Reminder: Polls show public support for Scott Walker’s position on legal immigration

posted at 11:31 am on April 22, 2015 by Allahpundit

Not always majority support, granted, but Ramesh Ponnuru reminds us there’s a sizable chunk of voters out there who are open to reducing legal as well as illegal immigration. Given widespread paranoia among top Republicans about losing Latinos forever over grassroots opposition to amnesty, Walker moving to Mitt Romney’s right by questioning legal immigration seems counterintuitive and politically dangerous. But is it? Per Ponnuru, hmmmm:

gal

Interesting, but maybe that 39 percent opposition is driven almost entirely by Republicans, people whom Walker can already count on to support him as nominee, in which case his legal immigration position isn’t winning him any new votes. Look back a bit further to another Gallup poll from last year, though, and you’ll see that’s not true:

g2

Even among indies, a strong plurality of 43 percent wants immigration decreased. At a minimum, 74 percent of American adults don’t want to see immigration increase, putting them squarely at odds with a lefty base that’s forever clamoring for amnesty. Go back another year, to 2013, and you’ll find even stronger opposition to legal immigration via a Fox News poll:

fn

The Fox data isn’t as refined as the Gallup data because it includes no option for keeping immigration levels as they are now, but it’s revealing that when given a stark choice between more or less, nearly all demographic groups say “less” — including nonwhites. There’s potential there for Walker. And framing this issue explicitly in terms of protecting American workers’ wages could help him with another vulnerability, notes pollster Kellyanne Conway:

The left will try to caricature him as union-busting, as anti-worker [because of Wisconsin’s collective bargaining reforms]. 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.

I don’t know about that last part. If this was an obviously winning hand, some savvy top-flight Republican contender would have seized on it in 2008 or 2012, no? (I know, I know — “there were no savvy Republicans running in 2008 and 2012!”) Certainly, though, Conway’s describing Walker’s best argument for his position. And Ponnuru, in another recent piece, offers another: “[I]mmigrants would assimilate more quickly — and earn higher wages — if the country took in fewer of them and didn’t consign many of them to a second-tier workforce without the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.” Reducing legal immigration: Not just good for American workers but good for immigrant workers too!

Just tell me this: Is Walker really going to own this argument and defend it under withering lefty fire? Standing firm while under attack from liberals is his trademark, admittedly, but it won’t just be lefties hammering him this time. It’ll be the GOP’s donor class too, which will be horrified at the thought of seeing a key supply of cheap(er) labor cut off. That’s the deep mystery at the heart of Walker’s shift on this issue. Why would a guy who already enjoys plenty of goodwill with conservatives risk alienating the Chamber of Commerce wing, which also likes him and would be willing to put many millions of dollars at his disposal in the campaign — provided he doesn’t screw them on one of their pet issues, as he now seems to be doing? Very strange. Maybe Walker figures that he’s fighting a losing battle trying to compete with Jeb for establishment money and has decided to try to win with conservative votes instead, which could cut off Rubio’s and Cruz’s paths to the nomination. Once that happens and it’s Walker versus Bush, one on one, Walker may be calculating that he’ll win that battle and then the donor class will have no choice but to support him.

Besides, to answer my own question, let’s be realistic: Having spent most of his political life thus far as a loud and proud amnesty shill, Scott Walker’s not going to suddenly transform into Tom Tancredo and remain that way for the duration of the campaign. In fact, read carefully what he’s already said about wages and legal immigration to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and you’ll find that he hasn’t actually called for reducing immigration levels. He simply wants policymakers to consider the impact on wages when setting those levels. That’s significant, but it’s as mild a gesture as you can make in this direction and it’s something Walker will have no difficulty walking away from later if need be — e.g., “my staff and I have looked at wage effects from current immigration streams and we think the status quo is sustainable.” Before righties line up behind Walker on this issue, which could force other candidates to mimic his position, let’s at least have some confidence that he’ll defend his position once he really starts taking a pounding for it. Do you have that confidence yet? After he’s already conspicuously reversed himself on immigration to solve a political problem once before?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Throne of Skulls, baby, Throne of Skulls…

Bruno Strozek on April 22, 2015 at 11:33 AM

…Susan will Shine!

