Does it matter if Scott Walker flip-flopped on immigration?
Almost all candidates flip at one point, only a flop if you don’t trust the candidate.
Probable presidential candidate Scott Walker changed his mind on immigration, and it became major news.
This is ridiculous.
Via Fox News:
“My view has changed,” Walker said in a “Fox News Sunday” interview taped Friday. “I’m flat out saying it.”
Walker in 2013 said a plan in which illegal immigrants can become United States citizens by first paying penalties and enduring a waiting period “makes sense.”
However, he is now saying such a plan is tantamount to amnesty, amid criticism that he has flip-flopped on that issue and others — including right-to-work legislation in his home state.
“I don’t believe in amnesty,” said Walker, who finished second Saturday in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll for potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates. “We need to secure the border. We ultimately need to put in place a system that works — a legal immigration system that works.”
Here’s the video:
Obviously, the left piled on:
Hmm… Walker decided he was against amnesty only after Barack Obama, the first black president, did an executive order to allow it? Gee, do you think that Walker might just be blowing his dog whistle to appease his radical fringe base and pandering to his racist, big money donors? Just maybe?
Media Matters actually caught the change in Walker’s position a month ago when he said the same thing on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos
Then again, Walker flip flopping on issues is nothing new. He’s built his career on telling people what he wants them to hear for decades. Another recent example of this is his double reversal on so called Right to Work legislation which he was for before he was against before he was for it again.
In Wisconsin, we joke that if you don’t like the weather, stick around ten minutes and it will change. The same can be said for Walker’s position on any given issue.
The problem, of course, isn’t how the left reacts. It’s how we react. From Sooper at the Right Scoop [Emphasis added]:
As Scott Walker grows in prominence and popularity, hes gonna have to take on some fairly acute criticisms of his past policies, and one of the more contentious one is immigration. Walker supported amnesty for Wisconsin that was similar to Reagan’s compromise (that he later regretted), but has since reverted to a more conservative view on immigration.
Fox News’ Chris Wallace pressed him on the issue this morning
I have to admit, if you’re gonna flip flop, that’s the way to do it – head on, admit that you’ve changed. At least the dude changed to the right position! But I have a feeling many aren’t willing to forgive his past compromised position.
Welcome to the crossroads.
Sooper is right, and not only as applied to Walker and immigration. Conservatives have a long memory—and for good reason. We’re used to being screwed over by politicians who “evolve” on policy points that morph into the issues many voters use as a make-or-break when considering which box to check on election day.
The problem is that there’s a difference between being a flip flopper, and a politician who makes a good faith change in policy direction. Flip floppers stick a wet finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing; people who change their minds have stared down into the abyss that is the American legislative process and resurfaced changed.
Disallowing politicians from changing their minds is akin to staring out into the electorate and declaring that we’re not accepting any new voters—it doesn’t make sense, and it disqualifies a lot of people from contributing to an increasingly diverse and dynamic movement.
This doesn’t mean that we should let these things go. Politicians who change their minds should be watched like hawks, especially during election cycles. It’s not a matter of “calling them out” or “exposing hypocrisy”—it’s an opportunity to present these questions and challenge canned answers not because that’s how politics works, but because we deserve better than a candidate that just expects people to swallow talking points without a second thought.
What does this mean for Walker? It means that we should spend a lot of time asking him specific questions about how his policy plan on immigration has changed. Real solutions should be the red meat we’re looking for, instead of opportunities to toss zingers at each other.
Will we check ourselves, or wreck ourselves? Only time will tell.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Too bad he isn’t a Dem. He could say his view had evolved and the MSM would eat it up
Well, if Obama can devolve and believe in same sex marriage, why can’t Walker evolve and see reason?
Please stop being reasonable and logical. You are running the risk of causing leftist brains to function, which could result in an exploding cranium. Not only is that very messy but it means that exploded head leftist will always vote Democrat.
There has never…in all of history, or anywhere…been an amnesty program that worked as it was promised to work.
Ever. Any. WHERE.
If Ronald Reagan were alive today, he’d be called a “flip-flopper” by the Mushroom Media. Well, that would be the nicest thing they’d call him. Because he would recognize that his shot at amnesty was in line with all the others…a failure. And he’d step up and say so.
>> There has never…in all of history, or anywhere…been an amnesty program that worked …
Well now, what about Alias Smith and Jones?
I loved that show!
Operation Wetback worked–but that was an inverse-amnesty program.
If he is willing to fight to protect working families from unrestrained illegal immigration today – then he is fine with me.
