at 11:57 am

      Karen: let me be clear. The welfare state is a narcotic that many people find irresistible. I have no idea how my Sicilian ancestors would have reacted to an equivalent condition. But it is manifestly clear how present day immigrants react: they take it.

      And it’s not just destitute immigrants who are a problem. Companies like Microsoft are heavily staffed by foreigners, brought to America, legally, under H2B visas, because Bill Gates says Microsoft cannot stay in business without those immigrants. The reality is different. The reality is that Bill Gates might have, say, 45 billion dollars in his personal pocket rather than 50 billion dollars if he had to pay Americans in America the wages they ask for. And that Bill Gates will not do.

      He’d rather buy a referendum in Washington State to change firearms laws and create a state registry of all firearms. Nice.

        ecreegan in reply to FrankNatoli. | February 1, 2015 at 12:40 pm

        I’m not sure I’d call abuse of the H1B program welfare exactly, but it exists and there’s such an obvious cure for it: a sky-high minimum wage on people employed on H1B viasa — say $200,000 for a normal workweek, $300,000 for 60 hours a week (allowing for weeks above that but with comp time off.)

          ecreegan in reply to ecreegan. | February 1, 2015 at 12:41 pm

          The same applies to H2B visas except that the salary required ought to be even higher, as temporary work ought to be priced right than permanent work

        platypus in reply to FrankNatoli. | February 1, 2015 at 12:56 pm

        Bill Gates is one of the more despicable MS billionaires, but he’s by no means the only one. In fact, I can’t think of any who aren’t. All of them think their sh!t don’t stink and is worth its weight in gold.

        All you have to do to verify this is look at the EMP in Seattle. The city could have prevented this freak building from ever getting off the drawing board – instead it slobbered all over itself to greenlight it.

        The worst part is its right next door to one of the most beautiful buildings built since the days of antiquity.

If this is true, Walker doesn’t look good on immigration/amnesty. He won’t get my vote.
http://www.stubbornthings.org/scott-walker-close-inspection/

Walker proved his character in the Wisconsin fights; whatever his immigration stance is, as long as he clearly states it and does not lie about it, I will vote for him in the general if the Republicans have the sense to nominate him.

My sense of the man is that he will listen to and compromise with my hard line stance on immigration.

    platypus in reply to gettimothy. | February 1, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    Agreed. Besides, unless Congress passes a bill, it doesn’t matter because I cannot picture Walker behaving like Jugears as far as enforcing the law is concerned.

    He hd better rethink his BS position on Amnesty — claiming he is not for Amnesty while pushing Amnesty ia going to get him nowhere.

    creeper in reply to gettimothy. | February 2, 2015 at 12:05 pm

    The point is that he has NOT “clearly stated it”. He muddles the issue by condemning amnesty and then refusing to support deportation of illegals. He wants to split the baby.

Henry Hawkins | February 1, 2015 at 1:33 pm

“At a time when the loudest voices on the right were screaming for border security while ignoring the major issues with our current immigration infrastructure…”

Assuming that ‘the loudest voices on the right’ refers to conservatives and Tea Partiers, this is a lie. We do NOT ignore the need for immigration reform, we only insist that border security come first, otherwise what’s the point? (Not to mention that we are at war with terrorists all over the world).

The last time a major bipartisan immigration deal was struck with border security coming later, it did not come at all, which was the hidden intent of GOP-ers feeding the cheap labor needs of its business community supporters and Democrats seeking to grow minority voting rolls. (Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986). Never again. Border security first, reform second. Any plan that does not have border security first is essentially an amnesty plan, because the border security part obviously must happen first – if it isn’t in there or isn’t first, it’s another trick deal.

“Rather than demagoguing and politicizing a serious issue, Walker’s approach…”

Another dig at conservatives and/or Tea Patiers? If so, this too is not true. Every wing of every party has its demagogs and politicizers, but this does not describe the set of conservatives or Tea Partiers.

“….is perfectly pragmatic. ‘Why are we in this situation that we’re in? How did we get here? And what do we do to fix it?’ are questions that should be asked, but seldom find their way into the politisphere discussion.”

But… we know exactly why and how the immgration situation is as it is. There are numerous plans to fix it, and talk about immigration is closer to incessant than seldom, so I don’t get this paragraph.

—–

Is Legal Insurrection targeting conservatives/Tea Partiers or something? This is yet another contributor appearing to do so. If so, fire away, but drop the sideways digs, be open about it, and stick to facts. If not, accept my apologies.

GET OFF MY LAWN.

    Radegunda in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 1, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    “Why are we in this situation that we’re in? How did we get here?”

    Those are easy: Because too many powerful people for too long have been unwilling to defend our borders or enforce immigration laws. In fact, too many people and institutions have created positive incentives to disregard our immigration laws and act as if our national borders are inconsequential or unjust.

    Unless those attitudes change, it’s pointless to talk about “reform” of the laws.

The immigration problem can only be solved with compromise and leadership. Obama, of course, is capable of neither. What I would like to see happen with immigration doesn’t command the support of more than 40% of the electorate. The percentage is much lower in the ruling elites who dominate public discussion. But I do think that a man like Walker can lead the country to significantly better immigration policies. Staking out firm positions in a presidential campaign will make compromise and leadership more difficult after the candidate is elected, if he is elected.