JugEarsButtHurt on April 22, 2015 at 11:35 AM

Hint: common sense, beneficial policies will always be popular.

ramesees on April 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM

Why would a guy who already enjoys plenty of goodwill with conservatives risk alienating the Chamber of Commerce wing, which also likes him and would be willing to put many millions of dollars at his disposal in the campaign — provided he doesn’t screw them on one of their pet issues, as he now seems to be doing?

Ask Dave Brat.

Joseph K on April 22, 2015 at 11:40 AM

The real burning question on America’s mind is how many illegal immigrants would go to a gay wedding?

gwelf on April 22, 2015 at 11:42 AM

Why does protecting American works automatically mean lower immigration levels? I’ve never heard him say he wants lower immmigration levels. You can protect American workers and keep same levels or increase legal immigration levels at once.

dforston on April 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM

The left will try to caricature him as union-busting

I fail to see the negative there…

yaedon on April 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM

I don’t believe Walker but I do like that immigration position.

Exactly what is the argument for more people being imported when we’re losing control of our culture, language, and law… not to mention the increasing number of citizens not only finding themselves out of work but unable to find a new job. This isn’t a hundred years ago when we had loads of unused land ready to be settled, things change.

Ukiah on April 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM

HA and their d*mn love of polls again. Just like ned pepper used to.

elvis lives on April 22, 2015 at 11:46 AM

Why would a guy who already enjoys plenty of goodwill with conservatives risk alienating the Chamber of Commerce wing, which also likes him and would be willing to put many millions of dollars at his disposal in the campaign — provided he doesn’t screw them on one of their pet issues, as he now seems to be doing?

For what is hopefully the same reason he fired Liz Mair: they’re evil.

Stoic Patriot on April 22, 2015 at 11:48 AM

Well, Liz Mair isn’t happy about it….*ducks*

chuckfinlay on April 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM

Just tell me this: Is Walker really going to own this argument and defend it under withering leftyGOPe fire?

Even if he is lying, it is great to have this position out here and force the other candidates to take a stance.

We have let in over a million immigrants a year for many years, Ted Kennedy’s 1965 bill has been a total disaster.

Here’s a crazy thought, how about an immigration policy that benefits the country as a whole rather than a few special interests?

Or does the US simply exist as a dumping ground for the world’s useless and destitute, or even worse, dangerous Somalians/Chechnyans etc.?

Redstone on April 22, 2015 at 11:51 AM

It matters entirely how it’s framed. We’ll soon have a dramatic shortage of doctors and nurses, and the supply will have to be supplemented from foreign countries. We don’t train enough young doctors. We don’t train enough young engineers either. You can’t just turn these things on and off like a faucet. Human beings make their life plans years in advance. On the other hand, there’s an increased immigration of Muslims who seem to bring all their theocratic anti-freedom ideas and preferences with them. Public opinion will depend on which of the immigrant groups we’re talking about.

RBMN on April 22, 2015 at 11:53 AM

I’ve never bought into the “Walker is a amnesty, chamber of commerce shill”.

That being said, AP is right, the language is encouraging but easily escapable. Non the less, it’s a winning issue that can attract indy’s as well as some of those Reagan Democrats Walker believes are out there.

For me personally, the nomination is his to lose.

WisRich on April 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM

Reminder: Polls show public support for Scott Walker’s position on legal immigration

Lolz! Figures. Do we know what Walkers take finally settled out to be yet?

Bmore on April 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM

Why does protecting American works automatically mean lower immigration levels? I’ve never heard him say he wants lower immmigration levels. You can protect American workers and keep same levels or increase legal immigration levels at once.

dforston on April 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM

Given how many legal and illegal immigrants we’ve already allowed to flood into this country, the amount will have to be controlled and reduced if the ultimate goal is to put American citizens back to work and increase the wages of those who already have jobs.

