Hey you can point out whatever you want..but I really dont know what you want from her..an essay explaining every single thing on your list..she said what she said today, period..maybe later on she might clarify things even further that will satisfy you but she gave a speech, not a 10 page essay and what she said was absolutely right, you dont reward people who committed a crime(Who are rule breakers) with amnesty, that simple
Sarah, her past interview still stands. I honestly don’t know why she disagrees with this bill. None the less, you’ll be reminding me she objected to this bill for the next decade.
Yet, if I bring up her last statement prior to this from three years ago, I’m being so unfair.
Do you want me to link you to the interview where she states she will not reward lawbreakers, then explains how if they follow the guidelines of legislation, she’ll let them register and stay here? We’re talking only a few minutes between the two facets of her policy in the same interview.
Sadly, it’s not that simple.
Why did she object today? What was the real deal-breaker? I don’t know. She has agreed to ‘rewards’ before for lawbreakers. Why not now? Was that the real reason? Is her policy of the past now objectionable to her?
I don’t know.