Border control, like a two-lane highway, turned on its side, wall kind of control, has to be first. We can do that when there is a will, with other options for some areas. Then we do e-verify and decide how many work visas we really need, but I prefer never giving the illegals the right to vote.
We have technology to do biometric ID, and any that drive, do any kind of banking, or use an EBT card would need a real ID, like the rest of us. Giving blanket amnesty to 11 (or 30) million is not necessary, but we can allow work visas for those we really need, that have clean noses. Criminal aliens bio-ID’d at an ATM have a big “deport or imprison” cage drop on them, rather than releasing them from prison to live among us as Obama does.
But no voting, just as no voting for felons. (The entitlement angle is also an issue) Then set up an Ellis Island, but stop encouraging people to come illegally, as Obama’s system does. Walker is OK on this for me, and in the general if people think he is soft on immigration, that will probably be to his advantage.
The first step is to stop letting the left conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration (invasion). If he can pull that off, he has my vote. I would rather he evolve into an anti illegal immigration proponent than the easy thing of following the politically “correct”. The stupid orthodox Republicans think that illegals will love them if they act like Democrats. The illegals are smart enough to go for the real thing.
I know quite a few very conservative Americans of Mexican heritage, and a few who are first generation immigrants. They have much disdain for what they call the “Chicanos” who are the lazy, no-working, hand-out taking thug types. The conservatives are very hard working, devoutly Catholic and definitely not progressive. It’s foolish and counterproductive to think of “Mexicans” or “Latinos” as some monolithic group that all think/vote the same way.
Agreed on the distinction. But look in the mirror and say, “if they’re illegal, they ain’t immigrants.” Repeat until you are properly trained to say illegal alien OR legal alien.
I have a friend from Brazil who is a US citizen (20 years ago). She was and is an immigrant. She came here legally and embarked on a non-stop crusade to become a citizen. Those others have no right to call themselves immigrants, in my view.
He originally was for amnesty a few years ago; since then he has seen rampant incursions by illegals, cartel members, terrorists, etc. He has seen the administration use the “matador” method of border security, i.e. they just wave at the illegals walking by. Diseases have entered the country via the border. Frankly, I’d be much more wary of someone that was FOR amnesty and STILL for it after all of the events that have transpired.
I used to be much more pro-amnesty than I am now. I’m still pro-immigration, but there has to be some rhyme and reason to it, not just a mass free-for-all of people whose first act in this country was to break the law (and whose next was to either collect benefits, work illegally under the table, or both).
I think watching how Obama has opened the floodgates of illegal immigration, and seeing the early repercussions of that, has turned a lot of amnesty “squishes” into immigration realists.
My prediction is that a lot of people will be more forgiving (and understanding) of Walker’s “flip-flop” than the Left are predicting.
He didn’t flip-flop. He re-assessed his position, found it lacking, and changed/fixed it.
You need to do some research on the crime wave of illegal alien activities that you seem to be relaxed about. Virtually all of these aliens have no value to our country and they are NOT hard working misunderstood campesinos.
They are the dregs of their native countries which is why those countries are glad to see them go.
His previous position came as governor of Wisconsin. He’s now running for president of the US. The field changes. There’s a big difference between Green Bay, Wisconsin and Laredo, Texas when it comes to illegal immigrant problems.
I am more than forgiving on these things – I don’t ‘forgive’ them at all because that implies fault, that some infraction has occurred. I’d guess that having a open position on immigration while in Wisconsin, a deep blue state, is an easy, low-cost thing to hold, even for a Republican. Madison, Wisconsin is not knee-deep in illegals. Or Walker may genuinely changed his mind. Neither bothers me.
When I examine such evolutions, I check to see if it’s an evolved principle as opposed to policy, such as moving from pro-life to pro-choice or vice versa, which I feel are based on values that are not subordinate to extant politics, wherein your policy is built on principles, not the other way round. Then I ask, “is this change purely political, just to win/stay in office?”
With Walker, this is a change in policy necessitated by a grand change in scale – national office, the presidency. While the US as a whole suffers mightily with the costs of illegal immigration, Wisconsin is among those states which feel it the least.
I do not think he has compromised his principles. I do think he has made a political move, legitimized because he is now at the national level and the field has changed from Wisconsin-only. Even if his evolution were wholly political in order to win the White House, I can live with it quite easily.
See my earlier comment and then get in the mirror.
I think it is completely understandable for his position to have changed on this issue. It’s of much more importance for a presidential candidate than it is for a state that borders on Canada, so one could expect that he has only recently been digging into the details on this topic to a greater depth.
