Posted on 09/27/2011 2:51:19 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Chuck DeVore
September 27, 2011
Last week’s Republican Presidential debate confirmed one thing: Texas Governor Rick Perry’s main challenge in winning the Republican nomination will be his ability to explain his record on illegal immigration as governor vs. what he proposes to do about it as President.
Perry’s opponents have hit him for signing in 2001 the nation’s first law allowing illegal immigrants to get the in-state tuition break that other Texans who attended high school in-state receive. Four lawmakers out of 181 voted against the bill, as Perry has pointed out, making the bill uncontroversial at the time. (Note: as a California lawmaker from 2004 to 2010, I consistently voted against expanding benefits to illegal immigrants.)
Today, 12,138 illegal immigrant students pay in-state tuition in Texas, about one percent of all Texas college students. By comparison, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that 7.0% of Texas residents are in the nation illegally.
Gov. Perry has pointed out more than once, and with a degree of exasperation, that Texas has spent $400 million of its own taxpayers’ money on border security, hiring additional Texas Rangers to better secure the border. Perry has also defended his insistence that a fence not be built along the entirety of Texas’ 1,969 mile border with Mexico, citing the fact that a river runs along the border through some very remote and rugged terrain that is best secured with “boots on the ground” and “aviation assets.” I have to agree with Perry on this one, building a fence along a river is costly while the river itself will constantly undermine the fence’s footings. In addition, Gov. Perry’s Texas has passed a law that requires a photo ID to vote (only 13 other states have photo ID laws on the books) and illegal immigrants cannot obtain a driver’s license in Texas (11 states issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, including Sarah Palin’s Alaska).
Dismissing Texas’ own border security efforts, Perry’s opponents have focused on the in-state tuition, calling the law a magnet for illegal immigration. Theoretically, that’s true. But does it actually impact an illegal immigrant’s decision about what state they may decide to live in? I find it hard to believe a 22-year-old man from central Mexico is going to say to himself, “Hey, I’m going to move to California or Texas because, when my two children become college age in 17 years, I can save some tuition money.” Rather, the decision to break U.S. law more likely comes down to the availability of jobs and the seriousness with which the Federal government secures the border.
To test this proposition, it is instructive to see where illegal immigrants live in the U.S. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the largest illegal immigrant population by state in 2010 was:
California: 2,570,000
Texas: 1,770,000
Florida: 760,000
Illinois: 490,000
Arizona: 470,000
Georgia: 460,000
New York: 460,000
North Carolina: 390,000
New Jersey: 370,000
Nevada: 260,000
As one would expect, larger states have larger illegal immigrant populations, and larger states on the border with Mexico have an even larger illegal immigrant population.
But, how do these statistics compare to the size of the state? What percentage of the state’s population is composed of illegal immigrants?
Nevada: 9.6% illegal
Arizona: 7.4% illegal
Texas: 7.0% illegal
California: 6.9% illegal
Georgia: 4.7% illegal
New Jersey: 4.2% illegal
North Carolina: 4.1% illegal
Florida: 4.0% illegal
Illinois: 3.8% illegal
New York: 2.4% illegal
National average: 3.5% illegal
Next, let’s compare the state’s system of welfare benefits to illegal immigrants as well as the state’s in-state tuition policy.
Nevada: 9.6% illegal; low welfare, no in-state tuition
Arizona: 7.4% illegal; low welfare, no in-state tuition
Texas: 7.0% illegal; low welfare, in-state tuition
California: 6.9% illegal; high welfare, in-state tuition
Georgia: 4.7% illegal; low welfare, no in-state tuition
New Jersey: 4.2% illegal; high welfare, no in-state tuition
North Carolina: 4.1% illegal; low welfare, no in-state tuition
Florida: 4.0% illegal; low welfare, no in-state tuition
Illinois: 3.8% illegal; high welfare, in-state tuition
New York: 2.4% illegal; high welfare, in-state tuition
This analysis tells us that the states with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants, Nevada and Arizona, don’t use many state resources to assist them while Illinois, with an average number of illegal immigrants, and New York, with a below-average number of illegal immigrants, are the most generous. Thus, data suggests that state assistance to illegal immigrants isn’t much of a magnet. Other factors must be at work here.
Demand for labor is the driver, with illegal immigrants concentrating in the construction, hospitality, and agriculture sectors. Until recently, both Nevada and Arizona were experiencing housing booms and 27% of Nevada workers labor in the hospitality industry. On the other end of the ledger, both New York and Illinois experienced very little population growth; therefore, saw few construction jobs relative to other states.
