As K said above, simply pandering or changing to a broader audience per the advisors and handlers more than likely. Not sure he even knows what he is saying. The place he is sitting now on it I don't too much have issue with. It was more the lambasting of the others for it earlier in the process. And I suppose it is better than hillarys total amnesty and open borders stance. Johnson has said before he is also for total amnesty and open borders but I've also recently seen him advocate a path where due diligence is done. Still though, no wall. So it's a mixed bag between them.
Johnson's position has consistently been for an expansive guest worker program, a two year grace period for illegals to get work visas or be deported, 1 strike and you're out for anyone trying to circumvent the rules, and the wall is dumb ("A 10-foot wall just requires an 11-foot ladder").
Any talk about just a completely borderless society, if he did in fact make those comments, were I'm sure purely philosophical about how in an ideal society the government wouldn't interfere with people's individual liberties to live where they want to live, but I know for sure that he does not endorse that as a practical, pragmatic, policy he'd want in practice. I'm assuming that based on similar stances he's taken on, say, the drug war. He wants to
actually legalize marijuana, but when it comes to stuff like heroine and meth, I've seen him say that
in theory, the government shouldn't have a say in what individuals to to their own bodies, and that
in theory if the government were to prescribe heroin to addicts, it would be cleaner, safer, and eliminate the black market. But he then went on to say explicitly that
in practice, he has absolutely no intentions of legalizing anything other than marijuana.
1481 Replies
276454 Views