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."
Okay....you cited post 93, and.....
What is your problem with post 93?
Because the media is radically liberal and wants to be soft on illegal immigration. They'd luuuv a choice between two open borders presidents. They know it's one of the big issues that can destroy conservatism.
But I digress, why aren't YOU upset that he said this? You really ought to be. If he didn't say it, then show us.
You said you served with "illegals". Did they have green cards or were they truly "illegal"? If you served with non-green card immigrants, this is a major problem.
Aliens that have green cards are LEGALLY residing in the country. ILLEGAL aliens don't have GREEN CARDS.
Illegal aliens do not have green cards, that is why they are called illegal aliens. They don't have the proper documents to work or reside in the US.
I understand that. Are you saying you, personally, served with non-green card immigrants? I'm confused on you syntax....
Dbeers; 10th Amendment Guy ... What precisely is the rule of law when all law is made by politicians and interpreted by judges? Spend a little time in a courtroom and you’ll soon realize that the law is nothing but exceptions and nuances. Have you ever been involved in trying to enact legislation or testified in front of a legislative committee? It’s worse than watching sausage being made. Today’s law is tomorrow’s afterthought. Your prattle about the “rule of law,” a concept you need to define, is more soliloquy than argument.
Its sophistry to state “illegal is illegal” as that which is illegal today may not be tomorrow (how’s that 18th amendment doing?)
The “exceptions” I “champion” (I prefer to think of them as people) may very well be allowed to jump to the head of the illegal line petitioning within the law for citizenship (Werner Von Braun) or we could with a new law change the illegal appellation to legal status and bump to the back of the line the dolts that followed the law.
While I agree with the claim that amnesty for illegals’ is blatantly unfair (as opposed to subtly unfair) to those people waiting in line to enter this country, I have reservations concerning the sincerity of those who claim concern for those waiting in line. Assuming an honest concern for the fairness, well life isn’t fair. If the line waiters don’t like being bumped, they can head for France. But you may be on to something with your suggestion we let everyone who wants to come to this country come here (though a background che
Extremism gets you an Obama administration ending deportation as we know it, instead of a McCain and a less (slightly? much?) generous approach to undocumented immigrants. Who meets your litmus test instead of Perry? Bachman (though she’s not a witch). Ron Paul (what does a libertarian do about a border)?
My friend, you would do well to remember Ronald Reagan’s quote: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor.” The practice of “single-issue” politics and demanding strict adherence to a rigid ideology from candidates is more destructive of this country than a RINO.
I cannot paint all illegals with a broad brush. To me the issue is not how someone got here but instead whether or not that person’s presence has added value to this country. ck may help...no more Tony Montanas!)Dbeers; 10th Amendment Guy ... What precisely is the rule of law when all law is made by politicians and interpreted by judges? Spend a little time in a courtroom and you’ll soon realize that the law is nothing but exceptions and nuances. Have you ever been involved in trying to enact legislation or testified in front of a legislative committee? It’s worse than watching sausage being made. Today’s law is tomorrow’s afterthought. Your prattle about the “rule of law,” a concept you need to define, is more soliloquy than argument.
Don’t have problems with legal aliens. I served with them, too. But the title is “Illegal Immigrant who serve in the Military deserver Citizenship.”
And I say that, if an illegal alien makes it into the US Armed Forces, then you have a SERIOUS security breach.
Very true. That discernment is needed in today’s world. Thank you LR. 607th ACS
It'll take border enforcement and internal enforcement. And you'll never cut off all the jobs and benefits because courts have ruled that illegals can't be denied many benefits and there will always be illegals used in the underground, off the books cash economy.
Half measures won't work no matter how badly someone wants to make Perry's absurd, have it both ways policies sound reasonable. He's as bad as W on immigration.
And, until the anchor baby nonsense is ended, there will still be pregnant women entering illegally and going into hospitals who cannot deny them maternity services.
It's silly to think jobs are the only reason people come here illegally. And, again, courts have prevented states from denying benefits to illegals.
But if we enforce the border with double fencing and personnel, and enforce the law internally, we could cut out 90% of the illegal entries. It'll never be perfect, but it can be improved dramatically over what it's been for years when no president even wanted to enforce immigration law.
I agree that the feds should allow states to do more — but that would have to start with a federal law of course, because they have the immigration responsibility.
On the other hand, I don’t think states should have to use their own money to handle illegal immigrants, because that IS a federal government function, and border state residents shouldn’t bear the brunt of the costs of handling the federal failure to control the border.
As another freeper pointed out, the problem with the college education is that when they are done, they are still illegals.
However, having a college education doesn’t change that, so does it really matter whether they move into another state before they go to college, vs. after?
The one thing that I can guarantee is that if they are going to a Texas college, then for those years they are not going to move to another state while they are doing that.
It’s not a state’s fault the the federal government has decided to not deport illegals, or have decided to let children of illegals be citizens at birth. So I don’t think it’s right to argue against a state using their own money as they see fit simply because it hurts other states BECAUSE of decisions the feds made.
See my #348
Yeah, what a bunch of crap. They are taking American jobs and billions in taxpayer funds. Heck, in some states all they have to do is have babies and they get cash every month for each child...plus citizenship! what are we, a bunch of idiots? Stop the magnets, and they will have to go home. Enforce the laws for employment now and do not give me that 10th ammendment excuse!
I see your points. I just don’t believe in assisting illegals do anything except leave our country.
What part of “Illegal” are you failing to comprehend? Quit being obtuse.
I lived on the Mexican border for several years and witnessed the problems first hand.
The vast majority of 'anchor babies' born in the U.S. are born in midwife homes, not hospitals. It's a major cottage business on the border. A more efficient system, that is commonly used, is the babies are actually born in Mexico. Then paperwork is created falsifying that the birth was in the U.S. Counterfeit papers is another major cottage industry along the border.
The last figure I heard for Parkland Hospital in Dallas was 40,000 anchor babies delivered per year. I've never seen any stats that break-out how many are born in hospitals or delivered by midwives.
The 40,000 is too high, but Parkland deliveries are 70% for illegals and the number is probably around 20,000 now.
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.