He is pretty close to one! Moron that is!
If I’m not mistaken, they’re not getting FREE tuition, they’re getting in-state tuition. They still have to pay that in-state tuition. On another thread it was noted that the ‘state schools’ where they enjoy this benefit are mostly 2 year community colleges, and the savings is under $2k/year.
The article sets up a false argument that a student from MS who wants to go to UT-Austin would have to pay out-of-state tuition. The argument leaves out that the MS Student could go to Ole Miss or any community college in NS and pay in-state tuition.
Every state in the union has its own colleges/universities with in-state tuition. TX and some other states have chosen one route; other states, such as VA, have chosen another path.
Why isn’t this a states right issue? And why can’t folks accept that TX made its choice, and just leave it at that?
So, these high school graduates go to college just like any graduate of Texas high schools do. Anyone who understands that is no moron.
That's an interesting slant. I'm not poor, but most of the crew I associate with would be hard-pressed to find it in their budget to pay ytthe in-state rates. Adding $100K to it would price them right out of the picture. But I suppose them illegals have a higher earning potential than the average Joe.
Being a Texas resident and voter, why is it that no one ever heard of this In-State Tuition for children of illegals until the debate coyotes looking to curry favor with Romney, brought it up to smear Perry? This Bill 1403 was not widely known because it was and is a very minor issue among many greater issues in Texas.
The Bill was passed in 2001 by a then dem majority legislature, by an overwhelming veto proof majority. The dems saw this minor issue as a way to enlist a new voting block, Hispanics, into their group. The dems and Texas GOP knew that Texas had become almost equal in voter strength between dem and GOP (following 100 years of solid dem rule), but neither had a clear majority of the voters to get or retain rule. The Hispanic vote gave whichever side that majority, if they could convince them to side with them.
In 2001 the dems saw an opportunity to befriend the new Hispanic voter and possible have them for life, like they have Texas blacks. Enter the In-State Tuition for illegal’s children, an minor but possibly wedge issue to collect those Hispanic voters. Texas GOP legislature’s saw this and seeing it as a relatively minor issue said “We too”, to not have it a clear cut Dem vs GOP issue and to salvage some goodwill in the Hispanic voter community. Perry being caught without any power over this legislation, also saw the advantage of dulling the dem’s effort to endear the Hispanic’s and did not do the veto it “out of principle” (as some freepers scream illogically).
To some degree it worked for the GOP. When Perry ran for re-election he was able to get enough Hispanic votes to overcome the dem/blacks voter block. We would have had back to back Dem Governors had the Hispanics lockstepped with the dems, but enough had the good sense not to.
Unlike Governor’s in other States, the Texas Governor is unable to ignore the Hispanic vote.
As the Governor of Texas, Perry is Constitutionally obligated and responsible to administer all the laws, not like nobama who picks and chooses (immigration and Border Protection for instance).
Perry’s adherence to his “Texas Constitutional” responsibilities, goes well to show he would likely not act as nobama and would enforce the US immigration laws and protect our borders and as a Border State Governor would recognize the true gravity of the issue unlike someone from Mass. or Minn. or “never before elected, thus no record” candidates.
Here at FR we demand adherence to the Constitution and rightly so. Some on FR want to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they want because of their own self-interest.
America is not a pure democracy, where the majority has absolute rule. We are a Representative Republic setup by the Fore Fathers to offer some protection to a minority from the absolute rule by a majority. Some on FR either don’t remember that or just prefer to ignore it.
In Texas, Perry as Governor, recognized that “total” Constitutional responsibility and does his best to be the Governor of TEXAS, not just white conservative Texas. Is that not what we should also want from a President?
Things are never as clear-cut or as simple as some pretend. I suggest the supporters of “other” candidates stop and think before smearing just to promote their favorite, it does America no good.