I hope Walker is sincere. It’s actually a brilliant populist position on the issue if he can articulate it. The left as well as amnesty-loving RINOS will try to portray it as xenophobia, but I defy anyone to explain to me how flooding this country with a bunch of low-skilled workers(legal or illegal) is going to help the people who are already here who need good paying jobs.

Doughboy on April 22, 2015 at 11:57 AM

Even if he is lying, it is great to have this position out here and force the other candidates to take a stance.

We have let in over a million immigrants a year for many years, Ted Kennedy’s 1965 bill has been a total disaster.

Here’s a crazy thought, how about an immigration policy that benefits the country as a whole rather than a few special interests?

Or does the US simply exist as a dumping ground for the world’s useless and destitute, or even worse, dangerous Somalians/Chechnyans etc.?

Redstone on April 22, 2015 at 11:51 AM

An idea so crazy it just might work.

The American public never signed up for this. It was thrust on them by liberal democrats (Ted Kennedy specifically) in the mid 60s. And I don’t recall LBJ running on massive immigration in 64.

America, like any country, can not survive unlimited unrestricted immigration. It changes the character of the country and warps the economics of it as well. It’s time to have someone who has the intellectual honesty and the courage to say that.

That doesn’t mean we stop all immigration or hate immigrants. That’s certainly not Walker’s position. But should we reduce the number? Would America suddenly be a racist police state if we went from 1 million immigrants to maybe 100,000? Or if we put a focus on immigrants with PHDs or college degrees rather than whoever manages to hide in the back of a truck somewhere? Can we please acknowledge that the laws of supply and demand apply to labor just as they do to goods, and the reason why the wages are flat or falling for so many Americans is because we’re constantly flooding the labor market with 2 million people every year? Or is that thinking not allowed? Is having a rational policy that helps America now seems as racist? For many yes. I’m just disappointed that so many on the right are saying that.

MikeRuss on April 22, 2015 at 12:01 PM

The only way you increase the value of labor is to not have a glut of labor. It’s real easy for working class people to be taught this. If the left and estab-Republicans want to claim otherwise, they are arguing some insane voodoo economics and you’ll destroy them.

If you take their economic claims to its logical conclusion, they have no excuse for not calling for bringing the billion poorest people on earth to the US to end world poverty and and make our economy bigger than the combined economies of the rest of the world. When they have to admit that’s a bad idea, they lose their argument for any more poverty immigration. They’ll try to Laffer Curve it by claiming reduced returns when the number of immigrants is over the favored number they have in mind.

Buddahpundit on April 22, 2015 at 12:02 PM

Reminder: Polls show public support the position Scott Walker has now on immigration but didn’t have before

Better

TheMadHessian on April 22, 2015 at 12:03 PM

Besides, to answer my own question, let’s be realistic: Having spent most of his political life thus far as a loud and proud amnesty shill, Scott Walker’s not going to suddenly transform into Tom Tancredo and remain that way for the duration of the campaign.

Oh really? What’s your proof?

In fact, Walker hinted at this shift a few weeks ago. I noticed, and wondered, given his history, if the hint was just a one-off, a fluke, or that he would go further, with more concrete detail. He did.

I was skeptical of Walker then, and I am skeptical now. But I’ve been saying for months that there was room to the right of Cruz on immigration, that the position was a winner, and that someone should go there. Surprisingly, that someone was Walker.

So what are the consequences of this move? What else should we expect? First of all, I expect Walker to continue. He’s got the lead on this, he can set the pace, define the position. Moreover, as he is doing now, he can do this without sounding like a nativist lunatic.

Walker’s move will have the effect of dragging the party to the right on immigration. The other candidates have to respond to this. Previously, the GOP field seemed to be settling on an immigration narrative: border security first, then legalization, increased legal immigration, more H-1B1 visas. Contrary to Bluegill’s assertions, Cruz has been squarely part of his consensus although, as Bluegill has also pointed out, he has been fairly consistent about it, as opposed to, say, Rubio and, yes, Scott Walker.

