Walker on birthright citizenship: 3 positions, 7 days
Source: WISN (ABC affiliate)
WASHINGTON (CNN) Scott Walker on Sunday took his third position within seven days on Donald Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship, this time saying he opposes Trump and supports the policy.
...
ABC's George Stephanopoulos pressed further, asking: "So you're not seeking to repeal or alter the 14th Amendment?"
"No," Walker said. "My point is, any discussion that goes beyond securing the border and enforcing the laws are things that should be a red flag to voters out there, who for years have heard lip service from politicians and are understandably angry because those politicians haven't been committed to following through on those promises."
It's a different answer than the one Walker gave Monday [when a]sked by MSNBC's Kasie Hunt whether birthright citizenship should be ended, he said then: "Yeah, absolutely, going forward."
Read more: http://www.wisn.com/politics/walker-on-birthright-citizenship-3-positions-7-days/34871316
truthisfreedom
(23,145 posts)Nobody gives a sh*t about walker.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)by the Donald.. Priceless!!
riversedge
(70,187 posts)sarge43
(28,941 posts)said what would be a qualification for citizenship, other than birthright?
Didn't think so.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)the both the betting markets and the political strategists (Bush, Walker, Rubio, Trump), Walker is the one who has been the worst in his actual implementation of policies. I think Walker is probably the second or third most likely to win the nomination (he looks bad now but he has the funds to stay in the race until the field has narrowed to a half-dozen candidates), and also a possible VP contender (I think Kasich makes more sense as a VP contender but he might be perceived as insufficiently right-wing for the base, and Walker might work if the base rejects Kasich).
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Walker did okay in the minor leagues but is not ready for the prime time
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Paul, Santorum, Christie, Jindal, Pataki, Gilmore, etc.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)I am just not that worried about Walker after seeing him do so poorly in interviews and the first debate
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)I'd say Walker was done. But Walker is awash in funds (so he won't have the problems that Perry and Santorum and Jindal and Paul are having) and he has all the way to February 2016 to fix his broken campaign (and the Walker campaign is not as broken as the McCain campaign was at this stage in 2007 or as broken as the Gingrich campaign was at this stage in 2011 - and McCain went on to win the nomination and Gingrich went on to lead for a while after everyone had completely written him off and his whole campaign staff resigned).
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Walker is clearly not that bright and is not ready for prime time. The number of positions that he has taken on birthright citizenship this week can be used against him.
One of the best analysis of the current situation was on Salon where a writer noted why would any one select Walker who is a pale imitation of Trump when they can have Trump. Trump is killing Walker with the base and even if Trump is not the nominee, I doubt that the base or the trump supporters will accept Walker as anything but a pale imitation.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)He's like the kid who's rich daddy buys his way onto the high school team.
kacekwl
(7,016 posts)buys him a major league baseball team
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)marble falls
(57,077 posts)Bobby Jindal's 'Anchor Baby' Double Standard
By John Amato
<snip>
Gov. Jindal joined Bill Hemmer on Fox News this morning and was asked if he would be OK with using the term anchor baby, since it is a derogatory term. Jindal immediately tried to obfuscate the issue by attacking Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood, but Hemmer led him back to the question.
What I find offensive is Hillary Clinton the left. When you look at those Planned Parenthood videos, they refuse to call them 'babies,' they call them 'fetal tissue,' they call them 'specimens,'" Jindal said. "What's really offensive is the left refuses to say 'babies.' Instead they say 'fetal tissue,' 'specimens,' they are a bunch of science deniers."
Hemmer asked Jindal to clarify whether he would use the term "anchor babies," and the Republican presidential hopeful said he would.Folks today are too easily offended. theyre too politically correct," Jindal said. "The real issue here yeah Im happy to use the term but the reality is the real issue here is we need to secure our border."
One such politician who should be more understanding about birthright citizenship is Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal of Louisiana, since his mother was three months pregnant when she came to the US and gave birth to him here.
Raj was the daughter of a bank manager. She first came to America on a scholarship to study for her doctorate in nuclear physics at Louisiana State University. She brought along her husband, a love match named Amar Jindal, himself the son of a shopkeep from the bania caste, the only one of the nine children in his family to attend school past fifth grade. At the time the couple immigrated, Raj was three months pregnant with their first son, Piyush. Though the university health plan denied coverage for the birth (it was ruled a "preexisting condition" , the one-month paid maternity leave was awarded as promised that was the perk that had tipped the scales for Amar, who'd been hesitant to leave home, having worked his way up through the ranks to the respected position of assistant professor of engineering at Punjab University in Chandigarh, the newly dedicated capital city of their home state.
Being described as a "preexisting condition" when he was born should have kept Bobby honest about the immigration (and health care) debate, but sadly it hasn't. Notice the only reason Jindal's parents stayed in America was to receive the bonus of a one month maternity leave and not because of their love of America's baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet. In other words they used this country to better their lives.
Hemmer conveniently left out asking Jindal if he considered himself an anchor baby, because clearly Hemmer knew this information, but took the easier, softer way out.
<snip>
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/08/bobby-anchor-baby-jindal-happy-use-term
mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)I don't think Walker understands birthright citizenship and how it relates to the 14th amendment, because I see that a lot in the right wing dummies I encounter.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)"To me it's about enforcing the laws in this country. And I've been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it's important to send a message that we're going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we're going to enforce the laws in this country."
So, what you're saying (three times in one sentence) is, we're going to "enforce the laws." That is a CLASSIC Scott Walker non-answer answer. Sounds exactly like what a typical 9th grade flunkie says when the teacher calls on him and he hasn't done any of the assigned reading.
FreedomRain
(413 posts)You nailed it.
/repeating my post from the picture link:/
He did not change his position. He is just not knowledgeable enough about the Constitution to connect the catchphrase of the day to the 14th Amendment.
MSNBC?
Walker: (They said it! There is the word I was told to look for!) "YES" (better add some corporate speak so I don't get gotcha'd..)"Going Forward"
CNBC?
Walker: (That's like triple negative, I can't follow it at all. Play it safe!) "NOT SURE"
ABC?
Walker: (What? The Constitution? I know this one, Supposed to revere the Constitution, people like that. Heh they like hearing it anyway, doesn't matter what we actually do.) "NO"
I have no doubt he does not consider these questions related.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)I know I know, that doesn't say much for the electorate in my home state. Still, the guy is literally a one-trick pony- that trick being the repetition of trite but effective talking points over and over to drive his politics of personal resentment while sounding reasonable and level-headed in the process. But I think he's in way over his head. He's minor league, his people are minor league-- the only thing about his campaign that isn't minor league is his funding.
I think eventually, as he continues to flip-flop and flip-flop-flip or whatever this one was, the Koch brothers will find a different horse to bet on. When that happens, Scott Kevin Walker will finally be finished as a politician. He will then have to get his first real full-time job, as being a politician is all he has ever done. All of this will come not a moment too soon for us Badgers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)(/snark)
riversedge
(70,187 posts)Another great headline. te he
Scott Walker Takes His Third Position On The Hottest Issue In The Republican Primary
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/23/3694273/scott-walker-bizarre-birthright-journey/
by Kay Steiger Aug 23, 2015 10:33am
Presidential candidates Scott Walkers journey to find a position on birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, took another unexpected turn. In less than a week, the Wisconsin governor took his third position on whether America should reconsider babies born on U.S. soil should be automatically deemed citizens.
When George Stephanopoulos asked on ABCs This Week, Youre not seeking to repeal or alter the 14th Amendment? Walker answered, No, my point is any discussion that goes beyond securing the border and enforcing laws are things that should be a red flag to voters out there who for years have heard lip service from politicians and are understandably angry because they havent been committed to following through on promises.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)"To me it's about enforcing the laws in this country. And I've been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it's important to send a message that we're going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we're going to enforce the laws in this country."
-Scott Kevin Walker, college dropout
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Walker:
"To me it's about enforcing the laws in this country. And I've been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it's important to send a message that we're going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we're going to enforce the laws in this country."
Upton:
"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps and I believe that our education like such as South Africa, and the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.
We report. You decide.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)kairos12
(12,852 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)I am sure that Putin will agree to not attack the US unless he knows that Walker is well rested and ready to make decisions
Zambero
(8,964 posts)Perfecting the art of political Kama Sutra, dabbling with any number of new "positions" until he gets it really REALLY wrong.
midnight
(26,624 posts)Don't know for sure how accurate this information is, but it sure does hit on lots of disinfranchment opportunities if the fourteenth amendment is repealed.
"Before and during the civil war, the southern states violated the rights of free speech of pro-Union citizens, anti-slavery advocates, and northerners in general. During the Civil War, the southern states stripped many white citizens of their state citizenship and banished them from the states, effectively confiscating their property. Shortly after the Union victory in the American Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in 1865, abolishing slavery. Many ex-Confederate states then adopted Black Codes following the war. These laws severely restricted the rights of blacks to hold property, including real property (such as real estate) and many forms of personal property, and to form legally enforceable contracts. These codes also created harsher criminal penalties for blacks than for whites.[1]
"Because of the inequality these Black Codes imposed, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This Act provided that all those born in the United States were citizens (contrary to the Supreme Court's 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford), and required that "citizens of every race and color ... [have] full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens."[2]
President Andrew Johnson Vetoed the Civil Rights bill of 1866, including upon the grounds that it did not protect the rights of white citizens. A first draft of the Fourteenth Amendment was shortly afterwards proposed to give to Congress the affirmative "Power" to protect all citizens in their rights of "Life, Liberty and Property" in all parts of the United States.
Doubts about whether Congress could legitimately enact the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 under the then-existing Constitution was one factor that led Congress to begin to draft and debate what would become the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[3][4] Moreover, Congress wanted to protect white Unionists who were under personal and legal attack in the former Confederacy.[5] The effort was led by the Radical Republicans of both houses of Congress, including John Bingham, Charles Sumner, and Thaddeus Stevens. The most important among these, however, was Bingham, a Congressman from Ohio, who drafted the language of the Equal Protection Clause.
The Southern states were opposed to the Civil Rights Act, but in 1865 Congress, exercising its power under Article I, section 5, clause 1 of the Constitution, to "be the Judge of the ... Qualifications of its own Members," had excluded Southerners from Congress, declaring that their states, having rebelled against the Union, could therefore not elect members to Congress. It was this factthe fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted by a "rump" Congressthat allowed the Equal Protection Clause to be passed by Congress and proposed to the states. Its ratification by the former Confederate states was made a condition of their reacceptance into the Union.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
riversedge
(70,187 posts)Jessica Arp ?@news3jessica 3h3 hours ago
.@ScottWalker asked about birthright citizenship answers. "I've been pretty consistent throughout this campaign" #news3 #Walker16
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)He's gotta look like a preztel after so many changes at once!
rladdi
(581 posts)He is the puppet of the KOCH brothers and will never get pass the primary.