Posted on 10/01/2011 10:43:51 PM PDT by American Dream 246
Matt Lewis says he’s improving on this issue. I guess, but that’s mainly because after you’ve tried to win over voters by calling them heartless, there’s really nowhere to go but up. A scene from New Hampshire this morning:
“We have, for decades, had a federal government that has absolutely failed in its constitutional duty to defend our border,” Perry said.
“I’m a governor. I don’t have the pleasure of standing on the stage and criticizing. I have to deal with these issues,” he later added.
Perry continued, “In 2001, we had this choice: Are we going to kick these children over to the curb and say you cannot have access to college? Because the fact of the matter is there’s no way they could pay the out-of-state tuition. And are we going to have them on the government dole over here because they’re not educated? Or are we going to have them in our institutions of higher learning, paying in state tuition, pursuing citizenship?”…
David Connors, the man who asked Perry the in-state tuition question, said he was satisfied with the governor’s answer.
Really? There are no jobs for illegals anywhere in Texas to earn tuition money? I was under the impression that there are quite a lot of jobs available to them, especially since Perry opposes e-Verify. This is the same sleight of hand he tried to use in the debate answer that got him in trouble, equating illegals’ opportunity to go to school in Texas with some sort of moral imperative among taxpayers to subsidize their education. (His wife, campaigning for him in Iowa, framed the choice as between tuition subsidies or welfare.) Somehow, the impoverished U.S. citizen from Mississippi is expected to pay his own way in Austin but the illegal who’s lived in Texas for three years gets a stipend from the locals. And not just in terms of lower tuition rates; apparently they qualify for financial aid too. It must be awfully confusing for Perry, as a “Texas Gaullist” and vocal champion of state sovereignty, to find that prioritizing state residency over national citizenship doesn’t play well with grassroots conservatives outside of Texas itself, but he’d better find clarity soon.
Here’s Romney’s new ad bludgeoning Perry with praise he once received from former Mexican President Vicente Fox. After you watch, read this amusing scolding (which notes some of Mitt’s own immigration heresies) from former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, who seems genuinely surprised that Romney would pander so shamelessly on a divisive issue simply to destroy an opponent. That was the old, soulless Romney. The new, soulful Romney should be above that sort of thing. Right?
Are you telling me that his philosophy would change at the national level? Would that include all that he says and does and what should we assume he will do at the national level if we don’t look at his record?
Is this guy braindead? .... Quoting Perry on giving in-state tuition to illegals: “How else were they supposed to pay for it?”I just thought of something else.....
On July 5th we saw some old friends (at a wake, yuck) and we talked about our 'kids'. Well their daughter just got her Law Degree and lo-and-behold she didn't go to Law School here in IL, but at a Law School in California -- so she had to pay OUT OF STATE TUITION.Therefore, Perry is full of 'Bullfeces'. If an American girl can manage this, in the Illegal Friendly State Of Texas, a Juan or Maria should not have any problem doing the same dam thing when it comes to paying out of state tuition for college!Naturally it was a ton of money and our friends could not help and their daughter had/has to pay it all herself. She did this by getting another Student Loan - on top of her existing loan for her BA Degree - and WORKING A PART TIME JOB (wow, what a radical idea).
She hasn't taken a Bar Exam yet as she's not sure where she wants to practice law. But those Student Loan Invoices aren't waiting and she's paying them again - BY WORKING!
So yes. Perry has to be Brain Dead. Or .. he's just a MORON!
Why doesn’t this alleged student go to California, establish residence there for a year (that’s the typical rule in most states), then qualify for in-state tuition?
Or go to Texas, establish residence there in a year, and enjoy in-state tuition there?
It’s a little different in Texas for illegals, however. An illegal immigrant has to establish residence of THREE years to start to qualify, a little higher bar.
She may want to pass on Law School. Doesn’t seem too bright.
Hmmmmm....okay, I'll go with 2.
