Skip to comments.
A Better Way to Secure the Border (Perry's own words on Immigration)
Office of the Governor of the State of Texas ^
| 14 Dec 2006
| Gov. Rick Perry
Posted on 09/08/2011 3:24:28 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 next last
I am posting here Rick Perry's own words on illegal immigration.
Before I get attacked with ad hominems and ugly substanceless comments, let me say that I am not anti-Perry. I agree with him on most of his positions, some of them quite strongly.
The problem as I see it is that the illegal immigration issue is a game-changer. If we legalize the illegals, then the politics of much of the country will eventually come to resemble that of California.
As we saw in the last election, when most of the rest of the country punished the Democrats for Obama's abysmal performance as president, in California a socialist pig like Barbara Boxer and a moonbat like Jerry Brown skated to easy wins. The demographics in California have reached a point where policy debates are irrelevant. This is characteristic of much of Latin America.
When we reach that point, debates over debt limits and deficit spending and anti-free market policies and big government corruption and abuse of power will be meaningless. There will be a margin in favor of socialism and as soon as the socialists get a stranglehold on power, they will move to silence their political opponents as they have done everywhere else they gain power.
My specific points:
1. Perry is against building the fence. The American people strongly support building a fence. A fence would be a tremendous force multiplier in controlling the flow of illegals, drugs and terrorists across the southern border. Where we have built a well-designed triple fence, such as in San Diego County, it works to radically reduce crossings in that location.
Perry moans about the cost of a fence. But as we have just learned, in a country in which illegals receive $4.5 billion a year in refundable tax credits (i.e., free money) from the federal government, the cost of building a fence would be less than the annual cost of tax fraud by illegals.
A fence doesn't do away with the necessity of a border patrol or of other technological assistance such as cameras and sensors to assist in identifying breaches. These elements all work together to result in a secure border.
A fence doesn't mean we don't need mechanisms like e-verify and employer sanctions. Those are also elements of border security.
2. Perry uses the dishonest formulation of the Left that people opposed to illegal immigration are "anti-immigrant." No, we are simply in favor of a nation of laws. Those who are pro-illegal immigration are against the rule of law.
If for every illegal high-school dropout socialist who walks across the southern border we instead had an Indian software designer or Korean electrical engineer or Chinese chemist, our country would be much stronger and our future prospects much brighter.
3. Perry supports amnesty but dishonestly claims it is not amnesty. If the illegals are allowed to stay and live here legally, how is that NOT amnesty for breaking the laws?
This is no less dishonest than the claim by Bush, McCain and Kennedy that if the illegals were made to pay a small fine for their illegality then that would not be "amnesty." (And then we found out that their bill included large amounts of funding to organizations like La Raza, providing a source of funding for even this purported "penalty.")
I do not believe Americans will support Perry's "second-class citizen" proposal. If we decide that the illegals shall be considered legal residents, with the right to live and work in this country where they please and raise their families here, and we expect them to pay taxes (although in truth they will continue to be net takers, not net givers, with respect to our nation's fiscal and economic situation), then most Americans would feel that it is somehow contrary to our principles that they not also be allowed to vote.
A guest worker program under which workers who live in Mexico come to the US for a couple of months a year at harvest time might be enforceable with biometric IDs and enforcement of employers who fail to monitor.
But I do not believe the American people will stomach a "gastarbeiter" program like Germany has used for Turkish people, in which they are allowed to permanently live, work and raise their families in Germany but are assigned a second-class citizen status behind Germans.
Therefore, this guest worker program will inexorably evolve into citizenship status.
At the moment, Perry appears to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination. It is therefore of crucial importance that he reverse his positions on 1) physically securing the border with a fence and additional measures and 2) amnesty for those here illegally.
To: Meet the New Boss
The good neighbor appears to be taking over our yard.
2
posted on
09/08/2011 3:26:53 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a Permenant Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
To: Meet the New Boss
Israeli border wall.
Climb that,sucker!
3
posted on
09/08/2011 3:32:48 PM PDT
by
Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: Meet the New Boss
He is right about Border Security.
It is useless and will make Americans a laughing stock in Messico.
Only LEO’s on the Border can end this nightmare. Building a billion $$$ fence along the Tx border is a waste of time and money.
4
posted on
09/08/2011 3:34:21 PM PDT
by
Marty62
(Marty60)
To: Meet the New Boss
5
posted on
09/08/2011 3:35:36 PM PDT
by
pingman
(Durn tootin'; I like Glock shootin'!)
To: Meet the New Boss
We have two problems regarding the border. One is the large number of illegal alien invaders. The other is common criminals traversing the border for completely nefarious reasons. Both of these problems need their own remedies.
