Posted on 10/06/2011 11:05:35 AM PDT by smoothsailing
October 6, 2011
John Hawkins recently interviewed Governor Rick Perry about border security, illegal immigration, and his record as governor.
On the Federal DREAM Act:
The federal DREAM Act is an amnesty bill, and I strongly oppose amnesty. The Texas educational residency bill was vastly different.
Because the federal government has failed in its basic duty to protect our borders, states are forced to deal with illegal immigrant issues.
In Texas, we had to deal with the children of illegal immigrants residing in our state and attending our schools, as the federal government requires states to educate these children through the public school system. Lawmakers in Texas – indisputably one of the most conservative states in America – were virtually unanimous in their decision.
The Legislature determined the payment of in-state college tuition is available to all students who have lived in Texas for at least three years and graduated from a public high school. If you meet those requirements, you pay in-state tuition, whether you relocated from Oklahoma, Idaho, Canada or Mexico. The only difference is that Texas residents who aren’t documented must be on the path to pursue U.S. citizenship to be allowed to pay in-state tuition.
There were a number of reasons the bill received widespread support among conservatives. Importantly, it has never had a cost to Texas taxpayers. In fact, our institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law were repealed.
And it would lower the odds that these students would receive subsidized health care or end up in prison. Protecting taxpayers was a serious concern, given that a Supreme Court decree already requires taxpayers to pay for K-12 education for undocumented students.
On the Texas tution law:
I too oppose the federal DREAM Act and will oppose it as President. Because the federal government has failed to secure the border, states have had to act. In Texas we have sent Texas Rangers to the border, spent hundreds of millions to fight border crime, outlawed driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and passed Voter ID. On the issue of all Texas residents paying in-state tuition, I regret the comment from the debate. It was a poor choice of words, and it wasn’t fair to those who disagree with the policy.
On abolishing “sanctuary cities” in Texas
I called for abolishing sanctuary cities in my last State of the State address, and made it an emergency item for the Legislature. I’m a firm believer in giving law enforcement the discretion they need to do their job. Sanctuary city policies handcuff law enforcement officers in order to further a political agenda.
On banning drivers licenses for illegal immigrants:
I signed that bill because getting a driver’s license is a privilege, not a right. It just doesn’t make sense to me to extend that privilege to individuals who are here illegally.
Additionally, I vetoed a bill that would have allowed the use of a matricula consular, which is an ID card used by the Mexican government, to get a driver’s license in Texas.
Driver’s licenses are used for a host of activities besides driving, like making financial transactions, boarding airplanes, renting vehicles and proving your identity to government authorities. The Department of Homeland Security has expressed concern that the matricula consular is particularly susceptible to fraud, which means you can’t rely on it to prove someone’s identity. So if you allow someone to use it to get a driver’s license, you’ve got some pretty serious homeland security implications.
On the Arizona law:
I support the right of each state to come up with its own plan to address the federal government’s failure on border security and illegal immigration.
The federal government has failed to secure the border, and states are left fending for themselves. States have every right under the 10th Amendment to pass laws and make decisions for themselves. That’s why Texas supported Arizona when the Obama Administration sued to overturn Arizona law.
If Washington politicians don’t like the way state leaders are cleaning up their mess, they should quit complaining and pick up a broom. If they just did their job securing the border in the first place, states wouldn’t be forced to develop with their own policies.
In Texas, our efforts have focused on stopping the illegal flow of narcotics and people before they cross the border, rather than once they get here. It’s the philosophy that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
We’ve spent about $400 million of our state tax dollars to put more boots on the ground, more helicopters in the sky and better intelligence in the hands of law enforcement.
And we’ve seen real results. Our surge in manpower has created major disruptions for the drug cartels and human smuggling rings. We’ve seized millions of pounds of drugs, taken 3,500 illegal weapons off the street and made America safer.
Securing the border and enforcing immigration laws are the federal government’s constitutional responsibility, and it’s time for Washington to do its job.
In the meantime, I respect the right of all states to develop their own solutions, whether they use the Texas model or the Arizona model. I applaud my fellow governors who are showing leadership on this issue, because President Obama certainly has not.
On the border fence:
I have long been a proponent of strategic fencing because it is a critical component of border security, and it works when used in the right places.
