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. …

They’re Slacking about me. I just know it. Slack, a “corporate messaging app” currently valued at $2.8 billion, apparently allows employees to easily set up “private groups, which require an invitation to join and are hidden even from administrators.” This sort of cabal cabal would be poisonous in, oh, approximately 100% of the places I’ve ever worked. Managing editors would be especially endangered. (And I would almost certainly not be cool enough to be in Amanda Hess’s group.) …

Def Cab Diaries: David Frum links to an anecdote about T.S. Eliot being recognized by his London cab driver and the ensuing conversation.  (“I ‘ad that Lord Russell in the back o’ the cab the other day. …”) I suppose there are a lot of London cabbie stories. Mine is from when I went to see the Barbican production of an Ayckbourn play in the ’90s. I couldn’t make heads or tales of it — I’m a dunce when it comes to drama.

“So wot did ya see?” the cabbie asked when I got in to go home.

“This Ayckbourn play, Wildest Dreams, about a bunch of people who play Dungeons & Dragons. I didn’t understand it.”

“Let me guess,” said the cabbie. “They gradually become the characters they play in the Dungeons & Dragons game!”

“That’s it!  It all makes sense now! How did you know? Have you seen the play?”

“No, guvnor. But oy know ‘ow the playwright’s mind works. ‘Ad Mister Ayckbourn in the back ‘o the cab the other day ….”

It’s the Singer Not the Song: On Sunday, Bob Scheiffer asked Marco Rubio if as president he’d sign his own “Gang of 8” immigration bill. Rubio ducked, saying “That’s a hypothetical.” Yes, it is! A germane and highly informative hypothetical, which he should be able to answer. It’s his damn bill. He tried to foist it on us. Why won’t he tell us if he’d sign it? And if Rubio’s so keen on letting Republican primary voters know he’s learned his lesson, why isn’t the answer he gives simply “No, I wouldn’t sign it today”?

I don’t see the upside for Rubio in waffling — if he gets the nomination there will be plenty of ways to backslide and re-suck-up to Latino ethnocentrists. (And isn’t the point of nominating a Latino like Rubio that he doesn’t have to suck up?) Byron York notes that there was a lot of junk in the Gang of 8 bill, providing a smorgasbord of reasons for Rubio to cite when justifying  his change of heart. …

It’s hard not to suspect that Rubio’s potential money men — including pro-amnesty casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and pro-amnesty billionaire hedgie Paul Singer — are influencing him to leave the Amnesty First door open. That would also explain why Rubio hasn’t lately been saying what York heard him say back in August –– that he’d require immigration-control measures be actually “up and running — before legalization.” [York’s paraphrase] …