Scott Walker: No Amnesty and Limiting Legal Immigration?

I think I’ve enjoyed the Donald Trump Show as much as anyone.  I love his brashness, they way he commands the media, the way he takes control of every interview, and the best part, he never, ever apologizes.  I love the way he infuriates the Republican Party, the establishment Republicans, and most of all, the hated donor class, which has for all intents and purposes wrecked the Republican Party agenda for years.  I hope the Donald Trump Show gets picked up for another season and brings us the laughter and joy that comes from watching media experts get it wrong over and over and watching other politicos squirm.

So as much as I enjoyed the two debates and The Donald’s over the top performance, there was a little noticed bit of news that zeroed in my attention like a laser.  A response to a question to Governor Scott Walker about his change of position on immigration:

“There’s international criminal organizations penetrating our Southern base borders, and we need to do something about it. Secure the border, enforce the law, no amnesty, and go forward with a legal immigration system that gives priority to American working families and wages.”

As Walker made clear on Hannity, “gives priority to American working families and wages” means lower legal immigration. Walker’s immigration position has been slip sliding away from the standard Republican boilerplate of Secure The Border!/also pass amnesty, for several months under the guidance of economic nationalist and immigration guru Senator Jeff Sessions. But this is the first I’ve heard of any sort of definitive statement on a total rejection of Amnesty and actually limiting legal immigration.  However this has made so little news that most people, even those following the campaign closely, might not have picked up on it.

Right now, Walker isn’t really able to capitalize on it because Trump is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room.  Plus, he’s not really a super charismatic guy and I often get him confused with former SNL and 30 Rock actor Chris Parnell

Is this Walker?

Chris Parnell







Or is this Walker?

Scott Walker2






Who can tell?

With Ted Cruz also recently stating a definitive no on amnesty, this makes quite a difference between this group of candidates and the 2012 crowd, which except for Mitt Romney, all had some sort of amnesty plan, even the “conservatives.”  Why the difference?

I think it’s the Trumpenkreig.

As The Donald continues his long march through the Republican Party’s institutions, burning and pillaging as he goes, he is pushing the Overton Window a bit on immigration issues, making the formally forbidden to speak of (no amnesty) permissible. As I had hoped, Trump is pushing changes in what’s allowable for Republican candidates to say.  Some go overboard, like Mike Huckabee’s crazy statement about Obama holding the oven doors open for Israel. But with both Cruz and Walker just saying no to amnesty, Trump is forcing Republican candidates to stop being mealy mouthed and take a position.

This is good news in my opinion, so I’ll go pop some popcorn (extra butter) and continue enjoying the Donald Trump Show.

Six seasons and a movie.




7 thoughts on “Scott Walker: No Amnesty and Limiting Legal Immigration?

  1. As these candidates being to overtonly change their positions – don’t buy it! If they were serious they wouldn’t have had to change their positions. Trump is the only one for whom changes in position is acceptable because his main purpose is bitch-slapping the cucks.


    • With Trump, actual positions matter less than with any other candidate. But it’s true that any sliding position could just as easily slide back. Certainly Rubio fooled a lot of people by running against amnesty in his senatorial campaign and then leaping full bore into it after he was elected. But on the national level, just saying no to amnesty is new, so I’m grateful to Trump for making that happen.


  2. Damn, Mike, you seem to be under the insane notion that US immigration policy should serve the best interests of… the US. I’m sure that people of conscience everywhere — as well as the US Chamber of Commerce — would disagree wholeheartedly with this naked display of nationalism. 😛

    As for Trump, I agree that his presence has livened things up some and allowed at least a few of the candidates to break free of the establishment GOP orthodoxy — i.e., Democrat-lite (tastes crappy, less filling). I just hope that when the time comes, Trump shouts, “Hi-ho, Silver”, and gallops off into the sunset leaving us wondering, “Who was that masked man with the bad combover?” As good as he’s been at mobilizing certain segments of the base, I don’t think Trump could win the general election.And I’d really hate to see Hillary “Emails, what emails?” Clinton as our next prez.


    • I think the hope and change that Trump brings is that even if he does ride off into the electoral sunset at some point, the alterations he’s made in the debate are here to stay. The 2016 election is going to be fought on a different set of issues than Jeb and Hillary had originally planned.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.