Here's Perry attending a meeting of the racist organization, La Raza, in 2010.
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."
I agree - they should STOP at a date certain [say 1 OCT 2011] letting these illegals in the military ...
OTOH, those that are already in should be grandfathered - especially if they have served with distinction in Afghanistan and/or Iraq ...
Give them an extra bennie - full citizenship, IF they serve the FULL 20 years to retirement ...
Those that choose to get out before 20 years get an Honorable Discharge [if they have earned it] AND a free first-class ticket home [and a military escort to the airport] ...
Uh, I was stationed in Germany from 1956-58, (just 11-13 years after WW-II had ended) doubt if any American fathered Germans were of the draft age at that time.
The ones I referenced were young men who wanted to escape the rampant postwar poverty and devastation in Germany.
Uh, I was stationed in Germany from 1956-58, (just 11-13 years after WW-II had ended) doubt if any American fathered Germans were of the draft age at that time.
The ones I referenced were young men who wanted to escape the rampant postwar poverty and devastation in Germany.
Here's Perry attending a meeting of the racist organization, La Raza, in 2010.
No they have not.
There is a difference between opposing “diversity” and being “troglodytes knuckledraggers.” I do not condemn anyone for opposing “diversity” when it is used to advance an agenda contrary to conservative principles. E.g., to the extent diversity suggests that people are wiser when they know the values and beliefs of other people, then diversity is a good thing. However, if diversity is merely code for reverse discrimination, it is evil. Language like “ we is the world we is the peeples” has the tinge of racism. I am NOT suggesting you’re a racist; although if I were to call you one I’m not sure you would see it as an insult. What I am saying is that if you wish to persuade rather than emote, language is important.
By your logic 17 year olds who lied about their age to enlist in WWII are criminals. Let’s assume for sake of argument there was no lying involved. How you ask? Well what if a kid is brought here @ 3, provided documents by his parents, and honestly believes he’s a citizen. At 18, with a HS diploma he enlists in the military using the documents provided by his parents and accepted by the government. He serves. Let’s add he wins medals of valor. Perhaps is wounded in the line of duty. At some point, it’s learned that he gained entry into the United States unlawfully. What would be the American way to treat him? BTW, I’m with you on excluding liars from expedited citizenship.
It is not the state’s job to round up illegal immigrants and deport them. That responsibility is constitutionally assigned to the federal government, and no state can deport people.
That is a straw man that you're knocking down. I never said that states had the authority to round up illegal immigrants and deport them. Here is what I said:
The federal government should stop meddling in state affairs and let states pass heavy fines on employers that hire them.
Do you have a problem with this? The Justice Department has sued certain states that have tried to crack down on employers hiring illegals. Surely you wouldn't disagree with the proposition that a state has a right to fine employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. That is certainly the position consistent with the Tenth Amendment.
So to the degree you in one state pay for illegals in another state, the fact that they are in the state is the federal government’s fault. And the fact that you have to pay illegal’s medicare and medicaid is also the federal government’s fault. And the fact you have to educate them in public schools is the federal government’s fault (well, the courts, but same thing).
I agree that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to enforce our immigration laws and I have said as much. I agree that the fact that we have to pay for illegals Medicaid (I don't know of any illegal that collects Medicare) is also the fault of the feds. Same goes for public schools (Plyer v. Doe). Brennan's footnote from that decision gave us birthright citizenship for the children of illegals.
A state granting in-state tuition to illegals does not cost any state but the state that does it. They are state schools, and the state runs them and pays for them, and if they want to allow illegals to attend and pay cheap rates, it is the taxpayers of that state who bear the burden.
I could make the argument that it actually costs all of us money, because 99.9% of all colleges and college systems in this country receive federal financial aid and student loans to pay for students that attend the schools, and the institutions definitely factor these account receivables into their decisions on where to set tuition for a given year. Although illegal immigrants are ineligible for federal financial aid, the tuition is set at the same rate for every in-state student, so the illegal immigrants still benefit from the lower state tuition that is subsidized by the federal tuition aid dollars, no matter what department the college spends them in. In this regard, states with almost no illegals enrolled as college students (states without in-state tuition rates for illegals) subsidize the states with more illegals enrolled as college students.
Just as if a state wants to give out more welfare, or run more programs for the unemployed, that’s their business, or should be. What a state decides to do with it’s money is up to the residents of the state.
This is a different scenario from the ones mentioned above because illegals are not eligible for welfare or for unemployment insurance (although apparently some illegals still collect unemployment insurance despite this prohibition).
And no matter who we elect, and how much we complain, there will be a point, somewhere down the road, where children of illegals who grew up here will end up getting legal residence of some sort (at best, we can hope for a non-citizen version where they have to apply and wait in line. When you put to the american people the question “If a child has spent his entire formative live in the united states, and has no knowledge or connection to his “country of origin”, and that child has attended and graduated our schools, and attended and graduated our colleges, and is trained to be an effective member of society, should we deport them, or give them green cards?”, the overwhelming majority is going to be for letting them stay.
I completely agree with you. Amnesty is inevitable as more and more children are born to illegal aliens. They will turn 18 and be able to vote, and they will vote for representatives who support amnesty for the voters' brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers. I don't share your optimism that they will get some type of non-citizen pathway. They will get the full enchilada (not trying to sound racist, but it's just the first thing that popped into my head). There will be a small fine (under $2,000, most likely, which will probably be payable over a 10-year period), a 2-year wait for a green card, and then U.S. citizenship after 5 years. It will be a real smack in the face to the tens of millions of people who would love to get into this country, many of whom would contribute far more in productivity than the illegals who we currently have.
People do NOT associate the problem of illegals with kids who speak english, are ingrained into our culture, and have college degrees. It won’t be a “dream act”, but there will be allowances. This isn’t going to happen soon, but no amount of you and I complaining is going to stop it.
I think it will happen by 2025. I don't think it will happen as long as Republicans control at least one House of Congress houses or the presidency, but demographic changes are going to simply overwhelm the opponents of illegal immigration.
I do agree with you that allowing them to attend college at all, much less more cheaply, is simply moving the problem down the road, because as you said how would they get a job?
Yep, this is precisely my point. Why grant them college degrees when they cannot use it to get a better-paying job? The only reason to do it is with the expectation that we will eventually grant them amnesty, and that is what makes it disgusting. Take Texas, for example. UT Austin is a great school. Illegal immigrants there are taking spots from presumably qualified Texas legal residents and legal non-residents, and if that wasn't bad enough, they aren't even able to use that degree after they graduate. This doesn't benefit the state of Texas at all because they are subsidizing the in-state tuition with the expectation that the person will graduate and get a JOB, and not a job washing dishes (nothing wrong with washing dishes, but you don't need a college degree for it), but a job in engineering or computer science or teaching.
Except I guess if the do well, and have a useful degree, and then simply go back home and apply for a visa, they will probably get a work visa through one of our skilled worker immigration programs.
Except for the fact that a lot of the news articles I've seen on these stellar illegal immigrant students never mention the important facts. The articles always seem to mention their high school GPA but they never mention their SAT scores, probably because they aren't that stellar. Most of the articles that I can remember reading that dealt with this issue involved illegal students earning degrees in majors like political science or history (or worse, [insert ethnic group] studies). We have absolutely no need for people with these degrees in the current economy with a 9.1% unemployment rate. We didn't even have a need for them with a 6% unemployment rate, so that's a sunk cost.
I made a response to 278 but it hasn’t shown up yet (I’m new here). I hope it didn’t get lost. I spent about 15 minutes responding to each of Charles’s points but the main point I made is that a state can do a lot to take care of the illegal problem without deportation. Punishing employers in the state that hire illegal immigrants with fines that get exponentially larger will take care of the problem. You’ll see a voluntary deportation to other states like you’re seeing out of Arizona.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/citizenship.htm
I worked with a medical assistant - one of the best I’ve ever worked with - who had been an Army medic. His parents brought him to the US when he was a child, he went through school south of San Antonio and joined the Army from high school.
When he got out after a full tour and service in Afghanistan, he applied for citizenship.
The new president?
I have no idea what green card TAC fighters are.
In my line of work any person with a “green card” is a legal alien. Legal aliens are the people that go through the trouble of coming to the US legally. Legal aliens follow the law. Since legal aliens follow the law we know they respect our country.
Illegal aliens don’t follow the law. Illegal aliens break the law whenever it serves their purpose and as such we know illegal aliens don’t respect or have any loyalty to the USA.
You are definitely on the right track. These illegal aliens don't want immmigration laws enforced. These kids are marxists. They hate America. It's a sad commentary about conservatism that so many Freepers neither know what illegal means or have any idea what the "rule of law" means.
Food for thought....
Illegal immigrants are currently subject to the draft.
I agree as well... but must be a six year stint.
I asked my brother about this (six months from retiring in USN). He said they are not illegal. They are here legally and everyone he has known nationalizes or becomes a citizen while he is in.
He said you can join from another country, so it would be silly to sign up here as an illegal. Why tromp across the desert and fence when you can sign up and come over legally.
My post to Charles showed up - post #348.
Illegal immigrants are currently subject to the draft.
http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm
Now that is something we need to change. I'm opposed to conscription in principle but letting illegals be subject to the draft lends an air of legitimacy to them, like they're really Americans. They are not Americans in any sense of the word and should not be subject to a draft.
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.