Posted on 09/27/2011 7:57:53 PM PDT by Clairity
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is a radical who encourages illegal immigration.
Really?
That incendiary line of attack in the free-for-all among Republican presidential hopefuls begs for a deep breath and a dose of rational reflection.
Since 2001, Texas has allowed students to qualify for in-state college tuition if they've lived in the state for three years leading to high school graduation, completed their studies for a diploma or a GED, and enrolled at a public higher education institution.
Citizens, legal residents and other immigrants can get lower rates under the law. Students who meet the criteria but aren't U.S. citizens yet must file a statement that they intend to seek legal status.
The policy, which won widespread support in the Legislature before getting Perry's signature, has moral, practical and financial dimensions.
Support has come from the influential Texas Association of Business and chambers of commerce, as well as educators, the Texas Catholic Conference and civil libertarians.
In 2009, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott upheld the law. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court also rejected a challenge to a similar law in California.
(Excerpt) Read more at star-telegram.com ...
Texas Republicans made it tough on illegals if they wanted to attend one of our colleges. The other 38 states allow those illegals to have the same benefit as a legal American student. There is a fed law regarding illegals...one law they keep...that allows illegals to have in state tuition without questioning their nationality.
So Texas took the bull by the horns...and controlled it.
You have to realize that you’re talking to people who believe that even the children of illegals the were born in the US should be deported back to their country of origin.
It’s simply not a realistic approach to illegal immigration.
Perry is a strong states rights guy. His concern is Texas and Texas tax dollars. I doubt he cares if NM, AZ, or CA build fences.
OK, but we want the "stimulus" money back that you used to balance your last two budgets.
Now JimRob is getting pinged for an editorial that tries to help out a leader for the GOP nomination.
Ridiculous.
Yeah, and if you took the time to read the law, they have to be on the path to citizenship.
Its just like chickens that will peck to death another with a small be visible wound.
No it is not "ceding" the river to Mexico.
The fence is not the significant engineering problem, the engineering problem is building the patrol road. The adjoining fencing is just a construction task.
There are at least a hundred counties in the United States with challenging geography that have managed to build a road near a river bank.
The engineers and the border enforcement personnel would decide on the siting of the road and fencing.
Yes of course there would need to breaks in the fence at appropriate places to allow people and animals to pass. But these choke points would make it easier for our security personnel to monitor the comings and goings. Fencing doesn't solve the problem, it makes it easier to manage it.
What about the land owners along the river. Are you willing to cut them off from irrigation and livestock water and leave them high and dry? This would result in years of litigation, regardless of the state's power of eminent domain.
The interest of the security of 300 million Americans and the survivability of our country has to outweigh the interests of some cattle ranchers. And there can be wells or pumps or some other way to address their needs.
The cost of building a fence in the rugged, isolated Big Bend country would be astronomical. The transportation cost alone would be prohibitive.
There are some areas such as a canyon or a lake where an alternative must be used. But in general the cost of fencing is NOT astronomical. What IS astronomical is the staggering cost imposed by illegals on our schools, hospitals, court system, jails and prisons, welfare and other societal costs.
The cost of a fence is tiny compared to that and is even small compared to the $30+ billion Zero is spending on "green jobs".
Go to Utube and watch videos of illegals scaling the AZ fence. One shows two women w/o a ladder going up and over in 18 seconds. As one poster put it, "a fence is only a speed bump unless you're prepared to use deadly force once they're over". Since this isn't going to happen, we'll STILL need "boots on the ground" regardless.
The newer, modern anti-climb fencing systems that have been recently installed work well. There is no getting to "zero." What we can do is reduce a flood to something much smaller and more manageable.
OF COURSE WE NEED THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND! We need that in addition to the fence, to aerial assets, to electronic surveillance systems and other measures.
We need to:
1. Use fencing along as much of the border as possible.
2. Additional boots on the ground assisted by electronic surveillance, aerial drones and whatever other measures would be helpful.
3. Allow cops to ask people they have lawfully stopped whether they are citizens of a foreign country in the USA illegally.
4. Deport.
5. Reverse the Supreme Court decision requiring states to provide K-12 education to citizens of a foreign country in the USA illegally. This was a decision back in the day by a very liberal court and the current court given the same question may reverse it.
6. Do not extend benefits to illegals.
7. States should require businesses to use something like e-verify to make sure employees are legal. (I'm not sure this is constitutional if mandated on private businesses by the federal government.)
Texas has already spent 400 million and has doubled the budget this year for border security in a time of cuts. The cost of buying the land necessary for a 1200 mile fence, fighting lawsuits, building and maintaining said fence would cost billions of dollars. And we'd STILL need those "boots on the ground". As a Texas taxpayer, I'm not willing to foot the bill.
All of these costs are MUCH less than the financial burden imposed by the presence of the illegals.
That applies to all candidates and maybe candidates of both parties. Why make it only about Perry?
Kick ass!
But what about an electric fence? With electric barbed wire on the top? And a moat filled with sharks with friggin’ laser beams on their heads beyond the fence? With a mile of quicksand beyond the moat filled with sharks with friggin’ laser beams on their head?
Think that would work? Git r dun!
How dare you downplay a statement? Our judges, senators and congressman take sacred oaths to uphold the Constitution which they take pleasure in violating. But, a written statement, that would certainly be honored. Wow Perry, you know how to stick it to the illegals. “”A written statement””
[ That’s not true. He knows and just like his liberal supporters here at FR he just doesn’t care. Not many liberals do. ]
He not for illegal aliens unless hes for them.. kind of like Myth Romney.. and of course Juan McLaim..
He tells “people” what he thinks they want to hear..
I am so sick of this attitude.. the demeanor of a whore..
Michele Bachmann is NO whore.. like Sarah..
Those two know what a whore “IS” and “ISN’T”..
You now, suddenly blame for Obama for this lunacy and betrayal? You can't handle the truth or facts.
Above is Dallas Texas 2006, under Bush and under Governor Perry in Texas....500,000 illegals march on Dallas, waving foreign flags while making demands and threats...5 years ago...
For Texas? No. For the entire United States, I wouldn't know.
A "fence" was the subject. Man power plus technology is the most cost effective solution.
No sale.
If Perry supports that illegal alien magnet known as the “Dream Act”, then he’s a non-starter in my book.
If I'm incorrect about the liberal bias of the editorial's source, I offered to gladly and humbly retract my objection. To the best of my knowledge, the McClatchy Company (the owner of the newspaper publishing the pro-Perry piece topical in this thread) pushes an extreme, hard-left agenda. If I'm mistaken about their stance, I'll stand corrected and learn from my error.
Until then, a pro-Perry editorial from the Star-Telegram is tantamount to a commentator such as Rachel Maddow or Cornel West offering a defense of Perry.
I agree the costs can’t fall on Texans alone.
But Perry is running for POTUS, that’s what we’re talking about.
The next president needs to secure the border and the effort needs to be led by the federal government.
“Yeah, and if you took the time to read the law, they have to be on the path to citizenship.”
well, when they actually get it, I won’t have any problem.
Are you going to comment on the Voter ID act that disallows illegals to vote in Texas, yet you don’t have it in NY?
Or, are you just going to keep ignoring that one?
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.