Of all the other candidates, Cruz is now in the toughest spot. Does he stay within the narrative, or follow Walker. Either position is problematic for him, given the polling on the issue; the fact that his greatest virtue is consistency; and that he’s running as the True Con candidate with an immigration position that doesn’t differ much from Marco Rubio’s.

Realistically, the further Walker goes with this rightward shift, the further right his fallback position will be if he is elected. That’s the potential benefit here.

Walker’s move is fraught with risk, but it is risk that can win him the White House. The other guys are going to lose.

Right now, as Bluegill is fond of pointing out, endlessly, I would rather reverse Cloward-Piven and vote for Fake Indian than vote for any of these guys. Walker’s craven ethanol cave was a big disappointment for me, and he’s got a proven history as an amnesty shill. But he’s got my attention again. Let’s see how it goes.

Joseph K on April 22, 2015 at 12:05 PM

Having spent most of his political life thus far as a loud and proud amnesty shill, Scott Walker’s not going to suddenly transform into Tom Tancredo and remain that way for the duration of the campaign.

Of course not. I think Walker will do a better job of executing Romney’s Etch-A-Sketch strategy.

Wigglesworth on April 22, 2015 at 12:06 PM

Reminder: Polls show public support for Scott Walker’s position on legal immigration

That can’t be. I’ve been reminded too many times by terryannonline that polls show overwhelming support for amnesty and us evil, xenophobic amnesty-haters are such a tiny minority. She assures me that any candidate not fully on board with amnesty NOW! will be soundly defeated.

yaedon on April 22, 2015 at 12:10 PM

23 comments and nothing from bluegill? Do we have to provide our own copypasta this time around? Because all I have is this story about a guy who plays a sketchy Morrowind mod and it starts to haunt him in real life.

Gingotts on April 22, 2015 at 12:17 PM

I’m going to keep beating this drum:

immigration will be THE key issue in 2016, if any candidates can figure out how to discuss it properly

Obamacare’s ship has sailed, we can’t run on that anymore and win, especially in a general election year

Hit the right note on immigration and border security, and you get independents and disgruntled conservatives to turn out in droves

thurman on April 22, 2015 at 12:19 PM

Gingotts on April 22, 2015 at 12:17 PM

Lolz!

What was the mod?

yaedon on April 22, 2015 at 12:20 PM

That doesn’t mean we stop all immigration or hate immigrants. That’s certainly not Walker’s position. But should we reduce the number? Would America suddenly be a racist police state if we went from 1 million immigrants to maybe 100,000? Or if we put a focus on immigrants with PHDs or college degrees rather than whoever manages to hide in the back of a truck somewhere? Can we please acknowledge that the laws of supply and demand apply to labor just as they do to goods, and the reason why the wages are flat or falling for so many Americans is because we’re constantly flooding the labor market with 2 million people every year? Or is that thinking not allowed? Is having a rational policy that helps America now seems as racist? For many yes. I’m just disappointed that so many on the right are saying that.

Great post, totally agree.

You need to take it in context, these people act as if we are currently letting in virtually no one, our system is “broken”, when in reality we let in a ridiculously high amount compared to any other country, for decades and decades.

Even if we cut the number in half it would still be extremely generous.

We need far fewer, higher quality immigrants.

Are we a country, or some sort of hostel for people that the rest of the world doesn’t want to provide for? Why can’t Mexico step its game up and provide better opportunities? They have abundant natural resources, and we sent them a bunch of our jobs with NAFTA.

Whether it is immigration, or trade, or other things, too often we do the world’s dirty work and get absolutely nothing in return.

Redstone on April 22, 2015 at 12:22 PM

Walker’s move will have the effect of dragging the party to the right on immigration. The other candidates have to respond to this. Previously, the GOP field seemed to be settling on an immigration narrative: border security first, then legalization, increased legal immigration, more H-1B1 visas. Contrary to Bluegill’s assertions, Cruz has been squarely part of his consensus although, as Bluegill has also pointed out, he has been fairly consistent about it, as opposed to, say, Rubio and, yes, Scott Walker.