We can stop the illegal invaders and cause millions of illegals already here to self-deport, simply by shutting off the magnet (work, welfare, etc.).
As to the the remaining criminals coming accross the border, we need boots and resources on the ground and certainly some strategic barriers, but most of all, we need to recognize and treat these people as enemies crossing our border to do us harm. We must find the will to produce rules of engagement that will keep these fols out.
6
posted on
09/08/2011 3:36:04 PM PDT
by
umgud
To: Meet the New Boss
I am a big Perry fan and this is one of the legitimate criticisms.
He is about as blind on this as was Bush 43 and the other more moderate Republicans and I have yet heard a satisfactory explanation of his advocacy for a Texas Dream Act. Not enough for me to disqualify him, because he is so strong on everything else, but it is my least favorite thing about him.
Note, you are more likely to receive ad hominems from Perry opposers than from Perry supporters. As long as what you post is factual you will get little grief and this is absolutely factual.
7
posted on
09/08/2011 3:36:09 PM PDT
by
Sudetenland
(There can be no freedom without God--What man gives, man can take away.)
To: P-Marlowe; wmfights; cripplecreek
Ping to Perry’s border security ideas. A typo (personal/personnel) in the first few sentences, the 2nd showing that the first was a gremlin.
The ideas make sense. If you don’t enforce a fence, then the fence makes no sense.
You need boots on the ground.
If you can’t win a war with air attacks, and you must have boots on the ground, then you certainly can’t control an unpatrolled border just because you have erected a fence.
So far as illegal immigration, I really think he’s right there. Amnesty is not the answer, and there is no way that deportation will EVER take place in this country. It just won’t happen.
Therefore, a worker program is the only thing that makes sense on the positive side. On the negative side, stiff penalties for hiring illegals and enforcement of our existing law would go a long way toward stemming the current tide of immigrants.
8
posted on
09/08/2011 3:36:21 PM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
To: Meet the New Boss
There are parts of Perry's stance that I agree with (a fence across the entire Texas border is a colossal waste of resources and won't fix the problem). There are parts I strongly oppose (in-state tuition for illegals).
Other parts I am still undecided on. On massive deportations, I don't know of any politician who is ever going to pursue this, not Perry, not Sarah, probably not even Bachmann or Cain.
Plus, my guess is the Supreme Court would find a way to prevent mass deportations anyway. Therefor, my thought is we need to find the candidate with the best plan to truly secure the border and make sure this can never happen again.
People who claim he wants a completely open border with no restrictions are not to be taken seriously. At the same time, I do believe Perry needs to be more specific on HOW he wants to secure the border before I personally will be able to support him on that particular issue.
9
posted on
09/08/2011 3:37:07 PM PDT
by
comebacknewt
(Sheesh. Go away and stay away Newt.)
To: Meet the New Boss
Patton once spoke of the sheer folly of static defences. I am not sure , however, what dynamic defences are possible. In any way, we are like the Romanbs after they allowed the barbarians inside of the limnes. All that is need is for the barbarians to find strong leadership, and you have problems.
10
posted on
09/08/2011 3:37:22 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
(Pray with the suffering souls.)
To: Marty62
Only LEOs on the Border can end this nightmare. Depends on the rules of engagement. If they're allowed to fire at will at anything with two legs coming over the border, then yes, that will work, provided there are enough LEOs to watch every linear inch of border between Brownsville and San Diego.
Any rules other than those aren't gonna change a damn thing.
Build the fence.
11
posted on
09/08/2011 3:39:12 PM PDT
by
Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: Meet the New Boss
'Divisive language on the subject of border security and immigration reform is simply not constructive or useful in solving the problem. We cannot be a nation that is anti-immigrant because we are in fact a nation of immigrants.'
No matter who the candidate is. If they continue to use immigrant as the definition of illegal alien I will attack them.
Americans aren't anti-immigrant. They are against illegal aliens. I don't know how many times that has to be repeated.
Perry's choice of words further shows the problems we have with our 'elected'/selected leaders.
12
posted on
09/08/2011 3:39:43 PM PDT
by
Palter
(Even liberals need jobs.)
To: xzins
Therefore, a worker program is the only thing that makes sense on the positive side.
We've had guest worker programs for the nearly 50 years of my life. I'm not buying that garbage.
13
posted on
09/08/2011 3:42:20 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a Permenant Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
To: Marty62
Perry's a bad liberal joke when it comes to security and Immigration.
Here's a real plan.
