He was asked point blank by Hannity, “Should illegals be given a path to citizenship....”
Walker’s answer was “There should be no amnesty.....” and then some metaphors about three sides, blah, blah and some other stuff.
Frankly, I’m not satisfied with his answer. I’ve seen other instances where when posed a question about “...could you envision an eventual pathway, blah, blah.....” where he answered first with “Sure.”
I am not going to take a platform answer of “I’m against Amnesty.” We live in a world dominated by the idiom now “What the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
I’ve heard other RINO m’effers say the same damned thing! It turns out their version of the meaning of Amnesty has to do with immediate actions and nothing to do with eventual pathways to capitulation.
He did not truthfully answer the question IMO. He either does that or I do not vote for him period. He’s slick and says a lot of good things, but this one thing is a deal breaker for me.
It would seem more Walkerian to say he believes in private charity to people in countries who are suffering badly. The key being private. Do not hang this on the public dole, ever.
Snippet from the article:
What has not been as evident is what “he supports: legal status for millions of people here already, while making it easier for immigrants to come here through the front door”.
Amen! I was going to post the same thing, but you said it much better.