[FreeReign]

Her position on illegal immigration is confusing, to say the least. She says she’s in favor of a ‘pathway to citizenship’, but admits it would be impossible to force all illegals to leave the U. S. So, taken together, she seems to be agreeing with pro-amnesty advocates, that we create a way for all the millions of illegals to stay here and file some paperwork, maybe pay a fine, and be declared citizens. Either that, or she is way confused about what she believes.

It's not clear what she meant when she (last year?) said that there should be a pathway to citizenship. You do realize that if one uses the literal meaning of the phrase "pathway to citizenship", then everybody in the world who has the potential to get in back of the quota line has a pathway to citizenship.

Last weekend, right before she went down to see McNut, Sarah specifically warned us on FOX news that the Democrats would try amnesty next. That would suggest to me that she is taking the "no amnesty" position, but of course further clarification is always good.

Anyway, Sarah's positions seem to be in line with tea party positions, at least all of her positions except the McCain endorsement position. So don't you agree that Sarah makes a good tea party speaker??

[savedbygrace]

No, I don’t.

But I don’t understand how you can take her two specific responses (pathway to citizenship, and can’t remove them from the U. S.) and conclude she’s lined up with the TEA Party movement on that issue. Please explain.