Joseph K on April 22, 2015 at 12:05 PM

I’m not sure the field will go with him.

Jeb – No
Rubio – No
Cruz – Maybe
Christy – No
Paul – Hell no
Jindal – Maybe
Perry – Maybe

WisRich on April 22, 2015 at 12:22 PM

Joseph K on April 22, 2015 at 12:05 PM

I think he’s going to ride that horse all the way. Remember when he was talking about big ideas and taking risks? As you suggested, this gives him a leg up, and also forces the conversation into what Sessions was implying. There is a bipartisan political cabal that wants cheap labor and dances to the tune of the deep pocketed donors.

butch on April 22, 2015 at 12:26 PM

Totally anecdotal…..

There was an article in the LA Times lately about illegal immigration that generated quite a buzz. I happened to read through some of the comments being made in response to that article, and there was a really interesting conversation that went on between members of different unions talking about how the wave of immigrants coming into the country was threatening their ability to get acceptable contracts with their employers.

Like said, totally anecdotal, but there could be a lot more support for putting restrictions on immigration (illegal or legal) than we realize.

lineholder on April 22, 2015 at 12:26 PM

The “polling” is irretrievably skewed by the deformation of the language; lefties now use the word immigrations or immigrants to include any warm body presently in or wanting to be in the territorial boundaries.

When those people polled are asked about how many immigrants, are they thinking about the 617 Swedes who are waiting for legal visas, the Armenian wives of American husbands patiently waiting for permission to enter, Indian H1B applicants who will do IT work for $8 an hour, or are they thinking of the Somalian muslim refugees dreaming wistfully about staging an attack on the Mall of the Americas, or perhaps its the Mexican illegals who throw their poopy toilet paper on the floor in the restrooms at Walmart.

Who are the immigrants?

Dolce Far Niente on April 22, 2015 at 12:29 PM

Governor Walker is a lot smarter than most people think he is, who cite his lack of a college degree. Many people thought he was doomed in the recall election, and later in his re-election bid in 2014, but he has consistently been able to get 52-53% when it really counted, even in a blue-leaning state like Wisconsin. He managed to convince many working-class voters that the unions were actually hurting them, and they supported Walker over the unions.

With regard to immigration, Walker needs to be able to convince a substantial fraction of Latinos (and possibly a fraction of African-Americans) that illegal immigration is hurting their own chances in the job market, by illegal immigrants working for less than minimum wage and stealing jobs. Not all Latinos are knee-jerk for illegal immigration (they are our cousins, etc.), but some of them who went through the slow, painstaking, and expensive legal immigration process resent losing their jobs to people who snuck under a fence in the desert. If Walker can tap into that resentment, he could conceivably win 40-45% of the Latino vote, which could tip crucial swing states in his direction.

Steve Z on April 22, 2015 at 12:30 PM

Like said, totally anecdotal, but there could be a lot more support for putting restrictions on immigration (illegal or legal) than we realize.

lineholder on April 22, 2015 at 12:26 PM

La Raza has been very succesful at pimping the importance of the Latino vote for amnesty. The politicos just repeat it as if it were the gold standard.

butch on April 22, 2015 at 12:32 PM

I think he’s going to ride that horse all the way.

butch on April 22, 2015 at 12:26 PM

If he does, I’ll definitely give him a second look.

Up until now, he’s had that classic politician stench of saying different mealy-mouthed non-answers depending upon his audience. There’s still plenty of time to wash that away, though. This is easily the best stance on immigration I’ve seen from any serious candidate.

yaedon on April 22, 2015 at 12:33 PM

Lolz!

What was the mod?

yaedon on April 22, 2015 at 12:20 PM

Sad part is I’m not entirely joking. Video game themed ghost stories are a thing. 2spooky.

