Scott Walker: the negative effects of a massive increase in immigration on American worker

[NACBA]

During an interview with Glenn Beck, Walker became the first declared or potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate to stake out a position on immigration fully in line with that of Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He also noted that he has been working with Chairman Sessions on the issue to learn more about it.

Walker is now the only potential or declared GOP presidential candidate to discuss the negative effects of a massive increase in legal immigration on American workers:

In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying—the next president and the next congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages, because the more I’ve talked to folks, I’ve talked to Senator Sessions and others out there—but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today—is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...n-immigration/

[JohnM]

So Scott Walker is a protectionist?

[adelina]

Walker is being "severely conservative".

[CaptUSA]

Walker has won the admiration of the Kochs. He will be a well-funded participant.

[Brett85]

Geez, and they accuse Rand of flip flopping. Walker is the biggest flip flopper and panderer of them all.

[TaftFan]

Walker has won the admiration of the Kochs. He will be a well-funded participant.

Actually, the Kochs were reportedly pissed off at him for this immigration stand.

[hells_unicorn]

Walker is being "severely conservative".

He's staking out a position that is held by the remnant of Pat Buchanan's constituency of the Republican Party, at least on this one particular issue. I personally have some misgivings about allowing millions of people to flow in here, regardless of their qualifications, because they tend to vote a certain way and bolster support of the welfare state.

I'm not sure how big of a protectionist Scott Walker is planning on being, but the way he is playing it right now, he will have MASSIVE problems during the general election because of this, and I think that is probably what has the Koch brothers upset.

[adelina]

He's staking out a position that is held by the remnant of Pat Buchanan's constituency of the Republican Party, at least on this one particular issue. I personally have some misgivings about allowing millions of people to flow in here, regardless of their qualifications, because they tend to vote a certain way and bolster support of the welfare state.

I'm not sure how big of a protectionist Scott Walker is planning on being, but the way he is playing it right now, he will have MASSIVE problems during the general election because of this, and I think that is probably what has the Koch brothers upset.

I was just making an allusion to one of Romney's biggest flip-flops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI8PlTtM7DU

Walker is certainly Romneyesque in his massive flip flops but I also see a bit of Perry in him. He is the biggest obstacle in Rand's path to winning NH (and indeed the nomination too), so I want to see him go down in the debates.

[RandallFan]

If Rand or Cruz or Jeb or Rubio want to increase immigration from 1.5 million per year to 3 million they are wrong and perhaps delusional if they think that is popular or going to be some sort of economic boom.

I don't know what Walker said but if he said the limit should be no more than 1.5 million he is right. If he suggested cutting immigration to 500,000 per year he is also not an extremist.

This is going to be a big problem for Rand or any conservative challengers if Walker can stay away from the so-called mean deportation talk and focus on limiting legal immigration which most politicians are out of touch on.

If USCIS can't find the best of the best within 1.5 million immigrants they can't be trusted when it increases to 3 million.

Rick Perry lecturing people on how he is an expert on forming an unpopular immigraiton view seems to be more of a problem than a flip flopper (Romney) who drank the immigration koolaid for some time in his Boston or Milwaukee bubble (Walker).

The biggest haters of Walker's rhetoric are John McCain and Orrin Hatch.

Actually, the Kochs were reportedly pissed off at him for this immigration stand.

I think Kochs like to play up how much they love gay marriage, criminal justice reform and immigration to the media.

Compared to how much they just want lower taxes and less regulation. If that's all they really want it would make their think tanks and movement pretty boring.

[hells_unicorn]

Walker is certainly Romneyesque in his massive flip flops but I also see a bit of Perry in him. He is the biggest obstacle in Rand's path to winning NH (and indeed the nomination too), so I want to see him go down in the debates.

No disagreement from me on that front, but I think it is important to keep in mind that having open-borders is not terribly in line with property rights, since it involves allowing people to invade the property of others, both in the sense of sapping tax money and in occupying land for purposes of travel that is supposed to be owned by private citizens.

I've personally harbored hope that Rand is just paying lip service on this issue, because quite frankly, the flood of socialist immigrants to America back in the 19th century is the primary culprit in how many of our civil liberties have been degraded, and allowing a legion of similarly minded people in again will have a correspondingly negative affect on our liberties.

When people vote, more often than not, the freedom of others is the first casualty, so it is better to have less voters coming in with questionable agendas.

[eleganz]

Walker has won the admiration of the Kochs. He will be a well-funded participant.

Oh come on, why are we on RPF even falling for those click bait articles? Even we should know its too early for Kochs to start taking any sides, they play the game smart.

[r3volution 3.0]

If Rand or Cruz or Jeb or Rubio want to increase immigration from 1.5 million per year to 3 million they are wrong and perhaps delusional if they think that is popular or going to be some sort of economic boom.

I don't know what Walker said but if he said the limit should be no more than 1.5 million he is right. If he suggested cutting immigration to 500,000 per year he is also not an extremist.

This is going to be a big problem for Rand or any conservative challengers if Walker can stay away from the so-called mean deportation talk and focus on limiting legal immigration which most politicians are out of touch on.

Well, you're mistaken on the economics of it (more immigration would be beneficial), but I agree with you on the politics.

A large majority of GOPers want the legal immigration quotas reduced.

How much of a problem will this be for Rand, who wants to increase the quotas? Well, everybody else in the race (with the possible exception now of Walker) also wants to increase the quotas, so it nets out to nothing. With Walker....it depends on how else they contrast in the voters' mind. Even though a large majority of GOPers are anti-immigration, the polls also suggest that immigration is a fairly low priority for most of them (compared to say, the budget deficit). If Rand can out-fiscal-conservative Walker (which should be easy since Rand's by far the most fiscally conservative candidate), I don't see him losing much of the conservative vote over immigration.

[hells_unicorn]

A large majority of GOPers want the legal immigration quotas reduced.

How much of a problem will this be for Rand, who wants to increase the quotas? Well, everybody else in the race (with the possible exception now of Walker) also wants to increase the quotas, so it nets out to nothing. With Walker....it depends on how else they contrast in the voters' mind. Even though a large majority of GOPers are anti-immigration, the polls also suggest that immigration is a fairly low priority for most of them (compared to say, the budget deficit). If Rand can out-fiscal-conservative Walker (which should be easy since Rand's by far the most fiscally conservative candidate), I don't see him losing much of the conservative vote over immigration.

In general, the average GOP voter is mostly concerned with uneducated, Spanish-only speaking migrants sapping government money and further driving up the debt, and maybe grabbing up some skilled labor positions. Most of them don't think in lofty economic terms, and from where I stand, simply saying that you want to increase "legal immigration quotas" is extremely vague unless there is a specific screening method involved.

The problem isn't just the sapping of welfare money, but also that the cultural inclinations of certain immigrants has a strongly negative affect on our own culture, namely the nature of our government. Bringing in people who believe in central power and economic/social controls via state fiat is not a desirable outcome regardless of their IQ level and skill set, anymore than it was when we brought a legion of crypto-Marxist radicals and similarly disruptive Romanticist/Transcendentalists to this country from Germany and elsewhere in Europe in the mid 19th century.

[RonPaulMall]

Well, you're mistaken on the economics of it (more immigration would be beneficial), but I agree with you on the politics.

A large majority of GOPers want the legal immigration quotas reduced.

How much of a problem will this be for Rand, who wants to increase the quotas? Well, everybody else in the race (with the possible exception now of Walker) also wants to increase the quotas, so it nets out to nothing. With Walker....it depends on how else they contrast in the voters' mind. Even though a large majority of GOPers are anti-immigration, the polls also suggest that immigration is a fairly low priority for most of them (compared to say, the budget deficit). If Rand can out-fiscal-conservative Walker (which should be easy since Rand's by far the most fiscally conservative candidate), I don't see him losing much of the conservative vote over immigration.

