Posted on 09/13/2011 3:55:34 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say those that can force the law on illegal immigration don’t live in Texas, yet here’s the Texas governor financially assisting illegals. I’d say that’s putting a state stamp on the illegal-alien issue.
As has Arizona. Arizona created a fairly draconian law last year. It’s still mostly in effect, BTW. It goes after employers among other things. If Arizona can do it, why not Texas? Oh, right, Perry said the Arizona law isn’t “right” for Texas. Well, that statement in itself shows he believes he has some control over the issue.
Such as: In 2001 Perry had direct contact with Mexico on a number of issues including immigration, The Trans-Texas corridor, increased funding to the children’s health insurance program, expanded Medicare enrollment for low income children, and promoted a cross-border medical program among other things. It seems to me he’s found a way to do a lot for illegals while speaking on how immigration control is out of his hands. Kinda two-faced, IMO. I’ve provided the link to this up-thread so don’t see the need to do so again.
Perry’s immigration stance is an open book. And I’m not impressed. Nor am I impressed with anyone who’d prefer handouts to criminals instead of the boot. Goodbye.
What would YOU have done when presented with a bill passed by both houses of the legislature by veto proof majorities?
Just curious?
I can't find any proof that Palin is for a "path to citizenship." Let me know if you find any. However, recently she advocated some kind of registration and guest worker program for illegal aliens. I can't prove it, but I suspect that it will be more difficult than she thinks to have a guest worker program without it somehow adding a "path to citizenship."
So, it’s not much of an issue if there is no choice to be found in all the candidates.
I think Cain has been consistent in opposing any kind of amnesty, but I don't think he could win the primary. Not sure about Santorum and Machmann, but again, Perry and Romney may be the only ones with the muscle to beat Obama.
That said, I think we’re approaching the illegal immigration issue wrong with the fence. We need to get rid of all government support and aid to illegals. No welfare, no medicare, no free hospital visits, no bilingual education, etc, etc, etc.
A fence can be useful, but to me it's not the Sine Qua Non of getting immigration under control. I agree with your other ideas you mentioned above.
And that’s the kind of immigrant we want to keep. Not the leeches, not the criminals, not those incapable of becoming American.
We disagree here. How familiar are you with Mexico? Think about the corruption the people tolerate there. I think allowing voting rights for a such a huge population would be a disaster for conservatives, but also eventually for leftists and Hispanics who were amnestied.
However, there is a slim possibility that some good will emerge from the ongoing political battles in the many states that are considering some version of the "Dream Act" that Texas implemented over a decade ago.
Here is why I say that.
Leaving aside the emotional, racially-tinged question of illegals getting a free ride through public schools (as if that's something everyone wants -- NOT!), let's look at the logic of having two or more tuition schedules at state-supported institutions of higher learning.
Is it because it costs, say, Kansas State more money to teach underachieving students from Oklahoma or Arkansas or Texas, and it's only right that these dummies should be paying more for the remedial education that's needed?
Of course not. IF you don't qualify for admission, you don't qualify, period. No matter where your live.
Well, then how do state colleges and universities justify charging double or triple tuition rates for qualified students from another state?
I believe the answer is politics: it looks good to be giving a break to residents (and presumably taxpayers) of the state from which the college derives much of its funding. That break can be substantial--over $50,000 by graduation time, and much more if the student continues on for an advanced degree.
At one time, before Americans were as mobile and usually settled in the same state and even the same town as their parents, kids would go to a state university, get their sheepskin (literally!) and go home to find a job or set up a professional practice. It made sense to subsidize their education if you bought the line that having more college-educated, native-born residents was a "public good" that makes everyone better off.
But times have changed. College graduates are no longer limited to starting their careers in the city where they grew up. They can be recruited for jobs anywhere in the country, indeed anywhere in the world. And many (especially in these difficult times) would prefer to go where the jobs are, even if it takes them away from family. (An aside: there's no such thing as long distance phone calls when you have a cellular phone! Those calls used to be a major expense for kids living some distance from their parents, even those in the same state. I speak from experience.)
So if the concept of in-state tuition is outmoded, which I believe it is, why all the fuss about legal vs. illegal, American citizens vs. foreign-born, Texan vs. Ohioan?
