I don't know of any other way to interpret his statement. If what you're saying is true, then he didn't mean what he said. Either way, I consider it a point against him (in that he either is prone to put politics ahead of principle, or is not speaking clearly about what he means). Not that I'm saying there's no way I could get behind him, because I know no one's perfect. But so far he's just not my #1 choice. That's still Tancredo for me. But I'll keep him in mind as a potential fall-back.
I like Tancredo. But he's like Buchanan was in 1992 or 1996-has no chance to win.