The honorable Mr. Perry overcomes and defeats your kind every day and will continue to do so from here on out to the nomination.
Posted on 09/04/2011 10:54:37 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
Personally in my opinion, each State has the right to decide how to handle illegal immigration and allocation of the law and State rights to such illegal aliens in the event that the Federal government refuses to follow the constitutional and legal obligations under the law. Having said that, I still feel that, the Federal government should complete the fence as was agreed upon and that each State certainly does not have the right to refuse the fence nor should they be in the business of taking on the debt to built it themselves.
Having said that, my opinion, and of which I would hope fellow citizens of my State would share (too many do not, but I guess that is democracy and representative government), is my personal opinion that illegal immigration is a threat to our very principles of constitutional sovereignty. No accordance should be given to it, no allowance, no favor. Period.
Illegal immigration is not my primary, single issue of importance. I am not a single issue voter. During this time, the issue of most importance to me individually is the economy of our nation. I have four issue of which are important to me during this election cycle, and of which will continue to be of importance to me until a resolution to my concern puts these issues to rest:
(1) Jobs, the debt of our nation, the falling value of the US dollar, the stability and growth of the stock market and the GDP, the decline of domestic industrial production and exportation of industrial and military technology, in other words the economy and the current state of economic decline …
(2) The war on terrorism, the threat from modern politicized Islamic fascism, and the strength of our military readiness in face of …
(3) Illegal immigration, which is a serious violation of our constitutional sovereignty, the sanctity of our democratic vote, and without hesitation I am not speaking of Russians, or Chinese, or those from India or Europe or others who have not had the blanket luck of being directly adjacent to the borders of the United States, nor am I speaking to political or social refuges whether they come from far or just over the border, but rather I qualify that I am specifically and without any racial motive speaking to the invasion of large numbers of uneducated Mexican class who are not interested in assimilation but have many other personal or even ulterior motives of which we can no longer consent to in the name of helping the poor, nor tolerate the crimes, nor allow the security threat to remain in the face of drug cartels who would also assist Islamic terrorists …
(4) Crime – which in notable part is also linked to issue number 3 and 1 ...
All of these issues are of vital importance to me. I am not a single issue voter and frankly I do not want to hear statements that try to claim so. Having a stance on these issues is larger than any of that. If a candidate does not speak in terms of these issues, but holds an opinion so directly counter to my vital concerns and voices it in such a manner, I simply cannot support such a candidate.
The other day, it came to my attention that candidate Perry, whom until then I was very enthusiastic about, does not, and has publically stated he will not, support the border fence. I have researched and found that what was being told to me in this regard is, in fact. That he does not support the fence, that he supports in-state tuition and other rip-offs to legal citizens, that he did not stand with Arizona.
Now that the truth has been verified, I cannot support Rick Perry. I have noticed that Mitt Romney is publically taking a counter position, and pointing out we must stop providing incentives that promote illegal immigration, that as governor he vetoed legislation that would have provided in-state tuition, and he has now publically called for the building of the border fence as a priority. No doubt, others may say that Romney is simply making such public statements in the face of Perry’s surge in the polls among conservatives after the Perry announcement for candidacy. There could be truth in that, but it doesn’t change the fact that Perry, even as recent as this week, made statements in relation to the illegal immigration question that simply eradicates any chance of a personal consideration on my part to vote for his candidacy. Period.
I don’t care what Perry supporters say, I think we are now going to see the typical and historic pattern that occurs during the Primary contest which is, you see a candidate who is in part unknown emerge during the Primary, who may even initially surge in the polls and in support by the Party members, but as we learn more about the candidate we simply realize that perhaps another choice would be more wise.
I believe this is exactly what is going to happen here. I believe the surge in support for Perry, due to this Achilles’ heel in regards to his stand on illegal immigration, will notably wane his support to the benefit of other candidates.
I also understand that Michele Bachmann has made similar public statements to those of Romney, that she has a firm stand regarding illegal immigration which I support and thank her for, and of course I have already had a liking for her candidacy and this only reinforces it.
My personal opinion is, understandably, not of importance and simply posting such an opinion can seem pompous. I am only using my personal opinion in this regard to example what is no doubt likely about to happen, the gut on it, which is -
- that the Rick Perry candidacy is going to fail, unless he dramatically changes his stance on this. And even if doing so to members of the Republican Party who are really making the difference, and that is specifically the conservatives, even a dramatic turn around on this issue may not be enough.
Politics is a tough game. Actually, it is not a game. And it can be very dirty. That is how it is. One candidate will attempt to defeat another through exposure of the other candidate. Exposure can come in terms of personal attacks. But this is not a personal attack, not by any of the other candidates who would benefit through a decline in support for Perry. Truthfully exposing opinions and where a candidate stands on an issue, even if done as part of defeating another candidate, is expected, and is how politics works. It is not fun. Not for anyone. It is how it is, and it is serious business.
Man! Are the Perry people flailing on this board? I’ve seen every comment on this thread from “Of course Perry is for a border fence, anything else is a gd lie” to “Of course Perry is against a border fence and here’s the reason why”...can a little clarity be reached in this chicken coop?
