So while Scott Walker is questioning legal immigration levels, Ted Cruz is pushing a fast track for a trade bill with back-door guest-worker increases?  I never thought Cruz would blow his pre-campaign advantage over Walker (and the rest of the GOP field) on immigration, but that’s what he seems to be doing. … Maybe Cruz thinks he’s in the early Suck-Up-To-Donors** phase of the campaign, with the Rouse-the-Voters phase to come later — in the meantime, he’ll distract the base with social conservative theatrics. But, as Michael Barone and Byron York have pointed out, Republican primary voters are paying unusual attention to the race right now. How else would Walker rise to the top tier after a B+ speech at an early event in Iowa? …

__________

**– According to former Romney 2012 Finance chair Spencer Zwick, GOP donors are practically forming a cartel in the effort to back only a candidate who will push for amnesty and increased immigration levels. (“Even if Tea Partiers aren’t willing to get on board, Zwick said the GOP money men have learned their lesson: ‘I really believe that the donor community… now finally recognizes, and I see them only wanting to get behind a candidate that is willing to take leadership on his issue.'” — McKay Coppins, Buzzfeed.)

Is that Kriebling I hear in the distance? Mark Krikorian notes that Scott Walker is already fuzzing up his alleged epic shift to Sessionsism (on immigration) by declaring, through a spokeswoman, that

He strongly supports legal immigration, and like many Americans, believes that our economic situation should be considered instead of arbitrary caps on the amount of immigrants that can enter. [E.A.]

Talk of removing “arbitrary caps” brings back memories of the Krieble plan, championed by Newt Gingrich in 2012.  It’s a non-solution — essentially an open-border plan that would let employers bring in however many millions of workers they wanted (without “arbitrary caps” — i.e. limits).

You have been warned.

Hair Trigger Sneer: In the Washington Examiner, the otherwise estimable Philip Klein sneers at Scott Walker for saying that he’d worry about wages and job prospects for American workers when setting levels of legal immigration. According to Klein this shows Walker is “just telling conservatives what he thinks they want to hear” (which is entirely possible) and that he doesn’t understand “the broader philosophical or policy implications” and isn’t “able to make the transition to the big leagues,” which seems snotty.

Why isn’t what Walker understands this: If we’re not going to have open borders, we have to set the level of legal immigration somewhere. In making that decision, it’s surely reasonable to take into account labor market conditions and wage levels.

P.S.: What Walker said seems quite consistent with standard conservative plans (pushed by GOPs who support and GOPs who don’t support “comprehensive” reform) to give more immigration slots to higher-skilled workers and fewer to the low-skilled workers who bid down wages at the bottom, since it’s wages at the bottom we worry about most.

P.P.S.: Anyway, Walker only said wage considerations should be at the “forefront of our discussion.” If that doesn’t give him plenty of wiggle room — to take into account other factors, or to argue that more immigration will improve the economy for everyone — then he’s a less skilled pol than I think he is. …