Does it not strike you as a little peculiar that the very same Congress/federal government that mandated that ALL states provide a “free” K-12 education for ALL children, legal or not, then claims that if a state decides for its own purposes that it will extend a tuition break to children who meet certain criteria in the state, that’s suddenly acting illegally or improperly? Who is it that is tacitly supporting illegals? Who is trying to have it both ways?
The Congress, i.e., the federal government, is the body that MANDATED each and every states, and every jurisdiction within each of the states, to provide the “free” K-12 education. We won’t go into medical care, housing, etc. By Congress’s imposing this unfunded mandate on each and every state, who’s subverting the Constitution? Who is giving tacit support to illegals?
Who among us even knows how our own Congressman voted on that mandate? We might easily assume that nothing passes Congress with only votes of the TX delegation. So, what other states’ representatives encouraged this tacit support of illegals?
It costs a lot more to educate studentw to whom English is not their native language, and who logically do not have the support at home to supplement the basic ‘free’ K-12 US education. You might check the budget of your local jurisdiction’s schools to see just how much that Congressional/federal mandate is costing you. By the time TX or any other state or jurisdiction within the respective states has provided the Congressionally/federally mandated “free” K-12 education to children of illegals, that state/local jurisdiction has made an enormous investment in that student, thanks to an unfunded Congressional/federal mandate. But let’s not think about that because it doesn’t serve our present agenda now, does it?
Continue with your name calling. It speaks more to your character than to mine.
Answering a question with a question doesn’t work. How about you point me to where Perry has advocated on behalf of a federal “Dream Act.” Thank you.
Ya should quit hangin out on Cedar Springs and quoting/linking to that awful queer website, its so ronpaulish.
And do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Their daughter finished Law School and has her Law Degree.
Sheesh, you Perrydactyls are something else.
The guy is just plain STOO-PID™, deal with it.
It was the US Supreme Court that did that, in Plyler v. Doe.
Not to say that Congress isn't in agreement with SCOTUS in this matter, just saying that it wasn't Congress that handed down the "everybody in the country (legal or illegal presence makes no difference) is entitled to public K-12 education" ruling.
Rockrr— exactly the point. Arguments from the liberal side always pick up the discussion at the point where the need has arisen: illegals are here, now they need healthcare and college tuition; the poor need healthcare, food, housing, etc. These issues have to be tackled at the root: illegals have needs because they came here illegally— solve that issue first. The poor and the addicted, by and large, find themselves in financial distress because they refused to take advantage of the many opportunities made available to them, most notably freed public education, and incidentally, the opportunity not to have multiple children without benefit of marriage and the opportunity to forego taking drugs and drinking excessive amounts of alcohol. Sure these folks have needs, because (again, by and large) they brought their problems upon themselves. The formula for success has been frequently stated: graduate from high school; wait for marriage before having children and keep your debt reasonable. When we reward/rescue folks who simply refuse to do this, we encourage others to follow in their stupid footsteps.
Mea culpa. It was Congress IIRC than mandated the health provisions. The point being, that the fed govt inserts itself into local matters that the local jurisdictions have to deal with/fund, then when a state decides for its own reasons that it will extend in part a federal mandate/benefit, the feds jump in again and say, but you can’t do THAT. The feds DO try to have it both ways, and that leaves it to the states to deal with the situations the best way they know.
I chose to live in a state that not only doesn’t subsidize in-state tuition for illegals, but (last I heard) my state won’t even ADMIT them to state schools. That works for me. But I don’t live in TX/CA or any of the other states that offer the in-state tuition break. And, as far as I’m concerned, it is up to each of the states, and the feds should butt out. But that’s just me.
Hey, she was too stupid to just go to school in her own state to save money and too stupid to establish residency in another state so she wouldn’t have to pay out-of-state tuition.
You anti-Perry trolls are the limit! Thanks for the laugh !