______________________________________
Perry says no to border fence
Sep 04, 2011 9:10 PM CST
NewsChannel 10
Amarillo, Texas - Governor Rick Perry says no to a border fence. The Presidential hopeful told hundreds of people in New Hampshire he opposes a physical barrier between the US and Mexico, saying it would be ineffective and take too long to build.
He said, “1200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso two things how long do you think it will take to build that, and then if you build a 30 foot wall from Brownsville to El Paso the 35 foot ladder business is real good, you got to have people on the ground.”
The comments produced only one angry shout, exposing a long simmering clash with some conservative voters over Perry’s immigration record.
He’s been criticized for signing legislation that gave illegal immigrants in-state tuition at Texas universities.
________________________________
Who’s going to be first to claim that Perry is lying about Perry? LOL! If you want something to get angry about, think about this...it’s rapidly becoming clear that Perry has more foggy decisions in his past to account for THAN ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES COMBINED, you may not like it, all the allegations may not be fair or true, but this is YOUR candidate and calling everyone who questions his past an anti Perry troll does NOTHING to clear it up.
This level of ignorance is incompatible with credibility.
“Now go away”
Not appropriate. Learn to exchange ideas in an adult manner.
“What we need are policies to make then leave (not entice them to stay as per Obama policy).”
First let me say I REALLY like Perry a lot. I even blogged about it, you can read my post:
http://jocon307.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/why-we-are-loving-rick-perry/
But I also have to say Illegal Immigration really is his achille’s heel. The Tx dream act is definitely an “enticement to stay”. That is the real problem.
And I understand that Tex/Mex is a real thing and that relationship is just culturally important. I’m not going to judge something I don’t understand and don’t desire to understand.
And I am also VERY concerned with the who-knows-how-many illegals are here from not-Mexico, who come in via the airports and...just...stay.
Can Perry be good on this issue? He needs to be.
Can Romney use his veto of the MA dream act to hurt Perry? Yes, I think so.
But this is an important issue for our side. We can’t just overlook it, as much as I might even like to.
“I voted for [Perry] in every statewide election he’s run in. I won’t support him for president though.”
Oh my goodness. So who is your candidate?
I highly recommend his interview with Mark Levin. It's 15 minutes and covers a range of things including a lot on immigration.
Before I get to what I've learned about Perry, I would hope you give the same litmus testing to all candidates. On immigration, you'll likely find them wanting. Numbers USA rates Bachmann B-, Cain C- and the others, Palin included, D or below.
You say Perry's opposed the fence in his own words and yet that's not accurate. You'll hear that in the Levin interview. He's consistently and repeatedly advocated for "strategic fencing," such as at metropolitan areas where it has been useful.
He prefers National Guard on the border until 4,000 more border patrol can be added--3,000 in TX, 1,000 more from El Paso west to San Diego. He supports use of aerial assets including helicopters and drones. Why? Because a "surge strategy" using the Texas Ranger has worked in Texas against cartels.
He knows even where there's a double fence today, like San Diego where I'm located, illegals still climb over. He also knows cartels build sophisticated tunnels underneath. Here's an example in Nogales a couple weeks ago. Fencing is on part.
In the interview, he rightly points out fencing everywhere is expensive. In 2007, Congressional Research Service placed the cost of only 700 miles worth at $50 billion excluding both labor and land acquisitions. CRS 2007 numbers)
That'd make a terrific union "make-work" program and an EPA nightmare. San Diego's double-fence had a gap across "Smuggler's Gulch" for years because of environmental wrangling. I'm sure the regulatory issues could be lessoned under any of the candidates running as EPA critics but it'll take an act of Congress to make it happen just as it did with "Smuggler's Gulch."
The Rio Grande is critical for Texas agriculture and forms the entire border between that state and Mexico. What's the impact of fencing it all off from Texans, effectively ceding the waterway to Mexico? Perry knows this and he's trying to be practical: boots on the ground, eyes in the sky, fencing where it makes sense, no amnesty (including no federal Dream Act) and no citizenship as part of any guest worker program.
Perry's cracked down on human trafficking (HB 1372, 4008 & SB 11 of '07), he's increased border security (Rangers on the border; HB1 of '07), enacted tougher employer sanctions (HB 1196 of '07), gone after document fraud (HB 126 of '07) and signed Voter ID.
Unlike candidates with just rhetoric on the issue, we don't have to wonder what kinds of things Perry might do on border security as president. We can see what he's done and where he's always stood.
I noted the most "pure" candidates according to Numbers USA are those with the least record. I find that troubling.
I saw in the NH town hall, Romney's now trying to run to the right of Perry on immigration (full fence, no in-state tuition). Is that believable? Not to me but we'll see if it works for his campaign.
After you've investigated Perry you may still find him unacceptable on immigration grounds. I'm sure you won't be alone.
That's fine as long as it's on his actual record and positions rather than alarmist spin or what the AP and others misreport.
I don't find him to be Obama, McCain or even W.
I highly recommend his interview with Mark Levin. It's 15 minutes and covers a range of things including a lot on immigration.