Set the tuition to what it costs and let's be done with it. Quit trying to social-engineer who goes to college and who doesn't based on where they live. Let test scores and the admissions office sort out the slackers and I suspect the result will be better for all concerned.
Oh, and eliminate "affirmative action" in admissions. But that's another subject.
Veto.
Liz-
It is not too far-fetched at this point to anticipate the American RinoCracy attempting to ally WITH elements in Mexico in attempts to preserve the domestic status quo.
IMHO...that’s MORE about what GunWalker/F&F may be about, rather than what We the People have so far been permitted to see.
The come to "America" because in most areas they can work without paying taxes, not have to carry health insurance because the 'system' will cover it, and can then send more of their income back home. Texas being one of the initial corridors into America, many of them stay.
If you people down there want to help criminals, so be it. But don't force your ideas on the balance of the nation through a presidential candidate who doesn't fit our needs. We're for America first. He's for open borders and Texas-Mexico relations first. Sorry, but no deal.
Haven’t read the other comments yet but this was a hard one for Perry to defend because he couldn’t say what he would probably have liked to say, which is:
This bill was passed almost unanimously in 2001. The climate was far different then in Texas. The illegal problem was not as well known or as widely despised.
We had more money. The perception that illegals were given free tuition is ridiculous. Even in-state tuition to Texas colleges is sky high. A father was complaining about it to me last night.
That bill could not be passed today, but once a bill is passed, we learn to our sorrow that it is not that easy to unpass.
Perry had to attempt to defend a bill he probably wasn’t that crazy about in the first place. He didn’t do a great job, but he did what he could.
BTW, I unfriended Michele Bachmann this morning. she really ticked me off last night.
Sounds good to me. I miss W. The point that is being ignored is that no one except Perry answered the question about what to do with the illegal immigrants in the Country. Bachmann dodged the question. Either we are going to accept these people as citizens or gather them all together and ship them back. If you leave them here and say you can’t get a job, you can’t go to school, you can’t live anywhere it will only lead to crime. Perry needs to hold Bachmann’s feet to fire and get her to respond on this question. For some reason I think the answer will be Obamacare.
Yeah Right!
You are, at the time this happened, the fill in governor of the second largest state in the country and you are going to veto a bill put on your desk having overwhelmingly being passed by the legislature!
Forgive me if I seriously doubt that!
Can't be any worse than the corruption the millions of Eastern Europeans were raised with back during the turn of the last century. I remember stories about the czar's police, where the would force you to lie on the ground and place wooden planks over top... then they'd dance atop you until you paid them what they wanted you to pay for them to stop.
Of course, if you didn't or couldn't pay them, they'd just keep adding more weight until you died. Then, they'd confiscate your property to pay off the debt you incurred by not paying while you were alive.
People don’t seem to understand that today is today, not yesterday, not ten or twenty years ago.
In spite of Ron Paul’s appalling remarks last night, he has a tiny bit right (for the wrong reasons). I don’t think we should send troops anywhere. I think we should rely on espionage and just flat bomb any location we think is creating weapons of mass destruction.
I’m tired of the sand brothers, tired of their culture, tired of messing with them. They won’t change. We need to develop our own resources, GET RID of the EPA and get on with it.
The same mindset is true of the border. Perry is right about the Texas border. Ever tried to drive across it?
If the money is right all sorts of ways can be developed to circumvent an unguarded fence. As Perry put it, 30 foot fence, 35 foot ladders. And, of course digging tunnels.
We need 2011 technology put to use. Surely there is some technology to detect movement along the border and we should have copters ready to go to that spot and arrest people. Unfortunately, we can’t shoot them.
As for the liberal argument of not blaming children of ILLEGALs because, after all, they didn't ask to be brought there their parents brought them here. Suppose their parents stole your car and gave it to the child. Should that child get to keep it? Why not -- he didn't steal it his father did.
I participate in forums other than FR -- forums where there is equal part liberal and equal part conservatives. And the same weak, liberal arguments I am seeing in this thread have been made by those liberals many times only it was someone admitting to being a liberal not pretending to be a conservative. Same weak argument, same faulted ideology.
===================================
GUN RUNNER REFERENCES
Obama Talked About "Gun Tracing" in 2009
Townhall ^ | 7/28/11 | Katie Pavlich
FR Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2011 by Nachum
During testimony on Capitol Hill, we heard Former ATF Special Agent in Charge William Newell admit he was in contact with White House National Security staffer Kevin O'Reilly about Operation Fast and Furious as early as September 2010. Newell also admitted that the DHS, IRS, DEA, ATF, ICE and the Obama Justice Department were all heavily involved and were full partners in coming up with the concept and execution of Operation Fast and Furious. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama still deny authorizing the lethal program, despite President Obama specifically asking Holder to conduct a complete review (Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
AG Holder discussed "Project Gun Runner" in April 2009 in Mexico.
FR POSTED Friday, July 08, 2011 by Glock The Vote
SOURCE: DOJ release | April 2, 2009
US Attorney General Eric Holder at the Mexico/United States Arms Trafficking Conference CUERNAVACA, MEXICO ~ Thursday, April 2, 2009 Remarks as prepared for delivery.
ATTY GEN HOLDER: First, let me express my thanks to (Mexican) Attorney General Medina Mora and Secy of Government Gomez Mont for making this conference possible. This is my first trip to another country as Attorney General.
I wanted to come to Mexico to deliver a single message: We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in this fight against the narcotics cartels. The United States shares responsibility for this problem and we will take responsibility by joining our Mexican counterparts in every step...
And, together, we will win – thanks in large part to the courage of my Mexican colleagues here today, who are on the front lines every day, and with whom I am proud to collaborate.
The topic that has been addressed over the past two days could not be more important – the development of an arms trafficking prosecution and enforcement strategy on both sides of the border.
I would like to thank the Mexican and U.S. experts who have worked so hard on this issue. On our side, Secretary Napolitano and I are committed to putting the resources in place to increase our attack on arms trafficking into Mexico.
Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion.
DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail. But as today’s conference has emphasized, the problem of arms trafficking will not be stopped at the border alone. Rather, as our experts emphasized, this is a problem that must be met as part of a comprehensive attack against the cartels – an attack in depth, on both sides of the border, that focuses on the leadership and assets of the cartel.
This is the type of full-bore, prosecution-driven approach that the U.S. Department of Justice took to dismantle La Cosa Nostra – once the most powerful organized crime group operating in the United States. With partners like those we have here today, I am confident that together, we will defeat these narcotics cartels in exactly the same way. I am proud to stand with you, and to join you in this fight.
Thank you again for inviting me here. ####
=========================================
WHAT IS THE MERIDA INITIATIVE? The US Congress passed legislation in late June 2008 to provide Mexico with $400 million and Central American countries with $65 million that year for the Mérida Initiative---to fight drug wars. The initiative was announced 22 Oct 2007 and signed into law June 30, 2008.
Clearly, the Mexican govt is fomenting drug violence in order to: (1) get billions of dollars in US assistance, and, (2) to help their populations flee over the border claiming they are victims of violence and need "asylum." Asylum claims gets illegals thousands of dollars in SS funds. Mexican Federales are getting rich using some familiar strategies:
(1) plotting to become a ward of the US;
(2) faking victimization;
(3) secretly revving up internal conflicts;
(4) play-acting the ignoramus;
(5) claiming they can't "control" their enemies without US money;
(6) organizing voting blocs----exchanging votes for US cash.
It's all a big scam---illegals are being financed and coached by Third World governments. Corrupt federales are salivating to loot the US Treasury, to get their dirty hands on trillions in US foreign aid---and they need a voting bloc to manipulate sap-happy US govt officials.
Why doesn’t Petty come right out out and say it, we believe in you, more than we do our own citizens, welcome to free college educations paid for by the people we do not believe in.
Ping!
I lean toward your assessment.
You are not getting your way, so you stomp your feet and insult one of the few candidates with a shot at turning this country around to conservative principles. So you disagree on some of his immigration positions? Is he responsible for ushering in every single illegal with a pat on the back and a personal greeting? Hell NO he isn't.
Listen to what he says about securing the border. Listen to what he says about the epidemic that he partially inherited. Listen to a republican-controlled legislature that made a tough decision to deal with fairness and practicality.
Pull your head out of your ass and stop the smear campaign. All of you
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.