Shall I believe you or my lyin' eyes?
http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/gov-rick-perry-weak-on-the-border-opposes-sb1070/
Posted on 10/26/2011 12:34:55 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[embedded LINKS at source]
Have you heard? “The government is subsidizing illegal immigration! The Texas DREAM Act grants amnesty! Illegal immigrants are going to college for FREE!”
Hold your horses, folks. These statements, which are hurled at Gov. Rick Perry from both sides of the political spectrum, are simply not true.
In-state tuition for illegal immigrants is a hard policy to argue because it rests on such a thin line between supporting education and rewarding law-breaking. Admittedly, the governor didn’t argue the case well when he said opponents of this policy “don’t have a heart.” (He’s since recanted that statement.) But the people of Texas and the law support it and, when you know the truth, the policy is really not as controversial as it sounds.
Let’s start with the facts.
Those officially qualified as residents of the state of Texas are eligible for reduced in-state tuition rates at public universities. Resident status, as defined by the Texas Education Code §54.052 and §54.053, requires the following:
* Citizens must have lived in Texas for a minimum of three years and have graduated from a Texas high school. * Non-citizens must have lived in Texas for a minimum of three years, have graduated from a Texas high school, and commit to starting the process of obtaining legal citizenship.
It’s that simple.
Critics say it’s a policy Texans don’t support. But it was overwhelmingly passed by the state legislature in 2001 with just five dissenting votes out of the 181 members in both houses. If that isn’t a majority, and a bipartisan one at that, I don’t know what is.
Other skeptics say it creates an unmanageable drain in tuition dollars and costs taxpayers millions. But in the 2010 fiscal year, only about 16,476 students out of 1.3 million, most at two-year community colleges, took the reduced rates. That’s about one percent – hardly a takeover of the public education system. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board estimated that, “assuming many of these students would enroll in less expensive schools or drop out altogether if faced with higher tuition costs,” the state would actually lose almost $92 million if the policy were repealed.
Still others say it’s the equivalent of amnesty. This is the one point that makes my internal alarm begin to chirp. I do not and will never condone illegal immigration or amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form – but the fact is, many of these students were brought to the U.S. by their parents. They are committing themselves to furthering their education, making a better life for themselves, and becoming productive citizens. This policy makes the best of a bad situation.
In the words of Geoffrey Tahuahua, Texas state chair of Students for Rick Perry, “Rather than allowing these kids to be a burden on the system, it’s better to encourage them to become educated contributors to our economy and our society.”
And Texas is not the only state to offer in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. According to CNN, California, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin have similar policies (though Wisconsin’s may be set to expire this year).
Bottom line, in-state tuition facilitates the education of young people and commits them to obtaining citizenship. That’s the crucial piece of the puzzle.
Finally, in-state tuition is just that: a state issue. Not once has Governor Perry advocated for the federal government or other states to adopt this policy. He has yet to indicate that he would do so as President. The fact is, this policy is legal, and it has no real negative consequences. Until the border is actually secured, I can see no reason to repeal this law.
You may not like it, but it works for Texas. And as y’all know, it’s never a good idea to mess with Texas.
Perry signed the DREAM act into law as Texas Governor, but now opposes signing a DREAM act into law as President. It’s not hard to figure out.
Anyone who lives here and buys stuff pays sales tax. But I had a Canadian worker a few years ago that selected tax exempt on her W4. And I just had a construction supervisor today tell me that Mexicans with green cards file tax exempt, because the U.S. is not their permanent resident.
Anyone who lives here and buys stuff pays sales tax. But I had a Canadian worker a few years ago that selected tax exempt on her W4. And I just had a construction supervisor today tell me that Mexicans with green cards file tax exempt, because the U.S. is not their permanent resident.
First I’ve heard that you can run around with a green card (immigration visa) and not pay taxes because you’re not a permanent resident. This site has an understandable write up ~ http://www.jamesdance.com/us_expatriates.htm ~ you might check and see if IRS offers any sort of bounty for snagging these deals then report your employer.
