Scott Walker Flip Flops On Immigration Reform

Just as his political star is rising among conservatives, Scott Walker is walking back his previous support for immigration reform.

2013 Conservative Political Action Conference

Fresh off a strong second place showing in the entirely meaningless straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker certainly seems to be getting in line with conservative thinking on the topics of the day:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a presumptive 2016 Republican presidential candidate, says he has changed his immigration stance and no longer backs comprehensive reform that would allow illegal immigrants to be penalized but remain in the country.

“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.”

Walker also is among the 25 Republican governors who have joined in a lawsuit challenging the president’s 2014 executive action that defers deportation for millions of illegal immigrants.

This contrasts significantly with comments that Walker made  during a July 2013 interview with a local Wisconsin newspaper’s Editorial Board, as well as during a Politico-sponsored conference in February of that year:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Friday that he supports a pathway to citizenship to illegal immigrants but said that people who are waiting in line should have “first preference.”

“You’ve got to find a way to say that people who are in line right now have first preference,” the Republican governor said at POLITICO’s third annual State Solutions Conference in Washington.

And while Republicans — including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — have recently been outspoken about the need for immigration reform, Walker said that the issue is the country needs to deal with and not just Republicans.

Walker said that in addition to not having enough visas for immigrants is that the system in general is broken.

“We just have a broken system. And to me, if somebody wants to come in and live the American dream and work hard … we should have a system that works and let’s people in,” Walker told POLITICO’s Jonathan Martin at the event.

He added: “The vast majority of people want to come here for the right reasons. They want to live the American dream.”

This is isn’t entirely surprising, of course. Walker is quite obviously preparing to run for President in 2016, a possibility he likely wasn’t considering nearly as seriously some two years ago when these questions first came up, and the truth of the matter is that support for any form of immigration reform that involves what the Tea Party crowd considers to be “amnesty” for the 12 million or so undocumented immigrants estimated to be in the country is pretty much a deal breaker. Jeb Bush’s support for such reforms, and his continued insistence, even this past week at CPAC, that there will eventually have to be some kind of legalization for these people is the main reason that he is rejected by the hard right . Bush’s political protege, and possible 2016 rival, Marco Rubio was once a Tea Party darling after his win in the Florida Senate race in 2010, but his star faded quickly two years ago when he became one of the most prominent Republicans to cross the aisle and support the Senate immigration reform bill.’ Indeed, Rubio finished worse in the CPAC Straw Poll than Bush himself did, which is perhaps the greatest indication of how far his star has fallen among the hard right wing of the Republican Party thanks to his support for immigration reform. And that happened notwithstanding the fact that Rubio has since backed away from the Senate bill, has criticized the DREAM Act, and has opposed the President’s initiatives for temporary immigration relief such as DACA and DAPA.  Given all of this, I suppose, Walker likely considered it to be in his interests to play it safe on immigration by backing the restrictionists rather than staking out the riskier pro-reform position taken by Bush and Rubio.

I’m often reluctant to criticize politicians on the flip-flopping charge because there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with someone who changes their mind. Should a politician, or anyone for that matter, be forced to stick with policy positions they took in the past just because they’re on the record? If that were the case, then public opinion would never change on any issue. Take the issue of same-sex marriage, for example. It wasn’t that long ago that the vast majority of Americans opposed the idea of same-sex marriage, as did the majority of politicians in both political parties. Over time, public opinion has changed on that issue and the public has become more accepting of the idea of marriage equality, which has also led politicians to do the same. President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden all opposed same-sex marriage and have since changed their position. The same goes for countless others. Are they to be denounced as “flip-floppers” because they changed their mind? That seems to me to send the wrong signal since we want people to change their minds when they are wrong.

Walker’s problem, of course, is that he clearly has changed positions on this issue and it’s hard to argue that he hasn’t done so for purely political purposes. Prior to backing away from his previous support for immigration reform, Walker had been receiving criticism from many on the right for his previous support for the idea and, heading into CPAC it was seemingly one of the few marks against him from people on the right. Changing his position so blatantly and, at least so far, with little explanation for exactly why his previous support for some kind of legalization for undocumented immigrants and, unless he’s able to, it’s hard to believe that it was for anything other than blatantly political reasons. That’s the kind of ‘flip-flopping” that it’s hard to defend.