I’d love to see him come out in favor of:
— securing the border, first and foremost
— enforcing existing laws that prevent entry of anyone who is going to be a strain on our welfare system
— enforcing existing laws that require people coming into the country to be healthy, and to be able to prove it
— focusing our visa programs on people who are going to come here and contribute… smart, energetic people who are coming here and will make a positive difference, like so many immigrants have done since the founding of our country
— eliminating the ‘anchor baby’ amendment. this was done as a way of ensuring that emancipated slaves would secure citizenship and it has been twisted into a system of allowing anybody to come in and latch onto the government teat as long as they’ll pull the Dim lever
— whatever we do with the people who are here illegally today, there should be no path to citizenship for them. I don’t necessarily think they should all be deported, but nobody who broke the law coming here should be rewarded with citizenship, period. If they have a problem with that then they are welcome to go home.
I have NO problem with anyone ‘changing their mind’. Any sincere, thinking-person should be subject to changing their mind as new facts become known and circumstances evolve. To me, that is a sign of a mature intellect.
What I always want to know however, is the eternal question of every 3-year-old: “Why?”
If there is even the slightest hint of political maneuvering in their explanation, I am done listening to them and they sure as hell won’t even be considered for my vote.
As long as there aren’t too many or any that are really really far apart as far as right or left.
His change isn’t much different than his previous stance, he’s mainly included and stressed the control of the border being a priority.
It’s all moot anyway because by the time Obama and the Cave In GOP get through we’ll have 30 million foreign operatives on our soil. And they’ll be looking for jobs and the Government will be there to give them one; as a Police Force.
Oh they’ll call it something else and at first it will look benign but eventually they’ll be used to aid and assist law enforcement and then will take over certain non arrest duties and then after some crisis or other (manufactured or otherwise) they’ll be pressed into service as enforcers and be used to search and seize those the government will label as enemies.
And they won’t be concerned about constitutional excess, they didn’t grow up with that and they won’t care about their fellow citizens because Hispanics are notably xenophobic as far as white vs brown so there won’t be any balking at carrying out their orders.
This is all planned out and the GOP is either complacent or contributory. Either way they’ve sold us down the river.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. I’m not even sure I want to know.
Where did this this theory of yours even come from?
It’s actually very clear as you point out by trying to claim it isn’t.
You commented on it and I’m guessing you were the down thumb too.
Quite simply, Obama has stated that the US needs a National Police force. What better group of people to use for that force than newly arrived foreigners with little loyalty or concern about constitutional nuances of search and seizure.
What better way to insure that your occupational force isn’t composed of those sympathetic to those you’re trying to “Police” than to have them be the newly arrived, language deficient but eager to perform foreigners?
That you don’t want to recognize the possibilities that are exposed by the usurpation of power by Obama with his approval of millions of unemployed young men and women being let into this country is your problem and not of my making or my responsibility to answer to your skepticism.
Can you honestly say that there are events happening now that you wouldn’t have laughed at in the past if anyone had claimed they would happen now? Or tried to cast aspersions on them for voicing the possibility? Really?
jakee308, hit the link in my comment below. it is important.
Yes, yes, and he’s going to suspend the Constitution and have his millions of Mexican minions lock us all up in secret FEMA death camps.
Just like Bush did.
And I still don’t understand your
claim. When I take a look around me at the Hispanics I come into contact with in Florida, they come in just about every shade and hue. Some are paler than I am; some are darker than Obama. When I have seen color-based bigotry or prejudice in that community, if anything it’s against those with the darker skin and in favor of lighter complexions. Pretty much the same color-based bigotry and prejudice you would see from the Anglo community.
But basically, it sounds like a preposterously broad stereotype. Even a little bit xenophobic.
I can see you’re not inclined to discussion. You’ve got your mind made up and nothing can change it.
Characterize what I said how you will I base what I said on personal experience and not looking around.
I would like to see you reply to gettimothy and his link to something mark levin had to say. It appears what I’m saying isn’t so far fetched to some.
And you apparently don’t understand what xenophobic means.
I haven’t seen any evidence for plans for such a “brown” police force. The overthrow has been more La Raza style, where they come illegally, work off the books, and also get entitlements.
Then there is all the trafficking, humans and drugs, with Obama even covertly busing kids (some in their 30’s) all around the country, refusing to inform governors, claiming the kids have rights to privacy.
Our police departments have some issues, but they are generally pro America, which seems to be why Obama/Holder/Sharpton are at war with local police. They indeed prefer top down control. America is supposed to accept the gangster world of Trayvon and Brown, and fund our own overthrow from the cartels of central America.
Too many black communities are run/overrun by the gangs, and the same seems true of some Hispanic communities. But diversity and global redistribution is an insane goal. We must have people that will sacrifice/work to become American, not demand we fund them because we are the problem, as Obama promotes. America is exceptional, and the “commies” are destroying us from within, following their societal destruction started in the 60’s.
