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 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last
To: JayGalt

Very true. Pay no attention to the ronpaul types.


151 posted on 10/02/2011 7:18:22 AM PDT by dusttoyou (paulnutz/bachnutz/caindogs are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: rintense

Whether or not *I* like a particular state’s law is totally irrelevant. If a law is not unconstitutional, it’s up to the people who live in the state through their elected state legislators. If the people don’t like the law, they can vote those legislators out of office and repeal the distasteful law. 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.


152 posted on 10/02/2011 7:21:37 AM PDT by EDINVA ( Jimmy McMillan '12: because RENT'S, TOO DAMN HIGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: beandog; JayGalt

Both of you are right.

Your being “technically correct” on the legislature does not make Jay’s point incorrect. In fact your response further validates his contention.


153 posted on 10/02/2011 7:23:10 AM PDT by dusttoyou (paulnutz/bachnutz/caindogs are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
So, it's a state-rights issue but then Perry blames the feds for not controlling the border?

Give me a break.

When you sprinkle sugar on the floor, don't cry when ants come running.

And now you want the rest of the country to fall in line because the people of Texas don't care?

Please. You can keep Perry and your asinine excuse for rewarding criminal behavior.

154 posted on 10/02/2011 7:26:20 AM PDT by rintense (Polls are for strippers and cross country skiing. ~ Sarah Palin, 9.3.11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Might want to watch out with any BIG D references, we may think you about to pull out another link to your Dallas LGBT queer website.


155 posted on 10/02/2011 7:28:52 AM PDT by dusttoyou (paulnutz/bachnutz/caindogs are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: American Dream 246

To paraphrase President Bush, “We have to ask ourselves, is our illegals getting educated?”


156 posted on 10/02/2011 7:31:05 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: American Dream 246
And are we going to have them on the government dole over here because they’re not educated?

Really, Rick? Is that how things work in your world? If you don't go to college you end up on the public dole?

Well, how's that worked out? How many illegals who have passed through the Texas education digestive system are now naturalized citizens and contributing to Texas' society?

157 posted on 10/02/2011 7:34:13 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: dusttoyou

You’re from Big D
I can guess
By the way you draw!
And the way you dress
You’re from Big D

My, oh Yes
I mean Big D little a, double l-a-s
And that spell Dallas
My darlin’, darlin’ Dallas

Don’t it give you pleasure to confess
That you’re from Big D

My, oh Yes
I mean Big D, little a double l-a
Big D, little a double l-a
Big D, little a double l-a-s
And that spell Dallas
Where ev’ry home’s a palace

Cause the settlers settle for no less
Hooray for Big D

My, oh Yes
I mean Big D, little a double l-a
Big D, little a double l-a
Big D, little a double l-a-s

You’re from Big D
I can guess
By the way you draw!
And the way you dress
You’re from Big D

My, oh Yes
I mean Big D little a, double l-a-s
And there’s oil all over your address
Back home in Big D

My, oh Yes
I mean Big D, little a double l-a
Big D, little a double l-a
Big D, little a double l-a-s
And that spells Dallas
I mean it with no malice

But the rest of Texas looks a mess
When you’re from Big D

My, oh Yes
I mean Big D, little a double l-a
Big D, little a double l-a
Big D, little a double l-a-s

Big D, Big D
Talkin’ ‘bout big D, big D

Oil! Oil! Oil! Cattle! Cattle! Cattle!
My, oh Dallas, Dallas, Dallas, Dallas!
Big D! Little A double L-A-S!

And that spells Dallas
My darlin’, darlin’ Dallas
Don’t it give you pleasure to confess
That you’re from big D
My, oh yes
I mean
Big D
Little A, Double L-A
Big D
Little A, double-A
Big D, little A, double L-A-S!


158 posted on 10/02/2011 7:36:38 AM PDT by Liz (The rule of law must prevail. We can’t govern ourselves by our personal point of view.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: American Dream 246
As a former Perry-bot, I would like to publicly apologize for ever supporting this dunce.

Something told me from the very first time I heard him speak that he was trouble but I ignored that still small voice to my own and nearly the country's detriment.

I think we may have dodged a bullet.

159 posted on 10/02/2011 7:37:48 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: NYorkerInHouston

That does not take anything away from what I said about the dems trying to add the Hispanics to their vote block and the GOP being relatively successful to prevent that from occuring.