Gingotts on April 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM

The left will try to caricature him as union-busting

I fail to see the negative there…

yaedon on April 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM

Or the caricature either. The number of dues paying people in the Wisconsin teachers’ union is cratering last I looked. Free people making a free choice is a good thing in America isn’t it?

KW64 on April 22, 2015 at 12:39 PM

You should not get to come here unless u have a stem phd. Many tech workers have had to train their h1b replacement to get their severance package. A basic bachelor degree is easy and cheap in China and india

Mormontheman on April 22, 2015 at 12:40 PM

Why does protecting American works automatically mean lower immigration levels?

dforston on April 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM

So, the law of supply and demand doesn’t apply to labor? Got it.

Let me guess, you support a $15.00/hour minimum wage.

I’m not sure the field will go with him.

WisRich on April 22, 2015 at 12:22 PM

They don’t have to go with him, but they have to respond. Previouly, there was a consensus GOP position; rhetoric aside, there is not much difference on the issue between Cruz and Bush, or Hillary Clinton for that matter.

Walker has set himself apart on this issue. He’s now defined himself with the rudiments of a real platform that is not the GOP Inc. platform. Rubio is GOP Inc. Bush is GOP Inc. Cruz is GOP Inc. Rand Paul is desperately knocking at the door, looking to rent a room. Walker just moved down the street.

Cruz is the big loser here. He’s the Tru-Con candidate and the “fighter”. Well, his “fight” is usually rhetoric, and his immigration position is squarely in the mushy middle. Walker, despite proven weaknesses, is also a proven fighter, with a real record of proven wins. He’s just moved to the right of Cruz on immigration, basically called him out. What does Cruz do? His other main virtue has been consistency, or the appearance of consistency. If Cruz follows Walker he announces Beta status. If he stands firm he has to defend an immigration position not too different from Hillary Clinton’s. He’s in a spot.

For some reason, the Hot Air Politburo describes Marco Rubio as a “uniquely gifted politician”. No, that’s Walker. Walker leads; Rubio is an eternal follower. If anything, this move by Walker shows that he is not afraid of risk. That in itself is an admirable quality.

Joseph K on April 22, 2015 at 12:44 PM

Up until now, he’s had that classic politician stench of saying different mealy-mouthed non-answers depending upon his audience. There’s still plenty of time to wash that away, though. This is easily the best stance on immigration I’ve seen from any serious candidate.

yaedon on April 22, 2015 at 12:33 PM

I was a bit put off by his genuflect to the ethanol gods and tentative touch on foreign policy, but, it’s way early, and he’s got lots of room to expand. I follow Ann Althouse’s blog out of Madison so have had her perspective, which seems to be quite good, on him all along.

butch on April 22, 2015 at 12:46 PM

The US is probably the only country in the entire world where giving citizens preferential treatment over immigrants (legal or illegal) is viewed as nativist or racist.

bw222 on April 22, 2015 at 12:47 PM

Steve Z on April 22, 2015 at 12:30 PM

Excellent post. It reminds me that Walker’s previous problematic statements and positions on immigration were political persona, as it were, his core strength and appeal. It seems as if he was mouthing whatever the current GOP immigration boilerplate, without giving the issue much thought.

Now that Walker has focused on the issue, he position seems more natural to him, more organic. It’s the immigration position you would expect Scott Walker to articulate.

Let’s see if he “rides that horse all the way”, as butch vividly expresses it, and doesn’t send her to the glue factory once elected.

Joseph K on April 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM

Joseph K on April 22, 2015 at 12:44 PM

While I question Scott Walker’s sincerity, I applaud him for bringing this issue into the daylight and up for discussion.

Other countries (including Canada and Mexico) attempt to limit immigration to people who can benefit their countries. We need more doctors, not run-of-the-mill programmers who will steal jobs from US citizens or more uneducated aliens who will someday be on welfare

bw222 on April 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM

Why does protecting American works automatically mean lower immigration levels? I’ve never heard him say he wants lower immmigration levels. You can protect American workers and keep same levels or increase legal immigration levels at once.

dforston on April 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM

Obviously you have not been following the news about Southern California Edison, Harley-Davidson and hundreds of other companies replacing US IT workers with H1B visa workers and forcing them to train their replacements or lose severance.

