Posted on 02/27/2015 7:18:27 AM PST by Rockitz
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) declared “there should be no amnesty” on Thursday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.
When asked what he believes should be done with illegal immigrants already in the country, he stated “there should be no amnesty. You should secure the border, not just for immigration reasons, but why would you put a fence around three sides of your home and leave the back door open? That’s what we have when we guard our ports, we guard our airports, we don’t guard our borders…beyond that you’ve got to enforce the law. We put the onus on employers to give them an E-Verify type system where they have access to enforce the law.”
Regarding DHS funding and funding for the president’s executive action on immigration, he said “you have got to tie the two together, and instead of playing on defense you have got to play on offense and put the pressure back on the president and his allies.”
Walker also expressed his opposition to Colorado’s legalization of marijuana and his opposition to same-sex marriage. He further said he supported “the legal right for legal citizens to be able to carry and arm themselves”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Some Freepers would try the patience of the saints. There is no getting them to back off at least until the real clear picture is shown.
Skepticism is healthy, but outright hostility to every single one of our potential candidates does get wearisome and is not good for our future.
He should have said “there will be no amnesty” in a Walker adminstration.
His answers and history have been a little ambiguous. All of the Republican candidates are under pressure from the donor class country club greedy sell outs. So they have to be. But, Scott Walker is the only one that has shown that he can stand up to the machine and win. The only other one who talks the walk is Cruz but he has not yet had the chance to prove that he can do what Walker did.
Just being inside our boarders should not entitle a non-citizen to the fruits of US citizens’ labor.
It depends on what amnesty means.
In practice, almost no presidential hopeful wants the extreme that anyone who slipped into the US should be ejected and never allowed back. Given that, then the question remaining is what kind of a slap on the wrist should they get before being allowed back.
This at best should be a matter of treaty agreement. If country X agrees to either treat US citizens in a reciprocal manner or else foots the bill for their own who come without permission to the US... then all is peachy. Otherwise the constitution isn’t a suicide pact whether it is slow suicide by demographics and welfare costs, or whatever.
We also need to change the laws to severely curtail the appeals process for illegals with deportation orders. We need to end catch and release policies for illegals.
I heard this in the press, Walker’s strategy was to say I don’t know as a wink wink to the right wing.
I never believed that and don’t know anyone who did.
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.
Slick politicians have their own personal definitions of it. Purposefully unspoken to trick conservatives.
For what it’s worth, Juan McCain is also opposed to “amnesty”....and so is Lindsey Graham.
All we can go are his actions. He previously supported a plan that provided a “path to citizenship”. He is on the record saying he supports that.
He recently asked Mexico to set up a consulate in Wisconsin.
I like Walker fine, but don’t trust him on immigration.
Anyone who “slips into the country” has committed a serious felony and should never be allowed back in — even for a day. THAT is what I want to hear a “presidential hopeful” say. Otherwise, he/she is just supporting some level of amnesty.
I don’t want to hear “no Amnesty”. I WANT to hear “No legalization, no pathway to citizenship ever.”
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.
I don’t trust him either. He is gonna have to drink the “no pathway” koolaid before I vote for him.
Step 2, or maybe 1 (a), secure the border.
Finally, those illegals who are here to work hard and not live off America's teat can go to the back of the line and go through the process legally.
It is virtually never treated that way. What point is there to something that is a “serious felony” only on paper? Given the blasphemy of felony-flation in general which has plagued America.
We need to look in a mirror.
Word, dude!
I think Walker’s views have changed for the better.
Anyone who can look at the problem and change his mind is to be saluted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.