Posted on 09/23/2011 6:54:44 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
THE TRUTH FOUND A VOICE IN RICK PERRY
FoxNews-Google GOP Primary Debate [September 22, 2011] Gov. Rick Perry: [snip] ………If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than that they've been brought there, through no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society. I think that's what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature, when this issue came up -- only four dissenting votes. This was a state issue. Texas voted on it. And I still support it greatly. [end] Texas Gov. Rick Perry responding to a question by Chris Wallace
Gov. Rick Perry has stated (for years) that the U.S. border with Mexico must be sealed. He has requested assistance (many people on the ground and drones in the air for Intel – he has studied how this is done in Israel). As Governor of Texas, he has been rebuked in person by the current president, who refuses his pleas for the Federal government to do its duty and provide the necessary means by which to seal our country’s international border with Mexico. The governor’s written requests go unheeded.
Texas spends hundreds of millions of dollars of state money to defend its border with Mexico. An elite Texas Ranger unit, put together by Perry, is working to hold the line on our border. Rick Perry has stated that fences do work in urban areas but are not effective, let alone feasible, along the 2000 mile Mexico - U.S. border (1200 miles in Texas alone). The Federal government ignores this problem, while at the same time blaming and punishing border governors when they try to protect their states. People in other states, without understanding the facts, blame border governors when this federally manufactured problem spreads into their states.
President Obama believes security is just fine on the border (better in fact than before he took office) and frankly, he’s following past examples where foreigners are allowed to cross into the U.S., where those with work visas are allowed to slip into U.S. society without any earnest, federal or court action to prevent it, where states are not allowed to ask children their legal status before attending school, where healthcare is accessible to everyone and where federal “social justice” programs have been put into place, thus beginning the progressive process of teaching new generations that it is “normal” to be dependent on government largess. [funded by those “more fortunate” Americans]
Then, periodically, another couple of generations are proclaimed by the federal government to be in the U.S. legally, by magnanimously proclaiming, “You can come out of the dark now and stay.” [sign up here for your Democratic Party voter card]
Rick Perry, as president, wants to finally seal the border and stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs – stop those vile cartels who traffic in human beings and drugs, and secure a dangerous, porous entry used by terrorists seeking to destroy America. The current administration is willfully enabling those who prefer border security remain as it is, those who characteristically (for self interest) want to avoid addressing and dealing with these problems.
Undeniably, Governor Perry is the GOP candidate most familiar with this issue and the problems associated with it. Texas has a long and rich history with Mexico. Mexico is the number one trading partner with America. Many U.S. citizens have Mexican ancestors who are proud Texans and Americans, many who have, are, and are willing to fight for America. Hispanics are the largest minority living in the United States. They have a high birth rate and are a major minority voting demographic. This didn’t happen because Texas shares over 1200 miles of international border with Mexico. The current magnitude of the problem, along with the number of the illegals in Texas and the United States, has everything to do with historic and current Federal inaction.
The Federal government looks to the states and tells them to “deal with it.” So state governments and their citizens have to “deal with” crime and a fast growing, uneducated population that puts a huge strain on state and federal resources. The resulting fall out for state government is, “you’re damned if you do and "you’re damned if you don’t." Gov. Perry and the Texas Legislature have accepted the criticism for taking the “damned if we do” path because they’re “dealing with it” first hand and Texans understand that "we're damned if we don't." These children are here, their potential and future has been put on our watch -- it is a practical and human decision and as Rick Perry said, “You don’t have a heart if you don’t.”
In 2001 the Texas Legislature voted in an Act (signed by Gov. Rick Perry) allowing children brought to the U.S. illegally (basically stateless people) by their parents, who complete 3 years of high school in Texas (graduate and want to attend college) to apply for U.S. citizenship and pay instate tuition. Their “anchor baby” siblings have this right by virtue of the 14th Amendment (that gave citizenship to children of slaves – slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment). If the country wants to abolish “anchor babies,” a majority of states need to vote for a change to the U.S. Constitution. The Texas education program is called the Texas Dream Act. The Texas Dream Act is not the same as the rejected Federal Dream Act proposed by the U.S. Senate because that federal legislation in totality and reality was an immigration bill.
The purpose of the Texas Dream Act is to have successful, educated citizens contributing toward a strong economy -- not unemployed or underemployed school dropouts who place a huge drain on our system [and begin generational poverty in their communities]. As past Federal actions have repeatedly shown Texas, illegal immigrants most likely will be allowed to stay. So the smart thing to do is allow them to pay instate tuition and be contributing citizens versus benefits receiving citizens. Gov. Mitt Romney does not agree with this and in fact rejected this approach in Massachusetts.
The truth found a voice in Rick Perry. Gov. Perry has said and believes that Conservative Ascendancy is how we will bring America back from the brink. Besides getting Americans working again we need to show them the value of conservatism and how those values encourage and support strong families and a free country.