Six of the top ten companies with the most H1B visa workers are Indian-based companies that specialize in replacing US IT workers with cheaper H1B visa workers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa

bw222 on April 22, 2015 at 1:02 PM

Besides, to answer my own question, let’s be realistic: Having spent most of his political life thus far as a loud and proud amnesty shill, Scott Walker’s not going to suddenly transform into Tom Tancredo and remain that way for the duration of the campaign. In fact, read carefully what he’s already said about wages and legal immigration to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and you’ll find that he hasn’t actually called for reducing immigration levels.

I appreciate Allahpundit’s smart, honest, excellent analysis, as always.

Part of me wants desperately to believe that Walker is being sincere in his sudden, well-timed conversion. But I am extremely skeptical. He reminds me of Mitt Romney here. However, I will see where the campaign goes from here.

At this point, I think I would much rather go with a talented candidate who has actual, genuine conservative conviction. And I don’t believe Walker is that person.

bluegill on April 22, 2015 at 1:09 PM

Pretty much no one who knows much about Scott Walker believes his flip-flop to the right is sincere.

bluegill on April 22, 2015 at 1:11 PM

Now that Walker has focused on the issue, he position seems more natural to him, more organic. It’s the immigration position you would expect Scott Walker to articulate.
Let’s see if he “rides that horse all the way”, as butch vividly expresses it, and doesn’t send her to the glue factory once elected.
Joseph K on April 22, 2015 at 12:52 PM

Um, no. If anything, people should be more skeptical of Walker’s flip flop now.

So we should ignore Scott Walker’s years and years of being an amnesty and Chamber of Comerce shill and believe that his recent pandering for votes before primary season is suddenly his real (or “organic” as you say) position?

Didn’t we learn our lesson with Mitt Romney?

bluegill on April 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM

Why does protecting American works automatically mean lower immigration levels? I’ve never heard him say he wants lower immmigration levels. You can protect American workers and keep same levels or increase legal immigration levels at once.

dforston on April 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM

Because immigration levels have burgeoned way beyond reason. “Lower immigration levels” means a return to some form of sanity in that process.

I’d support immediately ceasing all Muslims allowed into the USA for at least twenty years with a strong condition included that there’d be a reconsideration afterward only if, ONLY if, there was some pertinent need in the USA for more (proof required), otherwise, perpetually closed to Muslims.

Kennedy’s ’60’s legislation ushered in the ruination of the USA. Obama’s been happy to accelerate that.

Lourdes on April 22, 2015 at 1:25 PM

Six of the top ten companies with the most H1B visa workers are Indian-based companies that specialize in replacing US IT workers with cheaper H1B visa workers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa

bw222 on April 22, 2015 at 1:02 PM

That applies to those hailed “Silicon Valley” supporters whenever they’re touted as special heat affecting GOP candidates. Buyer beware.

Lourdes on April 22, 2015 at 1:27 PM

Sad part is I’m not entirely joking. Video game themed ghost stories are a thing. 2spooky.

Gingotts on April 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM

Hah! Thanks for the followup. I think I hear some tapping on my window. Let me go chec…!

yaedon on April 22, 2015 at 1:59 PM

BlueGill. I asked you this question a while back. Could you rate your top five repub. candidates for prez , in order?

elvis lives on April 22, 2015 at 2:00 PM

Absolutely effing brilliant, I knew I liked this guy! Remember, there is a reason why he survived and flourished in Wisconsin.

Immigration is a hot-button issue that riles-up voters from both ends of the political spectrum (Eric Cantor anyone?). Working class voters know too well what mass immigration is doing to the job market – their jobs. Middle class voters are sick of seeing their jobs go to H1Bs. While union leaders might be in favor of more immigration, rank-and-file union members know better.

