Then right after you refute point by point the points I have made in several prior posts, explain to me how you think having laws to benefit illegals staying here assists your personal borderwalks and calls to the BP.
If those laws were not in place and your governor was not pushing for them, less illegals would come across the border seeking their benefit.
Do you disagree? If so, why?
Now if a FULL and defended fence existed, even FEWER of the illegals would be ABLE to get here to take advantage of the above.
So you disagree? If so, why?
What the Texas legislature is saying is, they are here, and there is nothing we can do about it, since it is up to the Feds to deport them.
So they made the decision that further education and vaccines to prevent epidemics, was in the general interest of Texas taxpayers at large, because ignoring the matters increased fiscal burdens on the state.
They did not do these thing off the top off there heads or hearts.
Greg Abbott has sued the Feds over many of these cost in an effort to call the Fed to action on what is their responsibility.
Who is paying for all of this stuff?
You expect Texans to pay for it?
Perry is the Governor of Texas at the moment.
If he were President he could address the Federal matters directly.
You are in error for several reasons. First, the “benefit” under discussion - the Texas Dream Act - is not a benefit at all in the way the word is commonly understood - a gratuity - because anyone who falls under one of the categories in the Texas law must still pay full in-state tuition which, last time I checked, was more expensive than tuition at many, if not most, Mexican universities/colleges.
It flies in the face of reason and common sense that someone would plan to cross the brutal desert to jump the US/Mexico border just to come to the US in order to pay much, much higher tuition fees if, by some lucky chance, their child happens to qualify for in-state tuition.