“When Hannity asked him what about illegal immigrants, all he would say is that they’d need to get “at the back of the line.” Big, big disappointment as far as I was concerned.”
Sounds like a reasonable position to me.
I suppose it really comes down to what “back of the line” means.
If it means they get to stay in this country and wait at the back the of the line until their turn to become a legal immigrant comes up, I say no dice.
If it means they have to leave this country and then get at the back of the line, okay.
But I got the feeling Christie meant the former (staying in this country)—although that could have just been my impression.
The problem with this position that many politicians take is more a matter of trust than anything.
Even the “not-amnesty” amnesty bill of a few years back, didn’t look all that horrible in some aspects, it was really our lack of trust in the politicans administering it and passing it that killed it.
If someone TRULY says “get to the back of the line” and at the same time seals the border, ends birthright citizenship, and punishes employers, then it’s fine.
If they mean it just as a wishy-washy response, then I have a problem with it.
It’s also a malleable position. Where he stands now, he wouldn’t really be considered hypocritical if he eventually came out in favor of SB1070 on the guise that the Feds are failing on the issue.