If Walker sticks to his immigration position, watch his poll numbers soar. The amnesty crowd will attack him from the left and right, giving Walker opening after opening to highlight the damage mass immigration does to the US jobs and wages. He will destroy the myth that the GOP needs latino voters to win (isn’t true, never was).

This is an issue that Walker can ride all the way to the White House.

Archer on April 22, 2015 at 2:03 PM

bluegill on April 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM

I was skeptical of Walker then, and I am skeptical now. But I’ve been saying for months that there was room to the right of Cruz on immigration, that the position was a winner, and that someone should go there. Surprisingly, that someone was Walker…

Contrary to Bluegill’s assertions, Cruz has been squarely part of his consensus although, as Bluegill has also pointed out, he has been fairly consistent about it, as opposed to, say, Rubio and, yes, Scott Walker

Walker’s craven ethanol cave was a big disappointment for me, and he’s got a proven history as an amnesty shill. But he’s got my attention again. Let’s see how it goes.

Joseph K on April 22, 2015 at 12:05 PM

Read much?

Joseph K on April 22, 2015 at 2:14 PM

I think if any other candidates challenge Walker on this in a debate he should just say “Oh, so you’re for the ted Kennedy immigration law of the 60s? I didn’t know you wanted to preserve Ted Kennedy’s Immigration plan.” Most people don’t know the history of this, but most people (in a republican primary anyway) know and despise Ted Kennedy. Walker needs to frame it as fixing a historic blunder and looking out for the working class.

MikeRuss on April 22, 2015 at 2:18 PM

All our policies should serve our national interests. It should be a no-brainer that when unemployment goes up and the economy is sluggish or in recession, the number of legal immigrants should be reduced until recovery is under way.

Also plain common sense tells us the Teddy Kennedy family-chain system with no national quotas has not worked. There is no reason Mexico or Central America should have dominance in who gets to come here. We need better diversity – suck on that, lefties – and especially a bigger proportion of immigrants from Western countries with skills, education, and the means to support themselves from the time they arrive.

~~

Contra Democratic ideas, there is no reason at all to reward illegals – or, excuse me, is it “peeps without papers” this week? – with a “pathway to citizenship” for coming here illegally. AFTER a proper reform of our enforcement – border, visa tracking, and e-Verify employment – then those who are allowed to stay and work should feel lucky and grateful. There is already a way to become a citizen and they chose to cheat. Cheats should not be rewarded.

Adjoran on April 22, 2015 at 3:48 PM

Just remember people, we have 93.5 MILLION AMERICANS who are out of work. These are people who WANT to work, but can’t find a job. We need to deport every single illegal, and slow down LEGAL immigration until AMERICANS have jobs.

Oh, and we need to put every single one of these treasonous amnesty shills like Walker in prison, or swinging at the end of a rope!

TopFuel425 on April 22, 2015 at 5:12 PM

I fail to see the negative there…

yaedon on April 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM

start here

Tlaloc on April 22, 2015 at 7:40 PM

The Real Scott Walker:
Scott Walker backed EB-5 visas for rich Chinese immigrants

See here:
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2015/04/22/scott-walker-backed-eb-5-visas-for-rich-chinese-immigrants/#comments

Informed people should already have known about Scott Walker’s flip-flopping. It seems Scott Walker is counting on being able to trick low-info Republican primary voters with his temporary, oh-so-convenient 180-degree change.

In a choice between a genuine, principled conservative and flip-flopping squishes (e.g., pro-amnesty squishes like Rubio, Walker, etc), I’ll take the principled candidate with conviction every time.

bluegill on April 22, 2015 at 7:42 PM

Just remember people, we have 93.5 MILLION AMERICANS who are out of work. These are people who WANT to work, but can’t find a job. We need to deport every single illegal, and slow down LEGAL immigration until AMERICANS have jobs.

Oh, and we need to put every single one of these treasonous amnesty shills like Walker in prison, or swinging at the end of a rope!

TopFuel425 on April 22, 2015 at 5:12 PM

Deutschland für die Deutschen, eh?

Tlaloc on April 22, 2015 at 7:44 PM