The good neighbor appears to be taking over our yard.
Before I get attacked with ad hominems and ugly substanceless comments, let me say that I am not anti-Perry. I agree with him on most of his positions, some of them quite strongly.
The problem as I see it is that the illegal immigration issue is a game-changer. If we legalize the illegals, then the politics of much of the country will eventually come to resemble that of California.
As we saw in the last election, when most of the rest of the country punished the Democrats for Obama's abysmal performance as president, in California a socialist pig like Barbara Boxer and a moonbat like Jerry Brown skated to easy wins. The demographics in California have reached a point where policy debates are irrelevant. This is characteristic of much of Latin America.
When we reach that point, debates over debt limits and deficit spending and anti-free market policies and big government corruption and abuse of power will be meaningless. There will be a margin in favor of socialism and as soon as the socialists get a stranglehold on power, they will move to silence their political opponents as they have done everywhere else they gain power.
My specific points:
1. Perry is against building the fence. The American people strongly support building a fence. A fence would be a tremendous force multiplier in controlling the flow of illegals, drugs and terrorists across the southern border. Where we have built a well-designed triple fence, such as in San Diego County, it works to radically reduce crossings in that location.
Perry moans about the cost of a fence. But as we have just learned, in a country in which illegals receive $4.5 billion a year in refundable tax credits (i.e., free money) from the federal government, the cost of building a fence would be less than the annual cost of tax fraud by illegals.
A fence doesn't do away with the necessity of a border patrol or of other technological assistance such as cameras and sensors to assist in identifying breaches. These elements all work together to result in a secure border.
A fence doesn't mean we don't need mechanisms like e-verify and employer sanctions. Those are also elements of border security.
2. Perry uses the dishonest formulation of the Left that people opposed to illegal immigration are "anti-immigrant." No, we are simply in favor of a nation of laws. Those who are pro-illegal immigration are against the rule of law.
If for every illegal high-school dropout socialist who walks across the southern border we instead had an Indian software designer or Korean electrical engineer or Chinese chemist, our country would be much stronger and our future prospects much brighter.
3. Perry supports amnesty but dishonestly claims it is not amnesty. If the illegals are allowed to stay and live here legally, how is that NOT amnesty for breaking the laws?
This is no less dishonest than the claim by Bush, McCain and Kennedy that if the illegals were made to pay a small fine for their illegality then that would not be "amnesty." (And then we found out that their bill included large amounts of funding to organizations like La Raza, providing a source of funding for even this purported "penalty.")
I do not believe Americans will support Perry's "second-class citizen" proposal. If we decide that the illegals shall be considered legal residents, with the right to live and work in this country where they please and raise their families here, and we expect them to pay taxes (although in truth they will continue to be net takers, not net givers, with respect to our nation's fiscal and economic situation), then most Americans would feel that it is somehow contrary to our principles that they not also be allowed to vote.
A guest worker program under which workers who live in Mexico come to the US for a couple of months a year at harvest time might be enforceable with biometric IDs and enforcement of employers who fail to monitor.
But I do not believe the American people will stomach a "gastarbeiter" program like Germany has used for Turkish people, in which they are allowed to permanently live, work and raise their families in Germany but are assigned a second-class citizen status behind Germans.
Therefore, this guest worker program will inexorably evolve into citizenship status.
At the moment, Perry appears to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination. It is therefore of crucial importance that he reverse his positions on 1) physically securing the border with a fence and additional measures and 2) amnesty for those here illegally.
He is right about Border Security.
It is useless and will make Americans a laughing stock in Messico.
Only LEO’s on the Border can end this nightmare. Building a billion $$$ fence along the Tx border is a waste of time and money.
Here, here! Well said.
We have two problems regarding the border. One is the large number of illegal alien invaders. The other is common criminals traversing the border for completely nefarious reasons. Both of these problems need their own remedies.
We can stop the illegal invaders and cause millions of illegals already here to self-deport, simply by shutting off the magnet (work, welfare, etc.).
As to the the remaining criminals coming accross the border, we need boots and resources on the ground and certainly some strategic barriers, but most of all, we need to recognize and treat these people as enemies crossing our border to do us harm. We must find the will to produce rules of engagement that will keep these fols out.
Other parts I am still undecided on. On massive deportations, I don't know of any politician who is ever going to pursue this, not Perry, not Sarah, probably not even Bachmann or Cain.
Plus, my guess is the Supreme Court would find a way to prevent mass deportations anyway. Therefor, my thought is we need to find the candidate with the best plan to truly secure the border and make sure this can never happen again.
People who claim he wants a completely open border with no restrictions are not to be taken seriously. At the same time, I do believe Perry needs to be more specific on HOW he wants to secure the border before I personally will be able to support him on that particular issue.
Patton once spoke of the sheer folly of static defences. I am not sure , however, what dynamic defences are possible. In any way, we are like the Romanbs after they allowed the barbarians inside of the limnes. All that is need is for the barbarians to find strong leadership, and you have problems.
