Posted on 09/28/2011 7:08:25 AM PDT by hocndoc
Somewhat overlooked in the attention heaped upon Gov. Rick Perry's immigration position in the wake of recent weeks’ GOP presidential primary debates is the reality that in 2001, Perry was joined by virtually the entire Republican membership of the Texas Legislature in supporting legislation allowing undocumented immigrants who meet a series of requirements (e.g., be a Texas high school graduate, a Texas resident, and agree to apply for permanent residency when eligible) to pay in-state tuition at Texas public institutions of higher education.
Perry’s decision to defend rather than repudiate the legislation has had the immediate effect of dangling the self-described piñata closer to his bat-swinging presidential primary opponents. If we look back at the legislative politics, or lack thereof, surrounding the passage of the bill in 2001, we see just how far to the right the GOP has moved on immigration issues.
The Texas Legislature in 2001: Today’s conservatives embraced a “Texas Dream Act”
In 2001 the Republican Party enjoyed a narrow majority over the Democratic Party in the Texas Senate (16 to 15), and was in its last session as the minority party in the Texas House, with 72 seats to the Democratic Party’s 78.The final version of HB 1403 was amended and passed by the Senate on May 21, 2001, voted on for a second time in the House (which concurred with the Senate’s amended version) on May 24, and signed into law by Perry on June 16.
In the Senate, the bill passed by a 27-to-3 vote, with 12 Republicans and 15 Democrats in favor, and three Republicans against. Seven of the 12 Republicans who supported the bill continue to serve today in the Texas Senate, with three (Sens. John Carona, Troy Fraser and Florence Shapiro) among only eight senators (out of a total of 19 Republicans) to receive awards for their legislative voting record from the conservative watchdog group Empower Texans. Also voting yes was Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Todd Staples, who was then a senator.
Somewhat overlooked in the attention heaped upon Gov. Rick Perry's immigration position in the wake of recent weeks’ GOP presidential primary debates is the reality that in 2001, Perry was joined by virtually the entire Republican membership of the Texas Legislature in supporting legislation allowing undocumented immigrants who meet a series of requirements (e.g., be a Texas high school graduate, a Texas resident, and agree to apply for permanent residency when eligible) to pay in-state tuition at Texas public institutions of higher education.
Perry’s decision to defend rather than repudiate the legislation has had the immediate effect of dangling the self-described piñata closer to his bat-swinging presidential primary opponents. If we look back at the legislative politics, or lack thereof, surrounding the passage of the bill in 2001, we see just how far to the right the GOP has moved on immigration issues.
The Texas Legislature in 2001: Today’s conservatives embraced a “Texas Dream Act”
In 2001 the Republican Party enjoyed a narrow majority over the Democratic Party in the Texas Senate (16 to 15), and was in its last session as the minority party in the Texas House, with 72 seats to the Democratic Party’s 78. The final version of HB 1403 was amended and passed by the Senate on May 21, 2001, voted on for a second time in the House (which concurred with the Senate’s amended version) on May 24, and signed into law by Perry on June 16.
In the Senate, the bill passed by a 27-to-3 vote, with 12 Republicans and 15 Democrats in favor, and three Republicans against. Seven of the 12 Republicans who supported the bill continue to serve today in the Texas Senate, with three (Sens. John Carona, Troy Fraser and Florence Shapiro) among only eight senators (out of a total of 19 Republicans) to receive awards for their legislative voting record from the conservative watchdog group Empower Texans. Also voting yes was Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Todd Staples, who was then a senator.
The final version of the bill received even stronger Republican backing in the House, with 64 Republicans joining 66 Democrats to vote yes (130 total) versus only two dissenting votes (both Republicans). In the vote on the original version of HB 1403 on April 23, 67 Republicans joined 75 Democrats to approve the bill, with one Republican voting no. Ten years later, 23 of the 64 Republicans (along with two Democrats who would later switch to the Republican Party) who voted yea on the final version of the bill continued in office, as did two Republicans who voted for the bill on April 23 but were absent on May 24.
These legislators are some of the Texas House’s most conservative members (based on both the Empower Texans 2011 Legislative Scorecard as well as the Baker Institute’s 2011 Liberal-Conservative rating), including former House Speaker (2003-09) Tom Craddick, Sid Miller, Leo Berman, Phil King, Dennis Bonnen, Wayne Christian and Bill Callegari. All were classified by both Empower Texans and the Baker Institute as among the most conservative third of the Republican delegation in the 2011 Texas House. Furthermore, five additional representatives who supported the bill (Gary Elkins, Charlie Howard, Lois Kolkhorst, Geanie Morrison and Burt Solomons) were considered by both Empower Texans and the Baker Institute to be among the most conservative half of the 2011 Republican caucus.
Berman is especially well known for his hawkish stance on immigration. In 2011 he was the author of several bills in this area, including one patterned on Arizona’s SB 1070 and others which proposed to end birthright citizenship and to make English the state’s official language. In addition, one of the Republican representatives who voted for HB 1403, Kenny Marchant, now represents Texas in the U.S. House, where he is located in the most conservative decile of the House membership by Voteview.org.
he difference a decade can make
The contrast between the near-universal Republican support for HB 1403 (94 percent of the Republican legislators cast yea votes, and only 6 percent voted nay) in 2001 and the present attacks in 2011 on Perry for his past support of HB 1403 underscores how the median position within the Republican Party on immigration changed during the past decade. It also reflects somewhat the distinct historical and societal context in which the immigration debate occurs in Texas compared to elsewhere in the country.
