Posted on 09/29/2011 10:17:32 PM PDT by bullypulpit
Rick Perry supported the modest Texas Dream Act, whose name has unfortunately been libeled by the Democrats' national Dream Act that is akin to the Texas law on meth and steroids, and the Democratic Party's version offers amnesty too. The Texas Dream Act simply offers children of illegal immigrants, who have completed at least three years of Texas high school before graduation, entrance to any Texas state school at in-state tuition rates. The law demands the beneficiary apply for full citizenship to the U.S.
In contrast, the federal Dream Act, which has yet to pass, provides scholarships and taxpayer direct subsidies and amnesty for all illegal aliens wishing to attend college in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at rickperryreport.com ...
They’re not legal residents, not in Texas, and not anywhere in the United States. They don’t deserve resident tuition and on top of that, their family is most certainly a net drain on the taxpayers. Adding tuition support just makes it worse. Perry is soft on illegal immigration which has run unchecked for years. At this point, the demographics of the country have so changed due to non-enforcement and third world preferences that it’s essentially a losing cause. That’s the sad part. The really sad part is with Perry kneecapped by his support for illegal tuition aid, we have the RINO Romney and Cain. The whole field is unexciting and given the media treatment of Palin, I’m sure any entrance there won’t do much good either. I was pro-Perry and I’m pro-Palin as I believe she would be pro-US (and pro-mining which is my industry. Perry would be keep the EPA in check but its obvious we’d have a mass amnesty, after all, it would be heartless not to. We’ll see how it goes, but at this point the candidates are so disappointing Palin will probably enter along with Christie. Romney would be a disaster.
220The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.
"[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth and penalizing the. . . child is an ineffectual — as well as unjust — way of deterring the parent." Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 175 (1972) (footnote omitted).Of course, undocumented status is not irrelevant to any proper legislative goal. Nor is undocumented status an absolutely immutable characteristic since it is the product of conscious, indeed unlawful, action. But § 21.031 is directed against children, and imposes its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control. It is thus difficult to conceive of a rational justification for penalizing these children for their presence within the United States. Yet that appears to be precisely the effect of § 21.031.
A Texas Dream Act applicant must testify on the official state application form that he/she intends to apply for legal status......even though they have no intention of ever doing so. (The evidence shows many immigrants go back to their home countries after sucking up US freebies.) In some states, falsifying official documents incurs felony charges for first-degree tampering with public records, first-degree offering of a false instrument for filing, fourth-degree grand larceny, and first-degree falsifying of official records............Perry rewards illegal behavior.
RICKY "FORGOT" TO TELL AMERICA that illegals use numerous fake identities b/c they know it makes them harder to track.......they could be using one identity for in-state tuition, another to apply for legal status, and several more to ride the US gravy train.
RICKY "FORGOT" TO TELL AMERICA "impoverished" illegals, here for a "better life," establish multiple identities by buying forged and falsified documents for several thousand dollars from Texas document forgers. (more below)
RICKY "FORGOT" TO TELL AMERICA that illegals have been willing to use forged documents and to falsify official applications (a felony). The bottom line is that illegals get taxpayers to subsidize college for their kids.
==============================================
RICKY "FORGOT" TO TELL AMERICA Texas Law Offers Financial Aid and In-State Tuition to The Undocumented. Illegals get student loans to pay for college tuition via the federal government under Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Anyone can apply.......as many times as possible using forged Social Security numbers and other fake documents. (No word on illegals' loan default rate. Ricky won't tell, that's for sure.)
RICKY "FORGOT" TO TELL AMERICA that apparently, TX doesn’t require US citizenship to achieve state residency. Then the tuition debate boils down to a legal residency debate........a non-US resident should not be able to obtain state citizenship anywhere until they are a legal US citizen. Subsidized in-state college tuition should require legal citizenship of both the Nation and the state because the fed/govt subsidizes the tuition....... this is in every tax-paying citizen’s interest.
RICKY "FORGOT" TO TELL AMERICA the number of identities legals and illegals are using in Texas.
Jose Madrigal, the Washington state rapist, had some 30 identities.
All of them riding the US gravy train. All of them cashing numerous
govt checks. And, as Perry knows well---all of the identities are voting.
Illegals are more likely to be collecting government checks than picking crops......despite the incessant latino-as-victim propaganda. One illegal used several identities obtained with forged documents to collect some $3.5 million unemployment checks..........and was convicted of identity theft.
RICKY "FORGOT" TO TELL AMERICA how "impoverished" illegals get SS nos, drivers' licenses, and other proofs of citizenship.......items necessary to ride the US gravy train, get sub-prime mtges, welfare, Section 8 housing, no co-pay healthcare, free schooling, free school lunches, EITC rebates. Read on
THE LUCRATIVE PHONY ID BUSINESS---DALLAS BROTHER OFFER FORGED DOCUMENTS FOR A PRICE, news story, July 21, 2006 -- Pelcastre brothers, Angel and Jorge, Dallas, Texas, were a walking threat to US national security, expert document forgers who, for a few thousand dollars, could give anyone a new identity.
The Texas brothers turned a NJ hotel room into a business office and were readying a massive cache of fake Social Security cards for delivery to a local NJ identity broker. The Texas brothers were a "one-stop shop" for a myriad of fake US documents, including birth certificates, Social Security cards, driver's licenses for any state in the US, passports and resident alien cards, said state police.
Officers happened upon two cars bearing Texas plates in a NJ hotel parking lot. Authorities wouldn't identify the NJ hotel by name for fear it would spark retribution from savage drug cartels operating in the US.
The Texas brothers were followed to a NJ office supply store nearby where they purchased computer supplies. Officers then followed the Texans to a NJ storage facility in Secaucus, NJ, where the Texans loaded several boxes into a car. One of them stood lookout.
L/E approached the Texas brothers when they returned to the NJ hotel and questioned them separately. The Texas brothers consented to a search.
Police recovered laminating sheets with built-in security features, pages of blank documents waiting for fake names and information, finished documents, computers and software to create the fake IDs.
All told, the haul was worth about $500,000 on the street. Police also recovered $6,000 in cash, which was the first payment from a NJ fake document broker for a shipment of 500 fake Social Security cards. ####
Ping to post #44
Perry has some strong points in the illegal immigration category too. One of them is to require photo ID at the polls.
I lived on the Texas-Mexico border, in Del Rio, for nine years. I saw crooked elections. Perry’s Photo ID law makes it more certain that actual citizens of Texas and the USA vote and that illegal aliens do not vote. That is, if the law stands up in court (as liberal special interests are lining up to challenge it as a civil rights voting law violation... And I believe Eric Holder has to sign off on it, too.)
None of the other candidates for the GOP nomination have a record as long as Perry’s. In fact, I would venture to say that all of the public sector executive experience of all the other candidates combined plus Palin’s is less than Perry’s. It’s hard to have a 10 year record as a governor and not have some blemishes from compromise, or experimentation to solve real problems.
The bottom line is no one is perfect, but with Perry at least you know where he has been tested, and where he has learned, and where he isn’t perfect.
On the in-state tuition issue, Perry has declared many times that it is a state solution that falls under the 10th Amendment. He will not be ordering states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens as president.
My answer: The thought that the illegal hordes streaming across the border are "risking their lives and the lives of their children" is silly. In any event, whether or not illegal aliens want to go to college or send their children to college is irrelevant. What matters is that there is even such a thing as a pandering "Dream Act" in the first place. It's a message to illegal aliens that they're not only tolerated, but welcome. It's a message that we've thrown up our hands and surrendered.
Take a look at the “special” status awarded to the children of illegals by the Supreme Court in my post #43.
Perry addresses these judges in “Fed Up!,” in “Chapter Six, Nine Judges That Tell Us How to Live,” and in “Chapter Seven, The Federal Government Fiddles: Ignoring National Security, Immigration, and the Enumerated Powers.”
He also would not give us amnesty. From pages 1118-119 (Kindle PC edition):
“”We can have all the immigration debates we want, but Americans are demanding that the border be secured first.
We have already been burned once by false promises of border security in exchange for tying security to other aspects of the immigration debate. President Regan, in 1986, signed the immigration reform and control act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The law was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to clamp down on border security. These provisions were never enforced, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings has resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today an estimated 1.8 million illegal immigrants are currently residing in Texas, compared with 1.1 million in 2000. In ten years, that represents an increase of 54 percent or 70,000 persons each year coming to our state illegally. Today, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates than about one in ten people born in Mexico live in the United States. And all of this has occurred outside the system and to the disadvantage of others who have been waiting in line for many years. There are literally millions of people waiting to get into the country legally.””
He would appoint judges in the Federal Courts and at the Supreme Court who would not prohibit identifying and deporting illegals, but even more, his Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security would secure the border and enforce laws, so that the States wouldn’t be burdened with the costs of illegals in the first place. He’s lived with the consequences of the opposite decision by
Requiring 3 years and graduation from high school is not pandering. If they come as juniors or seniors, they don’t qualify.
In fact, rather than a magnet, pulling people to Texas, it’s a filter, that separates out the most stable families and the brightest students. These must be either very exceptional students or their families have found some way to be stable, stay in one spot, and encourage education.
In fact, someone illegally resident in the US cannot apply for a legal entry visa. They would have to go back to their own country to do that.
What Perry means by "applying for full citizenship," is agitate for Amnesty.
Well, trumandogz, since you are helping defeat Mitt Romney's most serious threat to the GOP nomination because, among other things, Perry .....
GASP! ...... "Signed legislation requiring adults to wear seat belts in the backseat of cars." ........ OH! THE HORROR!
.... maybe you should consider how you are being played like a cheap fiddle by Mitt Romney.
