Posted on 10/14/2011 12:44:36 PM PDT by rzman21
Ryan Streeter Follow Ryan on Twitter
Yesterday I wrote about Rick Perry’s faith problem and what I see as an opportunity for him to speak openly about religion and the public square. It could help him regain some mojo.
But even if he got his mojo back, and even if he got the next debate right, he would face one big obstacle that has conservatives in a tizzy about him: his statements on illegal immigrants – and more specifically, educating their children.
Peter Robinson writes about this issue well this morning in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Perry should stop sounding so defensive. He has opposed illegal immigration as stoutly as anyone, but, alone among the candidates, he has dealt with the reality of life on the border. Since his state has the good sense to provide only modest welfare benefits, he should explain, Texans understand that immigrants come to Texas to work, not to collect handouts. And they see no contradiction between calling on the federal government to enforce the law and making the best of the situation Washington has imposed on them, helping undocumented aliens, once in the state, to acquire skills and an education.
Robinson’s column concludes that the real problem is the federal government shirking its responsibility to enforce borders and keep illegal entrants into America out of the country.
Perry agrees and has tried to explain the same to conservative voters.
If Perry hopes to revive a campaign that some think has already come to an end, he’ll need to do what Robinson talks about: show conservative voters that there is no contradiction between taking a tough stand on the borders and turning children of illegals into productive citizens by making sure they benefit from education.
Perry needs to show that:
It’s the fault of the federal government that they are here, not the fault of Texas. It’s more cost-effective and beneficial to Texas’s economy to ensure that their children are educated than to try to move them south of the border. He knows he cannot use the “you don’t have a heart” argument anymore. But he can make an argument based on the productivity value of the population.
If the skeptics are right and Perry’s campaign is over, this is a moot point. But if those who think his $17 million and solid track record will help him come back, then he’ll need to make sure he has a more effective argument about this thorny immigration issue.
Until Perry and his supporters explains how providing aid to someone here in violation of immigration law or convinces conservatives that it is somehow OK to provide aid to criminals, he’s outta luck.
If they are here illegally, how is anyone supporting their continued existence on American soil any different from anyone providing aid to any other criminal? It’s still a crime whether the feds are responsible for enforcement or not.
Perry’s immigration policy isn’t his problem - his only problem is a bunch of whiny folks who got their little feelings hurt by his Heartless comment.
The comment was taken out of context, it has been mis-quoted daily by conservatives and liberals alike who haven’t taken the time to find out more about what his actual policies are.
I’m really sick of everyone singling out and bashing on the most qualified, conservative candidate we have running!!!!!
Get a grip!
It’s as though you folks like the sound of your own whiny voices.
The last time I checked - Rick never claimed to be perfect but he’s a GAZILLION times better than what we’ve got in the WH now. No, he doesn’t have all the answers - but at least he answers to the guy upstairs that does!
“I’m really sick of everyone singling out and bashing on the most qualified, conservative candidate we have running!!!!!”
Considering that statement, it ain’t us “hurt feelings’ types that need a grip.
I don’t think so. He has blown it totally.
His wife ain’t helping.
What about those candidates who see working out a reasonable program for all the illegals once the border is finally sealed?
I know some of the very popular candidates have this view. They are not advocating they go home but rather give them a path to be productive citizens.
Herman Cain has this view.
Is it okay after the border is sealed to help the illegals but not okay before the border is sealed? while they are draining on your economy?
Trying to see the difference. Illegal now - illegal tomorrow. Illegal after the border is sealed.
I should have said productive residents not productive citizens.
He’s not going to change anything. He just sent his wife out to a local radio station here in SC and she reiterated the same crap.
Where does your candidate stand? Does she/he want to send them all home or keep them as unproductive residents?
They are here and they are not going home.
Perry’s problem is that he doesn’t want a sealed border. He says he does but his “strategic’ fence BS tells me different. “Strategic fencing” is defined as “Drive farther to get around it. Fencing cities and leaving 1000 miles wide open is about as stupid an idea as there can be. More fence = less need for the sheer number of BP it would require to make his ‘idea’ work. Add THAT cost up sometime.
If we have a real fence, it makes his other plans feasable. But he does not want one and his supporters claim building one is impossible. Funny, we went to the moon, built skyscrapers, drill in 13,000 feet of water, invented supercomputers. You’d think with all that tech we could do what China did a few dozen centuries ago.
Perry has a mindset that is at odds with the mindset of most of America on this issue. He rejected us, therefore we reject him. If he came out today and said “”Full fence/no aid for illegals” Who would believe that?
That’s not who he is or what he thinks.
Which candidate holds your view?
The fence is not the issue.
Sealing the border is the issue. All the candidates agree on that.
Nope, he won’t. He’s married to his ideas and no one will change his mind. That boy will cut of his nose to spite his face, guaranteed.
I cannot fathom the lengths that his fanbase are going to to defend him though. You are either in favor of illegals or you are in favor of America. Remember a time when grown men acted like it and didn’t blame someone else (the Feds) for their lack of action?
There are hundreds of things he and the TX legislature could do to make life unlivable for illegals. But no. He supports them, speaks to their racist groups, accepts crap from their ‘president’ and then says ‘we’ are nuts.
Perry has a lot to like about him IMO, but he totally kills it with this issue alone...and then there are others nearly as bad that relate to his mindset.
Who is your candidate and where does he/she stand on the what to do with the illegals that are here once the border is sealed?
Mitt Romney wants a path to citizenship.
Herman Cain wants a reasonable program for them. What is reasonable to Mr. Cain?
I don’t care what ‘consensus’ candidates have. This candidate doesn’t want it, it IS an issue for actual Americans and it ain’t going away no matter how bad you want it to.
Is your own home more easily defended from robbery or intrusion/your loved ones better protected from harm with or without a full fence? Would you add a fence in the front yard and trust cameras side and rear to keep you safe?
I am dying to hear your reply.
Ask Cain. I’m headed his direction because he has not flatly ruled out a fence, nor does he support illegal aliens.
I don’t have a fence.
What is Mr. Cain’s reasonable program for illegals?
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.