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.
It's worth noting that Sen. Brian Birdwell filed a bill to repeal that in-state tuition law just this year in the Senate, where Dewhurst is the presiding office. The bill, Senate Bill 1631, was referred to the Higher Education Committee, chaired by Democratic Sen. Judith Zaffirini. It was heard but never emerged from that committee.
Lt Gov Dewhurst is breaking from Perry on the issue. "If we're not going to give fellow Americans who live in Louisiana or Oklahoma or New Mexico the ability to come into Texas and have in-state tuition and save, then is it fair to give that break to people who are not citizens here?" he told Dallas/Ft. Worth's WFAA. "So, I would not have signed that law."
Dewhurt's chief primary opponent, former Texas solicitor general Ted Cruz, painted the lieutenant governor's position as another flip-flop.
"This is another Republican primary year conversion by David Dewhurst. He was for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants before he was against it," Cruz said in a statement to On Call. "The next Senator from Texas needs to be a strong conservative who knows what he believes. I strongly oppose in-state tuition for illegal aliens, and categorically oppose amnesty or preferential treatment for illegal immigrants."
If repealing or opposing in-state tuition for illegals is not popular among Reps, then why are the two leading candidates for the Senate espousing their opposition to in-state tuition?
"Several states have made illegal immigrants eligible for lower in-state tuition at colleges and universities, but 81% of voters oppose such a move in their state. Just 12% think illegal immigrants should be eligible for these tuition breaks in their home state. Opposition to allowing illegal immigrants to be eligible for in-state tuition is slightly stronger than it was back in October 2007."
That's very true and the only way immigration laws will ever be enforced effectively is with the involvement of local, county and state law enforcement, cooperating with a federal government that intends to enforce the law.
The Feds will never hire enough personnel to enforce immigration law nationwide and they shouldn't. It has to involve law enforcement at all levels. And politicians who oppose that simply oppose enforcing immigration law.
You have to do both at the same time. It isn’t that difficult. It is just a matter of political will.
To qualify, the student must have lived in the state for at least three years before graduating from a Texas high school or receiving a high school equivalency diploma in Texas. The student also must have lived for at least part of that time with a parent or legal guardian and could not have an established residence outside of Texas. In addition, such students were required to sign an affidavit stating that they would apply for permanent residency as soon as they are eligible to do so.
Until 1982, Texas law prohibited local school districts from using state funds to educate undocumented immigrant children; furthermore, districts were allowed to deny enrollment to such children. In 1982, however, the Texas law was deemed unconstitutional. In Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas law violated the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. As a result of Plyler v. Doe, states may not deny access to public education to immigrant children residing within their boundaries, regardless of their legal status.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/3education.html
Notice that the same folks who claim that immigration enforcement is strictly a federal matter never mention sanctuary cities and the blatant defiance of federal law.
What is a state governor supposed to do about a sanctuary city? The city is flaunting federal law, not state law.
America: A Nation Of Laws
America: A Nation Of Scofflaws
Federal Law Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623 states:“an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States 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.”
How do I overcome Mr. Perry’s smear on me?
The same way you do in ALL the other states,just show up.
I thought the Governor could only sign legislation (except Executive Order - we won't go there).
The TX legislature tried to pass laws that would put a stop to sanctuary cities...but they (legislators) folded after pressure from big TX RNC donors (HEB's Butts and Perry Homes), IIRC.
Arizona catches them and turns them over to the feds who release them. Over and over and over. What good are they doing? Is it a waste of tax dollars to churn them through the system?
“Why is immigration law any different?”
Ask Janet or Bummer or GWB, Clinton, Bush the first, Reagan. Well we can’t ask Reagan anymore.
States can pass laws penalizing cities for not enforcing and coooperating with the Federal Government on immigration by stopping state aid. AZ 1070 contained such a provision and it was upheld by the courts. Here is the language that Judge Bolton upheld
Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of 15 immigration laws; indemnification
16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
We are trying to pass a similar law here in VA. And states can pass statewide enrollment in Secure Communities and the 287 g program.
Wow, I didn’t know that. It sounds like Texas has some work to do. Isn’t Houston a sanctuary city? It’s also a sanctuary for the former N.O. flood victims that never went home.
What was going on in 2001?
- we didn’t have 9-11 to think about. Illegal immigration was not broadly seen as a national security issue.
- we hadn’t had the debate about ‘compassionate conservationism’ with Bush yet.
- the entire issue of illegal immigration wasn’t in the foreground of public discussion.
Could I forgive Perry for this signature - seeing as how so much of this is Monday Morning Quarterbacking?
Sure. If he asked for forgiveness. If he really believed that it was a bad decision.
But he defends himself. *After* we’ve had the debate and endured the horrors that were 9-11, he still ends up on the wrong side.