Back in 2001, Perry’s support for this legislation was fully within the mainstream of the Texas Republican Party, and in many (though not all) respects of the national Republican Party as well. Ten years later, what is considered mainstream within the GOP nationally (as well as within the Texas GOP) clearly has changed, with a sharp move to the right within the party on the topic of immigration.
What a decade ago was a consensus position on the issue of in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants is now seen as an outlier position at the liberal end of the Republican ideological spectrum. As a result, Perry’s decision to not refute his past position on in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants (i.e., to not engage in a flip-flop), and less the decision itself, is what has principally left him open to attacks from his opponents.
His refusal to modify his stance has provided ammunition to his Republican primary opponents in their attempt to portray him as being outside of the Republican mainstream on immigration due to a decision which, at the time Perry made it, enjoyed near-absolute consensus within the Texas Republican Party.
flipped because we the Texas voters fired a lot of the RINOs and indeed a lot of the Democrats who were for this and scared the crap out of the remainder.
Yes! We did the same in Louisiana! Immigration is just one of the issues but we started taking Pelosi’s advice and are “draining the swamp”. The last “illustrious political leader” to go will be Mary Landrieu in 2014 (I believe). Louisiana, a notorious blue state has become scarlet! Other than her all our state rep including our governer are conservative republicans.
These are really exceptions to the requirement for non-resident tuition. Also in the Bill are exceptions for people who live in counties in other States that lie along the border with Texas, for residents of Mexico who go to certain universities and demonstrate need, veterans, military personnel and their dependents and other groups.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.54.htm#54.058
He’s not kidding about the Ranger Interdiction Team. We live in the Valley and from whatever point A is - point B - before they fly the Black Hawks low over the river is our roof. Perry and his team are all that stands between us and being over run by the cartels, and we surely appreciate that.
Your mistake is trying to reason with people who approach politics and public policy as if they are the NFL Game of the Week. Perry has many pros and some cons, but the average Freeper seems to be incapable of anything more than cheerleading for his current favorite candidate and trash talking everyone else.
The truth is that all the candidates have some negatives of consequence. On balance, however, any of them would be better than Obamalini, and we are serving the cause of replacing Wonder Boy poorly when we savage candidates other than our favorite candidate without any real knowledge or sense of balance. I could easily support Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, or Santorum, and I could even support RP or Newt if either were the nominee (Neither will be).
What we don’t need is to let childish partisanship cripple our potential candidates. That only serves Obamalini.
However, the author lists a group of men and women who are our most conservative and who are still in office, sometimes in higher office.
Pro or Con this issue wouldn’t have to be debated if the Federal Gov’t would do its job on the borders. There wouldn’t even be a need to provide education at the lower levels of elementary and high school either.
Well I guess that makes us “Heartless” conservatives just plain wrong!
The votes of a bunch of “conservative” GOP congress people must mean by extension, that that is the conservative position, right?
“How do you become a “Texas resident” if you are an illegal?”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
It’s a pretty easy step by step process.
1. Float on inner tube across Rio Grande.
2. Evade Border Patrol.
3. Squeeze into 12 passenger van with 25 other invaders.
4. Ride to DFW Mexoplex and apply for a job at the fast food restaurant where the coyote dumps you out.
5. Go to emergency room at Parkland Hospital to get your TB treated for free.
6. Go to work. Cough on food.
7. Drive around without license or liability insurance.
8. Attend amnesty rally. Wave Me-hee-can flag.
9. Get drunk at “after rally fiesta”. Go wrong way on freeway and kill U.S. citizen.
The “Reps” are not trying to overturn this law - our Representatives are not in Session for another year and a half (thank the Lord, they only meet 120 days, every two years), and none of them introduced a Bill to overturn it in the last Session (January to May, 2011).
One bill came up in the Senate (Birdwell) in this year, but never even made it to a hearing in committee.
Although the illegals are still getting in-state tuition in Maryland the way they always have — because they don’t check for citizenship status.
The law was merely to codify and legalize a situation that is already widespread. If you don’t pass a law banning the practice, the illegals will get in. That’s why states actually pass laws requiring schools to check legal status. If a state doesn’t have a law requiring a check of legal status in the country in order to qualify, it is likely that illegals are getting in-state tuition.
Policies that may make sense for a border state trying to deal with a crisis created by federal unwillingness to enforce its laws may not make sense as federal policies.
I’m unclear why Perry felt it necessary to defend this policy with the implication that it would be appropriate for the nation as a whole.
States are supposed to do things that work just for them. That’s the whole point of federalism.
Yeah! That's why they immediately revoked it, right? Oh wait.........
When you reward illegal behavior with such things as in-state tuition or sanctuary cities, you get more of it. There are only 6,000 ICE agents. It is essential that state and local enforcement cooperate with the Feds in the enforcement of our immigration laws just like they do with kidnapping, bank robbery, counterfeiting, etc. The Secure Communities and 287 g programs are supposed to foster that cooperation.
Perry has not been a supporter of E-Verify even for state employees. We need to cut off the job magnet. Perry is just pandering to Hispanics who comprise 37.6% of the population of Texas and the Chamber of Commerce. Illegals make up 9% of the work force.
Is it groundhog day again?
By living there.....From Webster:Definition of RESIDENT
1a : living in a place for some length of time : residing
How do you give in-state tuition to the nation as a whole?
When you secure the border you can then take care of the rest of the problem. Until the border is secure the other problems will only be exacerbated.
The coyote that Perry shot would still be alive if he had been driving a van full of wet Mexicans.
What "crisis" does the "dream act" apply to. It seems it just gives money to illegal aliens from another country for college. Was the "crisis" that the illegal aliens didn't have enough money for college? Is it a "crisis" if a U.S. citizen from another state doesn't have enough money for college? Is it better to be here illegally from another country than legally from another state?
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.