Posted on 09/25/2011 1:57:43 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009
Maybe Mitt Romney doesn't realize that nearly all of the rest of children of illegals had no choice in whether to live in Texas or not. If they were brought there by parents who were illegal--how is that the child's fault? Is Romney ready to charge those children with crimes? Mass deportations? Even Romney has not pledged to go that far.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
What do you suggest he do?
..... or since you know who and where the kids are don’t you think that gives you a clue or two to where the illegal parents are?
If we want to be a country of laws then we have to be a country of laws, either enforce them or change them to reflect what you WILL do, otherwise it is a propaganda war - and we know who wins that one.
There is more than one side to this coin. I listened to a life long resident of California describing how her son, currently residing in Pennsylvania, wants to return to California to go to college. He is a graduate of a California H.S. He is not allowed to pay in-state tuition but children of illegals are. Is it clear this is not about issues of the “heart”?
As Rick Santorum said, “Nobody said they can’t go to college but why give them a discount?”. Perry couldn’t and wouldn’t answer that specific question.
Is it “heartless” to NOT give illegals a discount on tuition or is merely pandering. I’ll bet that in your heart you know the answer.
Perry has met his Waterloo with this subject. You can try to spin it till the cows come home but I ain’t buying it.
establishing a “mexican foothold”
Hate to break the news to ya but that foothold was here long before we became a state.
Once again it’s the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect our borders, not the states.
Their right to a public education is K-12, not college which is the issue here. But you knew that.
When it comes to Hispandering (Dream act amnesty etc), Perry will be W. on steroids if he’s elected.
W. never made such easily decoded open-border pitches as Perry has.
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10688/
“Today we begin a new dialogue about our shared future, a future of promising potential if we work together to solve the challenges we both face. It is fitting that we convene this summit where the great, meandering river known as the Rio Grande – or the Rio Bravo – forms the long border between Texas and Mexico. In years past, that famed body of water has been seen by many as a dividing point, If you were to walk along its banks and look to the other side, based on the stereotypes of the past, you would think you were seeing things a million miles away, instead of a stone’s throw away. But I am here today to say that while we have honest differences, there is more that unites us than divides us. The Rio Grande does not separate two nations, it joins two peoples. Mexico and the United States have a shared history, and a common future. And it is along this border where we will either fail or succeed in addressing the education, health care and transportation needs of our two peoples.”
Thanks for posting that article. We are screwed even worse than I thought.
With that on the books it looks like our most aggressive enemy is our public school system and the anti-American union teachers and administrators within it.
This is nothing more than “aiding and abetting” criminals in their crimes. No wonder why in a town such as mine here in South Texas illegal criminals are allowed to flourish and procreate at will.
You have answered that question.
Education? Well, now you know why Perry is so Gung-HO about hugging and kissing illegal children and giving them a free education plus a helping hand to go to college on our dimes.
The more I hear about him, them more I loathe him. He has certainly come out of the closet on this one.
Their right to a public education is K-12, not college which is the issue here. But you knew that.
So you want to educate them until their out of highschool and then do what with them?
I don't know what I think we should do with the people who have been living here in America. Contrary to what you must think, I don't have all the answers to the world's pondering, and I don't have the answer to this either. I don't know.
I know Texas has no legal right to deport. I know I don't want displaced people all over Texas making it as unsafe here as it is in Mexico. I believe it is unfair to ask Texas to build thousands of prisons all throughout Texas and have to pay for the costs of taking care of thousands to millions of people that our federal government let waltz on in to begin with. (Actually, come to think of it, I don't think we could even arrest people or put them in jail anyway since citizenship is established, defended, and structured under federal law and not local law. Well, we don't even have THAT option probably, I would not guess.)
I know we have a Constitutionally-mandated process for determining actually who IS legal and who is NOT legal. I know we have a Constitutional process for immigration, citizenship, and for deportation. And I know I do NOT like the Deputy-Dog plans that people try to toss off as "deportation".
However... What do I think about what states HAVE done? What do I think about what states are considering? I do not know. I can not answer you any better than that. I do not know.
Wish I had a black and white answer for you. I don't.
I will tell you though, that if we do not get back to our founding fathers vision of government and begin - from this point on - to rebuild and restore what we have lost, however it is that we do that, we are going to miss out on the blessings we could have had otherwise.
If the author believes that pandering to illegals will win the GOP nominee votes from Hispanics and immigrants, he is dead wrong. McCain aka the "Amnesty King," got 35% of the Hispanic vote. Immigrants and minorities vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects
And I said so, didn't I? If not in one post where I provided a summary of a court case then in a post in this thread relating to it.
I've had so many posts in this thread, I don't feel like going back to see which one I posted that K-12th info in. Please accept my apologies for the laziness of that. I was sick and just sat here all night and have not slept one wink. You'll need to check on your own, but I did not have any purposeful intention of misrepresenting the education levels.
your post = blather
I’m not here to change your mind on what you may think of Rick Perry, but just want to make sure you understood that was a federal case and relates to all states. That was not a Texas court case. Every single state has been affected by that court case ruling, not just Texas.
