Well, everybody including Obama say that they want to secure the border, so it does not mean anything.
I know there are few proven enforcement tools:
1: e-verify
2: fence
3: strict state laws, like those in AL, AZ
He is against all of them. Instead, he supports tax subsidies for illegals and has been in touch with hate group La Raza. Imaginary wall is the non-solution supported by all amnesty activists since they know it does not work and besides, future admins can end it anytime.
Posting lies doesn't help the conversation.
Gov. Perry supports states having the right to enact laws to combat illegal immigration. He knows that until something is done on the federal level, filing lawsuits will only cost the states legal fees. Perry and the state of Texas (along with other states) have filed with the court to support the AZ law.
Perry has always supported strategic fencing in urban areas as well as surveillance and lots of boots on the ground.
Rick Perry on E-verify:
"I agree that some kind of electronic verification system is needed so we can make sure employers comply with the law not to hire illegal immigrants. E-Verify is a federal government created and run program, and as a result there have been a number of problems with it so far. The Department of Homeland Security estimated the system could fail to identify more than half of all illegal immigrants.
But just because it has problems doesn’t mean we should throw employee verification out. It means we should make it work. Employee verification needs to be accurate so American citizens aren’t denied jobs based on bad data and undocumented immigrants don’t slip through the system. And it needs to be less cumbersome for employers to use, so it’s not costing them money they could be using to create jobs.
So as president, I’d work to put in place an E-Verify system that’s more accurate, less burdensome and really delivers the results we need it to." "
You are either ignorant of the facts or you are deliberately lying.
Perry has done more to secure the border than Obama has or any of the Republican candidates.
Perry and his Attorney General went to bat for Arizona against the Federal Government in the lawsuit.
Perry is for e-verify but only after it is fixed and working accurately.
Perry is for a fence in areas that it will work.
Perry does not support any tax subsidies for illegals.
Texas Universities make a NET PROFIT of $11 million dollars a year from tuition PAID by kids who were brought over the border by their parents that have qualified for college.
And regarding your LaRaza statement:
You are confusing this group with a group called Raza Unida.
The one Perry talked to does not believe in Reconquista.
Here are some facts and you can research to find out for yourself at the NCLR website: http://www.nclr.org/index.php/about_us/faqs/the_truth_about_nclr/other_issues/
Some critics mistakenly assert that activist Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez was a founder of NCLR.
In fact, while Gutierrez was a key player in a number of Mexican American organizations, including the Mexican American Youth Organization (MAYO), the Brown Berets, and the Raza Unida Political Party, he never had any connection to NCLR.
Indeed Jose Angel Gutierrez himself has articulated a clear distinction between himself and his allies and NCLR, an organization he criticizes as being “cautious and careful.”
http://www.nclr.org/index.php/about_us/faqs/the_truth_about_nclr/reconquista_and_segregation/
misconception about NCLR is the allegation that we support a “Reconquista,” or the right of Mexico to reclaim land in the southwestern United States.
NCLR has not made and does not make any such claim; indeed, such a claim is so far outside of the mainstream of the Latino community that we find it incredible that our critics raise it as an issue.
NCLR has never supported and does not endorse the notion of a “Reconquista” or “Aztlán.” Similarly, NCLR’s critics falsely claim that the statement “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada,” [“For the community everything, outside the community nothing”] is NCLR’s motto.
NCLR unequivocally rejects this statement.