Shall I believe you or my lyin' eyes?
http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/gov-rick-perry-weak-on-the-border-opposes-sb1070/
He is weak on a fence. And prefers labor costs to cameras. Granted, cameras are worthless without labor to monitor and act on the cameras. But labor is expensive and if cameras can help reduce labor costs they ought to be used.
And are they the same law? And does the federal government have means unavailable to states in dealing with illegals?
The Texas DREAM Act is taking a pile of sh*t the federal government dumped on the state's front door and trying to turn some of it into compost. The federal DREAM Act is pure and simple amnesty.
Golly, what could possibly be the reason for that. You think, maybe, it could have something to do with it having the LONGEST border with Mexico??
Seems more like lip service to me. From the link:
Perry's office argues that the camera program didn't miss its goals but that the targets were improperly set at the outset of the first $2 million grant. The targets were revised after the first year; after the changes, they closely match that year's actual results.
The governor's office issued a revised year-end report earlier this summer after fielding a reporter's questions about why an initial year-end report showed the cameras did not meet the original goals. The revised report listed goals that were dramatically downsized.
Instead of 200 cameras, the revised report showed the coalition was expected to install only 15, a target the sheriffs exceeded by installing 17 cameras.
The goal for arrests was shifted from 1,200 down to 25, more in line with the 11 arrests the coalition actually reported.
Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said the initial goals should have been adjusted sooner and attributed the lapse to technological glitches.
PATHETIC, really
I'm inclined to agree with him on a 1,500-mile fence. I think large parts of it would quickly become unmaintained and ignored, and unless other issues are resolved would quickly become circumvented.
And if the other matters are resolved the fence becomes unnecessary.
The construction supervisor that told me that isn't employed my employer. My employer verifies every employee's eligibility every year, even citizens. Waste of time in my opinion. What's the odd's one of us is going to renounce citizenship?
And the Canadian that filed tax exempt that I employed, I did report. Contributing factors were that she had also stated that she used a different residence than her true residence for tax purposes. She also made anti-American comments to several of our staff. And stated her plan was to work in the U.S. and then go back to Canada and take advantage of their free health care.
Never heard from the IRS on that.
I never give information away to IRS. They got’s ta’ pay!
Under what scenarios does the fence become unnecessary? The only ones I can think of is that Mexico's standard of living approaches ours. Or our standard of living approaches Mexico's.
Buiding a fence one time and then ignoring it, obviously isn't a solution. Building a fence that will slow down intruders, long enough to for them to be spotted by a predator or a land based camera and then intercepted and thrown in prison. That will bring illegal immigration to a near halt.
“Perry’s in-state tuition Works for Texas (and Utah..)”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Tell that to some Texas kid who has worked his azz off in his uber competitive suburban high school.. and graduates in
the top 20%... only to be rejected by UT Austin in place of some illegal alien!
New Mexico is right next to Mexico and they share a border. It's even named after their country! And it has a very large hispanic population. But New Mexico is only ranked #27 for illegal aliens as oppose to Illinois being ranked #4. Geographic-wise, it'd be MUCH easier for Mexicans to settle in New Mexico but they choose Illinois instead. Isn't that odd? Why do you think that is, Tribune?
Could it be we have Rick Perry style pandering politicians who REWARD illegal aliens for living here?
Take it up with the Feds; they've allowed a situation to escalate until the states had to work ways to live with it.
Of the few that do use this in-state to PAY to go on to college, the VAST majority of them go to community colleges (as noted in the article).
In 1967, Texas was maintaining 66,000 miles of state highways. And that's not counting all the county and local roads, or the interstates.
And you mean to tell me they can't maintain a 1500 mile fence that comes with Federal funding? There is probably a border road that they maintain, so a fence would be a minor add on to existing expenses.
In 1967, Texas was maintaining 66,000 miles of state highways. And that's not counting all the county and local roads, or the interstates.
And you mean to tell me they can't maintain a 1500 mile fence that comes with Federal funding? There is probably a border road that they maintain, so a fence would be a minor add on to existing expenses.
JOBS!
And the states that have in-state tuition:
Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.
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.