Then he insults those of us who’ve thought this through and decided that the stance was wrong.
Go back, look at what the Governor said, the “heart” comment was made specifically to Mitt Romney and came after several minutes of debate about the Governor among the other candidates. He was answering a compound question, but also the previous comments.
For some reason, this one phrase is the focus, not the rest of the answer, not Mitt Romney’s false numbers, or Santorum’s hassling and interruption in the next segment.
Transcript from the debate, September 23 - after Bachmann and others had commented on Texas’ immigration problems, without giving Perry a chance to rebut — http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/22/fox-news-google-gop-2012-presidential-debate/#ixzz1ZGE06Tx1 :
WALLACE; Governor Romney, I want to continue a conversation that you had with Governor Perry in the last debate.
In Massachusetts, you vetoed legislation to provide interstate tuition rates to the children of illegals. Governor Perry of course signed the Texas Dream Act to do exactly that. But what about Governor Perry’s argument that it’s better to get these kids an education and to get them jobs than to consign them just to being a burden on the state?
ROMNEY: It’s an argument I just can’t follow. I’ve got be honest with you, I don’t see how it is that a state like Texas — to go to the University of Texas, if you’re an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount. You know how much that is? That’s $22,000 a year.
Four years of college, almost $100,000 discount if you are an illegal alien go to the University of Texas. If you are a United States citizen from any one of the other 49 states, you have to pay $100,000 more. That doesn’t make sense to me. And that kind of magnet —
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: That kind of magnet draws people into this country to get that education, to get the $100,000 break. It makes no sense. We have to have — just as Speaker Gingrich said, and as Michele Bachmann said as well, Congresswoman Bachmann, and that is we have to have a fence, we have to have enough Border Patrol agents to secure the fence, we have to have a system like E-Verify that employers can use to identify who is here legally and illegally.
We have to crackdown on employers that hire people that are here illegally. And we have to turn off the magnet of extraordinary government benefits like a $100,000 tax credit — or, excuse me, discount for going to the University of Texas. That shouldn’t be allowed. It makes no sense at all.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Governor Perry, I’m going to ask you a question, so you don’t need to respond to him, because you’re going to get a full minute to answer your question, which is on directly this point. You’re the candidate whose name, by a wide margin, came up most often in the questions being submitted to all of you candidates about immigration.
Dave Hollenback (ph) of Arizona sent this “To date, it appears that you have not tried to stop the illegals from coming. We have high unemployment and a considerable amount of jobs going to illegals. Are you going to exert an effort to stop the abuse of U.S. citizens by illegals?”
Now, last year, more than 16,000 children of illegals, young people in Texas, took advantage of your in-state tuition rate. Speak to that issue. And just, generally, how do you feel being criticized by a number of these other candidates on the stage for being too soft on immigration, sir?
PERRY: Well, I feel pretty normal getting criticized by these folks, but the fact of the matter is this: there is nobody on this stage who has spent more time working on border security than I have.
For a decade, I’ve been the governor of a state with a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. We put $400 million of our taxpayer money into securing that border. We’ve got our Texas Ranger recon teams there now.
I supported Arizona’s immigration law by joining in that lawsuit to defend it. Every day I have Texans on that border that are doing their job.
But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society.
I think that’s what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature, when this issue came up, only four dissenting votes.
This was a state issue. Texans voted on it. And I still support it greatly.
(APPLAUSE)
If it’s a magnet, it’s one that has a 3 year lead time, and requires graduation from a Texas high school.
Don’t forget that the law was revised and passed with the same support in 2005.
He didn’t say that this is the solution for the Nation.
He specifically calls for the Feds to stop people at the border, before they bring families in, to deport them before their kids finish 3 years of high school, and if the feds won’t do their job, that this is a State issue.
“”I think that’s what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature, when this issue came up, only four dissenting votes.
“”This was a state issue. Texans voted on it. And I still support it greatly.””
There’s a long section in his book, “Fed Up!” on the problem and how we got here, with Plyler v. Doe and the action of the Supreme Court back in 1982. Unfortunately, I’ve used up my allowed copying and pasting from the Kindle version of the book, and haven’t had the time to type it up.
He didn’t say that this is the solution for the Nation.
He specifically calls for the Feds to stop people at the border, before they bring families in, to deport them before their kids finish 3 years of high school, and if the feds won’t do their job, that this is a State issue.
“”I think that’s what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature, when this issue came up, only four dissenting votes.
“”This was a state issue. Texans voted on it. And I still support it greatly.””
There’s a long section in his book, “Fed Up!” on the problem and how we got here, with Plyler v. Doe and the action of the Supreme Court back in 1982. Unfortunately, I’ve used up my allowed copying and pasting from the Kindle version of the book, and haven’t had the time to type it up.
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.