No matter who the candidate is. If they continue to use immigrant as the definition of illegal alien I will attack them.
Americans aren't anti-immigrant. They are against illegal aliens. I don't know how many times that has to be repeated.
Perry's choice of words further shows the problems we have with our 'elected'/selected leaders.
The San Diego fence is only 14 miles long, and it is in an urban area. Perry says in the document you just posted that he supports fences in those types of areas, so I am not sure what your point is.
Another thing to consider is that the border between Texas and Mexico is a river. That is not true in California. In Texas, many ranchers and farmers have property that goes down to the river, and that is how their stock gets watered. Putting a triple fence along there would require the government taking a significant amount of private land, and would deprive the rancher's herds access to the river.
It's nonsense to say that the economy will suffer if they are deported. The slaveholders of the Old South made the same argument. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
We’ve had guest worker programs before and they worked. I believe Perry favors another Bracero program, which requires them to return home.
Guest workers have documents, which reduces both their ability and the incentive to get fake documents which will also reduce voter fraud. They aren’t going to register to vote if they could lose their work visa if caught.
A fence isn’t a permanent solution, it’s just an expensive window dressing designed to look like the problem is being addressed. If they don’t man it and patrol it 24/7 it will quickly become a joke.
Also the illegals will go home rather quickly if the only place they can apply for and receive a work visa is in the American Embassy of their home country. Might even cause a mad scramble if they were assured it would take 6 weeks or less.
Eventually we’d have them sorted out between honest workers with visas and criminals without visas or with fake papers.
In 2007, the Congressional Research Service determined that the cost of building and maintaining just 700 miles of fencing would be approx. $49 Billion. If we extend that to the entire border, we are talking about close to $150 billion. If we accept your figure of $4.5 billion per year in refundable tax credits to illegals, it would take 33 years to recoup the cost of the fence (not counting patrolling and enforcing it) assuming we could totally eliminate those tax credits you mention.
Oddly, when I read the piece, I thought you were pro-perry, posting a pro-Perry piece to refute the wild claims that he wanted Open Borders, and supported Amnesty.
I still thank you for posting this piece, which does show those things, even though you clearly don’t think his position is strong enough.
Perry wants to talk about social security, fine, how damn much money has been taken out of social security and spent on illegals, on their free health care, on their free education, on their stolen tax credits, on aide to sluts, etc, etc. Never will get an answer on that one.
Perry has been my governor for 11 years. And in that time, my town has become inundated with illegals. Perry has talked tough on the issue, but with my very eyes I’ve witnessed things get worse and worse and worse. So, frankly, I don’t really care what Perry ‘says’ about the issue. My daily reality is what I see.
When Jan Brewer passed that tough law in AZ, I’d hoped maybe Perry might finally see the light and join in. But, nope. He just dissed her and the law. It was really the final nail in the coffin for me on this issue with Perry. He just talks, talks, talks, and does nothing. I have a genuine fear that he’ll be just like Bush, and start pushing for some kind of amnesty the moment he makes it to the White House.
Fences seem to work in every part of the world except for Texas. Why is that? If we can’t afford it, how is it that third world countries with hostile nations on their borders can? And if Perry had been supportive of the fence from the beginning, how mañy people who think it’s unworkable would be swinging in the breeze to the opposite side of the argument? One more dumb question and I’m done.
Do Texas penitentiaries have fences around them? And if so, why?
Fence is good idea if it is electrified. Solves the fence height + 5 feet ladder problem.
Perry’s plan for border security is laughable. He has no desire to end the illegal entries into the US.
1. If he thinks a border wall or fencing would be expensive, just wait until someone estimates the cost of keeping adequate personnel on the border 24/7/365. We pay for a wall or fence once, and pay for maintenance. We’d pay the personnel 24/7/365. for as long as presidents kept them there.
2. No one including Perry is likely to put enough personnel on the border to ‘secure’ it.
3. And, IF a president ever did provide some degree of borer security with personnel..
4. Guess what? The next president who might want no border security can easily and quickly remove most personnel from the border and leave it wide open again.
5. Does anyone serious think that succeeding presidents would always keep sufficient personnel on the border? Does anyone think any president from GHWB to Obama would have kept adequate personnel on the border?
6. Putting personnel on the border is very much a TEMPORARY situation, and easily undone by the next president. How many times have we seen National Guard troops moved to border, then off the border after political heat died down?
7. The best way to secure the border is known: double fencing, adequate border patrol and the use of useful surveillance devices and sensors.
Perry is not at all serious about border enforcement. His ‘plan’ for temporary methods is nothing but a ruse from someone who wants little or no border security.
I believe that Perry is against building a fence in Texas. The river is very important to farmers along the border. It is important that their cattle have access to the river. They don’t want a fence that will cut them off from the river and in many places the border is in the middle of the river.
Texas has a huge water problem and you want to build a fence to keep them from a large source of that water.