Posted on 09/23/2011 6:54:44 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
My comment wasn't really about who you support; it was your apparent assumption that someone would withdraw support of a candidate based on one debate.
By the way it was 3 bad debates.
I'll agree with you there. These debates are a joke. The intent of these debates is obviously not to give all of the candidates a floor for which to support their policies; they're dog and pony shows that are orchestrated and manipulated by the media, primarily to generate sound bites.
Some will no longer be a factor because they are no longer with us but most certainly will be a factor. The difference is that this has now had a BIG spotlight put on it and it’s not going to go away!
There was great progress overall on the illegal issue in the most recent legislative session with regard to voting and the obtaining driver’s licenses by illegals in Texas but much remains to be done and despite the fact that we have HUGE majorities of republicans in both houses of the legislature we STILL don’t have CONSERVATIVE majorities in either! To many republicans of convenience if you know what I mean but that to is being dealt with. It is a slow process! To slow in fact!
>>Perry comes from a conservative border state, and has a border state mentality.<<
Yeah, like Jorge Bush did.
WAKE UP.
It is obvious that the Texas law was written to circumvent federal law. By just using a residency requirement and not mentioning "illegal alien" or the legal status of those receiving the benefit, then any citizen from another state could qualify using the residency requirement.
No, they can offer in-state tuition, but my take on the intention of the federal law is that if in-state tuition is offered to illegals, then it has to be offered to all US citizens, regardless of their residency.
But I also find the federal law to be ambiguous, and it can be read to require states to have uniform residency requirements for in-state tuition, where illegals don't have the benefit of a shortened residency period, to qualify for in-state tuition.
I’m on a council wherin I have to deal with reps from the valley. All they can talk about is getting more money for illegals. The new merit criteria for Texas Grants program is anathema to them. See, the illegals will go if it’s cheap or free. If they have to pay for it, they won’t.
One more little bit of information for your mill.
This year in Texas there was a STRONG effort by conservatives in the legislature to end sanctuary cities here. That effort was put to death by our “republican” Speaker of the House (Joe Strauss, San Antonio) and, some say, Governor Perry.
He’s from a huge border state. Perry has boots on the ground, and doing what he can to keep illegals out. A state can’t do it alone. The Feds are worthless.
Then Perry is pretending to have a “heart” until he gets to the Federal level? Then he will ENFORCE THE LAW?
Honestly, he is all squishy when it comes to illegals or at least the children of same.
Otherwise, he would say stuff like “I would fine any college who knowing admits an illegal” or I would fine empolyers for hiring illegals”
or “I will build a fense”
Because they are ILLEGAL! They can not hold a job legally in the US degree or no degree. So we are spending money educating illegals for jobs that they can not legally hold.
Special considerations? We have laws governing illegal immigration.
Great points! Thank you for taking the time to clarify the things you did.
I think many people seem to think the states can just deport these illegal folk and fault them when they don’t, not realizing there is absolutely no legal or Constitutional authority given to states to deport. This is a situation we have had FORCED upon our states, Texas specifically mentioned here, because we have not had federal leadership who has put resources towards securing our border and doing something about the illegal immigrants who have waltzed on in here these last twenty years or so.
It’s good to make sure people are aware this situation has been forced upon us and that this has not been an issue of simply opening the gates and saying “come on in, amigo”.
On the same hand, some believe these folk will just deport themselves if we make it hard on them.
Well, maybe some will, but I suspect most will not go back to Mexico, especially since many MANY of the people we are talking about have been here in Texas for 10, 15, 20 years of so, have friends and family here (illegal AND legal), and who have roots here. They have assimilated into our society (even though it WAS under the radar), but they have assimilated into our world none the less.
For those people, they have no other home. For them, America is their world; and those folk wouldn’t move any more than you or I would!
I don’t think people across the country realize how ingrained some of those people are!
Using tactics to put them into the ground won’t serve to get most of those people back to Mexico. Some will self deport. Others will stay under the radar will and live with friends and family here anyway, regardless. Others, I believe, would do whatever they had to do to survive anyway, prostitution perhaps, selling drugs maybe, whatever one needs to do to survive in the only home many of them know.
I am not completely FOR the DREAM Act, but I am not convinced it is completely the wrong thing either.
