Skip to comments.Perry defends stance on Fed, immigration
Posted on 08/21/2011 4:30:39 PM PDT by Fred
As governor of the state that shares the largest border with Mexico, Perry defended his record on immigration, including his support for allowing illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition rates at Texas universities but opposing such a law on a national level.
"I'm a big believer in the 10th amendment," Perry said. "Whether they allow for tuition increases or decreases or whatever it might be in that state, it needs to be the states making that decisions."
Perry wouldn't wade into a national immigration reform debate, deferring to his position that those decisions should be made on the state level, "not by the federal government making one size-fits-all."
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Perry put some of the Texas National Guard on the border as well as some Texas Rangers.
Texas can only do so much without bankrupting our state.
Our state is doing as much as it can with Texas Taxpayer Money and the Feds whose responsibility it is to do it will not.
There is another problem the Governor has been dealing with as well as our State and that is that the Feds are sending the illegals (rounded up ones) to our state to be housed in our prisons and they are not paying for that either or not enough. That burden is also falling on Texas Taxpayers.
I have a question for those who think Perry is soft on illegal immigration:
Who in the Republican GOP running for office is tough on illegal immigration? And what state is that candidate from?
In the 1st place, securing the international border is not a state responsibility. In the real world, Texas simply can’t afford to do it. No state can, that is also the reason the AZ national guard is not on their border 24/7 in sufficient force to shut it down. I suppose you think Gov. Brewer is an open borders person also? Maybe if the feds would actually do what they are supposed to do we could have a secure border. Securing the border is a national responsibility, and the feds simply refuse to do it. Look at what the feds did to AZ when they tried to simply help enforce immigration law.
Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and an active supporter of New Deal policies and then he governed as a Republican and then he ran for POTUS and the Washington elite hated him and was forced to take him.
Perry is no longer a liberal and he articulates conservatism very well. I find it hard to believe that he is a liberal or a RINO and once again, you have the same Washington elites attacking him because he is not moderate enough.
Texas Governor Rick Perry drove out to the airport to meet President Obama and give the White House his plans for securing the United States border
Remember this? If this guy is such a Commie Pinko, why did he do this? What other Gov. went to this extreme to push for Boarder Security?
It also may be a humanitarian decision. New Mexico and New Mexico State are ranked #118 and #120 among the 120 Division 1AA schools in pre-season football polls.
You southern states keep putting all that compassion into your elected. When YOU guys support defending the southern border the way Mexico defends its own? I'll send you money out of my pocket. In the meantime, quit being a gateway for the illegals popping up in my state now..thanks a lot for that.
Do you want your 10th Amendment or not?
The hell he is.
He's a traitor advocating treason.
He states, in his own words on his CURRENT website that his shares Vincente Fox's vision of an "open border" between Mexico and the USA.
He's a treasonous TRAITOR!
He means secured as in stopping illegals from coming across.
He is against a fence because it will not work - and many agree especially here in Texas. I agree also.
It would be a huge expense to put up a 1200+ mile fence and it would be a waste of money.
Perry is adamant that it would take “Boots On The Ground” + high tech equipment like drones.
E-Verify is a joke.
He was NOT against AZ1070 at all. He just felt like parts of it were not right for Texas. He did not want Texas State Patrol Officers becoming Border Agents. He said it would take away from the job they had to do.
He was for the Sanctuary City Law this last legislative session but our law makers in Texas did not pass it.
He put it back on the table for consideration when he called a special session and they again did not pass it.
However, the photo id for driver license passed within the state budget but a Fed judge halted it. The one thing that did get through our legislature which he signed was a voter id - this eliminates illegals from voting in Texas.
He is against Sanctuary Cities and Policies but much of that is the local city government. Again, he put the Sanctuary City law back on the table during the special session and our state gov did not pass it. There is only so much he can do, even as Governor of Texas.
And the State Police do not practice Sanctuary policies.
They don’t do the job of the Border Police but if someone commits a crime and they think they are illegal - they will check their status.
Bullsh!t. You're either ignorant of the facts or a liar.
Perry stated last year that he supports Vicente Fox's vision of a fully open border between Mexico and the USA.
