Rick Perry has stated that the Feds wouldn’t enforce the border. He has openly called on them to do so. The “in state tuition “ thing was started and passed by the Texas Legislature with a large margin. It probably helps less than 1/100 of 1% of immigrants, who would be mostly kids that were abandoned with relatives who were legal, and went through he public school system. And they still have to pay the same as any other Texan.People disagree a lot about this, but I’ll bet far more folks have attacked Perry on this issue right here on this board than the number of of immigrants who have benefited from this. But, back to your question, Perry would be much tougher on illegal immigration than he has been, if he would have had the Federal Government’s cooperation. You are seeing proof that the feds have no real intention of enforcing the border now. Perry tried to hand deliver a letter on this issue to Obama on this issue and Obama would not accept it. I believe one of his staff did take the letter.
And don’t forget he sent the fed’s a bill for all the money the State of Texas has had to spend on detaining illegals.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Gov. Rick Perry has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for nearly $350 million to cover the costs he says Texas has incurred incarcerating illegal immigrants in state prisons and county jails.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Perry reiterated a claim he’s often leveled against the federal government: that it’s not doing enough to secure the border with Mexico and as a result, has allowed illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and use taxpayer-funded resources, including the prison system.
What does Perry want to do to enforce the border?
The trouble with the in-state tuition issue like you describe is that if it’s such a small thing, private donors could have done the same thing without sending the wrong message.
But it is the message that is all-important to the people who push the thing. It’s the same tactic as the Muslims. Their strategy has always been to invade a country, populate one corner of it, and then get the government to concede power to just that one corner, in the name of cultural acceptance. Then, when the legal concessions have been made in one small area that “can’t hurt because it’s so local” they use that precedent to push for it everywhere. So the local area is used as the spearhead to get the whole country by the tail.
The issue then becomes whether Perry realizes the kinds of attacks we’re facing, and the strategies that take advantage of soft-heartedness in order to stick the knife in our backs. “Illegals” aren’t just Mexicans; it also includes Hamas and Hezbollah who have very clearly used these strategies to get all kinds of concessions that will ultimately lead to dhimmitude for all non-Muslims. Newt just indicated an understanding that the non-violent goals of Islam are just as much a threat to America as the violent goals. Sharia is not compatible with the US Constitution. We need somebody who recognizes that, and who knows the strategies to push for Sharia here. This is serious, serious business.
As far as the tuition goes, if the person is a resident they should get in-state tuition. But if they themselves are illegal then they shouldn’t be ABLE to be a resident - whether they are an abandoned kid or an adult. If relatives want their illegal relative to be able to be here, then rather than having the parents abandon them, they should allow their legal US resident relative to legally adopt the child so the child is also legal. That would actually probably be faster than applying for legal immigration and would solve the problem ethically.
This is the conversation that Rick Perry needs to be having with the people he wants to support him. We’re not unreasonable, soul-less people, and when somebody seems to swallow the media line that we are it gives us serious pause. It’s not unforgiveable, but if reconciliation is gonna happen, we gotta be in counseling and do it. Perry has a lot of good things to say and I think most conservatives are probably with him on most things, but just as in marriage it’s that one time that the husband joked publicly about his wife’s looks that is sitting in her craw and the longer he fails to address it the deeper the gap becomes. If he thinks he doesn’t need us on this issue the “marriage” will be over no matter how much he tries to woo us with other issues.
And that’s the difference between Newt and Perry. Newt has the more liberal stance on immigration, I think. People who have deserted Perry because of his comments on in-state tuition may still be moving to Newt even though his position is worse. The difference is that people felt betrayed by Perry, like the wife whose husband cuts her down publicly and then he refuses to acknowledge her hurt and do what it takes to be reconciled. If he really thinks we don’t have a soul then the break-off is already done. If he doesn’t and it’s either a misunderstanding or he just said it for immediate gratification at the time, then he has some explaining to do before this reconciliation can happen.
I like Perry. I would like to get behind him, but I know he’s going to have to resolve these questions if he’s going to get back the support of conservatives who felt betrayed by him. This is constructive advice, to help him not hurt him.