Last night former Gov. Mitt Romney sounded like a “Snidley Whiplash-Simon Legree” character, while Gov. Rick Perry was “Dudley do right” looking after “Little Orphan Annie.” How do you think Barack Obama will (or won't) play these sound bites in his re-election bid for 4 more years?
Mitt Romney wants the status quo, which continues to feed the pipeline of generational, programmed victims -- driving trapped and dependent people into the arms of the growing army of the Democratic “fight for social justice” Party. Rick Perry wants to change the status quo and bring more voters into freedom – businesses owners, entrepreneurs eager to join the Republican Conservative Ascendancy Party – no matter what their last name or color, or gender or faith. And the border must be sealed first in order to do this.
Do the math. Rush Limbaugh has. Rush, like Gov. Perry, wants everyone to succeed (not secede). Rush, like Rick Perry, knows we’re at the crossroads that will decided the future path of the United States (and the world). Will it be Perpetual Dependency or Conservative Ascendancy? Democratic Party leaders are herding us into warring camps hoping to take us on the road to socialism. The states must take back power from the Federal government and get this country back on the road to free market capitalism.
This isn’t a Sound Bite issue.
“Nice try” Mitt.
My comment wasn't really about who you support; it was your apparent assumption that someone would withdraw support of a candidate based on one debate.
By the way it was 3 bad debates.
I'll agree with you there. These debates are a joke. The intent of these debates is obviously not to give all of the candidates a floor for which to support their policies; they're dog and pony shows that are orchestrated and manipulated by the media, primarily to generate sound bites.
Some will no longer be a factor because they are no longer with us but most certainly will be a factor. The difference is that this has now had a BIG spotlight put on it and it’s not going to go away!
There was great progress overall on the illegal issue in the most recent legislative session with regard to voting and the obtaining driver’s licenses by illegals in Texas but much remains to be done and despite the fact that we have HUGE majorities of republicans in both houses of the legislature we STILL don’t have CONSERVATIVE majorities in either! To many republicans of convenience if you know what I mean but that to is being dealt with. It is a slow process! To slow in fact!
>>Perry comes from a conservative border state, and has a border state mentality.<<
Yeah, like Jorge Bush did.
WAKE UP.
It is obvious that the Texas law was written to circumvent federal law. By just using a residency requirement and not mentioning "illegal alien" or the legal status of those receiving the benefit, then any citizen from another state could qualify using the residency requirement.
No, they can offer in-state tuition, but my take on the intention of the federal law is that if in-state tuition is offered to illegals, then it has to be offered to all US citizens, regardless of their residency.
But I also find the federal law to be ambiguous, and it can be read to require states to have uniform residency requirements for in-state tuition, where illegals don't have the benefit of a shortened residency period, to qualify for in-state tuition.
I’m on a council wherin I have to deal with reps from the valley. All they can talk about is getting more money for illegals. The new merit criteria for Texas Grants program is anathema to them. See, the illegals will go if it’s cheap or free. If they have to pay for it, they won’t.
One more little bit of information for your mill.
This year in Texas there was a STRONG effort by conservatives in the legislature to end sanctuary cities here. That effort was put to death by our “republican” Speaker of the House (Joe Strauss, San Antonio) and, some say, Governor Perry.
He’s from a huge border state. Perry has boots on the ground, and doing what he can to keep illegals out. A state can’t do it alone. The Feds are worthless.
Then Perry is pretending to have a “heart” until he gets to the Federal level? Then he will ENFORCE THE LAW?
Honestly, he is all squishy when it comes to illegals or at least the children of same.
Otherwise, he would say stuff like “I would fine any college who knowing admits an illegal” or I would fine empolyers for hiring illegals”
or “I will build a fense”
Because they are ILLEGAL! They can not hold a job legally in the US degree or no degree. So we are spending money educating illegals for jobs that they can not legally hold.
Special considerations? We have laws governing illegal immigration.
Great points! Thank you for taking the time to clarify the things you did.
I think many people seem to think the states can just deport these illegal folk and fault them when they don’t, not realizing there is absolutely no legal or Constitutional authority given to states to deport. This is a situation we have had FORCED upon our states, Texas specifically mentioned here, because we have not had federal leadership who has put resources towards securing our border and doing something about the illegal immigrants who have waltzed on in here these last twenty years or so.
It’s good to make sure people are aware this situation has been forced upon us and that this has not been an issue of simply opening the gates and saying “come on in, amigo”.
On the same hand, some believe these folk will just deport themselves if we make it hard on them.
Well, maybe some will, but I suspect most will not go back to Mexico, especially since many MANY of the people we are talking about have been here in Texas for 10, 15, 20 years of so, have friends and family here (illegal AND legal), and who have roots here. They have assimilated into our society (even though it WAS under the radar), but they have assimilated into our world none the less.