Only prosperity keeping Mexicans in Mexico.
Her name is Sarah and she’s from Alaska.
Actually, that speech was last decase, not last year, in 2001. You should probably read the whole thing instead of just taking one quote out of context. He adds a lot of qualifiers to that vision. Here is a link to it:
So, as long as we are engaged in name calling, who is the liar and who is ignorant?
Before I post this posting on Freepers I want to clarify that I not only support Perry but I also support Palin.
My question I asked referred to those who were running for office. Palin is not running - at least not yet.
I would vote for Palin or Perry and they are the only ones I would vote for!
This was posted by Clairity on August 14th here on FreeRepublic:
Sarah Palin on Immigration (in her own words)
On the Issues ^ | Updated Aug 2011 | Sarah Palin
Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2011 9:12:33 PM by Clairity
Supports a path to citizenship, but no amnesty for illegals
Q: Should undocumented immigrants all should be deported?
A: There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant - there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants - not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue.
Q: Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 million undocumented immigrants?
A: No, I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. We have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.
Q: So you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
A: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.
Source: Univision Interview with Sarah Palin, by Jorge Ramos Oct 26, 2008
Took no action on Alaska’s “sanctuary cities” Lou Dobbs notes that at least two of Alaska’s cities have been officially designated as sanctuary cities: “An August 14, 2006 report produced by the Congressional Research Service listed 31 cities and counties that have ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ sanctuary policies in place. They [include] Anchorage, Alaska [and] Fairbanks, Alaska. Alaska and Oregon both have state-wide policies that forbid state agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration law.”
Apparently, this is by design from the highest levels.
In fact, a resolution to that effect was passed in the Alaska state legislature in 2003 (before Palin’s election): “[Alaska] House Joint Resolution 22 - May 2003: Establishes that state agencies and instrumentalities may not use state resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration laws, which are the responsibility of the federal government.”
Itâs not clear whether Gov. Palin has ever weighed in, pro or con, on Alaskaâs sanctuary policies.
Source: Lou Dobbs reported on lafrontera.mojo4m.com Sep 5, 2006
He was referring to Nafta Trade when he referred to that vision.
You need to read the whole speech.
He also made a lot a qualifiers to that statement.
And it was not last year but much longer ago.
It was even before all of the violence and drug cartel problems.
Fox is not the president of Mexico any longer either.
BS. He a traitor. He would soon be guilty of treason if awarded the office of POTUS.
Put up a deouble walled fence with a road between them...armed observation posts ever 400yds. Trucks every 5 miles.
To suggest the border cannot be secured is either ignorant or pandering to Perry.
It could be secured for FAR less money then we spend in Afghanistan.
Which is more important?
If you want the illegals to stop coming into your state, you need to vote for a candidate that will defeat Obama.
Obama and the Federal Government is responsible for securing it’s border with another country (your country) and it does not.
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California cannot on their own defend the entire Nation. We do not have the manpower or the funds to do so.
Arizona tried to do the job Obama and the Feds won’t do and when they did - the Fed Gov and Obama stopped them and sued them for doing their (the Fed) job. In fact, they used YOUR tax money to sue a border state for doing the Fed’s job that they refuse to do.
Perry is not confused - you are.
In regard to it being the state’s rights, he was talking about in-state tuition for college students, not immigration reform. That is is up to the state whether they want to offer in-state tuition or not.
This is a deal breaker for me. Perry should be dead meat.
The border became much more serious and violent after 2008 than it was before 9/11/2001. The qualifiers he mentioned in that speech have about zero chance of being met in the foreseeable future, so there is no worry of it happening, at least the way I read it. Perry may not be as good on the border as I would like, but he is not as bad on it as some make out either.
That's not bad enough?
In exchange for importing Ford trucks (and thousands of other manufactured goods...from workers paid $4/hr) we get duty-free tomatoes in December and green onions that give you the sh!ts.
The US does not benefit from NAFTA in any way.
Yes, there are BUSINESSES that benefit...and while lucrative, the balance is way out of whack.
The USA does not benefit from NAFTA. It's a net negative.