Lastly, it’s interesting to compare these states’ tax policies to their illegal immigration populations:
The Tax Foundation’s 2011 State Business Tax Climate Index ranks the states with the largest illegal immigrant population as follows:
Nevada: 9.6% illegal; 4th most-competitive tax policy
Arizona: 7.4% illegal; 34th most-competitive tax policy
Texas: 7.0% illegal; 13th most-competitive tax policy
California: 6.9% illegal; 49th most-competitive tax policy
Georgia: 4.7% illegal; 25th most-competitive tax policy
New Jersey: 4.2% illegal; 48th most-competitive tax policy
North Carolina: 4.1%; 41st most-competitive tax policy
Florida: 4.0% illegal; 5th most-competitive tax policy
Illinois: 3.8% illegal; 23rd most-competitive tax policy
New York: 2.4% illegal; 50th most-competitive tax policy
Perhaps it isn’t a coincidence that Nevada, the state with the most attractive business tax policy on the list, has the highest percentage of illegal immigrants, while New York, the state with the worst tax policies in the entire nation, would have the fewest illegal immigrants as a percentage of its population.
It shouldn’t be a shock to conservatives that, just like the wealthy, illegal immigrants respond to state taxes and the impact those taxes have on the economy.
Perhaps if Governor Perry worked to pass a Texas state income tax, the illegal immigrant population there would plummet (of course, he’d have an even bigger challenge in winning the Republican nomination as a tax-hiker).
This brings us to a final observation. Other than raising taxes to the bone-crushing New York level, just how much can a state do in the realm of illegal immigration, a basic Federal responsibility? The answer appears to be not much, given Arizona’s high-profile efforts at curbing illegal immigration and given that Arizona’s per capita illegal immigrant population is greater than that of all states except Nevada.
Having served as a governor is excellent preparation for being President. That said, a governor has different responsibilities than does a President.
Rather than focusing on what education bill Perry signed into law in 2001, Republicans should be more concerned about what policies their prospective nominee has today on immigration, both legal and illegal. Do they approve of an amnesty on the scale of the 1986 amnesty that many Reagan Administration veterans later viewed as a huge error? Do they want to change an H-1B visa program that business sees as a way to keep technical labor costs down but that many highly-skilled American workers see as undermining their ability to earn a good living? How do they propose to better secure the border, and can they do it without eroding Americans’ liberty? These are proper questions for those who would be President and the sooner we can move beyond “gotcha” debate moments and into substantive policy discussion, the better.
Governor Perry called a special session with the legislature (they did not pass the bill during regular session)
and he put the Sanctuary City bill on the table to make them vote on it.
He is the only one who can do that. If he was for Sanctuary Cities, WHY did he put the bill on a special session to be voted on again.
He wanted it. Our legislature would not vote on it.
Perry put it on fast track and the Leg blew it. They were lobbied heavy by a big Grocery Chain and Perry (no relation) Home builder.
Plenty are pissed off about that. I use to shop at HEB. NO LONGER. Back to Krogers or Randalls.
Only when people speak with THEIR wallets will these movers and shakers get it.
So, American citizens from other states be damned . . . children of illegals be given special treatment instead of deportation.
I can find NO justification for any of that!
I can’t change the facts. I don’t like it either, but these are the facts.
I’m with you on that. If he had said he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do, it wouldn’t be so bad, but saying people didn’t have a heart was just stupid. His “sound of the last name” wasn’t any smarter.
But I get called worse here by freepers on a regular basis, so I can’t say I’m as upset as others here are about the insult.
The sad thing is that he opposes a federal version of in-state tuition for illegals, so he’s in agreement with the 86% that oppose the Dream act. So he’s actually skewering himself by attacking poeple he largely would agree with as President.
I would be pretty enthusiastic if Cain could win the republican nomination (doing so would of course answer the doubts about his “electability” — that’s what the nomination process is for, to prove you can appeal to a broad part of the electorate).
I do know that SOMEONE is going to be our nominee, and I would prefer it not be someone who has already been skewered and served up like raw meat to Obama in the general election. I’m not a big fan of the “burn the village to save it” philosophy of elections.
Nobody said a damn thing about the sound of anyone’s last name—illegal aliens getting in-state tuition is not a race thing—it's a disrespect for American sovereignty and her laws thing. Hell,if Perry was trying to encourage Austrians to sneak across the border for the taxpayer funded goodies,I would be just as outraged if the name was Schikelgrubber. Perry decided to play the race card and he is paying for it.
Anybody on freepers, really needs to go to the big government website and post over there. We need to make it clear to these pundints and bloggers that they just cant smooth this over. They better stop defending Perry, we know what he is. This is what I posted:
Nice try, very well done. Now you hear us, we dont want illegal aliens in our country. Remember “this will be the last amnesty” , “they will never be a public charge” ? Now we have 30 million illegal aliens that we are forced to provide for. And any presidential candidate that even hints at any sympathy for illegal aliens over American citizens is done. What Perry said has absolutely nothing to do with tuition attracting illegal aliens. It is his position of pro-illegal immigration, do you hear that?