That's a "soft" mandate, in that giving E-room health care to all comers is a condition for receiving certain federal monies. No hospital is bound to seek the federal money in the first place.
-- And, as far as I'm concerned, it is up to each of the states, and the feds should butt out. --
Immigration policy is for the feds to set. Would you say the states have the right to act in contravention of a federal law that directs the handling of those in the country illegally?
See post 172, to you just above, for a cite and text of a federal law that pertains to in-state tuition for persons in the country illegally.
I'll be one of the last people to claim that the federal government is coherent. Congress, SCOTUS, and the Executive often establish conflicting rules. The only point of consistency among the three branches (and their administrative agencies, and their czars) is that ALL of them are in favor of aggregating (and arrogating) power to the federal government.
It's the big league of finger pointing, while asserting control.
Perry: “I don’t think you have a heart,” he told Romney. ”We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society.”
So the insinuation you make is that once Perry is President he would no longer have a heart because he would change if elected. That quote alone should tell us what he would do if elected.
I realize they’re subtle, but there are differences between giving children of illegals a tuition break which is, or should be, a states right issue, and granting amnesty, which is a federal issue.
Personally, I’m not in favor of either, but then I don’t live in TX, am not familiar with its culture, and believe Texans should decide what works there when it comes to states rights. In the same vein, if MA likes a state-mandated health care program for its citizens, it’s their choice. Neither shouldn’t be foisted on AL/MI/NJ/VA/WI, or any other state.
One problem with this race so far is the total lack of value in the debates, other than the forum conducted by Sen. DeMint over Labor Day. With 7-9 candidates each given a minute to answer complex (or gotcha) questions, and the candidate next to him jumping down his throat, you won’t get informative answers. In time, hopefully, the final 3-4 will have more time to expound on their positions and = assuming Perry and Romney are among the finalists = explain how laws they enacted as governors their states relate, or not, to the nation.
The ‘don’t have a heart’ did, in fact, sour me some on Perry, but he IS still in the race, and I have not written him off because there is much to be said for his candidacy. I don’t have to cast a vote for five months, and am trying to gather all the information I can, pro and con, on each of the candidates, and am trying to do it with as much objectivity as I can muster. There are three I’ve ‘written off’ for my primary vote, but beyond that find pro and con arguments for each. Alas, no one (but for me and thee) is perfect. Whoever gets the GOP nomination will have my support and my vote.
If looking into Perry, among others, makes me a “Perrywinkle” or “quisling,” or infects me with “PDS” of either variety, I could care less. The name calling around here has become more than a little tedious, it’s become repulsive.
You conveniently forget that the vote was veto proof, what did he have to gain besides posturing to veto the bill? Spend more tax payer money having them override his veto.
You conveniently forget that the vote was veto proof, what did he have to gain besides posturing to veto the bill? Spend more tax payer money having them override his veto.
Now that is really weak. Are you saying that from his “you have no heart” comment we are to take that he was simply signing the bill because there was a veto proof vote? Really?
What do you mean by “politically obtainable”? What other laws should we decide not to enforce? Maybe we ought to just strike the law off the books because if we aren’t going to follow our own laws there’s no point in having them. And why should we expect others to follow our laws if we aren’t going to follow them ourselves? And if the criteria for enforcing a law will be how it will effect the children there’s a lot of murderers, rapists, drug dealers and thieves that should be let out of jail.
And what do we say to the immigrants who did things the right way and came here legally to make a better life for their children (half my family is Mexican, no one came illegally)? “Hey, sorry for the slap in the face, but hey, it’s your fault for trying to do it legally! Hope you learned your lesson, years spent working, learning English, taking citizenship classes, becoming a citizen was just damn dumb. You could’ve hid in the shadows in a illegal alien friendly state popped out a few babies and you all would’ve been able to become citizens when those kids get older. We here in the US are too concerned about how it looks to enforce our laws than having the integrity to actually enforce them! Suckers!”
Cindie
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.