Let's review what Palin has said:
From Great Van Susteren ON the Record, May 10, 2010
PALIN: I'm proud of Jan Brewer for standing up for the constituents in her state, sending a message to Washington, sending a message to President Obama saying, Hey, you need to do your job, sir.
And if you're not going to do it, OK,
then we are compelled to do the job for you until you get it right.
President Obama has been suspiciously silent on this issue, hasn't he?
We don't even know where he stands on immigration reform or securing our borders.
He doesn't talk about it. He gets to punt on that one.
And that's unfortunate because this is a big issue. It's all about national security.
It's about our sister border states that are inundated with violence and with crime
because people illegally crossing the border, engaging in illegal activities for too long now.
And some of these border states are saying, Now we've had enough.
I admire Jan Brewer for taking a stand.
VAN SUSTEREN: Why do you think -- I mean, for 20-some years, maybe even longer, even going back to President Reagan --
everyone has always said, We're going to secure the borders.
PALIN: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: Nobody has done anything.
I mean, or almost nothing.
PALIN: Because they've made it political and they haven't understood that unsecure borders isn't fair to anybody.
It's not fair to American citizens who ware here legally, paying taxes, following the rules, doing all the things that an American citizen is expected to do.
It's not fair to them.
But it's not fair to the illegal aliens, either, here.
They want to come pursue an American dream. Some of them do want to be here to work.
But they're forever going to have to hide because, you know, government's going to crack down on them when (INAUDIBLE)
So they need to follow that path of legal citizenship, obviously.
But these politicians, presidents in the past who have not secured the border, they've made it a political issue.
They haven't wanted to tick off a potential base of Hispanic voters, so they haven't made the tough decisions.
And that's no way to solve the problem.
That's no way to solve any challenge in America,
by ducking and hiding and creating division and making these partisan issues out of it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Both parties have made promises.
I mean, we pull up sound bites where, you know, both sides, you know, Democrat, Republicans, say, you know, Secure the border, secure the border.
And then once in office, we certainly don't see a whole lot of action.
Had the election gone another way, or even if you were president, what would you do about immigration?
PALIN: The very first thing is literally secure the border!
VAN SUSTEREN: How?
PALIN: People mock the idea of a fence.
What's wrong with building a fence?
Yes, let's physically secure the border. Let's ramp up border control.
Let's provide the tools for those who are putting their lives on the line in order to stop illegal immigration of these aliens.
Those are a couple of things.
And then you don't start talking about amnesty, either, kind of as this last-minute, Oh, anybody who's here in the country right now, we're going to provide you amnesty,
and even though you've broken the law and we are a nation of laws, you've broken that, we'll still give you --
because then there's going to be a huge influx of those wanting kind of at the last minute to come over the border
because they know that they will forever then receive that amnesty.
So you don't start talking about that,
but the very first thing you do is physically, literally secure those borders.
It baffles me and most Americans why for all these years presidents, administrations have spoken about it but never done it.
Then what did Palin say From the O"Reilly Factor Interview July 9, 2010
O'REILLY: So you're president of the United States, Sarah Palin.
You send how many National Guard to the border right away to secure it?
SARAH PALIN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF ALASKA: However many you need. This is a top priority.
This is a national security issue.
O'REILLY: All right, but I'm talking Texas, California, New Mexico, all of them.
So you'd send maybe 10,000, 15,000 National Guard down there to assist the Border Patrol, yes?
PALIN: Whatever it takes. Whatever it takes.
O'REILLY: All right, so you'd militarize the border.
You'd finish the fence, finish building the fence from Brownsville to San Diego, yes?
PALIN: Yes.
O'REILLY: Ok, the people watching this program have it.
We have it. We assume that you, as president, would secure the border.
I have confidence that you would do that.
But now you have to look inward, all right?
And you've got 12 million people staring at you.
What are you going to have them do?
PALIN: You're not going to give them a free pass.
You're not going to say, OK,
you and anybody else who wants to scurry across this porous border between now
and when we finally do finally get it fenced in and physically secure, we're going to give you a free pass.
O'REILLY: All right.
PALIN: And just because you've broken law in the past
O'REILLY: So no amnesty.
PALIN:
we can trust you? No, no amnesty.
O'REILLY: But what do you do with these folks?
PALIN: Which means
O'REILLY: Do you make them register with the federal government?
Do you tell them they have 60 days to get out of here before we put you in jail?
What do you do with them?
PALIN:Do we make them register with the federal government?
Yes, we do.
We're not going to give them a free pass.
O'REILLY: So you make them register with the federal government.
PALIN: We're not going to reward the bad behavior.
O'REILLY: And if they don't register with the -- say you gave them 60 days to register with the federal government.
There's a form at the post office they have to send in like a Census form.