I think what caused the hang up was that after it was passed, it was amended to give Homeland Security complete discretion on how, when and whether the fence ever gets built. Obviously with this president, that means it will never be completed.
If I’m elected, I will direct my Secretary of Homeland Security to expedite construction of strategic fencing along the border, especially in high traffic areas where manpower alone is insufficient to do the job.
But it’s important to remember that fencing is only one component of an overall border security strategy. A fence is only as secure as it is manned.
That’s why I would increase manpower on the border, starting with thousands of National Guard and border patrol agents, and I’d also make greater use of unmanned aerial vehicles to help gather real-time law enforcement intelligence.
We know for a fact that increased manpower is effective, because we’ve proved it in Texas with our $400 million border security effort.
For John Hawkin’s full interview, click here.
Perry ping.
Thanks....
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Nice...thanks.
How many days does it take for him to zero-in that poodle shooter?
I too oppose the federal DREAM Act and will oppose it as President. Because the federal government has failed to secure the border, states have had to act. In Texas we have sent Texas Rangers to the border, spent hundreds of millions to fight border crime, outlawed driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and passed Voter ID. On the issue of all Texas residents paying in-state tuition, I regret the comment from the debate. It was a poor choice of words, and it wasn’t fair to those who disagree with the policy.
I guess he is “heartless” too?
A pleasure, FRiend! :)
He can out shoot you!
:o)
The "anti-Mitt Romney", Rick Perry: I too oppose Obama's DREAM act. See, my all-american Perry DREAM act was different. What we did on the state level was vastly different than what they then proposed on the federal level, even though we both want to give benefits to illegal aliens so they can attend college.
What a ridiculous post. Comparing RomneyCare to the Texas in-state tuition law shows almost zero understanding of the issues at hand.
Maybe. Maybe not. I was NRA marksman and sharpshooter qualifed, small bore (.22) at age 13.
It’s just that you keep showing that picture, over-and-over, I suppose because you want to show that he’s `just like us.’
Keep it up! I hope you like peas!
This interview should clear things up. It is a keeper.
When Rick Perry says he wants to “legitimize" the "economic contributions” of illegals he can only be talking about illegals here in the United States now.
Only the illegals here now are "making an economic contribution" to the US economy.
It cannot be clearer that Rick Perry wants to legalize the illegals here now.
He would do this by waving a magic wand over their heads and calling them "guest workers."
But it doesn't matter what you call it. If we legally give the right to live in the U.S. to people who have broken our laws and invaded our country by the millions and are costing us tens of billions of dollars every year in our schools, emergency rooms, jails and prisons, court system, welfare payments, identity theft, gang activity, drunk-driving deaths and numerous other social costs, then that is amnesty.
Some claim Rick Perry does NOT want amnesty because Rick has said that it is not his intention to give them citizenship, only to let them live here legally.
BUT THAT IS STILL AMNESTY. Amnesty by definition means allowing people who have broken the law to not receive the penalty prescribed by law for their law-breaking.
Under our laws, these people are required to be deported. But Rick Perry would NOT deport them, he would let them live here legally as "guest workers."
If we legalize the 20-38 million illegals here now, what will the consequences of that be?
Does anyone here really believe that Americans will be comfortable holding down people to "second class citizens" who have the right to live here, work here, raise their families here, pay taxes, but NOT VOTE?
What will be the effect on national elections of a new block of 20-38 million largely unassimilated foreign nationals given amnesty and the right to vote?
A President Rick Perry will be the final nail in the transformation of the United States from what was once a free republic of limited government and free enterprise to a Latin America-style society with a large population of socialist-supporting people and a small caste of crony-capitalist statists.
Perry is the top second amendment man running. In fact, in recent years I don’t know of a president who is as good as Perry is on that issue. That is an important issue for most of us conservatives. People appreciate that in Perry. He sure as hack isn’t going to take away our guns. So I think it needs to be driven a bit harder. Let the others running show us their hobbies. I can bet you it isn’t going to a shooting range.
SOOOO will Perry enforce Federal law and send all his educated illegals back to their country of origin??????? I ‘know’ what his record is, what I want to know is what will he do as President?
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.