Posted on 08/20/2011 1:32:05 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
ROCK HILL, SC -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) spoke for a few minutes to reporters here about his views on immigration, which have gotten him into some hot water with the conservative base he hopes to woo as his presidential campaign spools up. What he offered up was a little something for everyone.
Perry said states should be responsible for their own immigration laws, also stating that the federal government must step up border enforcement. He also spelled out his support for a national program that would allow illegal immigrants who serve in the military to become citizens.
Illegal immigration is, of course, a core issue among conservatives, who continue to reject any plan that allows existing illegal immigrants to become citizens as part of comprehensive immigration reform. In Texas, Perry has taken a number of positions on the issue at the state level that have ruffled feathers on the national anti-illegal immigrant right -- including advocating for and signing a Texas version of the DREAM Act.
He opposes the national DREAM Act debated in the last Congress.
But in South Carolina Saturday, he said he supported a main tenet of that bill -- that illegal immigrants can earn their citizenship by serving honorably in the military.
"I think there is a path to citizenship for those young men and women who have served their country," Perry said in response to a question from NachoFiesta blogger Sean Quinn. "That is a very unique set of individuals, and different than folks who have come here illegally and not given back in that particular way."
But on other controversial immigration laws, Perry said the states should be able to do what they wish.
"I am a big believer in the 10th Amendment," Perry said. He said "state by state, they need to make those decisions" about charging illegal immigrants in-state college tuition prices (as Perry has advocated in Texas) or passing laws like Arizona's SB 1070.
"I happen to believe with all my heart that the states would be best served by being able to be free to make these decisions themselves," Perry said. "I didn't think that for the state of Texas and Arizona-exact law was right for the state of Texas. I didn't want to make our law enforcement officers federal immigration officers. So, state by state ought to be the way to do that, not by the federal government making one size fits all."
But Perry said the federal government needs to lead the way in some areas of immigration, such as a national reform package.
"Once we secure the border, we can have a conversation about immigration reform in this country, but not until," he said. "You must have the federal government putting the resources, the boots on the ground, the aviation assets in the air, and secure that border so that we know that the border is secure before we have a conversation about any immigration reform."
What lie? By the way, your Latin quote is quite telling......"Kill them all, God will know His own". stormfronter.....
I am sure it is the same now. My guess is that the journalist equates illegal immigrant and immigrant resident. We have no quote in the article from Perry. We don’t know what he actually said.
Are you telling me that you can't find any demographics on the internet for the armed forces? Truly dude....here's a hint, they come, disproportionally, from "red states". It's not a secret.
Immigration to America almost stopped during the Great Depression.
OK, I guess you think that an intelligence agent from Red China, the Democratic Republic of Korea, or the Islamic Republic of Iran who manages to get himself a position in the U.S. military should be granted citizenship, right?
End of story.
So someone can serve "honorably" after lying and violating the law in order to get into the military?
Emma was Jewish. I'm sure she'd held out for an exception for Mexicans.
“An immigrant is here legally. An illegal alien isn’t.
agree entirely
So to respond to your question are any of the candidates 'good' on immigration I would say not good enough. But I know no one will be so I'm looking for the one, male or female, black or white who will be the best in that regard. With his open borders position Perry doesn't even come close.
I like Cain too.
The in-state tuition means Mexicans get in-state tuition and Americans don’t. It’s that simple. It’s anti-American.
“I’m sure she’d held out for an exception for Mexicans.”
argument from silence. Her real problem was existing Jews in NYC who discriminated against Jewish immigrants.
Illegal aliens are not allowed in the US military. This article is poorly written and Rick Perry mispoke.
The actual situation is that legal immigrants can serve and can be put on an accelerated path to citizenship if they serve. Usually you have to wait 7 years to apply for citizenship.
Why would someone want to become a citizen sooner? One good reason is you can bring spouses and children over here more easily. Parents too. Legal non-citizens cannot do this.
Exactly how does a law breaking illegal get into the military.
I remember decades ago while serving in Germany, many young German men signed up for getting into US forces, but they did so while on German soil.
Perry's sex life is really improving as the pukeneos line up under his desk.....probably had to install a Take-A-Number machine to control the neo traffic.
Here's hoping Perry's got the stamina for all the lewinskys coming his way (/snix).
You are assuming it takes a felony to keep you out of military. A misdemeanor is sufficient if found guilty with in a specific period of time.
BTW...I consider being labeled a "rabid anti-Perry poster" a compliment. After all, despite the best efforts of you Perry supporters, this IS still a conservative forum. :-P
I firmly believe that states offering this without offering this same benefit are violating federal law on this matter, and this is one of the few areas where Congress actually has authority to legislate. I live in New York and we have a similar law as well. Look at this:
I am quoting from 8 U.S.C. § 1623 : US Code - Section 1623: Limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment of aliens not lawfully present on basis of residence for higher education benefits:
"(a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident."
Now the statute seems to clearly state that a U.S. state cannot offer a college benefit to an illegal immigrant if it doesn't also offer that benefit to any U.S. citizen/national who is also a non-resident. California has a law similar to that of Texas and New York's. A group of out-of-state residents seeking in-state tuition rates in California sued the state, arguing that the California law giving preferential tuition rates to illegal immigrants without giving them to all other U.S. citizen/nationals was a blatant violation of the federal law quoted above. The trial judge dismissed the lawsuit, but a California appellate court reviewed the decision and struck down the law, finding it conflicted with the federal statute. The state of California then appealed to the California Supreme Court where they found a welcome reception. The California Supreme Court upheld the law giving in-state tuition to illegals and said that the federal law did not preempt it, because the preferential tuition was based on the fact that the illegal had graduated from a California high school, and not based on the fact that they RESIDED in California. If that logic sounds ridiculous to you, it's because it is ridiculous. The case in question is Martinez v. Regents of the University of California. The students petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, and on June 6, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari without comment, as they do with most. If the Supremes are not going to get involved in it, then it appears that states are free to flout federal law on this matter. If it was only in-state money going to fund the illegals, then I wouldn't care as much, but every state in the union contributes taxes for things like Medicaid, and the illegals are eligible for emergency coverage in hospitals. Offering tuition to illegal immigrants serves as a backdoor attempt by the state to legitimize them, and is inappropriate in my opinion. As long as taxpayers from all 50 states are footing the bills for illegals, we don't need to encourage them to be here by having state policies granting them in-state tuition.
You claim it ~ you get the obligations with it. I knew a Danish fellow in college who'd already served in the Danish army (a Nato ally BTW). He was a legal immigrant to the US. He was called for the draft but he got credit for his 18 months in the Danish military ~ and went in as an E-5.
He also knew the ropes on this stuff before hand.
Bill Clinton took his first physical for the draft at a US base in England.
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.