All right, say they didn't do it.
PALIN: You deport them.
O'REILLY: OK.
PALIN: You have to get them out.
As to jobs, American citizens who are here lawfully, they need to be the ones with the first shot at getting these jobs.
We cannot make it easy on those who have chosen to be illegally here to disobey our laws.
No.
O'REILLY: No, we can't make it easy, but they're here.
And we can't starve them to death.
And if they can't work, if they don't have a green card to work, they're going to be hosed.
I mean, they got to pay rent, they got to buy groceries
whoever the next president is, is going to have to deal with 12 million people.
And that's going to be very, very difficult.
All right, let me switch gears here.
This is frightening me, governor. I'm getting very, very afraid of mama grizzlies.
And you are, I guess, the mama grizzly chieftain.
Am I -- why don't you explain what the mama grizzly deal is?
PALIN: Mama grizzly in a political sense is someone who is watching what is going on that is adversely affecting our cubs, our children, the future of America.
And there are a lot of common sense, constitutional conservative women who are willing to put it all on the line and run for office
or support candidates willing to run for office to take this country back
O'REILLY: All right, so this is a clarion call.
PALIN:
and not allow the Pelosi, Reid, Obama administration and agenda continue to put us on a path towards insolvency
O'REILLY: OK.
PALIN:
to put us on a path toward a less secure and less free nation.
O'REILLY: So you are trying to mobilize mama grizzlies all over from Anchorage to Key West from San Diego to Bangor, Maine, to get involved,
either run themselves or support candidates they like.
This mama grizzly movement is going to take over the country.
PALIN: It's all about stopping Obama, Pelosi and Reid
and what they are doing to our country, to our children and our grandchildren and their futures.
You can't get anymore clear and pro-LEGAL/
anti-ILLEGAL than that.
It's a crying shame that Perry doesn't have that kind of backbone.
14
posted on
09/08/2011 3:42:50 PM PDT
by
Yosemitest
(It's simple, fight or die.)
To: Windflier
And then they will start using boats in the Gulf to go AROUND the fence. They already dig tunnels to go under. and makeshift ladders to go over.
Waste of time and money!
15
posted on
09/08/2011 3:44:13 PM PDT
by
Marty62
(Marty60)
To: Marty62
'Gulf to go AROUND the fence.'
Are you serious? That's why we have a Coast Guard and Navy.
16
posted on
09/08/2011 3:46:11 PM PDT
by
Palter
(Even liberals need jobs.)
To: Meet the New Boss
1. Perry is against building the fence. The American people strongly support building a fence. A fence would be a tremendous force multiplier in controlling the flow of illegals, drugs and terrorists across the southern border. Where we have built a well-designed triple fence, such as in San Diego County, it works to radically reduce crossings in that location. The San Diego fence is only 14 miles long, and it is in an urban area. Perry says in the document you just posted that he supports fences in those types of areas, so I am not sure what your point is.
Another thing to consider is that the border between Texas and Mexico is a river. That is not true in California. In Texas, many ranchers and farmers have property that goes down to the river, and that is how their stock gets watered. Putting a triple fence along there would require the government taking a significant amount of private land, and would deprive the rancher's herds access to the river.
17
posted on
09/08/2011 3:46:32 PM PDT
by
CA Conservative
(Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
To: Palter
I’m sick of hearing the guest worker mantra because it really means open the door wider.
One of my oldest friends is someone I met as a child when his family came to work in onion and carrot farms near my home every summer and fall. They lived in the house across the road from us when they were here and eventually gained citizenship and actually bought the house from the farmer.
18
posted on
09/08/2011 3:48:24 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a Permenant Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
To: Yosemitest
PALIN ISN’T RUNNING!
The least she could do is jump in and join Bachmann in the ring.
bachmann has been taking all the right hooks while Sarah sits in the tower contemplating her navel.
19
posted on
09/08/2011 3:49:04 PM PDT
by
Marty62
(Marty60)
To: Marty62
Only LEOs on the Border can end this nightmare. Building a billion $$$ fence along the Tx border is a waste of time and money. A double anti-climb fence with a road in between aided by sensors and other technology is a force multiplier. Physical barriers work. No one is suggesting that a fence be built along the entire border. That is a phony strawman. We need to secure our border. Physical barriers are part of any such effort. We build fences around military bases, airports, nuclear plants, the WH, etc. They are meant to reduce manpower requirements.
FYI: 40% of the illegals entered the US legally and overstayed their visas. Securing the border solves only part of the problem>
The Border Wall between San Diego and Tijuana
20
posted on
09/08/2011 3:49:08 PM PDT
by
kabar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson