Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a potential GOP presidential candidate for 2016, has flip-flopped over the issue of illegals and amnesty. In fact, at a recent, private dinner with New Hampshire Republicans, he advanced the idea of allowing those who are illegally in this country to stay and become eligible for citizenship. Obviously, this is at odds with statements he has made earlier this year on the issue.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Mr. Walker’s remarks, which were confirmed by three people present, vary from the call he has made for “no amnesty”—a phrase widely employed by people who believe immigrants who broke the law by entering the country without permission shouldn’t be awarded legal status or citizenship.
The statements by Mr. Walker, a likely candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, show the difficulty that some in the Republican Party face as they try to appeal both to the conservative GOP primary electorate—which largely opposes easing immigration laws—and business leaders and general election voters who have been more supportive of granting legal status to undocumented immigrants.
Mr. Walker’s “no amnesty” position, first articulated earlier this year, was a change from his prior decadelong support for a pathway to citizenship. He has explained in public that his shift to a more restrictive view came after consulting with border-state governors and hearing from people opposed to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
But during the March 13 private dinner, organized by New Hampshire Republican Party Chairwoman Jennifer Horn at the Copper Door Restaurant in Bedford, N.H., Mr. Walker said undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be deported, and he mocked 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s suggestion that they would “self-deport,” according to people who were there.
Instead, they said, Mr. Walker said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to “eventually get their citizenship without being given preferential treatment” ahead of people already in line to obtain citizenship.
“He said no to citizenship now, but later they could get it,” said Bill Greiner, an owner of the Copper Door. Ken Merrifield, mayor of Franklin, N.H., who also attended, said Mr. Walker proposed that illegal immigrants should “get to the back of the line for citizenship” but not be deported.
Kirsten Kukowski, a Walker spokeswoman said on Thursday, ““We strongly dispute this account. Gov. Walker has been very clear that he does not support amnesty and believes that border security must be established and the rule of law must be followed. His position has not changed, he does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants.”
Walker has backed a “path to citizenship.” He has also supported granting “legal status” to illegals in the past. However, the matter in question is not his flip flopping, nor is it which opinion he has at any given moment. The issue is what does the law state? We already know that Barack Obama decided to ignore immigration law, something that is entrusted to Congress to legislate and something in the power of the office of the executive to enforce.
WSJ went on to report:
At a 2002 Mexican Independence Day event in Milwaukee, Wis., Mr. Walker, then the county executive, signed a resolution that praised the economic and civic contributions of undocumented immigrants and called for “a new program similar to the Federal amnesty program enacted by Congress in 1986.”
In 2006, he signed another county resolution backing the immigration proposal written by Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.) that would have granted legal status to many illegal immigrants.
As late as 2013, Mr. Walker told Politico he backed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and told the Wausau Daily Herald more border security wasn’t necessary. “You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that,” he told the Wisconsin paper in a videotaped interview. “To me, I don’t know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”
Mr. Walker has shifted his stances on other aspects of immigration law. In May 2010, after Arizona lawmakers passed tough restrictions on illegal immigrants, he told the Associated Press he had “serious concerns” about the law because it “impedes on the inherent right of the federal government to do its job and to protect our borders, and also because in America we don’t want our citizens getting pulled over because of how they look.”
Hours later, Mr. Walker, then in a GOP primary for governor, reversed himself. “I too would sign the Arizona immigration bill,” he said, after conservatives inundated his Facebook page to criticize his first position.
On the 2016 campaign trail, Mr. Walker has sought to portray himself as an unabashed conservative. This year, he has signed right-to-work legislation, which is vigorously opposed by labor unions, and signaled support for a state ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. In a 2014 campaign advertisement, Mr. Walker had said he backed abortion legislation that “leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor.”
And why is Walker doing these things? That’s right. He’s politicking! Just like every other politician. He can say he is not for amnesty, but allowing a “pathway to citizenship for those here illegally is amnesty. He may claim he is pro-life, but his stance to claim the final decision to murder an unborn baby is between her and her doctor is actually a pro-death stance. He can claim that federal judges have unconstitutionally told states that they must redefine marriage to include those who practice sodomy, but that is not a Constitutional, but rather a tyrannical position since the federal government was given no authority to tell the states how they deal with sodomy.
So, here’s a guy that supports rewarding unlawful behavior, the murder of the unborn, the redefinition of marriage (and yes, he is supporting it by going along with the federal court) and apparently is not willing to stand us for state’s rights. But I can hear the cries now, “Those are social issues, and he’s been great on economic issues.” Maybe, but just remember, social issues have economic consequences.