For those people, they have no other home. For them, America is their world; and those folk wouldn’t move any more than you or I would!
I don’t think people across the country realize how ingrained some of those people are!
Using tactics to put them into the ground won’t serve to get most of those people back to Mexico. Some will self deport. Others will stay under the radar will and live with friends and family here anyway, regardless. Others, I believe, would do whatever they had to do to survive anyway, prostitution perhaps, selling drugs maybe, whatever one needs to do to survive in the only home many of them know.
I am not completely FOR the DREAM Act, but I am not convinced it is completely the wrong thing either.
I think it is something that Texas has done to ensure the safekeeping of our communities, of communities filled with official American citizens who live among these people we are talking about, people that look and act just like us most of the time now even.
I mentioned this on another thread but will note it here too. For me, it’s not a HEART issue. It’s a BRAIN issue. It’s one part of one solution to dealing with this mess our federal government has handed to us.
And just for the record, I’m not for letting illegals in either. I like that Rick Perry has gone to Israel on various occasions to talk with them and to form his vision for border security from the Israelis. The way I see it, if Israel can protect their borders being surrounded on all sides by enemies who want to get them off the face of the earth, then why shouldn’t we be considering their form of border security as well here? That’s why I like Rick Perry’s vision for Israeli-style border security on our US borders.
Then with a federal administration that upholds it Constitutional responsibility to protect our country, we should be fine keeping illegals at bay.
Those people who are here though, especially those who know no other home but the home they have here? It seems like Rick Santorum’s thoughts on the “Don’t ask Don’t tell” question from the debate last night seems to be an appropriate place from which to start asking questions as to what should be done with them - Should we put our rules BACK into place but not hold the people that were beneficiaries of our federal government’s lax rules accountable for our federal government’s allowances? I don’t know that answer in my heart, but I at least think it is worth asking.
Thanks again for the info.
I don’t like Bachmann any more. I don’t like the way she looks, acts, and speaks as a presidential candidate. I don’t trust her, and I don’t think she is presenting the real MB. It may be that she’s trusting the same kind of operatives that sold McShame down the river, but if she is, that’s enough to disqualify her right there.
I would not count Rick out over a stupid debate series that seems to me to be like DWTS but with no voting and nobody watching. In fact, here’s an idea, I’m sure I’m the thousandth person to think of this, but why not have the Republican debate be a call-in and vote program like AI or DWTS? THAT would make it interesting, and people would probably actually watch if one of the contestants was going to get voted off the island every week. And the debates would get better and better rather than the same shit different day.
That was back in April, 2010, and the legal situation has no doubt developed since then.
We have to form a coalition, Bernard. We need Perry.
Was this intended to be in some way responsive to what I wrote?
Good post.
The Citizens of other states can get the same deal [in state tuition] by moving to Texas and becoming a resident after one year and they get in state tuition. These illegals have to wait three years, not the one year for other US state citizens.
There are other states, 13 that had a similar program but that isn't the issue as Perry is the Gov of one that has this program. Other states have filed or discussing this in the legislatures.
Allow In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students
It was a 5-4 decision. BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J.,post, p. 457 U. S. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 457 U. S. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 457 U. S. 236, filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined
It is interesting to read the Brennan decision, which was not based on a Constitutional right for the "undocumented," but rather the costs involved and social implications. Things have changed dramatically since them.
In considering this motion, the District Court made extensive findings of fact. The court found that neither § 21.031 nor the School District policy implementing it had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." 458 F.Supp. 569, 575 (1978). Respecting defendants' further claim that § 21.031 was simply a financial measure designed to avoid a drain on the State's fisc, the court recognized that the increases in population resulting from the immigration of Mexican nationals into the United States had created problems for the public schools of the State, and that these problems were exacerbated by the special educational needs of immigrant Mexican children. The court noted, however, that the increase in school enrollment was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. Id. at 575-576.
It also found that, while the "exclusion of all undocumented children from the public schools in Texas would eventually result in economies at some level," id. at 576, funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled. In net effect, then, barring undocumented children from the schools would save money, but it would "not necessarily" improve "the quality of education." Id. at 577. The court further observed that the impact of § 21.031 was borne primarily by a very small subclass of illegal aliens, "entire families who have migrated illegally and -- for all practical purposes -- permanently to the United States." Id. at 578. [Footnote 3] Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," [Footnote 4] and that, without an education, these undocumented children,"[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class."
It is not my problem if illegals brought children here illegally. It is not my problem to educate them cheaply. I frankly don't care if they get a damned job or not. I want them to go home - with momma, poppa, grandpoppa and whoever the hell else they brought with them. Perry thinks our resources are limitless - just like the rest of the politicians. They refuse to see there's a damned limit on their progressive credit card. I'm not going to tolerate this crap. If he's the best the GOP can nominate, then eff it. I'll stay home and feather my own nest.
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.