The name of the fiddle tune is "ROMNEY/CAIN 2012"
======================================
Herman Cain in 2011
======================================
Herman Cain in 2008
Romney has the leadership qualities United States needs,
By HERMAN CAIN
Published on: 02/03/08
The dynamics of political party connections, the political process itself and public perceptions have once again yielded the top two contenders of each major party in the 2008 presidential race. And once again, the public can only hope that the ultimate winner of the White House will be a candidate with the most leadership substance.
My vote is for Mitt Romney.
History is important, but the future is more important. The success of this country in the future will be shaped by the leadership abilities of the next president.
Our success will not be based on pandering to uninformed voters, promising emotional quick fixes over common sense or nitpicking of opponents' past records. Success will come from focusing on the right problems and solving them. That will mean making tough decisions about some problems that have been with us for decades. It will also mean taking a tough stand on new problems and challenges.
That's what leaders do.
Mitt Romney has done that as a chief executive officer in business, as a governor and as head of the U.S. Olympics. He has done so while balancing political consequences but not compromising fundamental principles of the founding of this country or free-market economics. We have prospered as a nation by strengthening those principles; we will not remain strong if we allow those principles to become diluted with a lack of leadership.
Anyone who wishes to find a reason not to vote for Romney can find one. But the reasons to vote for him are far more compelling. He has successfully managed a real business with other people's money and some of his own. He has balanced budgets. He successfully led a turnaround situation with the Olympics. And he has spent more of his career outside government than inside.
On the other hand, John McCain has spent more of his career inside government than outside, and the reasons not to vote for him as the Republican nominee are very compelling.
He voted against letting people keep more of their money in 2001 and 2003 when President Bush pushed through his tax cuts. He has been part of the escalation of the federal debt during his 20-plus years in the U.S. Senate. He showed questionable leadership on a failed immigration bill. And he showed no leadership by failing to support the president's efforts to establish personal retirement accounts — a proposal that would have started to fix the coming financial train wreck in the Social Security system.
That's not leadership.
I do not question the character, integrity or sincerity of either Mitt Romney or John McCain, nor do I question their desire to do what's best for the country. I do not worry that they would fan the flames of social and religious differences. My focus is on their prospective leadership relative to national security, the economy, federal spending, free-market health care solutions and the elimination of dysfunctional programs.
Mitt Romney's history is more indicative of the substance needed to make major progress on critical issues, and not just to make more politically palatable incremental changes in Washington.
Media momentum and campaign funding aside, there are several other Republican candidates who would not cause me to worry about our grandchildren's future. The two leading Democratic presidential candidates, however, cause me great concern because of their severe lack of leadership substance and their policy proposals.
This is despite Barack Obama's appeal and strong public perception but entirely consistent with Hillary Clinton's self-proclaimed but quite invisible experience.
Great leaders are born, and good leaders keep working on it. We are not favored with an obvious great leader in the 2008 race, as is apparent from the primary process and the results thus far.
But Mitt Romney's leadership credentials offer the best hope of a leader with substance, and the best hope for a good president who could turn out to be great.
No, the governor understands that amnesty won’t work, and will only bring “hordes” of new illegals across the border.
From the Governor’s book “Fed Up!,” the Kindle PC version:
From pages 118-119:
“”We have already been burned once by false promises of border security in exchange for tying security to other aspects of the immigration debate. President Regan, in 1986, signed the immigration reform and control act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The law was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to clamp down on border security. These provisions were never enforced, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings has resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today an estimated 1.8 million illegal immigrants are currently residing in Texas, compared with 1.1 million in 2000. In ten years, that represents an increase of 54 percent or 70,000 persons each year coming to our state illegally. Today, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates than about one in ten people born in Mexico live in the United States. And all of this has occurred outside the system and to the disadvantage of others who have been waiting in line for many years. There are literally millions of people waiting to get into the country legally.””
Then, explain what he means by: “apply for full citizenship.” Mr. Perry is talking out of both sides of his mouth, isn’t he?
Your post #43 is great, hocndoc! I also have appreciated your many other postings that have tried to explain the situation to others who just stick their fingers in their ears and go “la la la, I can’t hear you.” Waaaay too many folks here trying to make a big deal about the in-state tuition issue to snipe at Perry.
I must be a heartless racist.
"They [the children of illegals] are being educated, right up to and through high school.Where did it come to pass that if you're here illegally, you have a right to a college education, let alone the right to have it subsidized, when all Americans do NOT have their college educations subsidized?
I mean, this is perverse, to be honest with you.
And it is also the position of the Bush family. And I think…if I'm wrong, I stand corrected…it's the position of some of our "inside-the-beltway" publications.
But it is not the position of the American people, who have to pay this bill, endlessly."
Watch the Perry comment again. He was PASSIONATE when he said it.
Start at the 2:40 mark.
It is phony, and he should retract it, because he was closer to the truth than not with that remark.
>>It is phony, and he should retract it, because he was closer to the truth than not with that remark.<<
You are the second FReeper in two days who agrees with Perry that we are “heartless.”
I’m glad you people are exposing yourselves for who you are. You are sinking Perry’s boat even faster than imagined.
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.