Let me get this straight. Perry says he wants to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Yet he offers in state tuition to their kids.
He criticizes Obama for not securing the border, for not enforcing federal law. Arizona passes a law that mirrors federal law, so that courageous state law enforcement officials like Joe Arpaio can secure the border.
Perry dismisses the law as “not right for Texas.” Why was it not right for Texas? He doesn’t say. Slick platitudes like “it’s not right for Texas” won’t cut it. He just didn’t want to stand with Jan Brewer.
If he is complaining about Obama not securing the border, why doesn’t he get off his duff and pass a law that IS right for Texas. The reason is plain: The laws he has pushed are the corridor and the tuition breaks for illegals, measures designed to promote, rather than stop, illegal immigration.
His actions speak louder than his phony platitudes. He is an open borders guy.
He tried to get a sanctuary cities law through the legislature that he said would give the police the tools they needed to find and deport illegals. When it failed in regular session (because it needed 2/3rds senate, and the democrats have more than a 3rd), he added it to the special session, where they only needed majority vote.
Unfortunately, the republicans in the house and senate got into some pissing contest, passed competing bills, and nothing ended up happening.
I’m not a fan of allowing illegal immigrant kids to go to college on in-state tuition. Virginia doesn’t allow it. But if Texas wants to do so, I don’t think it is a particulary “pro-illegal” stance.
The argument against seems to be that, knowing their kids could one day get in-state college tuition, mexicans will risk crossing the border with their 2-year-olds, and then live in the country for 16 years while their kids go through school, just so they can get cheaper college.
I DO think mexicans and others sneak into our country to benefit their kids; many come here to HAVE kids to take advantage of the stupid birth-citizenship laws. But I don’t think they are coming here because they can get cheap college 16 years later.
The problem is that we let them stay here for 16 years. But the “law” forces us to educate their children in our public schools. They live in our communities, they are on our sports teams, they make friends, they even become americanized (if we are lucky). Now they are 18-year-olds that don’t even remember their home country, speak english, are ingrained in our culture. They are smart enough to go to college. They have lived in the state essentially their whole lives.
So, if the taxpayers of that state want to give them taxpayer-subsidized college education, I understand it. (I think people who see college as something kids pay for might feel more like this than people who think that the cheap tuition is a benefit to the kid’s parents).
Again, to me the problem is that we let these people hang around in our country for decades. We let them have jobs, pay taxes, send their kids to our schools. That is what we have to stop. But the kids? I’m not quite as worried about them, on a state level, if the state sees a reason to help them.
I would however oppose allowing the illegal kids to bump legal kids out of college slots (OK, I already said I personally oppose letting them have cheap college as well, so I mean I “more oppose”, and would hold it more against Perry if that was what happened).
I certainly don’t “credit” Perry for this, but I am not letting it turn me off to him — I’m more interested in what his FEDERAL platform will be for immigration. No Federal Dream Act, Secure the Borders, go back to actually deporting people.
I hold Sarah to the same standard. I don’t really care what she said when running for VP, and in fact I have agreed with some of her less “strident” comments on the subject, as well as the ones people say are “different” — I don’t see them as different, just a broader view.
But she’s not a candidate yet. When she becomes a candidate, she’ll have to put out a platform, and that’s what we will judge her on, not words she said 3 years ago, or whether she took harsh enough action against sanctuary cities in Alaska.
BTW, unlike some supporters here, I don’t think it is a foregone conclusion that she will run. She has repeatedly said that she is still thinking about it, and that she has NOT made a decision.
And again, unlike some supporters, I tend to believe what Sarah Palin says. I like to quote what she says, and if she says hasn’t made a decision, I choose to believe her, rather than thinking she already knows she is running and is just lying about it for political theatre.
I don’t believe Sarah would lie for political theatre, or to be a VP candidate.