I listened to the whole thing and it scared me more than the article did. I’m not attacking you here, deport, I just want to point out a thing or two.
I got the impression that a President Perry would push amnesty for all those here already so that they could become taxpayers. Is that a stretch? Possibly, but I didn’t hear anything that would make me believe otherwise. Seems like a logical extension of his stance on the issue.
Yes, I understood the “in-process” bit, but that could easily be omitted from the final bill in congress based on it being impractical to process an extra 14 million citizenship requests at once.
How many times must we do this thing with trying to declare amnesty based on a false promise that our borders would be secured “later”?
I’m not from Texas, but could someone explain to me why, if one of my children wanted to attend a Texas college, that she would pay regular tuition, while someone who’s is not even supposed to be in the country gets the discount rate? Really?
Bottom line: While I don’t trust Romney on anything, I don’t trust Perry on immigration.
Thanks. All I was trying to point out to people that there was more to the response than the sentence or two posted in the article. Texas and California are porbably in the most damned if you do or damned if you don’t positions of all the states simply because they have to deal with the largest volume of illegals. It’s easy to set back and pontificate whay you’d do when you don’t really have to deal with the problems. If the feds did their job then no state would be put in that position.
Out of state tuition versus instate tuition. I think all states probably have a position that none residents pay out of state tuition. Some 11 or so states have provided for instate tuition for the illegals they are having to deal with provided they meet certain requirements. Thus you have the states rights issue being exhibited with some doing it one way and others another.