Every donation
counts!
Let's Git-R-Done!
Less than $5.5k to go!!
Posted on 03/01/2015 2:56:49 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Edited on 03/01/2015 3:01:10 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON (CNN)
(Excerpt) Read more at wmur.com ...
At least Walker admits his viewpoint has changed, instead of pretending that amnesty is not amnesty. Ya still have to hold his feet to the fire on the issue, but you are not stuck playing word games.
93.7 million actually.
(the number is growing)
In 2013 Walker was asked about “path to citizenship” and he said at the time that that made sense..
On FOXNEWS today when he was asked about his 2013 AMNESTY stance he agreed he had said that back then because that’s what he believed then, but now he has changed his mind..
Yeah doin the Willard Stance Dance on the issues...
No thanks ...
I will not be voting for this illegal alien lover/enabler..
Walker, Walker—pants on fire!
Every pro-amnesty pol says he’s for amnesty.
E-verify and border security aren’t relevant to his stated positions of the last two years: immediate legalization, eventual citizenship, and virtual open borders enabling “anyone from Mexico or any other country” to come here so easily they’ll have no incentive to come in illegally.
and Mitt Romney was really “severely conservative”...
:|
Maybe he listened to Mark Levin’s speech.
That is his old position.
He says that because of Obama’s mishandling of the issue, he is now not pro-immigration.
Improving our educational system would help with our highly skilled workers. Start teaching science and math instead of some of the idiotic social things they teach.
WTG!!!
Cruz is for the legalization of those already here:
Snippet from the article:
What has not been as evident is what “he supports: legal status for millions of people here already, while making it easier for immigrants to come here through the front door”.
Most of us Walker guys saw this coming a long-long while ago.
Once Walker put out, clearly, his position, he would be called a liar.
Cruz calls himself the most Reagan-like, and he may be just that.
His contingent on FR is quite unReagan-like though.
Well I’m pro-immigration..
and since he wasn’t or isn’t and was for the illegal aliens he’s out for me, an immigrant...
Being pro-illegal alien doesn’t cut it for me...
Illegal aliens don’t immigrate..
Theyre not immigrants...
I want my president to be pro-immigrant, REAL IMMIGRATION..
and not for the group who just play one on the TV news...
The way Walker answered his first question reminded me of the reasons I like Donald Trump: the manner in which Trump will
answer “gotcha” questions. When Chris Wallace asked Walker about his previous answer concerning Obama’s love for America, insinuating that he had dodged the question, Walker immediately started to play defense. He failed to mention that Rudy Giuliani didn’t just grab the statement out of thin air; the statement was not a mere accusation but a conclusion that Giuliani thought fit the stated facts. Walker continued to dodge, and finally was hemmed in to say, in a roundabout way, yes, he thought Obama loved America based on the fact he ran for president. Aaron Burr also ran for president during the electoral college vote in 1800. Did that cleanse him?
There have been so many situations such as this where the Republican being questioned acts as if the interviewer is disembodied truth itself speaking, compelling him to respond to the false premise behind the question as if it were true. He willingly allows himself to be completely constrained by the false premise – in this case that a yes answer would reflect very poorly on anyone who thought such things about Obama and not on Obama himself.
I have seen Trump take on these kinds of questions and he never falls into the trap. He would go on the offense, quote statements from Obama’s speeches and show that the case could be made that, for one, it is supremely obvious that Obama DOES NOT love the country as he found it. Has anyone ever seen Trump defensive about anything? That is the kind of person we need.
Well I’m just wondering who you’re for?
It seems to me, you’re just negative campaigning.
Would like to know, who it is on behalf of?
Most politicians who oppose amnesty try to take the sting out of it by saying they favor expanded legal immigration.
The problem with that is, as you say, 93.7 million people not working. No one has been willing to speak up for them. No one has been willing to say that, not only should illegal immigration be brought to near zero, we need a moratorium on legal immigration too until the economy recovers, and until the people now here have had time to fully integrate.
Immigration policy should always serve the interests of citizens. I’ve never heard a politician say that out loud and I don’t know if any of them even believe it.
I am in complete agreement.
BOTH PARTIES are completely sold out to immigration.
America is being sold out.
Yet nobody, is stopping. Nobody. In either party.
It is just the reverse of buying everything from China, and other countries.
One generation ago, America was the foremost manufacturing country on the entire planet.
In just one generation, we have handed the lead to China, and we import workers for America.
That is TOTALLY BACKWARDS. Completely backwards.
Yet both parties, just keep on rolling...
Give me someone to vote for...
And he would be a shoe-in for the nomination.
But, I didn't hear him say that he opposes allowing illegals remain in the country.
I heard him say that they should not be allowed a path to citizenship.
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.