Skip to comments.Perry on in-state tuition for illegals: How else were they supposed to pay for it?
Posted on 10/01/2011 10:43:51 PM PDT by American Dream 246
Matt Lewis says hes improving on this issue. I guess, but thats mainly because after youve tried to win over voters by calling them heartless, theres 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.
Im a governor. I dont 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 theres no way they could pay the out-of-state tuition. And are we going to have them on the government dole over here because theyre 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 governors 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 whos 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 doesnt play well with grassroots conservatives outside of Texas itself, but hed better find clarity soon.
Heres Romneys 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 Mitts 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?
Perry's opposition to e-Verify is really bad.
Thank you! Well out.
Being another Texan, I agree with you.
Perry haters still won’t understand.
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 dont 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 Legals and Jose Illegals children both attend the same elementary school. Joe Legal pays for his childrens lunches, while Jose Illegals children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegals children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legals children go home.
Now, when they reach college age, Joe Legals 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 Illegals 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 goingwe need to make changes ASAP!
Its way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!
What are you waiting for? Pass it on.
E-verify would make a difference. Perry is wrong.
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.
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.
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 cant they surely wouldnt get preference over those in this country illegally. Wait, what?
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?
This is just a guess on my part but maybe the ILLEGAL part?
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!
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.
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.
Nope, and Perry in Texas can do as he pleases with the consent of Texans. However, we also have the right to point to Perrys ideology and reject that as a national agenda. Dont ask us to adopt Perrys agenda on a national level and that is what you are trying to do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.