Posted on 09/20/2011 11:09:40 AM PDT by Mozilla
Texas Tea Party leaders are unhappy with Gov. Rick Perry’s immigration-related positions and want him to call another special legislative session to give state lawmakers a third opportunity to ban sanctuary cities.
“This is an issue that is simmering and bubbling up to the surface … We are tired of lip service. We are fed up. We are fed up, too, Gov. Perry,” Texas Tea Party Caucus Advisory Committee chair JoAnn Fleming of Tyler said Monday.
Perry declared sanctuary cities an emergency issue in January and put it back on the legislative agenda in June after lawmakers failed to approve legislation during the regular session. Legislation to ban so-called sanctuary cities – and subject anyone stopped for a traffic violation to document their citizenship – also failed during the special session.
Tea Party leaders said they thought they had Perry’s support following a June 28th meeting in the governor’s Capitol office.
“I left the room with the impression that a second special session would be an option,” said Katrina Pierson, founder of the Garland Tea Party and a member of the Dallas Tea Party steering committee.
The response from the governor’s office is not likely to satisfy Tea Party leaders.
Fleming said she and other Tea Party leaders are not concerned that a special legislative session would conflict with Perry’s presidential campaign.
“It’s not our business to run his campaign and to figure out his polticial strategy, spin or whatever on any issue,” she said. “We want to make sure that our colleagues around the country in the Tea Party grassroots movement have their questions answered.
“We figured there might not be a good chance of that happening unless we called it out,” she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.chron.com ...
Have political conditions in the TX legislature shifted enough now to be able to pass a bill that puts heat on sanctuary cities? To force Perry to put his signature pen where his mouth is?
The upside for Perry is if he does do this, it will get Tea Party support for his political chances of being the GOP presidential candidate.
Legal entrants, for whatever purpose, are still a separate issue from illegal aliens and border security. Conflating the two issues creates confusion which politicians not only seize on they foster it.
A few picky points.
High tech surveillance only means squat if boots can be mustered on the ground quickly enough to intercept any incursion. I doubt the US is willing to bomb anybody in North America with drones, or even have robo-guns. Robo tear gas maybe? And what do you do if Mexicans try to flash mob the robo-guarded border simultaneously at, say, a hundred different places?
The “anchor baby” issue will require constitutional amendment to remedy. Chances of getting the USSC to reverse policy are slim to none, and slim just left town. By itself it doesn’t mean that much anyhow. By the time a newborn anchored baby could sponsor its parents, an eternity of political time has passed.
Increased border security is the one thing on that list that could be removed, providing that the other four were done and done right, that would not reduce the effectiveness of the overall policy therein. If there were very little motivation to cross the border and stay here there would be few people doing it and a normal BP presence would be fairly effective in dealing with those who did.
“Let Latin Americans in on short term (but renewable) visas for jobs.”
Why? Americans need those jobs.
You could be Bob Beckel's writer.
Sanctuary cites are illegal, against federal law.
If Illegal Insurgent Criminal Alien Invading Colonists are cut off from all the freebies they will self deport.
And BTW gunning down those that invade Mexico's southern border is SOP. But they want us to let all their citizens in here to colonize.
I’m tired of all of it. Come, Lord Jesus, and take up your authority, and rule this corrupt and Godless world righteously for the first time in its history.
This, far more than the Gardisil flap, is what’s going to spell trouble for Perry. I’m finding him to be a bit too soft on the immigration issue.
Come to Rickstianity brother.
The deity will make all things OK. LOL
Conservatives in Texas know who is blocking immigration policy improvements and other needed legislation such as the TSA bill. The leadership in the House - and particularly Speaker Straus - is to blame. There is nothing for Perry to expose - we know.
Here is an interview with a conservative Senator who lays it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZcxWnXzNnc&feature=related
One of the interviewers is a person quoted in the posted article. She clearly understands the problem. So, why didn’t the Chronicle ask her what has changed to make it appear to anyone that the House will pass a sanctuary cities bill? No one here has heard Straus announce a change of heart, and he continues as Speaker. Nor have we heard the 101 House Rs, or any part of them, clamoring for another session so that they can fix their failure to do the right thing the first two or three times.
Note that Senator Patrick mentions in passing that Texas has been doing a better job on the border in recent years by spending Texas money (because the feds wouldn’t). That spending initiative was Perry’s. I am a critic of Perry for not being as strong on immigration issues as I think he should be, but his record is far better than the Mittbots, Paulbots, Palinbots, and others are saying.
Irresponsible attacks on Perry only help Romney. Romney will sell us out on amnesty just like McCain and Bush. Perry has been better than that, but admittedly not perfect.
I’m incapable of having Perrygasms.
Americans don’t take those jobs. I live in the South, where we have abundant numbers of unemployed blacks and rural whites, and nobody shows up for the laborer jobs except Latin Americans.
The blacks expect the employers to pick them up in a van and then never show up anyway, and the whites will work a day and then quit because “only Mexicans” would do that work. The work might be roofing or something unpleasant, but if you want a job, you’ve got to do it.
Semi-literate blacks and whites here, who could be the laborers, are living off the bennies given to their baby mommas, and the only people who will actually show up for the jobs are foreigners, particularly Latin Americans.
And this is after the federal government has spent a fortune on “job training” for our native unemployed, who all seem to think they are cut out for something better than landscaping or roofing...even though they’re less literate than the Mexicans and use more drugs and alcohol than anybody would have thought possible.
Please take a look at post 30 (13 ane 15 may help clarify some context).
The latest data show 22.1 million immigrants holding jobs in the U.S. with an estimated 8 million being illegal aliens. By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent. Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent. The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.
The Bureau of Labor statistics for August 2011 show a national unemployment rate of 9.1 percent, including 16.7 percent for blacks and 11.3 percent for Hispanics. 25 million Americans are seeking full-time employment. Despite the economic downturn, the U.S. continues to bring in 125,000 new, legal foreign workers a month. This includes new permanent residents (Green Cards) and long-term temporary visas and others who are authorized to take a job. This makes no sense.
125,000 brand new foreign workers with work permits each month -- HERE'S THE PROOF
And look at the hideous “legal” immigrants we’re getting. Obama actually issued an order right after he took office that reduced the legal number for Latin Americans and increased it for “people from Muslim countries.”
Source please. This is not true. Right now, two-thirds of the 1.2 million legal immigrants who enter the US annually are from Latin America.
I hear ya. I said pretty much the same in another thread and was chastised about being a single issue voter and how the economy and jobs were more important. Why is it that they don't understand that the economy and jobs are not separated from the illegal alien issue? They are entwined. Illegals have nearly bankrupted every state. It didn't happen over night, its been an on ongoing, incremental process that has reached the point that states budgets are falling into the red.
When you consider 40+ years of illegals, and their anchor babies, their anchors are now not only parents but some are grandparents. Generations have grown up from the initial anchor babies. The anchor baby issue needs to be addressed, some how, some way.
—Irresponsible attacks on Perry only help Romney.—
Duh!
Whenever I see a Perry attack article or post, I figure it is about getting Romney in. And like you said, one can think what they will about Perry, he’s a heck of a lot better than Romney. There really is no comparison. None.
This “first to file” vs “first to invent” thing is kinda creepy. There are already companies out there whos sole function is to reverse engineer existing products, determine a part of the functionality that is patentable, but not patented, then patent it, and then go back to the manufacturer and demand payment for using their patented method. It can be an unbelieveably small part of how something works - a unque hinge, etc.
I worked with the legal department of a company that had to deal with that all the time.
Wrong thread. Sorry about that.
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.