It’s a complex issue and difficult to apply absolute standards to every situation. Take the colonization of North America as an example. We simply moved into territory occupied by others. 400+ years later, we’ve established roots and contributed to the general welfare of the land. What is a fair solution to the grievances of Native Americans whose land was confiscated outright or whose ancestors entered treaties that were never honored by the US government?

Should we all leave and begin negotiations?

Should we all be allowed to stay and carry on as if nothing was ever amiss?

Should we make an attempt to renegotiate the terms of the broken treaties and outright confiscations of property?

Has too much time elapsed, so what difference does it make at this point?

Roger Williams (founder of Rhode Island) raised the question of having simply taken the land from the Native Americans, and advocated fair negotiations and compensation for it, and was invited to leave Massachusetts.

I’m not advocating that we all abandon our property. Sins of the fathers and all that. The point I’m making is that we are in a similar situation as that of the generations of inhabitants of the US, whose ancestors were the ones who took up residence without legal permission to do so.

It’s complex, it’s enormous, and it’s personal. We all benefited from the colonization of the continent and the expansion of the US territory, whether our ancestors were directly involved or not. Whatever solutions we advance, I think we should bear in mind our own history and what we perceive as fair in light of that history.

    Radegunda in reply to windbag. | February 1, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    I won’t justify everything our founding generations did to the natives — far from it. But there are differences that your analogy overlooks:

    The early settlers found a sparsely populated, culturally primitive continent with large areas over which no one had any formal claims of jurisdiction; many inhabitants were nomadic; many tribes fought savagely among each other.

    We how have a settled and supposedly representative government that claims jurisdiction within certain boundaries and has made laws as to how new settlers will be admitted — yet that government largely declines to enforce those laws. That government also disdains the overwhelming wish of citizens to have those laws enforced and our borders protected.

    Our supposedly representative government, constituted to serve the well-being of citizens first, is instead putting the interests of special interests and foreign nationals first. Is that “fair” to citizens?

    Can this nation accommodate everyone in the world who thinks it’s only “fair” that they get to live in a wealthier country?

    Moreover, those who raise the “fairness” argument seem to think the prosperity and other advantages of the United States just sprang out of the soil and therefore we have an obligation to share them with others. Centuries ago there was a lot of open land and resources, but the difference between the U.S. and Mexico today is what people do with what’s available; it’s what kind of culture the residents build.

    Instead of importing great masses of people who don’t really understand or appreciate the cultural dynamics involved but just imagine there’s gold in them thar hills — and thereby dragging down the well-being of the citizens and diluting our culture — the “fair” approach would involve encouraging the citizens of every country to adopt the cultural attitudes and practices that lead to freedom and prosperity.

    Yours is a very bleeding heart point of view friend. Remember, the continent here was nearly unoccupied. “Indian” tribes were here and there, quite often warring on one another, quite often holding Black (African) slaves. Are Indian people ever made to feel guilty that their ancestors held African slaves?

    The American Indian tribes were quasi primitives, sorry if that offends you. Also, remember, the original Pilgrims and their descendants lived from over one and a half centuries here BEFIRE the founding of the USA. Even before 1776, the colonists made a pretty nice society here, moving along, making good progress.

    Does a country, any country, have the right to decide who and how many immigrants (if any at all) they allow into their country? If you say no, there’s no point in us debating. Every nation is a “nation of immigrants” – if you go back far enough in the past, for no one spouted out of the ground.

    Just things to keep in mind.

      Whoa, there, friend. I’m anything but a bleeding heart, so spare the ad hoc attack right out of the chute.

      Using your logic, Montana is open game for colonization, since it’s nearly unoccupied. And, sorry, but your history is off a tad, since Indians didn’t have black slaves when the Europeans got here. How either of those would justify seizure of their property is a mystery.

      I didn’t say I was offended by the primitive state of the Indians. Where you got that, and what it proves, is another mystery you’ve manufactured.

      What does it matter how much time elapsed between the colonization of North America and the founding of the US? My point was that we indirectly benefited from the actions of the colonists, just as recent immigrants indirectly benefit from the developments of those who lived here before. Not sure what your point was in bringing that up.

      Of course a country has a right to secure its borders.

      So, did you have a point you wanted to make?

Aside from the fence, let’s not forget the Visa Overstayers. 40% of those who are here illegally, or so say various folks.

And this contributor, Kemberlee Kaye, seems to be a light pastel. I would say more, but I’ve been watching the game, and you know, I might regret what I say….

Karen Sacandy | February 2, 2015 at 7:51 am

You picked the name. I merely agreed.

I don’t find your comments pertinent to the question at hand. Nor to any question I would deem important.

    Important enough to respond to…twice…

    Walker’s immigration policy is important and will be a defining factor in many voters’ minds. Those who advocate prosecution and deportation of any and all current violators will not tolerate anything that sounds like amnesty. I was just pointing out the complexity and somewhat hypocrisy of that position. Reread the first sentence I posted; it’s complex and absolute standards are difficult to apply. Because I didn’t “harumph, harumph, harumph” along with the rest of the choir, that makes me a bleeding heart or simpleton? Sorry to disrupt the echo chamber acoustics.

Walker says he opposes amnesty but does not support deportation. He’s trying to have it both ways. Typical pol.

JoeThePimpernel | February 5, 2015 at 3:06 pm

Scott is owned lock, stock and barrel by the US Chamber of Crony-Fascists.

Any questions?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend