Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Perry on in-state tuition for illegals: How else were they supposed to pay for it?
Hotair ^ | 10/2/11 | Allahpundit

Posted on 10/01/2011 10:43:51 PM PDT by American Dream 246

Matt Lewis says he’s improving on this issue. I guess, but that’s mainly because after you’ve tried to win over voters by calling them heartless, there’s really nowhere to go but up. A scene from New Hampshire this morning:

“We have, for decades, had a federal government that has absolutely failed in its constitutional duty to defend our border,” Perry said.

“I’m a governor. I don’t have the pleasure of standing on the stage and criticizing. I have to deal with these issues,” he later added.

Perry continued, “In 2001, we had this choice: Are we going to kick these children over to the curb and say you cannot have access to college? Because the fact of the matter is there’s no way they could pay the out-of-state tuition. And are we going to have them on the government dole over here because they’re not educated? Or are we going to have them in our institutions of higher learning, paying in state tuition, pursuing citizenship?”…

David Connors, the man who asked Perry the in-state tuition question, said he was satisfied with the governor’s answer.

Really? There are no jobs for illegals anywhere in Texas to earn tuition money? I was under the impression that there are quite a lot of jobs available to them, especially since Perry opposes e-Verify. This is the same sleight of hand he tried to use in the debate answer that got him in trouble, equating illegals’ opportunity to go to school in Texas with some sort of moral imperative among taxpayers to subsidize their education. (His wife, campaigning for him in Iowa, framed the choice as between tuition subsidies or welfare.) Somehow, the impoverished U.S. citizen from Mississippi is expected to pay his own way in Austin but the illegal who’s lived in Texas for three years gets a stipend from the locals. And not just in terms of lower tuition rates; apparently they qualify for financial aid too. It must be awfully confusing for Perry, as a “Texas Gaullist” and vocal champion of state sovereignty, to find that prioritizing state residency over national citizenship doesn’t play well with grassroots conservatives outside of Texas itself, but he’d better find clarity soon.

Here’s Romney’s new ad bludgeoning Perry with praise he once received from former Mexican President Vicente Fox. After you watch, read this amusing scolding (which notes some of Mitt’s own immigration heresies) from former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, who seems genuinely surprised that Romney would pander so shamelessly on a divisive issue simply to destroy an opponent. That was the old, soulless Romney. The new, soulful Romney should be above that sort of thing. Right?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: amnesty; heartless; immigration; instatetuition; palin; perry; shamnesty; texas; tuition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-215 next last
To: American Dream 246
I was under the impression that there are quite a lot of jobs available to them, especially since Perry opposes e-Verify.

Perry's opposition to e-Verify is really bad.

161 posted on 10/02/2011 7:46:28 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dusttoyou

Thank you! Well out.

Being another Texan, I agree with you.

Perry haters still won’t understand.

Go Perry!


162 posted on 10/02/2011 7:48:06 AM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (.a.d.y.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: American Dream 246

JOE vs. JOSE
You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California ..
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.
Ready? Now pay attention....
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.0 0 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has 9,631 .00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month Federal Rent Subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for car insurance. Some of that is uninsured motorist insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc..
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month..
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same elementary school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches, while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.
Now, when they reach college age, Joe Legal’s kids may not get into a State School and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though Joe has been paying for State Schools through his taxes, while Jose Illegal’s kids “go to the head of the class” because they are a minority.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Do you get it, now?
If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens... You are part of the problem!
We need to keep this going—we need to make changes ASAP!
It’s way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!
What are you waiting for? Pass it on.


163 posted on 10/02/2011 7:50:15 AM PDT by Mr. K (Palin/Bachman 2012- unbeatable ticket~!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
But Perry does not oppose e-verify, either. He once answered that e-verify for State employees would not make a difference unless we secure the border.

E-verify would make a difference. Perry is wrong.

164 posted on 10/02/2011 7:51:30 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
-- In the case at hand, TX has had ten long years to undo that law, but hasn't. Why self-declared conservatives don't support that notion is beyond me. --

Immigration and legal presence in the country is a federal issue, yes? And the feds have a law that aims to prohibit states from giving "state benefits" to those in the country illegally.

Not that the federal government has any intention of doing anything substantial about illegal presence. It views the US as a plantation.

165 posted on 10/02/2011 7:52:28 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

raybbr, with all due respect, there’s this thing called the Constitution of the United States. It sets out the obligations/rights/responsibilities of the federal government, and leaves all other obligations/rights/responsibilities to the various states.

The federal government reserved to itself matters of national security, security of the nation’s borders, and immigration. The states are each free to operate state schools, to determine their tuition, and who is entitled to in-state tuition.

That document has served the nation well for more than 200 years. Conservatives claim to admire and respect it. Yet, when it comes to making a political point, *some* are perfectly willing to throw it out the window. They then compound that by calling others who might just believe in states rights names that are apparently meant to demean their target.

If believing in the Constitution makes me a “Perrywinkle” in your estimation, so be it. I could care less. I will continue to believe in that document and the wisdom of those who drafted it. Apparently they ‘talk(ed) out of both sides of their mouth(s)” by giving some powers to the federal government and others to the states? Maybe you should read the Constitution before trying to cast rather ineffective stones.


166 posted on 10/02/2011 7:57:07 AM PDT by EDINVA ( Jimmy McMillan '12: because RENT'S, TOO DAMN HIGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: American Dream 246
>> Because the fact of the matter is there’s no way they could pay the out-of-state tuition.<<

Well, that settles it, everyone who is actually a citizen of this country now knows that Perry says they can afford out-of-state tuition. Obviously if they can’t they surely wouldn’t get preference over those in this country illegally. Wait, what?

167 posted on 10/02/2011 7:58:43 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_daug
That is the heart of the issue right now.

You have the federal government who has not done it's job for the last 40 years. Now if we suddenly start enforcing the law we have people who never lived in Mexico eligible to be tossed out.

There are people who came here illegally and had (illegal alien) children or came here with small babies. Now these children are grown up never having known or lived in Mexico.

The problem is the 40 years of lax enforcement- so what do we do about that?

168 posted on 10/02/2011 8:00:33 AM PDT by Mr. K (Palin/Bachman 2012- unbeatable ticket~!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
>>What part of the law says these illegals are not eligible for student loans or scholarships?<<

This is just a guess on my part but maybe the ILLEGAL part?

169 posted on 10/02/2011 8:00:58 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: American Dream 246
(His wife, campaigning for him in Iowa, framed the choice as between tuition subsidies or welfare.)

Well, that's different. Why didn't you say so in the first place? If they go to college they are disqualified from receiving welfare.

Hell, I'm all for that.

Damned liars. Stop lying!

170 posted on 10/02/2011 8:04:07 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
-- The problem is the 40 years of lax enforcement- so what do we do about that? --

BAR them from ever obtaining citizenship, for one thing. No vote, ever. NO path to citizenship. MAYBE a path to legal residency, but I'd make it ex$pen$ive.

171 posted on 10/02/2011 8:09:49 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
-- The states are each free to operate state schools, to determine their tuition, and who is entitled to in-state tuition. --

8 U.S.C. 1623 - Limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment of aliens not lawfully present on basis of residence for higher education benefits

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

The argument of the state of Texas is that the terms "postsecondary education benefit" and "residence" are not defined in the federal law.

172 posted on 10/02/2011 8:14:48 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA; raybbr
>>Apparently they ‘talk(ed) out of both sides of their mouth(s)” by giving some powers to the federal government and others to the states?<<

Nope, and Perry in Texas can do as he pleases with the consent of Texans. However, we also have the right to point to Perry’s ideology and reject that as a national agenda. Don’t ask us to adopt Perry’s agenda on a national level and that is what you are trying to do.

173 posted on 10/02/2011 8:15:04 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

The single comment he has made about E-verify was in response to an accusation from Kay Bailey Hutchison in a debate. He was questioning her about Federal border security policies, and she said he was weak because he had not forced the State to require e-verify for State employees. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/feb/01/kay-bailey-hutchison/hutchison-says-texas-state-doesnt-use-e-verify-wee/

I don’t think that would make much difference. How many illegal aliens do you suppose apply for State jobs?

E-verify uses information from the same I-9 forms that the State of Texas and 39 other States use.

How much regulation and interference in businesses and their day-to-day practices do we want? How much of our own data do we want to be in the Fed’s database?

If nothing else, it’s expensive. The regulations that change and grow are what ran me out of private practice. My billing programmers made money from HIPPA and I lost money. The month my business loan was paid off, the company decided they wouldn’t support the new Federally-mandated “compliance programs” on my Linux system, so I’d have to buy a new Windows system and PC’s.


174 posted on 10/02/2011 8:45:42 AM PDT by hocndoc (http://WingRight.org Have mustard seed: will use it. To control the border, Patrol the border!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Haddit

Rick Perry has only made one comment on e-verify. See my post # 174.

Conservatives are supposed to be for smaller, less intrusive and local government.


175 posted on 10/02/2011 8:50:21 AM PDT by hocndoc (http://WingRight.org Have mustard seed: will use it. To control the border, Patrol the border!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

The title of the thread is “Perry on in-state tuition for illegals: How else were they supposed to pay for it?” I assumed that you’re discussing the same subject the rest of us were.


176 posted on 10/02/2011 8:54:24 AM PDT by hocndoc (http://WingRight.org Have mustard seed: will use it. To control the border, Patrol the border!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: gardencatz

Of course they came illegally but the government didn’t enforce the laws and now their children have grown up in America. Kicking them out is not going to be politically obtainable.


177 posted on 10/02/2011 9:03:25 AM PDT by the_daug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Their parents have paid state sales tax, property tax or rented from folks paying property tax.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When Section 8 welfare housing is involved, where is the property tax they are paying? Answer: NONE

The government money comes in one end of the government and goes out the other to government. ( just like poop.)

And...When families are doubled and tripled up in welfare voucher paid for housing, you are being ridiculous to claim that illegals in this situation are paying property tax. They aren't.

If you are going to argue for in-state tuition for illegals, please use **rational** arguments. Property tax isn't one of them.

178 posted on 10/02/2011 9:07:16 AM PDT by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Not asking you to do a damned thing, except to recognize that TX can do what it wishes according to the Constitution of the United States. Please point me to where Perry advocated for this to be adopted nationally. I haven’t seen/heard any such advocacy but follow this debate only so closely.


179 posted on 10/02/2011 9:17:59 AM PDT by EDINVA ( Jimmy McMillan '12: because RENT'S, TOO DAMN HIGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
The federal government reserved to itself matters of national security, security of the nation’s borders, and immigration. The states are each free to operate state schools, to determine their tuition, and who is entitled to in-state tuition.

Yes, and by their tacit support of illegals in the state they are subverting the role of the federal govt. States are enjoined by the Constitution to support the federal govt. You can't have it both ways.

Don't like the name "perrywinkle" then how about Quisling? As I pointed out above Texans want to the right to simply ignore their responsibilities as a member of the United State of America in upholding and aiding the federal govt in ITS duties - borders and immigration. Or do you believe that those responsibilities are the sole purview of the feds. If so, Texas should stop taking any federal money if they are not willing to uphold the Constitution.

I will continue to believe in that document and the wisdom of those who drafted it. Apparently they ‘talk(ed) out of both sides of their mouth(s)” by giving some powers to the federal government and others to the states? Maybe you should read the Constitution before trying to cast rather ineffective stones.

Not stones. Simply pointing out the selective thought process that Texas has chosen to use in this issue.

I believe in the Constitution and until Texas secedes they had better as well - that means upholding the sovereignty in the name of the United States instead believing they should only uphold the laws they want to.

180 posted on 10/02/2011 9:22:01 AM PDT by raybbr (People who still support Obama are either a Marxist or a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-215 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson