Vox
By Dara Lind
July 7, 2015
Scott
Walker is trying to distinguish himself from the rest of the Republican
field by running to their right on immigration — in addition to saying
that he opposes a
path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, he's voicing concern
that legal immigration could threaten American jobs.
But
Walker appears to have a recurring problem. News stories keep coming
out about him saying things in private that are to the left of the
immigration stances he espouses
in public. And then Walker and his campaign keep saying the stories are
wrong.
It's
somewhat expected that Republican candidates are going to shift to the
right during a primary campaign, even when that means flip-flopping away
from earlier positions.
But given that Walker has gotten into two he said/she said
controversies in the past four months, it looks like he might be trying
to pull a quantum flip-flop: holding one position in public for GOP
primary voters, and another in private for GOP wonks and
donors.
If
so, he has the twisted Republican politics of immigration to thank.
Republican elites are pro-immigration. Republican activists aren't.
Candidates don't just need to
worry about getting through the primary without saying anything that's
going to sink them with Latino voters in the general election — they
need to worry about how to get through the primary. If a candidate's
immigration stance alienates donors, he'll have
trouble keeping his campaign viable through state primaries in early
2016. If it alienates voters, he won't have a campaign left to save.
Did Stephen Moore really lie about Walker's immigration stance to the New York Times?
On
July 2, in an article by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin of the New
York Times, a Heritage Foundation think-tanker named Stephen Moore (who
supports immigration
reform) said he'd been reassured by Walker that his rightward swing on
immigration was temporary. According to Moore, Walker said, "I'm not
going nativist. I'm pro-immigration." Then on July 6, Moore reached out
to the Times and told them he was wrong — that
the call with Walker had never happened at all.
And
this is actually the second time this has happened. In March, the Wall
Street Journal reported Walker had told donors at a private dinner in
New Hampshire that he
was a "no to citizenship [for unauthorized immigrants] now, but later
they could get it" (in the words of one attendee). A Walker spokesperson
denied the report, and said that Walker "does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants" — which was actually
a more explicit position on the question than he'd taken before.
Or was Walker just another GOPer trying to reassure elites he's not an immigration hard-liner?
There
is no reason to believe that Stephen Moore, the Heritage economist,
lied to the New York Times about talking to Scott Walker when he hadn't.
Moore is a respected
figure within the GOP — and one that many Republican candidates are
reportedly courting.
The best perspective on this comes from Republican communications strategist Liz Mair:
Mair
has an inside perspective on Scott Walker's walk-backs — she was one
herself. In March, Mair was hired to the Walker campaign — then was
forced to resign the next
day, due to conservative outrage over some earlier tweets Mair had
written making fun of Iowa. (Another reason conservatives wanted Mair
out? Her support for immigration reform.)
All Republican candidates are struggling with the donor/voter divide on immigration, but Walker is unusually bad at finessing it
But
it doesn't take an insider to recognize the dynamic going on here:
Republican elites and Republican grassroots activists are totally at
odds on the issue of immigration,
and Republican candidates are struggling to find a way to please both
groups. Many Republican donors and interest groups support legalizing
unauthorized immigrants. But the most vocal segments of the Republican
base — the people who show up to town hall after
town hall in Iowa and New Hampshire — are absolutely dead set against
it. Republican donors in the business community have a strong financial
stake in expanding legal immigration to expand the hiring pool. But
expanding legal immigration isn't nearly as popular
among Americans as a whole — especially among the older, white
Americans who make up the Republican base.
Most
Republican candidates are threading this needle by saying as little as
possible about immigration in public. They might say they oppose
"amnesty" (which means nothing),
or they'll say that nothing can be discussed until the border is secure
(which is an easy way to shut down a conversation, since no one can
agree what a secure border looks like). Candidates with long records on
immigration, like Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham,
are leaning into the issue: If they can't persuade voters they agree
with them, the thinking goes, they should at least persuade voters
they're sincere.
Walker
has made this particularly tough on himself: Attacking legal
immigration, which Republican donors strongly support, separates him
from the pack in a bad way in
donors' eyes. And with donors already suspicious that Walker actually
believes what he says on culture-war issues like same-sex marriage, this
was probably not a great fight to pick. But Walker is hardly the only
candidate trying to figure out how to avoid
pissing off either donors or primary voters on immigration. He's just
the one whose failures have been most public.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment