Posted on 09/19/2011 6:07:02 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
Tea Party leaders confronted Rick Perry in his own back yard calling on him to use his power as governor to crack down on illegal immigration. JoAnn Fleming, chair of the Tea Party Caucus Advisory Committee of the Texas Legislature said, "The ball is in Gov. Perry's court. He needs to make a decision. He's running out of time." Perry favors giving in-state tuition to certain illegal immigrants which has put him at odds with many Tea Party activists. Ken Emmanuelson, a Dallas Tea Party activist, said Perry should issue an executive order overturning a Texas Department of Public Safety policy that they say has turned Texas into something of a sanctuary state. Tea Party activists are promising to hold Perry's feet to the fire over illegal immigration. Perry has been a vocal foe of a long border wall and said in 2001 he was "intrigued and open" to an amnesty proposal for Mexican workers made by George Bush. Perry's chief opponent, Mitt Romney, vetoed a similar in-state tuition bill when governor of Massachusetts, saying it would provide incentives to illegal immigrants.
(Excerpt) Read more at texastribune.org ...
Nobody ever responds to my posts such as #85 either, in which I correct the assertion that you have to apply for citizenship to qualify for Perry’s Dream Act.
I also posted in this thread that Romney too is bad news WRT immigration. I am hard on all the candidates.
I am not a heartless person. As individuals, illegals have some good qualities, but allowing them to vote would be disastrous.
Not yet. If its a good conservative like Perry versus Willard the liberal, I'll take the Texas Gov.
The fact is Perry opposes open borders and believes its the feds job to secure the Tex-Mex border. Where Romney stands on immigration this year is anyones guess. In-state tuition is a states rights issue. The conservative Texas state legislature passed it with only a handful of dissenters.
Two pieces of advise.
watch the polls, then watch the Primaries.
Don’t take my post on face value, check out ALL my previous posts. I began as a strong Palin supporter, but Sarah got cold feet and found the money box. neither cause me to “hate Palin”, just recognize she ain’t running.
With Palin out, we were lucky as common sense conservatives to have Perry toss his hat in the ring. Not a single other candidate, other than Cain, come close to being as well rounded, experienced and effective conservative candidate.
There will never be any PERFECT candidate. Common sense says to look for the candidate with the most to offer with the least negatives. I see all the anti-Perry smear merchants here as either paulnutz, dissatisfied with EVERYTHING or folks too focussed on single issues or hoping against hope for some miracle to save their candidate.
Texas has many different voters, the Yeller Dog dems are fading away, the Mexicans have their issues, but are gradually drifting conservative because they see the mess the dems made. Still and even Texas being very conservative, it is impossible for any Governor to get elected and re-elected acting like a far right idealog.
Perry’s proof is in the pudding. Unless you are a paulnut or a narrow-minded single issue idealog, give Perry a look. Its going to come down to Perry or Mutt. Romney has no visible supporters and apparently is backed by the background bigshots. Ronpaul or Bachmann or the rest of the herd have zero chance, so who do you want?
1. Be born within the United States and it's territories; OR be born outside the United States, to parents who are both United States citizens.
2. Be a lawful permanent resident (green card holder), apply for, and be granted, naturalization. A LEGAL alien must have a green card for 5 years to become a citizen.
3. Be granted citizenship through an act of Congress. A private bill, introduced by Congress and signed by the President, may make a person a United States citizen.
So Perry and his supporters are LYING when they repeat the line that ILLEGAL aliens can apply.
I am not heartless either but I do view things differently than Perry and his liberal supporters. I consider America to be the lifeboat for the world because we take people in from all over the world. But given the enormous fiscal responsibility required to do so (medical, education, housing, etc) and given the dire economic position this country is presently in, we cannot afford the tens of millions who come here ILLEGALLY. It's not heartless to realize that if we allow more people in the boat (unskilled peasants who came here ILLEGALLY) the boat will soon capsize which would benefit no one.
Perry is for amnesty, that much is clear. So Perry is for capsizing the boat and that, my FRiend, makes Perry unelectable.
One day all of these people will pay for their violations of our Constitution... hopefully a bunch of them start their payments in November of 2012!
LLS
Thanks, but I don’t follow polls.
Common sense ain’t “common” anymore.
Illegal immigration may be a “single issue”, but it’s a big one. I am very concerned (at the risk of being labeled a “concern troll”) about his failure to take a more conservative position on the legislation.
Let the TX legislature over-ride his veto, at least he demonstrated that he was principled enough to take a stand and not roll.
I’m trying to give Perry a look, but each and everytime I bring this topic up, the attack dogs come out in force. I live in a border state, illegal immigration is a big deal to me. Our son’s college prospects are looking dimmer due to states passing laws like the DREAM Act in TX and soon, CA.
As a matter of fact, ignoring this topic only serves to create more curiosity. Address it now and get it out of the way. By ignoring it, it gives me pause because it indicates a weakness in his creds.