Where it can be devastating is the manner in which it could fit in to a coherent theme. The voters in this country are pissed. There is a generally correct belief that the political class has sold out the Middle Class and the the GOP only cares about the rich and the Dems only care about illegals and those on the welfare dole. Walker is going to paint himself as the Champion of the Middle Class. He's the "regular" guy who is defending the interests of the American Worker against Corporate America and the Democratic Strategists who want to flood America with low wage workers for their own selfish reasons. Rubio, Bush, and the rest will be pegged as Corporate, Wall Street Candidates who only care about helping the wealthy. Paul will be painted as the Libertarian weirdo too caught up in his own eclectic issues to properly defend the American worker. Only Walker represents the American Family and the American Worker. That is how they are going to pitch it, in my opinion, and I think it will be an extremely effective pitch.

Rand needs to recognize the threat and adjust his strategy accordingly.

[Vanguard101]

The state has no right to control the supply of labor.

[hells_unicorn]

The state has no right to control the supply of labor.

Maybe not, but they'll do it anyway simply because they can, just like everything else they do. Furthermore, if you are looking at immigration only through the lens of a supply of laborers, you have a pretty narrow understanding of how things work. We're not simply importing obedient worker bees who will make you nice cheap honey, we are importing people with opinions, most of them divergent to yours. When they get their citizenship, they will use their votes to control a lot more than the flow of labor. Don't believe me? Check out California.

[Brian4Liberty]

Looks like Walker will lose the anarchist vote.

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^Don't have to be an anarchist to oppose protectionism.

[Southron]

Supporting tighter control of immigration bumps him up on the list as far as I am concerned.

[William Tell]

Supporting tighter control of immigration bumps him up on the list as far as I am concerned.

He's just pandering though, he's supported amnesty in the past.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...y-Amnesty-Bill
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-On-The-Record

[Southron]

He's just pandering though, he's supported amnesty in the past.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...y-Amnesty-Bill
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-On-The-Record

He is speaking better than anyone else on the issue. I'll give him that much.

[AuH20]

He's staking out a position that is held by the remnant of Pat Buchanan's constituency of the Republican Party, at least on this one particular issue. I personally have some misgivings about allowing millions of people to flow in here, regardless of their qualifications, because they tend to vote a certain way and bolster support of the welfare state.

I'm not sure how big of a protectionist Scott Walker is planning on being, but the way he is playing it right now, he will have MASSIVE problems during the general election because of this, and I think that is probably what has the Koch brothers upset.

You mean allowing more dependents who will further embrace the monolithic state that we have? That would be best described as insanity.

[AuH20]

The state has no right to control the supply of labor.

The state has no right to force their citizens to pay for their so-called cheap labor, but it still does so.

[AuH20]

Maybe not, but they'll do it anyway simply because they can, just like everything else they do. Furthermore, if you are looking at immigration only through the lens of a supply of laborers, you have a pretty narrow understanding of how things work. We're not simply importing obedient worker bees who will make you nice cheap honey, we are importing people with opinions, most of them divergent to yours. When they get their citizenship, they will use their votes to control a lot more than the flow of labor. Don't believe me? Check out California.

That's the endgame. We have statists fooling libertarians and anarchists with this notion that illegal immigration will usher in a great age of prosperity and freedom when the opposite will occur. I'm not one advocating for a roundup of any type, but only an idiot could support blanket amnesty if they have any past historical reference to juxtapose this against. Illegal immigration at this advanced stage of this country's growth is essentially a transfer of wealth. This isn't 1890 when we were much freer.

[RonPaulMall]

^^^Don't have to be an anarchist to oppose protectionism.

And many Anarchists oppose mass immigration and support the Hans-Hermann Hoppe position.