If anything, I regard Perry's action as revealing of the profound respect he has for the separation and balance of powers in Texas. Don't forget that the in-state tuition bill was passed overwhelmingly by the Texas Legislature, which is also overwhelmingly Republican. There were only four "nay" votes on this bill. It was sent to Perry, and he signed it into law — which speaks volumes to me about his respect for the "people's body" — the legislature — of Texas.
Moreover, this was entirely a state matter: Perry was setting no national precedent here.
Plus I gather he is a very humane man. The son of a tenant farmer, he most likely has had many Hispanic friends, neighbors, and associates in his lifetime, and does not see them as public enemies. Probably most of them were in the country legally. Yet whether legal or no, their children are indubitably residents of the state of Texas. If they had graduated from high school, and been here three years, giving them the same tuition rate as other Texas residents doesn't bother me much — especially if this is what the citizens of Texas voted for, through their duly constituted representative bodies.
Plus as a practical matter, a kid getting an education is probably not hanging out in a street gang somewhere, messing around with drugs and other contraband....
I definitely agree with Perry about the utter futility of building a fence. A total waste of taxpayer funds, IMHO. Jeepers, they can always tunnel under it; and I can even envision folks setting up catapults to launch themselves over it. All a fence would do is give us a false sense of security. I'd feel safer with electronic surveillance and boots on the ground.
The most attractive thing about Perry (to me) is he is without doubt a constitutional originalist. He appreciates the role of the several States in the Framers' overall constitutional design. There's an excellent article in the current National Review that you might want to look into for information about Rick Perry's constitutional understandings.
Do you agree that ‘Undocumented aliens” are in fact breaking the law by their presence in the USA? The only possible answer is “YES” because it’s the truth. Therefor every single entity from voter (those that voted for them) to Governor to President (that willfully allow their existence) is in violation of the law by supporting so called sanctuary cities, which themselves exist only to break existing immigration law. Do you deny that? How? If you have no illegals, you do not need to give them ‘sanctuary’.
People, think this through.
“Hard working” illegals are still illegal and I don’t care if Rick Perry or anyone else ‘feels for them’, nor does existing immigration law.
“Children” (not born here) of illegals are still illegal and I don’t care if Rick Perry or anyone else ‘feels for them’, nor does existing immigration law.
Illegal aliens in school should not be there, nor should other ‘laws’ to coddle them exist because they are ILLEGAL and were as soon as they crossed the border. They still are and will be evermore and I don’t care if Rick Perry or anyone else ‘feels for them’, nor does existing immigration law.
All these tuition/health laws ignore the FACT that they are illegal and not supposed to be here to begin with. And the people who enacted those laws are helping illegal aliens. That help HURTS American citizens through taxation and cheapening our own rights. Do you deny that?
Now If all the Perry supporters here want to change EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAW TO MAKE THEM LEGAL then join the Democrats who want open borders. I defy Perry supporters to find the text of the GOP platform or any Conservative platform/philosophy that uses “for the children” as a reason for anything.
I defy Perry supporters to find the text of the GOP platform or any Conservative platform/philosophy that says to think with your ‘heart’ and not your head.
I defy Perry supporters to find the text of the GOP platform or any Conservative platform/philosophy that supports candidates that are on record as supporting ANYTHING that benefits illegal aliens in any way shape or form.
FR has gotten extremely liberal lately and it sure isn’t because JR decided to go play for the other team. So my question is why are so many people on a Conservative site when they support policies that follow a liberal philosophy?
Lastly, I expect plenty of snark. I really don’t expect anyone to answer these questions or honestly try debating the points made. But I would love to see that happen.
“HEARTLESS” and inferred: RACISTS
You people type and type and miss the point.
There is NOTHING “humane” about his position. This country is overtaxed and overburdened. The economy cannot carry the weight of the behemoth any longer.
You can go and be “humane” with your own freaking money!
Notice you never address the point.
blah blah blah
Just keep yapping until people stop reading?
I definitely agree with Perry about the utter futility of building a fence. A total waste of taxpayer funds
Unlike the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend to subsidize their foreign asses in the style they have become accustomed to?? You have zero COMPASSION for the citizens of this country.
Have some compassion for the taxpayers of this country for once.
I realize that Perry says he believes in states rights, and I also he doesn't mean individual rights when he says it. Individual rights is something Perry would stomp heartlessly with the power of his state supremacy. Guardasil, TTC... you name it.
It is time that we put the people of THIS country first. You want to fix this overburdened economy and cut government spending? Have some compassion and heart for us.
CUT OFF THE FREEBIES TO FOREIGNERS
I think the big problem with Perry that night was not that he was wrong, but that he didn’t defend his position well. People such as some of the Paul and Santorum supporters who think somebody who can’t pay for healthcare should be left to die in the street are not likely to find an “appeal to the heart” very convincing.
In addition, there are actually good economic and practical reason for giving in-state tuition to all kids brought up and educated in Texas, regardless of how they got there. And if they have been there that long, their illegal immigrant parents are so deeply “underground” that they have been paying state, local and even federal and payroll taxes (although in the latter case, probably to somebody else’s account) for years.
That said, Sowell’s point that a “gotcha” moment does not define a candidate is a good one. It’s the consistency of the candidate and his or her track record that are important.
That’s one reason nobody was ever even allowed to examine Bambi’s record, because it ranged from non-existent to horrible, but at the same time, because he was (half) black, the press and the other candidates never dared to subject him to gotcha moments. And even if they had, these moments, like all of his many flubs, would never have been reported.
On the other hand, GOP candidates are killing each other with these “gotcha” moments instead of really discussing the issues. I don’t think Perry was ready for that, but I hope he will be the next time...or perhaps that the next time there will be a more substantive discussion.
excellant analysis. Well thought out and reasoned argument.
You said what I was thinking so much better than I have.
I agree of course with your points. Especially the “humane Perry” part, I think that is what he was aying with his “heart” comment...He was saying we republicans ( him and the state legislature) Do have a heart, and as we also want to secure our borders.
sowell is right about attacking this man, and what it means for conservatives.
Very well said, dearest sister in Christ, and I strongly agree!
Texas is in an unique position as a border state. I can imagine a candidate like Ron Paul being governor of Texas. He would have done things that would have generated the same kind of criticism we see against Governor Rick Perry. It is the people of the state of Texas that their governor and representatives work for. What we should be criticizing is those in the Federal Government who refuse to listen to the citizen.