FILED UNDER: Borders and Immigration, Campaign 2016, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. superdestroyer says:

    This is just another example of why no Republican has the skill set to ever win a campaign to be president. The same facts exist in 2013 as exist today. However, in 2013 Walker probably believed that he needed to donation of cheap labor Republicans such as Sheldon Adelson to win the nomination. Now Walker must believe he can win without the support of Sheldon Adelson and the like.

    What is also shows is that the Republican candidates are visionless, are short term thinkers, cannot plan for the long term, and have no understanding of demographics. But I guess worrying about the flip flops of Walker beat thinking about what policy and governance will look like in the coming Clinton Administration.

  2. gVOR08 says:

    @superdestroyer: Don’t know that Adelson’s had anything to do with it, Walker’s been pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch Bros.

    Republican candidates are visionless, are short term thinkers, cannot plan for the long term, and have no understanding of demographics.

    Finally something we can agree on.

  3. Kylopod says:

    To me, the most revealing line is this:

    “I don’t believe in amnesty,” said Walker

    By that standard he hasn’t flip-flopped at all, because the path-to-citizenship plan that he previously endorsed isn’t amnesty. But when it comes to gaining right-wing cred, endorsing the policies isn’t enough; you also have to mouth the strawmen. To wit:

    affirmative action: quotas
    gun control: banning guns
    bank bailout: bank nationalization
    Obamacare: government takeover of health care
    cap and trade: government takeover of environmental regulation
    immigration reform: amnesty

  4. stonetools says:

    Because anti-immigrant hate is one major reason the Republican base surged to the polls in 2014, the Republicans can’t really pull back on opposition to immigration reform, much as the big business donor class would be fine with it. Scott Walker there fore has to fall in with the base’s demands in order to win the nomination. Luckily for him, he can, in a way that Jeb Bush can’t. It’s why Scott Walker now has the edge on winning the nomination now.

  5. superdestroyer says:

    @Kylopod:

    Letting people who entered the U.S. illegally stay is, by definiton, a form of amnesty. Comprehensive immigration reform proposals today are just a rehash of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 to include employer enforcement, the requirement for back taxes, and the requirement to learn English. And everyone does refer to the 1986 act as a form of amnesty. That virtually everyone except Latino activist consider the previous immigration reform bill (amnesty I) a failure should be a good sign that the current immigration reform proposals as just as much of a sham.

  6. Rick DeMent says:

    “Republican thinkers” … The jokes write themselves.

  7. Mikey says:

    @superdestroyer: I love you, man. In a world filled with upheaval and uncertainty, you are an unwavering beacon of utter consistency.

    “Don’t change for you, don’t change a bit for me.” – INXS

  8. C. Clavin says:

    Can’t wait for him to win the nomination…then have to flip-flop back to run in the general election.
    Maybe if he had a college degree he wouldn’t make these stupid mistakes?

  9. al-Ameda says:

    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.”

    Well, he supported indentured servitude then, and it appears that he supports a new Maginot Line now. Scott Walker certainly represents a big, rather cosmopolitan and forward-looking departure, from the nativists that run the Republican Party these days.

    Walker has to be considered, along with Jeb Bush, a frontrunner for the nomination.

  10. Mu says:

    Shorter Walker: “My analysts tell me I have no chance with the big money big business donors that want cheap labor, I need to go for the true believer money”.

  11. michael reynolds says:

    So, hating on Latinos will be the litmus test for Republicans. Attack Latinos, suck up to the rich, attack education, renew homophobia, push for a new war. . . And the two leading candidates are a smug, obnoxious little sh!t from Wisconsin, and the one man who can singlehandedly inoculate Hillary against charges of dynasty.

    Honest to God, if Democrats were actually writing the game plan for 2016 it could not be going any better.

  12. C. Clavin says:

    @michael reynolds:
    And Bush hired all his brothers cronies as Foreign Policy advisors!!!!
    Because that went so well the first time.
    Seriously….who hires Wolfowitz for anything after the Iraq blunder???

  13. gVOR08 says:

    @michael reynolds: If I were writing the game plan I wouldn’t have written in nearly as much money for them.

  14. CSK says:

    I think Walker’s looks will go against him. I’m not attempting to be facetious or trivial; many people make their judgments on this basis.

  15. C. Clavin says:

    Wisconsin under Walker lags in both wage and job growth…both nationally and against the region. In addition he has utterly failed to create the number of jobs he promised. Wisconsin is dealing with a structural deficit thanks to the to the $2 billion in tax cuts passed during Walker’s first term in spite of the strongest economic growth in well over 10 years. He, along with Brownback, Christie, and Pawlenty, have proven beyond doubt that the Republican economic agenda does not work.
    He also preaches the Republican social issue cathecisms…that a single cell is a person and that gays are second-class citizens and thus not entitled to equal rights.
    On top of which he has compared labor advocates to ISIS, and now…in one of the clumsiest flip-flops in history…thinks that brown people should be deported.
    Personally I doubt this guy can get nominated…but ignoring that…what does it say about Republicans that Scott Walker is one of their brightest hopes????

  16. C. Clavin says:

    @C. Clavin:

    in spite of the strongest economic growth in well over 10 years

    Nationally, that is.

  17. steve says:

    Compared with his stance on foreign policy, Reagan’s firing of the air traffic controllers is the most significant foreign policy action of the last 35 years, this is just a minor transgression.

    Steve

  18. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Changing his position so blatantly and, at least so far, with little explanation for exactly why his previous support for some kind of legalization for undocumented immigrants and, unless he’s able to, it’s hard to believe that it was for anything other than blatantly political reasons. That’s the kind of ‘flip-flopping” that it’s hard to defend.

    The worst part Doug, is they all say “secure the border first” without ever coming up with a credible plan for doing that or a proposal to pay for it. Truth is they don’t believe anything they say anyway. Imagine Scott Walker out there pushing his lawnmower around his yard or paying double what he does now… Not.gonna.happen. No, the GOP doesn’t want fewer brown people coming here to work for cheap, they want more. They also want to beat up on them politically without having to worry about them ever actually getting a chance at fighting back.

  19. JohnMcC says:

    @C. Clavin:
    Comparing economic outcomes in Repub vs Dem states demonstrates the paucity of so-called-conservative ideas, as you indicated (and as HarvardLaw92 linked to in a previous thread). It doesn’t affect the nomination process however because their belief in their ideology is independent of the actual results. Dr Krugman is having a rare old time comparing ‘conservative’ economic predictions and analysis with the facts these last few days and showing that ‘hyperinflation’ and ‘debasing the currency’ and the Laffer Curve has a life completely unattached to any actual facts.

    I have a pretty strong expectation that Gov Walker is merely the first of many ‘flavor-of-the-month’ candidates and has no real chance to be nominated (at least at the top of the ticket — possibly for VP?). But no reality-based problems stand in his way. He apparently has become convinced that eleven million residents of this country can be deported without cost. If you realize how whackers that idea is, you don’t vote in Repub primaries.

  20. C. Clavin says:

    @JohnMcC:
    Well, yes, indeedy.
    In fact, here’s an article about Walker kissing the rings of supply-siders.
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/scott-walker-embraced-by-voodoo-economists.html
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/18/scott-walker-to-meet-with-supply-siders-in-nyc/
    If we could figure out a way to make Republicans accountable…the world would be a better place.
    The press and the pundits sure aren’t going to do it.
    Piketty:

    “…The decrease in the top marginal income tax rate led to an explosion of very high incomes, which then increased the political influence of the beneficiaries of the change in the tax laws, who had an interest in keeping top tax rates low or even decreasing them further and who could use their windfall to finance political parties, pressure groups, and think tanks…”

    And then of course there are the dupes who buy into whatever the party leaders tell them to buy into.

  21. Deserttrek says:

    the vitriol and left wing anger is overwhelming ….. nice to see those who believe what they see in the mainstream of their self aggrandizing websites showing their lack of intellect and anger .. its no wonder the Republic is in a shambles

    the ivy leaguers have screwed things up long enough . time to let the real people take over and that doesn’t mean the demoncrats or another barryboy

  22. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Who let the teabagger in?

  23. michael reynolds says:

    @Deserttrek:
    It’s so sad, really. Conservatives here keep trying to convince us they aren’t idiots. And then someone like you comes along, and even the not-very-bright conservatives have to admit you’re a moron. You’re not helping your team.

  24. C. Clavin says:

    @Deserttrek:
    Welcome to OTB…and feel free to bring something other than emotional projection next time you stop by.

  25. C. Clavin says:

    @Deserttrek:
    On the day the Nasdaq hits a peak it hasn’t hit since 7 years before the iPhone was invented, since before Republicans allowed 9/11 on their watch, since before Republicans invaded Iraq at the cost of 4000 lives and $2T, and since before Republicans caused the biggest economic crash since the Depression, you come along to inform us that the Republic is in a shambles.
    Damn….I probably won’t be able to sleep tonight.

  26. anjin-san says:

    @Deserttrek:

    You are a victim. Truly. You probably deserve financial compensation.

  27. C. Clavin says:

    @C. Clavin:
    Sorry…Republicans didn’t really cause the crash…they simply encouraged it and oversaw it.

  28. MikeSJ says:

    @C. Clavin:

    …Wisconsin under Walker lags in both wage and job growth…both nationally and against the region. In addition he has utterly failed to create the number of jobs he promised. Wisconsin is dealing with a structural deficit thanks to the to the $2 billion in tax cuts passed during Walker’s first term in spite of the strongest economic growth in well over 10 years. He, along with Brownback, Christie, and Pawlenty, have proven beyond doubt that the Republican economic agenda does not work…..

    This would require the Democratic party to boil this message down to some simple, easy to grasp talking points. They would have to clearly make sense to the low information voter. This message would also have to be broadcast consistently and not countermanded by the various Sunday talk show Dems.

    The media would also have to look at the facts and not run with their narrative that gives equal credence to the 2 + 2 = 5 crowd…i.e. “both sides do it”

    Nope, I just don’t see that happening.

  29. An Interested Party says:

    the ivy leaguers have screwed things up long enough . time to let the real people take over and that doesn’t mean the demoncrats or another barryboy

    Oh absolutely! Real people like Sam Brownback, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie…after all, these real people have done so much for their respective states….

  30. James P says:

    @michael reynolds: My guess is that you were predicting Walker would be recalled? Just a hunch.

    Walker has smoked you time and again. He’s going to kick your a$$ yet again when he signs the right-to-work bill this week.

    You people took your best shot at Walker three times. You threw the kitchen sink at him and he threw it back at you and laughed in your face.

    Walker’s position is that he wants to make it easier to come here legally and more difficult to come illegally. That means building a wall and dramatically increasing the number of H1B visas. Walker has spoken favorably of a points based system like the one in Australia that is determined by the economic needs of the nation. He has discussed moving away from the model which favors people because they have a relative here and moves toward a skills-based model.

    Hate Latinos? Yawn. That’s getting really old. You need to come up with new talking points because that one is worn out. The popularity of Cruz and Rubio among hard core conservatives belies your absurd spurious slanderous contention.

  31. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:
    Don’t sell it to me, dude, sell it to the Latino voters who go two-thirds Democrat. I’m sure they will totally buy your bullsh!t.

  32. wr says:

    @James P: “Walker’s position is that he wants to make it easier to come here legally and more difficult to come illegally”

    Sure. That’s what it is today. Yesterday it was something entirely different. But as long as one of these trolls says exactly the words you want to hear, then you start drooling like a dog with a steak. Then, when it turns out that he was lying to you — as everyone with a functioning brain knew all along — you will cry that you were betrayed by someone who was never a real conservative.’

    Haven’t you ever wondered why everyone starts laughing whenever you come into a room?

  33. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    That means building a wall

    Oooh…just like Berlin…and the gated communities all the rich white Republicans live in.
    How fun.
    The logistics of building this wall don’t even dawn on you, do they?

  34. al-Ameda says:

    @Deserttrek:

    the vitriol and left wing anger is overwhelming ….. nice to see those who believe what they see in the mainstream of their self aggrandizing websites showing their lack of intellect and anger .. its no wonder the Republic is in a shambles
    the ivy leaguers have screwed things up long enough . time to let the real people take over and that doesn’t mean the demoncrats or another barryboy

    Who are these so-called “real people”?
    “demoncrats”? “barryboy”? Your post reinforced virtually every negative stereotype out there concerning the know-nothing-acid-bath that is today’s conservative movement..

  35. James P says:

    @C. Clavin: Walls do work. That’s why people build them.

    They worked in Berlin (from the perspective of the communists). There isn’t a lot of traffic across the Korean border. Heck, there’s a wall around the white house.

    People live in gated communities because they fear crime. The walls, while not 100% effective, do lower crime. People have a right to live in gated communities even if you don’t like it — or think it is “fair” that they can afford to while others can not.

    My neighborhood isn’t zoned for that, but when I retire to Florida in the future I absolutely 100% will live in a gated community.

    What’s wrong with being rich, or white, or Republican. I’m two and a half of the three! I don’t see that it’s anything for which anyone should be ashamed.

    Liberals oppose a 2,000 mile wall on the southern border precisely because it would work,. This would keep future Democrat voters out of the country – which is the entire purpose of amnesty.

  36. Ebenezer_Arvigenius says:

    @James P: Unlikely. The Berlin wall was a mere 160 km long and consumed more than 300 million Mark to build. The costs to build and run would be prohibitive and the whole endeavour somewhat pointless since the US has a large sea cost that can be used instead.

  37. An Interested Party says:

    There isn’t a lot of traffic across the Korean border.

    Oh that’s brilliant…perhaps land mines should be distributed all over the southern border…that’ll keep them Mexicans out, right?

    Hate Latinos? Yawn. That’s getting really old. You need to come up with new talking points because that one is worn out. The popularity of Cruz and Rubio among hard core conservatives belies your absurd spurious slanderous contention.

    Actually, what gets really old is the breathless xenophobia expressed by so many about the supposed Latino invasion of this country…oh, and tokens don’t prove what you think they do…if that was the case, to echo what Michael wrote above, a lot more Latinos would vote for Republicans….

  38. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    Walls do work. That’s why people build them.

    Yup, and the cost of building and maintaining a 1,954 mile long impenetrable border is quite a bit more than the cost of just allowing them to stay.

    Brilliant solution there, McFly …

  39. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: 1) Since when do libs care about the cost of anything?

    2) I dispute that the cost would be greater than the benefits. Perhaps if you used a static analysis that might be the case, but I am calculating the savings from not having to pay for education, food stamps, Medicaid, prisons, etc for people who never manage to cross the border in the first place.

    I don’t know what the precise numbers are but I would certainly imagine that the cost of educating, feeding, providing healthcare, and in some cases imprisoning illegal aliens is far greater than the cost of building a fence.

    3) Even if this were not the case I would still support construction of the fence for two main reasons. If illegals can cross it so can terrorists. The children of those illegals will become future Democrat voters.

  40. James P says:

    @An Interested Party: Actually, yes it would keep illegals out.

    If we built two ELECTRIFIED fences and placed land mines in between the two fences my guess is that precisely ZERO people would cross it.

    Latinos are fellow Christians. The implication that the GOP somehow dislikes them is as preposterous as it is offensive.

  41. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P: @James P:

    I dispute that the cost would be greater than the benefits.

    Followed by


    I don’t know what the precise numbers are

    So, in other words, you are talking out of your ass about a subject you self-admit that you know nothing about.

    For starters, Congressional Research Service reported in 2009 that the existing 650 mile fence near San Diego cost $21 million per mile JUST TO BUILD. That does not include the cost of acquiring the land, nor does it include the cost of ongoing maintenance.

    That’s $13.65 billion dollars just to build 650 miles of fence.

    Now, let’s do that math thing and extrapolate:

    1954 miles of border – 650 miles of existing fence leaves us with 1,304 miles of fence left to build. At a cost of $21 million per mile, we’ll have to spend an additional $27.384 billion (with a B …) on construction alone.

    So, we are up to $41.034 billion for construction costs.

    Add in the cost of acquiring land along 1,954 miles of border, and the ongoing costs of maintaining 1,954 miles of fencing.

    CBP submitted estimates regarding maintenance of the existing 650 mile portion of $6.5 billion over a 20 year period (the estimated lifetime of the fence). That’s $500,000 per mile.

    So, math time again. $500,000 * 1,954 miles of fencing gives us $977 million in maintenance costs, PER GD YEAR, or $19.540 billion over the 20 year life of the fence.

    Now add in the cost of acquiring the land, which is variable, but god only knows how much THAT will cost.

    So, for 20 years of “impreganable” fencing (not really – CBP repaired 4,037 fence breaches in the existing 650 mile section in 2010 alone …), we get a grand total of (drum roll …)

    $60.574 billion (with a B …) over a 20 year period, or $3.0287 billion (with a B …) per year just to build and maintain the thing, and even that figure 1) does not include the cost of acquiring the land, or 2) inflation, or 3) the cost of replacing the damn thing in 20 years once it wears out (assuming it even lasts that long to begin with). We can probably add in a billion or so more for land acquisition.

    Still think it’s a good idea? Bet you can’t show me that illegals cost at least $3 billion per year to the federal government.

    If illegals can cross it so can terrorists

    LOL, newsflash, McFly. You still have 5,225 miles of US-Canada border to secure, and you have 12,383 miles of coastline to secure, any point on which a terrorist could just waltz across. You going to build a fence across Niagara Falls too?

    The children of those illegals will become future Democrat voters.

    Given the GOP’s (and your) attitude towards them, I can’t begin to imagine why they would reject your party … LOL

    (oh, and while you are working on that math thing, factor in the economic costs of removing 12 million consumers from the economy and the resultant recession it would cause).

    You have yourself a good evening, McFly, and do some thinking about having wandered into the deep end of the pool. This isn’t Hot Air. Here, you have to actually think, or you’ll get gutted.

  42. Mikey says:

    @HarvardLaw92: You’ll have to double your numbers for fence construction, he’s suggesting

    two ELECTRIFIED fences and placed land mines in between the two fences

    so you’ll also have to account for power generation and transmission and 2000 miles’ worth of land mines.

  43. Ebenezer_Arvigenius says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Not to forget that gem:

    built two ELECTRIFIED fences and placed land mines in between the two

    Latinos are fellow Christians. The implication that the GOP somehow dislikes them is as preposterous as it is offensive.

    And of course:

    The children of those illegals will become future Democrat voters.

    This guy is comedy gold.

  44. An Interested Party says:

    Latinos are fellow Christians. The implication that the GOP somehow dislikes them is as preposterous as it is offensive.

    Hahahahahahahaha!!!! As if Christians (just like members of any other group) can’t be bigots…

  45. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: $13.65 billion to build the fence? Honestly I thought it would be considerably more. IF your numbers are accurate they cause me to even more strongly support construction of the fence.

    There is no question that the cost of the children of illegals in schools, Medicaid, Food Stamps, prison costs, etc are far more than $13.65 billion.

    Even if the fence cost three times as much as it would (according to your numbers) I would still support it in order to keep terrorists out and prevent 20 million more Democrats from being added to the voter rolls.

    ______________

    Serious question, would you support this compromise:

    The illegals currently here can stay, but as a penalty for violating our laws they can NEVER under any circumstances become citizens (meaning they can’t vote). They can stay here permanently but they can never vote. If they attempt to register to vote the penalty is an automatic mandatory minimum of ten years in prison (zero sentencing discretion for the judge) followed by immediate (no appeals) deportation of their entire family following the conclusion of their prison sentence.

    That allows them to say – would you support that? If you don’t it reveals your true agenda – your desire to add 20 million more Democrats to the voter rolls.

  46. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    No, nimrod, $13.65 billion to build a small piece of it. ~$40 billion to build all of it, and it’ll only last 20 years before it has to be replaced.

    Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your strong suit either.

    With that having been said, I’ve wasted enough effort on you when you’re clearly a moron.. Have a nice day

  47. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: As long as the cost is under $300 billion it’s worth it. $40 billion (assuming your numbers are correct) is one of the greatest bargains in history.

    Do you know what a nimrod is? I would suggest you look it up because vocabulary doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

    This is all moot. You’re a hypocrite. YOu don’t care how much anything costs because you are a liberal. You didn’t care that BHO was lying about the cost of Obamacare. You don’t even care about immigration or Latinos per se. YOu just want another 20 million democrat voters on the rolls. Just be honest and admit it.

  48. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Libs are so typical. When they can’t defend their arguments they resort to name calling. YOu are completely predictable.

  49. al-Ameda says:

    @James P:

    That allows them to say – would you support that? If you don’t it reveals your true agenda – your desire to add 20 million more Democrats to the voter rolls.

    Interesting take on logic, very innovative and non-logical.

  50. James P says:

    @al-Ameda: In other words you don’t give a damn about the people. You just want to add 20 million more Dems to the voter rolls.

    My approach would allow them to stay, but that’s not your goal – you want to transform the electorate.

    You’ve been exposed.

  51. al-Ameda says:

    @James P:

    In other words you don’t give a damn about the people. You just want to add 20 million more Dems to the voter rolls.
    My approach would allow them to stay, but that’s not your goal – you want to transform the electorate.
    You’ve been exposed.

    Yeah … exposed …
    You have a logic and/or a reading comprehension problem. In which of my comments did I indicate that the federal government America should not control immigration?

  52. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    As long as the cost is under $300 billion it’s worth it.

    then

    You’re a hypocrite. You don’t care how much anything costs because you are a liberal.

    You gotta love irony …

    Do you know what a nimrod is? I would suggest you look it up because vocabulary doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

    nim·rod ˈnimräd/

    noun
    noun: nimrod; plural noun: nimrods

    1. literary: a skillful hunter.

    2. North American informal: an inept person.

    Never argue with a lawyer about words & vocabulary.

    On second thought, given your handicap, you should probably just stop trying to argue about anything – with anybody. You’re out of your depth.

  53. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    You just want to add 20 million more Dems to the voter rolls.

    Judging from your fractured argument (such that it is anyway …), you’re willing to spend up to $300 billion (I’m assuming that you pulled that number out of your ass too) to keep 20 million Dems off of the voter rolls?

    And you wonder why we think you’re a partisan hack … You have a nice day, McFly. 😀

  54. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: If you are a lawyer, then I am more educated than you are. A PhD trumps a JD

    The only area in which I can’t compete with you is your arrogance and narcissism.

  55. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: [“you’re willing to spend up to $300 billion (I’m assuming that you pulled that number out of your ass too) to keep 20 million Dems off of the voter rolls?”]

    That’s what I said. I thought I was pretty clear. It seems that you are the one with a reading comprehension problem if that was in any way unclear to you.

  56. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    And now you resort to argumentum ad verecundiam.

    A PhD (assuming you actually earned one and aren’t waiting for your mom to call you up from the basement for lunch) makes you an expert within a narrow field of expertise.

    It doesn’t make you Solomon, as your tortured attempts at making a concise argument above evince. Get back to me when you actually have a coherent position that isn’t grounded in hatred for liberals.

    I am more educated than you are. A PhD trumps a JD

    – and –

    The only area in which I can’t compete with you is your arrogance and narcissism.

    There’s that irony thing again. The hits just keep on coming. Ebenezer was correct. You ARE comedy gold. Thanks for the amusement.

  57. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    That’s what I said. I thought I was pretty clear. It seems that you are the one with a reading comprehension problem if that was in any way unclear to you.

    OK, so we’ve established that you hate liberals so much that you’re willing to spend $300 billion to keep Democrat voters off of the rolls.

    You’re coming out and saying “I am a partisan hack”.

    You’re still wondering why we’re ridiculing you, and toying with you, instead of taking anything you say seriously?

    When you haven’t yet figured out who the joke is about, friend, you’re the joke. Just do yourself a favor and stop digging.

  58. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Your narcissism is very revealing.

    Most narcissists have a deep seated insecurity.

    [“OK, so we’ve established that you hate liberals so much that you’re willing to spend $300 billion to keep Democrat voters off of the rolls. “]

    I stated that very clearly the first time. Since you are obviously a bit slow I needed to repeat that multiple times. I don’t know how I can be much clearer.

    The entire reason you want open borders has nothing to do with “compassion” for Latinos – it has to do with your wanting to pack the voter rolls with Democrats — I think that’s been similarly exposed. You are as much a partisan as I am.

    Yes, I’m a partisan Republican (actually I’m a conservative and I support the GOP to the extent that they nominate conservative candidates and espouse conservative policies). I’m honest about it — you’re a partisan and a liberal, but you don’t have the honesty and character to admit what is manifest to all.

  59. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    [“OK, so we’ve established that you hate liberals so much that you’re willing to spend $300 billion to keep Democrat voters off of the rolls. “]

    I stated that very clearly the first time. Since you are obviously a bit slow I needed to repeat that multiple times. I don’t know how I can be much clearer.

