Posted on 07/19/2015 11:19:41 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker acknowledged in a CNN interview that in the past he had expressed support for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but said that he wasn't talking about amnesty at the time.
In an interview aboard his campaign trailer that aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Dana Bash pressed Walker about his shift from somebody who once said a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants "made sense" to a presidential candidate talking about restrictions on legal immigration. She asked whether such shifts undermined his pitch to voters that he's somebody who stands up for his principles.
"The only issue where I've clearly said I had a position before — and even on that, as governor, I didn't have a role to play in immigration. I said there should be a path, years ago, when I talked about going forward with legal immigration", he said. "I didn't talk about amnesty. In fact, I said in that specific interview, I opposed the 'Gang of 5,' the measure that Marco Rubio proposed. So I specifically even then said, 'I'm not supporting that.' But I said flat out in the beginning of the year, that's a position I have changed on."
In the 2013 interview with the Wausau Daily Herald editorial board that has gotten a second life during his presidential run, Walker was asked about the millions of individuals who immigrated to the United States illegally, and whether he could see them gaining citizenship with the right mix of penalties and waiting periods. "Sure, yeah," he responded. "I mean, I think it makes sense."
The meaning of the term "amnesty" is itself a hotly debated one in politics, and to many conservatives, any path to citizenship to those who entered the country illegally — even with penalties — would be considered amnesty.
Bash also asked Walker about comments he's made about legal immigration.
"What I've specifically said is I think priority under legal immigration should be given to the impact on American working families on their wages in a way that would improve the American economy," Walker said. "That not only means people like me who were born here, that means people like the woman I just met in Cedar Rapids, for example, who moved here many years ago, was a political refugee of the Congo, and who went through the process to be a legal citizen. She's working here. And I believe for her, and for others who were born here, there needs to be priority given, to say, we're going to need to make sure we put priority [on] American working families and their wages. Doesn't mean there won't ever be legal immigration, it just means that's what our priorities should be."
Get a clue: The reason Trumps numbers are so high is that people aren't buying it. He had the limelight. The word got out about his "former" position. They waited and there was no joy. Walker either tells his consultants to go to hell and addresses the issue forthrightly or he sinks because people with any intelligence won't believe him.
If you don’t like my threads, start your own.
No one is stopping you.
Go for it.
Support your guy Donald Trump.
By the way, what party affiliation does Trump claim today?
You don't own threads any more than you own this forum.
Support your guy Donald Trump.
Liar. I am on record since April saying that he's the Ross Perot of 2016.
Support Walker. He was born on U.S. soil.
instate tuition for illegals is ... illegal. the citizens of the US do not pay taxes to educate the children of another country who will then compete against american children for jobs, lowering wages.
he should be calling for any that are here illegally to return to their country immediately.
anything short of that is condoning illegal behavior
So was Hillary.
Then who is your candidate?
I have told you several times now I don't have one.
Who did you support in the 2012 presidential election?
Selecting a candidate to support does not make me a blind cheerleader. Got it?
I get it.
You feel that you can give your opinion about everyone and everything BUT not about who you support or have supported.
Got it.
At what point? Good grief, there are two points of support, the primary and the general. There's your civics lesson for the day. In 2012, there were various people in the primary I supported amid those ephemeral trends among so many candidates, so you'd have to pick a date. In the general election, if I recall correctly, I voted AIP as a protest against the GOPe because I live in California and my vote for President was therefore otherwise immaterial.
What a shrieking harpie. I replied to you above. It took a minute because your question was so stupid.
Aren’t you a big Rick Perry supporter? You were in the past, I know.
I believe we’ve exhausted any benefit to our exchange since you’ve refused to give any indication about who you’ve supported for president.
Liar.
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.