Photo: Getty Images
In a bruising half hour interview with Los Angeles talk show hosts John Kobylt & Ken Chiampou this afternoon, the Republican gubernatorial nominee said she's against any path to citizenship for those who are in the country illegally, even though she seemed to be for such a path 10 months ago.
The KFI-AM talk show hosts were riled up about what they see as inconsistencies between Whitman's primary campaign rhetoric, her rhetoric now that she faces Jerry Brown, and her own statements compared to those made by her campaign ads. And they insisted that a "path to citizenship" is synonymous with "amnesty" for those here illegally.
The candidate agreed.
"I know," she said, "and I am not for a path to citizenship. You know that, right?"
Whitman was being grilled at the time about an op-ed piece she penned for Spanish language newspapers, one in which she said she and Brown have essentially the same stance on illegal immigration. But Brown supports some kind of citizenship process... which is the gap over which the talk show hosts grilled her for what seemed like an eternity.
At one point, Kobylt pushed the following point: "No illegal alien is going to get any kind of citizenship unless they leave the country and apply through the [normal] process. Is that true?"
Whitman's answer: "Yes."
But here's the rub: the candidate's visit to the U.S-Mexico border in October 2009 resulted in a story from the San Diego Union-Tribune which began as follows:
With the San Ysidro border fence as her backdrop, Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman spoke out on immigration policy issues yesterday, saying it is "simply not practical" to deport the estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants living and working in the United States.
The candidate, 53, said the solution is to find a mechanism that allows them to live here legally. "Can we get a fair program where people stand at the back of the line, they pay a fine, they do some things that would ultimately allow a path to legalization?" she asked.
And then there's the video from an area TV station's interview that day.
That sounds like a different take on the complicated issue than Whitman offered this afternoon. In a sit-down interview I did with her in May, I asked about a bipartisan measure in the United States Senate that would require a number of steps for illegal immigrants, but steps that nonetheless would allow many to remain in the country. Her response at the time was noncommittal, saying simply that border security was the first priority.
And on the issue of amnesty, Whitman at the time defined it this way: "Amnesty is when you don't face any consequences at all for having broken the law."
The nominee's attempt to sort out what's a decidedly complicated issue (and one on which the next governor will have more rhetorical than legal power) appears... well, complicated. So how is the campaign squaring all of this?
Simple, apparently... they say she wasn't referring to citizenship in that October 2009 interview.
"She was talking about a temporary guest worker program," said spokesperson Sarah Pompei in an email this afternoon. "She supports a comprehensive solution that secures the borders first and includes a temporary guest worker program. What she said today is entirely consistent with what she has said before."
The key word, of course, is "legalization," though the phrase "path to..." usually conjures up the issue of citizenship.
With so many huge hurdles facing California, it's hard to see illegal immigration as the key issue in this race. But Whitman's critics on the left and the right are likely not going to stop talking about this for some time... an example of what happens in campaigns these days when someone thinks they sense a candidate has either changed their mind, or changed their approach. Or both.