I’m reading what I can on Perry, but I find it interesting that in a conservative forum such as FR, it seems there are as many rabidly pro-Perry fans as there are anti-Perry fans.
Curious.
Ok, so now I'm trying to see the downside of this.
Could it be that this legislation is a bunch of smoke and mirrors?
Besides compromising one's integrity (as if politician's have any); what's the downside of having passed legislation that on the surface appears to give illegals something, yet hidden in the omitted details, are facts that they can never get the prize because the laws prevent them?
I'm not saying they wouldn't find a way to anyway, but is it possible that this legislation is just an empty bone to the illegal and their sympathizers demographic if there is no other way for the illegals to "qualify" for the benefit?
Just sayin'.
Economically you don’t need wages to entice any off their rear ends. You just need to entice someone to do the work. Minimum wage is now $7.25 an hour. You need to pay more than that to get people, not just lazy blacks or poor white trash, but those who are willing to do honest work and are only paid minimum wage. That includes teens, college grads who currently have no work but need to pay off their huge loans, and anyone else who wants more than minimum wage.
Will that pull some people from currently low paying jobs? Yes, but instead of the govt. setting minimum wage standards, you’ll have economics setting wages. I trust that a lot more than the govt. tinkering we have now. Let the market decide the level of pay for jobs by necessity of having the work completed and desirability of the work needed to be done. Let Americans receive that pay and any benefits needed to entice them to do the work.
The illegals need to return to their home countries and start working on the economies in their home nations. We should not be subsidizing employers out of our tax money to make the amount of pay the traitorous company owners give the illegals artificially low.
Then when illegals have returned home and work is plentiful, there will be no reason to allow people to remain on welfare. Once the welfare has been reduced to a negligible amount and all other handouts are eliminated as a benefit for any foreigners, we can consider increasing the number of guest workers applying from their home countries.
"can apply" could refer to immigration, naturalization, or the Dream Act. so confusion is likely.
1) I think south40 was saying that illegal aliens cannot apply for naturalization, not that they would not be eligible for the Dream Act (south40, correct me if I am wrong about what you meant).
However, it is not impossible for an illegal alien to apply for legal status here, which is not the same as citizenship. (See "working toward citizenship" below.) If successful, that could be the start of a process that eventually leads to citizenship, although some applicants are rejected, or delayed, because of previous immigration violations. I once worked with a guy who married his nanny. He told me that, since she had a an immigration problem in the past, it would take her longer. (That does not seem to be a problem for Obama's relatives though. GW Bush's administration stopped all deportation arrests in 2008 for the sake of Obama's aunt.)
2) But my point was quite different:
The Dream Act defenders here usually claim that to qualify, applicants have to apply for legal immigration status, but as my post stated, the real Texas requirement is only that they sign a paper stating that they intend to apply for legal status at some time in the future. (Signing a paper that they will apply some day is a lot cheaper than paying a fee to USCIS for an application.)
They sometimes phrase this bogus "requirement" as "working toward citizenship," which could mean a lot of things, for example, they are expecting an amnesty with "a path to citizenship" eventually.
Also, I don't claim that Perry people are lying, but rather that they are mistaken about this point.
One important thing to remember is that it’s the open-borders crowd and softies on illegal immigration who have made the fence a necessity. Why? BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO HIRE ILLEGALS! Jobs are the magnet that have brought us the hordes of illegals. Without the jobs we could enforce the border without a fence. So the fence is an issue that people like Perry have made an issue and forced us to debate - because illegal immigration is out-of-control thanks to them.
Right - every demagogue imaginable has used “states rights” to justify everything. For example, decades ago it was cited by segregationists to deprive blacks of civil rights granted them by federal law. Most of them don’t even know the original intent of the Tenth Amendment which they often quote.
Just an aside, but Jeb makes brother George look like Sheriff Joe Arpaio by comparison. I saw first-hand what he tried to do here in Florida when he was governor. And that’s why I’d never support him for president.
>> “Slick Rick is making the rounds.
What group will he pander to next?” <<
.
It won’t be big Pharma, they already have his ‘Pink slip’ in their coat pocket.
Wow....that's over the top!
Perry, born and bred a Texan, served his country as a pilot and then served in politics.
Obama is pretty much the opposite of Perry.
You hate Perry and call him a threat. You agree with Obama and his posse.
Therefore....
You couldn't get any traction disagreeing with Perry over specifics, so you have try to smear him as a ego maniacal criminal.
That isn't working so NOW he's a threat to the USA in ways equal to or worse than Obama!?
Wow. Yeah, knew there was a reason you refused to partake in discussion rather than exaggeration and smears.
Bless your heart, you mean well, but....(Southerners will know exactly what I mean! LOL)
Isn’t is arrogant to continually tell Texans how wrong they are on their opinion of the value of a border fence?
Got anything other than your opinion to back that up?
A few points to ponder.