    OK. Glad we could clear that up and get you to admit that hatred of liberals motivates your commentary. THAT’LL certainly go a long way towards garnering you credibility around here (lol, not …)

    The entire reason you want open borders has nothing to do with “compassion” for Latinos

    Who said I want open borders? You’re trying to move the goalposts. I simply stated that the cost of actually securing the borders (which this Mexico fence of your does NOT accomplish) outweighs the benefit, and therefore such a fence is, economically speaking, a stupid idea. I then supplied concrete numbers to back up that assertion.

    You then changed your position and said you didn’t care about the cost – that evidently any amount of government spending which prevents Democrats from voting is acceptable to you. Truthfully, you don’t care about the brown people and you don’t care about terrorists, or at least to the extent that you do, those concerns are secondary to your primary motivator – you hate liberals and you want them to lose. Everything you do and say, every flimsy argument you construct, is targeted towards achieving that primary goal.

    Not sure how you reconcile that “money is no object” position with your ostensible position as a conservative. Don’t they hate government spending?

    Os is it just another case of IOKIYAR?

  60. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Let’s say hypothetically that a tax increase is necessary to build a wall at the border. I reject the premise, but for the sake of discussion let’s say it’s necessary.

    While I would normally support a tax increase for any reason (I refuse to vote for anyone in a GOP primary who has not signed the ATF/Grover pledge), raising taxes to build a border fence still might be a net benefit — if I only cared about dollars and cents.

    If we don’t build the fence there will be 20 million new Democrats on the voter rolls. That would mean the Dems would have complete control of the Congress and a permanent lock in the electoral college.

    That would mean that my taxes would inevitably increase. From my perspective, wouldn’t it be worth it to spend a few more dollars today (in increased taxes) to prevent Dems from gaining control of Congress and raising my taxes even more in the future?

    That said, I reject the premise. I’d cut Food Stamps and Medicaid (as well as repealing Obamcacare) to pay for construction of the wall. The wall would pay for itself in the long term in the form of savings from the money we don’t spend on the illegals once they are here.

    Yo aconsejo que ser muy muy cuidadosos en acusandome de odiar a la gente de habla hispana

  61. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Let’s say hypothetically that a tax increase is necessary to build a wall at the border. I reject the premise, but for the sake of discussion let’s say it’s necessary.

    Why are you arguing a premise that you reject? This is a waste of time …

    I didn’t accuse you of hating Latinos. You’re moving the goalposts again. I accused you of hating liberals.

    Conveniently, you validated and agreed with that accusation.

    I think we’re done here. Anything further is a waste of my time. You may have the last word – I know how much Teabaggers insist on that.

    Have a nice day.

  62. Grewgills says:

    Stop feeding the troll. If you ignore it, it will get hungry and bored and go back under its bridge.

  63. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Grewgills:

    I just did. Like chewing gum, you toss it aside once the flavor is gone.

  64. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: [” I accused you of hating liberals.”]
    I don’t hate them as individual people, but yes, I suppose I do hate the ideology.

    Resent would be a better word, but I don’t necessarily dispute the term hatred.

    I resent what they are doing to my country. I resent that they are using the power of government to redistribute what I earn and give it to people who neither deserve nor earned it.

    Just like I hate fascism, communism, and totalitarianism, yes I suppose I do hate the ideology of liberalism, but that doesn’t mean that I hate the human beings who hold this ideology – I just want to defeat them.

  65. An Interested Party says:

    I just want to defeat them.

    With your faulty arguments? Good luck with that…

  66. James P says:

    @An Interested Party: @An Interested Party: Definition of faulty: anything which contravenes the opinion of a liberal.

    Under this aegis then my argument is indeed “faulty” since it differs from yours. However, in the real world mere disagreement with a liberal does not meet the definition of the term faulty.

  67. Ebenezer_Arvigenius says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Aaand score. I think this “discussion” is over :D.

  68. wr says:

    @James P: “My approach would allow them to stay, but that’s not your goal – you want to transform the electorate.”

    Yes, there’s nothing like having a permanent underclass of people who are subject to all laws but unable to do anything about changing them that really makes for a stable democracy.

    But you’re a good Republican — you want everyone to have the right to vote unless you think they’ll vote the wrong way, in which case you think they should have no rights at all.