Mark Levin is on it so it looks legit.
If this is true (and I trust Mark Levin) then the commenter has a point. Obama is doing as Anita Dunn remarked in term one about Mao fighting his war his way.
Obama is not interested in Amnesty for assimilation. Obama wants Amnesty to support his invasion of his army for his purposes.
I yearn for a President who believes in the Constitution, respects US Citizens and will faithfully execute the law, which seems like a radical proposition today. Shows how out of whack things have become.
If you haven’t changed your mind on immigration then you don’t have a mind to change. Oh there were and are those who never want anyone to come here legally or otherwise but there has to be some system to deal with the mess we have now. Under obama we have seen our laws completely ignored and wave after wave of illegals pour across our southern border. What could have been a manageable idea a few years ago has now become a national catastrophe. The only sane first step is to secure the border. From then on we can discuss how to handle the illegals that are here and what to do about future immigration laws. If we do it any other way then the waves will only get bigger and the chaos worse. I can see how Walker has flipped on his original view of immigration so have I.
It does not appear that Scott Walker took his first position for a political advantage (while secretly holding the opposite position), as it is unlikely that any stance on immigration would have had an bearing on his 3 campaigns for governor. This is unlike Obama, Clinton, Kerry and [insert other generic Democrat name here] who did a flip flop nakedly for political purpose. Therefore, this is not a flip-flop that diminishes my favorable opinion of Scott Walker, in fact it reinforces my opinion as a leader that can be swayed by real data.
The problem with amnesty is, if nothing else we are giving away a massive massive massive massive farm for free.
This is worth tens of billions a year to mexico.
I go to Cabo for two weeks every January when I can make it. I’d actually like to probably be a dual citizen there and buy some property one day. But you know what I don’t want to do? Be a resident of that crappy country for 5 years, and then take a test. You know, like these illegal aliens don’t want to do.
What else do we want to negotiate for? Are there some things we want to get out of NAFTA vis a vis the Mexico? You see, when just unilaterally allow Obama to nationalize 12 million illegal mexicans, that send home tens of billions of dollars to mexico a year, that their economy would crash without, we just through away the biggest damn chip we have.
And no one ever ever ever talks about this.
Why do we always act like the issue of legalizing these tens of millions of illegal aliens is a bunch one off transactions vis a vis the Federal government and each illegal alien. It’s not. Not at all. We could send everyone home in 6 months by fining their employers, and then the Mexican Economy would IMPLODE.
We should be negotiation directly with them. What do we want. Do we not want their crappy trucks coming over our border for NAFTA? Do we want them to stop this BS about training their people how to evade our customs and ICE and border patrol? what else do we want. WE can have it all! do we demand transparency and corruption intervention?
Obama wants to get new democratic voters for this, we all know that’s all he cares, even if it means current democratic voters lose jobs. but if we go down this road because more than half the legislators are retarded WHY DOES NO ONE EVER BRING UP WE HOLD ALL THE CARDS HERE?
With Hillary in the news for foreign “bribes”, we have to take another look at Holder and his guns to Mexican cartels, and Loretta Lynch overseeing the sweetheart deal to HSBC after they were caught money laundering for the cartels.
iirc, an association of border guards said there has to be top down involvement to keep the border human/drug trafficking so open. Some mayor in Mexico led 43 kids to slaughter by a cartel when they were protesting for school money. The police chief is still at large, the mayor arrested. Cartels control large parts of the country, and coyotes make out like bandits trafficking human cargo, which Obama then buses around the country.
There is big money in corruption, and it is not just the big banks that buy influence. We hold the high cards, but that power can be bought from enemies domestic, which I believe is a big reason why we look so weak, fold the strong hand so often.
Who does Obama choose as his national heroes/martyrs … druggie lawbreaking thugs Trayvon and Brown. I’m really tired of all the talk about Obama having pure motives, he really loves his country, etc. His plans are subversive as he learned from Alinsky, to tear down and destroy, with only rainbows and unicorns as hope. And we wonder why our foreign policy is failing.
Scott Walker has done a hell of a job in Wisconsin, no doubt. But if he doesn’t have fire in his belly against illegal aliens, then he can’t help the Republic. The influx of illegal aliens has doomed tens of millions of Americans to whom we owe our first obligation.
I don’t get the feeling Scott Walker has any appreciation for the devastation illegal aliens are causing Americans; I think it is just to get votes in the primaries. When he’s elected, it will all be a dog and pony show, and we’ll never get any enforcement.
Until he convinces me, I won’t consider him.