Texas can't complain about the Feds doing this to them though.
A smart reponse from Perry would have explained what the TX dream act is and how he signed it after it passed the TX legislature with overwhelmingly large majorites. Then explain why he chose to sign it and that it is a state issue. Contrast it to the Obama Dream Act that he doesn’t support. Then state that he is much more concerned with Fast & Furious and explain to the voters what Fast and Furious is since the media has been doing their best to bury it.
Perry is playing the "race card" with that comment. I cringed when he first said it and then he repeats it. I wasn't impressed.
One thing I would point out is that since IIRC sometime during the Clinton era, Congress mandated that these children of illegals be admitted to public schools, an unfunded mandate, as it were. On average, that probably is $10K/student per year.
So, assuming a{n illegal}student meets the minimum requirement for in-state tuition, 3 years in TX schools, the state or local community has already had to pay (or invested) three years fully of his/her education. With no co-pay whatsoever.
This reveals a paradigm that might exclude him from ever getting my vote. Not in the primary, not in the general. We don’t need anymore of these types of idiots, if that is really what he thinks.
What I do not like about Perry; Dream Act, Gardasil.
What I don’t like about Romney; RomneyCare, abortion, gay marriage, changes positions depending on the office he’s running for.
What I don’t like about Bachmann; No leadership experience whatsoever. That is an absolute killer.
None of the others matter, they don’t have a shot in hell. Of the three I’m voting for Perry.
..Perry is a fine representative of the globalist utopianists who have dreams of a North American Union dancing in their heads...
I’ve been in San Antonio for 8 months and I can tell you without a doubt that any border state will always be influenced by it’s population and it’s going to be hard to reverse things.
What would YOU have done when presented with a bill passed by both houses of the legislature by veto proof majorities?
Just curious?
However, there is a slim possibility that some good will emerge from the ongoing political battles in the many states that are considering some version of the "Dream Act" that Texas implemented over a decade ago.
Here is why I say that.
Leaving aside the emotional, racially-tinged question of illegals getting a free ride through public schools (as if that's something everyone wants -- NOT!), let's look at the logic of having two or more tuition schedules at state-supported institutions of higher learning.
Is it because it costs, say, Kansas State more money to teach underachieving students from Oklahoma or Arkansas or Texas, and it's only right that these dummies should be paying more for the remedial education that's needed?
Of course not. IF you don't qualify for admission, you don't qualify, period. No matter where your live.
Well, then how do state colleges and universities justify charging double or triple tuition rates for qualified students from another state?
I believe the answer is politics: it looks good to be giving a break to residents (and presumably taxpayers) of the state from which the college derives much of its funding. That break can be substantial--over $50,000 by graduation time, and much more if the student continues on for an advanced degree.
At one time, before Americans were as mobile and usually settled in the same state and even the same town as their parents, kids would go to a state university, get their sheepskin (literally!) and go home to find a job or set up a professional practice. It made sense to subsidize their education if you bought the line that having more college-educated, native-born residents was a "public good" that makes everyone better off.
But times have changed. College graduates are no longer limited to starting their careers in the city where they grew up. They can be recruited for jobs anywhere in the country, indeed anywhere in the world. And many (especially in these difficult times) would prefer to go where the jobs are, even if it takes them away from family. (An aside: there's no such thing as long distance phone calls when you have a cellular phone! Those calls used to be a major expense for kids living some distance from their parents, even those in the same state. I speak from experience.)
So if the concept of in-state tuition is outmoded, which I believe it is, why all the fuss about legal vs. illegal, American citizens vs. foreign-born, Texan vs. Ohioan?
Set the tuition to what it costs and let's be done with it. Quit trying to social-engineer who goes to college and who doesn't based on where they live. Let test scores and the admissions office sort out the slackers and I suspect the result will be better for all concerned.
Oh, and eliminate "affirmative action" in admissions. But that's another subject.
Haven’t read the other comments yet but this was a hard one for Perry to defend because he couldn’t say what he would probably have liked to say, which is:
This bill was passed almost unanimously in 2001. The climate was far different then in Texas. The illegal problem was not as well known or as widely despised.
We had more money. The perception that illegals were given free tuition is ridiculous. Even in-state tuition to Texas colleges is sky high. A father was complaining about it to me last night.
That bill could not be passed today, but once a bill is passed, we learn to our sorrow that it is not that easy to unpass.
Perry had to attempt to defend a bill he probably wasn’t that crazy about in the first place. He didn’t do a great job, but he did what he could.
BTW, I unfriended Michele Bachmann this morning. she really ticked me off last night.
Why doesn’t Petty come right out out and say it, we believe in you, more than we do our own citizens, welcome to free college educations paid for by the people we do not believe in.
Ping!
Using “last name” is typical leftist, NWO, globalist deflection from the real issue: illegal presence in the country and all the security, economic, and cultural issues associated with their illegal presence.
Perry went on to argue would you rather have them on welfare? Well, they don’t deserve welfare either, Gov. Perry. They are illegals, you dimwit socialist fraud.