Address the rest, don’t just again pick one tiny detail.


160 posted on 10/02/2011 7:43:57 AM PDT by dusttoyou (paulnutz/bachnutz/caindogs are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

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]

To: EDINVA
>>Please point me to where Perry advocated for this to be adopted nationally.<<

Are you telling me that his philosophy would change at the national level? Would that include all that he says and does and what should we assume he will do at the national level if we don’t look at his record?

181 posted on 10/02/2011 9:29:43 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Is this guy braindead? .... Quoting Perry on giving in-state tuition to illegals: “How else were they supposed to pay for it?”
I just thought of something else.....
On July 5th we saw some old friends (at a wake, yuck) and we talked about our 'kids'. Well their daughter just got her Law Degree and lo-and-behold she didn't go to Law School here in IL, but at a Law School in California -- so she had to pay OUT OF STATE TUITION.

Naturally it was a ton of money and our friends could not help and their daughter had/has to pay it all herself. She did this by getting another Student Loan - on top of her existing loan for her BA Degree - and WORKING A PART TIME JOB (wow, what a radical idea).

She hasn't taken a Bar Exam yet as she's not sure where she wants to practice law. But those Student Loan Invoices aren't waiting and she's paying them again - BY WORKING!

Therefore, Perry is full of 'Bullfeces'. If an American girl can manage this, in the Illegal Friendly State Of Texas, a Juan or Maria should not have any problem doing the same dam thing when it comes to paying out of state tuition for college!

So yes. Perry has to be Brain Dead. Or .. he's just a MORON!

182 posted on 10/02/2011 9:48:43 AM PDT by Condor51 (Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out conservatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Why doesn’t this alleged student go to California, establish residence there for a year (that’s the typical rule in most states), then qualify for in-state tuition?

Or go to Texas, establish residence there in a year, and enjoy in-state tuition there?

It’s a little different in Texas for illegals, however. An illegal immigrant has to establish residence of THREE years to start to qualify, a little higher bar.

She may want to pass on Law School. Doesn’t seem too bright.


183 posted on 10/02/2011 9:55:23 AM PDT by magritte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Is Perry (1) braindead.....or just a (2) moron?

Hmmmmm....okay, I'll go with 2.

184 posted on 10/02/2011 9:56:02 AM PDT by Liz (The rule of law must prevail. We can’t govern ourselves by our personal point of view.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Does it not strike you as a little peculiar that the very same Congress/federal government that mandated that ALL states provide a “free” K-12 education for ALL children, legal or not, then claims that if a state decides for its own purposes that it will extend a tuition break to children who meet certain criteria in the state, that’s suddenly acting illegally or improperly? Who is it that is tacitly supporting illegals? Who is trying to have it both ways?

The Congress, i.e., the federal government, is the body that MANDATED each and every states, and every jurisdiction within each of the states, to provide the “free” K-12 education. We won’t go into medical care, housing, etc. By Congress’s imposing this unfunded mandate on each and every state, who’s subverting the Constitution? Who is giving tacit support to illegals?

Who among us even knows how our own Congressman voted on that mandate? We might easily assume that nothing passes Congress with only votes of the TX delegation. So, what other states’ representatives encouraged this tacit support of illegals?

It costs a lot more to educate studentw to whom English is not their native language, and who logically do not have the support at home to supplement the basic ‘free’ K-12 US education. You might check the budget of your local jurisdiction’s schools to see just how much that Congressional/federal mandate is costing you. By the time TX or any other state or jurisdiction within the respective states has provided the Congressionally/federally mandated “free” K-12 education to children of illegals, that state/local jurisdiction has made an enormous investment in that student, thanks to an unfunded Congressional/federal mandate. But let’s not think about that because it doesn’t serve our present agenda now, does it?

Continue with your name calling. It speaks more to your character than to mine.


185 posted on 10/02/2011 9:57:49 AM PDT by EDINVA ( Jimmy McMillan '12: because RENT'S, TOO DAMN HIGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Answering a question with a question doesn’t work. How about you point me to where Perry has advocated on behalf of a federal “Dream Act.” Thank you.


186 posted on 10/02/2011 9:59:54 AM PDT by EDINVA ( Jimmy McMillan '12: because RENT'S, TOO DAMN HIGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Ya should quit hangin out on Cedar Springs and quoting/linking to that awful queer website, its so ronpaulish.


187 posted on 10/02/2011 10:05:06 AM PDT by dusttoyou (paulnutz/bachnutz/caindogs are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: magritte
There isn't any 'alleged girl', she's our friends daughter.

And do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Their daughter finished Law School and has her Law Degree.

Sheesh, you Perrydactyls are something else.
The guy is just plain STOO-PID, deal with it.

188 posted on 10/02/2011 10:07:55 AM PDT by Condor51 (Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out conservatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
-- The Congress, i.e., the federal government, is the body that MANDATED each and every states, and every jurisdiction within each of the states, to provide the "free" K-12 education. --

It was the US Supreme Court that did that, in Plyler v. Doe.

Not to say that Congress isn't in agreement with SCOTUS in this matter, just saying that it wasn't Congress that handed down the "everybody in the country (legal or illegal presence makes no difference) is entitled to public K-12 education" ruling.

189 posted on 10/02/2011 10:10:24 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Rockrr— exactly the point. Arguments from the liberal side always pick up the discussion at the point where the need has arisen: illegals are here, now they need healthcare and college tuition; the poor need healthcare, food, housing, etc. These issues have to be tackled at the root: illegals have needs because they came here illegally— solve that issue first. The poor and the addicted, by and large, find themselves in financial distress because they refused to take advantage of the many opportunities made available to them, most notably freed public education, and incidentally, the opportunity not to have multiple children without benefit of marriage and the opportunity to forego taking drugs and drinking excessive amounts of alcohol. Sure these folks have needs, because (again, by and large) they brought their problems upon themselves. The formula for success has been frequently stated: graduate from high school; wait for marriage before having children and keep your debt reasonable. When we reward/rescue folks who simply refuse to do this, we encourage others to follow in their stupid footsteps.


190 posted on 10/02/2011 10:11:57 AM PDT by NCLaw441 (I before E except after C, or when sounded as A in neighbor and weigh. Isn't that WEIRD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Mea culpa. It was Congress IIRC than mandated the health provisions. The point being, that the fed govt inserts itself into local matters that the local jurisdictions have to deal with/fund, then when a state decides for its own reasons that it will extend in part a federal mandate/benefit, the feds jump in again and say, but you can’t do THAT. The feds DO try to have it both ways, and that leaves it to the states to deal with the situations the best way they know.

I chose to live in a state that not only doesn’t subsidize in-state tuition for illegals, but (last I heard) my state won’t even ADMIT them to state schools. That works for me. But I don’t live in TX/CA or any of the other states that offer the in-state tuition break. And, as far as I’m concerned, it is up to each of the states, and the feds should butt out. But that’s just me.


191 posted on 10/02/2011 10:20:45 AM PDT by EDINVA ( Jimmy McMillan '12: because RENT'S, TOO DAMN HIGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Hey, she was too stupid to just go to school in her own state to save money and too stupid to establish residency in another state so she wouldn’t have to pay out-of-state tuition.

You anti-Perry trolls are the limit! Thanks for the laugh !


192 posted on 10/02/2011 10:27:25 AM PDT by magritte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
-- It was Congress IIRC than mandated the health provisions. --

That's a "soft" mandate, in that giving E-room health care to all comers is a condition for receiving certain federal monies. No hospital is bound to seek the federal money in the first place.

-- And, as far as I'm concerned, it is up to each of the states, and the feds should butt out. --

Immigration policy is for the feds to set. Would you say the states have the right to act in contravention of a federal law that directs the handling of those in the country illegally?

See post 172, to you just above, for a cite and text of a federal law that pertains to in-state tuition for persons in the country illegally.

193 posted on 10/02/2011 10:32:11 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
-- The point being, that the fed govt inserts itself into local matters that the local jurisdictions have to deal with/fund, then when a state decides for its own reasons that it will extend in part a federal mandate/benefit, the feds jump in again and say, but you can't do THAT. --

I'll be one of the last people to claim that the federal government is coherent. Congress, SCOTUS, and the Executive often establish conflicting rules. The only point of consistency among the three branches (and their administrative agencies, and their czars) is that ALL of them are in favor of aggregating (and arrogating) power to the federal government.

It's the big league of finger pointing, while asserting control.

194 posted on 10/02/2011 10:39:04 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
Well, let’s put it this way. Perry is like Romney. Romney likes government health care mandates but not Federal. Perry likes State amnesty but not Federal yet insists that immigration is a Federal responsibility not the States. Perry says the Federal Dream Act is amnesty but signed the Texas Dream Act into law giving not only amnesty but tuition assistance to illegals.

Perry: “I don’t think you have a heart,” he told Romney. ”We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society.”

So the insinuation you make is that once Perry is President he would no longer have a heart because he would change if elected. That quote alone should tell us what he would do if elected.

195 posted on 10/02/2011 10:52:30 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

I realize they’re subtle, but there are differences between giving children of illegals a tuition break which is, or should be, a states right issue, and granting amnesty, which is a federal issue.

Personally, I’m not in favor of either, but then I don’t live in TX, am not familiar with its culture, and believe Texans should decide what works there when it comes to states rights. In the same vein, if MA likes a state-mandated health care program for its citizens, it’s their choice. Neither shouldn’t be foisted on AL/MI/NJ/VA/WI, or any other state.

One problem with this race so far is the total lack of value in the debates, other than the forum conducted by Sen. DeMint over Labor Day. With 7-9 candidates each given a minute to answer complex (or gotcha) questions, and the candidate next to him jumping down his throat, you won’t get informative answers. In time, hopefully, the final 3-4 will have more time to expound on their positions and = assuming Perry and Romney are among the finalists = explain how laws they enacted as governors their states relate, or not, to the nation.

The ‘don’t have a heart’ did, in fact, sour me some on Perry, but he IS still in the race, and I have not written him off because there is much to be said for his candidacy. I don’t have to cast a vote for five months, and am trying to gather all the information I can, pro and con, on each of the candidates, and am trying to do it with as much objectivity as I can muster. There are three I’ve ‘written off’ for my primary vote, but beyond that find pro and con arguments for each. Alas, no one (but for me and thee) is perfect. Whoever gets the GOP nomination will have my support and my vote.

If looking into Perry, among others, makes me a “Perrywinkle” or “quisling,” or infects me with “PDS” of either variety, I could care less. The name calling around here has become more than a little tedious, it’s become repulsive.


196 posted on 10/02/2011 12:17:38 PM PDT by EDINVA ( Jimmy McMillan '12: because RENT'S, TOO DAMN HIGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

You conveniently forget that the vote was veto proof, what did he have to gain besides posturing to veto the bill? Spend more tax payer money having them override his veto.


197 posted on 10/02/2011 12:53:48 PM PDT by JayGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

You conveniently forget that the vote was veto proof, what did he have to gain besides posturing to veto the bill? Spend more tax payer money having them override his veto.


198 posted on 10/02/2011 12:54:04 PM PDT by JayGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
>>You conveniently forget that the vote was veto proof, what did he have to gain besides posturing to veto the bill?<<

Now that is really weak. Are you saying that from his “you have no heart” comment we are to take that he was simply signing the bill because there was a veto proof vote? Really?

199 posted on 10/02/2011 1:02:00 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: the_daug

What do you mean by “politically obtainable”? What other laws should we decide not to enforce? Maybe we ought to just strike the law off the books because if we aren’t going to follow our own laws there’s no point in having them. And why should we expect others to follow our laws if we aren’t going to follow them ourselves? And if the criteria for enforcing a law will be how it will effect the children there’s a lot of murderers, rapists, drug dealers and thieves that should be let out of jail.

And what do we say to the immigrants who did things the right way and came here legally to make a better life for their children (half my family is Mexican, no one came illegally)? “Hey, sorry for the slap in the face, but hey, it’s your fault for trying to do it legally! Hope you learned your lesson, years spent working, learning English, taking citizenship classes, becoming a citizen was just damn dumb. You could’ve hid in the shadows in a illegal alien friendly state popped out a few babies and you all would’ve been able to become citizens when those kids get older. We here in the US are too concerned about how it looks to enforce our laws than having the integrity to actually enforce them! Suckers!”

Cindie


200 posted on 10/02/2011 1:45:22 PM PDT by gardencatz (Proud mom US Marine! It can't always be someone else's son.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 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