1) No ILLEGAL alien, i.e., any individual who has entered this country ILLEGALLY and in complete defiance of US immigration law should be allowed to pay less college tuition than an American citizen. To do so is insanity but it is what Perry endorsed and his supporters defend.
2) Perry supporters claim that for ILLEGAL aliens to qualify for the instate tuition afforded by the Texas DREAM Act they need to be seeking a "path to citizenship". As I said in an earlier post, that is just not possible under current US immigration law; one must be here LEGALLY in order to qualify for citizenship. Perry may very well want to change that and I don't doubt that he does but as the laws exists now it is unlawful for someone here ILLEGALLY to seek "citizenship".
3) Perry supporters (and Perry himself) may be fooling themselves and trying to fool others with language such as "seeking legal status" which is possible, especially since the Obama administration announced it will no longer be deporting ILLEGAL aliens but instead will be weighing each case on a case by case basis looking for ways, of course, to keep ILLEGALs here with the ultimate goal of making them American citizens who will vote democRAT. Rick Perry, through his pandering to the ILLEGAL hordes in this country, is doing all he can to make that possible.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that ILLEGAL aliens can seek a "path to citizenship" when we know current US immigration law prevents it. It is also intellectually dishonest to use such words as "seek legal status" when one knows that is not the same as "citizenship".
The bottom line is Perry and his supporters are on the wrong side of this debate. ILLEGAL aliens deserve nothing more than a bus ride back to the border.
NO ILLEGALS, NO AMNESTY, NO COMPROMISE.
“One important thing to remember is that it’s the open-borders crowd and softies on illegal immigration who have made the fence a necessity. Why? BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO HIRE ILLEGALS!”
Right you are.
And for your information, i was active duty when Perry was shaking his pom poms, so his service record does not impress me one bit more than anyone else maybe less, i know a retired full bull that was taking tree tops out in Vietnam. His record is impressive.
I agree with you, except that in some cases they were small kids when their parents brought them here (but that is not necessarily true -- the max age for the Dream Act is 29). So I don't blame them in those cases, but it's still unfair for them to have lower tuition than US citizens. In fact I believe it's unfair for them to go to college at all unless they are here legally, because there is fierce competition all over the world for student visas.
2) Perry supporters claim that for ILLEGAL aliens to qualify for the instate tuition afforded by the Texas DREAM Act they need to be seeking a "path to citizenship". As I said in an earlier post, that is just not possible under current US immigration law; one must be here LEGALLY in order to qualify for citizenship. Perry may very well want to change that and I don't doubt that he does but as the laws exists now it is unlawful for someone here ILLEGALLY to seek "citizenship".
Again, it depends on what "seeking citizenship" means. If it means filing form N-400 (naturalization), you are correct that illegals would not qualify. This brings us to:
3) Perry supporters (and Perry himself) may be fooling themselves and trying to fool others with language such as "seeking legal status" which is possible, especially since the Obama administration announced it will no longer be deporting ILLEGAL aliens but instead will be weighing each case on a case by case basis looking for ways, of course, to keep ILLEGALs here with the ultimate goal of making them American citizens who will vote democRAT.
Yes, if they really were actually applying for citizenship via N-400, they would not be illegal aliens. I have seen "working toward citizenship," "pursuing citizenship," "seeking legal status," etc. and almost all of these are misleading in the Dream Act context. "Seeking legal status" would describe hundreds of millions of desperate people all over the world.
Something that might confuse people even more is that versions of the national "Dream Act" would provide "conditional permanent residency" to students in that proposed "Dream Act."
As I suggested in another post, the "Dream Act" zealots are probably telling illegals that Dream Act students will inevitably receive amnesty.
Rick Perry, through his pandering to the ILLEGAL hordes in this country, is doing all he can to make that possible.
It seems more likely to me that Perry is doing it to seek votes, although it remains to be seen if that is going to gain or lose votes, (and he may have a bleeding heart too, which is probably not a good sign) rather than consciously trying to destroy the country. But the reasons matter less than the danger of importing 10s of millions of leftist voters, to be followed by countless more via chain migration.
Another post you made reminds me of something that we should not lose sight of:
I consider America to be the lifeboat for the world because we take people in from all over the world. But given the enormous fiscal responsibility required to do so (medical, education, housing, etc) and given the dire economic position this country is presently in, we cannot afford the tens of millions who come here ILLEGALLY. It's not heartless to realize that if we allow more people in the boat (unskilled peasants who came here ILLEGALLY) the boat will soon capsize which would benefit no one.
I would add that the USA is a special, "exceptional" nation that I believe is in danger of, or perhaps has already begun, a major decline. I see Dream Acts as amnesty's foot in the door. And if that happens, not only conservatives, but the whole world, including illegal aliens, will suffer. In that sense, "compassionate conservatism," in the long run, may be cruel to everyone.
I agree with Perry on such things as "global warming" and taxes, but if he successfully pushes through amnesty, none of that will matter.
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.