Replies

>>Wallace: The question was, “Can you envision a world, if these people paid a penalty, that they would have a path to citizenship?” and you stated, “Sure, that makes sense.”
Walker: I believe there’s a way you can do that.<<

Great, so you’ve got one clip where you’ve pinned Walker down, even though he claims the opposite is now his position, and it’s a recent clip, March 1 of this year.

Consider the possibility that Walker mis-spoke for a second here. People in here, for example, are always confusing two issues, path to citizenship versus amnesty. I believe Walker, in your clip was hearing the “paid the penalty” part of the question and was conceding that there would very likely be a way for them to stay here legally, but I highly doubt, based on many other statements he’s made, that he actually meant his answer to refer to a path to citizenship.

That might not be the case, but if you listen to the tape again with that in mind, it makes sense, because he certainly knew by that date that conceding any sort of path to citizenship was a political land mine.

I’ll agree that Walker has changed his view on immigration, but I also happen to think he’s taken the issue away from other candidates by stressing the need to look at LEGAL immigration levels in the context of the impact on American wages. Most of the candidates don’t even dare to go there, but it’s almost certainly a winning issue, even across parties and, for that matter, maybe even with recent immigrants here legally today.

Wallace: The question was, “Can you envision a world, if these people paid a penalty, that they would have a path to citizenship?” and you stated, “Sure, that makes sense.”

Walker: I believe there’s a way you can do that.

Great, so you’ve got one clip where you’ve pinned Walker down, even though he claims the opposite is now his position, and it’s a recent clip, March 1 of this year.

My linked clip is the March 1, 2015 interview. You can listen to all of it if you like.

Consider the possibility that Walker mis-spoke for a second here. People in here, for example, are always confusing two issues, path to citizenship versus amnesty. I believe Walker, in your clip was hearing the “paid the penalty” part of the question and was conceding that there would very likely be a way for them to stay here legally, but I highly doubt, based on many other statements he’s made, that he actually meant his answer to refer to a path to citizenship.

There's not a court in the land that is going to sign on to second tiered residential status. Once a person registers and instantly becomes legal, it's only a matter of time before they can apply for and become a citizen. If this is not the case, La Raza will file a class action suit on behalf of these people. It will be heard by a lower court and appealed if they don't prevail at that level. A higher court will overturn and allow these people to transition.

Once they have transitioned, they start bringing over family members though chain immigration. If 30 million people bring over five people each, that's quite a few people.

There's not a politician alive that doesn't grasp this concept. If they play the make believe game, they're just playing smoke and mirrors.

That might not be the case, but if you listen to the tape again with that in mind, it makes sense, because he certainly knew by that date that conceding any sort of path to citizenship was a political land mine.

Wallace restated that question how many times? He stated it at least twice. He may have done it more than twice. He laid it out very clearly in that final question. It was a simple question and Walker gave a very simple response.

I’ll agree that Walker has changed his view on immigration, but I also happen to think he’s taken the issue away from other candidates by stressing the need to look at LEGAL immigration levels in the context of the impact on American wages.

Look, please think of this for a moment. We allow about 1.2 million legal and refugee immigrants per year. Right now we have about 30 million illegals inside our nation. If Walker allows them to stay, it would take 25 years of zero legal immigration to equal that 30 million Walker allowed to pay a penalty and stay. And if you consider the chain migration sure to result, we're talking about over 100 years of legal immigration, all in about 10 years. Still think he is looking out for citizen's jobs?

As for Walker changing his mind, in this very interview he says they can stay. That is not a change at all. All they have to do is register and they have legal status. That is an instant transition from illegal to legal. It means they will never have to worry about being deported again.

That's amensty to my way of thinking.

Most of the candidates don’t even dare to go there, but it’s almost certainly a winning issue, even across parties and, for that matter, maybe even with recent immigrants here legally today.

Had he changed his policy and supported enforcing laws to make them repatriate, I would agree that he had.

He hasn't.

There's no way to listen to this interview and believe he has changed his policies, without going through tortured contortions to explain away plain English statements.