So all you pundits ands bloggers out there trying to soften what Perry said might as well save their effort. We have been screwed for so long and we are not going to take it anymore.
“That statement is telling me Perry was telling Fox “hey, an open border is great, we have one with Canada but not at the expense of you flooding us with your impoverished citizenry.””
well, we’re not going to fix Mexico’s problems so we have to forget about this open border fantasy.
I'm with Perry on that one. We don't have a fence with Canada, after all, even in Alaska. Because we don't need one, because Canadians don't feel compelled by circumstance to come to this country to get jobs. (Actually, after 3 years of Obama, I'm surprised Canada isn't considering a fence to keep OUR citizens out of their country...)
We will spend billions of dollars defending our border, until Mexico becomes a legitimate 1st-world country. I have serious doubts that will ever happen, but a man can dream.
I don’t let it upset me anymore. as the voters start to focus on the facts of issues all of this BS will fall by the wayside. The lies will only hurt the ones telling them.
Perry is not to be underestimated. He has struck back at Romnuts with his own words out of his own mouth. re Obamacare. even showing the first edition of his book and then the redacted version. We don’t need anymore liars and sneaks in the WH.
Romnuts tried to strike at Perry over immigration and fact Check found 5 lies. OOPS.
The problem with arguments like “have no heart” or “sound of the last name” are they dismiss legitimate concerns of your opposition, and make it emotional.
It is funny, having seen a broad appeal to emotional arguments every day here at FR, that people are so turned off by them when others use them — but I don’t like emotional arguments so I can’t defend them.
But for an example, I took a lot of flack making non-emotional, logical, conservative arguments regarding the CPS actions in the FLDS compound case; I also tried to remaing logical and objective in the discussion of Ramos and Compean, and in both those cases there was a LOT of emotional arguments. The first was when I was called a child molester. So Heartless isn’t so bad.
I thought only 13 states offered in-state rates to children of undocumented workers (if accepted through the same competitive process, understood). I did not know it was 38 states that did this. Am I correct in understanding that it is 38 states that offer this in-state rate? Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide on the numbers!
His opposition is based on his defense of the 10th Amendment, IIRC, not on the merits of the act itself. He's faced this seeming paradox on several matters, including abortion and gay marriage. On balance, I would prefer a President who respects states rights and is very reluctant to support any federal mandate.
Only the Federal Government can deport illegals.
They do not and they will not.
No state can deport. Perry cannot deport illegals.
I'm not talking about this issue here, but I'm just wondering what is wrong with your own home state's colleges and universities? Why can't you use your in-state tuition rates in your own state? I thought that has ALWAYS been the way it worked, or do you want to change that now so you can go anywhere you want as a state resident?
I just don't get why everyone wants to claim our Texas schools for their own when there are many good colleges and universities across The United States, and I would think you could find a good in-state college or university in your very own state where you reside.
However, if you really, really want to go to a Texas college or university but have not lived in Texas for the required period of residency time, then either pay out-of-state rates, come here and live in Texas long enough to get in-state rates, or just stay in your own state, pay your OWN in-state rate, and stop complaining you can't claim the residency requirement in Texas.
The only other chink in his armor is his support for a law he signed which allowed for non-citizen children domiciled in Texas without immigration documentation to be considered Texas residents for the purposes of paying college tuition. From the boos in the crowds it was apparent that most Republicans nation-wide do not support this. Nonetheless, Perry explains very clearly and carefully why he signed what was a veto proof bill passed with four “no” votes out of 183 Texas legislators, with Republicans in firm control of both chambers.
But here’s what Yankees like Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum don’t get. Texas is not the only state that has done this. New Mexico and California have as well. Not surprisingly, Arizona is the only state with an actual border with Mexico that hasn’t. In addition to Arizona, only three other states prohibit in-state tuition for children with undocumented immigration status. However, in addition to Texas, New Mexico, and California, eight other states specifically allow it. These include Kansas (passed with a Republican supermajority in both houses), Nebraska (non-partisan, but with a supermajority of members who were otherwise Republicans), and Utah (again, with a dual supermajority of Republicans), New York (split control), Oklahoma (Republican House and even split in the Senate), as well as Illinois, Washington, and Wisconsin (Democratic simple majority in both houses).
Now you may be thinking to yourself, if only four states have prohibited state universities from considering undocumented students as residents, and eight have specifically permitted it, what about the other thirty-eight? They have not legislated on the matter at all. What is not prohibited is allowed.
Governor Perry DID NOT HAVE TO SIGN THE LEGISLATION. It would have became law without his signature!!
Does anyone get this????
That is so funny. ;o)
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.