Then tell your friends to stop asking all their questions. It would get a lot better.
“nobody (I am including Palin) understands the immigration problem more than Perry.”
Oh he understands it just fine and has chosen his own path. That is a path I don’t want foisted on me. Nor do I want to pay via tax money to make up for the Texas shortfall
in revenue because of Perry’s pandering.
Agreed.
I’m sorry that you had to take such heat simply because you posted a legal law on the books that has escaped the attention of many, including myself.
What you posted seems to be taken as what you think is right by many here.
Keep up the good work and education of actual, referenced laws for the rest of us.
The "constitutional right" of illegal aliens to public schooling at Americans' expense is one of the many "implied rights" Brennan discovered, hidden deep between the Constitution's inky lines.
He manufactured this novel entitlement in his opinion for narrow a 5-4 majority in Plyler v. Doe. Plyler has wreaked havoc on public education (and school finances) ever since.
The Court's one-vote majority reached its desired result largely by side-stepping the actual wording of the 14th Amendment and by making assumptions that were both irrelevant to a legal analysis of the Equal Protection Clause and insupportably favorable to illegal aliens.
The Court treated it as a given that most or all of these illegal alien children would wind up staying in the United States and eventually becoming legal residents. That they should be, well, deported was never seriously considered.
Neither was the fact that, as citizens of another country, all presumably had a right to whatever education their homelands provide.
After noting–truthfully but pointlessly–that an illegal alien is a "person," Justice Brennan got on with rationalizing his contention that guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws to illegal aliens requires Americans to school their children for free.
But Brennan had a problem to dispose of: While the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause [iii] is unqualified, the Equal Protection Clause applies to "any person within [a State's] jurisdiction."
To attain his desired result, Brennan tossed aside the limiting language about jurisdiction as meaningless—the same way the Federal government misconstrues the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause [iv] to grant U.S. citizenship to illegal aliens' U.S.-born children. Thus he maintained that the "Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation." [v]
In support Brennan quoted the 14th Amendment's Congressional ratification debates. But he buried their context: These debates were all about prohibiting legal discrimination against freed slaves–Americans, not foreigners whose very presence in a state is a crime. To equate the two is insulting to the former slaves and their descendents.
Here is the quote Brennan thought most important, Ohio Representative John Bingham's questions to the House:
Is it not essential to the unity of the people that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property? [vi] )
Only a sophist like Brennan could find here support for the notion that a state is constitutionally required to provide taxpayer-funded services–unrelated to protecting life, liberty and property–to people who are breaking the law by staying in it.
The Equal Protection Clause does provide a guarantee that, for example, a citizen of Louisiana in Texas is as protected against denials of life, liberty and property–enjoys the same due process of Texas and Federal law–as a Texan. The same would be true of a Mexican national in Texas.
However, even if one believes the 14th Amendment incorporates all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, applying them against the states as well as the Federal government, the Equal Protection Clause still does not extend to discretionary benefits offered by a state—such as 12 years of very expensive schooling, provided free.
Even Justice Brennan admitted "public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the Constitution."
Federal law explicitly forbids just what Texas did. “An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States,” declares Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), “shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”
Notwithstanding this federal ban on in-state illegal-alien tuition policies, neither the Bush nor Obama administration has ever objected to such policies on supremacy-clause grounds. Even without this legislative ban, in-state tuition is far more intrusive a grab of federal lawmaking power than Arizona’s maligned SB 1070 (which officially authorizes the state’s police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop on legitimate law-enforcement grounds and whom they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally). SB 1070 merely enforces existing federal laws. Texas’s law not only contradicts federal law, it creates precisely the patchwork of conflicting state immigration policies (i.e., amnesties in some states, not in others) which the supremacy clause is supposed to prevent.
The Texas attorney general’s effort to justify the state’s amnesty in the face of IIRIRA’s Section 505 almost laughably dodges the preemption issue with the meager argument that the “terms ‘postsecondary education benefit’ and ‘residence’ are not defined in the federal law.” His desperate defense is a reminder that once you start justifying law-breaking, however ostensibly compassionate your intentions (and one needs to ask here what position pro-amnesty Republicans would take on illegal immigration if they weren’t eager to court the Hispanic vote), you are led into further and further betrayals of the rule of law.
I find it quite interesting that your above conclusion came from this post ( post 75 below in bold print) which is the one your post 81 (above) was in response to.
It is very sad when people think trusting our Constitution and wanting to see our country act as our Founding Fathers had envisioned is a "bad problem".
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
***
I might suggest you order the book FED UP! by Rick Perry and see what he actually knows or thinks about the Constitution. After all, even Mitt Romney read it. Couldn't you? :)
Ricky has never lost an election......and he ALWAYS wins with ‘illegals’ voting under multiple identities.
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.