Walker: I believe there's a way you can do that.
This has been the Walker policy since 2006, when he backed McCain/Kennedy. The backers back then swore that wasn't amnesty either.
Then he goes on to state he has changed his policy. No Mr. Walker, you most definitely haven't changed your policy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPmzn5QEJVw
>>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.