“Isn’t that a contradiction to his recent statements.”
Seems like most of Fred’s “new” plan for illegal immigration is a contradiction to his previous statements. IMO, Fred is still talking out of both sides of his mouth. Had he wanted to be clear about the 14th Amendment, he could have easily stated that it needed to be clarified to disallow giving anchor babies legal status. Instead, he chose to be vague. In other instances his “new” plan is a complete flip flop (employer penalties). And because he has stated that he only opposes blanket amnesty and that we must first determine who is here and give them aspirations of citizenship, I am wondering how this fits with his declaration of being anti-amnesty. Huckabee and Bush have also stated that they are anti-amnesty and illegals must go “to the end of the line”, but, at the same time would be willing to allow illegals to ‘touchback’ and return, not having to wait at the end of the line in their home country. This may be what Fred has in mind for (non-criminal?) illegal aliens. Even Romney’s answer was more specific than Freds. Bottom line, he’s keeping everyone guessing on exactly what he means. I just don’t trust him.