I think it is something that Texas has done to ensure the safekeeping of our communities, of communities filled with official American citizens who live among these people we are talking about, people that look and act just like us most of the time now even.
I mentioned this on another thread but will note it here too. For me, it’s not a HEART issue. It’s a BRAIN issue. It’s one part of one solution to dealing with this mess our federal government has handed to us.
And just for the record, I’m not for letting illegals in either. I like that Rick Perry has gone to Israel on various occasions to talk with them and to form his vision for border security from the Israelis. The way I see it, if Israel can protect their borders being surrounded on all sides by enemies who want to get them off the face of the earth, then why shouldn’t we be considering their form of border security as well here? That’s why I like Rick Perry’s vision for Israeli-style border security on our US borders.
Then with a federal administration that upholds it Constitutional responsibility to protect our country, we should be fine keeping illegals at bay.
Those people who are here though, especially those who know no other home but the home they have here? It seems like Rick Santorum’s thoughts on the “Don’t ask Don’t tell” question from the debate last night seems to be an appropriate place from which to start asking questions as to what should be done with them - Should we put our rules BACK into place but not hold the people that were beneficiaries of our federal government’s lax rules accountable for our federal government’s allowances? I don’t know that answer in my heart, but I at least think it is worth asking.
Thanks again for the info.
I don’t like Bachmann any more. I don’t like the way she looks, acts, and speaks as a presidential candidate. I don’t trust her, and I don’t think she is presenting the real MB. It may be that she’s trusting the same kind of operatives that sold McShame down the river, but if she is, that’s enough to disqualify her right there.
I would not count Rick out over a stupid debate series that seems to me to be like DWTS but with no voting and nobody watching. In fact, here’s an idea, I’m sure I’m the thousandth person to think of this, but why not have the Republican debate be a call-in and vote program like AI or DWTS? THAT would make it interesting, and people would probably actually watch if one of the contestants was going to get voted off the island every week. And the debates would get better and better rather than the same shit different day.
That was back in April, 2010, and the legal situation has no doubt developed since then.
We have to form a coalition, Bernard. We need Perry.
Was this intended to be in some way responsive to what I wrote?
Good post.
The Citizens of other states can get the same deal [in state tuition] by moving to Texas and becoming a resident after one year and they get in state tuition. These illegals have to wait three years, not the one year for other US state citizens.
There are other states, 13 that had a similar program but that isn't the issue as Perry is the Gov of one that has this program. Other states have filed or discussing this in the legislatures.
Allow In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students
It was a 5-4 decision. BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J.,post, p. 457 U. S. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 457 U. S. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 457 U. S. 236, filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined
It is interesting to read the Brennan decision, which was not based on a Constitutional right for the "undocumented," but rather the costs involved and social implications. Things have changed dramatically since them.
In considering this motion, the District Court made extensive findings of fact. The court found that neither § 21.031 nor the School District policy implementing it had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." 458 F.Supp. 569, 575 (1978). Respecting defendants' further claim that § 21.031 was simply a financial measure designed to avoid a drain on the State's fisc, the court recognized that the increases in population resulting from the immigration of Mexican nationals into the United States had created problems for the public schools of the State, and that these problems were exacerbated by the special educational needs of immigrant Mexican children. The court noted, however, that the increase in school enrollment was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. Id. at 575-576.
It also found that, while the "exclusion of all undocumented children from the public schools in Texas would eventually result in economies at some level," id. at 576, funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled. In net effect, then, barring undocumented children from the schools would save money, but it would "not necessarily" improve "the quality of education." Id. at 577. The court further observed that the impact of § 21.031 was borne primarily by a very small subclass of illegal aliens, "entire families who have migrated illegally and -- for all practical purposes -- permanently to the United States." Id. at 578. [Footnote 3] Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," [Footnote 4] and that, without an education, these undocumented children,"[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class."
It is not my problem if illegals brought children here illegally. It is not my problem to educate them cheaply. I frankly don't care if they get a damned job or not. I want them to go home - with momma, poppa, grandpoppa and whoever the hell else they brought with them. Perry thinks our resources are limitless - just like the rest of the politicians. They refuse to see there's a damned limit on their progressive credit card. I'm not going to tolerate this crap. If he's the best the GOP can nominate, then eff it. I'll stay home and feather my own nest.
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.