KINDRED, N.D. — Rep. Kevin Cramer in an interview Saturday voiced support for robust legal immigration, putting the Republican crosswise with President Trump on a critical political issue ahead of the midterm elections.
Cramer, who is challenging Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp in a closely watched Senate race, said North Dakota might not have enough physicians to care for the state’s 755,000-plus residents, or attract enough technology professionals to staff its Microsoft campus in Fargo, if the Trump administration follows through with plans to curtail legal immigration.
“If it weren’t for doctors from India, North Dakota would be short a lot of doctors and a lot of other health care professionals,” Cramer told the Washington Examiner. “I don’t like the idea of reducing the numbers of legal immigrants to come into the country, because right now we have an economy that is in greater need of workforce than jobs.”
Cramer, an early Trump backer in 2016 and usually in sync with the White House, added: “But I think a legal immigration system that is generous in volume but discretionary in its scrutiny — by that I mean of course, skillsets and education, merit-based system. I think a generous merit-based system makes sense for our economy.”
The president has supported the concept of legal immigration that favors high-skilled newcomers with advanced educations. But he has consistently endorsed legislation proposed by some Republicans in Congress to drastically curtail legal immigration of all kinds, and administration efforts to achieve this goal are ongoing.
There is no daylight between Trump and Cramer on illegal immigration.
The Congressman supports building a wall along the Southern border with Mexico, and suggested he is at ease with the president’s strategy of initiating a government shutdown to pressure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to provide enough Democratic votes to move legislation financing the barrier’s construction.
The government will run out of money at the end of September, roughly five weeks before the election, if additional appropriations aren’t approved. The Republicans hold 51 seats; it takes 60 votes to pass a budget bill in the Senate because of the filibuster rule.
“I’m not a fan of government shutdowns, I think it’s pretty irresponsible governing. But that’s up to Democrats in the Senate, that’s not up to Donald Trump,” Cramer said. “If that was to happen, and we were to have a shutdown because Chuck Schumer wouldn’t allow funding for the wall, politically for me — if I was to be fairly selfish — that would save me a lot of ad money.”
Cramer, in the driver’s seat against Heitkamp, 62, in a state Trump won with 63 percent of the vote, discussed a range of issues Saturday morning after walking the Kindred Days parade route through his tiny hometown, a farming community about 30 miles southwest of Fargo. The congressman, 57, now lives in Bismarck, the state capital.
The spat Trump initiated with China and other countries to negotiate more favorable trading terms for U.S. exports is lurking in the background of the Senate campaign, and threatens to impact the outcome. North Dakota soybeans, two-thirds of which are usually exported to China, are worth more than $1 billion to the state’s economy. That’s just one crop among several worth hundreds of millions of dollars each, if not more.
That explains in part why Cramer engaged in regular conversations with top White House trade officials and aggressively lobbied the administration for the proposed $12 billion bridge to help American farmers weather losses from retaliatory tariffs. Yet the congressman responded delicately when asked for his appraisal of Trump’s trade policies.
“Tariffs are a tax on consumers. I’ve not liked tariffs,” Cramer said. “I would prefer … a more measured approach, within say, the [World Trade Organization or North American Free Trade Agreement,] using the tools of enforcement. But we also know those tools of enforcement haven’t been very effective.”
“He’s got very little to work with and tariffs are the one tool that he has,” Cramer added, regarding Trump’s approach. “Since that’s what he’s chosen to use I’d prefer that American politicians support his efforts, rather than undermine them, because undermining them isn’t getting us a better trade deal. But having unified front in our negotiations I think could end all of this much more quickly.”
Cramer sounded off on several additional topics, hewing closely to Trump and conceding only minor differences on most. That is not insignificant in a state that is broadly satisfied with the president’s leadership and policy agenda, even as his unpopularity elsewhere jeopardizes GOP control of the House.
On the federal probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by Trump or his associates led by special counsel Robert Mueller: “The premise of the investigation’s built on this crazy dossier and paid for by Democrats. And, now it appears there’s more collaboration with the FBI even after there shouldn’t have been,” Cramer said. “That’s not to say Bob Mueller’s rigged. I don’t dump on Bob Mueller. I think Bob Mueller’s still the same person; I think he can be trusted.”
On Trump’s habit of coddling Russian strongman Vladimir Putin: “Donald Trump is a very savvy negotiator — he’s doing the whole, walk softly but carry a big stick approach with Vladimir Putin,” Cramer said. “I trust him on it because he’s been successful in other arenas. I do think it’s interesting that he’s very hard on some of our allies; but I think we expect more of our allies … With our adversaries you don’t expect as much.”
On Trump’s pursuit of détente with North Korea: “I think we have to go into every situation and enter everyday assuming that they probably won’t keep their word. That’s their history and there’s no reason to think otherwise,” Cramer said. “On the other hand, we’ve already made some progress with North Korea that we wouldn’t have but for Donald Trump and the summit.”
On health care policy: “We need to guarantee that pre-existing conditions are covered,” Cramer said. “The difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue to me, seems to be, how you get them covered. We want to provide more flexibility for states to work either independently or among themselves or collaboratively through risk pools and other means and even provide some revenue to help shore that up.”