Before I get to what I've learned about Perry, I would hope you give the same litmus testing to all candidates. On immigration, you'll likely find them wanting. Numbers USA rates Bachmann B-, Cain C- and the others, Palin included, D or below.
You say Perry's opposed the fence in his own words and yet that's not accurate. You'll hear that in the Levin interview. He's consistently and repeatedly advocated for "strategic fencing," such as at metropolitan areas where it has been useful.
He prefers National Guard on the border until 4,000 more border patrol can be added--3,000 in TX, 1,000 more from El Paso west to San Diego. He supports use of aerial assets including helicopters and drones. Why? Because a "surge strategy" using the Texas Ranger has worked in Texas against cartels.
He knows even where there's a double fence today, like San Diego where I'm located, illegals still climb over. He also knows cartels build sophisticated tunnels underneath. Here's an example in Nogales a couple weeks ago. Fencing is on part.
In the interview, he rightly points out fencing everywhere is expensive. In 2007, Congressional Research Service placed the cost of only 700 miles worth at $50 billion excluding both labor and land acquisitions. CRS 2007 numbers)
That'd make a terrific union "make-work" program and an EPA nightmare. San Diego's double-fence had a gap across "Smuggler's Gulch" for years because of environmental wrangling. I'm sure the regulatory issues could be lessoned under any of the candidates running as EPA critics but it'll take an act of Congress to make it happen just as it did with "Smuggler's Gulch."
The Rio Grande is critical for Texas agriculture and forms the entire border between that state and Mexico. What's the impact of fencing it all off from Texans, effectively ceding the waterway to Mexico? Perry knows this and he's trying to be practical: boots on the ground, eyes in the sky, fencing where it makes sense, no amnesty (including no federal Dream Act) and no citizenship as part of any guest worker program.
Perry's cracked down on human trafficking (HB 1372, 4008 & SB 11 of '07), he's increased border security (Rangers on the border; HB1 of '07), enacted tougher employer sanctions (HB 1196 of '07), gone after document fraud (HB 126 of '07) and signed Voter ID.
Unlike candidates with just rhetoric on the issue, we don't have to wonder what kinds of things Perry might do on border security as president. We can see what he's done and where he's always stood.
I noted the most "pure" candidates according to Numbers USA are those with the least record. I find that troubling.
I saw in the NH town hall, Romney's now trying to run to the right of Perry on immigration (full fence, no in-state tuition). Is that believable? Not to me but we'll see if it works for his campaign.
After you've investigated Perry you may still find him unacceptable on immigration grounds. I'm sure you won't be alone.
That's fine as long as it's on his actual record and positions rather than alarmist spin or what the AP and others misreport.
I don't find him to be Obama, McCain or even W.
Dont need no stinkun fence. Keep them from workin and they will stop coming
Expanding on what you said, military doctrine holds that obstacles that are not combined with observation and direct fire serve only to annoy the enemy.
A fence is worthless by itself. The Mexicans will just drive a truck through it, climb over, or tunnel under. If you have sufficiently draconian penalties for trying to get in, you don't need much of a fence. Treating illegal border crossers as invaders will do a lot towards stopping it.
Rick Perry has repeatedly said he is against a fence for the majority of the TX-Mexico border. Too expensive, will take to long to build, will lead to 35’ ladders, etc..
Makes him a nonstarter for me, too. I, gulp, am not even sure I’d support him ahead of Romney at this point.
(Palin is my candidate.)
The honorable Mr. Perry overcomes and defeats your kind every day and will continue to do so from here on out to the nomination.
Personally, I'd vote for just about anyone other than Obama right now. And whoever can make it through the Republican primary will get my vote. I keep hearing “we can't keep voting for the lesser of two evils”, but to me, in this election, Obama is SO evil, socialist, spends so much, keeps proposing new taxes, no jobs, new wars, with Obamacare, and with what we've seen he's given us on the Supreme Court and with his Czars, AG pick, etc, he needs to be gone. I've skipped local and state elections before because both candidates were horrible (NY), but I want Obama gone. I never thought I could think any lower of a democratic President than I thought of Carter or Clinton— until now.
Good post. I spent considerable time during my career as a system engineer working on border security systems. A fence serves two purposes. It marks a border and sometimes it’s a place to hang sensors. Otherwise, not much use.
Greetings newzjunkey:
Thank you for your thoughtful post concerning Governor Perry’s border position(s). It always seemed there had to be a plausible explanation for the Governor Perry border fence flip-flops. Now, in the context of a Rio Grande “fence gap” necessity to maintain our share of waterway sovereignty, Perry’s statements do make sense.
If only the Gardasil issue was answered with such clarity.
Cheers,
OLA
LLS
What a LOAD.
Nobody is going to be pure. I have many reservations about Perry, but Im not a single issue voter. Haven’t made a decision... looking forward to seeing how he thinks on his feet.
I love that image. It says it all.
Sounds to me like Perry’s coming down on both sides of “the fence”.......”No fence”....”strategic fencing”....for commercial areas perhaps???? As when he said they want “the bad guys to be out and the good guys to be in”.
Also sounds like a politicians ploy to be neutral....not one way or another.
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.